Advertisement

Cybernetics and Society Redux: The Necessity of Design

  • Laurence D. RichardsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

Norbert Wiener warned us to avoid the potential application of cybernetics to the production of technologies of oppression – that is, we need to design structures and processes in which violence is not an alternative or, at least, is an alternative of last resort. This chapter presents cybernetics as a way of thinking about ways of thinking, making the way of thinking a choice. The cybernetic vocabulary of choice and autonomy provides a foundation for building a participative-dialogic approach to design (and society) that is distinct from the purposeful (goal-oriented) and hierarchical (reward-oriented) design approach of traditional engineering and management. In a participative-dialogic society, design becomes a necessity, not only to address the concerns expressed by Wiener, but also to satisfy the human need for participation in the decisions that affect our daily lives.

Keywords

Goal-oriented purpose ⋅ Desires as constraints ⋅ Reward-oriented hierarchy ⋅ Networks of conversations ⋅ Relations and dynamics ⋅ Participatory design 

References

  1. 1.
    Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashby, W. R. (1964). Constraint analysis of many-dimensional relations. General Systems, IX, 99–105.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bateson, G. (1972). Cybernetic explanation. In Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 405–416). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bateson, G. (1972). Conscious purpose versus nature. In Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 432–445). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bateson, G. (1972). Effects of conscious purpose on human adaption. In Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 446–453). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beer, S. (1994). Beyond dispute: The invention of team syntegrity. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Braybrooke, D., & Lindblom, C. E. (1963). A strategy of decision: Policy evaluation as a social process. London: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brün, H. (1990). My words and where I want them (2nd ed.). London: Princelet Editions.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brün, M., & respondents. (1985). Designing society. London: Princelet Editions.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brün, M. (2004). Paradigms: The inertia of language. In A. Chandra (Ed.), When music resists meaning: The major writings of Herbert Brün (pp. 292–300). Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischer, T., & Richards, L. D. (2017). From goal-oriented to constraint-oriented design: The cybernetic intersection of design theory and systems theory. Leonardo, 50(1), 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glanville, R. (2014). Try again. Fail again. Fail better – The cybernetics in design and the design in cybernetics. In The black boox vol. 2: Living in cybernetic circles (pp. 253–292). Vienna: edition echoraum.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review, XIX(Spring), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The intelligence of democracy. London: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lombardi, J. (2007). Peace is a need – Passions presentation. Text and video available at: http://jlombardi.net/pdf/peaceisaneed_passions.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2019.
  18. 18.
    Maturana, H. (1988). Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument. Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 25–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pask, G. (1987). Conversation and support. Inaugural Address presented Nov 30, 1987 at the occasion of assuming responsibility as guest professor in General Andragological Sciences. University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Protzen, J.-P., & Harris, D. J. (2010). The universe of design: Horst Rittel’s theories of design and planning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richards, L. D. (1991). Beyond planning: Technological support for a desirable society. Systemica, 8(2), 113–124.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Richards, L. D. (2010). The anticommunication imperative. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 17(1–2), 11–24.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Richards, L. D. (2013). Difference-making from a cybernetic perspective: The role of listening and its circularities. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 20(1/2), 59–68.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Richards, L. D. (2013). Idea avoidance: Reflections on a conference and its language. Kybernetes, 42(9/10), 1464–1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Richards, L. D. (2015). Designing academic conferences in the light of second order cybernetics. Constructivist Foundations, 11(1), 65–73.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Richards, L. (2016). A history of the history of cybernetics: An agenda for an ever-changing present. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 23(1), 42–49.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosenbleuth, A., Wiener, N., & Bigelow, J. (1943). Behavior, purpose, and teleology. Philosophy of Science, 10, 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Simon, H. A. (1964). On the concept of organizational goal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Steinbruner, J. D. (1974). The cybernetic theory of decision. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    von Foerster, H. (2003). Perception of the future and the future of perception. In Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition (pp. 199–210). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    von Foerster, H. (2003). Ethics and second-order cybernetics. In Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition (pp. 287–304). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Whorf, B. L. (1956). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality (pp. 134–159). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wiener, N. (1954). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society (2nd ed.). New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wiener, N. (1961). Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana University EastRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations