A System-Cybernetic Approach to the Study of

Download PDF
0 downloads 0 Views 516KB Size Report
Comment
Available at: http://files/822/Ashby - 1999 - An Introduction to Cybernetics.pdf. .... Trentowski, B. (1843) Stosunek filozofii do cybernetyki czyli sztuki rządzenia ...
Krzysztof Kasianiuk

Institute of Public Policy, Collegium Civitas, Poland, Warsaw [email protected]

A System-Cybernetic Approach to the Study of Political Power. Introductory remarks

Note: This is a preliminary version of the article to be published in Kybernetes (2018), under https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2017-0145. To cite, please refer to the final version.

1

A System-Cybernetic Approach to the Study of Political Power. Introductory Remarks

Purpose: This article aims at providing introductory conceptual tools for studying political power in a complex multi-level environment. In particular, it is intended to answer the question of how the concepts provided by cybernetics and general systems theory could serve to foster the study of political power. Design/methodology/approach: The objective is realized through a reconsideration of a set of the basic concepts of cybernetics, general systems theory and political science. Two system identification models – black box and white box – along with Marian Mazur's concept of steering are utilized to deconstruct the classic definition of power formulated by Max Weber. Next, a twophase procedure for empirical power analysis is proposed. Rudimentary in its scope, the article shows the path the more comprehensive and transformative analyses of key notions could follow. Findings: It seems that system identification models help uncover structural and functional aspects of political power, which aids the process of analysis of different mechanisms of political power. Originality/value: The article supports the argument for a conceptual isomorphism between cybernetics and political science. The value of the proposed approach is derived from the combination of two features. Firstly, two aspects of system operation - functional and structural help to focus research attention on different problems of political power analysis. Secondly, the interrelation and interdependence of both aspects of systems operation serve as a practical means in the analysis of communication and behavior of actors in the political power processes. Keywords: Social systems, Politics, Emergence, Communication, Epistemology Article classification: conceptual paper

2

Introduction Many facts from the long history of cybernetics demonstrate its relevance to political thought, theory and practice, as well as one of its central notions – the problem of political power. The link between cybernetic and political bodies of knowledge is traceable to the early days of the contemporary systems movement in the social sciences, both on the theoretical level (Merriam, 1945; Nettl, 1966; Easton, 1979) and the empirical level (Deutsch, 1963). Going further, it also becomes apparent that the roots of cybernetics reach back to antiquity and early philosophies of political phenomena. It was Plato who used the term kybernetes – the art of steering a vessel – to describe the art of steering a political community, or polis (Plato, 1894, 2008). In this way, Plato provided a preliminary view on human organizations. Much later, in the 19 th century, Bogusław Trentowski used the term “cybernetics” to describe and justify political action aimed at building a nation (Trentowski, 1843). On the other hand, André-Marie Ampère, in his classification of human knowledge, used the term “cybernetics” to denote the sciences of government (Ampère, 1856). In this way, “cybernetics” was transferred to more contemporary phenomena, described by nowcommon terms like “governance,” “government,” and “governor” (Pangaro, 2003), which are used primarily in the political sense. Meanwhile, the issue of “political power” stands at the very center of political phenomena and political studies. Power in human organizations has been one of the most widely debated and studied problems in twentieth-century political research (Merriam, 1934; Harold, 1936; Bachrach and Baratz, 1962; Parsons, 1963; Lukes, 1974; Weber, 1978; Luhmann, 1993; Mills, 2000; Dahl, 2005). It still remains the issue upon which social and political scientists most often

3

disagree (Borch, 2005; Clegg, Courpasson and Phillips, 2006; Allen, 2009; Nye Jr, 2009; Dowding, 2012; Barbalet and Qi, 2013; Thompson, 2013; Vogler, 2016). This article aims at contributing to this debate, although the aim here is neither to provide a comprehensive review of the conceptual approaches to political power, nor to the cybernetic understanding of steering. It is not aimed at presenting yet another concept of political power or confronting the whole theory of two fields of study. The aim here is to provide a deductive framework that might help systematize theoretical and empirical findings by students of political power based on a minimal number of concepts. It seeks those dimensions of power that should be conceptualized, operationalized and analyzed, if certain basic assumptions derived from cybernetics are to be applied to political power phenomena. To implement this goal, two system identification models and a definition of steering, developed on the basis of general systems theory and cybernetics are firstly presented. General systems theory (GST) seeks universal features of all systems, including biological, technological, economic, social and political (von Bertallanfy, 1950; Boulding, 1956), whereas cybernetics focuses on the communication and control taking place between such systems (Wiener, 1948; Ashby, 1957). Together, they should be a sufficient point of departure for the conceptual goal described above. The next step in demonstrating the relevance of system identification and steering models to empirical power analysis is the application of GST and cybernetic concepts to one of the most widely-known, debated and utilized definitions of power, namely the one provided by Max Weber (Wallimann, Tatsis and Zito, 1977). It is assumed that the Weberian definition follows the logic of an ideal-type concept provided by Weber himself (Weber, 1949; Kuckartz, 1991), and as

4

such, could be a subject of deductive reasoning. Weber’s widely-known known definition is applied and discussed in the context of a less widely-recognized definition by Marian Mazur. It will be argued that the latter definition is the one that seems to be comprehensive enough to contain both aspects of system identification models. The presentation will include examples of formal political organizations.

Two system identification models There are two system identification models that have been developed on the basis of GST and cybernetics which could be potentially helpful in filtering out power relationships in human organizations. These are “white box” and “black box” system identification models (Heylighen, 1998; Kasianiuk, 2016). Each of these models focuses on different aspects of the reality to be observed, although in some cases, such as the analysis of political power presented in the following paragraphs, they appear to be complementary. In the “white box” model (WB model), a system is defined as a “set of interrelated elements”. Elements are organized in a certain way (or configured). This relatively coherent configuration, called the “structure” of a system, makes the system separate from the environment. The environment could consist of other systems, but this might become important only if the latter are somehow related to the system under study. In order to gain knowledge on the operation of a particular system, the researcher must be able to identify both: “elements” and “relations” (or “links”) between the elements. By identifying elements and relations/links, the researcher automatically singles out the system from the environment, regardless the types of elements or the type of relations/links.

5

For example, in a political system, a set of politicians struggling together at the same organization or institution, such as a parliament, could be identified as a system in the “white box” sense. In the WB model it is important (and in fact possible) to ask questions primarily about the internal operation of a parliament, e.g. when the researcher is interested in the factors that constitute parliamentary internal dynamics. This could include questions on the composition of parliament, or the size of the parliamentary parties, the acceptable level of political autonomy of backbenchers in relation to party leaders, etc. It is thus less important how the parliament under study relates to other organizations within the political system, since the main research focus remains its internal operation. On the other hand, in the “black box” model (BB model), “system” is perceived as an indivisible unit which can operate only within a particular environment. The system is an object which fulfills a specific “function” – transformation of impulses from the environment – which in effect go back to the environment (thus either changing or sustaining system equilibrium). The system transforms “inputs” into “outputs”. This constitutes a reciprocal and constant process. In the BB model, the researcher identifies a system by observing the reactions of the object to actions posed upon it. In other words, for the researcher it is essential to be able to identify actions (inputs) and reactions (outputs). In the simplest terms, if a reaction to action is observed, then the system provides a “function”, thus making it a separate “object” from the environment. In sum, in the BB model, the very act of observing the impact of a system vis à vis the environment is sufficient to call an object a “system.” Building on the example of the parliament – sometimes the researcher does not need to know whether the number of parliamentarians is small or large, whether their autonomy is strong

6

or not, and whether the party internal organization is clear or not, if only the researcher is able to observe the causes and effects of the parliament's operation within the political system. For instance, a bill submitted for legislation by external or internal actors (e.g. the president, a government, or a group of parliamentarians) could be regarded as a cause, and a legal act could be regarded as an effect of the legislative process. In between the bill should follow a specific path of decisions throughout the parliamentary procedure. As a result, a bill does or does not pass according to the procedure. Still, this internal action-reaction path, quite specific for each parliament in every country, does not need to be comprehended at all, as it could be considered irrelevant, if the researcher only needs to observe the cause and effect of the “process.”

Figure 1. Graphical representation of a system in „white box” and „black box” conventions White box

Black box

Source: Kasianiuk 2016

In both system identification models, systems are perceived as being separate from the environment. But it is always a subject of a debate, if it is possible at all to determine whether a particular system is actually separate from the environment. For example, it is not clear what the researcher should take into consideration when one wishes to analyze “parliamentary power.”

