Given the recent Australian election result and the espoused policies on climate change (moving to a post-carbon society) of the new Coalition government, and some of the Senators elect from obscure minor parties, innovative forms of action will be needed. This example made in association with 350 action might be an example to follow?
My thanks to David Waltner-Toews for alerting me to the site.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Thursday, September 05, 2013
Perspectives that reflect all: Australia's Federal election
Australia's current Federal election has been the most unedifying I think I have experienced. There is nothing good I can find to say about the campaign other than to recognise the perceptiveness and concern of many Australian's who, like me, see their concerns missing totally from the public discourse yet can still muster the enthusiasm to present their point of view in a reasoned way. To this I add some perceptive journalism from external commentators. Two examples come to mind:
This letter published in The Age yesterday.
'Take account of all the 'lies'
If you are champing at the bit to vote out Labor because it ''lied'' about a carbon tax, consider the following lies. How about the ''lie'' about the supposed increase in the cost of living - when it has increased by less than trend since the tax has been in place. Consider the ''lie'' about efficacy - that it won't work. Emissions have reduced by 7 per cent since the introduction of the tax. Or the ''lie'' that no one else is doing anything similar: 33 countries and 18 sub-national jurisdictions including Europe, parts of China, California, South Korea and Japan are doing similar things. Then there is the ''lie'' that climate change is not happening - when last year was the hottest on record in Australia. Then there's the biggest lie of all - that direct action will achieve emission reductions. If the carbon tax ''lie'' is your reason to vote out Labor, then you are lying to yourself.
Ben Lloyd, Bellfield'
And George Monbiot's latest column.
This letter published in The Age yesterday.
'Take account of all the 'lies'
If you are champing at the bit to vote out Labor because it ''lied'' about a carbon tax, consider the following lies. How about the ''lie'' about the supposed increase in the cost of living - when it has increased by less than trend since the tax has been in place. Consider the ''lie'' about efficacy - that it won't work. Emissions have reduced by 7 per cent since the introduction of the tax. Or the ''lie'' that no one else is doing anything similar: 33 countries and 18 sub-national jurisdictions including Europe, parts of China, California, South Korea and Japan are doing similar things. Then there is the ''lie'' that climate change is not happening - when last year was the hottest on record in Australia. Then there's the biggest lie of all - that direct action will achieve emission reductions. If the carbon tax ''lie'' is your reason to vote out Labor, then you are lying to yourself.
Ben Lloyd, Bellfield'
And George Monbiot's latest column.
Update on Sri Lanka
In earlier postings I have made it clear that I do not consider holding the next CHOGM meeting in Sri Lanka as ethically justified. It is to me unconscionable that Australia's position on this issue will not change as a result of the election on Saturday. Given the extremely poor press coverage of this issue in the Australian media - as exemplified by Greg Sheriden's report in The Australian last Saturday (written as a guest of the current Sri Lankan government) - it is difficult to find systemically nuanced and independent coverage of the situation.
Fortunately the Chair of the UN's Human Rights Council, a South African of Indian (Tamil) descent Ms Navaneetham Pillay has finally been allowed to visit Sri Lanka, and gave a very direct and firm statement last Saturday on her visit. This is encouraging news for all human rights defenders but as she says in the speech, many in the Sri Lankan government branded her as a Tamil, not as the highest UN official in the HR area to visit the island and a proud South African. Her full statement is worth reading:
Fortunately the Chair of the UN's Human Rights Council, a South African of Indian (Tamil) descent Ms Navaneetham Pillay has finally been allowed to visit Sri Lanka, and gave a very direct and firm statement last Saturday on her visit. This is encouraging news for all human rights defenders but as she says in the speech, many in the Sri Lankan government branded her as a Tamil, not as the highest UN official in the HR area to visit the island and a proud South African. Her full statement is worth reading:
Colombo, 31 August 2013
Good morning, and thank you for coming.
As is customary at the end of official missions such as this, I would
like to make some observations concerning the human rights situation in
the country.
During my seven-day visit, I have held discussions with President
Mahinda Rajapaksa, and senior members of the Government. These included
the Ministers of External Affairs, Justice, Economic Development,
National Languages and Social Integration, Youth Affairs
and the Minister of Plantations Industries who is also Special Envoy to
the President on Human Rights, as well as the Secretary of Defence. I
also met the Chief Justice, Attorney-General, Leader of the House of
Parliament and the Permanent Secretary to the
President, who is head of the taskforce appointed to monitor the
implementation of the report of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation
Commission (LLRC).
I had discussions with politicians who are not part of the current
Government, namely the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the
Tamil National Alliance; in addition I met with the National Human
Rights Commission, and a total of eight different gatherings
of human rights defenders and civil society organizations in Colombo,
Jaffna and Trincomalee. I also received briefings from the Governors and
other senior officials in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.
I thank the Government for its invitation and its excellent cooperation
during the planning and conduct of this very complex mission. It stated
that I could go anywhere, and see anything I wished to see. And, despite
some disturbing incidents which I will go
into later, that commitment was honoured throughout.
Even though this is the longest official visit I have ever made to a
single country, I am acutely conscious that I was unable to see everyone
who requested a meeting. Nor will I be able to do justice to all the
human rights issues facing the Sri Lankan people
and government. Since I will be providing an oral update to the Human
Rights Council in Geneva in late September, and a full written report in
March next year, I will today confine myself to a few key issues that
crystallized during the course of the mission.
I will divide these human rights issues into two parts: those related to
the vicious and debilitating 27-year conflict between the Government
and the LTTE, and its aftermath; and those that relate to the whole
country.
Some media, ministers,
bloggers and various propagandists in Sri Lanka have, for several years
now, on the basis of my Indian Tamil heritage, described me as a tool of
the LTTE. They have claimed I was in their
pay, the “Tamil Tigress in the UN.” This is not only wildly incorrect,
it is deeply offensive. This type of abuse has reached an extraordinary
crescendo during this past week, with at least three Government
Ministers joining in.
