True, Good and General System Theories: How to Develop and Evaluate Them

This review attempts to codify the bases in philosophy of science, physical and social, in order to aid future generic theory construction, development, evaluation, and potential research funding. To lay the groundwork, a theoretically core building block of a true theory is a unit concept, here proposed as “change in relationships.” The overall procedure is built on the definition of true theory as a set of deductively interrelated hypotheses, which has important evidence to back it up (G. Homans, 1967). The six headings (I through VI) can each be represented by one main (and several lesser layers of descriptive charts). I. A Generic 4-BOX FLOW DIAGRAM, Chart #I, taken as a device, is a way of advancing from typologies and paradigms to a process diagram applicable to any brain-like mechanism in an interacting system. A variation makes the chart applicable as a general Social Problem Solver for applying any theory to concrete cases. II. A relationship insight DEVICES typology arrays possible generic MEDIA FOR UNDERSTANDING (Chart #II) in an approach to a kind of cognitiv

Torture and Secrecy versus Democracy and Peace Development

A series of flow charts with testable hypotheses will elaborate, in potentially researchable ways, the interrelationships of the most relevant variables, both micro and macro level, that may cause a person to engage in torture (or terrorist acts) or to employ degradation tactics, or to instigate stressful or abusive interrogation tactics, designed or intended at minimum to humiliate a victim (or “chosen enemy”). The analysis should provide at least an accounting scheme for evaluating particular instances of such abuse, their motivations, causes, possible cover-up, or government sanctions, as well as eventual prevention, ending in reeducation of the perpetrator as well as the victim(s). Some of the multi-level hypotheses will be demonstrated from well-known or recent international or national news incidents as well as voluminous US government memoranda and reports (Greenberg & Dratel, 2005, The Torture Papers). Starting with Slawski’s review of terror motives and causes plus neutralization techniques (ISSS Cancun Proc., 2004), there will be a restatement in stark multi-level causal charts of the verifiable statements of Pilisuk and associates (2000 & 2005, Charts 3 & 4) with regard to the goals of multi-national corporations and their effects in the direction of providing or promoting causes and cycles of corruption, violence, including torture, terror, tyranny and war, amplified by propaganda (Charts 5-7), all in the context of resource-rich but otherwise poor nations around the world. Whether the actor is a corporation, rogue state as the warrior, or a secret intelligence investigator or interrogator, vicious cycles of disruptive social interaction will be explored, especially as they illuminate consequences like revenge, “blowback,” or negative boomerangs upon the perpetrator. Elaboration on the conference themes of democratization and global social interactional sustainability will be central (transforming lesser to greater jihad, Chart #1, then crime “neutralization” to social realization, Chart #2), the spirit of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and The Earth Charter, negotiation and self realization (Charts 8 & 9), along with the concise axioms on global ecosophy plus conflict resolution (of Arne Naess, Norwegian philosopher, 1958 & 1986/1995, supported by reminders of Gandhian principles, in Charts 10-11). Starting from the point of view of a potential violence perpetrator, a personal, societal and cultural need ladder will be sketched (summarized in Chart #12, Ecosophy over Violence), by painting lines on the road to global ecosophical-democratization. Eventual worldwide peace development, as a way to wise social and environmental management, is the long-run goal, aided by a program of statements of hopefully attainable, constructive policy guidelines toward that end

BUREAU-PATHOLOGIES IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS:

BUREAU-PATHOLOGIES IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS: Synthesizing a botanic garden case for a General Policy System Theory Carl Slawski, Emeritus Professor of Sociology (CSULB) 555 S. Ventu Park Rd. Newbury Park, CA 91320, USA When modernization of pathways for handicapped accessibility and an outdoor meeting patio is resisted by a campaign of public agitation under the guise of historical preservationism, architectural taste, traffic and fire safety, etc., is it any wonder that eyebrows are raised about the true motivating forces behind such agitation? Based upon the author’s use of a wide variety of social psychological and sociological theories to understand how to manage “BUREAU-cratitis” (ISSS 2002) and the convergent rise of a curious case of legalistic manipulation of county bureaucracy against the clear mission and goals of a private educational and scientific research organization, namely a botanic garden in a beautiful outdoor canyon, illustrations of tentative theoretically based causes and possible solutions to the largely social and cultural, as well as environmental intermix of problems will be given. Theories to be applied will include Conflict, Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger), Labeling (particularly as techniques of neutralization, “denial of responsibility,” “denial of injury” toward one’s opponents, and “appeal to a higher loyalty,” as developed by Sykes and Matza: 1957), Role Bargaining (W.J. Goode), functionalism (in terms of the functions of ignorance as stated by Moore and Tumin: 1949), Identity Bargaining (Erikson), modes of Synergy (Coulter: 1976), and perhaps most pointedly, Game Theory. The issue around what is called the “Meadow Terrace” project came to a head in the middle of 2007 in Santa Barbara, California, when a county Planning Department approved the project, but after it was at least one-third finished (at the expense of $72,000.00), some canyon neighbors with their resident lawyer mounted a campaign that caused a new Planning agent to rescind the permission to firm up the pathways and gently sloping patio/display area with level, natural stone, and to build three supporting outdoor terrace walls of 18 inches high for easier accessibility and a more level gathering place in the meadow, surrounded as it is by tall trees, and in the general vicinity of seven previously specifically designated historical landmarks located around or between the original botanical library and a dam across a canyon creek-bed. In the process of previous historically sensitive compliance, did the Botanic Garden (BG) give up its rights to modify any aspect of the tracts of land containing those seven landmarks (without a full-scale environmental impact report), including cutting down nearby dying or dead oak trees, or firming up the pathways across the meadow for easier access by wheelchairs or persons needing medical walkers? Did the BG relinquish its rights to use any of the remaining space within those partly historical tracts to continue to accomplish its educational and scientific mission (i.e., botanical research)? Ignorance by neighbors, and by the county bureaucrats about the actual nature of the planned terraces (and about other modifications of libraries and staff offices and teaching facilities in another area of the historically designated tracts), and the complainants’ lawyer stating the neighbors’ virtual claim to jurisdiction over the entire historically pertinent area, including over the low level terrace leveling project, caused a furor characterized by public debate in meetings of the HLAC (the county’s preservationist overseers, who are not expertly trained in botany or education, if even archaeological or historical methodologies, namely, the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission) and the county Board of Supervisors, few of whom showed a clear understanding of the botanical (scientific) mission of the Garden or of the legal limits of designation of the seven sites on the grounds, in contrast to the overblown aesthetic and historic preservation ideology. [3/28/08--- BpNpoAb.doc] Keywords: Policy System Theory/ “BUREAU-cratitis”/ botanical science/ preservationism

