1956 General Systems Theory

8/3/2019 1956 General Systems Theory

1/7

VOLUME 2NUM BER 3

ManagementSciencepril 1956

GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY-THE SKELETON OF SCIENCEKENNETH E. BOULDING

University of MichiganGeneral Systems Theory! is a name which has come into use to describe a level

of theoretical model-building which lies somewhere between the highly general-ized constructions of pure mathematics and the specifictheories of the specializeddisciplines.Mathematics attempts to organize highly general relationships into acoherent system, a system however which does not have any necessary connec-tions with the "real" world around us. Itstudies all thinkable relationshipsabstracted from any concrete situation or body of empirical knowledge. Itis noteven confined to "quantitative" relationships narrowly defined-indeed, thedevelopments of a mathematics of quality and structure is already on the way,even though it is not as far advanced as the "classical" mathematics of quantityand number. Nevertheless because in a sense mathematics contains all theoriesit contains none.i t is the language of theory, but it doesnot give us the content. Atthe other extreme we have the separate disciplines and sciences, with theirseparate bodies of theory. Each discipline corresponds to a certain segment ofthe empirical world, and each develops theories which have particular appli-cability to its own empirical segment. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology,Sociology,Economics and so on all carve out for themselves certain elements ofthe experience of man and develop theories and patterns of activity (research)which yield satisfaction in understanding, and which are appropriate to theirspecial segments.In recent years increasing need has been felt for a body of systematic theo-

retical constructs which will discuss the general relationships of the empiricalworld. This is the quest of General Systems Theory. Itdocs not seck, of course,to establish a single, self-contained "general theory of practically everything"which will replace all the special theories of particular disciplines. Such a theorywould be almost without content, for we always pay for generality by sacrificingcontent, and all we can say about practically everything is almost nothing.Somewhere however between the specific that has no meaning and the generalthat has no content there must be, for each purpose and at each level of abstrac-

1 The name and many of the ideas are to be credited to L. von Bertalanffy, who is not,however, to be held accountable for the ideas of the present author! For a general discus-sion of Ber talanffy 's ideas see General System Theory: A New Approach to Unity of Science,Human Biology, Dec., 1951,Vol. 23, p. 303-361.

197, \


2/7

198 KENNETH BOULDINGtion, an optimum degree ofgenerality. It is the contention ofthe General SystemsTheorists that this optimum degree of generality in theory is not always reachedby the particular sciences. The objectives of General Systems Theory then canbe set out with varying degrees of ambition and confidence. At a low level ofambition but with a high degree of confidence it aims to point out similaritiesin the theoretical constructions of different disciplines, where these exist, and todevelop theoretical models having applicability to at least two different fields ofstudy. At a higher level ofambition, but with perhaps a lower degree ofconfidenceit hopes to develop something like a "spectrum" oftheories-a system of systemswhich may perform the function of a "gestalt" in theoretical construction. Such"gestalts" in special fieldshave been of great value in directing research towardsthe gaps which they reveal. Thus the periodic table of elements in chemistrydirected research for many decades towards the discovery ofunknown elements tofil lgaps in the table until the table was completely fil led. Similarly a "system ofsystems" might be of value in directing the attention of theorists towards gapsin theoretical models, and might even be of value in pointing towards methodsof filling them.The need for general systems theory is accentuated by the present sociologicalsituation in science. Knowledge is not something which exists and grows in theabstract. It is a function of human organisms and of social organization. Knowl-edge, that is to say, is always what somebody knows: the most perfect transcriptof knowledge in writing is not knowledge if nobody knows it. Knowledge howevergrows by the receipt of meaningful information-that is, by the intake of mes-sages by a knower which are capable of reorganizing his knowledge. We willquietly duck the question as to what reorganizations constitute "growth" ofknowledge by defining "semantic growth" of knowledge as those reorganizationswhich can profi tably be talked about, in writing or speech, by the Right People.Science, that is to say, is what can be talked about profitably by scientists intheir role as scientists. The crisis ofscience today arises because of the increasingdifficulty of such profitable talk among scientists as a whole. Specialization hasoutrun Trade, communication between the disciples becomes increasinglydiff icult , and the Republic of Learning is breaking up into isolated subcultureswith only tenuous lines of communication between them-a situation whichthreatens intellectual civil war. The reason for this breakup in the body ofknowl-edge is that in the course ofspecialization the receptors of information themselvesbecome specialized. Hence physicists only talk to physicists, economists toeconomists-worse sti ll , nuclear physicists only talk to nuclear physicists andeconometricians to econometricians. One wonders sometimes if science will notgrind to a stop in an assemblage of walled-in hermits, each mumbling to himselfwords in a private language that only he can understand. In these days the artsmay have beaten the sciences to this desert of mutual unintel ligibili ty, but thatmay be merely because the swift intuitions ofart reach the future faster than theplodding leg work ofthe scientist. The more science breaks into sub-groups, andthe less communication is possible among the disciplines, however, the greaterchance there is that the total growth of knowledge is being slowed down by the

GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY 199loss of relevant communications. The spread of specialized deafness means thatsom~one who ought to know something that someone else knows isn't able tofind It out for lack of generalized ears.Itis ?ne ofthe main objectives of General Systems Theory to develop these. gene.ra~zed ears, and by developing a framework of general theory to enable onespecIalist. to catch relevant communications from others. Thus the economistwho realizes the strong formal similari ty between uti li ty theory in economics

and ?~ld theory in physics- is probably in a better position to learn from thephysicists than one who does not. Similarly a specialist who works with thegrowth ~onc~pt-whether the crystallographer, the virologist , the cytologist,the ~~YSIOlogIst,he psychologist, the sociologist or the economist-will be morese~s~tIve to the contributions of other fields if he is aware of the many simi-larities of the growth process in widely different empirical fields.There is not much doubt about the demand for general systems theory under

one brand name or another. It is a little more embarrassing to inquire into thesupply. D?es any of it exist , and if so where? What is the chance ofgetting moreof It, and if s~, ~ow? The situation might be described as promising and in fer-me~t, th?ugh It ISnot wholly clear what is being promised or brewed. Somethingwhich might be called an "interdisciplinary movement" has been abroad fors?~e time. The fir~t signs of this are usually the development of hybrid dis-eiplines. Thus physical chemistry emerged in the third quarter of the nineteenthcentur_y,so.cialps!chology in the second quarter ofthe twentieth. Inthe physicaland ?IOlo~ICals~Iences the list of hybrid disciplines is now quite long-bio-phySICS,biochemistry, astrophysics are all well established. In the social sciencessoc~alanthropology is fairly well established, economic psychology and economicsociology are just beginning. There are signs, even, that Political Economywhich died in infancy some hundred years ago, may have are-birth. '. In recent years there has been an additional development of great interestill the form of "multisexual" interdisciplines. The hybrid disciplines as theirhyphenated names indicate, come from two respectable and honest ' academicparents. The newer interdisciplines have a much more varied and occasionallye~en obscure ancestry, and result from the reorganization of material from manydiffe:ent fields of st.udy. Cybernetics, for instance, comes out of electrical engi-neermg, neurophysiolopy, physics, biology, with even a dash of economics.!nformation th~or~, w~ich originated in communications engineering, hasm~portant applicatIOns Inmany fields stretching from biology to the socialsCIen~es. Organization theory comes out of economics, sociology, engineering,physiology, and Management Science itself is an equally multidisciplinaryproduct.On the more empirical and practical side the interdisciplinary movement isreflected in the development of interdepartmental institutes of many kinds.