Firstly, let me say, I am a South African and proud of it.
Secondly, the LTTE was a murderous organization that committed numerous
crimes and destroyed many lives. In fact, my only previous visit to Sri
Lanka was to attend a commemoration of the celebrated legislator,
peacemaker and scholar, Neelan Tiruchelvam, who
was killed by an LTTE suicide bomb in July 1999. Those in the diaspora
who continue to revere the memory of the LTTE must recognize that there
should be no place for the glorification of such a ruthless
organization.
I would like to pay my respects to all Sri Lankans, across the country,
who were killed during those three decades of conflict, and offer my
heartfelt sympathy to their families, all of whom – no matter who they
are – share one thing: they have lost someone
they can never replace. I have met many people during this visit whose
relatives or spouses – both civilians and soldiers – are known to have
been killed, or who are missing and may well be dead.
It is important everyone realizes that, although the fighting is over, the suffering is not.
I have been extremely moved by the profound trauma I have seen among the
relatives of the missing and the dead, and the war survivors, in all
the places I have visited, as well as by their resilience. This was
particularly evident among those scratching out
a living among the ghosts of burned and shelled trees, ruined houses
and other debris of the final battle of the the war along the lagoon in
Mullaitivu.
Wounds will not heal and reconciliation will not happen, without respect
for those who grieve, and remembrance for the tens of thousands of
Tamils, Sinhalese, Muslims and others who died before their time on the
battlefield, in buses, on the street, or in detention.
As one wife of a missing man put it poignantly: “Even when we eat, we
keep a portion for him.”
Throughout my visit, the authorities, at all levels, have been keen to
demonstrate to me how much has been achieved in terms of resettlement,
reconstruction and rehabilitation in the relatively short period since
the conflict with the LTTE ended in 2009. And
the reconstruction achievements, made with the help of donor countries,
UN agencies and NGOs, are indeed impressive: in both the Eastern and
Northern Provinces, large numbers of new roads, bridges, houses, medical
facilities and schools have been built or
rebuilt; electricity and water supplies have been greatly improved; and
most of the landmines have been removed. As a result, the great
majority of the more than 450,000 people who were internally displaced
at the end of the conflict have now gone home.
These are important achievements, and I understand the Government’s
concern that they have perhaps not been sufficiently recognized.
However, physical reconstruction alone will not bring reconciliation,
dignity, or lasting peace. Clearly, a more holistic approach
is needed to provide truth, justice and reparations for people’s
suffering during the war, and I have repeated my previous offer of
OHCHR’s assistance in these areas.
There are a number of specific factors impeding normalization, which –
if not quickly rectified – may sow the seeds of future discord. These
are by and large to do with the curtailment or denial of personal
freedoms and human rights, or linked to persistent
impunity and the failure of rule of law.
From the very beginning, I have placed great hopes in Sri Lanka
achieving true peace and reconciliation after the war. I welcomed the
LLRC report as an important step in that direction, even though it
side-stepped the much-needed full, transparent, impartial
investigation into the conduct of a conflict that saw numerous war
crimes and other violations committed by both sides. The Human Rights
Council has expressed a strong interest in seeing progress in the
implementation of the most important LLRC recommendations,
and proper investigation of the many outstanding allegations and
concerns.
The LLRC report contains a broad range of excellent recommendations
regarding concrete improvements on human rights, and I was interested to
receive a briefing on the extent of the implementation of some of those
recommendations from the Permanent Secretary
to the President. My Office will closely examine that update and future
developments in the implementation of the LLRC, and I will of course
make reference to any genuine progress in my reports to the Human Rights
Council.
I will now briefly outline some of the other issues that were raised
during my visits to the Northern and Eastern Provinces, and which I have
in turn raised with various ministers.
I welcome the forthcoming elections to the Northern Provincial Council
and hope they will proceed in a peaceful, free and fair environment, and
usher in an important new stage in the devolution of power.
I was concerned to hear about the degree to which the military appears
to be putting down roots and becoming involved in what should be
civilian activities, for instance education, agriculture and even
tourism. I also heard complaints about the acquisition
of private land to build military camps and installations, including a
holiday resort. This is only going to make the complex land issues with
which the Government has been grappling even more complicated and
difficult to resolve. Clearly, the army needs some
camps, but the prevalence and level of involvement of soldiers in the
community seem much greater than is needed for strictly military or
reconstruction purposes four years after the end of the war.
I understand the Secretary of Defence’s point that the demobilization of
a significant proportion of such a large army cannot be done overnight,
but urge the government to speed up its efforts to demilitarize these
two war-affected provinces, as the continued
large-scale presence of the military and other security forces is seen
by many as oppressive and intrusive, with the continuing high level of
surveillance of former combatants and returnees at times verging on
harassment.
I was very concerned to hear about the vulnerability of women and girls,
especially in female-headed households, to sexual harassment and abuse.
I have raised this issue with several ministers, the provincial
governors and senior military commanders who attended
my meeting with the Secretary of Defence. I challenged them to
rigorously enforce a zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse.
I have also been following up on the status of the remaining detainees
and have urged the Government to expedite their cases, either by
bringing charges or releasing them for rehabilitation. I also suggested
it may now be time to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism
Act which has long been cause for concern.
Because of the legacy of massive trauma, there is a desperate need for
counseling and psychosocial support in the North, and I was surprised
and disappointed to learn that the authorities have restricted NGO
activity in this sector. I hope the Government can
relax controls on this type of assistance.
I met many relatives of missing or disappeared civilians and soldiers
who are still hoping to discover the whereabouts of their loved ones,
and they emphasized the urgent need to resolve this issue – something
that was made abundantly evident at the two very
moving meetings with relatives of the disappeared that I attended
yesterday, to commemorate the International Day of the Victims of Forced
Disappearances.
I asked the Government for more information about the new Commission of
Inquiry on Disappearances, and stressed the need for it to be more
effective than the five previous commissions of this kind. I was
disappointed to learn that it will only cover disappearances
in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, which means that the many “white
van” disappearances reported in Colombo and other parts of the country
in recent years will not fall within its scope.
