This page gathers together various thoughts, comments, questions and quotes about boundaries and boundary related issues. It is intended to provide a sampling of ideas rather than a packaged and polished argument; to offer space for thinking...
It should also be recognized as a continuing, evolving set of ideas...
→ boundary vs. no-boundary thinking
→ key arguments against and for relinquishing boundaries
→ thinking about relation
→ miscellaneous comments
→ different ways to think about boundaries
→ definitions
Most recent substantive changes to this page were made on Nov 18, 2000
Motivation
Imagine a deep dark wet temperate rainforest. Massive tree-trunks reach upward, branches so high they form a general cover, distinctions among individuals blurred at the canopy level. Lush green undergrowth covers the forest floor, filtered sunlight caught by broad leaves pumping surfeit water. Rotten logs provide nutrients, a vertical head-start to those species that can accommodate the acidity, and hiding places for a multitude of small mammals, amphibians, bugs, worms and other assorted creatures. The deep silence belies the frenzy of activity. Sometimes, if I'm quiet, I imagine I can hear trees growing and soil-microorganisms moving about...
A fascinating, vibrant, complex ecosystem.
While completing an undergraduate degree in forestry, I wrestled with the challenge of conceptualizing such systems in a manner appropriate for considering their sustainable management. I found appropriate concepts to be lacking. One key want, was for concepts that would enable the characterization of ecosystems without requiring boundary delineation. While I found the notions of self-organization and self-production valuable for expressing some system qualities, neither concept excluded such definition. Through the naive intentions and desperate creativity of a 4th year student finishing her undergraduate thesis, I invented a word and the subsequent description to occupy the void: sympoietic systems.
Through my continuing research - completion of an M.E.S. and the early years of a Ph.D. - the concept has evolved. With respect to boundaries, the emphasis has become clearer: I now refer to sympoietic systems as boundaryless. This raises some concern in the systems-thinking community: "If it hasn't got boundaries, it can't be a system!" Yet to me, the essential characteristics of "system" are relation and wholeness - neither of which (as I see it) require boundaries. I have also found that the notion of relinquishing or dissolving boundaries is arising all over the place. People in a range of disciplines and vocations call for boundaryless connections between humans and 'nature;' between disciplines, knowledges; between races, sexes, cultures; between decision-makers and stakeholders; between self and other; and so on. Once you start looking for 'no-boundary' thinking, you can find it all over the place...
ps - i'm not trying to suggest that boundaries are useless, just that alternatives are worth considering...
Ultimately, my work is focused on emphasizing lines that connect rather than separate - on establishing relations rather than delineating boundaries. While I began in forestry, resource management and conservation - and still hold such interests - these concerns and possibilities extend far beyond...
Boundary thinking vs. no-boundary thinking
epistemological-psychological considerations:
Regarding perception, Maruyama notes differences among four common mindscapes:
I: One isolates.
S: One perceives simultaneously.
G: One perceives potentials and alternatives.
Only H and I mindscapes, then, seem to necessitate boundary delineation, whereas S and G, may or may not...
Arguments against, and for, relinquishing boundaries:
One of the key notions presented against the idea of relinquishing boundaries is that if you can distinguish between things, then there must be a boundary between them somewhere. As Martin Bunch puts it:
I do like Martin's definition of boundary as a "conceptual space" (such thinking could provide another approach for alleviating my concerns), but I wonder if the distinctions he points to are always so clear or essential? Claiming system vs. not-system is such a dualistic way of looking at the world. Such categorization is only one particular construction of the world - and perhaps a simplistic one.
- For an alternative consider Janian logic, which has seven categories. Three of their categories - is, is not, is indeterminate - reflect a familiar 'western' phrase: yes, no, maybe so, which I remember learning a long time ago...
- As another alternative, consider the difference between thinking about "us vs. them" or thinking about "we." The first is a very dualistic categorization, setting up a (conceptual/cultural) boundary between two groups. The second, simply identifies a collective of individuals - a "system," if you will, but not one that needs to be defined by distinction against "other." (See
Dean and a quote of hers above.)
...a system is a way of looking at the world. The system is a point of view - natural for a poet, yet terrifying for a scientist! (G. Weinberg: 52)
In principle an observer has the freedom to choose the system boundaries, he can decide which objects in the world he wants to take together. Of course he cannot decide whether his choice will be successful, this is a matter of experience (Dalenoort 1989: 301).
Reasonable examples, but is it possible to recognize a distinction without drawing a boundary? I believe so.
Consider describing the figure on the right. There is definitely a distinction between figure and background. There also seem to be different colours in the different corners. A description of the first distinction would suggest "boundary." A description of the distinctions within the figure would point to the different colours, and then use words such as fuzzy, fading, indistinguishable, variation, or transition, to indicate the change from one to another.
