This paper traces the changing notions of constraints in design and of systems since the mid-20th century in the intersection of design theory and systems theory. Taking a second-order cybernetic perspective, the paper develops constraints as observer dependent, and it analyzes conditions under which constraints tend to be beneficial or detrimental. Ethical implications of constraints in design processes are established with reference to system boundaries. Constraint-oriented design is discussed as an alternative to goal-oriented design, and a method called constraint reversal is introduced as a strategy of deliberate defiance of constraints to support design exploration.

Excerpt: For a number of years, I have been thinking about what I might say if I were to give the opening address at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cybernetics. When engaged in this contemplation, a certain story persistently recurs. The story involves three prisoners on death row, each of whom is scheduled to be executed the next day. Each is asked if they have one last request. The first prisoner, a good Catholic, asks to talk with a priest. The second prisoner, a senior professor at a prestigious university (to be left unnamed), asks to give one last lecture on “What is Cybernetics? ” The third prisoner, a graduate student at the same university, pauses a second and then asks if he can be executed before the professor gives his lecture. The recurrence of this story has led me to apply a twist on the theme that dominates opening addresses. Hence, I wish to speak on “Why I am not a cybernetician (nor even a cyberneticist). ” By doing so, I am shifting attention from definitions to labels and categories – in particular, the labels I apply to others and to myself and the categories I fmd myself and others locked into as a result. I have become very sensitive to the labels that I apply to myself or that I will let others apply to me without challenge. The label “cybernetician” is one I think deserves some close scrutiny.

Purpose: This paper intends to connect ideas from the radical constructivist approach to cognition and learning to ideas from the constraint-theoretic approach to social policy formulation. It then extends these ideas to a dialogic approach to social transformation and design. Method: After demonstrating a correspondence between von Glasersfeld’s fit/match distinction and my constraint-oriented/goal-oriented distinction with respect to policy formulation, the paper evaluates the basic assumptions of radical constructivism and builds from them a framework for thinking and talking about a desirable society and ways to participate in its realization. Findings: The ideas of von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism contribute significantly to the development of a conceptual base for applied research on social activism by raising new questions and stimulating new thinking. Practical implications: Social activism in everyday affairs can be a way of living in the “world.” Conclusion: The work and thought of Ernst von Glasersfeld opens a path toward a rich array of concepts and ideas with the potential to inform efforts in a wide variety of human endeavors.

Key words: constructivism, cybernetics, language, dialogic process, social activism

In the cybernetic tradition of Heinz von Foerster’s imperatives, this paper proposes “the anticommunication imperative”: If you seek the new, compose asynchronicity. I draw on narratives credited to Herbert Brün, both written and oral, that have inspired this formulation, of which the importance of anticommunication in the role the arts play in society is central. I connect Herbert’s idiosyncratic approach to systems and their stages to the idea of anticommunication as essential for the retardation of their decay. I offer the idea of imperatives as one way of thinking about the design of a desirable society, that is, a network of statements that point to what is not currently the case, but which, if they were the case, would be desirable. Relevance: The paper provides, explicitly, a second-order cybernetic perspective on systems and the arts.

Take as a premise that listening (and its circularities) becomes an essential practice for making a difference in the world and represents a critical concept in the design of a participative-dialogic society. The speaker-respondent circularity turns listening into a conversation. Participants set aside their habitual or socially prescribed ways of interacting and explore other ways to be present. This perspective on listening and difference-making suggests an alternative (not mutually exclusive, yet distinct) approach to the human attribute called consciousness, from one characterized by purposiveness to one focused on presence. I claim that the idea of a participative-dialogic society as desirable is so alien to prevailing ways of thinking about the world and how it must work that it would be dismissed as “anarchist” if openly promoted – that is, it implies an alternative to the reward-oriented hierarchy approach to the design of economic and social systems that dominates societal structures world-wide. By advancing the idea anyway, I expect to make a difference. With anarchic intentions in mind, I propose listening, thinking, and designing kinetically (in contrast to kinematically). Listening (and its circularities) replaces, or at least offers an alternative to, reward-oriented hierarchy as a way of thinking about difference-making in the world. Relevance: The paper provides, explicitly, a second-order cybernetic perspective.

