Jamshid GHARAJEDAGHI

Development is a core concept of the systems view of the world. Misconceptions about the nature of development and the properties usually identified with it call for at least a clarification of the systems view of development and its relationship to other views. A typology of the major theoretical traditions is developed based on their underlying assumptions (explicit or implicit) with regard to the singularity or plurality attributed to function, structure and process. Finally, the telosystemic concept of development is discussed.

Keywords: Efficiency, growth, determinism, ethnocentrism, unidimensionality, singularity, plurality, structure, function, process, learning, ability, desire, integration, differentiation, overdetermination, co-production, purpose.

Introduction

Development is a core concept of the systems view of the world. In contrast to the mechanistic and organismic views which are concerned respectively with efficiency and growth, the systems view is basically concerned with development [5].
A critical review of major traditional views of development suggests that they are generally characterized by problems of: (1) ethnocentrism, (2) unidimensionality, and, on the whole, (3) deterministic perspective.[1].
In the first place, most developmental theories have built-in ethnocentric biases. The models, as ideal types of developed society, bear unmistakable signs of the western historical experience.
The second problem lies in their unidimensionality. The fragmentation of developmental theory into competing disciplinary perspectives has given us a fragmented view of development preoccupation with material quantities in economics, power in political science, and order in sociology. The perspective of each discipline tends to exclude the other variables from its own unique domain of analysis.
The third, and perhaps the most serious, problem lies in their deterministic perspective. Because they begin with a preconceived law of social transformation - assumed to be true at all times and in all environments - the path is charted beforehand.
Misconceptions about the nature of development and the properties usually identified with it call for at least a clarification of the systems view of development and its relationship to other views.
In this paper, I will attempt to do this, first, by proposing a typology of major theoretical traditions that have contributed to our understanding of this complex process; and then by dealing with the telosystemic concept of development as I understand it.

A full discussion of various developmental theories is beyond the scope of the present work.

However, the following typology provides a perspective for the introduction of the systems view of social development and its contrast to other major theoretical traditions.
Although it is risky to lump the great diversity of developmental theories together, for practical purposes we need some kind of classification scheme. This is despite the knowledge that it may obscure important differences and some significant continuities that exist among them. Further, it is important to note that these theories do not necessarily refute each other. In most cases they either complement or supersede one another.
I the typology presented below, developmental theories are categorized into eight types depending on their underlying assumptions (explicit or implicit) with regard to the singularity or plurality they attribute to function, structure and process.(1)
(1) For the argument why structure, function and process together provide a holistic view of a system, see [6]. In addition, note that there are four attributes for each of the dimensions of structure, function and process based on whether they are seen as (1) fixed or variable, categories.
 

However, two attributes of singularity and plurality as defined in the text provide a practical scheme for our purpose here.

By function of a social system I mean the outputs that it produces or the ends that it pursues. Structure, on the other hand, defines the components of the system and their relationships; and process deals with the mechanism of social transformation. Singularity, refers to theories in which a particular structure, function or process is considered to be fixed or primary in all environments.
Plurality refers to theories which consider structure, function or process to be multiple and/or variable in the same or different environments.
The eight categories of developmental theories are shown in Table 1. The letters F, S and P represent function, structure and process, respectively. The small circle above each letter signifies singularity of that variable.
Note that the theories in Category (1) (singularity of function, structure and process) are descriptive theories which do not deal with any means of intervention. Other categories, by assuming plurality in at least one dimension, provide for some means of intervention. Category (8) (Systems views) assumes plurality in all three dimensions - function, structure, and process. Therefore, it is basically concerned with choice and purposeful behavior.
The following schema summarizes the assumptions and the main features of each type and their perspectives on development.

A schematic view of the major theoretical traditions

Type 1: Singularity of function, structure and process. Model: Predetermined, mechanistic and descriptive model of a man in a state of nature, homo economicus, forms social contract to increase wealth through increasing productivity and division of labour. Theoretical tradition: Classical and neo-classical, as exemplified by the writings of Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Mill, Marshall, Keynes, Schumpeter, and Rostow.
Development process: Stability and growth against major constraints of capital accumulation, population growth and limited natural resources; automatic mechanism of adjustment.
Keynes introduces the principles of conscious manipulation of productive forces (neo-classical) to maintain stability and growth. Rostow considers a stage theory, traditional, pre-take-off, take-off, self-sustaining growth and high mass consumption.

