- Email: [email protected]
Cultural, social, and psychological considerations in the planning of public works
TECHNOLOGICAL
FC’RECASTZNG AND SOCIAL CHANGE 5,135 - 143 (1973)
135
Cultural, Socia icatlConsidera of Public Works MAGOROH MARUYAMA Introduction As a result of th; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, agencies engaged in contruction of public works are required to incorporate cultural, social, and psychological considerations as w $11as economic and environmental considerations in their planning of public works. This is a beginning of a new era characterized by an emergence: of a social philosophy counteracting the hitherto dominant technocentricism in Western Civilization. Public agencies have begun an unprecedented task to implement this new social philosophy. However, their efforts are handicapped by the fact that they are trying to attain the goals of a new social philosophy with an old conceptual and logical framework. The purpose of tiris paper is to explore and discuss cultural, social, and psychological considerations in the planning of public works. However, before going into this main topic it is necessary to point out briefly the inadequacies of the traditional conceptual and logical structure, which is still widely used in the analysis of cultural, social and psychological considerations, Inadequacies of the Traditional Conceptual and Lalgical Structure in the Analysis of Cultural, Social, and Psychological Considerations. 1. INADEQUACES
OF THE CONCEPT “IMPACT. **
A current term u:ied for the analysis of cultural, social and psychological considerations is “impact analysis. ” This way of thinking is based on the paradigm of unidirectional causality, which ha!3been until recently considered as the “scientific” way of thinking. However, recent advances in science have produced a newer paradigm of multilateral mutual causality [I-l 31. This paradigm is applicable to many physical, biological, and social processes, and is indispensable in their analysis. Since three decades this mew paradigm has undergone increasing mathematical sophistication and has established itself on scientific rigor. Muthematically, the mutual causal paradigm is completely diflerent in notjare frownthe unidirectionarl causal par&&m. Mutual causal analysis cannot be substituted by a succession of unidirectional causal analysis performed in alternating directions. !t is easy to show mathematically that such substitution produces incorrect results. In t(:rms of public work planning, the notion of “‘impact analysis” is based on a wrong paradigm because social processes are basically mutual causal pro,c:esses. “Impact
MAGOROHMAP’JMAY~,is Professor of !iystems Science, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 97207 o American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., I973
136
MAGOROH MARUYAMA
analysis” cannot even be used with the excuse that it forms a part of the total mutual causal amlyriis and is to be supplemented later with the analysis in the other causal direction. Mutual causal analysis is not a sum of two unidirectional causal analyses in two difierent directions. As mentioned, such substitution produces mathematically incorrect uesults. The notion; of “impact analysis” must be replaced with the notion of causal loop analysis. For example, the construction of a highway or a dam may become a part of a self-perpetua:ing or self-amplifying loop: the construction of a highway through a corn field may cwuse residential areas or factories to grow along the highway, and such developments make the highway more necessary than before. Or the construction of a recreational lake may draw a large population to move to the lake area; soon the lake becomes overcrowded and more lakes must be constructed. These are examples of two-element loops (construction and population). There are also many-element loops, in which the causal effect comes back to the same element via a chain of several elements, It must be recognized that it is wrong to consider a construction project as the cause and the society as the effect. The construction project 1salso an effect of the society in the first place, even before the project is started. Therefore the community people’s opinions and feelirrg~ must be inpartted in the planning from the very beginning of the planning process. 2. INADEQUACIESOF THE LOGIC OF “LIST OF CATEGORIES.”
In almost all cases, the person who wants to perform an “impact analysis” begins with a list of categories. A typical list being used now consists of three large categories of “economic, ” “environmental,” and “social,” which are further divided into smaller categories or items. Such a list is an illusion resulting from the classificational Greek logic. The classificational logic is based on the following assumptions which were derived from the physics of the Greek period. None of these assumptions hold today. Even if they did, none of them corresponds to actual social processes. llhe Assumptions ofthe Classificational Logic (1) The universe consists of material substances (and in some cases aIs=, of power substances). (2) These substances persist in time. (3) They obey the law of identity and the law of mutual exclusiveness, except that the power substance may penetrate into :-rings. (4) The substances are classifiable into mutually exclusive categories. The classification is urtambiguous. The categories persist in time and in space. (The categories are believed to be uniformly and universally valid.) (5) Categories may be divided into subcategories, and categories may be sombined into supercategories. Thus, categories form a hierarchy. (6) The categories can be constructed a priori, i.e., they can preexist before the things that are to be put into them. They have their reality independent from things, and higher than things. (Some later philosophers such as the nominalists in the medieval age challenged this last assumption. But it has remained nevertheless as a “mainstream” assumption in Western Civilization .) We must realize that these are merely assumptions which do not correspond to reality. Nevertheless, matiy persons attempting an “’impact analysis” proceed from a list of such categories as if these assumptions corresponded to reality.