7

Should one consider the “power in parliament” which would mean taking into consideration the performance of individual parliamentarians, with their particular decisions, non-decisions, ideological views and organizational patterns (Helms, 2000; Kam, 2001)? Or maybe one should consider “power of parliament”, which might focus the research on the issues of the parliament's situation with regard to other state-level and international institutions, such as the EU (Auel, 2005; Raunio, 2005)? The boundary between the system and the environment should therefore be defined very clearly, each and every time a research problem is conceptualized. However, since in the WB model the system is defined primarily by its structure, and in the BB model, the system is defined by its functions, each of the models requires that different criteria of separation from the environment are used – both on the side of system and on the side of environment (compare Table 1. below). In the WB model, the criteria should point to answers to the following questions: 1) What elements could be legitimately understood as ones whose relations could be coherent (in the example, the question is: are these individual parliamentarians)?; 2) On what basis the relations between are the elements formed (e.g. personal, the parliamentary by-law)?; 3) What external factors regulate the internal operation of the system under study (e.g. What is the electoral procedure at different points in time – same or different?; What regulates the parliament's operation within a wider environment – a political system? Is it the law, the constitution, other?); 4) What other factors shape the dynamics of communication between the elements? In the BB model, the criteria should be derived from the answers to another set of questions: 1) What is the entity or “object” that the researcher could assume to perform a particular function (e.g. for a parliament – is the analyzed function legislation or control)?; 2)

8

What actions could be assumed to form an input and an output (e.g. could / should the actions of parliament be followed by actions and reactions of other public institutions)?; 3) Is it possible to differentiate between inputs and outputs (e.g. is the transformation of the legal framework a major or a minor one)?; 4) What other factors influence the dynamics of communication between the system and the environment?

Table 1. White box and black box identification models – defining concepts Separation from environment based on… System as... 1) 2) 3) 4)

White Box coherently interacting elements

Systemic (internal) factors

elements

Environmental (external) factors

conditions of operation

relations

other factors

Black Box object interacting with environment fulfilling a function by transformation of impulses actions and reactions difference between input and output other factors

In sum, there is no system without an environment, and the criteria for system identification could be derived on the basis of structural or functional features of the system. In effect, system identification modelling is a process with two complementary effects – identification of a system (1) and identification of an environment (2). When the researcher identifies a system (1), he or she is also identifying its environment (2). To develop the parliamentary example further, if one asks about the “dynamics of power of parliamentarians throughout time,” one should acknowledge them being individuals forming a specific set of individuals, or a specific group of people at different moments. Hence, at this

9

point, the researcher should work with and benefit from the WB model. At the same time, if one seeks for answers to questions on “how the parliament executed power upon the rest of the political system,” the researcher should assume that the former is a singular institution, capable of acting upon its environment, and thus the researcher should work with and benefit from the BB model. These questions evidently point to the problem of complexity of institutional and organizational settings. This complexity however could be approached from at least two cybernetic perspectives of system operation – horizontal and vertical. Horizontally, a system may be an element of a larger class, e.g. a network, and thus remain interconnected with other elements (e.g. parliament as an element of a set of parliaments worldwide), whereas vertically, a system may be analyzed as a part of another system, and thus constitute a subsystem of the latter (e.g. the parliament being a part of a political system of a democratic country). The dilemmas of providing an appropriate level of analysis could be shown as in the Figure 2.

Figure 2. The hierarchy of systems and two system identification models.

10

Steering Scholars have not defined “steering” as often as they have used this term. The early cybernetic scholars rarely referred to the term at all. For instance, Norbert Wiener focused on communication and control (Wiener, 1948), W. Ross Ashby regarded “steermanship” in the context of co-ordination, regulation and… control (Ashby, 1957). Only later, steering became a concept in its own right. In second-order cybernetics, it was often used in the context of selfreferencing systems. It was the capability of “self-steering” by systems that started to draw the attention of scholars (Heylighen, Rosseel and Demeyere, 1990; Maturana and Varela, 1991; Von Foerster, 2007). In Western countries, the socio-cyberneticians and Niklas Luhmann, were leading the stream of research underlining the usability of the “steering” concept in the social and political context (Luhmann, 1977, 1997; Geyer and van der Zouwen, 1986; Geyer, 2002; Roth and Schutz, 2015; Albert, 2016; Mayntz, 2016). In contrast, steering was more of a defining concept of cybernetic analysis in the social studies of the Soviet and East European countries (Gerovitch, 2002). However, a small number of authors have been known in the Western literature to date. Mostly because of linguistic barriers and the political threat the cybernetic knowledge potentially posed to communist regimes, cybernetic analysis encountered obstacles in the post-soviet area. The ideas of Marian Mazur seem especially important (Mazur, 1969, 1976), as Mazur was one of the founders of Polish cybernetic movement, including such scholars as Henryk Greniewski, Józef Kossecki, Bernard Korzeniewski and Andrzej Zaliwski (Greniewski, 1959; Kossecki, 1975; Korzeniewski, 2001; Zaliwski, 2011).

11

Mazur focused primarily on the general concept of “steering.” On the basis of this concept Mazur formulated the theory of autonomous systems. In the theory he claimed that in order for a system to remain autonomous, the system should execute two capabilities simultaneously –1) the capability to steer, and 2) the capability to prevent the loss of the capability to steer (Mazur, 1976). It is worth noticing that these two faces of steering are close to the focus of second-order cyberneticians ideas of self-reference. Mazur’s concept of “steering” seems especially valuable for the sake of this article, because it helps us to comprehend steering with two system identification models simultaneously (Mazur, 1976, p. 107). The definition of steering given by Mazur is as follows:

D1. Steering is a behavior of one system imposing an effect on the behavior of another system.

The definition states that steering takes place whenever two systems are linked by their behavior – a system is subject to the behavior of another system imposing an effect upon it. At the same time, the definition does not specify whether the effect should influence the internal or external behavior of the system. By internal behavior one should understand here a transfer of information and energy between the elements of the system (so in the WB sense), and by external behavior one should understand the transfer of the information and energy between the system and the environment (so in the BB sense). This definition thus seems more general than the definition of “perturbation” by F. Varela or of “steering” by N. Luhmann. Varela argued for the use of the term “perturbation” to denote situations in which action upon the system does not

12

affect the system’s organization. Perturbation was according to Varela something different than “input” (Varela, 1984, p. 25), yet all this primarily referred to internal features of the system, and not the relation with the environment. On the other hand, for Luhmann, “steering,” or “reduction of a difference,” was supposed to point to the influence upon the structural features of the environment, and not the internal configuration of the system (Luhmann, 1997, p. 42). It will be argued further that definition of Mazur could be interpreted as encapsulating two aspects of systems behavior – internal and external one. By this it could be applied both to WB and BB system identification models. The definition could be applied to two system identification models mostly due to the dual meaning of “effect.” If the “effect” of the behavior means that the action posed upon the system finds its reaction in the environment, one may also observe the “function” of the system. This shows that the definition is valuable for the BB model. On the other hand, if the “effect” means that the action posed upon the system finds reactions within the system on the level of its structural features than the definition seems valuable for the WB model. Of course, the process of steering could be a reciprocal one. Just like A could steer B, B could do the same towards A. The utility of the transformed definition will be shown later in this part. Assuming that the definition by Mazur will help us further, let us now reformulate it to the form of a conditional sentence. This will assist the researcher while determining whether steering actually takes place. The reformulated definition is as follows.

D2. If the behavior of system A has an effect on the behavior of system B, then A steers B.

13

The definition does not specify whether the action of system A should pose an immediate reaction of the system B or not and in what dimension. Yet, it is at this moment that the very introductory decision on the way the behavior (action) of a system is defined transfers to other parts of the research analysis. In the example, communication on legal act in a parliament could be regarded as a “discussion” among individual politicians (so in the WB manner), or as a formal “session” (so understood in a BB manner). In consequence, the result of the “discussion”, which could be continuation of the discussion at another moment, may be considered as “weak” steering, because the discussion is non-conclusive. In the same way, the “session” resulting in the acceptance or rejection of the legal act may be considered a “strong” result, because the legislative procedure can proceed to another step. It follows that a researcher should consider steering as the process that could simultaneously pose effects on two levels: 1) in a WB model – on the level of systems taking part in the process (e.g. the change in the worldview of politicians during discussion), and 2) in a BB model – on the level of effects on the environment (e.g. accepting or rejecting the legal act). Of course, such a conventional phrasing of “strong” and “weak” steering could be debated. For some reasons, changing the structure could be more important than changing a function. This is shown in the context of social and political processes in the following section. In sum, steering could be regarded as structural or functional, weak or strong. This leads to a list of four specific definitions of steering within different system identification models, presented in Table 2: weak functional, strong functional, weak structural and strong structural. All these definitions, assume that system A is treated as separate and external to system B, and all are based on the criteria presented below.

14

●

Structural steering refers to all those situations in which internal structural

features of one system (system B) are affected by the behavior of another system (system A). ●

Functional steering refers to all those situations in which the external environment

of one system (system B) is affected by the behavior of another system (system A). ●

Weak/strong steering refers to of one system (system B) is affected by the

behavior of another system (system A).

Table 2. Types of steering within two system identification models.