I urge the Government to broaden the Commission’s mandate, and seize
this opportunity to make a comprehensive effort to resolve the
disappearances issue once and for all. I therefore welcome the new
proposal to criminalize disappearances in the penal code,
and hope this will be done without delay. The Government could also
send a clear signal of its commitment by ratifying the International
Convention on Disappearances, and by inviting the Working Group on
Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances to visit Sri
Lanka, ideally before I report back to the Human Rights Council in
March.
The Human Rights Council will also be looking to see something credible
in terms of investigation of what happened at the end of the war and
many other past cases.
I was pleased to learn that the case of the five students murdered on
the beach in Trincomalee in 2006 has been reinvigorated by the arrest of
12 Police Special Task Force members known to have been in the vicinity
at the time of the killings. I will be watching
the progress of that case with interest, as well as the other infamous
unsolved case of 17 ACF aid workers murdered in the same year, just a
few kilometres to the south.
I also requested more information about the Courts of Inquiry appointed
by the army to further investigate the allegations of civilian
casualties and summary executions, and suggested that appointing the
army to investigate itself does not inspire confidence
in a country where so many past investigations and commissions of
inquiry have foundered one way or another. Unless there is a credible
national process, calls for an international inquiry are likely to
continue.
The recent deployment of the military in support of police to control a
demonstration in Welawariya, which resulted in at least three deaths,
has sent a shockwave through the community. I stressed to the Defence
Secretary the need to urgently complete and
publish a proper investigation into this incident.
Too many other investigation files remain pending, for instance the
custodial deaths of prisoners in Vavuniya and Welikada Prisons in 2012.
The Government has since announced police powers will now be
transferred from the Ministry of Defence to a new Ministry
of Law and Order, but this is at best a partial separation as both
Ministries will remain under the President, rather than under a separate
civilian ministry.
I have also reminded the Government that Sri Lanka desperately needs
strong witness and victim protection legislation, which has been
languishing in draft form since 2007.
I expressed concern at the recent surge in incitement of hatred and
violence against religious minorities, including attacks on churches and
mosques, and the lack of swift action against the perpetrators. I was
surprised that the Government seemed to downplay
this issue, and I hope it will send the strongest possible signal of
zero tolerance for such acts and ensure that those responsible (who are
easily identifiable on video footage) are punished. The Minister of
National Languages and Social Integration told
me that he has proposed new legislation on hate speech. We have
recently concluded a study of such laws and would be happy to assist in
this area. The same Minister, along with the Minister of Justice,
expressed to me his support for a visit by the Independent
Expert on Minorities, and I hope this can happen as soon as possible. I
also applaud the Government’s policy of introducing tri-lingualism all
across the country.
I would now like to turn to a disturbing aspect of the visit, namely the
harassment and intimidation of a number of human rights defenders, at
least two priests, journalists, and many ordinary citizens who met with
me, or planned to meet with me. I have received
reports that people in villages and settlements in the Mullaitivu area
were visited by police or military officers both before and after I
arrived there. In Trincomalee, several people I met were subsequently
questioned about the content of our conversation.
This type of surveillance and harassment appears to be getting worse in
Sri Lanka, which is a country where critical voices are quite often
attacked or even permanently silenced. Utterly unacceptable at any time,
it is particularly extraordinary for such treatment
to be meted out during a visit by a UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights. I wish to stress that the United Nations takes the issue of
reprisals against people because they have talked to UN officials as an
extremely serious matter, and I will be reporting
those that take place in connection with this visit to the Human Rights
Council.
I urge the Government of Sri Lanka to issue immediate orders to halt
this treatment of human rights defenders and journalists who face this
kind of harassment and intimidation on a regular basis. More than 30
journalists are believed to have been killed since
2005, and several more – including the cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda
– have disappeared. Many others have fled the country. Newspaper and TV
offices have been vandalized or subjected to arson attacks – some, such
as the Jaffna-based paper Uthayan, on multiple
occasions. With self-censorship fuelled by fear, journalists report
that there are articles that they dare not write, and others their
editors dare not print. Freedom of expression is under a sustained
assault in Sri Lanka. I have called for the right to Information
Act to be adopted like many of its neighbours in SAARC.
The war may have ended, but in the meantime democracy has been undermined and the rule of law eroded. The 18th amendment,
which abolished the Constitutional Council which once recommended
appointments to the independent bodies, such as the Elections
Commission and Human Rights Commission, has weakened these important
checks and balances on the power of the Executive. The controversial
impeachment of the Chief Justice earlier this year, and apparent
politicization of senior judicial appointments, have
shaken confidence in the independence of the judiciary.
I am deeply concerned that Sri Lanka, despite the opportunity provided
by the end of the war to construct a new vibrant, all-embracing state,
is showing signs of heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction.
Ending on a more optimistic note, yesterday, at the Government’s suggestion, I visited the Youth Parliament. This unusual institution, founded in 2010,
is filled with bright, enthusiastic students from all across the
country, and dedicated to a tolerant and all-inclusive approach. The
parliament draws on elected members of youth groups
who meet once a month to discuss key issues such as the importance of
Amendment 13 to the Constitution and the LLRC (indeed they claim they
actually debated the latter before the National Parliament).
I hope that the current and future members of the Youth Parliament,
three of whom delivered excellent speeches in my presence, will, when
they graduate to the main political stage, usher in a new era of
tolerant coexistence in this beautiful island, where –
despite the problems I have listed above – I have been greeted with
great warmth and hospitality.
Thank you.
Interview with Beyond Zero Emissions on Community Radio
I have been invited to do a radio interview this Friday 6th Sep @8:30am on Beyond Zero Radio on the station 3CR. The interviewers are Anthony Daniele and Matthew Grantham.
If you would like to listen to the interview live, it will be streaming from 0830.