CU’ TURAL, SOCIAL, AND PSYCHIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
137
We need to revise the structure of the list, applying the following new assumptions, which more closely correspond to our social reality* New assumptions (1) The universe consists of processes, many of which are interactive. Our interest is in the patterns of network, not isolated things. (2) Culture, society, beliefs, philosophies, opinions, feelings, goals, purposes, etc. are mutually generative in interaction. They evolve and change in time, and they vary from
place to place, from ,groupto group, or from individual to individual, (3) Mutual exclusiveness and isolatability are not a main relevance. Relatedness and overlapping are of our primary relevance. (4) Classification:; do not exist in things themselves. Hiis FeorIe who classify things jar convenience and for specific purposes. Hence, categories may vary from pers In to person, from situation to situation, and from specific purpose to another spec:fic purpose. Categories may over-lap, and the same thing may be classfiable into several categories at the same time, (5) For convenience, people rjnay subdivide categories into subcategories, or cornbine categories into supercategories. Subcategories and supercategories may vary from person to person, from situation to situation, and from purpose to purpose. They maly overlap Furthermze, what it; a subcategory for a person in a given situation for a specific purpose may be a supercategory for a different purpose or in a different situation even for the same person, not to mention for different Tersons. Therefore, there is no unchanging hierarchy among subcategories and supercategories. (6) Since categories may vary from person to person, from situation to situation, from purpose to purpose, from culture to cuFture, etc., the use of a prestructured list of categories distorts the varying reality. Ideally a list should be generated by each community for each specific purpose. Us= of any prestructured list should be limited to
suggestive purposes only. The Range of Cultural, Social, and Psychological Considerations. In most of the writings on “impact analysis” and “quality of life” that I have come across recently, there is one or more of the three tendencies which distort or limit what is to be examined under cultural, social and psychological considerations. TENDENCY 1: ECONOIvlICOCENTRICISM
This is very common in the writings by agencies in which economists are given the responsibility of dealing with cultural, social, and psychological considerations. This is a tendency to equate human well-being with income level, low unemployment rate, and other economic corsiderations alone. This tendency also equates human needs with population density, population size, birth rate, and other demographic considerations alone. This type of thinkin,g is based on the quantitative supply-and-demand model, with practically no cultural, social, or psvchological considerations, and with practically no awareness of cultural and individual diversities in our society. TENDEN ._‘Y2: MONETARY VALUE Ai8IGNMENT.
Writers with this lendency may recognize the existence of noneconomic considerations in human well-being such as recreation or esthetic appreciation, but attempt to convert all these considerations into monetary values. For example, if a concert ticket costs $6, the
138
MAGORAH MARUYAMA
value of the concert to the spectator is converted into the monetary value of $6. Some go so far as estimating the “value” of a fee-less recreation area at some arbitrary figure such as fifty oents per visitor per day. 'l"ENDENCY3:'VALUEHlERARCHYMODEL. 'me writerswith thistendencyrecognize that there are individual and cultural differences ini preferences, but assume ethnocentrically that the so-called values can be either St&d c[prrank-ordered in all cultures, i.e., they assume that all cultures have either
a quantitative epistemology or a hierarchical epistemology. They do not realize that there are cultures with nonquantitative and nonhierarchical epistemologies. Furthermore, they assur 03that in all cultures people can give a definite response to an abstraction (such as “lOJ%ity, ” “honesty, ” “freedom”) as if such abstractions had reality independent from the dolltext. They do not realize that in many cultures contextual and relational logics are pr&ced instead of the Western atomistic and clast;ificational logic. A typical example of tb ;s tendency toward value hierarchy models is the widespread use of Maslow’s hierarchy oi values. This example is particularly illuminating because not only its structure is hierarchicalbut also
CULTURAL, SOCIAL, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
139
With these cautions in mind, let us make a general outline of what are to be included in cultural, social, and psychological considerations. CULTURAL.
Cultural pertains to philosophies and patterns of life shared by a number of interacting individuals. The group of interacting individuals who share the same philosophy and the same pattern of life may be an ethnic group, a professional group, a religious group, etc. There may be overlappings between groups in terms of some aspects of philosophies or of patterns of life. There may be individuals who are able to shift between different philbdophies or different patterns of life. There may be individuals who belong to one culture according to one criterion, and to another culture according to another criterion. In all cases, cultural considerations are considerations of these different philosophies and patterns of life. Examples of philosophies and patterns of life are: Example
A: Life is cut-throat competition. The stronger takes advantage of the weaker. Success depends on effort. If someone is unsuccessful, it is his fault because he is not making the necessary effort. Scab others in their backs or you will get stabbed. People who are equal to you are your competitors. People who are different are your enemies. Life is a zero-sum game. What someone gains is what someone else loses. Life is a constant exploitation. Example B:
Life is a harmony of mutual relations. Life is a non-zero-sum game, People can help one another and gain from one another without anybody necessarily losing. Diversity enriches society. Different people can contribute different talents to one another. Some people are under disadvantaged conditions and they should be helped.
