http://nix.nasa.gov/copyright.html

In this article I will try to look at Cybernetics in the context of systems theory and try to relate the term with political systems. I believe that understanding Cybernetics and bringing a new point of view will not only enrich the subject but also might help us to find what all the Cyberneticists were looking for.   

Intellectuals from different areas have always showed interest to cybernetics but also criticized the methodology social critics across the political platform, from left leaning Jurgen Habermas (1970,1981) to the right leaning Jacques Ellul (1964,1980), have identified cybernetics and the systems concepts derived from it as the far most ideology of the military-industrial technocracy that threatens our planet. (Peter Harries-Jones. A Recursive Vision: Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson. Page 104.)  

So, how come an ecological idea, which aims to save the planet be so threatening? As we might remember again; 'cybernetics has been an integral part of the intrusive technology of weapon systems which threatens ecological stability on our planet in a massive way. On the other side, many people interested in current issues of ecology and environmentalism are aware that cybernetic feedback underlies current understanding of ecological systems.'  (ibid)  

In such a critical position we have to first understand the dangerous sides of the cybernetic implementation and try to avoid it secondly, I will try to refer to systems theory and politics to understand how such a good structure can become so evil.

I believe that the first easy answer to this question is that, it oversimplifies the whole system. It takes only a part of it and pretends that it is a close circuit. For example, let us look at Figure 8-1 in Capraâs The Web of Life . In this diagram we see a typical food cycle of mammals. The important thing is that in this diagram, for the sake of making a cycle, the importance of the sun is neglected because the importance of photosynthesis is not even mentioned.

So, how come an ecological idea, which aims to save the planet be so threatening? As we might remember again; 'cybernetics has been an integral part of the intrusive technology of weapon systems which threatens ecological stability on our planet in a massive way.'

Additionally, in Figure 4-4, the Centrifugal governor, we see a flow of energy outside and related with the loop circle  but again on the figure 4-5 we do not see an outside flow as a part of the loop diagram .  I believe that the major defect or problem of these cybernetics examples is oversimplification of this model to a single, closed loop. People need simple models to understand more complex tasks but you cannot first create a single close loop. Secondly the closed loops are to conserve what they have. Hence you can not go anywhere with a closed circuit.  

The Systems Theory  
In the systems theory all the system models refer to linear geometry. All modernization theorists or ideologists believe in a linear, positive, continuous progress. The fingers of the modernist political leaders' statues (like Lenin and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) always point ahead, even to the sky and  towards future.   

As we culturally get used to this notion of continuos progress, space becomes the limit. All science fiction literature, exploration of the space ships, are by product of this progressive modernist ideology. But also environmental problems are also the by products of the same mentality.  

Hence cybernetic answer to the 'positivist linear progress' which are the 'feedback loops' are very valuable but also questionable. It is very valuable because by the end of this century we already learned that there is nothing like a continuous development.' Toynbee considers that although all of the oriental societies have in our time (20th century) accepted the industrial technology and its political consequences: On the cultural plane, however, there is no uniform corresponding tendency. (Somervell,I. 267). The world as a whole did not experience an overall progress. Some countries become worse and the others (mostly the developed ones) become better. Secondly, we begin to talk about a global (capitalist) communication and culture. Thirdly, as a reaction the regional cultures begins to become more apparent. Hence these new dilemmas require us to rethink about the situation.  

The feedback loops became important as they bring an alternative. They proved us the importance of communication, self organization and the feedback. Still, the very characteristics of the loop is conservative. To conserve whatever it contains is to eliminate the noise.   

I would like to return back to our discussion to the systems theory and give some historical examples to strengthen my points.  

Historical Evidence  
After the World War II and the Macy conferences, our planet has experienced the systemic division. Two different ideologies and systems tried to manage the world by using intensive information feed-backs. They created large intelligence or information systems and gathered information all over the world. And if they figured out any noise in one of their countries they tried to eliminate it.  

This process continued till the amount of noise increased in some areas more than they can handle (like Korea and Afghanistan). Additionally, this power or system game proved too costly for them. As a result one of the super powers diminished and the other one began to seek for new players to share the responsibility and the cost. This experience with a ãworld systemä showed that human beings are still not capable of managing global ãclosedä systems.  

The difference between a post-modern man and a modern man is that; modern man thought that he can control everything. And the post-modern man knows that he can control things only to an extent and there is always a risk factor to be calculated.  
   
Political Systems  
Like all of the other systemic organizations, feed-backs are very important in politics. State formation creates the main structure while governments that come to power with elections reflect the popular response. Hence the democracy, voting behavior and freedom of expression create a communication channel in the overall system.   

To show the importance of this response system and its functions, I will try to give an example of two different political systems. Social democracy and National Socialism are two different political systems. Both of the systems refer to Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of social solidarity which supports the unity among the people. The crucial point here is, whether this unity (or a closed circuit) is voluntary or not. Major differences between these two ideals is that the level of freedom they give to their society. The national socialism, which might also be referred as fascism, does not provide people with choices in this unity formation while social democracy does.  