Strong steering

Weak steering

Structural steering (through system Functional steering (through WB) environment - BB) If the behavior of system A effects the If the behavior of system A effects B's elements and relations of system B, environment (changes B's function), and system B changes its internal and system B changes its behavior, behavior, then system A steers system then system A steers system B. [strong B. [strong structural steering] functional steering] If the behavior of system A effects the elements and relations of system B, and system B does not change its behavior, then system A steers system B, yet the reaction is postponed. [weak structural steering]

If the behavior of system A effects B's environment (changes B's function), and system B does not change its behavior, then system A steers system B, yet the reaction is postponed. [weak functional steering]

Max Weber's definition of power and its system-cybernetic interpretation Max Weber influenced the study of social and political power by presenting a conceptual framework that focused on the relationship of two objects. It will be shown here, that Weberian

15

concept of power is especially suitable to present isomorphism with the definition of steering presented in the previous part. There are many English translations of Weber's classic definition, but only one of them will be used here, as it seems to be close to the literal meaning of the original (Wallimann, Tatsis, Zito: 234). The original definition analyzed further is cited below:

D3: “Within a social relationship, power means any chance (no matter whereon this chance is based) to carry through one's* own will (even against resistance). * individual or collective”

In this definition, three elements seem to be especially important. Firstly, there is an emphasis on the “social relationship,” within which power emerges. Secondly, there is a notion of the intentional action of the involved parties (“any chance (no matter whereon this chance is based) to carry through one's* own will”). Lastly, there is the problem of reaction by the constituents of the power relationship (“even against resistance”). The notion of individualism and collectivism in power relationships (present in the final phrase “individual or collective”) does not change the essential meaning of the definition, although it points to the problem of the model of a system under scrutiny (“individual” could be assumed to be a system in a BB sense, whereas “collective” could be assumed to be a system in a WB sense). Let us consider all three parts of the definition in the following paragraphs.

16

“Social relationship” It seems that, according to Weber, power may take place only within a specific social relationship. The relationship between at least two social entities (or systems) provides a primary social structure and a space for interaction. It is especially important if one considers the cybernetic prerequisites of communication and control. Communication and control may take place only between systems, so there is also no communication without relationship between systems. Hence, social relationship between A and B is a necessary condition for power to emerge. In this sense, power is rather a relative process than an objective phenomenon or a state of equilibrium. At the same time, there is no information in the definition, whether only one entity (system) is powerful (A is powerful with regard to B), neither does it say whether the relationship is a reciprocal one (whether B could also be powerful with regard to A). The source of power relationship does not seem to matter in this regard. It becomes more visible when analyzing the second part of the definition.

“Any chance (no matter whereon this chance is based) to carry through one's* own will” A “chance” is not a “probability” and surely not a “certainty”. As such, the definition shows power as the phenomenon/process both potential (or implicit) and actual (or explicit). Although it is not expressed in the definition expressis verbis, one could legitimately assume that the “chance” could refer to the “potential” aspect of power (e.g. connected with “possession” of

17

power requisites, derived from social status, position and authority), and the “carry through one's* own will” could point to the “actual” aspect of power (or execution of power). What seems especially important is that the “chance to carry one's own will” takes place within a social relationship, and such a social relationship is always based on communication, which is an essential concept of cybernetics. Hence, the “chance” becomes an image in the mind of both actors (systems) – namely of the one who has the “chance to carry one own* will,” and the one who is a subject to the powerful. This is especially visible when considering the last, and not the least element of Weberian definition.

“Even against resistance” How “resistance” of actors is understood could be regarded a system-cybernetic key to the analysis of political power. In the simple form, resistance is a prerequisite of B with relation to A, and thus it correlates to the set of alternatives available to B. B might choose between e.g. active and passive resistance to the oppression imposed upon it by A. By this, B resists to all forms of steering described earlier. It also should be noted that “resistance” could be directly used in a cybernetic framework. In the BB model, “resistance” could refer to the actions upon the system boundary that makes it separate from the environment and enables to sustain its function. In the WB model, the “resistance” would mean all the activities between interrelated elements that help accommodate the change of internal structure. At the same time, B could be a subject of A's power in another way. A could form a situation in which all sets of B's alternatives are predetermined (controlled or conditioned) in such a way that – no matter the B's choice – it would ultimately serve A's goals. As such, B would be

18

subverted to the form of steering as understood in BB model. In other words, it could be also said that:

D4: If A has the chance to carry A's will, regardless of B's resistance, then A executes power upon B.

This final definition enables us to bring the analysis of “political power” closer to the analysis of cybernetic “steering”. If one considers all of the four definitions above (by Mazur: D1 and D2, and by Weber: D3 and D4), one may notice a close similarity between D2 and D4. It is quite apparent that there is a conceptual link between the behavior of system A that has an effect on the behavior of system B (D2) and “carrying A's will, regardless of B's resistance” (D4). The validity of the statement above could be shown at different levels of analysis. Let us assume that the research question with regard to the democratic parliament is: “who has power over parliament in a democratic country?” If the system under study is the parliament as a human organization, then all other systems constitute its external environment (e.g. government, judiciary, parliamentary actors, other political organizations) or complement as subsystems (e.g. parliamentary committees, individual politicians) (refer to Table 2). 1. [Weak functional steering/power]: By enacting a constitution, the democratic parliament exerts, at the most general level, power over the legal framework within which the parliament is supposed to work. 2. [Strong functional steering/power]: Parliament also provides a more specific framework by enacting laws which describe particular competences of other branches of government

