systems

Concept Paper
Transdisciplinarity Needs Systemism
Wolfgang Hofkirchner
Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science; Paulanergasse 13, 1040 Vienna, Austria,
[email protected]

Academic Editors: Gianfranco Minati, Eliano Pessa and Ignazio Licata

Received: 1 November 2016; Accepted: 10 February 2017; Published: 16 February 2017

Abstract: The main message of this paper is that systemism is best suited for transdisciplinary studies.
A description of disciplinary sciences, transdisciplinary sciences and systems sciences is given,
along with their different definitions of aims, scope and tools. The rationale for transdisciplinarity
is global challenges, which are complex. The rationale for systemism is the concretization of
understanding complexity. Drawing upon Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s intention of a General System
Theory, three items deserve attention—the world-view of a synergistic systems technology, the world
picture of an emergentist systems theory, and the way of thinking of an integrationist systems method.

Keywords: systems thinking; systems science; systems practice; way of thinking; world picture;
world-view; integrationism; emergentism; synergism

1. Introduction
Since we live in an age of global challenges, the responsibility of the members of the scientific
community is a topical issue. The trend towards transdisciplinary studies can be seen in that context.
Many researchers devoted to transdisciplinarity use systems terms but may fail in a sound usage of
the terms. The further development of systems thinking, systems sciences and systems practice should
address that demand. The paper at hand offers three clear-cut specifications of the systems paradigm
that might support the transdisciplinary impetus.

2. Aims, Scope, and Tools of Science

From a philosophy of science perspective, sciences can be classified according to three dimensions
of knowledge: the technological (praxiological), the theoretical (ontological), and the methodological
(epistemological) dimension.
Technology is objectivated knowledge about objects for objectives. Theory is objectivated
knowledge about objects. Methodology is knowledge of how to objectivate knowledge, that is,
to process it in a social procedure such that it is not only subjective but might be used as an objective
basis for knowledge about objects, which is required for fulfilling objectives.
Technology incorporates the aims of scientific studies; it directs theory towards practical
application. Applications intervene in the real world so as to help solve problems. Problems stand at
the beginning of any science because they form ends for any science. Problems are, in the last resort,
social. Sciences provide the means to reach a goal, given a point of departure.
Theory embraces the scope of scientific studies; it gives deep insights in the functioning of the
real world—insights that can be functionalised for the solution of problems, by informing the practice
about the way to a goal from a point of departure.
Methodology provides the tools of scientific studies; it is a framework through which
understanding of the functioning of the real world can be generated to serve its function
during problem-solving.

Systems 2017, 5, 15; doi:10.3390/systems5010015 www.mdpi.com/journal/systems

Systems 2017, 5, 15 2 of 11

3. Transcending the Disciplines

Scientific disciplines are determined by specific aims, by a specific scope and by specific tools.
The objective is a determinate problem solution, the object of study is a determinate piece of reality,
and the objectivation is guided by a determinate mixture of methods.
However, given the rise of complex problems, monodisciplinary approaches do not fit the situation
any more. Multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary approaches are needed. Transdisciplinarity has been
gaining considerable attention since. It differs from monodisciplinarity in aims, scope, and tools.
As to the aims, disciplines shall be transcended by the inclusion of stakeholders through
participation in the processes of research and development as well as through diffusion of innovations,
which allows them to co-determine what shall be regarded as a problem and what shall be regarded
as a solution. By doing so, technological knowledge shall be constructed for solving problems that
are complex.
As to the scope, disciplines shall be transcended by the inclusion of interdependencies between
factors across space (long-range effects), time (long-term effects), and matter (side effects) in the focus
of the study. By doing so, theoretical knowledge shall be enabled to depict a bigger picture than mere
isolated pieces of reality to underpin complex problem-solving.
As to the tools, disciplines shall be transcended by the inclusion of a common code that
shall perform the translation of concepts of one domain to those of other domains. By doing so,
methodological knowledge shall orient towards the identification of similarities across domains to
gain a deeper understanding of complex problems.

4. The Systems Paradigm

So far, mainstream disciplines have been regarding systems practice, systems sciences, systems
thinking—subsumed here under the term “systemism” (Mario Bunge)—as a determinate approach
that aims at managing, intervening in, transforming, engineering or designing systems (systems
technologies), which presupposes real-world systems, their dynamics and structures, or their elements
as in the scope of sciences (systems theories), which, in turn, presupposes tools that frame empirical
data as systems phenomena (systems methods). As such, systemism might or might not be the means
of choice.
Figure 1 gives a sketch of systemism that is inspired by Robert Rosen’s conception of the modelling
relation. His drawing shows the natural system, that is, the object to be modelled, on the left side and
the formal system, that is, the model, on the right side. From the left side to the right side, there is
an encoding arrow, and from the right back to the left, a decoding arrow. After Rosen, the model is
an attempt to formalise causations in the object to be modelled as inferences, whereas the encoding
and decoding processes cannot be formalised themselves but make modelling “as much an art, as it
is a methodology” [1] (p. 54). In Figure 1 the natural system is specified as a real-world system of
any kind, and the formal system as those sciences that follow a systems approach. Rosen’s encoding
process is turned into a framing process and his decoding process into a designing process, both of
which involve creative acts. Inside the systems, sciences layers are added to represent aims, scope
and tools. The arrows between those layers do not represent entailment operations but operations
that involve creative acts as well in order to accomplish the jumps between systems methods, theories
and technologies.
However, systemism is not merely an option that can be taken up according to the researchers’
predilection. It is far more a well-founded approach best suited for cases in which transdisciplinarity
is needed. This holds not only for particular projects. It has the potential to give the whole edifice of
sciences a new shape.
Systems 2017, 5, 15 3 of 11
Systems 2017, 5, 15 3 of 11

Systems 2017, 5, 15 3 of 11

Figure 1. Modelling Systems.

