- Email: [email protected]
Revolution Now! The New Scientific Basis
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 70 (2003) 579 – 582
Book review
Revolution Now! The New Scientific Basis Kenyon B. De Greene. 1st Books Library, Bloomington, IN, USA, 2000, xxiv and 600 pages. ISBN 1-58500-954-7 (Paperback); US$ De Greene’s Revolution Now is an interesting and stimulating read, a book with a cry, a claim, and a message. The cry: A passionate plea to limit the irrationality and impoverishment of modern civilization. The claim: Act now, the window is open to reverse the decaying trend. The message: Leave the world a better place than when you entered it! (p. xix, closing his preface). Kenyon Brenton de Greene, PhD in biological sciences and physiological psychology, founder of the Radical Revolutionary Party and prolific author, puts in this book his education, knowledge, and experience (also as a world traveler) about many aspects of the world into a systems context. Most of his professional experience was related with systems science (he is presently professor at the Institute of Safety Management, University of Southern California) and (using his own words) has always had the makings of a ‘born’ systems man. This expertise as a systems man has brought to him a very critical view of contemporary social organization and acid opinions about the incompetence, confusion, hysterical reaction, and corruption that have become integral parts of most American large institutions. The reviewed book, a revised release of a previous 1996 hardbound edition, offers to the readers a huge manifesto about the exhaustion and bankruptcy of ‘status quo’ thinking and practice in science and government. Yet it offers a good opportunity to learn about the new ways of thinking, based on recent scientific findings on complex systems that will dominate the very way we live for the centuries to come. And it concludes with a claim for intelligent and oriented action toward a nonviolent revolution that could project humanity into a more sane existence. To accomplish this goal, De Greene divided the text into two major parts: Part 1 (Theory and Philosophy) and Part 2 (Reason and Action). In Part 1, further divided into four chapters (1—Science, Society, and Government; 2—Principles of Perclecticism; 3—Evolution and Environment; 4—Societal Cycles, Structures, and Life Histories), the author traces the history of the ascent and decline of the Newtonian paradigm and the emergence of a new paradigm reflecting the latest developments in systems and complexity sciences. In Part 2, which comprises a single, but rather long chapter (5—The Time for Revolution is Now), he describes his goals, hopes, and recommendations for action. All this is permeated with myriad examples, references, and comments, listed as 525 notes and endnotes filling the last 200
doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(03)00013-1
580
Book review
pages of the book. The main text closes with a 113-word glossary of terms from science and philosophy appearing in the text, some of them of the author’s own creation. The book intends to be a ‘call to arms’, whose overriding conceptual message translated in its five chapters can be subsumed in five points: (i) Newtonian science contributed strongly to the original formulation of Western social thinking and government; (ii) Newtonian science is inapplicable to complex societal and environmental systems; (iii) what is the scientific basis for dealing with world problems today?; (iv) systems thinking provides the basis; and (v) preemptive action must now be taken to prevent further catastrophic societal and environmental decline because we are destroying Earth’s system much faster than we can understand it. Following the author’s own words, the move to revolution can be divided into two major stages: (1) clarification of the underlying dynamics and the need for revolution, and (2) initiating that revolution. De Greene states that in this book he has undertaken to accomplish the first stage. The natural question at this point is then to evaluate in what measure De Greene might be successful in accomplishing this task, that is, to promote reaction through clarification. My view is that, despite being right and even convincing in some of his essential theses, like those of the paradigm exhaustion and the relationship between scientific thinking and political philosophy, the author falls short in persuading the reader on how systems thinking provides the basis for dealing and coping with the overwhelming and global-scaled complexity of today’s world. His talky style is excessively rhetorical and too much based on a psychological view of the human collectivity, for him an insane world society, psychotic in the full sense of detachment from reality, delusions, hallucinations, and intellectual deterioration. The weak points of the book can be summed up in three important points: 1. The theme or thesis of the paradigm exhaustion is clearly not new. Most of the contemporary science since the late 1970s is essentially based on the development of such new or alternative paradigm, presently dispersed through the many domains of the physical, life, and human sciences, and still lacks a powerful analytical synthesis. This absence will certainly endure for perhaps one more generation, and De Greene’s rhetoric is not of much help in this context. 2. Too much rhetoric usually leads to a lack of valuation principles expressed as logical algorithms. Certainly it is true, as De Greene extensively uses in his text, that the social sciences (and that includes economics) were strongly influenced by the Newtonian paradigm. But the concrete fact is that never could any physical law (be it from mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum physics, etc.) be directly applied to any behavior found in human systems. This is probably due to the fact that social systems are complex, adaptive, open systems and in this way cannot be portrayed by any classical model. By logical inference, it follows then that the new emergent complexity science (if it exists!) offers a real chance to develop working models of the real world. But this is a kind of science not yet actualized and it has a long way to go. De Greene’s 20 Principles of Perclecticism (a word coined by the author out of the prefix ‘hyper’ meaning greater than and the word ‘eclectic’ meaning choosing from many systems or doctrines) presented in Chapter 2 consists of a mere attempt to transfer to the human disciplines the new concepts arisen recently from the physical sciences and biology. What we face here is the very goal of the systems science, that of
Book review
581
finding the universal language capable of unifying science, a theme very well explored by Bailey [1] in a recent paper. Again the rhetoric of his 20 principles is of no help; science cannot offer solutions by just manipulating words. 3. From the beginning of the book it was clear to me that the work was not a treatise on political philosophy, but a text intending to divulge present scientific knowledge on systems science. But no systems science at all can be found in the whole book. If the reader is not acquainted with systems science, he/she will learn nothing about it in this text (the few definitions presented in the glossary are certainly not sufficient to overcome the lack of a systemic view of the world). Moreover, for a more technical-oriented mind (as mine), the book is too dense with words, and the complete absence of graphs, illustrations, tables, or any minimal kind of technical tool along with the text is striking. I have already observed [2] this style in some previous publications of the author, mainly in those that I know very well, related to societal cycles and long waves (at least two of them published in the pages of the Technological Forecasting and Social Change [3,4]). His field theory of societal systems and his model of Kondratiev cycle/structure [4] are purely rhetorical in the very sense of the word: Exaggerated in prose, persuasive in the arguments, but a bare set of statements with no practical purpose. However, the most serious caveat about the book regards its underlying logical argument: that of the seemingly irreversible decay of modern civilization, based on the fact that humanity as a whole is not a learning system! First of all, De Greene misuses here the concept of what a learning system is and seems not to take into account the essential role of learning as the primary evolutionary mechanism for adaptation. His concept of learning is not well defined in the text and seems to stem from the behavioral side of biology and/or from psychology. Learning is a key concept and is often used in many different meanings and contexts. Such kind of radical statement should be well founded in what is being understood as a learning system. In the realm of evolutionary theory learning is usually defined as a process of changing the behavioral mechanism of an organism (an adaptive system) in order to promote its survival and/or fitness. Yet in the same context it may be defined in keeping with the involved mechanism, as a process of information and retrieval to meet environmental requirements. Apparently, De Greene refuses this definition and uses the Hegelian view that humanity is not a learning system because it has never learned with history. If that is the case, then humanity has never evolved. The reader will then face a paradox: If society as a whole does not evolve, what to act for? Are we mighty enough to reverse the decaying trend? De Greene’s message is optimistic, based on the hope that we can indeed be a learning system (p. 193). All this sounds to me naı¨ve and nonscientific. It is much more reasonable to expect that De Greene’s attitude and the disposition of his revolutionary followers are part of the grand humanity’s schema of following its evolutionary path as a learning system, a path that over millennia has brought us from the primitive dispersed hunter groups to today’s high-technological (insane?) society. This theme of societal evolutionary learning process will be treated in a forthcoming paper [5]. Finally, I would like to stress that I would feel myself unfair only to point out weak points and flaws in this book. Notwithstanding the naı¨vety and excessive rhetoric, De Greene’s
582
Book review
Revolution Now is worth reading. His prose is pleasant, his claims and message are valid. Among its huge amount of words there are many valuable observations, lessons, and inferences. I also have learned in its pages.
References [1] K.D. Bailey, Towards unifying science: applying concepts across disciplinary boundaries, Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 18 (2001) 41 – 62. [2] T.C. Devezas, J.C. Corredine, The biological determinants of long-wave behavior in socioeconomic growth and development, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 68 (2001) 1 – 57. [3] K.B. De Greene, US and USSR adaptation to a turbulent-environmental field of forces, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 31 (1987) 189 – 200. [4] K.B. De Greene, US and USSR the rocky path to complex-systems indicators, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 47 (1994) 171 – 188. [5] T.C. Devezas, G. Modelski, Power law behavior and world system evolution: a millennial learning process, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (in press).
