My previous 6 blog posts and this one form a series on systems thinking. As I mentioned before, I was taking a workshop on the topic, facilitated by David Ing, which is now coming to a close. Looking back, the course really brought in a vast amount of topics I had never thought of before. As I try to synthesize all of what I’ve learned, I’ve come out with a couple directions systems thinking will take me in the context of my own thinking in my own life.
The workshop was only six weeks, but one central concept from it is already taking hold of my opinions and my analysis of the world around me. Simply put, it’s thinking of the world in terms of interconnecting systems and parts and wholes.
As an arts major who never paid too much attention to political or economic systems in depth, I never realized (and surely have yet to realize) the importance of both the bigger and smaller picture in solving issues. This came into mind when a friend shared a video about wind power with me on Facebook. The solution posed by the quirky and youthful narrator was for private businesses to take responsibility for using more sustainable energy sources. (The final message was that a certain phone company with a progressive and youthful image was already doing so, thus revealing the advertising nature of the video). I don’t think I would have been swept up by this video previously, but I found myself a lot better equipped to explain why the narrator’s big idea was not a good one. Companies are a small part of a much larger system. Exceptional companies might make real efforts to change how energy is sourced in North America, but ultimately, change needs to occur in the containing whole. Sweeping energy reform cannot occur at the level of individual businesses. The current state of the systems involved simply does not allow for that. The change that needs to happen would be at the policy level, in the form of regulations. In order for that to happen, there needs to be immense pressure that mitigates the economic pressures that are holding things in the unsustainable status quo.
Perhaps my miniature revelation is somewhat obvious, but it really reflects a change in my thinking. Never before had I realized the importance of spreading awareness. In the wake of the Kony 2012 slacktivism fiasco, I was convinced that awareness was little more than a joke. However, it does have its role to play in causing systemic change. In contrast with Kony 2012, the #MeToo movement is an example of systemic change occurring due to a shift in culture, all due to an informal awareness campaign.
In my second post in this series, I hesitantly proposed that public libraries need systems thinking. Here’s a quotation from that post.
“But isn’t it more important for the librarian to have an understanding of the community he is serving, the broader environment that community operates within, and the relationship the public library has with the community and within the environment?”
I think I was indeed on to something with that thought. Public libraries are in a position where many different systems intersect. What I did not quite account for, is all of the lower-level parts that affect the containing whole of the library. This is where it becomes important for librarians and library managers to truly be engaged with the ongoing machinations of the world around them. It is not enough to bear down and focus on day-to-day programming. Things are constantly changing, and in order to serve their publics, libraries need to have a strong awareness of what is going on and what it means.
Since this is a synthesis post, I do want to follow-up on another thread of thought that I started earlier across a couple posts. CCSAV led me to think epistemologically about conversations. What exactly are they? This sent me on a bit of an academic kick, which I’ve been told is more in the line of systems theory than systems methods. But as I go through my masters, I’m starting to realize the place of theory. I did not read much philosophy in undergrad, but I am now finding that theory can be vital for providing frameworks to serve in understanding the complexities of the world.
I left off one blog post with the question of, where does a conversation begin and end? Just as an update on this, that question was in line with the phenomenological perspective of conversations. In the words of Peter Jones,
“A phenomenological perspective acknowledges that all meaning arises in language, that human activity is not separate from language. This view suggests that design itself is a conversation, products and services are networks of other conversations, and designing acts are performed and recognized by language. Conversation is not a tool for outcomes; rather, language uses us, shaping and constraining our work and experience.”
Gosh. Aren’t you glad to have read that? This kind of thinking is so integral for gaining a comprehensive understanding of how technology interfaces with humans and with society. Now that the workshop is wrapped up, I’m looking forward to reading more about systems, including conversation and systems theory. So stay tuned for updates on that reading––the conversation continues!
Jones, Peter H. (2010). “The Language/Action Model of Conversation: Can conversation perform acts of design?” Retrieved from http://www.dubberly.com/articles/language-action-model.html
Connectivity Issues 