Type 2: Singularity of function and process with plurality of structure. Model: Deterministic, mechanistic model based on linear cause and effect relationships. Conflict, the prime produces of change, results in a stage theory and formation of a new social structure.
Theoretical tradition: Orthodox Marxism and radical Weberianism, as exemplified by the writings of Engels, Lenin, Kautsky and Plekhanov; Weber, Dahrendorf and Rex.
Development process: In case of orthodox Marxism: economy is the prime function and class struggle is the prime process. Historical determinism, moving from primitive communism to ancient slave societies, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and finally the ideal of communism (classless-society) through class conflict and progressive system transformation.
As for radical Weberianism, power is the prime function, the legitimation is the prime process; varying structure defined by authority typologized into three pure types to correspond with different types of society: traditional, charismatic and rational-legal. Increasing rationalization of authority from patriarchal to patrimonial to feudal and modern society moving toward an ideal type of bureaucracy (frictionless-machine).
Dahrendorf sees the interest of the power holder as so clearly distinct from the interest of the powerless that conflict becomes the permanent feature of social life, with varying degrees of effect, ranging from revolution to small-scale reform.

Type 3: Singularity of function and structure with plurality of process.
Model: Input/output (stimulus-response) model of human and social behavior (environmentalism). An organic machine, which learns through positive and negative feedback (deviation aimplification).
Theoretical tradition: Behavioral, as exemplified by the writings of Watson, Skinner, Erikson and Lasswell.
Development process: Increasing order through induced motivational and behavioral change. Sublimation of the destructive instincts into creative work, and finally formation of a world culture shaped by ' behavioral technology' is is needed for survival. Watson places the central emphasis on controlling behavior through learning, which, he believes, could be achieved by the principle of 'conditioning'. Skinner suggests that freedom is an illusion which man can no longer afford. He claims that behavior can be predicted and shaped exactly as if it were a chemical reaction. But for Erikson, physical, social, cultural and ideational environments are partners to biological and psychological innate processes.

Type 4: Singularity of function with plurality of structure and process.
Model: There is no absolute above man, which could recreate the social order in which he lives. Emancipation of main is the prime function, whereas, process and structure are seen as multiple and variable.
Theoretical tradition: Radical Humanism, as exemplified in the writings of the early Marx, Marcuse, Lukacs, Sartre, Fromm, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.
Development process: Changing the social order through a change in mode of cognition and consciousness. Release from the constraints which the existing social structure places upon human development. The emphasis is upon modes of domination, emancipation, deprivation and potentiality.

Type 5: Singularity of structure and process with plurality of function.
Model: Organismic, integrated and dynamic equilibrium model, multiple functions to maintain an unstable but fixed structure (steady state) through the prime process of homeostasis. Analytical, positivistic and empirical view of the world.
Theoretical tradition: Structural-Functionalism, as exemplified by the writings of Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, Parsons and Eisenstadt. Development process: Integration, adaptation, goal attainment and pattern maintenance are regarded as the four functional imperatives of a social system for its continuing existence and evolution toward maturity and growth.

Type 6: Plurality of function and structure. Singulairty of process.
Model: Multifunction, organic and non-linear cause and effect relationships. Conflict as the prime producer of change. Varying structure 'overdetermined' by interaction of economic, political, idealogical and theoretical sub-systems of totality.
Theoretical tradition: New-left, as exemplified in writings of Althusser, Poulantzas, Della-Volpe, and Colletii.
Development process: Increased integration, through low of 'uneven and combined development', 'method of successive approximation', 'fact of conquest', and increased accumulative knowledge of mankind with regard to nature.

Type 7: Plurality of functions and processes with singularity of social structure.
Model: Holistic, open, multi-loop feedback and input/output model of social systems. An organismic analogy, searching for the underlying regularities and structural uniformities.
Theoretical tradition: General systems and cybernetics, as exemplified y the writings of Bertalanffy, Ashby, Miller, Beer, Bogdanov.
Development process: Equifinal, negentropic processes toward organized complexity. System change through learning, adaptation, and induced motivational and behavioral change.

Type 8: Plurality of structure, function and process. Multiple and variable concepts of structure function and process.
Model: Purposeful, knowledge-bonded system. Capable of structure creation and maintenance.
Theoretical tradition: Systems view (telosystemic), as exemplified by the writings of Ackoff, Boulding, Buckley, Churchman, and Rapoport.
Development process: Multifinal, interactive, purposeful movement toward increased differentiation and integration. A learning and creative process to increase ability and desire to recreate the future. An ideal-seeking mode of organization to resolve conflicts at higher levels.

