You are here

Home

Round tables: system archetypes versus personality archetypes?


Clarifying the Unexplored Dynamics of 12-fold Round tables (Part #2)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

In noting the lack of systemic insight into the interrelationship within each of the 12-fold sets of symbolic archetypes cited above, a preliminary comment is appropriate on the two distinctive appoaches to the integrative insight they imply.

System archetypes: There is a very extensive literature from a systems perspective which has engendered insight into archetypal functions of a particular kind. Wikipedia offers a very extensive List of types of system theory. This also refers to many entries on "closely related subjects", "systems related topics", and "other systems listings".Many of those insights are specifically cited in a remarkably extensive review by Walter Lee Akers (An Approach for the Development of Complex Systems Archetypes, 2015). Akers identifies six "archetypes" in the light of the systems literature. The sophistication of systems studies, and the "system archetypes" variously recognized, is apparent from that review and the Wikipedia checklists.

Inexplicably, such studies even include recogntion of twelve "archetypes" -- echoing the 12-fold pattern noted above (Leyla Acaroglu, Tools for Systems Thinkers: the 12 Recurring Systems Archetypes, Medium, 29 September 2017). Why? Seemingly no approach to "systems" has been able to provide the coherence for which the times would appear to call -- or rather part of the dynamic is associated with the fact that each proposal would claim to do so in some measure, according to what is held to be relevant.

As noted by William Braun (The System Archetypes, 2002), there are many ways in which the archetypes can be held to interact with each other. Braun reproduces one mapping originally provided by Michael Goodman and Art Kleiner (Using the Archetype Family Tree as a Diagnostic Tool, The Systems Thinker, 1993/1994). The work was subsequently republished by Peter Senge (Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning organization, 1994).

However there appears to be a fundamental cognitive "disconnect" from the general capacity to comprehend their implications -- contrasting strangely and unfortunately with the (intuitive) appeal -- even over centuries -- of those named above, and the cited tendency to articulate 12-fold sets of concepts, principles and strategies. It is only too evident that despite such systemic insights, it has not proved possible to render them widely comprehensible and credible, nor to bring them to bear on the challenges of global governance. Curiously the systems approach is fundamentally handicpped in addressing disagreement, whether between the archetypes or between the advocates of particular patterns of archetypes.

In his review Akers usefully presents numerous systems diagrams proposed in the literature. Arguably, is there is a case for a 12-fold set of system approaches from a "meta-systems" perspective? Through the manner of their depiction these recall the electronic wiring idagrams on circuit boards. The issue which is not addressed is for whom are such diagrams meaningful and who has the inclination to develop the skill to read them? Whilst such diagrams may translate into the skill set of systems engineers, they are not renowned for being meaningful in policy environments.

To clarify the challenge, the diagram from the Wikipedia entry on systems archetypes is reprodcued below, together with that on metabolic pathways. namely the linked series of checmical reactions occurring within the cells of every human body. The latter would imply some level of intuitive understanding of systems operation possessed by everyone. However any appeal to intuitive understanding of systems could also be claimed for the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals and its predecessor the 8 Millennium Development Goals. Neither of these appears to have been clarified in systemic terms, despite the convocation of round tables to manage them -- and the manner in which they strangely echo the functions of a secular pantheon.

Contrasting mind maps
System archetypes Metabolic pathway map -- Metro style
System archetypes Interactive map of metaboic patheways
Reproduced from Wikipedia

The original version of the metabolic pathway map (above right) is interactive, as indicated in the note. The Combined Model of Systems Concepts usefully provided by Walter Lee Akers (2015) is necessarily static when clues to its dynamic nature are especially desirable. Based on that model (for purposes of illustration), the following overly simplistic animation uses colour as a reminder of such dynamics and the challenges of comprehending a system of archetypes -- equally true of a pantheon or of a complex set of goals (such as the UN's Sustainable Development Goals).

Speculative reminder of system phase shifting based on
Combined Model of Systems Concepts (Akers, 2015)
[using colours only; changing directional arrows could be added]
Speculative reminder of system phase shifting
Adapted from Walter Lee Akers (An Approach for the Development of Complex Systems Archetypes, 2015, p. 343)

This is a reminder of the complexisty which is it desirable to embody in a sustainable "global table" of discourse -- or in a set of interlocking roundtables, however that "interlocking" is to be rendered systemically meaningful (Spherical Configuration of Interlocking Roundtables: Internet enhancement of global self-organization through patterns of dialogue, 1998; Interweaving Thematic Threads and Learning Pathways, 2010).

Personality archetypes: There is a quite distinct literature on personality types and archetypes. This helps to recall the fact that whilst the deities cited in the pantheons are believed to have systemic functions, they were also described as personalities.

There is a long history of insights into personality archetypes, and -- as for systems archetypes -- with many extant systems (Table of similar systems of comparison of temperaments, Wikipedia). It was a particular focus of Carl Jung who can be understood to have identified 4, 8 or 12 (Psychological Types, 1921). These can even be presented in "round table" form distinguished by colours, as by Conor Neill (Understanding Personality: the 12 Jungian Archetypes, 21 April 2018). That of the 12-fold zodiac of astrology, widely recognized across cultures, exemplies this mode of understanding -- typically deprecated from a systems science perspective. Some systems are articulated into a pattern of 16 types (Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire; Myersâ--Briggs Type Indicator). A complex variety of types are measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

