Science in Christian Perspective
RESEARCH ON COMPLEX SOCIETAL
PROBLEMS
EVERETT R. IRISH
Battelle Seattle Research Center
Seattle, Washington 98105
From: JASA 26 (March 1974): 3-6.
Some Views about the Future of Society
From an overall perspective, it is obvious that there is no general agreement on
what the shape of the future will he. It is less obvious, but more important,
that there is no adequate understanding of the assumptions that various groups
of people make about the shape of the future.
Dr. Philip M. Hauser of the Club of Rome is quoted as saying,
Given the present outlook, only the faithful who believe in
miracles from heaven, the optimistic who anticipate superpowers from science,
the parochial fortunate who think they can continue to exist on islands of
affluence in a sea of world poverty and the naive who anticipate nothing, can
look to the future with equanimity.1
Dr. Robert Theobald, editor of Futures Conditional, says,
One group expects the future to be like the past. Another group
spends its time proving that the future will be disastrous. A third group
announces that a new future is automatically coining into existence and that it
will be far more attractive than our existing local, national and international
patterns.
His stance accepts as fully proven that, "fundamental changes in trends are
required if this planet is to survive... man's power has made it possible to
create a favorable world..." It also assumes that "the creation of
this new world is going to require significantly more imagination and
perseverence from man than he has yet shown himself to possess."2
Dr. Willis Harman, Director of the Center for the Study of Social Policy at
Stanford Research Institute, having made a number of systematic and historical
analyses of conditions in the United States, argues that,
Among the future alternatives to be considered is one that
comprises a rapid and drastic break with trends of the recent past,
characterized essentially by a change in that basic vision of manin-the-universe
in which the operative values of the society have their origins.
In this view, contemporary political, military, economic, ecological, and social
crises are reflections of an underlying moral and spiritual crisis of
civilization, and their resolution depends on the resolution of that deeper
crisis.3
The first set of views on the global level leaves one uncertain as to whether it
is a complete set. If one decides it is, one is left with the question,
"Where do I belong?" If one decides it is not, what view seems to be
missing? The second categorization asks one to make a similar selection. Neither
categorization is adequate for me although elements of both have merit. As I
view the conditions of society and its future, I believe the third scenario
which Willis Harman describes. As I see it, Harman's considered view speaks
directly to Robert Theobald's stance that "fundamental changes in trends
are required if this planet is to survive;" e.g., a most critical trend is
the continually increasing gap between the "haves and have-nots," both
nationally and internationally, to which Hanser alludes. Personally, it is my
conviction that what Harman describes as the necessary resolution of "an
underlying moral and spiritual crisis of civilization" is a theological
issue, one that may even require what might be considered miracles.
My personal conviction notwithstanding, and in the absence of superpowers from
science, I recognize that there are significant roles for science and technology
to play in helping to cope with present and future complex societal problems. To
introduce some vital concepts relevant to such research, I would like to express
first some theological beliefs and how they relate to my view of
"complexity". First, there are at least two relevant philosophical
approaches or cosmic views of the situation. The cosmic view on which the
rational-empirical approaches of science are based is one of natural cause and
effect of situations in a closed system. Another view, which I hold, is one of
natural cause and effect of situations in an open system with divine
interventions. As Francis Schaeffer expresses it:
Putting it into twentieth-century terminology, we can say this:
The universe does not display a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed
system; God speaks and something changes.4
With such a cosmic view, I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic about the
future; I remain hopeful because of my Christian faith, not because of the
"superpowers of science" or "man's power ... to create a
favorable world." In fact, I am concerned that man's diagnosis of his
situation as he seeks to create a favorable world is inadequate. Francis
Schaeffer, in speaking of the moral and spiritual crisis of civilization,
expresses this mutual concern:
If man attributes a wrong cause to the dilemma and divisions of
men, he will never come up with the right answer no matter how good a will he
has. Man as he stands since the Fall is not normal, and consequently the
solution must be appropriate to what we know to be the cause of his problems and
his dilemma. A mere physical solution is inadequate, because man's dilemma is
not physical Nor can it be metaphysical, because the. problem of man, as we know
it in Genesis 111, is not primarily metaphysical. The problem of man is moral,
for by choice he stands in rebellion against God. And any appropriate solution
must fill this moral need.5
For my credo about man's condition and the future of society, I hold the views
discussed in this section, recognizing a dependence upon God and the
interdependence of man. In such a hopeful spirit, I can be open to the
possibilities of human potential and devote my efforts to its growth. Expressed
in the words of Paul Gertmenian, I believe that:
If I were forced to choose between these two views [pessimism or
affirmation of possibilities] as alternative ways of looking at human potential,
I would support a view which affirmed human potential . . . . But it is not
necessary to choose between these two views as though they were alternative ways
of looking at life. The church's teaching on original sin and the dimension of
sin in all human actions is not meant to be a counterbalance to that spirit
which affirms human potential. Rather, it is a realistic assessment of the human
situation which prevents us from mythologizing life. In terms of human
potential, it is not meant to restrict creativity and spontaneity or
imagination, but to remind us that with the realization of every new human
potential comes also the possibility of subverting what has been realized-to an
end which rather than enhancing life, can destroy or distort it.
