“Cybernetics comes in two flavors: a more engineering flavor (first-order cybernetics) and the lesser-known, though in many ways older, second-order cybernetics, relating more to the humanities, design, and social sciences. This second-order cybernetics has been under-theorized in universities and other research environments. Karl H. Müller’s new book, his second volume on the New Science of Cybernetics, provides outstanding, general, innovative coverage that should enable scholars to bridge the gap between the work of second-order cyberneticians and others who work with similar approaches, and these institutions. It is an important book that can lead to significant insights, methods and actions.” (Ranulph Glanville)
Müller K. H. (2015) De profundis. Ranulph Glanville’s transcendental framework for second-order cybernetics. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 22(2/3): 27–47. https://cepa.info/2699
Ranulph Glanville was a prolific writer, a magic designer, an avant-garde musician, a cybernetician of the first- and of the second-order, a philosopher in disguise, to name only a few roles. His contributions to second-order cybernetics and to areas like design, philosophy, conversation theory, methodology or games, with the tools and perspectives of his version of second-order cybernetics were collected under the title “The Black B∞x” in three volumes in edition echoraum (Glanville, 2009, 2012, 2014) and were ordered and arranged by Ranulph Glanville himself so that they allow a general and systematic overview on this very large, diverse, and impressive corpus. In this short essay I will undertake a systematic attempt to make this work more easily accessible for others, including myself, and to provide a special location for Ranulph Glanville within the research program of second-order cybernetics in particular and within the research tradition of radical constructivism in general. It will become my central thesis in this article that Ranulph Glanville’s special role and function was to provide a meta-approach to all the available research programs in radical constructivism. This framework was transcendental in nature and focused on the conditions of the possibility for observation, for communication, for language, for knowledge or for learning to emerge at all. Thus, Ranulph Glanville reserved a unique place for himself that, at the same time, turned out to be magic for his explorations and very difficult to grasp for his intellectual environment.
Reflexive research can be grouped into five clusters with circular relations between two elements x ↔ x, namely circular relations between observers, between scientific building blocks like concepts, theories or models, between systemic levels, between rules and rule systems or as circular relations or x ↔ y between these four components. By far the most important cluster is the second cluster which becomes reflexive through a re-entry operation RE into a scientific element x and which establishes its circular formation as x(x). Many of the research problems in these five clusters in reflexivity research are still unexplored and pose grand challenges for future research.
Context: Although second-order cybernetics was proposed as a new way of cybernetic investigations around 1970, its general status and its modus operandi are still far from obvious. Problem: We want to provide a new perspective on the scope and the currently available potential of second-order cybernetics within today’s science landscapes. Method: We invited a group of scholars who have produced foundational work on second-order cybernetics in recent years, and organized an open call for new approaches to second-order cybernetics. The accepted contributions are discussed and mapped. We also investigate the relations between second-order cybernetics and second-order science. Results: We present a coherent outlook on the scope of second-order cybernetics today, identify a general methodology of science (with second-order cybernetics as a special instance) and show that second-order cybernetics can be used in a large number of disciplines that go well beyond purely scientific domains. These results are based on a new epistemic mode “from within,” which can be traced back directly to von Foerster. We also arrived at the conclusion that from its early years onwards second-order cybernetics was developed in two different ways, so that second-order cybernetics and second-order science operate in different domains. Implications: Both the coherent perspective of the scope of second-order cybernetics with a new five-part agenda and the outline for a general methodology of science based on a new epistemic mode that was created within and for second-order cybernetics demonstrate the growing importance of reflexivity in science, which, so far, has not been widely recognized.
From the inception of the American Society for Cybernetics in 1964, its members have asked periodically, ‘Why this society? What is its purpose? What should it do? ’ Most pointedly, these questions arise in the face of today’s global challenges: energy and global warming, water and food, health and social justice. Designing for these challenges demands systems literacy as well as cybernetics, the science of purposive systems, to help society steer toward a world that it wants. Most recently, these questions arise after a significant increase in strength for the ASC under the leadership of Ranulph Glanville, president of the society from 2009 through 2014, and his executive team. As a scholar and as the society’s president he emphasized the theme of ‘living in cybernetics, ’ that is, embodying cybernetic ideas and ethics in everyday life. As designer and teacher he beautifully articulated the relationships of cybernetics to design. With tribute to Glanville’s contributions to our community and our discipline, I call upon the ASC to move beyond shared interests and accumulated knowledge to become a force of action. From first-hand history with the society since the 1980s, I highlight specific ‘clarities’ expressed by the society’s participants from that time, while calling for greater currency for our time, in the form of new members and new actions. I propose a rationale for using second-order cybernetics for the design of a better world, the Designers’ Imperative. Lastly I encourage every member to approach today’s vast design challenges by tackling focusing problems through which progress can be made.