The podcast will be available for download by Monday next week.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Appreciating cyber-systemic scholarship
Ranulph Glanville, President of ASC writes:
"Sometimes I am asked about my cybernetics PhD, which I completed with Gordon Pask as my supervisor in 1974 and which was examined by Heinz von Foerster in 1975. At this year's conference I was persuaded to make a presentation which was videoed and posted on YouTube in the ASC channel. You can find it at:
http://www.youtube.
There is a lot of interesting material posted on our YouTube channel, a wonderful and special resource that has mainly been garnered by Tom Fischer. This material, along with the ASC publications we have been collecting and putting on line, is one of the real treasures that the current executive has worked to bring to members. Please look not only at the video of my explanation of the basics of this piece of work that both Heinz and Gordon claimed was the key missing part of second order cybernetics, but also at the wealth of other material. Of course, it takes time to watch, but you will, I believe, feel well rewarded."
"Sometimes I am asked about my cybernetics PhD, which I completed with Gordon Pask as my supervisor in 1974 and which was examined by Heinz von Foerster in 1975. At this year's conference I was persuaded to make a presentation which was videoed and posted on YouTube in the ASC channel. You can find it at:
http://www.youtube.
There is a lot of interesting material posted on our YouTube channel, a wonderful and special resource that has mainly been garnered by Tom Fischer. This material, along with the ASC publications we have been collecting and putting on line, is one of the real treasures that the current executive has worked to bring to members. Please look not only at the video of my explanation of the basics of this piece of work that both Heinz and Gordon claimed was the key missing part of second order cybernetics, but also at the wealth of other material. Of course, it takes time to watch, but you will, I believe, feel well rewarded."
Accessing academic content on line - 'Big Guns' oppose innovation
Michael Lissack writes:
"The pioneering digital library built by ISCE is under attack.
It seems HBS and John Wiley (yes the publishers) HATE the idea that libraries can be virtual. They sued ISCE (see http://isce-library.org/suit.pdf) and we answered (see http://isce-library.org/answer.pdf) ANY AND ALL HELP APPRECIATED
The Harvard B School folks and Wiley think that ALL digital access should be pay per use and that libraries have no rights
So much for the idea of academic research
The lawsuit is fundamentally about what rights academic libraries have to make use of the books which they have purchased.
The ISCE Library is set up to be as close as humanly possible to a physical library. Patrons (members of ISCE) can access the full text of ONE book at a time (displayed as two pages at a time) for a two hour increment and it is one user per book (i.e. the experience duplicates that of a library reserve room). The books were purchased as physical books, scanned, destroyed (the physical copies) and ONLY exist as digital.
Wiley and HBS claim that despite the actual purchase of the books by ISCE that we need permission to convert the library to digital only. We argue back fair use and library exemptions.
More importantly the ISCE Library allows for cross searching amongst the 1250 books in the collection in a manner which is unavailable elsewhere (see http://epi-search.com). That cross searching allows a user to input a query of 50-10,000 words (i.e. the full text of an article for example) and see what the "virtual reference librarian" at ISCE suggests should be read next (which is "find me more like this" search). Again the Wiley HBS posture is that this kind of innovation should be stopped.
At ISCE we have transformed the academic research library into a powerful on-line research tool and it is that very innovation which Wiley and HBS are trying to kill.
Your help in circulating this message and finding us added resources will be appreciated."
"The pioneering digital library built by ISCE is under attack.
It seems HBS and John Wiley (yes the publishers) HATE the idea that libraries can be virtual. They sued ISCE (see http://isce-library.org/suit.pdf) and we answered (see http://isce-library.org/answer.pdf) ANY AND ALL HELP APPRECIATED
The Harvard B School folks and Wiley think that ALL digital access should be pay per use and that libraries have no rights
So much for the idea of academic research
The lawsuit is fundamentally about what rights academic libraries have to make use of the books which they have purchased.
The ISCE Library is set up to be as close as humanly possible to a physical library. Patrons (members of ISCE) can access the full text of ONE book at a time (displayed as two pages at a time) for a two hour increment and it is one user per book (i.e. the experience duplicates that of a library reserve room). The books were purchased as physical books, scanned, destroyed (the physical copies) and ONLY exist as digital.
Wiley and HBS claim that despite the actual purchase of the books by ISCE that we need permission to convert the library to digital only. We argue back fair use and library exemptions.
More importantly the ISCE Library allows for cross searching amongst the 1250 books in the collection in a manner which is unavailable elsewhere (see http://epi-search.com). That cross searching allows a user to input a query of 50-10,000 words (i.e. the full text of an article for example) and see what the "virtual reference librarian" at ISCE suggests should be read next (which is "find me more like this" search). Again the Wiley HBS posture is that this kind of innovation should be stopped.
At ISCE we have transformed the academic research library into a powerful on-line research tool and it is that very innovation which Wiley and HBS are trying to kill.
Your help in circulating this message and finding us added resources will be appreciated."
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Australia's 'red centre' - first visit.
It has taken far to long for us to spend time in Alice Springs and make a visit to Uluru. Last week with my work and an added weekend we rectified this situation. The temperatures were a pleasant break from Melbourne at this time of year. What woud I recommend for those with limited time - Simpson's Gap, Jessie and Emily Gaps, Uluru and Kata Tjuta (the Olgas) National Park; the Alice Springs Desert Park - great exhibits and a great bird show.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
2014 Cyber-systemic conferences
Courtesy of ASC's President, Ranulph Glanville:
The ASC conference will be held between 3 and 9 August, 2014, in the Washington DC area. The theme is “Living in Change”.
"2014 is the ASC 50th birthday
conference, and we hope to mark it in various ways,
including presentations by currently surviving ASC presidents about the
ASC in their period of office. We will also invite others to contribute
to this “living history”. We
anticipate that the conference will have more formal input than our
conversational conferences, though there will still be an important
conversational element. We plan on encouraging members to hold local meetings to prepare for the main conference. I hope to make a fuller announcement in the autumn/fall, Meanwhile, please register interest at
www.asc.cybernetics/2014."
Other conferences
2014 is a busy conference year.
