The change agents were very fashionable and hip --- they professed to postmodernism and/or to Deleuzian generativity. But they did not shift CO(M)POSITIONING out of its mode of communication. Their own universe of consciousness never connected generatively with CO(M)POSITIONING's. The change agents were hermetically enclosed in their own assumptions.
(..)
Organization has become a social order unto itself, capable of defending its functionality, no matter what people feel and think. Thus for consultants or change agents, organizational change is no mean task. In Opusclum, the consultants entrusted their project to a strategy of noise, irritation and differentiation. If the various work groups all developed communication of their own, there would supposedly have been enough differentiation to destabilize current redundancy. But organization always includes functional differentiation --- the project groups were interpreted as if they were just another dimension of an already existing functional differentiation. Hereby, they produced no noise, but just more complication
(..)
The problem is that organization tends to develop towards increased redundancy --- that is, to more tight, institutionalized, rationalized, and formal order. Organization tends to reject noise and to embrace control, efficiency and order. But if one wants the structural complexity of the system to increase, one needs irritants, difference and change.
(..)
If organization is characterized by self-enclosing boundaries, operationalized in communication, how can we critically know, observe or change organization?
(..)
To be a change agent or researcher, one has to be able to be an active outsider, or (in effect) an outside insider. Luhmann observes that this is a paradoxical position.
(..)
Luhmann introduces the parasite or irritation as the principle of difference. Without parasites or irritants, there is only repetition --- that is, more of the same, produced via the recursivity of closed systems. Parasites produce difference --- they are a principle of change, innovation and creativity.
(..)
(But) Parasitism is both radically dependent, and has far-reaching possibilities.(..) Parasites cannot become insiders or outsiders, without loosing their identities. Parasites remain a source of noise for the communication process(es) with which any system self-creates. By keeping the self-organizing generative process (a bit) out of balance, parasites insure that communication continues and does not settle into entropy. But can the parasites fulfill this function, while observing themselves and the system all at the same time? In Serres' terms --- can one be a successful guest in regards to one's host, and fruitfully observe the process all at once?
(..)
Where Serres sees relationships (..)Luhmann sees disparateness. For Serres, organizations can be studied, albeit from a parasitical position. Researchers introduce noise into the system by assuming the outsider's position. Researchers have to ingratiate themselves on the system in order to do their work. Though the system probably will not and cannot acknowledge it, good researchers provide just enough noise, that the systems studied become more alive thanks to the relationship. For Luhmann, parasitism creates difference and difference destabilizes communication, but to little or no positive avail. Parasites add options and exploit the decision space, multiplying metalevel or process alternatives.
(..)
In Luhmann, individual consciousness is outside the organizing process; in Serres consciousness is outside organizing but inside the noise that influences (perhaps indirectly) organizing.
In Serres, the link is not assured, but it is at issue.
Parasites and Self-Organization
Or is Self-Organization Researchable?
Hugo Letiche
University of Humanistics, Utrecht
https://tamarajournal.com/index.php/tamara/article/view/91/81
(..)
Organization has become a social order unto itself, capable of defending its functionality, no matter what people feel and think. Thus for consultants or change agents, organizational change is no mean task. In Opusclum, the consultants entrusted their project to a strategy of noise, irritation and differentiation. If the various work groups all developed communication of their own, there would supposedly have been enough differentiation to destabilize current redundancy. But organization always includes functional differentiation --- the project groups were interpreted as if they were just another dimension of an already existing functional differentiation. Hereby, they produced no noise, but just more complication
(..)
The problem is that organization tends to develop towards increased redundancy --- that is, to more tight, institutionalized, rationalized, and formal order. Organization tends to reject noise and to embrace control, efficiency and order. But if one wants the structural complexity of the system to increase, one needs irritants, difference and change.
(..)
If organization is characterized by self-enclosing boundaries, operationalized in communication, how can we critically know, observe or change organization?
(..)
To be a change agent or researcher, one has to be able to be an active outsider, or (in effect) an outside insider. Luhmann observes that this is a paradoxical position.
(..)
Luhmann introduces the parasite or irritation as the principle of difference. Without parasites or irritants, there is only repetition --- that is, more of the same, produced via the recursivity of closed systems. Parasites produce difference --- they are a principle of change, innovation and creativity.
(..)
(But) Parasitism is both radically dependent, and has far-reaching possibilities.(..) Parasites cannot become insiders or outsiders, without loosing their identities. Parasites remain a source of noise for the communication process(es) with which any system self-creates. By keeping the self-organizing generative process (a bit) out of balance, parasites insure that communication continues and does not settle into entropy. But can the parasites fulfill this function, while observing themselves and the system all at the same time? In Serres' terms --- can one be a successful guest in regards to one's host, and fruitfully observe the process all at once?
(..)
Where Serres sees relationships (..)Luhmann sees disparateness. For Serres, organizations can be studied, albeit from a parasitical position. Researchers introduce noise into the system by assuming the outsider's position. Researchers have to ingratiate themselves on the system in order to do their work. Though the system probably will not and cannot acknowledge it, good researchers provide just enough noise, that the systems studied become more alive thanks to the relationship. For Luhmann, parasitism creates difference and difference destabilizes communication, but to little or no positive avail. Parasites add options and exploit the decision space, multiplying metalevel or process alternatives.
(..)
In Luhmann, individual consciousness is outside the organizing process; in Serres consciousness is outside organizing but inside the noise that influences (perhaps indirectly) organizing.
In Serres, the link is not assured, but it is at issue.
Parasites and Self-Organization
Or is Self-Organization Researchable?
Hugo Letiche
University of Humanistics, Utrecht
https://tamarajournal.com/index.php/tamara/article/view/91/81