Figure 1. Modelling Systems.

The customary description of sciences involves (see Figure 2)

The customary description of sciences Figure involves
1. Modelling
(seeSystems.
Figure 2)
(a) philosophy on the uppermost general level;
(a)
(b) The customary
philosophy
formal description
on the
sciences, uppermost
real-world of sciences involves
generaland
sciences, level; (see
applied Figureon
sciences 2) a next level and
(c)
(b)
(a) subgroups of
onthe
formal sciences,
philosophy former—as
real-world
the uppermost logic
sciences,
generaland
and mathematics in the
applied sciences
level; oncase of level
a next formalandsciences, as natural
(c)
(b) sciences
subgroups such
of as
thephysics, etc.,
former—as and
logicsocial
and and human
mathematics sciences
in the such
case
formal sciences, real-world sciences, and applied sciences on a next level andofas sociology,
formal etc., in
sciences, as the case
natural
(c) of real-world
sciences
subgroups such sciences,
of as
thephysics, and
etc.,aslogic
former—as engineering
and social and science
human (that
and mathematics develops
sciences
in the technological
suchofasformal
case sociology, innovations)
etc.,
sciences, in
asthe case
natural
such
of as computer
real-world science,
sciences, andetc.,
as and management
engineering science
science (thatand science
develops of arts (that
technological
sciences such as physics, etc., and social and human sciences such as sociology, etc., in the casedevelop social
innovations)
innovations)
such
of real-world insciences,
as computer thescience,
case and
of etc.,
applied
as and sciences—and
management
engineering science
science (thatand science technological
develops of arts (that develop social
innovations)
(d) their sub-disciplines
innovations) in the and
case sub-sub-disciplines,
of applied sciences—andand so forth, on ever more specific
such as computer science, etc., and management science and science of arts (that develop social levels.
(d) innovations)
their sub-disciplines andofsub-sub-disciplines,
in the case applied sciences—andand so forth, on ever more specific levels.
(d) their sub-disciplines and sub-sub-disciplines, and so forth, on ever more specific levels.

Figure 2. The Edifice of Sciences from a positivistic perspective.

Those sciences are imagined

Figure to have
2. The Edifice well-defined
of Sciences from aboundaries and to interact at best without
positivistic perspective.
Figure 2. The Edifice of Sciences from a positivistic perspective.
undergoing fundamental changes themselves. Thus is the image of positivist sciences.
Systemism
Those sciencescomes with a new
are imagined to haveunderstanding
well-definedofboundaries
well-defined sciences (see and to Figure
interact3). atThe
bestsystemist
best without
without
conception
undergoing of sciences
undergoing fundamental assumes
fundamental changes semi-permeable
changes themselves.
themselves. Thus Thus is boundaries
is the
the image
image of and upward
of positivist sciences. downward
positivist sciences. and
interactions
Systemism
Systemismacross the with
comes
comes levelsa between
with new all sciences.of
understanding
a new understanding This is
ofsubstantiated
sciences (seethrough
(see Figure
sciences 3).Figure defining
3). Theany
The systemist science
conception
systemist
in
of the context of
sciences assumes
conception discovering, describing
semi-permeable
of sciences and dealing with
boundaries and boundaries
assumes semi-permeable an overall
upward andand systemic
downward interconnectedness.
upwardinteractions
and downward across
Accordingly,
the levels formal
between all sciences
sciences. become
This is part of a
substantiated systems
through methodology
defining that
any embraces
science
interactions across the levels between all sciences. This is substantiated through defining any science in theformal
contextand
of
non-formal
discovering,
in the context methods
describing to understand
and dealing
of discovering, systems
with an
describing and features;
overall systemic
dealing real-world
with an sciences
interconnectedness. turn into
overall systemic Accordingly, a science of
formal
interconnectedness.
different
sciences real-world
become
Accordingly, systems
part sciences
formal that
of a systems can be categorised
methodology
become part of a that as
systems material
embraces systems,
formal and
methodology living (material)
thatnon-formal
embraces methods systems
formal and to
and social
understand (living)
systems systems,
features; and applied
real-world sciences
sciences turn
turn out
into to
a be a
science science
of
non-formal methods to understand systems features; real-world sciences turn into a science of of
differentthe artificial
real-world design
systemsof
thosecan
that systems.
differentbe Any science
categorised
real-world systems isthat
open
as material cantobefurther
systems, specifications
living
categorised(material) of subsystems,
systems
as material and social
systems, sub-subsystems
living(living) systems,
(material) and so
and
systems
on.
and social (living) systems, and applied sciences turn out to be a science of the artificial design of
those systems. Any science is open to further specifications of subsystems, sub-subsystems and so
on.
Systems 2017, 5, 15 4 of 11

applied sciences turn out to be a science of the artificial design of those systems. Any science is open to
further2017,
Systems specifications
5, 15 of subsystems, sub-subsystems and so on. 4 of 11

Figure 3.
Figure The Edifice
3. The Edifice of
of Sciences
Sciences from
from aa systems
systems perspective.
perspective.