Some o~th~se find ~heir basis of unity in the empirical f ield which they study,such as institutes of industrial relations, of public administration, of international2 See A. G. Pikler , Ut ili ty Theories in Fie ld Physics and Mathematica l Economics

British Journal/or the Philosophy of Science, 1955,Vol. 5, pp. 47 and 303. '


3/7

200 KENNETH BOULDINGaffairs, and so on. Others are organized around the application of a commonmethodology to many different fields and problems, such as the Survey ResearchCenter and the Group Dynamics Center at the University of Michigan. Evenmore important than these visible developments, perhaps, though harder toperceive and identify, is a growing dissatisfaction in many departments, espe-cially at the level ofgraduate study, with the existingtraditional theoretical back-grounds for the empirical studies which form the major part of the output ofPh.D. theses. To take but a singleexample from the field with which I am mostfamiliar. Itis traditional for studies of labor relations, money and banking, andforeign investment to comeout ofdepartments of economics.Many ofthe neededtheoretical models and frameworks in these fields, however, do not comeout of"economic theory" as this is usually taught, but from sociology, social psy-chology, and cultural anthropology. Students in the department of economicshowever rarely get a chance to become acquainted with these theoretical models,which may be relevant to their studies, and they become impatient with eco-nomic theory, much ofwhichmay not be relevant.Itis clear that there is a good deal of interdisciplinary excitement abroad. If

this excitement is to be productive, however, it must operate within a certainframework of coherence. It is all too easy for the interdisciplinary to degenerateinto the undisciplined. If the interdisciplinary movement, therefore, is not tolose that sense of form and structure which is the "discipline" involved in thevarious separate disciplines, it should develop a structure of its own. This Iconceive to be the great task of general systems theory. For the rest of thispaper, therefore, I propose to look at some possible ways in which generalsystems theory might be structured.Two possible approaches to the organization of general systems theory suggest

themselves, which are to be thought of as complementary rather than competi-tive, or at least as two roads each ofwhichis worth exploring. The first approachis to look over the empirical universe and to pick out certain general phenomenawhich are found in many different disciplines, and to seek to build up generaltheoretical models relevant to these phenomena. The second approach is toarrange the empirical fieldsin a hierarchy of complexity of organization of theirbasic "individual" orunit ofbehavior, and to try to develop a level of abstrac-tion appropriate to each.Someexamples ofthe first approach will serve to clarify it, without pretending

to be exhaustive. In almost all disciplines, for instance, we find examples ofpopulations-aggregates of individuals conforming to a common definition, towhich individuals are added (born) and subtracted (die) and in which the ageofthe individual is a relevant and identifiable variable. These populations exhibitdynamic movements of their own, which can frequently be described by fairlysimple systems of differenceequations. The populations of different speciesalsoexhibit dynamic interactions among themselves, as in the theory of Volterra.Models of population change and interaction cut across a great many differentfields--ecological systems in biology, capital theory in economics which dealswith populations of "goods," social ecology, and even certain problems of sta-

GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY 201tistic.almechanics. In all these fieldspopulation change, both in absolute numbersan? instructure, can be discussed in terms of birth and survival functions re-lating numbers of births and of deaths in specificage groups to various aspectsofthe system. In all these fieldsthe interaction ofpopulation can be discussed int~rms of ~ompetitive,.complementary, or parasitic relationships among popula-tlO~Sof different species, whether the species consist of animals, commodities,SOCIallasses or molecules.Ano~herphe.nomenonof almost universal significancefor all disciplines is that

o~t?e .mteract~onof an "individual" of some kind with its environment. Everydiscipline studies son:e kind of "individual"--electron, atom, molecule, crystal,VI~S, ~ell, plant, animal, man, family, tribe, state, church, firm, corporation,unrversrty, and so on. Each ofthese individuals exhibits "behavior" action orc?ange, and this. be~~vior is considered to be related in some wa; to the 'en-:Ironment of t~e mdIVIdual-that is, with other individuals with which it comesinto contact or into somerel~ti?n~hip. Each individual is thought ofas consistingof a structure or complexofindividuals ofthe order immediately belowit-atomsare an arrangem~nt of protons and electrons, molecules of atoms, cells of mole-cule.s,plants, animals and men of cells, social organizations of men. The "be-havior" Of.ea~~individual is "explained" by the structure and arrangement oft.he.lower mdIVIduals.of whic~ it is composed, or by certain principles of equi-librium or homeostasis accordmg to which certain "states" of the individual are"preferred." Behavior i.sdescribed in terms of the restoration of these preferredstates when they are disturbed by changes in the environment.Another phe?~~enon of universal significanceis growth. Growth theory is in