- European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, Vienna, Austria April 22–5.
- Norbert Wiener Memorial Conference (Norbet Wiener in the 21st Century), Boston, US 24–6 June 2014. http://21stcenturywiener.org
- RC51 conference (on many themes), Yokohama, Japan, July 13–19 2014. http://sociocybernetics.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/abstract-submission-for-yokohama-conference-is-now-open/ or http://www.isa-sociology.org/congress2014/
- World Multi-Conference on Systems, Cybernetics and Informatics, July 15–18, 2014, Orlando, USA. http://www.iiis2014.org/wmsci/website/default.asp?vc=1
- ISSS conference on Learning Across Boundaries: Exploring the Variety of Systemic Theory and Practice, US East Coast, 27 July to 1 August 2014. http://isss.org/world/node/597
- WOSC conference on Our self-organising world: from disruption to reparation, Santiago de Chile, Chile, October 15–17 2014. http://wosc.co/2013/06/02/wosc-2014/
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
Sociocybernetics Conference 2014
From RC51 International Organising Committee:
RC51 is the Research Committee on Sociocybernetics of the International Sociological Association. It has approximately 130 members worldwide with the aim to promote the development of sociocybernetic theory and research within the social sciences. Sociocybernetics is broadly defined here as applications within the social sciences of first- and second-order cybernetics, general systems theory and the various combinations and variations of these that can be subsumed under the term “the emerging sciences of complexity”.
Website
ABSTRACT SUBMISSION FOR YOKOHAMA CONFERENCE IS NOW OPEN
RC51 is the Research Committee on Sociocybernetics of the International Sociological Association. It has approximately 130 members worldwide with the aim to promote the development of sociocybernetic theory and research within the social sciences. Sociocybernetics is broadly defined here as applications within the social sciences of first- and second-order cybernetics, general systems theory and the various combinations and variations of these that can be subsumed under the term “the emerging sciences of complexity”.
Website
ABSTRACT SUBMISSION FOR YOKOHAMA CONFERENCE IS NOW OPEN
Abstract submission for the XVIII ISA World Congress of Sociology in Yokohama/Japan, July 13-19, 2014, is open (deadline September 30, 2013). 'We invite you to send your abstracts and share your ideas & research issues with all the others.'
RC51 Sessions (in alphabetical order) are:
* A More Equal World: A Systemic Perspective to Think the Relation between Knowledge Construction and Cultural Management Development
* Complejidad, intervención social y trabajo comunitario. Complexity, Social Intervention and Community Work
* Developments in Systems and/or Cybernetic Approaches: Asian and European and American Perspectives. Part I
RC51 Sessions (in alphabetical order) are:
* A More Equal World: A Systemic Perspective to Think the Relation between Knowledge Construction and Cultural Management Development
* Complejidad, intervención social y trabajo comunitario. Complexity, Social Intervention and Community Work
* Developments in Systems and/or Cybernetic Approaches: Asian and European and American Perspectives. Part I
*
Interpersonal Violence as a Complex Issue: Research through Advanced Techniques Using Discourse Analysis, Video and Micro Methods of Data Analysis
* Observing Social Systems in the Era of Big Data
* Observing Social Systems in the Era of Big Data
* Online Health Information Seeking, Health Management and Gender
* Open Systems, Open Data, Open Government
* Open Systems, Open Data, Open Government
*
Sociocybernetic Theories and Conceptualizations of Social Change and Transformations
* Sociocybernetics of Innovation: Drivers, Barriers and Stabilizers of Innovation in Different Theoretical Contexts
* Special Sessions in Cooperation with the Japanese Systems Theory Societies.Part I: Dialogue on New Generation Systems Approach
* Sociocybernetics of Innovation: Drivers, Barriers and Stabilizers of Innovation in Different Theoretical Contexts
* Special Sessions in Cooperation with the Japanese Systems Theory Societies.Part I: Dialogue on New Generation Systems Approach
*
The Management of Complex Organizations and Firms: A SociocyberneticChallenge
* The Sociocybernetics of “Cybernation” and the Emerging “Cyber-Nation”
* The Sociocybernetics of “Cybernation” and the Emerging “Cyber-Nation”
Please check for detailed descriptions
and consider the deadline for the on-line abstracts submission: September 30, 2013 24:00 GMT.
On-line abstract submission
If you have questions about any specific session, please feel free to contact the Session Organizer for more information.
We are looking forward to receiving your abstracts and meeting you next year
in Yokohama!
On-line abstract submission
If you have questions about any specific session, please feel free to contact the Session Organizer for more information.
We are looking forward to receiving your abstracts and meeting you next year
in Yokohama!
Monday, July 29, 2013
Anecdotes - non-trivial machines
The following anecdote comes from Stuart Umpleby responding to queries on the ASC conference about trivial and non-trivial machines.
"Dear Tom, As I recall, when speaking about a non-trivial machine, Heinz [von Foerster] always referred to an aluminum box that Ross Ashby constructed. As far as I know Ricardo Uribe still has it. It had two switches and two lights. The task was to determine the internal structure of the machine by pressing the switches and watching the lights. However, pressing one of the switches changed the internal configuration in the box.
After building it, Ashby spent many hours at his kitchen table trying to figure out the internal operation of the machine. If a human observer could not figure out how such a simple "non-trivial machine" worked, how much more difficult would it be to figure out how a human being was thinking?
We want our machines to be trivial/ predictable. Would you want a car that turns to the left only 95% of the time when you turn the steering wheel to the left? But human beings change their minds often. They are non-trivial. Heinz felt that human beings try to trivialize non-trivial machines (i.e., human beings). Examples are threats of the use of force and most education systems.
Regards, Stuart"
This anecdote is telling in that it demonstrates how within a language community or an intellectual lineage certain distinctions carry significance because of who said them and how it carries news of difference. The distinction trivial/non-trivial machine was important to Heinz von Foerster who followed Alan Turing in using these distinctions. This history makes sense within a lineage preoccupied with machines and mechanism but is unlikely to win favour in many disciplines within the social sciences because the distinction conserves the machine metaphor. That said, in many fields, including areas of the social sciences humans are still too often treated as 'trivial machines'!