In Social Democracy we also see a process of collective bargaining. Which can also be seen as a communication mechanism. In the collective bargaining, the private sector, workers and the state bargains with each other for the wages. This pragmatic approach mostly works in Northern states but not in the Mediterranean countries.  

Social democracy and its social bargaining system has always been blamed as pragmatism by radical communists. The radicals argue that with the collective bargaining, the social democratic countries decrease the speed for the revolutionary evolution. (It is true that, social democracy has been first introduced by Bismarck, the German emperor to prevent the country to shift to communism in the late 19th century.)  

These examples show us that, in any response system, the actual flexibility or capability of the respondents are very important. Plus if you do not provide them with multiple choices it might even not necessarily be called a choice.   
In a system, the division of power is also very important. For example England is still a monarchy but the people do not complain much about social and political representation.  
I believe that Bateson offers a good solution as a control mechanism. A Triology or a third person as the control group. In state structure legislative tries to function this role to balance, past, present, future. The question emerges at the point: what if one of them tries to dominate the whole system? And what happens if the judiciary courts their independence?  

First order, Second order Cybernetics.  
When you criticize cybernetics, the first response you get is that ã· but   
Bateson does not think like thatä. As we also read that; ãFar from being a mechanist, Bateson himself was a reformer of cybernetics. He was the intellectual leader who most thoroughly and continually opposed its dominant face.   

So I believe that to understand Bateson we first try to understand what he criticizes in cybernetics. Only then we can understand what he had added to the theory. The spiritual sides of Bateson and Capra are totally different issues in this context and I will try discuss them before my conclusion.  

Both Bateson and Capra tries to relate cybernetics with (deep) ecology. They argue that thatâs how they differentiate from the mechanics and in a way form the second order cybernetics.  

Bateson's own ecology of mind assumed that noise generation was creative. In Batesonâs reinterpretation, noise was playful and creative; it became looped back into the overall system as part of the creation of new patterns.ä   

The problem here is how to adopt this change in a closed circuit and create new patterns.  

Chaos Theory  
Wiener clearly defines cybernetics as opposite of chaos; ãthe metaphor [of negentrophy]· is one in which the organism is seen as message. Organism is opposed to chaos, to disintegration, to death, as message is to noise.  

When we simply look for the structures, there is a basic difference between the chaotic structures and the cybernetic ones. But Fritjof Capra, in his book ãThe Web of Lifeä talks about non-linear systems. He is pointing towards a vide range of systems between linear and chaotic systems.  

Chaos theory is a new theory because in modern times people did not want to except that they can not control all the factors in a real system. No system can be totally closed. Or nothing can be totally controllable. Hence people try to calculate the uncontrollable systems by calling them chaotic structures.   

Global markets, global politics are chaotic structures but World Trade Organization tries to make it systemic. Nature is chaotic. The eco-system is not a simple system or a simple loop but is a more complex structure.   

Capra tries to simplify the system to understand it but over simplifications creates problems within the system. The attempt to simplify and manipulate the system might also harm the system.  

The danger of a simple system is that human beings might think that they can control the whole structure. The danger is that if you try to control a complex system you have the power to harm it.  
   
Holistic approach:  
Systems theory and spiritual beliefs are two different things like ideologies and the religion. Mainly because, though both of them are belief systems you can not falsify the second one.  

Both Bateson and Capra try to relate their ecological theories with spiritualism. As Bateson writes: I am trying to investigate the communicational regularities of the biosphere, assuming that in so doing, I shall also be investigating interwoven regularities in a system so perveasive and so determinant that we may even apply the word "god" to it (Angels 1987:142).  

Capra concludes his book with these sentences; äTo regain our humanity, we have to regain our experience of connectedness with the entire web of life. This reconnecting, religio in Latin, is the very essence of the spiritual grounding of deep ecology.ä (Capra, page 296.)  

Before concluding we can easily ask a question about how we can relate mechanics and religion? Relating a totally human created structure with god created environment? I think this is one of the major questions that can be asked to Bateson ideas.  
  
Conclusion  
The cybernetics and especially Batesonâs ideas definitely provokes inter-disciplinary thinking. But it is also very obvious that, if we talk about a closed circuit we can only talk about conservation, of whatever that system contains.  

For reflexive learning  and interactivity we need more complex structures.  
The World Wide Web is an example of such a complex structure and is a success story because it has not been able to be dominated by anyone yet. It is an interactive environment, open to reflexive learning and allows the creation of new patterns.   

I do not believe that we can have freedom in simple structures because the power sources always try to dominate the structures theyâre in control of, structures they can define and systematize. Moreover if people see the tasks simple and sense their power of manipulation, then this makes the structures vulnerable to harm. Human beings can easily try to destroy the nature as soon as they think that they are capable of controlling it. Today we can not save our planet, if we think that we thoroughly understand how it works. Hence a chaotic model for the nature might help us prevent and reserve it better for other generations.   

* genco@istanbulmuseum.org  
   
                                                                                                                                                             19.12.1999