Editing Systems theory (section)

==Overview==
{{essay|date=November 2020}}
Systems theory is manifest in the work of practitioners in many disciplines, for example the works of physician [[Alexander Bogdanov]], biologist [[Ludwig von Bertalanffy]], linguist [[Béla H. Bánáthy]], and sociologist [[Talcott Parsons]]; in the study of ecological systems by [[Howard T. Odum]], [[Eugene Odum]]; in [[Fritjof Capra]]'s study of [[organizational theory]]; in the study of [[management]] by [[Peter Senge]]; in interdisciplinary areas such as [[Human Resource Development|human resource development]] in the works of [[Richard A. Swanson]]; and in the works of educators [[Debora Hammond]] and Alfonso Montuori.

As a [[Transdisciplinarity|transdisciplinary]], interdisciplinary, and [[Multiperspectivalism|multiperspectival]] endeavor, systems theory brings together principles and concepts from [[ontology]], the [[philosophy of science]], [[physics]], [[computer science]], [[biology]], and [[engineering]], as well as [[geography]], [[sociology]], [[political science]], [[psychotherapy]] (especially [[family systems therapy]]), and [[economics]].

Systems theory promotes dialogue between autonomous areas of study as well as within [[systems science]] itself. In this respect, with the possibility of misinterpretations, von Bertalanffy<ref>Bertalanffy, (1950: 142).</ref> believed a general theory of systems "should be an important regulative device in science," to guard against superficial analogies that "are useless in science and harmful in their practical consequences."

Others remain closer to the direct systems concepts developed by the original systems theorists. For example, [[Ilya Prigogine]], of [[the Center for Complex Quantum Systems]] at the [[University of Texas]], has studied [[emergence|emergent properties]], suggesting that they offer [[analogy|analogues]] for [[life|living systems]]. The [[Distinction (philosophy)|distinction]] of [[autopoiesis]] as made by [[Humberto Maturana]] and [[Francisco Varela]] represent further developments in this field. Important names in contemporary systems science include [[Russell Ackoff]], [[Ruzena Bajcsy]], [[Béla H. Bánáthy]], [[Gregory Bateson]], [[Anthony Stafford Beer]], [[Peter Checkland]], [[Barbara Grosz]], [[Brian Wilson (systems scientist)|Brian Wilson]], [[Robert L. Flood]], [[Allenna Leonard]], [[Radhika Nagpal]], [[Fritjof Capra]], [[Warren McCulloch]], [[Kathleen Carley]], [[Michael C. Jackson]], [[Katia Sycara]], and [[Edgar Morin]] among others.

With the modern foundations for a general theory of systems following World War I, [[Ervin László]], in the preface for Bertalanffy's book, ''Perspectives on General System Theory'', points out that the [[translation]] of "general system theory" from German into English has "wrought a certain amount of havoc":<ref name=":1" />

{{blockquote|It (General System Theory) was criticized as pseudoscience and said to be nothing more than an admonishment to attend to things in a holistic way. Such criticisms would have lost their point had it been recognized that von Bertalanffy's general system theory is a perspective or paradigm, and that such basic conceptual frameworks play a key role in the development of exact scientific theory. .. Allgemeine Systemtheorie is not directly consistent with an interpretation often put on 'general system theory,' to wit, that it is a (scientific) "theory of general systems." To criticize it as such is to shoot at straw men. Von Bertalanffy opened up something much broader and of much greater significance than a single theory (which, as we now know, can always be falsified and has usually an ephemeral existence): he created a new paradigm for the development of theories.}}

Theorie (or ''Lehre'') "has a much broader meaning in German than the closest English words 'theory' and 'science'," just as ''[[Wissenschaft]]'' (or 'Science').<ref name=":1" /> These ideas refer to an organized body of knowledge and "any systematically presented set of concepts, whether [[empirically]], [[axiomatically]], or [[philosophical]]ly" represented, while many associate ''Lehre'' with theory and science in the etymology of general systems, though it also does not translate from the German very well; its "closest equivalent" translates to 'teaching', but "sounds dogmatic and off the mark."<ref name=":1" /> An adequate overlap in meaning is found within the word "[[nomothetic]]", which can mean "having the capability to posit long-lasting sense." While the idea of a "general systems theory" might have lost many of its root meanings in the translation, by defining a new way of thinking about science and [[Paradigm|scientific paradigms]], systems theory became a widespread term used for instance to describe the interdependence of relationships created in [[organization]]s.

A system in this frame of reference can contain regularly interacting or interrelating groups of activities. For example, in noting the influence in the evolution of "an individually oriented [[industrial psychology]] [into] a systems and developmentally oriented [[Industrial and organizational psychology|organizational psychology]]," some theorists recognize that organizations have complex social systems; separating the parts from the whole reduces the overall effectiveness of organizations.<ref name="Schein">{{cite book |last=Schein |first=E. H. |title=Organizational Psychology |date=1980 |publisher=Prentice-Hall |location=New Jersey |pages=4–11}}</ref> This difference, from conventional models that center on individuals, structures, departments and units, separates in part from the whole, instead of recognizing the interdependence between groups of individuals, structures and processes that enable an organization to function.

László explains that the new systems view of organized complexity went "one step beyond the Newtonian view of organized simplicity" which reduced the parts from the whole, or understood the whole without relation to the parts. The relationship between organisations and their [[environment (systems)|environments]] can be seen as the foremost source of complexity and interdependence. In most cases, the whole has properties that cannot be known from analysis of the constituent elements in isolation.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Laszlo |first=Ervin |author-link=Ervin László |title=The Systems View of the World: The Natural Philosophy of the New Developments in the Sciences |date=1972 |publisher=George Braziller, Inc. (simultaneously with Doubleday Canada, Limited) |publication-place=New York, New York |pages=[https://archive.org/details/systemsviewofw00lasz/page/14/mode/2up?q=%22one+step+beyond+the+Newtonian+view+of+organized+simplicity%22 14–15] |isbn=0-8076-0637-5 |lccn=71-188357 }}</ref>

[[Béla H. Bánáthy]], who argued—along with the founders of the systems society—that "the benefit of humankind" is the purpose of science, has made significant and far-reaching contributions to the area of systems theory. For the Primer Group at the [[International Society for the Systems Sciences|International Society for the System Sciences]], Bánáthy defines a perspective that iterates this view:<ref>[[Béla H. Bánáthy]], 1997: ¶ 22.</ref>{{Full citation needed|date=October 2016}}

{{blockquote|The systems view is a world-view that is based on the discipline of SYSTEM INQUIRY. Central to systems inquiry is the concept of SYSTEM. In the most general sense, system means a configuration of parts connected and joined together by a web of relationships. The Primer Group defines system as a family of relationships among the members acting as a whole. Von Bertalanffy defined system as "elements in standing relationship."}}