~ sense a subdivision of the .theory of individual "behavior," growth being oneImportant a~~ec~of behavior, Nevertheless there are important differencesbetween equilibrium .theory and growth theory, which perhaps warrant givinggrowth theory a special category. There is hardly a science in which the growthphen~menon doe~not have someimportance, and though there is a great differ-ence III compl~X1~ybetween the growth of crystals, embryos, and societies,many of the principles and concepts which are important at the lower levelsarealsoilluminating at higher levels. Somegrowth phenomena can be dealt with interms of rel.ativelysi.mplepopulation models, the solution ofwhich yields growthcurves of ~lllgievariables. At the more complex levels structural problems be-come dominant and the complex interrelationships between growth and formare the focus of interest. All growth phenomena are sufficiently alike however tosuggest that a general theory of growth is by no means an impossibility.!Anot?er. a~pect of the theory of the individual and also of interrelationships

am.ongllldI:lduals which might be singled out for special treatment is the theoryof information an~ communication. The information concept as developed byShannon has had mteresting applications outside its original field of electricalenginee.ring.Itis not adequate, of course, to deal with problems involving thesemantic level of communication. At the biological level however the informa-

a See."Towards a General Theory of Growth" by K. E. Boulding, Canadian Journal ofEconomic and Political Science, 19Aug. 1953,326-340.


4/7

202 KENNETH BOULDINGtion concept may serve to develop general notions of s~ructu~ed~ess a~d abstractmeasures oforganization which give us, as it were, a third basic dimenslO~ beyo.ndmass and energy. Communication and information processes a.re~ound in a widevariety of empirical situations, and are unquestionably .essentlalm the develop-ment of organization both in the biological and the social world.These various approaches to general systems through various aspects of theempirical world may lead ult imately to something like.a general f ield theory ofthe dynamics of action and interaction. This, however, ISa long way ahead.A second possible approach to general systems theory is through ~he arrange-ment oftheoretical systems and constructs in a hierarchy of complexiw, ro~g.hlycorresponding to the complexity of t?e "individuals" of .the various e~pmcalfields. This approach is more systematic than the first, leading towards a systemof systems." Itmay not replace the first entirely, ho,:ever, as.there may alwaysbe important theoretical concepts and constructs lying outside the system~tlCframework. I suggest below a possible arrangement of "levels" of theoreticaldiscourse.(i) The first level is that of the static structure. Itmight be called the levelof frameworks. This is the geography and anatomy of the UUlverse-the patternsof electrons around a nucleus, the pattern of atoms in a molecular formula, thearrangement of atoms in a crystal, the anatomy of the gene, the c~ll ,the _plant ,the animal, the mapping ofthe earth, the solar system, the as~ro~omlCalurnv~rse.The accurate description of these frameworks is the begmrnn~ of. orgarnz.edtheoretical knowledge in almost any field, for without accu:acy in t~s des~np-tion of static relationships no accurate functional or dynamic theory IS.possible.Thus the Copernican revolution was really the discovery ?f ~ new .statlC fra~e-work for the solar system which permitted a simpler descr~ptlOn of ItS ~ynamlcs.(ii) The next level of systematic analysis is that ofthe SImpledynamic systemwith predetermined, necessary motions. This might be called the le-:el of clock-

