Midcourse Corrections?

Abstract

n the last chapter of her classic book, Thinking in Systems (2008), Donella Meadows laid out more than a dozen lessons and concepts that summarized what she had learned from her immersion in the systems world. In this column I want to focus on two of these systems lessons, and then describe findings from several recent publications in the sustainable food arena that illustrate why and how I think these lessons could be applied to much of what we are doing.The first advice Meadows offers is to "expose your mental models to the light of day." We understand how important it is to know what the assumptions are behind a theory or research project-whether we're looking at a scientific or political argument. But often people don't share their assumptions (and sometimes don't even conceptualize them), so neither they nor their audiences know the basis for claims and the clarity (or lack thereof) of thinking that went into an argument. To identify the crux of a problem and make good decisions, we have to state assumptions and ask for feedback. Just as we know the benefits of having many voices at the table on food issues, we want to examine multiple options and remove as many of our biases as we can in order to implement valid programs.Meadows' second lesson is "honor, respect, and distribute information." Systems work much better with timely, accurate, and complete information, although this situation is unfortunately much more an ideal than the reality. Meadows also underscores the point that information is power.

Feeding relations: applying Luhmann’s operational theory to the food system

“…To persist, systems must be indifferent to most stimuli, and only those relevant to the system become information. This theory can explain the problem noted by Clancy ( 2016 ) above; that policy-makers are seldom compelled by the evidence that critical agrifood scholars find compelling. Scholars in public health have used Luhmann’s thinking, and particularly his concept of “polycontexture” within subsystems in society, to explain their similar frustration: why “extremely important research findings (at least, important within public health) … are not taken up by policy-makers” (Meyer et al 2015 , p. 345).…”

“…While CAS thinking recognizes how food system dynamics reflect their political contexts at multiple levels, it struggles with the problem of how to effect change. Kate Clancy, a leading CAS-inspired scholar in food systems acknowledges “no matter how compelling scientific findings might appear, they are not adequate by themselves to engender legitimacy” in the eyes of policy-makers ( 2016 , p. 8). The challenge, Clancy argues, is to truly change how power-holders think to “find new language to describe agroecology, as well as offering ways to engage new ethical underpinnings as the arguments for a new norm” ( 2016 , p. 8).…”

“…Kate Clancy, a leading CAS-inspired scholar in food systems acknowledges “no matter how compelling scientific findings might appear, they are not adequate by themselves to engender legitimacy” in the eyes of policy-makers ( 2016 , p. 8). The challenge, Clancy argues, is to truly change how power-holders think to “find new language to describe agroecology, as well as offering ways to engage new ethical underpinnings as the arguments for a new norm” ( 2016 , p. 8). However, if the problem is that CAS arguments have been insufficiently persuasive to policy-makers, it is not clear that persuasion itself is an appropriate solution.…”