TRUE, GOOD AND GENERAL SYSTEM THEORIES: How to Develop and Evaluate Them

See prior submission

Levers for Intervention in Organizational Decision-Making

LEVERS FOR INTERVENTION IN ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION-MAKING: Local Government Red Tape and Fudging-‘Bureau-CATS’ Unmasked by TRANSPARENCY Carl Slawski (Emeritus Professor of Sociology, CSULB) 555 S. Ventu Park Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 – USA A juicy case study of dead-end whistle-blowing inquiries over a steep and narrow if not precarious hillside home construction site in Open Space zoning in southern California is described and examined in light of a systemic theory for reprogramming “Bureau-CATS.” Coping with this breed, from land grading to fire road standard enforcers, from Planning to Building to Fire road Inspectors, is described in terms of Dramaturgical (Goffmanesque “discrepant role”) and Labeling Theory (Sykes & Matza’s “neutralization techniques,” 1957) as well as “splintered” formal organization-theory (revised from Slawski’s 4-box flow diagrams on BUREAU-cratitis (Shanghai, 2002), and now on “how to navigate through its maze”), finally ending in a new and widely applicable GST type of feedback and feed-forward model of how to reprogram the system of permissions and superficial inspections, fraught as it is with vicious cycles (a la Alvin Gouldner on rules), plus the red-tape ball fudged by both the contractor, and the choir of county ‘B-CATS,’ all to the detriment of the formerly open environment, the danger of foundation or wall failure (perhaps because of a nearby earthquake fault), undermining the narrow, winding pot-holed fire road, or a possible landslide of the house down the hill into the creek-bed below. Who cares? Who gets paid off, at least by in-bred ‘idiosyncracy credits’ through the virtual “old-boy network” established between inspectors and SPEC house builders? Neighbors’ property rights and peace of mind be damned! How does this kind of ecologically corrupt, vicious cycle (of greedy developers over norms of sustainability across generations) get started? Why doesn’t someone do something about it? Has anyone tried TRANSPARENCY? Read on and see for yourself. Key Words: ‘BUREAU-cratitis’/ vicious cycles / ecological corruption / land development / greed. . [12/06+ 1/21/07 --- LiodmAb.doc

Evaluating Theories Comparatively

Wenn zwei oder mehrere Theorien zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt an das Material einer einzelnen konkreten Fallstudie 'angelegt' werden, ist die Möglichkeit gegeben, ihre jeweiligen Erklärungsvorteile zu vergleichen. Diese Methode ist sehr erfolgreich, wenn es darum geht, die relative Nützlichkeit irgendeines Theorieansatzes hervorzuheben. Im folgenden wird eine Klassifikation entwickelt, die die Dimensionen einer derartigen Komparatistik hinsichtlich philosophischer, methodologischer und inhaltlicher Fragen einmal auflistet. Es wird das Beispiel einer fiktiven Fallstudie herangezogen, die im Sinne der Schlüsselbegriffe zweier Theorien, der Austauschtheorie und des symbolischen Interaktionismus, analysiert wird. Die Nützlichkeit dieser dermaßen 'angewandten' Theorien wird anschließend auf den vier zentralen Ebenen untersucht, auf denen sich die Qualität einer Theorie beurteilen läßt: den Ebenen 1) der Erklärungskraft, 2) des Informationsgehalts, 3) der Voraussagefähigkeit und 4) der Kontrollierbarkeit oder guten Handhabung der Anwendung. Dabei wird angenommen, daß das Grundproblem, an das alle Folgeprobleme in den Sozialwissenschaften anschließen, in der Beantwortung der Frage liegt, in welcher Weise eine bestimmte Theorie dazu beiträgt, in einer Gruppe oder gesellschaftlichen Struktur über eine Zeitperiode hinweg Veränderung zu erklären.

The Career Ideology of Specialists: Elements of Socialization in University Departments

292 p.Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1969.U of I OnlyRestricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETD