Round Three

This was definitely my favorite of the three social justice classes at our intensives. It felt more in depth, more engaging, and more relevant. I particularly enjoyed the exercise with the charcoal alternatives. It really helped me think more critically about the importance of social justice in business decisions. I mentioned this in my personal reflection on my team paper, but I felt that most of my learning came outside of class this quarter. I guess you never know where learning is going to come from. Though I had a lot of problems with this course, I still feel I have a deeper sense of social justice in my life now than at the beginning of the quarter. I'm not convinced it was due to the course materials, but whatever the reason, I'm happy with my progress.

SJ Reflection 2

What a crazy weekend! So many emotions flying. This class continues to be a bit of a struggle to engage in, but I'm trying hard to listen and comment where I can. As a future leader, I still can't imagine hiring based on anything other than ability and experience. I do see a need to create healthy workplaces for all employees, but that's about as far as my social justice in business lens is taking me so far. I can understand the importance of human rights, and protecting culture and language, and how that can be a part of a business plan too. It's a little disappointing that in a business environment that has put so much attention on making everything social, that we haven't explored that aspect at all. This subject has so much potential depth to it that our superficial rumblings are almost painful. I respect all of the professors for coming clean and admitting to not bringing their "A Game" to the class, but I really think that though it is a difficult class to teach, if your not gonna show up fully then you shouldn't be there. It's not a good way to have difficult conversations nor create a safe space for open dialogue. To think that the students wouldn't immediately pick up on the hesitations of the teaching staff was not a particularly good strategy. After finally breaking the ice, I was hoping that there would be a marked difference in the Elluminate but it seems that there has been no adjustments. I continue to feel that our time is not being utilized fully.

Social Justice

Well, So far in this class, I don't feel at all challenged. I understand the importance of recognizing that people come from diverse backgrounds, and I can see how diversity in the work place can be important as far as gaining multiple perspectives and creating a comfortable workplace for everyone, but other than a very general overview I don't feel like I've learned anything new. Some practical tools for helping people work through and find strength in their differences would be useful so I am hoping to be exposed to more of that in the weeks to come. I wish I felt I had more to talk about, but I'm feeling rather uninspired so far. Part of this may be because the subject isn't something I'm naturally drawn to, but I'm certainly open to finding something of interest.

Translation

I've been thinking a lot about the gaps inherent in any discipline that requires a new vocabulary to understand it such as we have been learning in systems thinking. CLDs, BoTs, Stock & Flows, these don't have a whole lot of meaning to anyone who isn't already at least somewhat familiar with the models used in our systems class. When we discussed this at the end of class, the advice given was to experiment, that I should find a language that works best for me. As I think about this challenge, about how to translate systems thinking into a language that anyone can understand, the obvious choice is the language of nature and natural systems. For example, A systems diagram that describes the economy, could be equated to a similar system in nature like the hydrologic cycle. Taxation and social programs could be called the evaporation and rain of the economy. Putting it into this context is yet another way of making the system visible and does it in a way that many people will be able to relate to easily. I think this would also be a useful tool for system thinkers in that they might be able to identify holes in the system based on their knowledge of natural systems. it has been said many times, that nature has been around for much longer than we have and we would be silly not to take advantage of the design intelligence of natural systems. A deeper understanding of the world around us will make it easier for us as systems thinkers to spot leverage points and connections.

A systems road map

I feel that the reason systems surprise us is that few understand the location of a defined set of boundaries within the larger system. If you can understand the overarching principles that gave rise to our universe, then one is better able to properly place any given system on the map and will be less prone to unexpected surprises. The problem is not that we tend to focus on events, nor that we have difficulty anticipating nonlinear factors, but that we lack the understanding of the underlying structure of all systems and the agility to know when to use each specific tool in our systems thinking tool box.

I think the shortcomings of systems thinking aren't because it lacks the ability to deliver accurate answers to our systems problems, but that our perspective for the most part can't grasp the complexity of systems to a high enough degree. Maybe Wolfram Alpha's Singularity will give us access to that type of computational ability, but for now, the only real chance we have is to raise our level of consciousness.

Chapter 5 was, I think, a step in the right direction, but we need to take it a step further. For systems thinking to be truly predictive, we need to understand the relationships between the boundaries of our systems, the space where our systems overlap.

My question then is how do we begin to do this? How can we place systems in their appropriate context? How do we look at a part without loosing track of the whole?

Embracing the unknowable

Well, I'm sorry the Meadows book has come to an end. It's been my favorite book out of all the BGI classes so far. There were a few parts I found a bit difficult to trudge through (chapter 6) but for the most part it was great. Chapter 7 could have been expanded to a book in and of itself. It was rich with ideas and information. I only wish that it had been the first chapter instead of the last as the gaps in systems analysis seemed so glaringly obvious throughout the book that I wondered if she would ever get around to addressing them. In describing the process of developing systems thinking, she wrote

"What was unique about our search was not our answers, or even our questions, but the fact that the tool of systems thinking, born out of engineering and mathematics, implemented in computers, drawn from a mechanistic mind-set and a quest for prediction and control, leads its practitioners, inexorably I believe, to confront the most deeply human mysteries."

I'm not sure if she was surprised by this or not, but it seems to me, no matter what angle we choose, we end up at the same place. It is like physics search for the unified field or the discovery of DNA. Everything ultimately stems from the same source, which means that if you ask enough questions, you're going to get the same answer. I think chapter 7 is the case for including spirituality as the fourth bottom line in business. Spirituality picks up where systems thinking ends. She wrote

"We don't even know what to optimize. We can't keep track of everything. We can't find a proper, sustainable relationship to nature, each other, or the institutions we create, if we try to do it from the role of omniscient conqueror."

The good news is that, though we should always strive to do our best, it will all com naturally to us who have found a way of eliminating stress, and connecting with our environment. It's not magic, it's not hokey hippie jargon, it's science and the studies are there if you need that sort of thing to convince you. Einstein put it well when he said

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

This is the goal of spiritual practice. To lift human consciousness to higher levels of functioning more in tune with natures intelligence. And that's really what we're measuring ourselves against isn't it? Nature, for a systems thinker, is king. When our "intelligence" is on par with that of nature, our systems will be equally as life affirming and resilient.

Nothing new under the sun

Sitting on the beach in Tulum reading about systems I was pleased that both books began to describe similar patterns that can be found throughout all systems. A bit more depth would have been nice, but at least the authors aren't complete idiots. Capra, again failed to impress when talking about his own ideas. I did like his description of the pattern of life as being a network capable of self organisation, but I felt he could have gone into much more depth describing the details of the network pattern and how it can be seen in the diversity of systems that we see everyday. For example, what are the different aspects of life's network and how can we distinguish one part of the pattern from another when we look so closely that the system becomes almost unrecognizable in terms of where it sits relative to the whole?

He did do a good job of continuing to describe the evolution of systems thinking. I particularly enjoyed the description of the original experiment in the 1950's that led to the discovery of self-organisation. It reminded me a lot of the Wolfram Alpha project and their efforts to discover the ultimate systemic pattern that gave rise to life, the universe, and everything in it. Hearing the story of the experiment makes me think about what could lead to self-organisation. Given the right parameters, we can get a system that unfolds in complexity on towards infinity, i.e. the universe, but what are those parameters? How did they get set initially?

I also really enjoyed the description by Meadows about some of the systems "traps and opportunities" that she has identified. I found this chapter to be particularly helpful in understanding the role of systems thinking in a leadership position. Obviously implementing solutions to systems traps is more difficult the bigger the system is, such as a national government, or else we would see far fewer systemic problems and manny more solutions being implemented successfully. It seems that implementing solutions is much more an art than a science. Perhaps at some level of understanding, one could grasp the interconnections of a system as large as our national government and know exactly, with mathematic certainty, what is needed to achieve a desired impact, but that seems likely out of the realm of the human intellect to handle. Perhaps if decision makers can raise their individual level of consciousness they could potentially make decisions that bring about the best possible outcome, but that seems a long way off. Even finding the root cause of one problem is hard enough, let alone understanding how "fixing" it will effect avery other part of the system.