Thus
Thus aa lively
lively body
body of of scientific knowledge
knowledge can can be
be considered
considered as as growing
growing and developing
developing along along
the
the feed-forward
feed-forward and and feedback
feedback cyclescycles inin the
the direction
direction of of new generalisations
generalisations (upward)
(upward) and and new
new
specifications
specifications (downward), while consistency is taken care of and the silos of the disciplines in the
(downward), while consistency is taken care of and the silos of the disciplines in the
positivist perspective are broken up for the benefit of a convergent convergent whole
whole of of science.
science.
Systemism
Systemism has has been
beeneffecting
effectinga aparadigm
paradigm shift
shift thatthat
cancan transform
transform positivist
positivist disciplines
disciplines into
into parts
parts of an overarching transdisciplinary endeavour. Of course, there have
of an overarching transdisciplinary endeavour. Of course, there have been drawbacks: the resistance been drawbacks: the
resistance of thescience
of the positivist positivist science establishment
establishment has proven
has proven strong; strong;
systemism hassystemism has itself
itself branched into abranched
plethora
into a plethora of different schools. Though systems terms have flooded the
of different schools. Though systems terms have flooded the disciplines, the meaning of the terms is disciplines, the meaning
of the terms is heterogeneous.
heterogeneous. So the paradigm So shift
the paradigm
is far fromshift is far
being from being completed.
completed.
The
The need forforscience
scienceandandtechnology
technologyresponses
responses to to global
global challenges
challenges in aninintelligent
an intelligent
way way has
has been
been supporting the attraction of transdisciplinarity among the
supporting the attraction of transdisciplinarity among the scientific community. scientific community.
Drawing
Drawing on onLudwig
Ludwigvon vonBertalanffy’s
Bertalanffy’sintention
intentiontotoform
form a General
a General System
System Theory
Theory [2],[2],
as well as
as well
several
as severalother compatible
other compatible insights revolving
insights revolvingaround issues
around such such
issues as complexity,
as complexity,emergence,
emergence,and
self-organisation,
and self-organisation, can help sharpen
can help transdisciplinary
sharpen transdisciplinaryefforts. In particular,
efforts. it is these
In particular, features
it is these that
features
play an innovative
that play an innovative partpart
in supporting
in supporting thethetransdisciplinary
transdisciplinary agenda:
agenda:systems
systemstechnologies
technologiescan can be
be
characterised
characterised by a new world view, systems theories by a new world picture,
new world view, systems theories by a new world picture, and systems methods by and systems methods
by a new
a new way way of thinking.
of thinking.
The
The discussion
discussion of of these
these issues
issues here
here will
will follow
follow the
the systems
systems modelling
modelling processes
processes sketched
sketched in in
Figure 1 and start at the bottom level with framing
Figure 1 and start at the bottom level with framing systems. systems.

4.1. A
4.1. A New,
New, Systemic Way of Thinking for Transdisciplinarity:
Transdisciplinarity: Integrationism
Complex problems
Complex problemsneed
needananepistemological
epistemologicalapproach
approachthatthat
doesdoes
justice to thetocomplexity
justice of reality
the complexity of
from which
reality from systems phenomena
which systems emanate.
phenomena In manyIncases,
emanate. manyif cases,
not in if
anynotcase, an assumption
in any has to be
case, an assumption
made
has to about
be madewhich is the
about interrelation
which of phenomena
is the interrelation of different degrees
of phenomena of complexity:
of different degrees ofhow does the
complexity:
lower-complexity phenomenon relate to the higher-complexity phenomenon (and
how does the lower-complexity phenomenon relate to the higher-complexity phenomenon (and vice vice versa)?
This is a question of the way of thinking. There are, in principle, three (or four) possibilities [3]
versa)?
(see Table
This is1).a question of the way of thinking. There are, in principle, three (or four) possibilities [3]
(see Table 1).
Systems 2017, 5, 15 5 of 11

Table 1. Ways of thinking.

Complexities Identity and Differences

levelling down identity at the cost of differences
reductionism
higher complexity (uniformity not diversity)
universalism identity for the benefit of one difference
projectionism levelling up lower complexity
(uniformity not diversity)
segregating degrees any difference at the cost of identity
particularism: disjunctionism
of complexity (singularity or duality/plurality not unity)
identity and differences united
conjoining complexity degrees
(dialectic of unity through diversity,
systemic framing: integrationism of several levels through
including as less unity as necessary and as
integration and differentiation
much diversity as possible)

First, there is a universalist way of thinking that gives priority to uniformity over diversity.
It comes in two varieties:

(a) the levelling down of phenomena of higher complexity to phenomena of lower complexity;
identity of the phenomena is established at the cost of differences; this is known as reductionism;
(b) the levelling up of phenomena of lower complexity to phenomena of higher complexity; identity
of the phenomena is established for the benefit of one difference; this is called “projectionism”;
higher complexity is erroneously conceptualised at a level where it does not exist.

The second way of thinking is a particularist one. Priority is given to the singularity of a difference
or the plurality of all differences over unity. The disjoining of phenomena of different degrees of
complexity establishes the identity of a particular difference or identities of any difference, thus an
equivalence of differences—indifference—at the cost of an identity common to the phenomena. That is
called “disjunctionism”.
A third option is that way of thinking that inheres in systemism. It negates universalism and
particularism as well and interrelates phenomena to each other through integration and differentiation
of their complexity degrees. The union of identity and differences yields unity through diversity.
That is the meaning of integrationism here. That is, the phenomenon with a lower degree of complexity
shares with the phenomenon with a higher degree of complexity at least one property, which makes
both of them, to a certain extent, identical, but the latter phenomenon is in the exclusive possession
of at least another property, which makes it, to a certain extent, distinct from the former. So both
phenomena are identical and different at the same time.
The method of transdisciplinarity can take advantage of bringing this new systems method to
bear: framing the phenomena through the equilibration of integration and differentiation during the
processes of conceptualisation in order to rule out reductionist, projectionist, and disjunctionist ways
of thinking.
Example. Let us take the relationship of social science and engineering science as an example for
how to transcend the borders of both disciplines by making use of a systemic framing and transform
their relationship into a true transdisciplinary one (see Table 2).
Systems 2017, 5, 15 6 of 11

Table 2. Ways of thinking in society and technology.

Complexities Identity and Differences

the conception of the artificial is sufficient
technomorphism man is deemed a machine
for comprehending social forms
the machine is the conception of social forms is necessary
anthropo-socio-morphism
deemed man-like for comprehending the artificial
social forms are construed as distinctive
socio-centrism man is deemed exclusive
over and against the artificial
the machine is the artificial is construed as distinctive over
hetero-morphism techno-centrism
deemed exclusive and against social forms
man and machine are both social and artificial forms are
relativism
deemed apart construed side by side
the understandings of social and artificial
systemic framing: man and machine are
forms join into the understanding of
techno-social systems deemed nested
techno-social systems

In order to combine social science with engineering science, representatives of the latter might
be inclined to reduce that which is human to that which is engineerable: man is deemed a machine.
Operation Research, Cybernetics, Robotics, Mechatronics, the fields of Artificial Intelligence and
so-called Autonomous Systems, among others, are liable to cut the understanding of man who is a
social being free from the understanding of social relations; the conception of the human body free
from the conception of individual actors; and conceiving of mechanics free from conceiving of the
organism. Mechanical architectures and functioning that are constituents among others of human
life structures and processes are analysed and hypostatised as sufficient for the comprehension of
man (“technomorphism”).
Or representatives of social sciences—not unlike those of other disciplines—might share
a predilection to understand the whole world, including artifactual mechanics, by projecting
characteristics of the social world onto the former: the machine is deemed man-like. Actor-Network
Theory, Deep Ecology, New Materialism, Info-Computationalism and others are prone to blur the
boundaries between the social sciences and the sciences of living things, between the latter and the
sciences of physical things and, eventually, between the sciences of physical things and engineering
sciences by attributing human features to any of those non-social disciplines. The conception of social
forms is thought necessary for the comprehension of everything. That is blunt anthroposociomorphism.
Segregation might be made for the sake of either the identity of social science or that of engineering
science: anthropocentric or, better, sociocentric positions traditionally distinguish the investigation of
man as exclusive and belittle engineering undertakings, whereas trans- and post-humanistic positions
argue for an imminent advent of a technological singularity that will make machines outperform man
and thus the human race obsolescent. However, segregation might also promote the juxtaposition
of social science and engineering science: they co-exist, any of them is worth as much as the other,
and there are no grounds for giving supremacy to what counts as social forms or what counts as
technological forms (relativism). Both are conceived as reciprocally exclusive (“heteromorphism”).
No one of these options does establish true transdisciplinarity. In the case of technomorphism,
social science gives up any autonomy and is invaded by engineering science. In the case of
anthroposociomorphism, any autonomy of engineering science is forfeited, as social science projects
its autonomy onto engineering science. In the case of heteromorphism, each discipline claims full
autonomy over its own, self-contained area. A way out can be seen through an approach that
assumes an interrelation of both disciplines in a systemic framework that grants (relative) autonomy
to each of them according to their place in the overall framework. Both disciplines complement each
other for the sake of a greater whole. That greater whole is achieved by framing both disciplines
in a systems perspective, that is, by framing them as part of systems science. As such, social and
autonomy over its own, self-contained area. A way out can be seen through an approach that
assumes an interrelation of both disciplines in a systemic framework that grants (relative) autonomy
to each of them according to their place in the overall framework. Both disciplines complement each
other for the sake of a greater whole. That greater whole is achieved by framing both disciplines
Systems 2017, 5, 15
in a
7 of 11
systems perspective, that is, by framing them as part of systems science. As such, social and
engineering sciences combine for a common understanding of the systemic relationship of society
engineering
and technology—ofsciencesemerging
combine for a commonsystems.
techno-social understanding
They make of the
usesystemic
of systemsrelationship of society
methodologies for
and technology—of emerging techno-social systems. They make use of systems
empirically studying social systems and the artifactual in the context of technological applications methodologies for
empirically
implemented studying
by social social systems
systems andBy
design. thedoing
artifactual in the
so, they cancontext
form a of technological
never-ending applications
cycle in which
implemented
each of them has by social systems design.
a determinate By doing
place: social so, they
systems can form
science a never-ending
can inform engineering cycle in which
systems each
science
of them has a determinate place: social systems science can inform engineering
by providing facts about social functions in the social system that might be supported with systems science by
providing
technologicalfactsmeans;
about social functions
engineering in the social
systems system
science that might
can provide be supportedoptions
technological with technological
that fit the
means; engineering systems science can provide technological options that fit the social
social functions in the envisaged techno-social system; social systems science can, in turn, investigate functions in
the
the envisaged
social impact techno-social system;
of the applied social systems
technological science
option can,techno-social
in the in turn, investigate
systemthe andsocial impact
provide of
facts
the
aboutapplied technological
the working option in the
of technology. Thetechno-social
social and thesystem and provide
engineering partsfacts about the working
of techno-social systems of
technology.
science are Thecoupledsocialsoand thepromote
as to engineering parts of techno-social
an integrated technology systems science
assessment andare coupled so
technology as to
design
promote
cycle in aan integrated technology
transdisciplinary sense. assessment and technology design cycle in a transdisciplinary sense.