19

and of other organizations. Yet, it is the parliament that approves its own internal regulations (or a “statute”) more specifically. 3. [Weak structural steering/power]: The elections of particular people to parliamentary positions is in fact a form of power over the general composition and communication within the parliament. Each and every appointment influences the structural features of parliament for the years to follow, as each politician could be considered an element which forms specific relationships and communicates with other elements (other politicians). 4. [Strong structural steering/power]: The involvement of particular politicians into a legislative process regarding a specific bill and decisions shape the type of communication and arguments having chance and actually taking place within the legislative process. All these affect the final decision on the bill under scrutiny. In some parliamentary settings this could be steered by parliamentary party leaders.

System-cybernetic approach to empirical power analysis – main features The example presented in the previous paragraphs shows that it is possible to systematize power relationships within a political system. Yet, how should the combination of system identification models and steering be implemented into a procedure that could help to study political power empirically? Firstly, two system identification models could be regarded as two ways of analyzing the structural and functional features of the same system, and hence treated as interdependent. It should be noted that whether the starting point for the analysis is a WB or BB model depends

20

heavily on the particular aims of the study, the theory to be applied by the researcher, the methodological tools at hand, and availability of required sources of information. Secondly, equally important is the procedure under which the actual analysis takes place. Research starting with a structural analysis might provide different results than research commencing with a functional analysis. By determining the introductory system model (BB or WB), the researcher shows the level or dimension at which the study begins. This, in turn, provides insights for other researchers, and helps them in better recognition of the quality of the original study. The proposed approach consists of two phases. In the first phase, two models of system identification are combined. The models are treated as interdependent dimensions of analysis. In the second phase, the analysis of behavior and communication between systems at different levels (i.e. steering) is conducted. Note that Phase I consists of two analyses, each based on one model, while Phase II utilizes the effects of these analyses. As such Phase II does not comprise an additional model. Both phases may be iterated. An example of the process, starting with the BB analysis, is presented below, step by step.

Phase I – Black Box Analysis The political process should be treated as occurring in a “black box”, which means that the analysis should focus on the empirical evidence of inputs and outputs (in the case of a parliament, these could be: bills and acts, parliamentary resolutions, decisions of the president; as well as official numerical datasets regarding social and economic problems of the society along with official documents generated by other public institutions). The key research problem is to seek

21

for evidence of the dependence between inputs and outputs. The main question to be answered within this dimension is: “What is the function of the process?” This could be later translated to such questions as: What is being changed and what is the essence of the one's will? What are the decisions that are to be observed and analyzed on the system level (e.g. parliament), environment level (e.g. political system as a whole), and subsystem level (e.g. individual parliamentarians)?

Phase I – White Box Analysis The analysis is supposed to enable the discovery of the multi-dimensionality of relations between actors within the political process at different levels. The formal and informal relations between actors (systems) should be treated as basic aspects of the organizational and institutional setting of the process under study. In order to uncover official and actual groups and cliques, the data sources could include official institutional datasets, biographies and interviews (e.g. as understood in social network analysis). The main question to be answered within this dimension is: “What are the structural conditions of the process?” This could later be translated into such questions as: Who is involved in the process and on what basis? What are the types of links (formal and informal) between elements? The cycle of the analyses between WB and BB dimensions should be continued as long as necessary, however – for practical reasons – it seems feasible to specify criteria which would point to the moment at which the results of the analyses prove to be necessary and sufficient. One of the criteria could be the time frame of the study.

22

Figure 3. System-cybernetic approach to empirical power analysis – study procedure.

WHITE BOX dimension analysis GREY BOX dimension analysis BLACK BOX dimension analysis

Phase II This phase uses the analyses made with BB and WB system identification models and practically shows the interdependence between them. This phase could be termed as a “Grey Box” phase. The main question in this phase is: how are power relations actualized in the process of communication? The BB analysis is supposed to provide insights on the sources and outcomes of the processes under study (e.g. public policy making). The WB analysis is supposed to show what the configuration of actors is within the organizational and institutional setting in the time frame of analysis. Based on this, the GB analysis should focus on the actual behavior and communication within and between the systems (political actors in social relationships). GB analysis helps with understanding what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to steer or execute power in a particular setting. It could be in the researcher’s interest to check whether steering takes place primarily due to BB inputs, outputs or due to WB elements or relations.