works. The solar system itself is of course the great clock of the umverse fromman's point ofview, and the deliciously exact predictions of the ~stronomers. area testimony to the excellence of the clock which they study. Simple .machinessuch as the lever and the pulley, even quite complicated machines like steamengines and dynamos fall mostly under this category. The gr~ater pa~t of t~etheoretical structure of physics, chemistry, and even of economics falls into thiscategory. Two special cases might be noted. Simple equilibrium systems .reallyfall into the dynamic category, as every equilibrium system must be consld?redas a limiting case of a dynamic system, and its stabili ty cannot be ~eterIUln~dexcept from the propert ies of i ts parent dynamic system. St~chastI? dynamlCsystems leading to equilibria, for all their complexity, also fallmto this group ofsystems; such is the modern view of the atom and ev~n of the molecule, .e~chposition or part of the system being given with a certam degree of probability-the whole nevertheless exhibiting a determinate structure. Two types of ana-lytical method are important here, which we may call, with th~ usage .of theeconomists comparative stat ics and true dynamics. In comparative stat ics wecompare t~o equil ibrium posit ions of the system under different values for the

GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY 203basic parameters. These equilibrium positions are usually expressed as the solu-t ion of a set of simultaneous equations. The method of comparative statics is tocompare the solutions when the parameters of the equations are changed. Mostsimple mechanical problems are solved in this way. In true dynamics on theot~er hand we exhibit the system as a set of difference or differential equations,which are then solved in the form of an explicit function of each variable withtime. Such a system may reach a position of stationary equilibrium, or it maynot-there are plenty of examples of explosive dynamic systems, a very simpleone being the growth ofa sum at compound interest! Most physical and chemicalreactions and most social systems do in fact exhibit a tendency to equilibrium-otherwise the world would have exploded or imploded long ago.

(.iii) ~he next .level is that of the control mechanism or cybernetic system,which nught be nicknamed the level ofthe thermostat. This differs from the simplestable equilibrium system mainly in the fact that the transmission and interpre-tation of information is an essential part of the system. As a result of this theequilibrium position is not merely determined by the equations of the systembut the system will move to the maintenance of any given equilibrium, withinlimits . Thus the thermostat will maintain any temperature at which it can beset; the equilibrium temperature of the system is not determined solely by itsequations. The trick here of course is that the essential variable of the dynamicsystem is the difference between an "observed" or "recorded" value of the main-tained variable and its "ideal" value. If this difference is not zero the systemmoves so as to diminish it; thus the furnace sends up heat when the temperatureas recorded is "too cold" and is turned off when the recorded temperature is: 'too hot." The homeostasis model, which is of such importance in physiology,IS an example ofa cybernetic mechanism, and such mechanisms exist through thewhole empirical world of the biologist and the social scientist.( iv) The fourth level is that of the "open system," or self-maintaining struc-ture. This is the level at which life begins to differentiate i tself from not-l ife:it might be called the level of the cell. Something like an open system exists, ofcourse, even in physico-chemical equilibrium systems; atomic structures main-tain themselves in the midst of a throughput of electrons, molecular structuresmaintain themselves in the midst of a throughput of atoms. Flames and riverslikewise are essentially open systems of a very simple kind. As we pass up thescale of complexity of organization towards living systems, however, the propertyofself-maintenance ofstructure in the midst ofa throughput ofmaterial becomesof dominant importance. An atom or a molecule can presumably exist withoutthroughput: the existence of even the simplest living organism is inconceivablewithout ingestion, excretion and metabolic exchange. Closely connected withthe property of self-maintenance is the property of self-reproduction. Itmay be,indeed, that self-reproduction is a more primitive or "lower level" system thanthe open system, and that the gene and the virus, for instance, may be able toreproduce themselves without being open systems. Itisnot perhaps an importantquestion at what point in the scale ofincreasing complexity "life" begins. What isclear , however, is that by the time we have got to systems which both reproduce