4.2.
4.2. A
A New,
New, Systemic
Systemic Picture
Picture of
of the
the World
World for
for Transdisciplinarity:
Transdisciplinarity:Emergentism
Emergentism
Systems
Systemstheories
theoriesprovide
provideanan
ontology in which
ontology complex
in which problems
complex are pictured
problems as complex
are pictured because
as complex
they takethey
because part intakean part
overall
in interconnectedness of processes of
an overall interconnectedness andprocesses
structuresand
thatstructures
are constituted by
that are
self-organising real-world systems. Those systems bring about evolution and nestedness
constituted by self-organising real-world systems. Those systems bring about evolution and as emergent
features
nestednessof reality.
as emergent features of reality.
The
The world is
world is pictured
pictured according
according to
to aa multi-stage
multi-stage model
model of evolutionary systems
of evolutionary systems [4]
[4] (see
(see Figure
Figure 4).
4).

Figure 4. The
Figure 4. The multi-stage
multi-stage model
model of
of evolutionary
evolutionary systems.
systems.

Systems evolve during a phase n. Spontaneously,

Spontaneously, at at aa certain
certain point in time, a leap in complexity
emerges
emerges andandone onepossibility outout
possibility of the space
of the of possibilities
space that are
of possibilities thatrooted in the reality
are rooted in the of the systems
reality of the
during
systemsthe phasethe
during n (which
phase nform
(whichthe form
necessary conditioncondition
the necessary for the transition to phase to
for the transition n +phase
1) is realised
n + 1) is
such that such
realised new organisational relations emerge.
that new organisational Those
relations organisational
emerge. relations realise
Those organisational a higherrealise
relations order ina
that they
higher nestinthe
order old
that systems
they nest then as
oldelements
systemsnn+as1elements
of the new n +systems
1 of the n + 1systems
new during then + 1phase
duringn +the
1.
Thus
phasethey
n +form
1. Thusanother
theylevel
formn + 1 abovelevel
another the level
n + 1n that
above is being reontologised,
the level reworked,
n that is being reshaped.
reontologised,
Emergence of new systems
reworked, reshaped. in theofcourse
Emergence of evolution
new systems in the(differentiation)
course of evolutionentails dominance of higher
(differentiation) entails
levels through
dominance of the reconfiguration
higher levels through of what
theis reconfiguration
taken over from of the what
old (integration).
is taken over from the old
Emergentism (another term coined by Bunge) is an important ingredient of systems
(integration).
theories. It helps understand
Emergentism (another term events
coinedandbyentities
Bunge)that
is anfunction
important as ingredient
less than strict deterministically.
of systems theories. It
Transdisciplinarity
helps understand must takeand
events into consideration
entities that less-than-strict
function as less determinism,
than strictwhich means that the
deterministically.
mechanisms of the real
Transdisciplinarity world
must take are
intonot machine-like.
consideration less-than-strict determinism, which means that the
mechanisms
Emergentismof the real world an
provides are not machine-like.
ontological superstructure for epistemological integrationism.
Emergentism
Integrationism providesbecause
can integrate an ontological
evolution superstructure
lets new featuresfor epistemological integrationism.
emerge.
Integrationism
Example. can Letintegrate because
us consider theevolution
issue oflets new features emerge.[5] as an example for the
anthroposociogenesis
transcendence of natural and cultural science towards a true transdiscipline of anthropology by
a systemic image of the evolutionary formation of society and humans.
In naturalistic accounts, the advent of human culture is owed to the development of nature.
The former is the necessary result of the latter. Anatomic features such as cerebral growth, the descent
 Example. Let us consider the issue of anthroposociogenesis [5] as an example for the
transcendence of natural and cultural science towards a true transdiscipline of anthropology by a
systemic image of the evolutionary formation of society and humans.
SystemsIn2017,
naturalistic
5, 15 accounts, the advent of human culture is owed to the development of nature.8 The of 11
former is the necessary result of the latter. Anatomic features such as cerebral growth, the descent of
the larynx, bipedalism and the opposable thumb and the fingers, among others, are named as
of the larynx,
biological traitsbipedalism
that seem to and
havethecaused
opposablepsychicthumb and the
functions suchfingers, among
as thought, theothers,
abilityare namedand
to speak as
biological traits that seem to have caused psychic
the ability to devise and manufacture artefacts, in particular tools. functions such as thought, the ability to speak and
the ability to devise
One variety of and manufacture
culturalism wouldartefacts,
conflateinthe particular
distinction tools.
between nature and culture as well,
One variety of culturalism would conflate the
postulating that cultural features occur in pre-human life and overemphasisingdistinction between nature and culture as from
the continuity well,
postulating that cultural
natural to cultural evolution. features occur in pre-human life and overemphasising the continuity from
natural to cultural
Another variety evolution.
of culturalism would postulate a discontinuity between nature and culture and
Another variety
deny any comparability. of culturalism
Both spheres would postulate ato
are considered discontinuity
be ontologicallybetween nature and
independent of culture and
each other,
denytherefore,
and any comparability.
on that basis Boththeyspheres
might are considered to be ontologically independent of each other,
interact.
and therefore, on that basis they might interact.
In contradistinction, emergentism sees nature as the necessary condition upon which culture as
In contradistinction,
an evolutionary contingency emergentism
could emerge.sees nature
In turn, asculture,
the necessary condition upon
as a supra-system, which
began to culture
dominate as
an evolutionary
via the higher-order contingency
structure could
fromemerge.
which it Inhad
turn,taken
culture, as a supra-system,
its departure (see Figure began5). to
Thedominate
key ideavia is
the higher-order structure from which it had taken its departure
that it is possibilities of co-operation that, when realised, made the difference in evolution. (see Figure 5). The key idea is that
it is possibilities
Evolutionary of co-operation
pressure unfoldedthat, when realised,
a ratchet effect that made the difference
yielded ever higher in evolution.
complex Evolutionary
cooperation.
pressure unfolded a ratchet effect that yielded ever higher complex
Michael Tomasello characterises the life of our great ape ancestors as “mostly individualistic cooperation. Michael Tomasello
and
characterises the life of our great ape ancestors as “mostly individualistic
competitive” [6] (p. 4). The ancestors were “individually intentional and instrumentally rational” and competitive” [6] (p.[6]
4).
The30)
(p. ancestors
as greatwere apes “individually
are still today.intentional and instrumentally
It was not before taking advantage rational”
of going[6] (p. 30) as“individual
beyond great apes
are still today. It was not before taking advantage of going beyond
intentionality” and adopting “more complex forms of cooperative sociality” [6] (p. 31) that early “individual intentionality” and
adopting “more complex forms of cooperative sociality” [6] (p. 31)
humans began to speciate. This brought about “shared intentionality” and enabled them to achievethat early humans began to speciate.
This brought
shared goals.about “shared intentionality”
In particular, and enabledtwo
Tomasello hypothesises them to achieve
steps towards shared goals. In particular,
a differentiated shared
Tomasello hypothesises two steps towards a differentiated shared
intentionality. A first step occurred “in the context of collaborative foraging” [6] (p. intentionality. A first
33)step occurred
around two
“in the context
million years of agocollaborative foraging” [6]400,000
with a culmination (p. 33) around
years ago. two million
This was years a ago
stepwithfrom a culmination
individual
400,000 years to
intentionality ago.jointThis was a step from
intentionality, from theindividual
competitive intentionality
sociality of to great
joint ape
intentionality,
ancestors to from the
ad hoc
competitive sociality of great ape ancestors to ad hoc dyadic
dyadic relationships with a “significant other” (G. H. Mead). Multiple and vanishing dyadic relationships with a “significant other”
(G. H. Mead).formed
relationships Multiple inand
whichvanishing dyadic relationships
early humans shared a jointformed goal. Ainsecond
which earlystep ledhumans
from shared
early toa
joint goal. A second step led from early to modern humans
modern humans some 200,000 years ago. They became “thoroughly group-minded individuals” some 200,000 years ago. They became [6]
“thoroughly group-minded individuals” [6] (p. 80) in larger groups,
(p. 80) in larger groups, in which they “had to be prepared to coordinate with anyone from the in which they “had to be prepared
to coordinate
group, with some with kindanyone of from
generic theother”
group,[6] with(p. some kindwas
81). This of generic
a step other”
from joint[6] (p. 81). This was
intentionality to
a step from joint intentionality to collective intentionality, a step to
collective intentionality, a step to the co-operation within a larger group organisation (culture) the co-operation within a larger
as the
group organisation
“generalised other” (culture) as the step
(Mead). Every “generalised
was a step other” (Mead). Every
of emergence stepsystems
of social was a step in aofnewemergence
quality
owed to the contingent realisation of possible social relations that represent a higher orderthat
of social systems in a new quality owed to the contingent realisation of possible social relations of
represent a higher
cooperation and order of cooperation
reconfigure the oldand reconfigure
system. the old system.
By accepting By accepting
the interplay the interplay
of emergence andof
emergence and
dominance, dominance,
the objects the objects
of natural scienceofandnatural science
cultural andreveal
science cultural science
their reveal
systemic their systemic
interrelationship
interrelationship and give way to a true transdisciplinary
and give way to a true transdisciplinary theory of the origins (and evolution) of human, theory of the origins (and evolution) of
social
human,
systems. social systems.

