Naming the Paradigms

Origins

Discovery: The approach taken here is based on observation of the social world including the literature of various humanities disciplines, particularly the social sciences, and theme-based investigations. From these accounts, it has been possible to deduce the existence of just 7 ordering principles which underpin 7 depiction methods.

Naming: As in previous Typologies, I will have to invent names, drawing so far as possible on terms used in the literature—but not necessarily with precisely the same reference.

Literature: The situation for depiction (PH'3) seems wholly unlike decision (PH'1) and ethical choice (PH'6) where there is an extensive practical and philosophical literature that argues and explains the diverse methods in great detail. Such studies, guiding beacons in the taxonomic analyses in this website, are lacking in the Change Domain-RL3.
ClosedMore

Discussion of change in the literature seem to focus primarily on action and human engagement, not on representing the situation. Nevertheless, numerous techniques for representing have been developed: narrative accounts, mapping, visualization, statistical analyses, interviewing, participative appraisal, simulation, network analysis and others.

In this context, the present approach can be labelled as a form of "grounded inquiry". This has resulted in findings that may be fairly obvious and straightforward to readers but which, as a whole, have not seen the light of day in academia or consultancy services.

Properties: The object of depiction for change, "what we are dealing with", is typically a situation, but it may sometimes be better referred to as an entity. The characteristic properties of the paradigms presented below have been abstracted from example situations and entities, and may therefore be coloured by their idiosyncratic features. If a mentioned property does not apply to all situations, it may either be an error or it may be a characteristic that variably manifests according to opportunity.

The Depicter: The hypothetical person creating the depiction is called a "depicter", but such a person may not be identifiable in many cases. Sometimes, as explained in the previous topic, the leader is the depicter. At other times, an investigator or consultant is the depicter. But very often the depiction method appears to be part of the situation and assumed by all participants.

Identification

Identifying paradigms is a separate task to sequencing them. Determining the correct taxonomic order of a Principal Typology can be difficult: see more here.

This topic will list the paradigms starting with what seems to be the simplest and moving progressively to what seems to be the most complex. A graphic plus a few characteristic properties are offered for each. Further elaboration and comparisons will follow in subsequent topics. Finally, there will be a summary in the review section.

Unitary Paradigm

A unitary depiction is the first and seemingly absolutely simplest concept of a situation or entity as an undifferentiated whole. See diagram.

The depicter imposes indivisibility as the primary ordering principle.

The paradigm prefers stability and seeks to ensure no change in the entity. If change is imposed, then there is a fight to restore the status quo.

Over time, the situation/entity will either expand or contract as a whole.

Individuals (components) within the situation/entity are viewed as a part of the masses i.e. inter-changeable and replaceable.

ClosedExamples:

Creation of a monopoly is an effort to operate a market on unitary principles. The monopolist wants this situation to continue, with the market expanding, and without needing to develop or improve the product or service. The monopolist does not need to differentiate customers and resists change that would enable buyers to develop purchase options.

EMH: Pricing changes in the stock market are determined by the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) developed by Eugene Fama. EMH says that price reflects all available information and it is impossible to outperform the market via expert stock selection or market timing. EMH assumes that investors are undifferentiated, all being "rational actors" i.e. self-interestedly calculating costs and benefits to profit.

Russia: In 2024, Russia is a dictatorship where no opposition is allowed to exist. The population is relatively undifferentiated, so enabling deaths of large numbers from illness, alcoholism or war to be acceptable. Everyone is expected to conform in behaviour and belief to whatever is said by the government, no matter how untruthful. The economy is not diversified and primarily rests on oil and gas sales. Russia is an empire and its focus on development is to maintain the status quo and expand the territory under its control.

Abridged from the report by Lei on YouTube:

Since you've decided to pursue a political career, you must take the advice I give below to heart:

1. Do not seek the truth. Do not try to understand the truth of the matter. Let the intellectuals pursue truth, that's their business. What the superiors advocate is simply correct.

2. Learn to tell lies and be good at it. Being an official is most similar to being a prostitute, with the difference being that an official sells his mouth.

3. You should have academic credentials but not true knowledge for true knowledge will destroy you. With knowledge, you would think independently and independent thinking is a big taboo in politics.