Is there a boundary evident with respect to this figure? Certainly: between the figure and its background. And within the figure? No boundary, but definitely a distinction...
While the distinction figure-background may be quite valid and constructive, there may also be a tendency (is there not?) to make such a distinction and then to put the background off as just that: background. Quite acceptable when it is an illustration, but a different issue when it is a forest...
My concern is that the distinction system-environment so often becomes categorically oppositional - with "boundary" as the entity enabling the opposition. We can slip into an almost territorial attitude: the focus becomes in/out; black/white; boundary maintenance becomes critical, boundary defense even more critical; differences gain central importance, and relations become de-emphasized. Yet I believe there are so many cases in which this focus is mis-leading and potentially damaging.
Consider the place where I began: big, wild, BC rainforest ecosystem. I agree that the components of these systems can be defined through foreground-background distinction (although mychorizzal fungi might provide a bit of a challenge). I maintain, however, that to define the forest in this manner is inadequate. When standing in a forest, the over-riding sense is not boundary, but relation and interaction. For me, the latter two qualities are the ones that characterize the very essence of "system." The value of the concept is its heuristic potential to describe such a complex situation... While I can conceive a forest as having an 'environment' (i.e. there is difference), I find it difficult to conceive of any 'boundary'...
So, while I agree that it makes no sense to talk about system and environment without recognizing boundary, I also believe that it makes no sense to talk about system while insisting on boundary. This conundrum is what led me to describe a different system concept: sympoiesis. I believe new concepts and understandings that are emerging - such as self-organization and self-production - provide opportunities for stretching the definition of "system" to include such complexity - without requiring boundaries.
ps - note that another alternative is to actually emphasize boundaries and consider different means for delineating, describing, interpreting them...
Thinking about relation
For me, relation is the very stuff of "system." It is the relations among components that make a system a system. Distinction is key, but relation - as well as difference - is how such distinction can be established. In some sense these are mutually interdependent concepts - without distinctions, there can be no relation and one immediately sets up relation by defining difference or distinction.
When thinking about systems, relation/distinction are primarily considered in two ways: between system and environment, and among components. My sense is that with the former we tend to emphasize distinction: system vs. environment; with the latter we tend to emphasize relation. As noted above, my concern is that by focusing on the system-environment distinction we facilitate (generate?) dualistic oppositional thinking.
...every boundary line is also a potential battle line, so that just to draw a boundary is to prepare oneself for conflict. Specifically, the conflict of the war of opposites, the agonizing fight of life against death, pleasure against pain, good against evil...
The simple fact is that we live in a world of conflict and opposites because we live in a world of boundaries. Since every boundary line is also a battle line, here is the human predicament: the firmer one's boundaries, the more entrenched are one's battles... (K. Wilber 1985: 18-19)
I find an interesting difference among those who do, and those who do not, have difficulty accepting the notion of systems-without-boundaries. In general, my sense is that it relates to the degree of systems-theoretic understanding people have. To generalize (in an admittedly simplistic manner): systems-theoreticians (i.e. those who have been trained in systems theory) have a different understanding of "boundary" - one which is (ideally at least) more conditional (i.e. which admits to the role of the observer, the reason for system identification, etc.). For those holding such an understanding, my contention against boundaries seems confusing and inaccurate. My emphasis may also be less important, because there may be less investment in the boundaries themselves.
Many people, however, tend to interpret boundary as barrier; as defining in vs. out, included vs. excluded, as something to be established and defended. It is this latter interpretation of boundary that I rail against.
I might be willing to concede that my definition of boundaryless systems is not about systems without boundaries, but about not using boundaries to define systems. However, the more I engage in discussions, the more aware I become of who/how we use boundaries or implicitly draw distinctions, the more I think that there is something basic going on here: I am pointing to fundamentally different styles of thinking. [Note that I point to different styles, not better/worse ones. My emphasis on the value of no-boundary thinking should not be interpreted as a devaluation of boundary thinking (as one might be wont to do if habituated to oppositional categorizations). My efforts are just targeted toward supporting the current underdog...]
One possibility that has been put forward is that I am just not talking about "systems." I find this option less than satisfactory. "System" is an heuristic - a concept that offers a tool for organizing perceptions of that-which-exists. I find that insistence on boundaries dampens the potential for the concept to represent reality in a manner appropriate for coping with many of the challenges our species currently faces.