2. Systems view of development

The development of a social system is a learning and creative process by which a social system increases its ability and desire to serve its members and its environment by the constant pursuit of truth, plenty, good, beauty and liberty (this is a modified version of the definition of development proposed by Ackoff (see [2]). It results in a purposeful transformation toward increased integration and differentiation at the same time.
The two major components of development, therefore, are desire and ability.
Desire is produced by a vision enlarged through the interaction of creative and recreative processes. The creative capacity of man, along with his desire to share, results in a shared image of a desired future. This generates dissatisfaction with the present and motivates pursuit of more challenging and more desirable ends. Otherwise, life proceeds simply with setting and seeking attainable goals which rarely escape the limits of the familiar.
Dissatisfaction with the present, although a necessary condition for change, is not sufficient by itself to ensure development. What seems to be necessary, in addition, is a faith in one's ability to partially control the march of events. Those who are awed by their environment and locate the shaping forces of their future only outside of themselves do not think of voluntary or conscious change, no matter how miserable and frustrated they are.
Ability, therefore, is the potential means of controlling, influencing and appreciating the parameters which effect the system's existence.
But ability alone cannot assure development. In the absence of a shared image of a more desirable future the frustration of the powerful masses can easily be converted into a unifying agent of change - hatred - which, in turn, will result in the successful destruction of the present but will not necessarily be a step toward the creation of a better future. The recent Iranian case is a good example. In most of the Middle Eastern countries a certain interpretation of Islam - the Fundamentalist one - regards creation as a sole prerogative of God. Human beings are assumed not to be capable of, therefore not allowed to engage in, any act of creation. Art in almost any form - painting, sculpture, music, drama - is prohibited. Recreation is also considered sinful.
This antagonistic attitude toward aesthetics militates against development, in that it does not provide much opportunity to articulate and expand one's horizon beyond the immediate needs of mere existence. This provides one explanation for cases of underdevelopment despite the availability of vast resources.
Central to the systemic notion of development is its distinction from growth. According to Ackoff [2]:

"They are not the same thing and are not even necessarily associated. Growth can take place with or without development, and development can take place with or without growth. A cemetary can grow without developing. On the other hand, a person may continue to develop long after he or she has stopped growing, and vice versa." "Growth, strictly speaking, is an increase in size or number. Its principal but not exclusive domain of relevance is biological, as in growth of plants and animals. Social groups are also said to grow when they increase in size. It would be nonsensical to speak of a growing culture, because size and a number are not relevant to it. An organization or a nation, like an individual, can grow by increasing in size or, unlike an individual, in number without developing; it can also develop without growing."

Constraints on a system's growth are found primarily in its environment, but the principal constraints on its development are found within the system itself. Therefore the principal limits to growth are external, those to development are internal.
In this context, development is a potentiality for the satisfaction of desires, not the quality of life nor the standard of living actually achieved. The quality of life that a system can realize is the joint product of its development and the resources available to it. Although this implies that limited resources may limit improvement in the quality of life, it does not imply that they limit development. As Ackoff [2] puts it:

" A man can build a better house with good tools and materials than he can without them. On the other hand, a developed man can build a better house with whatever tools and materials he has than a less-developed man with the same resources. Put another way: a developed man with limited resources is likely to be able to improve his quality of life and that of others more than a less-developed man with unlimited resources."