T.C. Devezas Faculty of Engineering, University of Beira Interior, Covilha 6200, Portugal E-mail address: [email protected] 19 February 2003
Book review
Revolution Now! The New Scientific Basis Kenyon B. De Greene. 1st Books Library, Bloomington, IN, USA, 2000, xxiv and 600 pages. ISBN 1-58500-954-7 (Paperback); US$ De Greene’s Revolution Now is an interesting and stimulating read, a book with a cry, a claim, and a message. The cry: A passionate plea to limit the irrationality and impoverishment of modern civilization. The claim: Act now, the window is open to reverse the decaying trend. The message: Leave the world a better place than when you entered it! (p. xix, closing his preface). Kenyon Brenton de Greene, PhD in biological sciences and physiological psychology, founder of the Radical Revolutionary Party and prolific author, puts in this book his education, knowledge, and experience (also as a world traveler) about many aspects of the world into a systems context. Most of his professional experience was related with systems science (he is presently professor at the Institute of Safety Management, University of Southern California) and (using his own words) has always had the makings of a ‘born’ systems man. This expertise as a systems man has brought to him a very critical view of contemporary social organization and acid opinions about the incompetence, confusion, hysterical reaction, and corruption that have become integral parts of most American large institutions. The reviewed book, a revised release of a previous 1996 hardbound edition, offers to the readers a huge manifesto about the exhaustion and bankruptcy of ‘status quo’ thinking and practice in science and government. Yet it offers a good opportunity to learn about the new ways of thinking, based on recent scientific findings on complex systems that will dominate the very way we live for the centuries to come. And it concludes with a claim for intelligent and oriented action toward a nonviolent revolution that could project humanity into a more sane existence. To accomplish this goal, De Greene divided the text into two major parts: Part 1 (Theory and Philosophy) and Part 2 (Reason and Action). In Part 1, further divided into four chapters (1—Science, Society, and Government; 2—Principles of Perclecticism; 3—Evolution and Environment; 4—Societal Cycles, Structures, and Life Histories), the author traces the history of the ascent and decline of the Newtonian paradigm and the emergence of a new paradigm reflecting the latest developments in systems and complexity sciences. In Part 2, which comprises a single, but rather long chapter (5—The Time for Revolution is Now), he describes his goals, hopes, and recommendations for action. All this is permeated with myriad examples, references, and comments, listed as 525 notes and endnotes filling the last 200
doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(03)00013-1
580
Book review
pages of the book. The main text closes with a 113-word glossary of terms from science and philosophy appearing in the text, some of them of the author’s own creation. The book intends to be a ‘call to arms’, whose overriding conceptual message translated in its five chapters can be subsumed in five points: (i) Newtonian science contributed strongly to the original formulation of Western social thinking and government; (ii) Newtonian science is inapplicable to complex societal and environmental systems; (iii) what is the scientific basis for dealing with world problems today?; (iv) systems thinking provides the basis; and (v) preemptive action must now be taken to prevent further catastrophic societal and environmental decline because we are destroying Earth’s system much faster than we can understand it. Following the author’s own words, the move to revolution can be divided into two major stages: (1) clarification of the underlying dynamics and the need for revolution, and (2) initiating that revolution. De Greene states that in this book he has undertaken to accomplish the first stage. The natural question at this point is then to evaluate in what measure De Greene might be successful in accomplishing this task, that is, to promote reaction through clarification. My view is that, despite being right and even convincing in some of his essential theses, like those of the paradigm exhaustion and the relationship between scientific thinking and political philosophy, the author falls short in persuading the reader on how systems thinking provides the basis for dealing and coping with the overwhelming and global-scaled complexity of today’s world. His talky style is excessively rhetorical and too much based on a psychological view of the human collectivity, for him an insane world society, psychotic in the full sense of detachment from reality, delusions, hallucinations, and intellectual deterioration. The weak points of the book can be summed up in three important points: 1. The theme or thesis of the paradigm exhaustion is clearly not new. Most of the contemporary science since the late 1970s is essentially based on the development of such new or alternative paradigm, presently dispersed through the many domains of the physical, life, and human sciences, and still lacks a powerful analytical synthesis. This absence will certainly endure for perhaps one more generation, and De Greene’s rhetoric is not of much help in this context. 