CEPTUAL INSTITUTE - Buchanan: Values & Order

A paper presented to the Ryerson Conference
on the Evolution of World Order - June 1999

VALUES AND ORGANISATION

Bruce Buchanan*

___________________________________________

1. Introduction:

Values play the key strategic role in the systematic guidance of behaviour. For useful understanding we need to recognise values not as fixed or arbitrary concepts but as guides and indicators of performance which may
reflect various levels of organisation. Values, valuation processes and feedback steer outcomes at many different system levels. Values may be viewed from a systems perspective as decision criteria through which human needs may be met (Buchanan, 3,4). For purposes of discussion of world order, the values which are relevant must reflect the most comprehensive systems perspectives we can discern. The choice of values plays a creative role in the shaping of new forms of organisation at all levels.

In attempting to better understand values we face daunting problems of confusion and resistance. The subject is close to the hearts of many people, and a diversity of assumptions are defended with vigour and often much anxiety. One of the most eminent of philosophers, Michael Scriven (Scriven, 11), has even described a kind of "value phobia" as a feature of our time.

Nevertheless, values are literally decisive in the shaping of purposes, steering behaviours and achieving results. They inform human affairs at all levels, and in the absence of conflict and confusions are mostly accepted as self-evident. However values that are misleading or a source of hidden contradictions create many difficulties. Governments and many large organisations are today being guided by values (e.g. social, political and economic indicators) which have not all been adequately appraised in what they purport to measure (e.g. Gross Domestic Product). Moreover they may be advanced in terms which confuse thought, intentionally or not.

We may begin by considering the nature and role of values, in relation to system dynamics in general and the performance of social systems in particular. The distinction needs to be clearly made between (1) actual per- formances in the real world, which determines success or failure in life, and (2) performance *measures*, which reflect abstractions, always less than complete. While measurements are important, it is also vital to recognise that particular comparisons must be selected for attention, each with specific advantages and and limitations.

We are here using the term value to describe criteria involved in the evaluation of actions and events. Thus, purported values which are held to be absolute, i.e. not subject to any further assessment, might more clearly be identified as Ideals or Principles. They may appear as guiding stars, but their value really depends upon their relationships, including context and effects. (The notion of values independent of human life may reflect a Cartesian dualism which separates mind from body, thought from action, and is at odds with the non-dualistic views of integral systems being advanced here.)

Power, it has been said (Newman, 9), is the production of intended effects. The factors involved in the exercise of social power may be usefully described in terms of systems. A system is usually defined in terms of the specific factors which determine its outcomes. Thus the elements and relationships which comprise systems are identified for their contributions to purposes and results. Controls by feedback are based upon governing values. Of course, power may also be described in terms of force and coercion (the implicit model being that of a machine). Our premise is that the responsible exercise of social power must be transparent with respect to values and results if it is to be relevant to human lives, as well as effective and efficient in the long run.

Social systems may pose problems of many kinds. Turning around a company that is losing its markets and is structurally impaired is difficult. It may be even more difficult to redirect a political entity damaged by its history, customs, and fears. It is especially difficult if such bodies are saddled with false certainties, convinced of the worth of faulty values. Finding creative directions for a world besieged by such problems may be assisted by recognising the nature and key role of values, and the importance of evaluative processes to enable us to modify and thus ensure the continuing relevant of values to meet new challenges.

Peter Newman writes: "Inheritors often lose their nerve and are frightened of responsibility" (Newman, 8) When fear and ignorance block communications, "telling the truth" to the power-that-be may not be possible, Finding a common ground and language is a prerequisite. But many basic assumptions may need to be challenged and revitalised. Such inquiries have always been seen as a dangerous kind of activity - as the lives of Socrates and Jesus demonstrated to the ages.

Of course, values do not describe an actual world "as it is". They reflect the use of abstract language, in terms of which alternative possibilities may be envisioned. Human evaluative processes also reflect biological and unconscious needs. To the extent that "universal" values may be described they are the product of the same kind of consensual validation as is involved in any scientific inquiry. Validation based upon shared experience is a more trustworthy foundation than imagined absolutes. Values are always provisional, i.e. subject to revision in the light of experience.