Purpose: This paper aims to offer a personal reflection on the 2012 joint conference of the American Society for Cybernetics and the Bateson Idea Group, “An Ecology of Ideas.” The intent is to raise awareness, through examples, of ideas – and their associated ways of thinking – that the author tends to take for granted in the work as systems theorists as well as in everyday life, yet ideas that confound the very social issues the conferees were trying to address. Design/methodology/approach – The thoughts expressed arose after five days of listening to presentations and discussions, both formal and informal. The approach is conversational, with a desire to stimulate further conversation. Findings: Certain versions of systems theory – whole systems, purposeful systems, systems theory as ideology – rely on ideas that although written about extensively in philosophical and socio-political works go unchallenged in everyday life. Three of these ideas – hierarchy, purpose, belief – are embedded in the way of talking about, and the language used to formulate, solutions to social problems. The suggestion is to avoid or suspend these ideas so that alternatives can be considered. Originality/value – Idea avoidance offers those who study social change and/or those who participate in making it happen a way to escape the stuckness of ideas so ingrained in the everyday ways of thinking that they go unnoticed.

Key words: Systems theory, Social change, Purpose, Hierarchy, Paradigm, Belief

Upshot: Conversational conferences are difficult to design in a way that avoids the consequences that arise when participants are not experienced with or fully value the conversational mode of interaction. So, the designers of such conferences must experiment with ways to build a culture, use a structure, and facilitate participation that might mitigate some of these consequences. The potential of the experimental conference designed in the light of second-order cybernetics lies, in part, in the prospect of identifying and acquiring the conversational abilities and appreciations necessary to support a participative-dialogic society.

Open peer commentary on the article “The Banathy Conversation Methodology” by Gordon Dyer, Jed Jones, Gordon Rowland & Silvia Zweifel. Upshot: The Banathy Conversation Methodology (BCM) offers an approach to organizing and facilitating conversation groups among individuals self-identified as interested in a particular topic. As someone who would like to see more conversation integrated into academic conferences, I propose two extensions of BCM for consideration by the authors: one is an extension to the theoretical underpinnings, namely the conversation theory of Gordon Pask, and the other is an extension to the tools and techniques, namely the group syntegration process developed by Stafford Beer. If the authors do not like the direction these extensions might take BCM, I would be interested in their assessment of the circumstances under which alternative approaches to conversation groups might be more or less useful.

Context: A tension exists between the needs and desires of the institutions providing the funding for academics to attend conferences and the potential for transforming the knowledge and understanding of conference participants (and society more generally. The author has experienced this tension at conferences in a number of disciplines, including cybernetics. Problem: This article addresses the problem this tension creates for those more interested in constructing knowledge - action, learning, understanding (even wisdom) - than in advancing their own careers and celebrity. Approaches to the problem can recognize the importance of funding and career-building in the current society, while still experimenting in ways that could generate new ideas. Method: Ideas from second-order cybernetics are used to derive design principles that might alleviate the tension and encourage deep conversations, idea generation and experimentation. The author draws on experiences with designing, organizing and participating in cybernetics conferences over a period of 34 years. Results: An academic conference designed to a set of broad, second-order cybernetic principles, where participants are informed of the design intent before they decide to attend, can open an opportunity for learning, understanding and the creation of new ideas in ways that would not otherwise be available. Although there are no guarantees, such designs can attenuate the tension, often experienced at traditionally designed conferences, between advancing individual careers/celebrity and building new knowledge together. Implications: The design principles derived, already exhibited in some conferences, could be useful to organizers wishing to foster incompatible and opposing ideas and facilitate dialogue among conference participants. These same principles have implications for the design of other social systems and point to the possibility of a new and more humane society. Constructivist content: A feature of second-order cybernetics is that knowledge is continually changing as our desires change, and we must take responsibility for the consequences of the ideas we construct and use to satisfy our desires. Key Words: Design by constraint, dynamics of interaction, asynchronicity, tyranny of the clock, times of truth, moments of art.