Figure 5. The emergence of cultural systems from natural systems through relations of joint cooperation
and collective cooperation.
Systems 2017, 5, 15 9 of 11

Systems 2017, 5, 15 9 of 11
Figure 5. The emergence of cultural systems from natural systems through relations of joint
cooperation and collective cooperation.
4.3. A New, Systemic World View for Transdisciplinarity: Synergism
4.3. A New, Systemic World View for Transdisciplinarity: Synergism
Acting in the face of complex problems is based on praxiological assumptions about the
Acting in the face of complex problems is based on praxiological assumptions about the
interference with self-organising systems. Known mechanisms can be furthered or dampened
interference with self-organising systems. Known mechanisms can be furthered or dampened
according to what the goal shall be.
according to what the goal shall be.
In the course of evolution, systems move on trajectories on which bifurcations occur. Bifurcations
In the course of evolution, systems move on trajectories on which bifurcations occur.
come up with a variety of possible future trajectories. Systems might not be in the position to avert
Bifurcations come up with a variety of possible future trajectories. Systems might not be in the
devolution (a path that leads to the breakdown of the system) or they might be able to achieve a
position to avert devolution (a path that leads to the breakdown of the system) or they might be able
leap from the previous level of evolution on which they could enjoy a steady state onto a higher
to achieve a leap from the previous level of evolution on which they could enjoy a steady state onto a
level which forms part of a successful mega-evolution (a breakthrough to a path that transforms the
higher level which forms part of a successful mega-evolution (a breakthrough to a path that
system) [7] (p. 314) [8] (pp. 103–104). Amplified fluctuations of parameters indicate possible and
transforms the system) [7] (p. 314) [8] (pp. 103–104). Amplified fluctuations of parameters indicate
necessary punctuations (see Figure 6).
possible and necessary punctuations (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Bifurcations in systems evolution.

Self-organisingsystems
Self-organising systemshave
haveasasraison
raisond’etre
d’etrethe
the provision
provision and
and production
production of synergetic
of synergetic effects
effects [9].
[9]. If the organisational relations are not able any more to provide and help the elements
If the organisational relations are not able any more to provide and help the elements produce synergy, produce
synergy,
the systemthewill
system
break will breakHindrances
down. down. Hindrances
of lettingofsynergy
letting synergy
emergeemerge arefrictions.
are called called frictions. Any
Any social
social system is a social system by virtue of organisational relations of production
system is a social system by virtue of organisational relations of production and provision of the and provision of
the common good, that is, the commons are the social manifestation of synergy
common good, that is, the commons are the social manifestation of synergy [10]. Hindrances of the[10]. Hindrances of
the commons
commons supply
supply are frictions
are frictions thatsystemic
that are are systemic dysfunctions
dysfunctions due todue
theto the suboptimal
suboptimal organisation
organisation of the
of the synergetic effects. Any meaningful technology is oriented towards the
synergetic effects. Any meaningful technology is oriented towards the alleviation of frictionsalleviation of frictions
and the
and the advancement
advancement of synergy.of synergy.
Thus systems technologies
Thus systems technologies can can help
help orient
orient transdisciplinarity.
transdisciplinarity. Meaningful technology is
Meaningful technology is
technology endowed with meaning
technology endowed with meaning by by
(1) the participation of those affected in an integrated technology assessment and design process
(1) the participation of those affected in an integrated technology assessment and design process
(that is, design builds upon assessment);
(that is, design builds upon assessment);
(2) for the reflection of the expected and actual usage of technology: the assessment and design
(2) for the reflection of the expected and actual usage of technology: the assessment and design
criterion is social usefulness, that is, the reflection of both;
criterion is social usefulness, that is, the reflection of both;
(a) the adequacy to the purpose (utility; operational knowledge: know-how) and
(b) the purpose itself (the function technology serves; orientational knowledge: know why and
(a) the adequacy to the purpose (utility; operational knowledge: know-how) and
what for).
(b) the purpose itself (the function technology serves; orientational knowledge: know why
and what for).
The purpose is advancing the commons.
Synergism, the orientation towards synergy for every real-world system and towards the
The purpose is advancing the commons.
human value of the commons in the case of social systems—which is a world-view
Synergism, the orientation towards synergy for every real-world system and towards the human
(weltanschauung) because it is value-laden—is the praxiological superstructure for emergentism.
value of the commons in the case of social systems—which is a world-view (weltanschauung) because
Synergy emerges, emergence brings about synergy.
it is value-laden—is the praxiological superstructure for emergentism. Synergy emerges, emergence
Example. Let us turn to the crises that manifest themselves in the tension between social
brings about synergy.
systems on the level of today’s nation states as well as within every such social system regarding
Example. Let us turn to the crises that manifest themselves in the tension between social systems
their subsystems such as, in particular, the cultural, the political, the economic, the ecological
on the level of today’s nation states as well as within every such social system regarding their
Systems 2017, 5, 15 10 of 11

Systems 2017, 5, 15 10 of 11
subsystems such as, in particular, the cultural, the political, the economic, the ecological (eco-social) and
(eco-social)
the and the
technological technological
(techno-social) (techno-social)
subsystems, which subsystems,
means thatwhich
severalmeans
branchesthatofseveral branchesare
social sciences of
social sciences are challenged. The critical situation might be complicated or complex
challenged. The critical situation might be complicated or complex to analyse. Sometimes it is said that to analyse.
Sometimes it is said that
complicatedness—the complicatedness—the
presence of many factors that presence of many
influence factors
each other —isthatnotinfluence
an obstacleeach other
that we
—is notnot
would anbeobstacle
able to that we would
overcome. not bethe
However, able to overcome.
opposite might be However,
true. Thethe
hugeopposite
amount might be true.
of options of
The huge amount of options of interventions—proposed by different disciplines—might
interventions—proposed by different disciplines—might actually pose a practical difficulty. However, actually
pose
on theaother
practical
hand,difficulty. However,
the situation we faceon the otherishand,
nowadays ratherthe situation
complex. we face nowadays
In addition, if complexity is enters
rather
complex. In addition, if complexity enters the stage, problem-solving is also
the stage, problem-solving is also possible despite opposite views—in a true transdisciplinary effort.possible despite
opposite views—in
Today, enclosuresa true
of transdisciplinary
the commons have effort.
been aggravated to such a degree that all of them
Today,
morphed intoenclosures of the commons
global challenges. have been
Global challenges aggravated
drive to suchof acrises
an accumulation degreethatthat
mark alla decisive
of them
morphed into global challenges. Global challenges drive an
bifurcation. A Great Bifurcation lies ahead of humanity (see Figure 7) [11]. accumulation of crises that mark a
decisive bifurcation. A Great Bifurcation lies ahead of humanity (see Figure 7) [11].

Figure 7.
Figure 7. The
The Great
Great Bifurcation
Bifurcation in
in social
social systems
systems evolution.
evolution.