Behavioural dimensions? It is somewhat ironic to note that the competitive behaviour of the advocates of particular systems is a factor which is not adequately encompassed by those articulations -- as is the case with both systems archetypes and personality archetypes. Each articulation calls inexplicably for unquestionable "buy-in" as a guarantor of its credibility. There is little understanding in practice of the distinctive kinds of roles that merit representation in fruitful dialogue at a "round table". One pointer in that direction, itself subject to that reservation, is offered by the 6-fold articulations of Edward de Bono (Six Thinking Hats, 1985; Six Action Shoes, 1991; Six Value Medals, 2005; Six Frames For Thinking About Information, 2008). As Akers (2015) notes in concluding his review, there is a need to develop a "metaphorical model":

While the structure and layout of the system archetypes provides an ordered examination of the behavior of systems as they progress through various responses to variety, it does not currently have a good metaphorical representation. The Six Thinking Hats metaphor espoused by de Bono (1985) is an example of one such approach In it, the color of each hat is linked to a specific way of thinking or perspective. (pp. 132-3)

It is equally evident that the approaches of the non-system sciences sensitive to sets of archetypes have been unable to render particularly relevant their insights -- as exemplified by the case of Carl Jung's 4, 8, 12 personality archetypes.

"Interdisciplinarity"? How, asks Russell Ackoff (Systems, organizations, and interdisciplinary research, General Systems Yearbook, 5, 1960), is a practitioner of any one discipline to know in a particular case whether another discipline is better equipped to handle the problem? It would be rare indeed if a representative of one of the many disciplines in some way related to the problem in question did not feel that his particular approach to that problem would be very fruitful, if not the most fruitful. This tendency is also institutionalized, as noted by Hasan Ozbekhan (1969):

This almost subconsciously motivated attempt, that of a sector to expand over the whole space of the system in its own particular terms and in accordance with its own particular outlooks and traditions, compounds the problem by further fragmenting the wholeness of the system. For sectors cannot become systems, they can only dominate them; and when they do they warp them.

On the same point, Ackoff notes (1960):

...few of the problems that arise can adequately be handled within any one discipline. Such systems are not fundamentally mechanical, chemical, biological, psychological, social, economic, political, or ethical. These are merely different ways of looking at such systems. Complete understanding of such systems requires an integration of these perspectives. By integration I do not mean a synthesis of results obtained by independently conducted undisciplinary studies, but rather results obtained from studies in the process of which disciplinary perspectives have been synthesized. The integration must come during, not after, the performance of the research.

As with philosophy in particular, it is curious that disciplines in general have been content to ignore the mutual incomprehensibility of modes of knowing alternative to that which they individually advocate (Nicholas Rescher, The Strife of Systems: an essay on the grounds and implications of philosophical diversity, 1985). The various forms of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity have proved to be of little significance to the experience of incomprehension of those obliged to wander the streets between the ivory towers and information silos of the disciplines.

"Global discourse"? The quarrels between advocates of any pattern of archetypes suggest that they are very much their "own metaphor", as in the argument of Gregory Bateson. They would be much challenged to apply their particular archetypal insights, or to accept those of others "at the table", such as collectively to manage the discourse fruitfully. The difficulty would seem to lie in the paradox implied by the degree of closure characteristic of a discipline or model builder and the constrained ability to recognize "correspondences" with other modalities (Theories of Correspondences -- and potential equivalences between them in correlative thinking, 2007).

Curiously it could be argued in a binary mode that systems thinkers do not distinguish personalities -- and personality typologists have little interest in systemic patterns (other than that which they may advocate). Provocatively it could then be asked who could be asked to organize a "global table" given the unresolved relationships between archetypal insights -- whether from a systemic perspective or from a personality typology perspective. Expressed otherwise, which would be able to organize a "good party"? Who would be invited and who most definitely not -- and why? How could the conflict between "organization" and "self-organization" be resolved in order to ensure the event was sustainable?

The challenge remains of enabling and comprehending fruitful discourse at a "round table" for "global governance". Is this to be imagined by the future as having been a "Last Supper" -- a final effort before the predicted collapse (Enacting Transformative Integral Thinking through Playful Elegance: a Symposium at the End of the Universe? 2010).

Of historical relevance to enhancement of global discourse have been:

SYNCON
Wheel of Co-Creation		 Global Challenges
of Millennium Project 		Icosahedron: communication
structure for a Syntegration®		 Dymaxion Map used
in World Game process
SYNCON Wheel of Co-creation Millennium Project Global Challenges Syntegration Icosahedron Dymaxion Map
Used by Barbara Marx Hubbard
in SYNCON processes		 Reproduced from Millennium Project Reproduced from Syntegration® Chris Rywalt [CC BY-SA 3.0],
via Wikimedia Commons 
Evolution within SYNCON process from small groups into composite groups into total / plenary format

The inner sections of the SYNCON Wheel (on the right) represent the different orientations or major elements of fragmented society. The outer sections represent growing potentials of civilization. People meet in groups to explore the future and then merge with other groups to build a composite future that integrates these different orientations. The process is usually on live television with computer communications to link those unable to be present..

 SYNCON Wheel (small groups) SYNCON Wheel (composite groups)
Reproduced from Jerome C. Glenn (Participatory Methods: Futures Research Methodology, V3.0, The Millennium Project, 2009)

With respect to the argument here it is appropriate to note that these various approaches cannnot be said to have "taken off" to the point of providing vital templates for dialogue between stakeholders variously opposed to each others perspectives -- and strongly so. They have greater merit in situations where participants effectively contract into such processes in the light of a pre-existing consensual commitment. A magical formula for dialogue has yet to emerge to reconcile strongly opposing perspectives. Despite development of computer-enhanced groupware, the rate of innovation does not seem to correspond to the urgency of the underlying challenge, as discussed separately (Multi-option Technical Facilitation of Public Debate: eliciting consensus nationally and internationally, 2019).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

For further updates on this site, subscribe here