5/7

20 4 KENNETH BOULDINGthemselves and maintain themselves in the midst of a throughput of materialand energy, we have something to which it would be hard to deny the title of"life,"(v) The fifth level might be called the genetic-societal level; it is typified bythe plant, and it dominates the empirical world of the botanist. The outstandingcharacteristics of these systems are first, a division of labor among cells to form acell-society with differentiated and mutually dependent parts (roots, leaves,seeds, etc.), and second, a sharp differentiation between the genotype and thephenotype, associated with the phenomenon of equifinal or "blueprinted"growth, At th is level there a re no highly specia lized sense organs and informat ionreceptors are diffuse and incapable of much throughput of information-it isdoubtful whether a tree can distinguish much more than light from dark, longdays from short days, cold from hot.(vi) As we move upward from the plant world towards the animal kingdomwe gradually pass over into a new level, the "animal" level, characterized by

increased mobi lity, te leological behavio r, and sel f-awareness. Here we have thedevelopment of speciali zed information-recepto rs (eyes, ears, etc.) l eading to anenormous increase in the intake of information; we have also a great develop-ment of nervous systems, leading ultimately to the brain, as an organizer of theinformation intake into a knowledge structure or "image". Increasingly as weascend the scale of animal life, behavior is response not to a specific stimulus butto an "image" or knowledge structure or view of the environment as a whole,This image is of course determined ultimately by information received into theorganism; the relation between the receipt of information and the buildingup of an image however is exceedingly complex. Itis not a simple piling up oraccumulation of information received, although this frequently happens, but astructuring of informat ion into something essentially di fferen t from the info rma-tion itself. After the image structure is well established most information re-ceived produces very little change in the image-it goes through the loose struc-ture, as it were, without hitting it, much as a sub-atomic particle might gothrough an atom without hit ting anything, Sometimes however the informationis "captured" by the image and added to it, and sometimes the informationhits some kind of a "nucleus" of the image and a reorganization takes place,with far reaching and radical changes in behavior in apparent response to whatseems like a very small st imu lus. The diffi cult ie s in the prediction of the behaviorof these systems ari ses large ly because of thi s inte rvention of the image be tweenthe stimulus and the response,(vii) The next level is the "human" levcl, that is of the individual humanbeing considered as a system, In addition to all, or nearly all, of the characteris-tics of animal systems man possesses self consciousness, which is somethingdifferent from mere awareness, His image, besides being much more complexthan that even of the higher animals, has a self-reflexive quality-he notonly knows, but knows that he knows, This property is probably bound up withthe phenomenon of language and symbol ism, Itis the capaci ty for speech-theabil ity to produce , absorb, and inte rpret symbols, as opposed to mere signs like

T GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY 205the 'armng cry of an animal-whichhumbler brethren. Man is disti is h d most clearly marks man off from his1 mgui e from the ' 1 1e, aborate image of time and relationshi . rna . aruma s a so by a much moretion that knows that it dies that c p, n, IS.probably the only organiza-and more than a life span M ' .onttemplates ill ItS behavior a whole l ife span. an exis s not 0 1 . t' d 'and his behavior is profoundly affected b ~ Y I~ ime an ~pace but in history,he stands. y s VIew of the time process in which, (viii) Because of the vital im orta c ' "Images and behavior based on the: it~ e for the individual man of symbolicof the individual human organi mf 1 IS ~ ot easy to separate clearly the level~ions. In spite of the occasional s~or~:;o: f e next .level, th~t of social organiza-Isolated from his fel lows is practi 1 1 k eral children raised by animals manin human behavior that one ica Ytun hnown. So essent ial is the symbolic image"human" i suspec stat a trul . 1 t duman" m the usually acce ted y ISOa e man would not beNevertheless it is convenient f sense, though he would be potentially human,h or some purposes t di ti .uman as a system from the 'loIS inguish the individual, SOCIa systems whi h 'sense SOCIalorganizations may b id t . IC surround him, and in thisThe unit of such systems is no: sai h 0 constitute another level of organization,such-but the "role"-th t perf aps the person-the individual human as, , a part 0 the pers hi h 'organization or situation in question d it i on w, IC IS concerned with thet' ,an I IS temptmg t d fi 'ions, or almost any social syste ' 0 e ne SOCIalorganiza-communication. The interrelati;~:~ ~~:~~{er~~~ tied together with channels ofbe completely neglected-a s . the person however can neverquare person ill a ro d 1rounder, but he also makes the 1 un ro e may become a littleaf f