Development of social systems does not follow the physical pattern, which is conceived to be a unidimensional movement toward increased complexity in the structure of the matter. And it is unlike biological evolution, which reflects a two-dimensional negentropic movement toward complexity and order. It is conceived to be a multidimensional and purposeful transformation into successive modes of organization. Each mode is a whole, characterized by higher degrees of both integration and differentiation, and is potentially capable of dissolving lower level contradictions by converting them into contraries [7].
In contrast to physical systems, in which the energy level determines their mode of organization, it is the knowledge level which defines it for social systems. Therefore, the role of knowledge in social systems can be said to be analogous to that energy in physical systems. Although the change of phase in physical systems (solid-liquid-gas) is said to be analogous to the change in mode of organization in the social systems (feudalism, capitalism, and socialism) the analogy ends there. The significant point is that knowledge, unlike energy, is not subject to the first law of thermodynamics ( the law of conservation of energy). One does not lose knowledge by sharing it with others. On the contrary, its dissemination increases the knowledge level of the social system.
The capability of creating knowledge can be shown to enable a social system to constantly recreate its structure and redefine its functions. It makes possible a change of mode in social systems without a significant sign or a catastrophic cusp [7].
Development, as the process of creating successive modes of organization, should involve (1) an active process of the generation and dissemination of knowledge, (2), a process of learning and adaptation, (3) the creative process of discovery of new dimensions with all of their implications, and (4) the painful process of reconceptualization, reformulation and integration of all the variables involved in a new ensemble with entirely new relationships and characteristics of its own.
Finally, the telosystemic view of development, by accepting plurality in all three dimensions of function, structure and process, considers the other seven categories as special cases. From the systems perspective, development is not only a multifunctional phenomenon, but involves multiple and varying concepts of structure and process as well. This point required further clarification.
(1) Plurality of functions. Historically, the identification of functional areas of social systems has been at least as reactive - reacting to certain problems in social life - as proactive - reaching for the ultimate good. However, it is interesting to note that although some prominent social thinkers have implicitly considered more than one dimension in their analysis, each one has, somehow, chosen a single and not surprisingly different function as prime cause of all social phenomena. Marx, for example, considered the economy, the mode of production as the underlying cause of social realities. Whereas, for Weber power, supported by notions of authority and legitimacy, seemed to be the prime concern.
Reactively the five dimensions for social systems correspond to the following major problem areas historically faced by all human societies:
Economics: The generation and distribution of wealth - that is the production of necessary goods and services and their equitable distribution.
Science: The generation and dissemination of information, knowledge and understanding.
Aesthetics: The creation and dissemination of beauty - the meaningfulness and excitement of what is done in and of itself and the enjoyment derived therefrom.
Ethics: The creation and maintenance of peace, conflict resolution - the challenge of appreciating plurality of value systems.
Politics: The generation and distribution of power - questions of legitimacy, authority and responsibility - or, in general, the question of governance.
On the proactive side, Ackoff identifies the same five dimensions in his discussion of ideal seeking systems. Referring to the ancient Greek philosophers, he identifies four classes of societal activity that are individually necessary and collectively sufficient for progress towards the ideal, Omnicompetence. These are the pursuits of truth (scientific and technological function), plenty (the economic function), good (ethical-moral function), and beauty (aesthetic function). He concludes that, " to carry out these functions society must be organized and managed effectively. The way society is organized and managed are matters of politics." This is the dimension that, in the definition of development given at the beginning of this section, I added as the ideal of liberty.
The purpose of the above classification, unlike those of conventional practice, is not to isolate each dimension so it can be analyzed separately. On the contrary, it is to emphasize the interactive nature of these dimensions. It excludes the concept of a "single leading factor" which for most developmental theories seems always to be in the forefront.
Nevertheless, because of the interdependence and mutual effect of the dimensions on one another it is quite feasible to use any one of them to explain the characteristics of other dimensions in part. But this is at best an oversimplification, and an underestimation of the complexity and immense potentialities of social systems.
Plurality of structure. Earlier, we proposed that the structure of a systems defines the components and their relationship. Plurality of the structure, therefore, means that components and relationships among them are multiple and varibale. Consider, for example, a substance, salt (NaCl). Its components - chlorine (Cl) and sodium (Na) - form a single type of relationship in all environments therefore, salt is said to have a singular structure. But the same cannot be said about hydrocarbons. Hydrogen and carbon enter into various combinations and relationships resulting in multiple structures. In social contexts, still more complexities are encountered. Aside from multiple relationships that can exist between components of a social system, the nature of the component itself is variable - individual members change through learning.