We live in schizoid societies, in which values, societal programs and daily activities are often in conflict, which may or may not be recognised. Leaders often do not "walk their talk". Thus, it is of the utmost importance that the values which govern performance in various areas be open to assessment. Effective values cannot be adopted prematurely and fixed; both the world and human needs change. Nor should one set of values be used for purposes of public relations, another set for self-promotion, and real responsibilities treated as an afterthought.
Performance criteria should be able to distinguish such uses.

Among the most important values which influence human lives and events we know that power looms very large. Some philosophers (e.g. Nietzsche) have seen the "will to power" as the primary drive. Other thinkers (e.g. Freud) and many professionals engaged in the arts of manipulating consumer choices, exploit human interests in sex. Certainly desires for power and sex are major motivating forces. And the desire to retain power far beyond
security needs is perhaps a major obstacle to social change.

What are the sources of values? They stem from the necessities of life and requirements for normal human development which are the grounds of their universality. Thus all people have "rights" to life, to what they need to
maintain their existence (Adler, 1). "Human rights" have been described in terms of those universal values which, in various forms and degrees, must be present in all enduring human societies. Yet even "universal" values can only be the product of consensual validation - in this way similar to findings in any scientific inquiry. In addition there are cultural values which reflect local and traditional habits and expectations, relative to time and place. What is relative to human nature, however, is a universal of all human experience.

In his book *The Double Vision* Northrop Frye (Frye, 7) discusses language and meaning in religion and society and make some distinctions relevant to our topic. He notes that human concerns are both primary - for food, sex,
property (shelter, clothing and personal space) and freedom of movement - and secondary - for political, religious and ideological loyalties. Historically the secondary - often as abstract justifications of arbitrary power - have taken precedence. However further progress toward the realisation of human potential is conceivable only if individual freedom is a primary concern, i.e. in the context of normal needs.

Frye points out, as a matter of practical fact, that for conscious human beings primary concerns must have a spiritual dimension; e.g. freedom includes freedom of thought. The difference between the spiritual aspects
of primary concerns, and secondary ideological concerns, may be expressed in two types of society: (1) the primitive in which the individual is primarily a function of the social group within a hierarchy; and (2) the more highly evolved society which has the aim of developing the individuality of its members. In the latter the structure of authority is a function of the individuals within it. Almost all societies to date have been primitive in the first sense. Ideological concerns at the primitive level may offer support to individuals in need but in practice tend to
frustrate primary needs by subordinating individual to social needs. Such values have practical implications for governance, in view of the adversarial relation between the demands of human welfare and the forces clinging to arbitrary power.

In a hierarchy of values the final or ultimate terms depend upon processes of existential inquiry into new develop- ments and possibilities. Values are reflected in the functions of living systems, and while experiences can be "pointed to", they cannot be entirely captured in words and concepts. Indeed, the formalisation of any system of beliefs may have the disadvantage of closing the system to the correction of errors. In relation to human thought, language and values. it is essential to keep our ideas open to learning and new experience.

In practical life this requires that values provide a basis for distinctions and choices able to resolve conflicts between the lives of individuals and with societies. Until they deal with the distinctions involved in forced choices, values are empty words.

We should also be clear about what may be seen as the major requirements for performance measures at any level. These include:

1) goals that validly reflect real human needs;
2) goals that take account of requirements for sustainability of societies;
3) methods that take into account political factors involved in implementation;
4) aims that do not foreclose on novel and creative possibilities.
5) effectiveness of the systems ( individual and group) in meeting identified needs.
6) relative efficiencies of alternative strategies, methods and programs.

The first requirement is to consider an adequate intellectual framework for dealing with systems and action programs. We need to address the design requirements for an appropriate communication system, and not at this stage specific programs or messages.

2. Needs and Values

Human needs are the primary source of our values. Both individuals and social groups have essential requirements. Such needs influence personal and institutional perceptions and responses.

These real and pressing needs reflect the biological, psychological and social necessities of normal life and development. When these needs are not met, human life is impaired. There may be disagreements about where to
draw precise lines, but basic necessities must be acknowledged by those who are open to evidence. Institutions may formally recognise individual values but in practice may override these with values based upon rationalisations
which serve institutions rather than human ends.

Values and goals may serve many purposes, including desires which have no natural end-points. The processes of consumption or accumulation may become aims in themselves e.g. the accumulation of wealth may be a dysfunctional aim. The problems involved in assessing such values have hardly been addressed, despite their obvious need in the interests of transparency and fairness.