As much as possible, life should be like a ciockwork. It should run smoothly without disturbance. If everybody does his work, everyth;ng should go according to the book. Example
D: Everybody should earn his living. He can work as much as he wants or as little as he wants. But he must budget his own life and be self-sufficient, He must save for his rainy days. Example E: I share with others what I earn, and others share with me what they earn. There is no need to save because others will help me on my rainy days. Therefore, I give away all my surplus. Saving is stinginess. You should not help people who are stingy. The last example illustrates that the “value analysis ” is meaningless if it is done out of cultural context. The person in the culture in Example E can afford to be generous because of the economic system of mutual resource distribution. At the same time, he cannot affarc to be sting;,. He can afford not to save, and he cannot afford to save. On the other hand, a person in the culture in Example D must have savings. He cannot afford not to save, and he can afford to save. If a value analysis is improperly conducted, it may be
140
MAGOROH MARUY'AMA
conch&d that the culture in Exaimple D is future-oriented, while the culture in Example E is more present-oriented. Such an analysis misses the more basic difference between the two cultures. The basic difference is that the culture in Example D is individualistic, while the culture in Example E is mutualistic. One is not necessarily more future-oriented than the other. It is therefore important to note the following in the analysis of cultural considerations: (1) to analyze the total cultural context; (2) because preset methods of analysis may produce irrelevant conclusions and miss the relevant points, it is recommended that the cultural considerations be inputted from the community rather than measured by a presef test methlod constructed by outsiders.
Relationof P&lic Works to the PhQosophiesand the Life Patterns of the Gxmunity Let US,taðe five examples of philosophies and patterns of life given above and illustrate some possible kin& of relationship between public works on the one hand and the philosophies and the life patterns of people on the other hand. &gm@ A: Competitive 2Mosophy. The arguents for or against the project may be influenced by such a cut-throat competitive philosophy, and the project in turn may create, accentuate or abate such a philosophy. If such a philosophy preexists in the community or in the planners, such a philosophy is likely to become the basis of arguments for or against the project. The project in turn can create competition which did not exist before, or increase the existing competitiveness, or in some cases decrease the existing competitiveness. Example B: Philosophy of Harmony and Mutuality. This philosophy can influence the planning and can in turn be influenced by the project. If such a philosophy preexists, the aquments for or against the project can be made on the basis of the consideration as to whether the project can increase or disturb the harmony in the universe and in the community. The project, in turn, can reinforce or undermine the philosophy based on the harmony of mutual relations. Example C: BureQlrtcrutic Philosophy. If this type of philosophy preexists, the argument for or against the project can be made on the basis of the consideration as to whether the project itself is compzGble with the “book,” and whether the project will or will not disturb the clockwork system. The project, in turn, can create, enhance or undermine such a philosophy: the project may create a clockwork type of life in the community; enhance the existing c ockwork type of life; or introduce nonclockwork type of elements in the life of the communit> . ExumpleD: IPhilosophy ojhdividucd Self-Suficiency. This type of philosophy can very well influence the decision regarding tile plans. For example, the planner with this type of philosophy may argue that the community must be economically self-sufficient, and therefore it needs the proposed project Or he may reject the project on the ground that the project would destroy o,heself-suffciency of the community. If the community people hold this type of philosophy, they can use similar arguments for or against the project. The Iproject, once carried out, may also create, enhance or decrease this type of philosophy. For example, if the community had a qstem of communal distribution of food, the project may introduce the money economy into the community as well as the salary system, which will destroy the traditional corzmunal food distribution system and convert the community people into individual salary-budget-saving system, Exam@ E: Philosophyof Communal Resource:. This type of philosophy may generate
CULTURAL,SOCIAL, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIOlr;S
141
arguments for or against the project. For example, in a community in which the individual does not have to worry about his gain or loss as long as the gain of the community as a whole increases because of the community food distribution system, the fact that the project may decrease some individuals’ crops is not a deterrent against the project as long as the total crops of the community increase. This eliminates one of the usual problems associated with the individual property. On the other hand, such a philosophy may generate arguments against the project if the project would benefit a small group but create disadvantages to the community as a whole. Thus, the commonly practiced strategy of using a small interest group as leverage to win the arguments for the project does nor work. The project, once achieved, may enhance or undermine such a philosophy in turn. SOCIAL: Social pertains to interaction patterns of people in the community. They include the following considerations. The items listed are not mutually exclusive, nor exhaustive. (I) Family structure : nuclear, extended, commuqe, transitory, etc. (2) Proxemics: individual rooms or communal rooms, closed doors or open walls, spending much time with other people on the streets or in courtyards, etc. (3) Transht population, home-base population and sadentary population. (4) Social activities: churches, public religious feasts, market places usetj for social intercourse, bars, clubs, participant activities, spectator activities, types of housing (individual houses, highrises, etc .). (5) Social distance: generation gap, ethnic distance. vertical and horizontal stratification, prejudices, alienation. (6) Forms of social orgatoization: hierarchical, nonhierarchical, homogenistic , heterogenistic, majority rule, consensual, diversity-symbiotizing, etc. (7) Communication: telephone, newspapers, television, radio. (8) Public services: hospitals, schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds, fire station, police. * (9) Transportation: roads, railways, buses, boats, snowways (snow-covered land facilitates transportation by sled, ski, etc.), iceways (ice-covered ocean and rivers facilitate transportation by car, sled, etc.), airports (including lake, river, frozen lake, snowland). These social considerations influence the arguments for and against the proposed project, as well as are influenced by the project if the project is materialized. PSYCHOLOGICAL (1)Direct feelings toward the Droject: (a) Feeling of being exploited .* (b) Feeling of not being respected or taken into consideration. (c) Feeling of having participated in the planning. (d) FeeIing of being benefited. (e) Feeling of being shortchanged. (f) FkaeIingof being proud of t% project. (g) Feeling of being ashamed (>fthe project. (h) Feeling of indifference.