A social system is a purposeful system with purposeful parts. The parts as well as the whole have the choice of both ends and means. Interaction between these purposeful parts at any given time can take many forms. Actors (individually or in groups), by agreeing or diagreeing with each other on the compatibility of their ends, means, or both, can form the following four types of relationships. (1) Cooperation: Compatibility of both ends and means. (2) Competition: Compatibility of ends, incompatability of means. (3) Collaboration: Incompatibility of ends, compatability of means. (4) Conflict: Incompatability of both ends and means. These relationships may even coexist simultaneously. Actors in a social system may cooperate with regard to one pair of tendencies, compete over other and be in conflict with respect to different sets at the same time. The result is a dynamic concept of social structure; an interactive network of varying components with multiple relationships, which reflects what is meant by plurality of structure. Acceptance of plurality of structure, unlike that of functions, is a difficult proposition since it goes against a long-standing traditional conception of structure as something which endures. However, a reconceptualization of this traditional conception of structure is required for understanding the telosystemic principle of purposefulness, that is the ability of a social system to redefine its functions and redesign its structures.
Plurality of process: The classical principle of causality maintained that similar conditions produce similar results, and consequently dissimilar results are due to dissimilar conditions. Therefore, for a given structure, behavior of the system is completely predictable and its future states invariably depend on its initial conditions and the laws which govern its motion (determinism). Bertalanffy, in analyzing the self-regulating or morphostatic features of open biological systems, loosened this classical belief by introducing the concept of 'equifinality'; a final state may be reached by any number of different developmental routes [3].
Buckley in his discussion of morphogenetic processes in socio-cultural systems goes even further and suggests an opposite principle called 'multifinality.' Similar initial conditions may lead to dissimilar end states. So the process rather than the initial conditions is responsible for future states [4].
Finally, the conept of producer-product development by Singer [9], coupled with the notion of non-linear feedback loops (positive/negative), results in a network model of social causality where cause and effect displace one another successively and mutually affect and are affected by one another.
The dynamics of the social system and the principle of multifinality can be understood by the nation that the sets of opposing tendencies, which are usually treated as dichotomies, are in fact two sides of the same coin. They coexist and interact continuously, so that the relationship between opposing pairs might be characterized by an 'AND' rather than an 'OR' relationship. For example, the tendency toward security and that toward freedom complement one another.
Freedom is not possible without security and security makes no sense without freedom nevertheless, both might be achieved by a process called participation. Similar arguments can be made for other opposing pairs such as stability and change. Despite seemingly contradictory requirements for the pursuit of the opposing ends within a pair, they form a complementary and coproduce a process which makes the attainment of both ends feasible. For instance, pursuit of both stability and change might be attainable by adaptation, that of order and complexity by organization, and uniformity and uniqueness by innovation.
 

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that security, stability, order, uniformity, etc. seem to share a certain characteristic and belong to a set which can be termed integration; while freedom, change, complexity, uniqueness, etc. manifest an opposing characteristic and belong to another set called differentiation. To generalize:
- Differentiation represents a scientific orientation (searching for differences among things which seem to be similar) with an emphaiss on stylistic value systems, signifying tendencies toward increased complexity, increased variety, increased individuality (individual choice), and morphogenesis (creation of new structure).
- Integration represents a scientific orientation (searching for similarities among things which seem to be different) with an emphasis on instrumental value systems, signifying tendencies toward increased order, increased uniformity and conformity, increased collectivity (collective choice), and morphostasis (maintenance of structure).
The emerging processes, coproduced by interaction of differentiative and integrative tendencies, such as participation, adaptation, innovation, and organization, cannot stand alone; together they form the whole, and coproduce the process called development.
In summary, plurality of structure, function, and process, manifested in the ability of a social system to redesign its structure, to redefine its functions and to exhibit a purposeful behavior, puts the social system in a class by itself. The class is of such a level of complexity, that existing analogies - mechanistic or organismic - do not provide a realistic model for its understanding.
The systemic view of societal development suggests that all of the five social functions - generation and dissemination of knowledge, power, wealth, value, and beauty - develop interdependently utilizing the whole set of complementary integrative and differentiative processes to form an ideal-seeking mode of organization.
This concept of development is based on a socio-cultural model and the notion of participative democracy. It is a multi-dimensional phenomenon defined in such a way as to avoid ethnocentric and deterministic biases. Each social system is allowed to set its own course in terms of its perceived desires, whereby the uniqueness of the system's identity and culture are enhanced as development proceeds.
Practical implications of this conceptual framework are explored in a separate work ('Organizational Implications of Systems Thinking') by considering a methodology for the design of social organizations as ideal-seeking systems [8].

References

[1]M. Tehranian, and et al, A Systems View of Development ( Industrial Management Institute, 1975).
[2]J. Gharajedaghi, R. Ackoff,  A  Prologue  to National Development Planning (Greenwood , 1986).
[3]L. Bertalanffy, General systems theory (Penguin Books, 1960).
[4]W. Buckley, Sociology and modern systems theory (Prentice Hall, 1967).
[5]J. Gharajedaghi, The why question - worldviews, S3 Papers (1981).
[6]J. Gharajedaghi, Systems view of social systems, s3 Papers (1982).
[7]J. Gharajedaghi, Social dynamics, dichotomy or dialective, Human systems Management (1983).
[8]J. Gharajedaghi, Organizational implication of systems thinking, European Journal of Operational Research (1984).
[9]E.A Singer, Jr. Experience and reflection, in: C.W Churchman, ed., (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959).

...back