ro e squarer and th 'ected by the personalities of those who h ' .e p~r~eptlOn of a role islevel we must concern ourselves with th ave occupied It ill the past, At thist~e n~ture and dimensions of value s ste; content and. m~aning, of messages,historical record the subtle sy b l' Yt' s, the transcription of Images into a, m 0 iza ions of at'complex gamut of human emotion Th ' . r , m~sIc, and poetry, and theand society in all its complexity . d ~ hempmcal unrverse here is human life(i ) an rIC nessIX To complete the structure of s ste .transcendental systems even if y b ms we should add a final turret forBabel to the clouds There a whemay e accused at this point of having built, c re owever the It' tI~escapable unknowables, and the al 0 ,~l ima es a~d absolutes and thetionship, Itwill be a sad d f Y s exhibit systematic structure and rela-hay or man when nob d ' II dt at do not have any answers, 0 y IS a owe to ask questionsOne advantage of exhibiting a hierar 1 f "us some idea of the present gaps'


6/7

206 KENNETH BOULDINGchemists have begun to catalogue structural formulae, and anthr?pologists h~vebegun to catalogue culture trails. The cataloguing of events, Ide.as~th~ones,statistics, and empirical data has hardly begun. The very multiplication ofrecords however as time goes on will force us into much more adequat~ cata-loguing and reference systems than we now have. This is perhaps the majo: ~n-solved theoretical problem at the level of the static structure. In the empiricalfieldthere are still great areas wherestatic structures are very imperfectly known,although knowlege is advancing rapidly, thanks to new prObI~g.devices such.asthe electron microscope. The anatomy ofthat part of the empirical world whichlies between the large molecule and the cell however, is still obscure at manypoints. It is precisely this area however-which includes, for insta~ce, the geneand the virus-that holds the secret oflife, and until its anatomy ISmade clearthe nature of the functional systems which are involved will inevitably be ob-scure. .The level of the "clockwork" is the level of "classical" natural SCIence,es-pecially physics and astronomy, and is probably the most completely developed

level in the present state of knowledge, especially if we extend ~he concept toinclude the field theory and stochastic models of modern phySICS.Even herehowever there are important gaps, especially at the higher empirical levels.There is much yet to be known about the sheer mechanics of cells and nervoussystems, of brains and of societies.Beyond the second level adequate theoretical models get scarcer. The last fewyears have seengreat developments at the third and fourth levels. The t~e~ry.ofcontrol mechanisms ("thermostats") has established itself as the new disciplineor cybernetics, and the theory of self-maintaining s~ste~s or "open systems"likewise has made rapid strides. We could hardly maintain however ~hat muchmore than a beginning had been made in these fields.Weknow ver! little aboutthe cybernetics of genes and genetic systems, for insta~ce, and StI~l~ss aboutthe control mechanisms involved in the mental and SOCIalworld. SIllll:arly theprocesses ofself-maintenance remain essentially ~ysterious at.ma~~ points, a.ndalthough the theoretical possibility of constructing a salf-maintaining machinewhich would be a true open system has been suggested, we seem to .be a longway from the actual construction of such a mechanical similitude of life,Beyond the fourth level it may be doubted whether we have as yet even ~he

rudiments of theoretical systems. The intricate machinery of growth by WhIChthe genetic complexorganizes the matter around it is almost a complete mystery.Up to now, whatever the future may hold, onlyGod can make a tree. In the f~ceof living systems we are almost helpless; we can occasionally cooperate WIthsystems which we do not understand: we cannot even begin t.oreproduce then:.The ambiguous status of medicine, hovering as it does uneasily be~wee~magicand science is a testimony to the state of systematic knowledge III this area.Aswemove up the scale the absence of the appropriate theoretical system.sbe-comes ever more noticeable. We can hardly conceive ourselves constructmg asystem which would be in any recognizable sense "aware," much less self ~on-scious. Nevertheless as we move towards the human and societal level a CUrIOUS

T GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY 207thing happens: the fact that we have, as it were, an inside track, and that weourselves ar e the systems which we are studying, enables us to utilize systemswhich we do not really understand. Itis almost inconceivable that we shouldmake a machine that would make a poem: nevertheless, poems ar e made byfoolslikeus by processeswhichare largely hidden from us. The kind ofknowledgeand skill that wehave at the symbolic level is very different from that which wehave at lower levels-it is like, shall we say, the "knowhow" of the gene ascompared with the knowhow of the biologist. Nevertheless it is a real kind ofknowledge and it is the source of the creative achievements of mali as artist,writer, architect, and composer.Perhaps one of the most valuable uses of the above scheme is to prevent us

from accepting as final a level of theoretical analysis which is below the level ofthe empirical world which we are investigating. Because, in a sense, each levelincorporates all those below it, much valuable information and insights can beobtained by applying low-level systems to high-level subject matter. Thus mostof the theoretical schemes of the social sciences are still at level (ii), just risingnow to (iii),although the subject matter clearly involves level (viii). Economics,for instance, is still largely a "mechanics of utility and self interest," in Jevons'masterly phrase. Its theoretical and mathematical base is drawn largely fromthe level of simple equilibrium theory and dynamic mechanisms. Ithas hardlybegun to use concepts such as information which are appropriate at level (iii),and makes nouse ofhigher levelsystems. Furthermore, with this crude apparatusit has achieved a modicum ofsuccess, in the sense that anybody trying to ma-nipulate an economicsystem is almost certain to be better off if he knows someeconomics than if he doesn't. Nevertheless at somepoint progress in economicsisgoing to depend on its ability to break out ofthese low-levelsystems, useful asthey are as first approximations, and utilize systems which are more directlyappropriate to its universe-when, of course, these systems are discovered.Many other examples could be given-the wholly inappropriate use in psycho-analytic theory, for instance, of the concept of energy, and the long inability ofpsychology to break loose from a sterile stimulus-response model.Finally, the above scheme might serve as a mild word of warning even to

Management Science. This new discipline represents an important breakawayfrom overly simplemechanical models in the theory of organization and control.Its emphasis on communication systems and organizational structure, on prin-ciples of homeostasis and growth, on decision processes under uncertainty, iscarrying us far beyond the simple models of maximizing behavior of even tenyears ago. This advance in the level of theoretical analysis is bound to lead tomore powerful and fruitful systems. Nevertheless we must never quite forgetthat even these advances do not carry us much beyond the third and fourthlevels, and that in dealing with human personalities and organizations we aredealing with systems in the empirical world far beyond our ability to formulate.We should not be wholly surprised, therefore, if our simpler systems, for all theirimportance and validity, occasionally let us down.I chose the subtitle of my paper with some eye to its possible overtones of


7/7

- - . . . . . .

208 KENNETH BOULDING

meaning. General Systems Theory is the skeleton of science in the sense that itaims to provide a framework or structure of systems on which to hang the fleshand blood of particular disciplines and particular subject matters in an orderlyand coherent corpus of knowledge. It is also, however, something of a skeletonin a cupboard-the cupboard in this case being the unwillingness of science toadmit the very low level of its successes in systematization, and its tendency toshut the door on problems and subject matters which do not fit easily into simplemechanical schemes. Science, for all its successes, still has a very long way togo. General Systems Theory may at times be an embarrassment in pointing outhow very far we still have to go, and in deflating excessive philosophical claimsfor overly simple systems. It also may be helpful however in pointing out tosome extent where we have to go. The skeleton must come out of the cupboardbefore its dry bones can live.

1956 General Systems Theory

Documents

Transcript of 1956 General Systems Theory