Scholte T. (2016) “Black Box” Theatre: Second-Order Cybernetics and Naturalism in Rehearsal and Performance. Constructivist Foundations 11(3): 598–610. https://cepa.info/2889
Context: The thoroughly second-order cybernetic underpinnings of naturalist theatre have gone almost entirely unremarked in the literature of both theatre studies and cybernetics itself. As a result, rich opportunities for the two fields to draw mutual benefit and break new ground through both theoretical and empirical investigations of these underpinnings have, thus far, gone untapped. Problem: The field of cybernetics continues to remain academically marginalized for, among other things, its alleged lack of experimental rigor. At the same time, the field of theatre studies finds itself at an impasse between post-structuralist semioticians and embodied cognitivists regarding key onto-epistemological issues. A program of research framing and utilizing naturalist theatre as a second-order cybernetic/cybersemiotic laboratory holds much promise in addressing both matters and lending credence to Ross Ashby’s assertion that “the discovery that two fields are related leads to each branch helping in the development of the other.” Method: After establishing the nature of the onto-epistemological deadlock within theatre studies, this article examines the application of cybernetic heuristics within naturalistic theatre, leading to a second-order cybernetic analysis of its processes of production and reception and the outline of an experimental program for exploring these processes further. Results: Foundations for a model of naturalist theatre as a cybersemiotic laboratory grounded in a novel operationalization of Gordon Pask’s conversation theory. Implications: The proposed laboratory could result in the generation of quantitative and qualitative research pertaining to several dimensions of second-order cybernetics; particularly cybersemiotics, which, as a result, may end up better positioned to help dissolve onto-epistemological deadlocks between constructivists and realists of all stripes across the academy and beyond. Constructivist content: I argue that an analysis of naturalistic theatre’s processes of meaning-making filtered through the constructivist ontological agnosticism of second-order cybernetics offers a productive middle way forward for those on both sides of the social constructivist/embodied cognitive realist divide, within and beyond theatre studies. The article draws upon the works of Gregory Bateson, Søren Brier, Ranulph Glanville, Heinz von Foerster, and Niklas Luhmann.
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to suggest a more central role for reflexive artistic practices in a clarified research agenda for second-order cybernetics (SOC). This is offered as a way to assist the field in the further development of its theoretical/methodological “core” and, subsequently, enhance its impact on the world. Design/methodology/approach – The argument begins by reviewing Karl Müller’s account of the failure of SOC to emerge as a mainstream endeavor. Then, Müller’s account is recontextualized within recent developments in SOC that are traced through the Design Cybernetics movement inspired by Ranulph Glanville. This alternate narrative frames a supposedly moribund period as a phase of continuing refinement of the field’s focus upon its “proper object of study,” namely, the observer’s mentation of/about their mentation. The implications of this renewed focus are then positioned within Larry Richard’s vision of the cybernetician, not as “scientist” per se but rather as a “craftsperson in and with time” capable of productively varying the dynamics of their daily interactions. Having centered widespread capacity building for this “craft” as a proposed research agenda for a new phase of SOC, the paper concludes by pointing to the unique and necessary role to be played by the arts in this endeavor. Personal reflections upon the author’s own artistic and theoretical activities are included throughout. Findings: The development and application of artistic methods for the enhancement of individual capacity for second-order observation is consistent with the purpose of SOC, namely, “to explain the observer to himself.” Therefore, it is in the field’s interest to more fulsomely embrace non-scientific, arts-based forms of research. Research limitations/implications – In a truly reflexive/recursive fashion, the very idea that first-person, arts-based narratives are seen, from a mainstream scientific point of view, as an insufficiently rigorous form of research is, itself, a research limitation. This highlights, perhaps ironically, the need for cybernetics to continue to pursue its own independent definitions and standards of research beyond the boundaries of mainstream science rather than limiting its own modes of inquiry in the name of “scientific legitimacy.” Practical implications: A general uptake of the view presented here would expand the horizon of what might be considered legitimate, rigorous and valuable research in the field. Social implications – The view presented here implies that many valuable contributions that SOC can make to society take place beyond the constraints of academic publication and within the realm of personal growth and social development. Originality/value – The very clearly defined and “refocused” vision of SOC in this paper can be of substantial utility in developing a more robust, distinctive and concrete research agenda across this field.
Scott B. (2005) Ranulph Glanville’s Objekte: an appreciation. In: D. Baecker, (ed.) Schlüsselwerke der Systemtheorie. Wiesbaden, VS. https://cepa.info/1786
In this review of Ranulph Glanville’s book Objekte, I begin by covering the following topics: my own relationship with Glanville, his relationships with peers and mentors and how Objekte came into being. I then briefly discuss some of Objekte’s major themes. I end by positioning Glanville’s book as a valuable contribution to cybernetics.
Scott B. (2005) Selbstbeobachtung. In: Baecker D. (ed.) Schlüsselwerke der Systemtheorie. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden: 325–346. https://cepa.info/2919
Scott B. (2015) Putting flesh on the bones: Ranulph Glanville’s contributions to Conversation Theory. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 22(2–3): 59–71. https://cepa.info/3510
Gordon Pask’s conversation theory stands as a major contribution to cybernetics, education and epistemology. Ranulph Glanville was Pask’s student. He made himself familiar with conversation theory and promoted it in his lecture and writings throughout his career. In doing so, he made significant contributions. I summarise some of these here. To set the scene, I briefly outline some of the main concepts of conversation theory. I also outline Glanville’s theory of Objects and discuss its relationship to conversation theory.