*
142
MAGORAH MARUYAMA
(i) Feeling that the project is irrelevant and is a waste of money. (j) Indignation or anger toward the project . (k) Enthusiasm or exhilaration. (2) Indirect psychological considercrtions: (a) Change in social interaction patterns, and consequent psychological reorientation. (b) Change in social status or social position due to the project, and consequent psychological reorientation. (c) Change from communal economy to individual economy, and consequenr psychological reorientation. (d) Change in working pattern and in attitude toward work (time-card mentality, etc.), and consequent psychological reorientation. (e) Change in philosophy and life pattern, and consequent psychological reorientation. The direct feelings toward the project generate arguments for or against the project. The materialized project, in turn, generates, increases or decreases some direct feelings toward the project. The indirect psychological considerations are secondary effects resulting from cultural and social considerations. However, once these secondary effects are generated, they in turn create, increase or decrease the direct feelings toward the project. The direct feelings, in turn, generate arguments for and against the project.
MultipleEntry Checklist As cautioned, the “cuPtura1,” the “social,” and the “psychological” are not mutually exclusive categories, nor are the items mentioned in each type of considerations to be considered as mutually exclusive nor preexisting before the actual situation is specified. The method of establishing a list of preexisting catego:ies and items should be discarded, Instead, the method of multiple entry checklist is suggested. In this method, there is no preestablished list of preexisting categories and items. For a given situation in a specific community, the specific considerations influencing the decision as well as those considerations which will be influenced by the project if it is materialized are first listed without the concern as to whether they arc cultural, social, or psychological (or even economic or environmental). Some of these considerations may turn out to be any combination of cultural, social, and psychologica1 (and even economic and environmental). If tlhis is the case, make multiple entries in the check columns of cultural, social, and psychological.
Mutual Causal Relations Between the Cultural Considerations, Social Considerations, and Psychological onsiderations as well as between Items within the Same Type of Considerations We have seen that some indirect psychological considerations arGinfluenced by cultural or social considerations. But direct feelings can also be influenced by cultural and social considerations. For example, the consideration that the project wouid disrupt the pattern of life in the community will undoubtedly result in a direct negative feeling toward the project. l%rrthermore, psychological considerations can also influence cultural and social considerations. For example, a strong feeling shared by community members against the project may unite the community which has not been cohesive. Cultural considerations and social considerations can also affect one another. For example, a rise of a competitive
CULTURAL, SOCIAL, AND PSYCHOLOGICALCONSIDERATIIONS
143
philosophy (cultural consideration) may divide the community (social consideration), and conversely a community physically divided by the project (social consideration) may develop a competitive philosophy (cultural consideration). There are also mutual interactions between the items within the same type of considerations. For example, establishment of schools may increase or decrease the social distance between the rich and the poor, and the change in social distance may create new kinds of schools.
Summary and Conclusion The current efforts at incorporating the cultural, social, and psychological considerations in the planning of public works are handicapped by the fact that these efforts are directed at attaining the goals of a new social philosophy with the old conceptual and logical framework. In this paper the inadequacies of the paradigm of the “impact” mod4 and the inadequacies of the classificational logic have been discussed. As an alternative paradigm, the mutual causal model has been proposed to replace the “impact” model. The mutual causal relations between the project planning on the one hand and the cultural, social and psychological considerations on the other hand have been discussed. Furthermore, mutual causal relations between cultural considerations, social considerations and psychological considerations as well as mutual causal relations between items under the same type of considerations have been pointed out. The range of the “cultural,” the “social,” and the “psychological” as related the project planning has been indicated with the caution that the lists and the examples are not to be interpreted in the classificational logic of exclusive and exhaustive categories. The method of multiple entry checklist beginning with the actual concrete situation in the specific community has been suggested to replace the use of preestablished list of categories.
