Second‐order cybernetics: an historical introduction

Abstract

In 1974, Heinz von Foerster articulated the distinction between a first-and second-order cybernetics, as, respectively, the cybernetics of observed systems and the cybernetics of observing systems. Von Foerster's distinction, together with his own work on the epistemology of the observer, has been enormously influential on the work of a later generation of cyberneticians. It has provided an architecture for the discipline of cybernetics, one that, in true cybernetic spirit, provides order where previously there was variety and disorder. It has provided a foundation for the research programme that is second-order cybernetics. However, as von Foerster himself makes clear, the distinction he articulated was imminent right from the outset in the thinking of the early cyberneticians, before, even, the name of their discipline had been coined. In this paper, the author gives a brief account of the developments in cybernetics that lead to von Foerster's making his distinction. As is the way of such narratives, it is but one perspective on a complex series of events. Not only is this account a personal perspective, it also includes some recollections of events that were observed and participated in at first hand.

Reconstructing governability: How fisheries are made governable

“…Analysts observed the application of control by negative feedback, for instance, in many domains including engineering, neurology, psychology, economics and anthropology. Provision of common concepts and terminology to facilitate connection between these different disciplines served a major motivation for the development of cybernetics (Scott, ). Moreover, its interdisciplinarity extends to both a social system and a biological one, and the study of the governance of human systems has been one of the discipline's traditional emphases from the outset (Rhodes, ; Scott, ).…”

“…Furthermore, self‐fulfilling or self‐defeating prophecies occur in the social world embedded through feedback loops, creating a self‐perpetuating situation that is difficult to manoeuvre or overturn (Geyer & van der Zouwen, ). These revelations pointed to the inherent unpredictability (and complexity) which a simple control paradigm cannot adequately contain, such that the truly self‐organizing systems “will always expand beyond the frames of reference adopted by observers to model their behaviour” (Scott, , p. 1370). Representing the second‐order cybernetics (also known as social cybernetics, socio‐cybernetics or social systems theory), this new trend brought with it two major effects.…”

Sociocybernetics: tensions between complex systems, social systems and complexity sciences

“…Una formulación simple pero poderosa de la esencia de la cibernética es que sus conceptos clave son 'proceso' y 'producto', y que su metodología principal es un modelo de la forma de los procesos y sus productos, abstraídos de cualquier realización particular (Scott, 2004(Scott, , p. 1367.…”

“…Desde sus orígenes la cibernética estuvo interesada en una reflexión meta-disciplinar al entender que su actividad modelizadora alcanzaba a la forma en que se construyen modelos científicos en disciplinas diversas. Al introducir la cibernética de segundo orden, Heinz von Foerster centra la mirada en el investigador y en el círculo hermenéutico de la explicación que debe dar cuenta de sí misma (Scott, 2004).…”

Can multicriteria assessment tools help build trust into organic products?

“…Being self-reflective is about our bias-i.e., the blind spot in our thinking (Scott 2004), and the "methodological efforts to root out sources of bias" (Lynch 2000:34). Thus, it is a kind of http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss4/art5/ metareflection, a self-criticism (Lynch 2000:30), deepening human experiences (Freshwater and Rolfe 2001:529-530), and reflecting upon our reflection (Scott 2004). This is what Lipp (2007) calls emancipation (knowing why).…”