"Until now we have simply followed Bateson's typology for learning in
categorizing infrastructural barriers and challenges. Bateson's ideas
about levels of learning originated in communication theory
and cybernetics; more than a taxonomy, they are an expression of set of
dynamics:
"Double bind theory is concerned with the experiential component
in the genesis of tangles in the rules or premises of habit. I ... assert
that experienced breaches in the weave of
ontextual structure are in fact 'double binds' and must necessarily (if
they contribute at all to the hierarchic processes of learning and
adaptation) promote what I am calling transcontextual syndrome." (Bateson
1978, p.276)
The formal statement of the problem is expressed as a logical one,
following as we noted earlier Russell and Whitehead's theory of
classification. In "The Logical Categories of Learning and Communication"
(pp. 279-308),
Bateson notes that a category error such as confusing the name of a class
and a member of that class will create a logical paradox. In the world of
pure logic, this appears as a fatal error, because such logical systems
seem to exist
outside of time and space. In the real world, particularly the behavioral
world, however, people cope by working within multiple frameworks or "world
views," maintained serially or in parallel.
When messages are given at more than one level simultaneously, or
an answer is simultaneously demanded at a higher level and negated on a
lower one, there arises a logical paradox or "double bind," an instance of
what Bateson terms the "transcontextual syndrome." While Bateson drew his
examples from family contexts in the course of his work on schizophrenia,
double binds occur in academic and business contexts as well.
Middle managers in rapidly-changing environments, for instance, are
frequently caught between the goals and expectations articulated by senior
management and the actions of senior management with respect to budget
allocation and performance evaluation (Mishra & Cameron 1991). Companies
may formally promote efforts towards "reengineering" and "empowerment," yet
offer no mechanisms for employees to participate in decision making,
or they may sanction employees for not being active learners while refusing
to acknowledge modes of learning and experimentation that fail to conform
to very specific models (Ruhleder and Jordan, in progress). In the words of
Bateson, "There may be incongruence or conflict between context and
metacontext." " (from Susan Leigh Star and Karen Ruhleder, "Steps toward
an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information
Spaces," Information Systems Research, Volume 7:1 (1996), 111-134.)
I can almost see how this works with our discussion, but it's not quite
there yet. Anyone care to pull at this thread? L*
_______________________________________________
Susan Leigh Star, Professor
Department of Communication
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0503
phone 858/534-6327
fax 858/534-7315 email: lstar who-is-at ucsd.edu
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~lstar/
"Quantify suffering, you could rule the world." -- Adrienne Rich