References 1. W, Buckley, ModernSystemsResearchfor the Behavioral Scientist, Aldine, Chicago (1968). 2. T. Gustafson and L. Wolpert, Cellular basis of morphogenesisin sea urchindevelopment Intern. Rev. Cy IS, 139-214 (1963). 3. M .Maruyama,Morphogenesisand morphostasis,Methodos 12,25 l-296 ( 1%I $. 4. M. Maruyama,The second cybernetics:deviation-amplifyingmutualcausal processes, AmericanScientist 51,164-179; 250-256 (1963). 5. J. Milsum, PositiveFeedback,Pergamon,Oxford(1968). 6. G. Myrdal, AmericanDilemma,Harper& Row, New York (1943). 7. G . Myrdal, EconomicTheoryand UnderdeveloppedRegions, Duckworth,London (1957). 8. H. Spemann, EmbryonicDevelopmentand Induction, ( 1938). 9. S. Ulam, On some mathematical problems connected with growth of patterns. Proceedings of the Sympo&n on AppliedMathematicsIQ,2 15-224 ( 1962). 10. H. Von Foerster,TransactionsofJosiah MacyJr. Foundation Conferences on Cybernetics,JosiahMacy Jr. Foundation, New York(1949-53). 11, C. H. Waddington, Towardsa TheoreticalBiology, Aldine, Chicago (1969-71). 12. N. Wiener, Cybernelics,Hermanet Cie, Paris(194&!. 13. S. Wright, Evolution in Mtlndelianpopulation, Generics16,97-l!!@ (1931). ReceivedJanuary f 2, I973
FC’RECASTZNG AND SOCIAL CHANGE 5,135 - 143 (1973)
135
Cultural, Socia icatlConsidera of Public Works MAGOROH MARUYAMA Introduction As a result of th; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, agencies engaged in contruction of public works are required to incorporate cultural, social, and psychological considerations as w $11as economic and environmental considerations in their planning of public works. This is a beginning of a new era characterized by an emergence: of a social philosophy counteracting the hitherto dominant technocentricism in Western Civilization. Public agencies have begun an unprecedented task to implement this new social philosophy. However, their efforts are handicapped by the fact that they are trying to attain the goals of a new social philosophy with an old conceptual and logical framework. The purpose of tiris paper is to explore and discuss cultural, social, and psychological considerations in the planning of public works. However, before going into this main topic it is necessary to point out briefly the inadequacies of the traditional conceptual and logical structure, which is still widely used in the analysis of cultural, social and psychological considerations, Inadequacies of the Traditional Conceptual and Lalgical Structure in the Analysis of Cultural, Social, and Psychological Considerations. 1. INADEQUACES
OF THE CONCEPT “IMPACT. **
A current term u:ied for the analysis of cultural, social and psychological considerations is “impact analysis. ” This way of thinking is based on the paradigm of unidirectional causality, which ha!3been until recently considered as the “scientific” way of thinking. However, recent advances in science have produced a newer paradigm of multilateral mutual causality [I-l 31. This paradigm is applicable to many physical, biological, and social processes, and is indispensable in their analysis. Since three decades this mew paradigm has undergone increasing mathematical sophistication and has established itself on scientific rigor. Muthematically, the mutual causal paradigm is completely diflerent in notjare frownthe unidirectionarl causal par&&m. Mutual causal analysis cannot be substituted by a succession of unidirectional causal analysis performed in alternating directions. !t is easy to show mathematically that such substitution produces incorrect results. In t(:rms of public work planning, the notion of “‘impact analysis” is based on a wrong paradigm because social processes are basically mutual causal pro,c:esses. “Impact
MAGOROHMAP’JMAY~,is Professor of !iystems Science, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 97207 o American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., I973
136
MAGOROH MARUYAMA
analysis” cannot even be used with the excuse that it forms a part of the total mutual causal amlyriis and is to be supplemented later with the analysis in the other causal direction. Mutual causal analysis is not a sum of two unidirectional causal analyses in two difierent directions. As mentioned, such substitution produces mathematically incorrect uesults. The notion; of “impact analysis” must be replaced with the notion of causal loop analysis. For example, the construction of a highway or a dam may become a part of a self-perpetua:ing or self-amplifying loop: the construction of a highway through a corn field may cwuse residential areas or factories to grow along the highway, and such developments make the highway more necessary than before. Or the construction of a recreational lake may draw a large population to move to the lake area; soon the lake becomes overcrowded and more lakes must be constructed. These are examples of two-element loops (construction and population). There are also many-element loops, in which the causal effect comes back to the same element via a chain of several elements, It must be recognized that it is wrong to consider a construction project as the cause and the society as the effect. The construction project 1salso an effect of the society in the first place, even before the project is started. Therefore the community people’s opinions and feelirrg~ must be inpartted in the planning from the very beginning of the planning process. 2. INADEQUACIESOF THE LOGIC OF “LIST OF CATEGORIES.”
In almost all cases, the person who wants to perform an “impact analysis” begins with a list of categories. A typical list being used now consists of three large categories of “economic, ” “environmental,” and “social,” which are further divided into smaller categories or items. Such a list is an illusion resulting from the classificational Greek logic. The classificational logic is based on the following assumptions which were derived from the physics of the Greek period. None of these assumptions hold today. Even if they did, none of them corresponds to actual social processes. llhe Assumptions ofthe Classificational Logic (1) The universe consists of material substances (and in some cases aIs=, of power substances). (2) These substances persist in time. (3) They obey the law of identity and the law of mutual exclusiveness, except that the power substance may penetrate into :-rings. (4) The substances are classifiable into mutually exclusive categories. The classification is urtambiguous. The categories persist in time and in space. (The categories are believed to be uniformly and universally valid.) (5) Categories may be divided into subcategories, and categories may be sombined into supercategories. Thus, categories form a hierarchy. (6) The categories can be constructed a priori, i.e., they can preexist before the things that are to be put into them. They have their reality independent from things, and higher than things. (Some later philosophers such as the nominalists in the medieval age challenged this last assumption. But it has remained nevertheless as a “mainstream” assumption in Western Civilization .) We must realize that these are merely assumptions which do not correspond to reality. Nevertheless, matiy persons attempting an “’impact analysis” proceed from a list of such categories as if these assumptions corresponded to reality.