On the one hand, a possible change never seen before might be imminent—a transformation of
On the one hand, a possible change never seen before might be imminent—a transformation of
the current state of civilisation into a new state that brings about a peaceful, environmentally sound
the current state of civilisation into a new state that brings about a peaceful, environmentally sound
and socially and economically just and inclusive world society by the integration of differentiated
and socially and economically just and inclusive world society by the integration of differentiated
interdependent social systems. That rise in complexity is possible. If there is a mismatch between the
interdependent social systems. That rise in complexity is possible. If there is a mismatch between the
complexity of a system and the complexity of the problems faced by the system, that system can
complexity of a system and the complexity of the problems faced by the system, that system can catch
catch up. It can solve the problem by activating the collective intelligence of the co-systems it is made
up. It can solve the problem by activating the collective intelligence of the co-systems it is made up
up of and raise the complexity of its organisational relations or by activating the collective
of and raise the complexity of its organisational relations or by activating the collective intelligence
intelligence of co-systems of its own and raise the complexity of that supra-system in which they are
of co-systems of its own and raise the complexity of that supra-system in which they are nested in
nested in order to match or surpass the complexity faced. Intelligence is the capability of
order to match or surpass the complexity faced. Intelligence is the capability of self-organising systems
self-organising systems to generate that information which contributes in the best way to solving
to generate that information which contributes in the best way to solving problems. The better their
problems. The better their collective intelligence, that is, the better their problem-solving capacity
collective intelligence, that is, the better their problem-solving capacity and the better their capability
and the better their capability to generate information, the better their handling of the crisis and the
to generate information, the better their handling of the crisis and the order they can reach. Higher
order they can reach. Higher complexity not only signifies a higher degree of differentiation. At least
complexity not only signifies a higher degree of differentiation. At least as importantly, it signifies
as importantly, it signifies a new quality of integration. Only a new level of integration can deal with
a new quality of integration. Only a new level of integration can deal with an intensification of
an intensification of differentiation. The new system would disclose the commons. “It would be a
differentiation. The new system would disclose the commons. “It would be a Global Sustainable
Global Sustainable Information Society (GSIS).
Information Society (GSIS).
GSIS requires,
GSIS requires,
(1) for
(1) for the
the first
first time
time in
in the
the history
history of
of our
our planet,
planet, on
on aa higher
higher social level—that is,
social level—that is, globally—
globally—
(2) a reorganisation of the social relations within and in between the interdependent social systems
(2) a reorganisation of the social relations within and in between the interdependent social
such that sociogenic dysfunctions with respect to the social, the social-ecological and the
systems such that sociogenic dysfunctions with respect to the social, the social-ecological and
socio-technological realms can be contained—that is, a transformation into sustainable
the socio-technological realms can be contained—that is, a transformation into sustainable
development —
development —
(3) through conscious and conscientious actors that are not only self- but also
(3) through conscious and conscientious actors that are not only self- but also
community-concerned—that is, under well-determined informational conditions.” [11] (15)
community-concerned—that is, under well-determined informational conditions.” [11] (15)
On the other hand, a decline in complexity might be imminent, eventually leading to
disintegration of allegedly independent social systems. Civilisation would fall apart.
Systemism is key to tackling complex problems such as the reciprocal influences of varying
kinds of factors dealt with on the basis of varying disciplinary backgrounds within the social
Systems 2017, 5, 15 11 of 11

On the other hand, a decline in complexity might be imminent, eventually leading to

disintegration of allegedly independent social systems. Civilisation would fall apart.
Systemism is key to tackling complex problems such as the reciprocal influences of varying kinds
of factors dealt with on the basis of varying disciplinary backgrounds within the social sciences in
a transdisciplinary way. It is thus key to tackling global challenges and guiding the transformation
of our social systems onto the next level of cooperation through a social systems design based upon
social systems technologies.

5. Conclusions
In summary, systemic transdisciplinarity

(1) aims—by a systems world-view—at providing scientific knowledge for solving problems of
frictions in the functioning of real-world systems, in particular in processes of the provision and
production of the commons in social systems through meaningful systems technologies that
support the re-organisation of social systems in order to safeguard sustainable development and
rule out self-inflicted breakdowns;
(2) has as its scope the functioning of emergent real-world systems in the interconnectedness of their
evolution and their nestedness, the scientific knowledge of which is a theoretical systems world
picture needed for alleviating frictions;
(3) uses tools that generate scientific knowledge through a systems way of thinking by the method of
equilibrating integration and differentiation for a proper understanding of how complexity grows.

Systemism has the power to transform the disciplines.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Rosen, R. Life Itself ; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
2. Bertalanffy, L.V. General System Theory; With a Foreword by Wolfgang Hofkirchner & David Rousseau;
George Braziller: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
3. Hofkirchner, W. Four ways of thinking in information. Triple-C: J. Glob. Sustain. Infor. Soc. 2011, 9, 322–331.
4. Hofkirchner, W. Emergent Information, a Unified Theory of Information Framework; World Scientific:
Singapore, 2013.
5. Hofkirchner, W. Ethics from Systems: Origin, Development and Current State of Normativity.
In Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity; Archer, M.S., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
2016; pp. 279–295.
6. Tomasello, M. A Natural History of Human Thinking; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014.
7. Haefner, K. Information Processing at the Sociotechnical Level. In Evolution of Information Processing Systems;
Haefner, K., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1992; pp. 307–319.
8. Oeser, E. Mega-Evolution of Information Processing Systems. In Evolution of Information Processing Systems;
Haefner, K., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1992; pp. 103–111.
9. Corning, P. The Synergism Hypothesis; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1983.
10. Hofkirchner, W. Creating Common Good. The Global Sustainable Information Society as the Good Society.
In Morphogenesis and Human Flourishing; Archer, M.S., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2017;
in print.
11. Hofkirchner, W. Information for a Global Sustainable Information Society. In The Future Information Society,
Social and Technological Problems; Hofkirchner, W., Burgin, M., Eds.; Wolrd Scientific: Singapore, 2017;
pp. 11–33.

© 2017 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).