Needs and effects that are obvious may not be the most important, and what is easiest to measure may not be the most significant. Convenient measures of economic activity such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), utilising
data conveniently available, may be inadequate as measures of economic health. Within the totals of such an index there may be components which in reality are opposed in their effects e.g. commercial activities which may add to costs for health care, or armaments which negate rather than add to useful production.

Values and measures which do not illuminate the choices which need to be made require reassessment. Ideologies such as "free enterprise" capitalism and democratic socialism are seen by their advocates as justified by their
results. However it is less than honest to select only that evidence which proves a case, and to neglect facts which point to problems. In particular, it is vital to avoid the kind of restrictions which block feedback necessary for adapting to real world conditions. Systems must be open to be effective in the long run.

3. Values and Ideologies

It is possible for values to reflect in their application the same kind of objectivity and universality, relative to human capacities, as we expect of science and its operations. However not all values meet such criteria, and in particular values advanced in the name of various religions require an enlightened assessment from within the spirit of the whole - of intellectual freedom and open systems.

As used in this paper, values refer to decision criteria which steer behaviour, in particular towards the kinds of results intended to meet specified needs. Values are defined in terms of outcomes which can be described in operational terms, i.e. which can be clearly understood and experienced by others. Ideologies, in contrast, are by definition abstractions not immediately subject to test of experience and results.

While there is a valid role for faith in unseen possibilities, the test of truth lies in evidence, and particularly in predicted fruits of action. Nothing should be accepted on faith alone, or on any arbitrary basis. The criteria are those of results. Values are revealed by their fruits. Ideologies are too often used as the basis for arbitrary claims to authority and power, and may be at odds with the practice of their proponents. History provides many examples of such distortions, both well-intentioned and cynical.

Claims or intellectual justifications on behalf of ideologies - e.g. capitalism, socialism, or fascism, etc. - tend to make selective use of evidence. From a systems perspective a valid or scientific approach must take into account all the relevant data. Elements of importance cannot be arbitrarily ruled out of consideration as "externalities", of no concern - as too often done by apologists for "free enterprise", or by pessimists about this world who pin their personal hopes on "another world" on an even more vague faith that something will turn up.

Ideological positions, like other intellectual hypotheses, are only as good and useful and the evidence which supports them, and as the enhancements of knowledge that they bring. Many previous generations sought intellectual security in ideological absolutes. But genuine security requires responsibility - in examining evidence systematically, in making responsible evaluations. (Scriven, 11) and in the discriminating use of intelligence, no holds barred. This is the only process by which enduringly useful values can be established. It also means that in principle there are no arbitrary limits to be imposed on developments in human affairs.

4. Values and Performance: Effectiveness and Efficiency

The performance or results of an enterprise or social system must be measured against relevant criteria, which include values, objectives, goals and priorities. A variety of measurements can provide feedback guidance
to various contributing operations, to modify processes as necessary to improve performance. (Drucker, 6)

A measurement is a comparison, normatively to some standard. The standard may be be clear, but is often vague or implied. For example, rates of crime and/or imprisonment, in comparison with other countries, or as trends over time within one jurisdiction, may be offered as objective indices of social justice, or effective policing, or as support for some other possible value or objective. The validity of such claims must rest on empirical evidence
which considers not merely various correlations of data but system dynamics e.g. policies, intended effects and actual results.

However the devil is in the details. From a systems perspective it may be thought that the lowering of crime rates represent success for values which guide policy and actions. Yet all statistics must be open to scrutiny. The lowering of crime rates by falsification of reports and failure to register and pcute crimes, as has happened in some jurisdictions, conceals a perversion of the claimed values.

Information which is readily available may or may not not be significant as a measurement. Statistical information can be meaningless and/or misleading. The validity and usefulness of the comparisons are empirical questions. The relevance of measurements, e.g. as feedback or incentive, may be illuminated by considering the relationships of values to actions and effects from a systems perspective. Not just any measures will provide useful guidance.

Values may be termed "objective" when they meet criteria which are agreed upon by different observers. Many measures in current use, e.g. statistics of crime, income levels, child mortality, etc., carry implied comparisons
in relation to other jurisdictions and have been studied in many ways. Of course, values may be objective without being useful.