23

In this phase, the analysis of interactions between actors should be processed utilizing a series of events. This could be achieved by inducing actions and reactions of actors (systems) traced on a chronological perspective.

Summary The proposed approach to power analysis builds upon some of the basic concepts of general systems theory and cybernetics, yet seems to be in accordance with some of the concepts of power, such as the Weberian one. Through a series of steps and by applying complementary models, researchers of political power could benefit methodologically. In particular, two system identification models could be especially useful when one needs tools helping with understanding the interdependence between structural and functional aspects of political power. Each system identification model stems from different assumptions, hence giving an opportunity to reflect on seemingly complementary aspects of political power. The white box model creates an incentive to analyze structural aspects of power, as a space of mutual relations and interactions. The black box model, on the other hand, can help with grasping functional and goal-oriented aspects of power. Combined, they show the way for a complementary conduct of political power analyses. However, there are at least two drawbacks of the proposed approach. One of them is that the analysis of political power depends on the systematization of power relationships. It could be difficult to do that if the system under study is very complex or too dynamic. Since each of the power relationships should be identified with a particular system identification model, the analysis could prove to be a time-consuming and laborious endeavor. This might exceed

24

standards that political scientists are used to. At this stage of advancement, the need for systematization of power relationships makes it a potential tool for analysis of stabilized political systems and not the transforming ones. The other problem that could be used as an argument against the proposed approach is the fact that the starting point of the analysis might determine its results. This statement weighs less in the constructivist discourse, as it is a common thing there to assume that the tools and theoretical approach influences the conduct of results. But it could be regarded as a methodological problem for a positivistic approach to research. The limitation posed by two of the mentioned features could be restrained however, if studies are coordinated. If the results from one study serve as a starting point for another study, the studies would comprise an interrelated and cross-referenced program of the analysis of political power.

References Albert, M. (2016) ‘Luhmann and Systems Theory’. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.7. Allen, J. (2009) ‘Three spaces of power: territory, networks, plus a topological twist in the tale of domination and authority’, Journal of Power, 2(2), pp. 197–212. doi: 10.1080/17540290903064267. Ampère, A.-M. (1856) Essai sur la philosophie des sciences, ou, Exposition analytique d’une classification naturelle de toutes les connaissances humaines. Chez Bachelier. Ashby, R. W. (1957) An Introduction to Cybernetics. Second Imp. London: Chapman & Hall

25

LTD. Available at: http://files/822/Ashby - 1999 - An Introduction to Cybernetics.pdf. Auel, K. (2005) ‘Introduction: The Europeanisation of parliamentary democracy’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(3–4), pp. 303–318. doi: 10.1080/13572330500273513. Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S. (1962) ‘Two faces of power’, American Political Science Review, 56(4), pp. 947–952. Barbalet, J. and Qi, X. (2013) ‘The paradox of power: conceptions of power and the relations of reason and emotion in European and Chinese culture’, Journal of Political Power, 6(3), pp. 405– 418. doi: 10.1080/2158379X.2013.846554. von Bertallanfy, L. (1950) ‘An Outline of General Systems Theory’, The British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, I(2), pp. 134–165. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/I.2.134. Borch, C. (2005) ‘Systemic power: Luhmann, Foucault, and analytics of power’, Acta Sociologica. Scandinavian Sociological Association and SAGE London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, 48(2), pp. 155–167. Boulding, K. E. (1956) ‘General systems theory-the skeleton of science’, Management Science, 2(3), pp. 197–208. Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D. and Phillips, N. (2006) Power and organizations. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Dahl, R. A. (2005) Who governs?: Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven: Yale University Press. Deutsch, K. W. (1963) The nerves of government: Models of political communication and control. New York: The Free Press. Dowding, K. (2012) ‘Why should we care about the definition of power?’, Journal of Political

26

Power, 5(1), pp. 119–135. doi: 10.1080/2158379X.2012.661917. Easton, D. (1979) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Von Foerster, H. (2007) Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. Gerovitch, S. (2002) From Newspeak to Cyberspeak: A History of Soviet Cybernetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Available at: http://files/1183/Gerovitch - 2002 - From Newspeak to Cyberspeak A History of Soviet Cybernetics.pdf. Geyer, F. (2002) ‘The march of self-reference’, Kybernetes, 31(7/8), pp. 1021–1042. Geyer, F. and van der Zouwen, J. (1986) Sociocybernetic Paradoxes: observation, control and evolution of self-steering systems. London: Sage. Greniewski, H. (1959) Elementy cybernetyki sposobem niematematycznym wyłożone. Warszawa: PWN. Harold, L. (1936) Politics: who gets what, when, how. New York: Whittlesey House. Helms, L. (2000) ‘Parliamentary party groups and their parties: A comparative assessment’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 6(2), pp. 104–120. doi: 10.1080/13572330008420625. Heylighen, F. (1998) Basic Concepts of the Systems Approach. Available at: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SYSAPPR.html (Accessed: 22 July 2017). Heylighen, F., Rosseel, E. and Demeyere, F. (1990) Self-steering and cognition in complex systems: toward a new cybernetics. New York: CRC Press. Hobbes, T. (1956) Elementy filozofii. Warszawa: PWN. Kam, C. (2001) ‘Do Ideological Preferences Explain Parliamentary Behaviour? Evidence from

27

Great Britain and Canada’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 7(4), pp. 89–126. doi: 10.1080/714003894. Kasianiuk, K. (2016) ‘White box, black box and self-organization: a system-to-environment approach to leadership’, Kybernetes, 45(1), pp. 126–140. doi: 10.1108/K-02-2015-0057. Korzeniewski, B. (2001) ‘Cybernetic formulation of the definition of life’, Journal of Theoretical Biology. Elsevier, 209(3), pp. 275–286. Kossecki, J. (1975) Cybernetyka społeczna. Warszawa: PWN. Kuckartz, U. (1991) ‘Ideal Types or Empirical Types: The Case of Max Weber’s Empirical Research’, Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 32(1), pp. 44–53. Luhmann, N. (1977) ‘Differentiation of society’, Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 2(1), pp. 29-53. Luhmann, N. (1993) Communication and social order: risk: a sociological theory. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Luhmann, N. (1997) ‘Limits of steering’, Theory, Culture & Society, 14(1), pp. 41–57. Lukes, S. (1974) Power. A radical view. London: Macmillan Press. Machiavelli, N. (2010) The prince. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Maturana, H. R. and Varela, F. J. (1991) Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. Mayntz, R. (2016) ‘22. Steering’, Handbook on Theories of Governance. Edited by C. Ansell and J. Torfing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Mazur, M. (1969) Cybernetyczna teoria układów samodzielnych. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych.

28

Mazur, M. (1976) Cybernetyka i charakter. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Merriam, C. E. (1934) Political power: Its composition & incidence. New York: Whittlesey House. Merriam, C. E. (1945) Systematic politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mills, C. W. (2000) The power elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nettl, P. (1966) ‘The Concept of System in Political Science’, Political Studies, 14(3), pp. 305– 338. Nye Jr, J. S. (2009) ‘Get smart: Combining hard and soft power’, Foreign Affairs, pp. 160–163. Pangaro, P. (2003) ‘Cybernetics: a definition’, Hyperlink [http://www. pangaro. com/published/cyber-macmillan. html], 9. Parsons, T. (1963) ‘On the concept of political power’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 107(3), pp. 232–262. Plato (1894) The republic. Translated by B. Jowett. Courier Corporation. Available at: http://www.globalgreyebooks.com/Books/Republic.pdf (Accessed: 7 January 2016). Plato (2008) ‘Alcibiades I’. Available at: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1676/1676-h/1676h.htm. Raunio, T. (2005) ‘Holding governments accountable in European affairs: Explaining crossnational variation*’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(3–4), pp. 319–342. doi: 10.1080/13572330500348307. Roth, S. and Schutz, A. (2015) ‘Ten systems: Toward a canon of function systems’, Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 22(4), pp. 11–31. Thompson, M. J. (2013) ‘A functionalist theory of social domination’, Journal of Political

29

Power, 6(2), pp. 179–199. doi: 10.1080/2158379X.2013.805922. Trentowski, B. (1843) Stosunek filozofii do cybernetyki czyli sztuki rządzenia narodem. Poznań: JK Żupański. Varela, F. (1984) ‘Two principles of self-organization’, in Ulrich, H. and Probst, G. (eds) Selforganization and management of social systems: insights, promises, doubts, and questions. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo: Springer, pp. 25–33. Vogler, G. (2016) ‘Power between habitus and reflexivity – introducing Margaret Archer to the power debate’, Journal of Political Power, 9(1), pp. 65–82. doi: 10.1080/2158379X.2016.1149309. Wallimann, I., Tatsis, N. C. and Zito, G. V (1977) ‘On Max Weber’s definition of power’, Journal of Sociology, 13(3), pp. 231–235. Weber, M. (1949) ‘Objectivity in social science and social policy’, in Shils, E. A. and Finch, H. A. (eds) The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: The Free Press, pp. 50–112. Weber, M. (1978) Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wiener, N. (1948) Cybernetics, or Communication and Control in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge: MIT Press. Zaliwski, A. S. (2011) ‘Information–is it Subjective or Objective?’, tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 9(1), pp. 77–92.

30