4. What is the purpose of being an official? It's for getting benefits. Some call this corruption. It's the only purpose. Once the purpose of seizing benefits becomes vague, failure is not too far away.

5. You must know how to manage relations first before doing the work. Don't misunderstand this as having both integrity and talent. Managing relations means weaving yourself in the network around you. Those who mistake ability as job performance are in for rough days.

6. The way you work must be the same as farmers, focusing on short-term gains, being very short-sighted. Once you took too far ahead, you no longer belong here and the consequences are unimaginable.

7. Believe that flattering is a high art. Flattery is to gain the appreciation of superiors. In a society ruled by centralized power, the appreciation of superiors is the only path to advancement, everything else is a formality.

8. All laws, regulations and policies are not to be strictly followed, to put it precisely, they can all be flexible in practice.

The unitary paradigm revolves around power over an undifferentiated entity to avoid change. These rules ensure that ideas/rules/knowledge are malleable, any official is replaceable, and nothing is done to disturb the status quo.

Dualistic Paradigm

The Dualistic depiction of a situation or entity is as a duality in the midst of variety. See diagram.

The depicter assumes dichotomization clarifies, and expects polarization with opposition, argument or conflict between two main components.

Over time, the situation/entity will tend towards an equilibrium.

The paradigm expects the situation/entity to be maintained in support of the two main components while undergoing slow evolution. If change is imposed, then each component will press for a better outcome for itself.

Individuals within the situation identify with the interest of one or other component.

ClosedExamples:

Markets can be viewed as a struggle between buyers and sellers, and whoever dominates sets the trend.

In many situations, an "us or them" or "for or against" mentality develops. This typically precludes beneficial cooperation or the effort to develop and implement win-win solutions.

Labour relations: Management can view the workforce as an opponent with antithetical interests and see exploitation as an appropriate strategy.

Causal Paradigm

The Causal depiction sees the situation or entity as consisting of a multiplicity of elements or factors with some distinct causal connections. See diagram.

The depicter expects and requires causally-connected factors to be identified. These must reliably function in a particular way so that prediction is possible.

Over time and with scrutiny or experiment, the situation/entity appears to become ever more complex.

The paradigm expects that there will be partial and controllable improvements to the functioning of the situation/entity based on developing a proper understanding. If change is imposed, then it is necessary to check there is genuine benefit in key factors.

Individuals/components are viewed as potentially effective agents that may affect or manipulate others in the system.

ClosedExamples:

The economy can be viewed as multi-factorial and able to be manipulated by a powerful entity that can pull levers to cause conditions to improve or deteriorate.

Housing:  Housing costs from rental or mortgages are a result of numerous factors. However, applying the causal paradigm, it is plausible to predict that building more houses will reduce rental costs and that subsidizing home-ownership will make it easier to buy a home. (In practice, it may not work out that way.)

Structural Paradigm

The Structural depiction assumes that the situation or entity is bounded, internally structured and with ordered specified relationships. See diagram.

The depicter expects to be able to determine an order for the components. This order enables flows and is often partially or wholly hierarchical. Components must be well-defined to allow their explicit organisation.

Over time, the situation/entity actively maintains its order, controlling components as required to ensure relevant requirements like efficiency, strength and security. That order determines an identity.

The paradigm expects that entity change may occur in the form of a re-organisation. If change is imposed, then order will be maintained by re-structuring as appropriate.

Individuals (or components) are viewed as filling a role needed by the situation/entity or as a member of a class or category.

ClosedExamples:

Organization charts of a business show all the departments and their connexions, including line and staff roles and a specification of the hierarchy of manager-subordinate relationships through which formal authority flows.

Machine models in biology and psychology are structural because they are holistic and based on ordering well-defined objects, states, events, properties, together with rules that link these. For example, the computational theory of the mind which dominates cognitive science, claims that the mind is a computational system i.e. computation is not a metaphor or analogy.

Dynamic Paradigm

The Dynamic depiction assumes that the situation or entity is a system consisting of components (not themselves systems) in a dynamic relationship. See diagram.

The depicter assumes there is or must be feedback between the components of the situation/entity.

Over time the entity is expected to grow.

The paradigm expects that entity change will occur in the form of directed evolution and increased symbiosis of the components. If change is imposed, the system flexibly reacts and adapts.

Individuals/components are viewed as members of a group or community, ready and able to give feedback on matters that concern them.

ClosedExamples:

The family can be viewed as a dynamic system in which members interact constantly and need to talk openly with each other so as to feel secure and get their needs met. Members develop over time and the family must accommodate those changes. At the same time, the family can make choices for how and where they wish to live. The environment is then viewed as separate, even alien, and something to be handled.

A challenging project that calls for those involved to develop a strategy for completion and to cooperate closely will be most likely to succeed if all regard it as a dynamic system i.e. communicating effectively, feeding back interim results and flexibly adapting.

Atomistic Paradigm

The Atomistic depiction assumes that the situation or entity consists of a discrete independent compound dynamic system or individual surrounded by other similar systems or individuals. See diagram.

The depicter assumes that boundaries of all should be respected.

Over time, the various systems/individuals will learn to co-exist, cooperate and create networks.

The paradigm expects that change will occur in an unpredictable way through independent self-motivated re-positioning. If change is imposed, then each system will check for implications and look for opportunities to get protected and gain advantage.

Individuals/components are viewed as autonomous and responsible.

ClosedExamples:

A market can be conceived as atomistic in that it is the sum total of all the buyers and sellers in a sector where goods or services are freely exchanged for a mutually agreed price. Each buyer and seller is viewed as independent and in competition with other buyers or sellers. Regulations can be developed to either foster or undermine atomistic functioning.

Individuals who find their work environment cramping and frustrating can assert their own individuality and leave to seek ways to make a living independently.

Unified Paradigm

The Unified depiction assumes that the situation or entity is a dynamic system of dynamic systems interacting dynamically with its environment. See diagram.

The depicter assumes that co-evolution of all systems including the environment is occurring.

Over time, there is positive evolution and increased cohesion.

The paradigm expects that change is a continuous process of organic growth and co-evolution with the changing environment. If change is imposed, then there is an acceptance and a willingness to "go with the flow".

Individuals are unique and irreplaceable.

Studies using this paradigm are inherently transdisciplinary.

ClosedExamples:

Earth System Science views the Earth as a structure and functioning that includes interactions amongst the lithosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, atmosphere and anthroposphere plus its environment, like the sun and cosmic radiation. This complex adaptive system leads to both self-regulation (Gaia hypothesis) and to evolution over time.

Complex Systems Theory has recently been created as a transdisciplinary science to address complexity in general. Key notions are networks of systems emergence, self-organization, feedback sensitivity, and agility. Networks are multi-layered and co-evolving with a turbulent environment, so that the future trajectory depends on the history. The human element is fully included. Because links have variable strength and can be broken and reformed, dynamics are non-linear and need exploring via simulation, not analysis.

The THEE Taxonomy is a transdisciplinary effort to portray human functioning in terms of frameworks which are systems, and these are linked into larger systems, with the whole including both the self and the environment, externally and neuro-biologically.

Review

The pattern of increasing complexity is easy to observe:

We start with a paradigm that is a simple undivided unity: called Unitary.

Then a paradigm that is an unstructured duality of unities: called Dualistic.

Then a paradigm that is an unstructured multiplicity of unities : called Causal.

Then a paradigm that is a compound structured entity whose components are linked: called Structural.

Then a paradigm that is a compound structured entity whose components interact: called Dynamic.

Then a paradigm that is a multiplicity of discrete structured entities: called Atomistic.

Finally a paradigm of a compound structured entity containing compound entities and being part of its environment: called Unified.

ClosedSee Matrix Table Summary

Process

This approach emphasizes that reality is in constant change. However, this appears to be a version of either Dynamic or Unified. If the focus is on flows, then possibly Structural is implied.

Narrative

This emphasizes the importance of interpretation, meaning and values to describe a situation. It was identified, for example, as a feature in affecting and shaping societal institutions. However, any particular narrative will be determined by one of the depiction paradigms.

Mystery : Unknowability

This is to retreat from having any account or model, and so it cannot be used to handle change.

In Review section: see an analysis of the relation between depiction and forms of reality.

The above sequencing seems "natural": but is it taxonomic within THEE?

Originally posted: 30-Jun-2024.