Nature of the Problem: Conceptualization

Development beyond 'Science' to 'Wisdom' (Part #5)

The current banner under which society is attempting (once again) to bring its concerns into focus is the: 'application of science and technology to development'. Could it be that there are elements in the conception of this banner which are themselves an obstacle to achieving what is purportedly intended ?

(a) Science technology and development: there are many that assume that the meaning of these terms is clear and well-defined and that the problem lies with 'application' (see below). And yet even a cursory search will reveal great confusion as to the manner in which 'science', 'technology' and 'development' should be understood (5). At this level, for example, there are as many initiatives to 'redefine' development; to focus on the 'changing purposes' of science (an agenda item of this conference). or to introduce the notion of alternative/appropriate/intermediate forms of technology.

But these initiatives would seem to be primarily concerned to shift understanding from an existing concept- now argued to be inadequate - to a new concept which will hopefully be more appropriate. It is perhaps necessary that at one level a definition should be assumed to be clear, such as for certain educational purposes. It is equally necessary to push simultaneously for a re-conceptualization. But it is unfortunate that the reconceptualization should primarily be conceived in terms of 'out with the old definition and in with the new' - however good the new may be. For it is absolutely certain that no such definition will attract universal support (even if it is not subject to misinterpretation), and that there will be competing definitions with all that that implies.

To reflect adequately the process in which we are embedded, what appears to be missing is a recognition that we are confronted with a situation in which simultaneously we have:

those focusing on a single definition (of which there may be many of different degrees of sophistication).
those moving from an inadequate definition (one of the above) to a new one (possibly one of the above)
a need for a broader framework which could respect and facilitate these different conceptual innovations and manoeuvers and ensure some degree of continuity rather than an in-built guarantee of discontinuity and hiatus between successive 'definitions'',

Irrespective of the necessary conceptual spadework to clarify new dimensions of 'science', 'technology' and 'development', it is vital to resist the temptation to treat these terms as nouns rather than verbs. There is a need to recognize that:

development is the process which facilitates and necessitates the redefinition of development
science is the process which facilitates and necessitates the redefinition of science.
technology is the process which facilitates and necessitates the redefinition of technology.

This somewhat paradoxical characteristic is at the heart of these processes (whatever their superficial or short-term man if estations). Development, for example, would not be development if it did not continually create a new situation in which its own nature was redefined, whether with respect to the image of man or to the goals and values of society, or to the structures appropriate to it. For at each stage it is more able to respond to the consequences of the prevailing perspective and to 'ingest' them as an appropriate constraint on the new perspective whose emergence is thus facilitated and stabilised. The phrase 'in the light of the emergent positive and negative feedback' might be therefore added to each of the three statements above. For it is these which introduce the normative dimension in process-oriented rather than ad hoc terms - the latter merely providing short-term understanding and response (however practical) and necessitating a hiatus before the subsequent version is recognised, namely a form of built-in discontinuity foreign to the continuity of social processes.

Similarly technology is essentially the innovative modification or reconceptualization of existing technological processes in the light of the latter's inadequacies but in terms of what they have rendered possible.

This paradoxical, self-reflexive or 'selforganizing' characteristic focuses attention on the limitations of the linear concept of 'progress' (primarily of western origin). This concept is well illustrated by the use of an appropriate annual increase of GNP as an indicator of satisfactory development. But even reconceptualizing 'development' is usually only aimed at switching to another more subtle quantitative increase which will itself prove to be inadequate once its limitations are understood.

Once 'reconceptualization' no longer seeks for some quantitative basis of increase, but rather for some more subtle 'pattern of complexification', a new dimension is opened up. Unfortunately, and characteristically, it is the difficulty of rendering such alternatives distinct and comprehensible which encourages many to continue the search for simple quantitative indicators of development. And in fact it is probably only with the simultaneous use of more complex mathematical descriptions and innovations in representation that the necessary subtlety and elegance can be adequately conveyed.

Lest this be considered a convenient escape, it is useful to refer to traditional non-western concepts of development and change which may be based on a circular rather than a linear approach. Clearly the Chinese classical concepts of change, for example, are elusive to the western mind. Were they to be represented mathematically as modifications in a phase space or as field effects, the mathematical 'distance' or difference in sophistication between western and eastern concepts would be apparent. The challenge is clearly to find some basis on which they can be reconciled. Some exciting leads towards this are given by Erich Jantsch and C H Waddington (6)

But whatever the most subtle image that can be generated, the paradox remains:

more refined versions will necessarily continue to be generated
for reasons of comprehension or preference, different images of development will continue to hold sway simultaneously (despite efforts at conceptual imperialism).

The strength of the more subtle dimensions is that they place much greater stress on the individual's (in)ability to comprehend the nature of change or development (at some level) and his or her role embedded in it. To the point that, in a special sense, the degree of development of the individual and his environment is determined by that person's ability to re-conceive it in the light of a more powerful and wholistic image. Without exploring this any further, it need only be mentioned that this opens the way to 'conceptual' (or perhaps 'attitudinal') revolutions which would in some measure substitute for conventional structural revolutions by reconceptualising existing patterns of relationships (changing the significance attached to them) in existing structures without the need to destroy them in the manner frequently advocated. It may be that the most operationally effective approach to development could emerge from an individual's change of attitude to his/her existing context (thus redefining the knower-known complementarity), rather than by attempting to modify the world-as-experienced without bringing the experiencer into question.

There is something intellectually primitive in the constant striving to move from the now experienced as containing 'wrong elements' (to be rejected) to a future condition in which these have been eliminated. In practice the 'wrong' and the 'right', as perceived by different groups tend to co-exist (even engendering one another) over very long periods of time despite the elimination exercises. It is time that attention was devoted to the reality of the interface between right and wrong rather than focusing positively on the one and negatively on the other and exploiting the energy which the dichotomy generates in society. There is a conceptual analogue to the high-rise luxurious apartment/office building (a sophisticated conceptual model ?) with slum dwellings (the concepts accessible to the man-in-the street) at its base. In a different metaphor, it is one thing to control a plague of wolves, but it is another to eliminate all wolves (as environmentalists are now realising).

Whilst these remarks have primarily emphasized 'development', they are also true of science and technology.

(b) 'Application to': The use of this term implies a manipulative relationship which has not proved successeful in the past. This is only to say that if science and technology are to be conceived as processes, then they cannot be 'applied' like some tool or lever to 'jack up' the development process. How processes should be exposed to one another is not at all clear, as the fumbling interventions in ecological processes have so frequently demonstrated. It is almost as though 'application to' is currently conceived as a 2-valent operator when the situation calls not so much for an N-valent operator, or for a continuing search for an (N+1 )-valent operator, but rather for an approach which could tolerate, nurture and blend a full range of approaches (reflecting the varied preoccupations and levels of perception) in which N varied from 1 to whatever is possible in our society. Processes can not be successfully 'applied to' one another. A more appropriate understanding is that they should 'harmonise' as phases, a concept which could benefit from the thinking of those concerned with electronic circuit design where this is a well-defined problem. The concept of 'frequency entrainment' is particularly suggestive of how several processes may bring each other into phase.