"Dear Tom, As I recall, when speaking about a non-trivial machine, Heinz [von Foerster] always referred to an aluminum box that Ross Ashby constructed. As far as I know Ricardo Uribe still has it. It had two switches and two lights. The task was to determine the internal structure of the machine by pressing the switches and watching the lights. However, pressing one of the switches changed the internal configuration in the box.
After building it, Ashby spent many hours at his kitchen table trying to figure out the internal operation of the machine. If a human observer could not figure out how such a simple "non-trivial machine" worked, how much more difficult would it be to figure out how a human being was thinking?
We want our machines to be trivial/ predictable. Would you want a car that turns to the left only 95% of the time when you turn the steering wheel to the left? But human beings change their minds often. They are non-trivial. Heinz felt that human beings try to trivialize non-trivial machines (i.e., human beings). Examples are threats of the use of force and most education systems.
Regards, Stuart"
This anecdote is telling in that it demonstrates how within a language community or an intellectual lineage certain distinctions carry significance because of who said them and how it carries news of difference. The distinction trivial/non-trivial machine was important to Heinz von Foerster who followed Alan Turing in using these distinctions. This history makes sense within a lineage preoccupied with machines and mechanism but is unlikely to win favour in many disciplines within the social sciences because the distinction conserves the machine metaphor. That said, in many fields, including areas of the social sciences humans are still too often treated as 'trivial machines'!
Cyber-systemic news
Ranulph Glanville writes:
"We have firmed up details for our {ASC} 50th anniversary conference in 2014. It will now take place in Washington DC: arrangements with Duke University ran into trouble when we tried to co-ordinate dates. Stu Umpleby will be helping set this conference up. It will be based around 6 August, when the ASC was incorporated. We will develop a special program around the theme "Living in Change".
He goes on:
"I think the following links may lead to things that interest you.
This link will take you to the first ever web page from CERN, 20 years ago. It is 20 years since the world wide web was inaugurated.
These links will take you to the books published by echoraum in Vienna. They have a whole series of contemporary cybernetics, as many of you will know, by and about Foerster, Glasersfeld, Jung, Pask, Karl and Albert Mueller, Scott and myself, amongst others.
http://echoraum.
http://echoraum.
The following link will take you to the newsletter of the European Meetings on Cybernetics and Systems Research, which has much of interest including conference announcements (ours is one of them)
http://us4.campaign
Finally, Carl Auer, publisher the two interview book by Bernhard Poerksen, with Foerster and Maturana. These are on special offer at 10 euros each. Follow the links to find more and order:
http://www.carl-
http://www.carl-
I hope these various links will interest you."
"We have firmed up details for our {ASC} 50th anniversary conference in 2014. It will now take place in Washington DC: arrangements with Duke University ran into trouble when we tried to co-ordinate dates. Stu Umpleby will be helping set this conference up. It will be based around 6 August, when the ASC was incorporated. We will develop a special program around the theme "Living in Change".
He goes on:
"I think the following links may lead to things that interest you.
This link will take you to the first ever web page from CERN, 20 years ago. It is 20 years since the world wide web was inaugurated.
These links will take you to the books published by echoraum in Vienna. They have a whole series of contemporary cybernetics, as many of you will know, by and about Foerster, Glasersfeld, Jung, Pask, Karl and Albert Mueller, Scott and myself, amongst others.
http://echoraum.
http://echoraum.
The following link will take you to the newsletter of the European Meetings on Cybernetics and Systems Research, which has much of interest including conference announcements (ours is one of them)
http://us4.campaign
Finally, Carl Auer, publisher the two interview book by Bernhard Poerksen, with Foerster and Maturana. These are on special offer at 10 euros each. Follow the links to find more and order:
http://www.carl-
http://www.carl-
I hope these various links will interest you."
Sunday, July 28, 2013
'Systems Practice' Reviewed
My 2010 book Systems Practice. How to Act in a Climate-Change World (Springer and The Open University) has just been reviewed by Howard Silverman in the journal Ecopsychology. His review is replete with understanding. The first page is available on open access.
Howard opens his review with:
"The surest view into Ray Ison’s perspective on systems practice, as described in his 2010 book Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World, begins with his definition of a system. Ison cites a four-part formulation developed at the Open University, where he is Professor in Systems:
Three aspects of systems—elements, interactions, and identity or behavior or purpose—are cited by each of the three systems luminaries. The Open University formulation includes these three aspects and also a fourth: point of view. This top-line emphasis on point of view recalls a diagram by two additional luminaries, Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. In it, they describe two perspectives on systems—first-order and second order cybernetics—distinguished by whether or not one sees oneself as a participant in the system under examination.."
He concludes with:
"What becomes apparent on reading is that, in Ison’s perspective on systems thinking and practice, the functionalist impulses that have dominated the systems field are held in check. He elaborates on acting in a climate-change world without mention of international protocols or planetary boundaries or stabilization wedges. He criticizes target-based management without reference to that favorite target of environmentalists: 350. For better or worse, the reader is left to contemplate the broader applications and implications of Ison’s approach. Yet for anyone interested in what the systems field might contribute to a reflexive understanding of situational inquiry and engagement, there is hardly a better book with which to start."
Further reviews of Systems Practice can be found in Agricultural Systems (by Ika Darnhofer) and Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, Volume 14, Issue 4, 2012, pp.481-483 (by Lauren Rickards). Lauren writes:
"As the ‘wicked’ and ‘messy’ nature of contemporary problems becomes increasingly apparent, the need to better understand and appropriately engage with the complex systems we are part of is of growing importance. Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate Change World is rich in insight into the challenges and joys of developing this was of thinking and acting. It is itself a highly valuable but challenging book, in part because of the depth of the problems in modern society it reveals (including, for example, the very concept of ‘problems’, with its implicit simplistic corollary: ‘solutions’). It is also challenging because of the richness of strategies it provides for engaging with these ‘problems’ and becoming a ‘systems practitioner’... Its breadth and depth of thinking is stimulating and the intellectual and emotional challenges it poses reflect the situations we are in rather than weaknesses with the book itself, which is instead carefully and cleverly crafted."
Howard opens his review with:
"The surest view into Ray Ison’s perspective on systems practice, as described in his 2010 book Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World, begins with his definition of a system. Ison cites a four-part formulation developed at the Open University, where he is Professor in Systems:
- A collection of entities
- That are seen by someone
- As interacting together
- To do something
Three aspects of systems—elements, interactions, and identity or behavior or purpose—are cited by each of the three systems luminaries. The Open University formulation includes these three aspects and also a fourth: point of view. This top-line emphasis on point of view recalls a diagram by two additional luminaries, Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. In it, they describe two perspectives on systems—first-order and second order cybernetics—distinguished by whether or not one sees oneself as a participant in the system under examination.."
He concludes with:
"What becomes apparent on reading is that, in Ison’s perspective on systems thinking and practice, the functionalist impulses that have dominated the systems field are held in check. He elaborates on acting in a climate-change world without mention of international protocols or planetary boundaries or stabilization wedges. He criticizes target-based management without reference to that favorite target of environmentalists: 350. For better or worse, the reader is left to contemplate the broader applications and implications of Ison’s approach. Yet for anyone interested in what the systems field might contribute to a reflexive understanding of situational inquiry and engagement, there is hardly a better book with which to start."
Further reviews of Systems Practice can be found in Agricultural Systems (by Ika Darnhofer) and Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, Volume 14, Issue 4, 2012, pp.481-483 (by Lauren Rickards). Lauren writes:
"As the ‘wicked’ and ‘messy’ nature of contemporary problems becomes increasingly apparent, the need to better understand and appropriately engage with the complex systems we are part of is of growing importance. Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate Change World is rich in insight into the challenges and joys of developing this was of thinking and acting. It is itself a highly valuable but challenging book, in part because of the depth of the problems in modern society it reveals (including, for example, the very concept of ‘problems’, with its implicit simplistic corollary: ‘solutions’). It is also challenging because of the richness of strategies it provides for engaging with these ‘problems’ and becoming a ‘systems practitioner’... Its breadth and depth of thinking is stimulating and the intellectual and emotional challenges it poses reflect the situations we are in rather than weaknesses with the book itself, which is instead carefully and cleverly crafted."
Governing science - emerging systemic failures?
The governance of science
has attracted institutional innovation (in the new institutional economics
sense) since the founding of The Royal Society. The Royal Society formed
outside government and ostensibly remains that way. In recent times one of the most significant
institutional ‘innovations’ has been that of ‘chief scientist’, a role within
government. Beginning in 1964 the “UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser
(GCSA) [has been] the personal adviser on science and technology-related
activities and policies to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet; and head of the
Government Office for Science.”
According to Wikipedia “he has a significant public role as the
government's most visible scientific expert”; nothing is said about the
gendered nature of the role – a woman has yet to be appointed.
Later, Chief Scientific
Officers were appointed to all ministries. The UK model has, in part, been
followed in other places such as Australia and in the private sector.
Those in the role have
championed particular concerns and have, at times, attracted a certain amount
of controversy. In 2005 there were criticisms of Australia's chief scientist,
particularly his links to 'big mining'. In 2007 in an 'own goal' display, Jim Peacock, Australia's then Chief Scientist speaking at a conference in
Melbourne, said those circulating misinformation about GM were largely
"self-serving organic farmers and ill-informed environmental
activists". There are other perspectives. James Wilsdon provides an easy to read overview of the Chief Scientist role in the UK following the latest
appointment. But be warned it is an overview of a particular flavour.
Institutions, like that of Chief Scientist, should not be
immutable though too often they are. Recent controversies around the role suggest a need for some critical reappraisal including an examination of some of the systemic consequences of the
institution as contexts change. This might well extend to modes of enactment of the role. Peter Ellerton in an article in The Conversation asks: 'what are chief scientists for?'
George Monbiot has perhaps been the most strident UK critic. He writes 'Beware the rise of the government scientists turned lobbyists. From badgers to bees, government science advisers are routinely misleading us to support the politicians' agendas'. In response Roger Pielke Jr and James Wilsdon outline Why Monbiot's attack on Walport misses the mark: 'it is unfair of Monbiot to write off Walport as a corporate stooge in search of a peerage' they write. 'What this episode highlights are a set of broader tensions and dilemmas in the chief scientific adviser role, which Walport needs to bear in mind and address more openly'.
One of the more contentious issues of late was the response by the UK government (and Chief Scientist) to the proposed EU-wide ban on the use of neonicotinoids. The UK stood out against the EU position which was eventually passed into law. In follow-up reporting it was noted in The Guardian that the main scientist advising the UK government on this issue 'is to join Syngenta, the chemical giant that manufactures one of the insecticides'. There have been further reports in the UK press of studies showing that insecticide-polluted water has 70% fewer invertebrate species.
It is not only the UK where there has been recent controversy as this story from Canada exemplifies: The Rise of The Science Philistines: Canada’s Chief Science Regulator Announces That “Scientific Discovery Is Not Valuable Unless It Has Commercial Value.” The reponses to this posting make for fascinating reading. I was struck in particular by a posting from Richard Smith (Institute for Policy Research & Development, London) with a link to his article in Real World Economics (no. 64) called Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six theses on saving the human species.
The linking of science with traditional models of economic growth, a mantra of the current UK government (despite intelligent papers arguing for alternatives published prior to the last election by Conservatives Selwyn Gummer and Zac Goldsmith), caught Walport out yet again and invoked, justifiably a strong critique from George Monbiot: "Speaking at the Centre for Science and Policy at Cambridge University, Walport maintained that scientific advisers had five main functions, and the first of these was "ensuring that scientific knowledge translates to economic growth". No statement could more clearly reveal what [French philosopher, Julien] Benda called the "assimilation" of the intellectual. As if to drive the point home, the press release summarising his speech revealed that the centre is sponsored, among others, by BAE Systems, BP and Lloyd's."
