Cybernetics, Laws of Organization, & The Problem With Institutional Critique

 Cybernetics is not about computers, electronics, or any of that inherently. Not that computers and electronics don’t have to do with cybernetics, they do. It’s just that cybernetics is not limited to that kind of technology. It is a broad interdisciplinary field that can be understood simply, as the study of organization. Thus, it becomes relevant to any field that involves organization of any kind. Coming from the Greek word kybernetes, meaning to steer. Having wide reaching implications across nearly all disciplines of study including but not limited to; biology, chemistry, economics, sociology ETC. As they all involve organization to some extent, thus the study of organization becomes relevant to them all. Norbert Wiener is considered the father of cybernetics. The term was coined in the 1940’s by him, Arturo Rosenblueth, and other researchers. Later in the 1960’s Stafford Beer would pioneer management cybernetics. In this article I will mainly be focusing on Beer’s work of management cybernetics and the viable systems model.

Many times, people will criticize institutions/organizations and end up missing the whole problem. For example, when people criticize academia, they end up validating pseudoscience, thinking that the problem with academia is the academic work itself and not the structure of the organizations. Stafford Beer recognized this. See, he knew that the laws of organization are just as real as any other natural law. Most People tend to have this idea that organization is a subjective thing. Most people are wrong. The laws of organization are just as real as any other natural law, just as real, objective, and scientific as the laws of chemistry/physics ETC. The laws can be understood as follows;

1.  Self-Organization= This is where structure arises spontaneously when energy is sufficient. No need for external control.

2. Feedback= This is when informational outputs are returned as inputs forming a circuit or loop of information to correct, adapt, or organize.

3. Requisite Variety= This is basically the idea that any regulator must have at least as many potential states as what they seek to regulate.

As stated, these are laws of organization related to a viable system. A viable system is any organization capable of survival and adaptation. Within what is called the viable systems model. There are five subsystems, these are;

System 1= Operations; It is what a system does, like sales/services ETC. It is connected to the rest of the system through…

System 2= Coordination; It assures that operations are coordinated properly through resource allocation, scheduling, conflict resolution ETC. All overseen by…

System 3= Control; It supports and maintains by regulating, managing, and auditing with…

System 4= Intelligence; It looks outside the organization for opportunities, threats ETC. to ensure future viability through…

System 5= Policy; It assures coherence between the systems present structure and future evolution by guiding the ethics, identity, and direction of the organization. 

All of these systems should be recursive, that is they are all viable systems in their own right yet function in a larger whole of a viable system organization. Like a holon both a part and a whole. Consider the stomach and the brain. Both can function independently of the other. Even cut off from the brain the stomach can still digest food, and obviously the brain can still think. Though they do still coordinate. Because they are recursive. Each is a viable system in its own right, yet functions as a part of a larger viable system, like a holon.

Now with the technical stuff outta the way let’s discuss the actual problems with many organizations, that is that they do not follow these laws yet think they can still be viable. See many lack recursivity, that is subsystems cannot function independently, requiring a central authority to operate, thus breaking the law of self-organization. For example, Soviet Military forces required communications with the central command before they could make any calls. This gave them a significant disadvantage in military conflicts, and as a result, well we all know what happened to the Soviet Union. Many institutions also violate the law of feedback through having imperfect informational outputs. Many Nations capitals receive information from their localities, but they lose information in this transfer, resulting in the capital having imperfect information. And as complicated as governance is too often the governments are relatively simple. Their structure does not reflect the complexity of their system, thus breaking the law of requisite variety.

 Now, You may wonder how this makes sense, as if these are laws of nature how can they not be followed? Well, consider alchemists of old trying to turn lead into gold and failing of course because the laws of chemistry don’t allow for this, though the alchemists didn’t know this, they didn’t understand the laws of chemistry and thought they could break them, they were wrong. So are organizations today like alchemists of old trying to make viable systems without understanding the laws of organization, that are as I have stated just as real as the laws of chemistry, physics, or any other natural law. Again, Stafford Beer recognized this. He knew the problems with organization were not necessarily what they produced but rather how they were organized. But so many seem to think the problem is what they produce, and this results in critiques of institutions falling short. And that is a damn shame, because these critiques are important, but it is even more important that the critiques are valid, that these critiques hold up. But so many critique these things without themselves understanding these laws of organization or even worse thinking they are subjective. Don’t be like them, be like Stafford Beer.

Maybe you think many organizations are viable systems, after all they seem to be functioning at least somewhat, and of course they don’t all last but neither do lifeforms in the wild, all of which are viable systems. But I want you to consider one thing. The oldest company in the world, while admittedly hard to know for sure, seems to be a Japanese company that is around three hundred years old, high estimate. Now that sounds old right? Sure, but, you know how long humans have existed? Two hundred and fifty thousand years, low estimate. That’s right a quarter million years and that’s the low estimate, more than ten time ten times the high estimate of the oldest company. See when it comes to institutional longevity, the oldest in the world cannot hold a candle to the most recent lifeform. Clearly one is following the laws of organization better and is thus a more viable viable system.

In closing I will just say why I think this is such an important field to understand. That is because it is EVERYWHERE. Viable systems are all around you, I guarantee you have seen hundreds just today, you are using one right now (your computer). It is also important to critique institutions. But it is even more important that these critiques are apt and hold up. And when you don’t understand cybernetics you will miss something whether the beauty of life, solid critiques of institutions, or both. I urge you all to look more into cybernetics, think like a cyberneticist, and be like Stafford Beer. It is important because in this day and age of organizations, like alchemists of old trying to turn lead into gold, failing BECAUSE THAT’S NOT HOW CHEMISTRY WORKS. Trying to make viable systems without recursivity, feedback, and requisite variety. They will also fail BECAUSE THAT’S NOT HOW CYBERNETICS WORKS. But if Stafford Beer were livin’ HE WOULDN’T LET THIS BE NO, NO!!! And, at the risk of sounding too prescriptive, I don’t think you should either! THANK YOU!