This kind of realism prevents us from putting our hope in
illusions. For example, the notion that the young will somehow miraculously
solve the problems that the older generation has failed to solve is one such
illusion. Or the belief that changing structures of institutions or even
abolishing institutions will solve the human problem is another. What the
doctrine of original sin insists upon is that whatever the human configuration
may be, there will be a need to struggle against distortions, that there is no
unmixed triumph of good over evil, and that those who believe in an unmixed good
are living in a world of self-deception .6
Hopefully, the above discussions have presented some comprehension of where I
come from. In addition, they seek to add two factors in my cosmic view of the
universe-an open system with divine interventions and a statement of man's
condition-to my view of the complexity of societal problems.
Realizing well that my personal views cannot and ought not to be imposed on
others, I ask what are some views that can he commonly shared? John Gardner,
speaking about moral decay and renewal, suggests some:
In a pluralistic society the consensus must necessarily be at
what one might call a middle level of values. Obviously it cannot deal with the
surface trivialities of manners and daily customs; neither can it sound the
depths. It can deal with fairly fundamental values governing man's behavior and
with concepts such as freedom and justice. But those values float over
stilldeeper reaches of philosophic and religious beliefs. They gain their
strength from man's deepest views concerning his own nature. When we reach these
depths, however, we are in the presence of matters which concern the individual
so profoundly that he must not be asked to compromise them.
To force consensus in the depths of belief would be intolerable. To remain
preoccupied with the whitecaps on the surface would he meaningless. So a
pluralistic society wisely seeks to establish its consensus in the middle
depths.
At that level, in our own case, one finds the ideals of freedom, equality of
opportunity, the conception of the worth and dignity of the individual, the idea
of justice, the dream of brotherhood. The fact that we are not always faithful
to these shared values does not indicate confusion nor a failure of the
consensus, We know the values to which we are being unfaithful. One might ask,
'What difference does it make that we agree on our values if we aren't faithful
to them?' The answer is that if one is concerned about therapy, it always makes
a difference what the patient is suffering from. This society is suffering not
from confusion but from infidelity.7
Some Vital Concepts Relevant to Scientific Research on
Complex Societal Problems
1. Problems are not problems until perceived as such by experts or populace, and
perceptions change with time, The "Issue-Attention Cycle"8
of many social problems moves through five stages.
(a) Pre-problem stage-experts alarmed.
(b) Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm-public jolted.
(c) Realization of the cost of significant progress" Most pressing social
problems involve either deliberate or unconscious exploitation of one group by
another, or the prevention of one group from enjoying something that others want
to keep for themselves . . , . The increasing recognition that a sacrifice is
required in order to solve the problem constitutes a key part of the third
stage."
(d) Gradual decline of intense public interest - public discouraged.
(e) The post-problem stage-prolonged limbo, new problem.
2. Major social problems that pass through the "IssueAttention Cycle"
demonstrate three conditions present.8
(a) The majority of people are not suffering from the problem as much as some
minority (usually less than 15% of the entire population).
(b) The sufferings caused by the problem are a result of social arrangements
that provide significant benefits to a majority or a powerful minority of the
population.
(c) The problem has no intrinsically exciting qualities which remain.
3.Mass media play a major role in problem perceptions and subsequent impact,
frequently without depth of consideration. Potentially, mass media can be an
inherent part of ameliorations of societal problems, appropriately informed and
utilized.
4. Social theories abound, differing on various perceptions and value systems.
Value-free applied social science research is not possible. There is a need to
develop and apply the discipline of "social humanities."9
5."Solutions" to societal problems, if they ever exist, do not remain
long. The processes of both research and change are important.
6. "Solutions" to societal problems are not necessarily transferable.
Even at one location robust, not optimum, "solutions" are necessary to
accommodate various interest groups.
7. Public participation (at least representative if not popular) is vital for
real acceptance of societal problem ameliorative programs or experiments.
Adequate means for public participation do not now exist; future use of Cable TV
is one opportunity which needs to be addressed by the research community.
(Implicit in this view is that we assume a free society.)
8. Development of methods (e.g, simulation gaming) for recognizing and
minimizing conflictscognitive differences as well as ideological
differencesbetween individuals and groups is worthy of scientific effort, even
if complete resolution may be out of reach, Rappoport and Summers address this
issue (albeit over-confidently, I believe) as follows:
Heretofore, it has been customary to attribute the generally
dismal state of international relations to ineradicable defects in the character
of man-his malicious greed, his thirst for power, all clearly found in the
character of the Other and equally clearly disavowed by the Self. This view,
which has led to one disaster after another, can be replaced by a more
scientific one. Instead of the denigration of one man by another, or the endless
pleading and wringing of hands, it is now possible for science to develop a
technology that can remove the ambiguities of traditional discourse and clarify
cognition in ways never before open to us.10
9. Capable and sensitive leadership of research teams is necessary for
successful research on societal problems. A relevant insight was expressed by
Keith Miller, a former industrial executive, a psychologist and theologian, as
he wrote about Maslow's hierarchy of man's needs:
Any prophet who hopes to be effective in dealing with the social
structures of our time has got to be aware of the personal sense of isolation
ann the needs for love and esteem which motivate the people in those structures
including himself.11
This insight is valid for relationships within the research teams, too.
10. Complexity is evident in all of a class of problems (e.g., societal
problems, technology assessment, planning and forecasting) and is increased by
the considerations presented in the initial discussion section. In order to
supplement intuitive judgments with understanding from scientific research, many
simplifying assumptions must be made. Even so, our abilities are limited in
applying logical reasoning to complex issues, and communicating this reasoning
fully to others.
Conclusions
As I have studied and thought about research on complex societal problems, I
have realized that almost any view of the causes and solutions of societal
problems can be found discussed in the literature, duly cited with references to
other erudite literature. The views one accepts are dependent significantly on
one's perceptions of oneself, others and society, holistically, in the light of
a personal philosophy of life. In stating my personal credo above, I have
elected to include selected quotations from statements made by numerous writers;
this was done not to try to "prove" my credo but to illuminate it
through interesting articulations of others.
Consistent with these personal beliefs, and some implied values, expressed in
the above discussions, I also believe that amelioration of many societal
problems can and should be aided through use of scientific approaches and
knowledge and resources, and that worthwhile changes can he accomplished through
people working cooperatively and openly together even though some of their
fundamental beliefs and values differ, but that resolution of an underlying
moral and spiritual crisis of civilization is not amenable to scientific (or
educational) treatment.
The challenge before scientists, who are also committed Christians, is to apply
ourselves wholeheartedly to the tasks to which we are called with intelligence
and integrity. As we do so, we need to recognize the potential of scientific
research for making significant and worthwhile contributions to the amelioration
of some of humankind's critical problems. However, we also need to consider
thoughtfully the internal consistency of the presuppositions on which our
colleagues and we base our research efforts and acknowledge the limitations of
science. Final resolution comes through the political proeess, hopefully with
altruistic and enlightened leaders having adequate information supplied, in
part, through use of scientific research methods by knowledgeable people.
REFERENCES
1New York Times, February 18, 1971.
2Theobald, Robert, "How Can We Plan for the Future?" Futures
Conditional, Vol. 1, No. 2, February 1973, p. 1.
3 Harman, W. W., "Key Choices of the Next Two Decades,"
A Look at Business in 1990. U. S. Government Printing Office, November 1972,
pp. 35-36.
4Schaeffer, Francis A., Genesis in Space and Time,
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, November 1972, p. 95.
5lbid., p. 160.
6Gertmenian, Paul, "Education in Transition; Education and Human
Potential," Synthesis, The Church and the University, University of
Washington Campus Christian Ministry, Seattle, 1971.
7Gardner, John, Self-Renewal, The Individual and the Innovative
Society, Harper and Row, New York, 1963, pp.
117-118.
8Downs, Anthony, "Up and Down with Ecology-the 'Issue Attention
Cycle'," The Public Interest, Summer 1972.
9Gastil, R. D., "Social Humanities," Policy Sciences,
4, 1973.
10Rappoport, Leon, and Summers, David A., (eds.), Human Judgment
and Social Interaction, Halt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., New York, 1973, p. 387.
11Millcr, Keith, The Becomers, Word, Inc., Waco, Texas, 1973,
p. 179.