"System" strikes me as an eminently useful concept for capturing the complexities of forests, cultures, knowledge systems. Yet, in conceiving such "systems" I do not readily conceive of their boundaries. As a matter of fact, I find it quite difficult to conceive of their boundaries - or even to conceive of what, exactly, I am including as components. However, it seems very useful to consider these entities as systems. And I seem to have no difficulty in communicating with others about them as "systems." Agreeably, we might come up with different detailed descriptions - and some of the difficulties surrounding issues of forest management, cultural tensions, or application of "expertise" could relate to the differences in these descriptions. But even more so, I believe that difficulties arise from drawing boundaries around such "systems" and dealing with them as separate and isolated entitites...
I believe the "system-hood" of such ecosystems and social systems can be established by identifying the interaction and interconnection among components. These systems are "systems" because of the relations they maintain among components rather than by the distinct separation of their components and relations from all else by clearly distinguishing and maintaining a boundary...
→ while some claim: "not possible!"
→ others claim: "no problem!"
→ love is the first that comes to mind, but also creativity, happiness, blue sky on a sunny day in the prairies...
Thinking about alternative descriptions of boundaries
Definitions of boundary A line which is used to divide two or more areas, either artificially, or based on a natural feature
[Apr 24/00]
The conceptual limits of a system, penetrated by outputs and inputs but not by feedback loops.
[Apr 24/00]
That set of points which a theory marks out for itself as the extreme limit of its discursive reach or the sum total of the negative oppositions that are generated by qualities that lie at the center of the theory; see also margins and centers.
[Apr 24/2000]
in military science: a line designating the limits of a combat zone or an area of fire.
Boundary condition ( mathematics): Boundary layer: A general term for the layer of air adjacent to a surface.
[Apr 24/00]
Bounded rationality: A form of behaviour associated with uncertainty where individuals do not examine every possible option open to them, but simply consider a number of alternatives which happen to occur to them.
[Apr 24/00]
Wrap-around boundaries: The property of edge states that movement out of one edge of a grid results in movement into the edge states at the opposite end of the grid. [Apr 24/00]
boundary = steep gradient
boundary = zone of high contrast
The minimum description required to distinguish a system from its environment.
(John Warfield Apr 24/00)
in mathematics: the set of all boundary points of a given subset of a topological space.
in chaotic dynamics: an area of infinite complexity between orderly and chaotic behavior, the simplest example of which is generated by plotting the real and imaginary roots of the polynomial equation x3 - 1 = 0 that divide the complex plane into three identical regions which act as attractors with boundaries having the peculiar property that every point borders all three regions; magnified portions of the boundaries repeat the basic pattern on ever-smaller scales.
in electronics: an area of meeting of P-type and N-type semiconductor materials where the donor and acceptor concentrations are equal.
in robotics: a line that defines the edge of an image in machine vision.
[Apr 24/00]
1. a constraint on the solutions of a system of differential equations, involving a specified set of values of the independent variable(s).a constraint on the solutions of a system of differential equations, involving a specified set of values of the independent variable(s).
2.
a constraint on one or more values of a difference equation or recurrence relation, necessary to initiate the computation.a constraint on one or more values of a difference equation or recurrence relation, necessary to initiate the computation.
[Apr 24/00]
System boundaries have to be drawn so that the world acquires the possibility of observing itself (Luhmann, Ecological Communication, 1989: 18).
This is about the limit of what we can say about every example of systems thinking. In summary, there will be:
If you've never seen either a windmill or a giant, one is as easy to believe in as the other (M. Cervantes).
Our first basic dualism has separated the universe into a self and its ambience. For each of us, this separation is absolute, indubitable, and unequivocal, though it may be different for different selves. Our second basic dualism concerns the way we partition our ambiences, the way we manage our perceptions of the external world.
Beth: Where does the land stop?
Perhaps man is half mind and half matter, just as a polyp is half plant and half animal. The strangest creatures are always found at the boundaries. (Lichtenberg quoted in Cramer 1993: 85)
- an observer who gives an account of the world, or part of it, in systems terms;
- his purpose in so doing; his definition of his system or systems;
- the principle which makes them coherent entities;
- the means and mechanism by which they tend to maintain their integrity;
- their boundaries, inputs, outputs, and components;
- their structure.
Finally their behaviour may be described in terms of inputs and outputs or via state descriptions. (Checkland 1981:102)
At this level, we have no universal principles to guide us, nothing given to us, like the distinction between the inner world of the self and the outer world, what we called the ambience.
Roughly speaking, a system in the ambience is a collection of percepts that seem to us to belong together. It would be hard to imagine a less precise definition of anything, but that is inherent in the very idea of system. The abstract concept of systemhood is indeed a very difficult one to grapple with. Rosen
Lawrence: mmm, when your heart stops, I guess...