George Monbiot has perhaps been the most strident UK critic. He writes 'Beware the rise of the government scientists turned lobbyists. From badgers to bees, government science advisers are routinely misleading us to support the politicians' agendas'. In response Roger Pielke Jr and James Wilsdon outline Why Monbiot's attack on Walport misses the mark: 'it is unfair of Monbiot to write off Walport as a corporate stooge in search of a peerage' they write. 'What this episode highlights are a set of broader tensions and dilemmas in the chief scientific adviser role, which Walport needs to bear in mind and address more openly'.
One of the more contentious issues of late was the response by the UK government (and Chief Scientist) to the proposed EU-wide ban on the use of neonicotinoids. The UK stood out against the EU position which was eventually passed into law. In follow-up reporting it was noted in The Guardian that the main scientist advising the UK government on this issue 'is to join Syngenta, the chemical giant that manufactures one of the insecticides'. There have been further reports in the UK press of studies showing that insecticide-polluted water has 70% fewer invertebrate species.
It is not only the UK where there has been recent controversy as this story from Canada exemplifies: The Rise of The Science Philistines: Canada’s Chief Science Regulator Announces That “Scientific Discovery Is Not Valuable Unless It Has Commercial Value.” The reponses to this posting make for fascinating reading. I was struck in particular by a posting from Richard Smith (Institute for Policy Research & Development, London) with a link to his article in Real World Economics (no. 64) called Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six theses on saving the human species.
The linking of science with traditional models of economic growth, a mantra of the current UK government (despite intelligent papers arguing for alternatives published prior to the last election by Conservatives Selwyn Gummer and Zac Goldsmith), caught Walport out yet again and invoked, justifiably a strong critique from George Monbiot: "Speaking at the Centre for Science and Policy at Cambridge University, Walport maintained that scientific advisers had five main functions, and the first of these was "ensuring that scientific knowledge translates to economic growth". No statement could more clearly reveal what [French philosopher, Julien] Benda called the "assimilation" of the intellectual. As if to drive the point home, the press release summarising his speech revealed that the centre is sponsored, among others, by BAE Systems, BP and Lloyd's."
Importantly Monbiot extends his critique beyond the chief scientist to scholars themselves and thus to universities: OxfordUniversity won't take funding from tobacco companies. But Shell's OK. As Monbiot says: 'If
scholars don't take an ethical stance against corporate money, where's the
moral check on power?'
At 'the other' place some moral fortitude was exhibited: Oxford alumni condemn choice of Shell to fund Earth sciences lab. It is a pity my own alma matar, the University of Queensland was not more morally discerning as it seems to be playing both sides. On the one hand research there has shown that: "a shift from coal-fired to gas-fired power generation will not
significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions" (the Global
Change Institute at The University of Queensland) whereas in other areas it seems to have signed up, uncritically, to 'frackademia'.
At this historic moment there is no intellectual or moral justification for scholars and Universities accepting funding that prolong our carbon-based society. Fracking and coal seam gas are in the same league as Big Tobacco and should be resisted at all costs. It is perverse to me that so much money has been (foolishly) spent on carbon sequesteration on the one hand and now the world has gone mad about the exact opposite - the release of yet more safely stored carbon, methane and other toxics into the atmosphere. This morally indefensible attitude has been apparent in the 'official' UK government response to the report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Select Committee who have called for a moratorium on drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic. As this Alaskan example demonstrates, it is clear to me that we are rapidly moving from human-induced ecocide to to a form of eco-genocide.
Phil Macnaghten and Jason Chilvers have researched some of the governance issues in the UK. They conclude in their 2013 paper: "The future of science governance: publics, policies, practices" in Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, the following:
Abstract. In this paper we
develop new insights on science governance at a time when an emphasis on public
engagement in responding to questions of trust in science is giving way to a
more systemic and networked perspective. In a meta-analysis across seventeen UK
public dialogue processes we identify five spheres of public concern about the
governance of science and technology relating to: the purposes of science;
trust; inclusion; speed and direction of innovation; and equity. Forty in-depth
interviews with senior UK science policy actors reveal highly partial
institutional responses to these concerns and help explain the underlying
processes that close down, and at times open up, reflection and response on
public values. Finally, we consider the implications of this analysis for the
future of science governance, prospects for more anticipatory, reflexive, and
inclusive forms of governing, and the roles for critical social science
inquiry.
It is to be hoped that their findings have 'impact' and that some institutional reform is forth-coming. Importantly reform needs to involve the governing bodies of our main publicly-funded Universities, and not least, academics themselves.
At 'the other' place some moral fortitude was exhibited: Oxford alumni condemn choice of Shell to fund Earth sciences lab. It is a pity my own alma matar, the University of Queensland was not more morally discerning as it seems to be playing both sides. On the one hand research there has shown that: "a shift from coal-fired to gas-fired power generation will not significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions" (the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland) whereas in other areas it seems to have signed up, uncritically, to 'frackademia'.
At this historic moment there is no intellectual or moral justification for scholars and Universities accepting funding that prolong our carbon-based society. Fracking and coal seam gas are in the same league as Big Tobacco and should be resisted at all costs. It is perverse to me that so much money has been (foolishly) spent on carbon sequesteration on the one hand and now the world has gone mad about the exact opposite - the release of yet more safely stored carbon, methane and other toxics into the atmosphere. This morally indefensible attitude has been apparent in the 'official' UK government response to the report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Select Committee who have called for a moratorium on drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic. As this Alaskan example demonstrates, it is clear to me that we are rapidly moving from human-induced ecocide to to a form of eco-genocide.
It is to be hoped that their findings have 'impact' and that some institutional reform is forth-coming. Importantly reform needs to involve the governing bodies of our main publicly-funded Universities, and not least, academics themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)