CU’ TURAL, SOCIAL, AND PSYCHIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
137
We need to revise the structure of the list, applying the following new assumptions, which more closely correspond to our social reality* New assumptions (1) The universe consists of processes, many of which are interactive. Our interest is in the patterns of network, not isolated things. (2) Culture, society, beliefs, philosophies, opinions, feelings, goals, purposes, etc. are mutually generative in interaction. They evolve and change in time, and they vary from
place to place, from ,groupto group, or from individual to individual, (3) Mutual exclusiveness and isolatability are not a main relevance. Relatedness and overlapping are of our primary relevance. (4) Classification:; do not exist in things themselves. Hiis FeorIe who classify things jar convenience and for specific purposes. Hence, categories may vary from pers In to person, from situation to situation, and from specific purpose to another spec:fic purpose. Categories may over-lap, and the same thing may be classfiable into several categories at the same time, (5) For convenience, people rjnay subdivide categories into subcategories, or cornbine categories into supercategories. Subcategories and supercategories may vary from person to person, from situation to situation, and from purpose to purpose. They maly overlap Furthermze, what it; a subcategory for a person in a given situation for a specific purpose may be a supercategory for a different purpose or in a different situation even for the same person, not to mention for different Tersons. Therefore, there is no unchanging hierarchy among subcategories and supercategories. (6) Since categories may vary from person to person, from situation to situation, from purpose to purpose, from culture to cuFture, etc., the use of a prestructured list of categories distorts the varying reality. Ideally a list should be generated by each community for each specific purpose. Us= of any prestructured list should be limited to
suggestive purposes only. The Range of Cultural, Social, and Psychological Considerations. In most of the writings on “impact analysis” and “quality of life” that I have come across recently, there is one or more of the three tendencies which distort or limit what is to be examined under cultural, social and psychological considerations. TENDENCY 1: ECONOIvlICOCENTRICISM
This is very common in the writings by agencies in which economists are given the responsibility of dealing with cultural, social, and psychological considerations. This is a tendency to equate human well-being with income level, low unemployment rate, and other economic corsiderations alone. This tendency also equates human needs with population density, population size, birth rate, and other demographic considerations alone. This type of thinkin,g is based on the quantitative supply-and-demand model, with practically no cultural, social, or psvchological considerations, and with practically no awareness of cultural and individual diversities in our society. TENDEN ._‘Y2: MONETARY VALUE Ai8IGNMENT.
Writers with this lendency may recognize the existence of noneconomic considerations in human well-being such as recreation or esthetic appreciation, but attempt to convert all these considerations into monetary values. For example, if a concert ticket costs $6, the
138
MAGORAH MARUYAMA
value of the concert to the spectator is converted into the monetary value of $6. Some go so far as estimating the “value” of a fee-less recreation area at some arbitrary figure such as fifty oents per visitor per day. 'l"ENDENCY3:'VALUEHlERARCHYMODEL. 'me writerswith thistendencyrecognize that there are individual and cultural differences ini preferences, but assume ethnocentrically that the so-called values can be either St&d c[prrank-ordered in all cultures, i.e., they assume that all cultures have either
a quantitative epistemology or a hierarchical epistemology. They do not realize that there are cultures with nonquantitative and nonhierarchical epistemologies. Furthermore, they assur 03that in all cultures people can give a definite response to an abstraction (such as “lOJ%ity, ” “honesty, ” “freedom”) as if such abstractions had reality independent from the dolltext. They do not realize that in many cultures contextual and relational logics are pr&ced instead of the Western atomistic and clast;ificational logic. A typical example of tb ;s tendency toward value hierarchy models is the widespread use of Maslow’s hierarchy oi values. This example is particularly illuminating because not only its structure is hierarchicalbut also
CULTURAL, SOCIAL, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
139
With these cautions in mind, let us make a general outline of what are to be included in cultural, social, and psychological considerations. CULTURAL.
Cultural pertains to philosophies and patterns of life shared by a number of interacting individuals. The group of interacting individuals who share the same philosophy and the same pattern of life may be an ethnic group, a professional group, a religious group, etc. There may be overlappings between groups in terms of some aspects of philosophies or of patterns of life. There may be individuals who are able to shift between different philbdophies or different patterns of life. There may be individuals who belong to one culture according to one criterion, and to another culture according to another criterion. In all cases, cultural considerations are considerations of these different philosophies and patterns of life. Examples of philosophies and patterns of life are: Example
A: Life is cut-throat competition. The stronger takes advantage of the weaker. Success depends on effort. If someone is unsuccessful, it is his fault because he is not making the necessary effort. Scab others in their backs or you will get stabbed. People who are equal to you are your competitors. People who are different are your enemies. Life is a zero-sum game. What someone gains is what someone else loses. Life is a constant exploitation. Example B:
Life is a harmony of mutual relations. Life is a non-zero-sum game, People can help one another and gain from one another without anybody necessarily losing. Diversity enriches society. Different people can contribute different talents to one another. Some people are under disadvantaged conditions and they should be helped.
As much as possible, life should be like a ciockwork. It should run smoothly without disturbance. If everybody does his work, everyth;ng should go according to the book. Example
D: Everybody should earn his living. He can work as much as he wants or as little as he wants. But he must budget his own life and be self-sufficient, He must save for his rainy days. Example E: I share with others what I earn, and others share with me what they earn. There is no need to save because others will help me on my rainy days. Therefore, I give away all my surplus. Saving is stinginess. You should not help people who are stingy. The last example illustrates that the “value analysis ” is meaningless if it is done out of cultural context. The person in the culture in Example E can afford to be generous because of the economic system of mutual resource distribution. At the same time, he cannot affarc to be sting;,. He can afford not to save, and he cannot afford to save. On the other hand, a person in the culture in Example D must have savings. He cannot afford not to save, and he can afford to save. If a value analysis is improperly conducted, it may be
140
MAGOROH MARUY'AMA
conch&d that the culture in Exaimple D is future-oriented, while the culture in Example E is more present-oriented. Such an analysis misses the more basic difference between the two cultures. The basic difference is that the culture in Example D is individualistic, while the culture in Example E is mutualistic. One is not necessarily more future-oriented than the other. It is therefore important to note the following in the analysis of cultural considerations: (1) to analyze the total cultural context; (2) because preset methods of analysis may produce irrelevant conclusions and miss the relevant points, it is recommended that the cultural considerations be inputted from the community rather than measured by a presef test methlod constructed by outsiders.