2. Too much rhetoric usually leads to a lack of valuation principles expressed as logical algorithms. Certainly it is true, as De Greene extensively uses in his text, that the social sciences (and that includes economics) were strongly influenced by the Newtonian paradigm. But the concrete fact is that never could any physical law (be it from mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum physics, etc.) be directly applied to any behavior found in human systems. This is probably due to the fact that social systems are complex, adaptive, open systems and in this way cannot be portrayed by any classical model. By logical inference, it follows then that the new emergent complexity science (if it exists!) offers a real chance to develop working models of the real world. But this is a kind of science not yet actualized and it has a long way to go. De Greene’s 20 Principles of Perclecticism (a word coined by the author out of the prefix ‘hyper’ meaning greater than and the word ‘eclectic’ meaning choosing from many systems or doctrines) presented in Chapter 2 consists of a mere attempt to transfer to the human disciplines the new concepts arisen recently from the physical sciences and biology. What we face here is the very goal of the systems science, that of
Book review
581
finding the universal language capable of unifying science, a theme very well explored by Bailey [1] in a recent paper. Again the rhetoric of his 20 principles is of no help; science cannot offer solutions by just manipulating words. 3. From the beginning of the book it was clear to me that the work was not a treatise on political philosophy, but a text intending to divulge present scientific knowledge on systems science. But no systems science at all can be found in the whole book. If the reader is not acquainted with systems science, he/she will learn nothing about it in this text (the few definitions presented in the glossary are certainly not sufficient to overcome the lack of a systemic view of the world). Moreover, for a more technical-oriented mind (as mine), the book is too dense with words, and the complete absence of graphs, illustrations, tables, or any minimal kind of technical tool along with the text is striking. I have already observed [2] this style in some previous publications of the author, mainly in those that I know very well, related to societal cycles and long waves (at least two of them published in the pages of the Technological Forecasting and Social Change [3,4]). His field theory of societal systems and his model of Kondratiev cycle/structure [4] are purely rhetorical in the very sense of the word: Exaggerated in prose, persuasive in the arguments, but a bare set of statements with no practical purpose. However, the most serious caveat about the book regards its underlying logical argument: that of the seemingly irreversible decay of modern civilization, based on the fact that humanity as a whole is not a learning system! First of all, De Greene misuses here the concept of what a learning system is and seems not to take into account the essential role of learning as the primary evolutionary mechanism for adaptation. His concept of learning is not well defined in the text and seems to stem from the behavioral side of biology and/or from psychology. Learning is a key concept and is often used in many different meanings and contexts. Such kind of radical statement should be well founded in what is being understood as a learning system. In the realm of evolutionary theory learning is usually defined as a process of changing the behavioral mechanism of an organism (an adaptive system) in order to promote its survival and/or fitness. Yet in the same context it may be defined in keeping with the involved mechanism, as a process of information and retrieval to meet environmental requirements. Apparently, De Greene refuses this definition and uses the Hegelian view that humanity is not a learning system because it has never learned with history. If that is the case, then humanity has never evolved. The reader will then face a paradox: If society as a whole does not evolve, what to act for? Are we mighty enough to reverse the decaying trend? De Greene’s message is optimistic, based on the hope that we can indeed be a learning system (p. 193). All this sounds to me naı¨ve and nonscientific. It is much more reasonable to expect that De Greene’s attitude and the disposition of his revolutionary followers are part of the grand humanity’s schema of following its evolutionary path as a learning system, a path that over millennia has brought us from the primitive dispersed hunter groups to today’s high-technological (insane?) society. This theme of societal evolutionary learning process will be treated in a forthcoming paper [5]. Finally, I would like to stress that I would feel myself unfair only to point out weak points and flaws in this book. Notwithstanding the naı¨vety and excessive rhetoric, De Greene’s
582
Book review
Revolution Now is worth reading. His prose is pleasant, his claims and message are valid. Among its huge amount of words there are many valuable observations, lessons, and inferences. I also have learned in its pages.
References [1] K.D. Bailey, Towards unifying science: applying concepts across disciplinary boundaries, Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 18 (2001) 41 – 62. [2] T.C. Devezas, J.C. Corredine, The biological determinants of long-wave behavior in socioeconomic growth and development, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 68 (2001) 1 – 57. [3] K.B. De Greene, US and USSR adaptation to a turbulent-environmental field of forces, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 31 (1987) 189 – 200. [4] K.B. De Greene, US and USSR the rocky path to complex-systems indicators, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 47 (1994) 171 – 188. [5] T.C. Devezas, G. Modelski, Power law behavior and world system evolution: a millennial learning process, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (in press).
T.C. Devezas Faculty of Engineering, University of Beira Interior, Covilha 6200, Portugal E-mail address: [email protected] 19 February 2003