• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
International Journal ofKnowledge and Systems SciencesVol. 3, No.4, December 2006
 
The Knowledge Cybernetics of Culture: the Case of China
 
Maurice Yolles
1
, Paul Iles
2
1
Centre for the Creation of Coherent Change and Knowledge, Liverpool John Moores University, UK 
2
The Business School, University of Teesside UK 
Abstract
The theory of knowledge cybernetics is principally concerned with the development of autonomous social collectivesthat survive through knowledge and knowledge processes. It provides a new way of representing the attributes of culture that can subsume other approaches like those of Hofstede and of Schwartz. An illustration of how this can bedeveloped for Chinese culture is provided. Culture is often seen as the set of commonly held and relatively stablebeliefs, attitudes and values that exist within the organization, and reflects on the way that an organization undertakesand implements its decision making, resolves its problems, and in general behaves is another common definition.Culture is embodied in symbols, rituals and heroes that are reflected in organizational communication, manners,dress codes, social rules and norms, and role models. Like macroscopic or ‘national’ culture, the subject of this paper,organizational which have ‘microscopic’ culture [4] is often seen to comprises corporate values, norms, feelings,hopes and aspirations. Since culture lies at the base of worldviews and paradigms, it is through these that knowledgeis created and migrated, and emotions are migrated. The theory that we shall develop arises from knowledgecybernetics, and permits us to establish cultural characteristics in a way that is more overarching than that of Hofstede or others have so far shown to be the case. The core of knowledge cybernetics that we shall use is theSocial Viable Systems model. It will be conditioned by examining the work Fan [39], who considered a large set of variables that derive from explorations of Chinese culture. It will result in a set of 6 generic classifications of cultureeach with 4 non-arbitrary sub-classifications.
 Keywords:
China, Culture, Social viable systems theory, Knowledge migration 
1.
 
Introduction
In terms of ‘national’ culture, culture is seen byHofstede [1] as the “software of the mind that formsthrough learned patterns of thinking, feeling andacting. Hofstede wanted to classify cultural diversity inrelational to organisational needs. His model classifiescultures across four (later five) dimensions of measurement based on cultural value. This derivesfrom his view that culture is a “collective programme”of the minds of a group that differentiates them fromother groups, resulting in a computing metaphorUnderstanding culture and cultural differentiation hastherefore become an important task ever since thework of Hoftsede[2].According to Ralston [3], two distinct theoreticalstances exist concerning the relationship betweenideology and the belief system, and in particular thecreation of values. Convergence theory purports thatthe workplace drives values, while for divergencetheory macroscopic culture drives both values andideology. A new paradigm has emerged that Mwaura etal [4] refer to as crossvergence, which purports thatwork ideology and macroscopic culture interact tocreate a new and unique value system. However, itwould seem that this evolutionary paradigmaticdevelopment is ignorant of the principles embedded inthe work on structural coupling by Maturana andVarela [5], and its potential implications for culturalchange.Cultural mapping techniques were developed byHofstede [2] to enable the exploration of macroscopicculture, and it has been used to explore microscopiccultures too. Hofstede [6] sees that organizational orcorporate cultures have partial membership (i.e., beingdriven by practices that drive values.The five Hofstedeclassifications are: (1) Individual vs. CollectiveOrientation, (2) Power-Distance Orientation, (3)Uncertainty-Avoidance Orientation, (4)Dominant-Values Orientation, and (5) Short-Term vs.Long-Term Orientation, or Confucian Dynamism’.
 
Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006 
 
9
There are arguments that this approach has limitations.Since Hofstede [2], his work has receivedsustained criticism, especially on the publication of thesecond edition of the original book [7][8]. ForMcSweeney [9][10] the concept of ‘systematicallycausal’ cultures is implausible, and he makes a numberof critical comments on Hofstede’s conceptualisations(eg of national cultures as implicit, core,systematically causal, territorially unique, and shared,assumptions about organisational, national andoccupational cultures, the creation of questionnaireresponses by national culture, the situational non-specificity of national culture) and methodology (useof questionnaires, employment of ‘stories’ as proof).Though more supportive of the overall approach andassumptions, Smith [11] also raises a number of psychometric and methodological questions, especiallyover the ‘ levels of analysis’ issue, the problems inrelating individual behaviour to cultural context, andthe validity of the dimensions (eg. high inter-correlations, correlations with GNP, anomalousrelationships with other variables). Many researcherscontinue to rely on Hofstede [2], even in studies of China, which was not included in the 1980 study(Hong Kong and Taiwan, which were, showed verydifferent profiles).
2.
 
Knowledge Cybernetics and Culture
Knowledge cybernetics has been developed by Yolles[12] for complex systems. Complexity has beenexplored, for instance, by Nicolis and Prigogine [13]and Cohen and Stewart [14]. It is also implicit to thetheory of autonomous viable systems as explored byBeer [15][16] and by Schwarz [17]. Just as the systemis normally seen as a metaphor, knowledge cyberneticsmetaphorical in that it: (a) explores knowledgeformation and its relationship to information; (b)provides a critical view of individual and socialknowledge, and their processes of communication andassociated meanings, (c) seeks to create anunderstanding of the relationship between people andtheir social communities for the improvement of socialcollective viability, and an appreciation of the role of knowledge in this. In a coherent autonomous humanactivity system knowledge occurs in structuredpatterns. This provides the structure that enables thesystem to recognise its existence, maintain itself, andchange, and its manifestations constitute systemiccontent. While the notion of system (attributed toBertalanffy[18] through his notion of the “generalsystem”) is used to explain behavioural phenomena, itscybernetic exploration derives from the work of Rosenblueth, Wiener and Bigelow [19] who wereinterested in its teleogical properties that relate to itsidentity, degree of autonomy and coherence.Knowledge cybernetics uses a core model thatcan be explained in relatively simple terms. It adoptsthe common ontological distinction often madebetween the three types of reality that can be attributedto archetypical rational beings:
believing
,
thinking
and
doing
(Fig. 1). Epistemologically speaking,
believing
 is connected to knowledge while
thinking
is connectedto information and
doing
is empirically connected andis therefore data related; these connections may not beimmediate and linear however. In the archetypicalemotional being it may be said that processes of 
thinking
are complexified by
 feeling,
though thisextension is beyond our interest here. While thenatures of the three attributes of figure 1 are all verydifferent, they do have a mutual relationship in theautonomous being. 
Believing(Knowledge)Thinking(Information)Doing(Empirical data)AffectsIs conditioned byConditionsIs affected by
Fig. 1. Ontological relationship between types of realityThe basis of Social Viable Systems (SVS) has anontology shown in fig. 2 that was developed fromYolles (1999)[20] into Yolles [12](2006). The threedomains constitute distinct modes of being:measurable energetic phenomenal behaviour,information rich images or systems of thought, andknowledge related existence that is expressed throughpatterns of meaning. The term existential is taken
 
Yolles and Iles / International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Sciences, 3(4): 8-16, 2006 
 
10
directly from Schwarz’s usage; the term noumenal istaken from the positivist work of Kant (e.g., see Weed[21]), and though we also refer to the sphere of mindand thinking as did he, our approach is constructivist;and the term phenomenal has been adopted because of intended consistency with the principles of phenomenology as founded by Husserl [22]) (derivingfrom his 1882 doctoral thesis; also see Osborn [23])and after him Heidegger [24].The three domains of SVS are analyticallydistinct classifications of being, and they each haveproperties that are manifestations of knowledge. Thephenomenal domain has social interests adapted fromHabermas’s [25] in a way explained in Yolles and Guo[26]. The other domain properties arise as an extensionof this, are listed in table 4, and draw on both systemicand cybernetic notions. There is a connection here toSchutz and Luckmann [27] in that the epistemologicalcontent of each of the 3 domains can be defined interms of relevancies. The existential domain hasthematic relevance that determines the constituents of an experience; the noumenal or virtual domain hasinterpretative relevance that creates direction throughthe selection of relevant aspects of a stock of knowledge to formulate ideate structures or a systemof thought; and the phenomenal domain is associatedwith motivational relevance that causes a localconclusion through action. The Taoist notions of Jing,Chi and Shen have also to be explained. Sunshine andWang [28] note three forms of measurable energy. Forthem, these three energies can be associated withmatter, energy, and information. Energy facilitation isan integral part of Taoism, and three ontologicallydistinct forms of energy can be identified through theancient idea of “the three treasures”. According toLiang and Wu [29], these treasures are theJiang-Chi-Shen energies
1
 that theorize and explain thehuman physiological system and the fundamentals forall facets of life and its many variations. Jing is theessence of material-life is a coarse physical energy,Chi is an energy that we may see as psycho-physical innature, and Shen is the spiritual life force energy. Assuch the Jing, Chi and Shen are inseparably linkedwith each another. The nature of this relationship isthat Jing is manifested as Chi that is in turn manifestedas Shen. Shen may also ultimately be manifested asTao – a process of achieving ever-higher levels of 
1
For a definition of these terms see for instance theThe Tai Chi Chuan Lun (Discourse) at the websitehttp://www.taichichuan.co.uk/information/classics_lun_commentary.html, or the the Toowoomba BuddhistCentre, T’ai Chi,http://www.fwbo.org.au/toowoomba/tai_chi_chuan.html, accessed June 2005.integration. This metaphorically represents an intimaterelationship that is implied by the ontologicaldifferentiation shown in Fig. 2.The nature of autopoiesis and autogenesis is of particular interest in SVS. Here autopoiesis isconstituted simply as a network of processes thatenables noumenal activity to become manifestedphenomenally, conditioned by autogenesis – a network of principles that create a second order form of autopoiesis that guides autopoietic processes.Autopoiesis may be thought as a process of operativemanagement, a term coined by Schwaninger [30], andautogenesis as process of strategic management.
3.
 
Conditioning KnowledgeCybernetics through a Perspective of Chinese Culture
 
The specific interest in China by Hofstede and thearguments that surround it therefore makes it anappropriate case for a study on culture, but there are anumber of limitations with existing work. In the firstinstance, Hofstede [2][6] appears to assume thatnational territory corresponds to cultural homogeneity,but China is not homogenous, with strong regionaldifferences and minority ethnic/religious subcultures.There is also a problem with the use of some of histerms. For instance, the words ‘individualism’ and‘collectivism’ appear to differ in meaning in differentcountries. As an instance of this take the contextemployee loyalty [31][32][33]. Japanese employeesmay be seen to be loyal to their organizations, whileChinese employees may well be more loyal to theirfamilies. However, both adopt the principle of collectivism that differs from individualism.It may be noted that, as we have seen, Hofstedealso later identified a fifth dimension for Chineseculture, “Confusion Dynamism”, that constitutes a“long-term orientation’, or the capacity to adapttraditions to new situations, willingness to save, thriftyapproach to scarce resources, willingness to persevereover the long term, and subordinate one’s owninterests to achieve a purpose, and a concern withVirtue. However, there is an argument [9] that thisdimension is inadequate. The reason is that theresearch from which Hofstede extracted the additionaldimension was a “Chinese Values Survey” (CVS) byThe Chinese Culture Connection group (CCC)[34]. Anexamination of this research reveals that one of Hofstede's four dimensions - Uncertainty Avoidance(UA) - as irrelevant to Chinese populations andtherefore downgraded UA from being a universaldimension of national cultures (as it is in Hofstede'sfour dimensional model) to a non-universal dimension[34][35]. None of the CVS factors were correlated
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...