Relationof P&lic Works to the PhQosophiesand the Life Patterns of the Gxmunity Let US,taðe five examples of philosophies and patterns of life given above and illustrate some possible kin& of relationship between public works on the one hand and the philosophies and the life patterns of people on the other hand. &gm@ A: Competitive 2Mosophy. The arguents for or against the project may be influenced by such a cut-throat competitive philosophy, and the project in turn may create, accentuate or abate such a philosophy. If such a philosophy preexists in the community or in the planners, such a philosophy is likely to become the basis of arguments for or against the project. The project in turn can create competition which did not exist before, or increase the existing competitiveness, or in some cases decrease the existing competitiveness. Example B: Philosophy of Harmony and Mutuality. This philosophy can influence the planning and can in turn be influenced by the project. If such a philosophy preexists, the aquments for or against the project can be made on the basis of the consideration as to whether the project can increase or disturb the harmony in the universe and in the community. The project, in turn, can reinforce or undermine the philosophy based on the harmony of mutual relations. Example C: BureQlrtcrutic Philosophy. If this type of philosophy preexists, the argument for or against the project can be made on the basis of the consideration as to whether the project itself is compzGble with the “book,” and whether the project will or will not disturb the clockwork system. The project, in turn, can create, enhance or undermine such a philosophy: the project may create a clockwork type of life in the community; enhance the existing c ockwork type of life; or introduce nonclockwork type of elements in the life of the communit> . ExumpleD: IPhilosophy ojhdividucd Self-Suficiency. This type of philosophy can very well influence the decision regarding tile plans. For example, the planner with this type of philosophy may argue that the community must be economically self-sufficient, and therefore it needs the proposed project Or he may reject the project on the ground that the project would destroy o,heself-suffciency of the community. If the community people hold this type of philosophy, they can use similar arguments for or against the project. The Iproject, once carried out, may also create, enhance or decrease this type of philosophy. For example, if the community had a qstem of communal distribution of food, the project may introduce the money economy into the community as well as the salary system, which will destroy the traditional corzmunal food distribution system and convert the community people into individual salary-budget-saving system, Exam@ E: Philosophyof Communal Resource:. This type of philosophy may generate
CULTURAL,SOCIAL, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIOlr;S
141
arguments for or against the project. For example, in a community in which the individual does not have to worry about his gain or loss as long as the gain of the community as a whole increases because of the community food distribution system, the fact that the project may decrease some individuals’ crops is not a deterrent against the project as long as the total crops of the community increase. This eliminates one of the usual problems associated with the individual property. On the other hand, such a philosophy may generate arguments against the project if the project would benefit a small group but create disadvantages to the community as a whole. Thus, the commonly practiced strategy of using a small interest group as leverage to win the arguments for the project does nor work. The project, once achieved, may enhance or undermine such a philosophy in turn. SOCIAL: Social pertains to interaction patterns of people in the community. They include the following considerations. The items listed are not mutually exclusive, nor exhaustive. (I) Family structure : nuclear, extended, commuqe, transitory, etc. (2) Proxemics: individual rooms or communal rooms, closed doors or open walls, spending much time with other people on the streets or in courtyards, etc. (3) Transht population, home-base population and sadentary population. (4) Social activities: churches, public religious feasts, market places usetj for social intercourse, bars, clubs, participant activities, spectator activities, types of housing (individual houses, highrises, etc .). (5) Social distance: generation gap, ethnic distance. vertical and horizontal stratification, prejudices, alienation. (6) Forms of social orgatoization: hierarchical, nonhierarchical, homogenistic , heterogenistic, majority rule, consensual, diversity-symbiotizing, etc. (7) Communication: telephone, newspapers, television, radio. (8) Public services: hospitals, schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds, fire station, police. * (9) Transportation: roads, railways, buses, boats, snowways (snow-covered land facilitates transportation by sled, ski, etc.), iceways (ice-covered ocean and rivers facilitate transportation by car, sled, etc.), airports (including lake, river, frozen lake, snowland). These social considerations influence the arguments for and against the proposed project, as well as are influenced by the project if the project is materialized. PSYCHOLOGICAL (1)Direct feelings toward the Droject: (a) Feeling of being exploited .* (b) Feeling of not being respected or taken into consideration. (c) Feeling of having participated in the planning. (d) FeeIing of being benefited. (e) Feeling of being shortchanged. (f) FkaeIingof being proud of t% project. (g) Feeling of being ashamed (>fthe project. (h) Feeling of indifference.