The question of "subjective" values are more complex. This category may include whatever people feel or assert to be their values. These may be indeterminate in objective results, but may be used to justify actions regardless of outcomes - for example, on the basis of presumed or traditional duty (deontological values). Values based on personal opinions can be assessed in various ways e.g. by questionnaires and interviews, etc. These may be important in their own ways., and in aggregate public opinion. However, the burden of proof of the meaning of subjective values lies on the proponents, who cannot expect others to accept views which lack grounding in consensual experience.

We may distinguish two kinds of "objective" comparisons which reflect the requirements of a systems perspective. Within the relationships which define any system there are two aspects of decisive importance. The first is the system EFFECTIVENESS in achieving the effects or outputs that are required to provide for its continuing existence - e.g. animals must obtain food and warmth, etc.,, social groups must perform the functions for which
they are being supported, companies must provide services which meet market needs, and so forth.

Effective performance may be described in terms of achieving intended goals and meeting real needs - personal, family, group, corporate, institutional, societal, etc. the outcome(s) which it is the business or purpose of each such system to produce. To establish and evaluate the real needs is an empirical task.

The second key consideration is the EFFICIENCY of energy and resource utilisation in achieving the intended outputs - e.g. the ratio of costs to presumed benefits will be influenced by waste, corruption, or diversion of efforts away from agreed intentions. This distinction has been recognised in management literature (Drucker, 6)

Efficiency is improved as the ratio of output/input is increased. Efficiency involves doing better what is already being done. It may be noted that, if methods actually entail very different requirements and/or side-effects, simple comparisons may be misleading. For instance, apparent efficiencies which really depend upon external conditions, such as social changes for educational and transportation inputs, tax subsidies, waste disposal, etc., may require open and detailed accounting for a proper evaluation of efficiency and even effectiveness. Simplistic comparisons may be of limited interest, and their advocacy may be suspect.

The application of existential and operational criteria to particular values - such as freedom, justice, health, material well-being, security, environmental sustainability, and others - is beyond the scope of this paper.

In summary, this paper makes a plea, and sets out grounds, for considering values as subject to validation by observation and trial, intended to anticipate and meet needs and guide action. The tasks and problems of measuring values in this sense can only be a cooperative enterprise guided by principles of a systems science which takes human observers into account.

_______________________________________________________
* Bruce H. Buchanan, M.D., D Psych., is a retired physician who has had a
career in medical practice, public health, psychiatry, university teaching
(School of Graduate Studies, University of Toronto), and two decades in
governmental policy and administrative work (Director and Senior Policy
Advisor, Ontario Ministry of Health), with a lifelong interest in
philosophy and cybernetics:

Bruce H. Buchanan, M.D.
4690 Dundas St. West (416) 231-6235
Toronto, Ontario M9A 1A6 CANADA
ceptualinstitute.com/genre/buchanan/homepageBB.htm [return to page top]
==================================================================

References:

(1)   Adler, M. (1985) Ten Philosophical Mistakes. New York: Macmillan.
(2)   Beer, Stafford (1994), Platform for Change, John Wiley & Sons
(3)   Buchanan, B.(1997a) "Assessing Human Values", Kybernetes, Sept/97 - also see:
        ceptualinstitute.com/genre/buchanan/homepageBB.htm
(4)   Buchanan, B.(1997b) "Values, Systems, and Consciousness", The Noetic Journal,
        Vol 1 No. 1 June, 1997 also see:
        ceptualinstitute.com/genre/buchanan/homepageBB.htm
(5)   Campbell, Joseph (1959) The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology. Viking Press (New York)
(6)   Drucker, Peter F. (1973) Management: Tasks - Responsibilities - Practices. Harper & Row (New York)
(7)   Frye, Northrop (1991) The Double Vision: Language and Meaning in Religion.University of Toronto Press (Toronto)
(8)   Mesthene,Emmanuel, G.(1968), 'How Technology Will Shape the Future' in Purposive Systems: First
       Annual Symposium of the American Society for Cybernetics, p.67 ff. Spartan Books.
(9)   Newman, Peter C. (1998), Titans. Viking/Penguin
(10) Popper, K. (1992) The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism. London: Routledge
(11) Scriven, Michael (1987), Theory and Practice of Evaluation.
(12) Hardin, G. "Tragedy of the Commons.", Science, and many reprints.