*
142
MAGORAH MARUYAMA
(i) Feeling that the project is irrelevant and is a waste of money. (j) Indignation or anger toward the project . (k) Enthusiasm or exhilaration. (2) Indirect psychological considercrtions: (a) Change in social interaction patterns, and consequent psychological reorientation. (b) Change in social status or social position due to the project, and consequent psychological reorientation. (c) Change from communal economy to individual economy, and consequenr psychological reorientation. (d) Change in working pattern and in attitude toward work (time-card mentality, etc.), and consequent psychological reorientation. (e) Change in philosophy and life pattern, and consequent psychological reorientation. The direct feelings toward the project generate arguments for or against the project. The materialized project, in turn, generates, increases or decreases some direct feelings toward the project. The indirect psychological considerations are secondary effects resulting from cultural and social considerations. However, once these secondary effects are generated, they in turn create, increase or decrease the direct feelings toward the project. The direct feelings, in turn, generate arguments for and against the project.
MultipleEntry Checklist As cautioned, the “cuPtura1,” the “social,” and the “psychological” are not mutually exclusive categories, nor are the items mentioned in each type of considerations to be considered as mutually exclusive nor preexisting before the actual situation is specified. The method of establishing a list of preexisting catego:ies and items should be discarded, Instead, the method of multiple entry checklist is suggested. In this method, there is no preestablished list of preexisting categories and items. For a given situation in a specific community, the specific considerations influencing the decision as well as those considerations which will be influenced by the project if it is materialized are first listed without the concern as to whether they arc cultural, social, or psychological (or even economic or environmental). Some of these considerations may turn out to be any combination of cultural, social, and psychologica1 (and even economic and environmental). If tlhis is the case, make multiple entries in the check columns of cultural, social, and psychological.
Mutual Causal Relations Between the Cultural Considerations, Social Considerations, and Psychological onsiderations as well as between Items within the Same Type of Considerations We have seen that some indirect psychological considerations arGinfluenced by cultural or social considerations. But direct feelings can also be influenced by cultural and social considerations. For example, the consideration that the project wouid disrupt the pattern of life in the community will undoubtedly result in a direct negative feeling toward the project. l%rrthermore, psychological considerations can also influence cultural and social considerations. For example, a strong feeling shared by community members against the project may unite the community which has not been cohesive. Cultural considerations and social considerations can also affect one another. For example, a rise of a competitive
CULTURAL, SOCIAL, AND PSYCHOLOGICALCONSIDERATIIONS
143
philosophy (cultural consideration) may divide the community (social consideration), and conversely a community physically divided by the project (social consideration) may develop a competitive philosophy (cultural consideration). There are also mutual interactions between the items within the same type of considerations. For example, establishment of schools may increase or decrease the social distance between the rich and the poor, and the change in social distance may create new kinds of schools.
Summary and Conclusion The current efforts at incorporating the cultural, social, and psychological considerations in the planning of public works are handicapped by the fact that these efforts are directed at attaining the goals of a new social philosophy with the old conceptual and logical framework. In this paper the inadequacies of the paradigm of the “impact” mod4 and the inadequacies of the classificational logic have been discussed. As an alternative paradigm, the mutual causal model has been proposed to replace the “impact” model. The mutual causal relations between the project planning on the one hand and the cultural, social and psychological considerations on the other hand have been discussed. Furthermore, mutual causal relations between cultural considerations, social considerations and psychological considerations as well as mutual causal relations between items under the same type of considerations have been pointed out. The range of the “cultural,” the “social,” and the “psychological” as related the project planning has been indicated with the caution that the lists and the examples are not to be interpreted in the classificational logic of exclusive and exhaustive categories. The method of multiple entry checklist beginning with the actual concrete situation in the specific community has been suggested to replace the use of preestablished list of categories.
References 1. W, Buckley, ModernSystemsResearchfor the Behavioral Scientist, Aldine, Chicago (1968). 2. T. Gustafson and L. Wolpert, Cellular basis of morphogenesisin sea urchindevelopment Intern. Rev. Cy IS, 139-214 (1963). 3. M .Maruyama,Morphogenesisand morphostasis,Methodos 12,25 l-296 ( 1%I $. 4. M. Maruyama,The second cybernetics:deviation-amplifyingmutualcausal processes, AmericanScientist 51,164-179; 250-256 (1963). 5. J. Milsum, PositiveFeedback,Pergamon,Oxford(1968). 6. G. Myrdal, AmericanDilemma,Harper& Row, New York (1943). 7. G . Myrdal, EconomicTheoryand UnderdeveloppedRegions, Duckworth,London (1957). 8. H. Spemann, EmbryonicDevelopmentand Induction, ( 1938). 9. S. Ulam, On some mathematical problems connected with growth of patterns. Proceedings of the Sympo&n on AppliedMathematicsIQ,2 15-224 ( 1962). 10. H. Von Foerster,TransactionsofJosiah MacyJr. Foundation Conferences on Cybernetics,JosiahMacy Jr. Foundation, New York(1949-53). 11, C. H. Waddington, Towardsa TheoreticalBiology, Aldine, Chicago (1969-71). 12. N. Wiener, Cybernelics,Hermanet Cie, Paris(194&!. 13. S. Wright, Evolution in Mtlndelianpopulation, Generics16,97-l!!@ (1931). ReceivedJanuary f 2, I973