The ’emergence’ of the new worldview was with Tektology, not Systemology; with Alexander Bogdanov, not Ludwig Von Bertalanffy!

by Örsan Şenalp

In 1927, German professor Johann Plenge (1874–1963) did publish his review of the first edition of the German translation of Alexander Bogdanov’s Tektology: General Science of Organisation (1926). The very same year Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who would later be known as the founder of the General System Theory (German Allgemeine Systemtlehre — GST), completed his dissertation in which he developed his initial ideas. The following year, in 1928, Bogdanov died as a result of a blood exchange experiment he conducted with a student who survived Malaria in the end, and von Bertalanffy published his new study titled Kritische Theorie der Formbildung (Critical Theory of Development) in Berlin.

Johann Plenge

Plenge’s review of Tektology was negatively critical. He thought of Bogdanov and his bold attempt as flawed. To him, Bogdanov was intoxicated by Marxism and in Tektology he was dismissing all the differences amongst the vast variety of types of organization and degree of complexity amongst the systems under investigation. He also highlighted Bogdanov’s claim that his science was “distant from morality as mathematics” to warn the reader that such an approach has the potential to generate an ethicless total-control mechanism, similar to one indeed created by Stalin later on.

However, Bogdanov himself openly made similar warnings about the dystopian future applications of such science with much emphasis, especially in an authoritarian framework like Lenin’s creation. Bogdanov was someone who gave a lifelong struggle against Lenin’s authoritarian politics and the result of his struggle was a political demise and the removal of his name from official Russian historiography (White, 2019). Whereas Plenge was someone who did dedicate his efforts to creating a personality cult of his own. Later on, Hayek would accuse Plenge of being one of the inspirations for the rise of national-socialist ideology (Hayek, 1944).

Ironically, Plenge’s complaints about Bogdanov’s Tektology of not recognizing the differences in forms and contents between varieties of ‘organizations’ of systems -for instance by conscious man or self-organization in nature etc., he was missing the point Tektology was making. That point was the argument for the need for a non-reductionist meta-science that is investigating possible generalizations, common organisational patterns and principles to all complex wholes, no matter physical, material, social or psychic or otherwise. Tectology was that unifying science. Exactly this premise later become the main point of the GST, as it was proposed by von Bertalanffy and his colleagues. Beyond that, most of the principles proposed by von Bertalanffy between 1927 and the 1950s can indeed be found in an almost word-to-word identical fashion in Bogdanov’s Tektology, which was written and published between 1912–1929, in its original Russian.

Well-known systems thinker Milan Zelený quoted from N. N. Mosieev, in his 1988 article entitled Tectology, that: “All systems problematic, undertaken by L. von Bertalanffy and his followers, is contained, practically in toto, within the theory of organizations of A. A. Bogdanov, but not vice versa. For these reasons, it seems to me that the “general systems theory” represents a significant step backwards in comparison with Bogdanov’s “Tektology” which, after its author’s death, was unfortunately never reissued in the Russian language. [This should certainly be corrected in 1989–90, M.Z.]” (note is original by Zelený).

Since then, the similarities between GST and tektology, and to what extent tektology exceeded the GST have been shown, by other systems thinkers such as Vadim Sadovsky, George Gorelik, Peter Dudley, and Arran Gare. According to Peter Dudley: “Bogdanov’s work anticipated the (entire) systems quest of the twentieth century” (Dudley, 1996). Indeed, when one studies tektology and compare it to the development of systems thinking in the second half of the 20th century one finds out that all the piecemeal developments and discoveries of systems concepts, mechanisms, and principles: such as open-closed systems, bifurcation, emergence, self-organization, self-regulation or feedback mechanism, autopoiesis as well as a concrete methodology for studying the variety of systems were actually addressed and integrally described in Tektology.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy

In pursuing his negative critique, Plenge was also joining the term ‘general systems’ science/theory/doctrine’ for the first time; suggesting that it should be a replacement for the term ‘tektology’. The term ‘system/s’ is used 23 times in the article and several times to redescribe tektology as a general science of systems of reality (Plenge, 1927). Thus it was Plenge who coined the term ‘general systems’ to refer to tektology in 1927. However, the term later comes to be solely associated with von Bertalanffy’s work (Boulding, 1956/2004; Hofkrichner, 2005 and 2010). This fact alone requires historians of science and ideas to reconsider the legacy of the General System Theory and its position. Besides this and more importantly, the issue of Bogdanov’s influence on von Bertalalnffy’s GST needs clarification. Since it is a fact that both Tektology and Plenge’s review of it got published in von Bertalanffy’s own native German and this happened at the time Bertalanffy was concentrating on the topic. Namely, he was working on his initial ideas of the ‘general system theory’ from 1926 on; that is the year part I of Tektology was published in German (Bogdanov, 1926).

Between 1924 and 1926 Von Bertalanffy was studying at the University of Vienna and writing his PhD dissertation -titled (translation) “ Fechner and the Problem of Integration of the Higher Order “ (BCSSS archive)- under the supervision of Moritz Schlick. According to Pouvreau, when von Bertlanffy was studying biology there “five hours a week he went to the lectures of Moritz Schlick (1882–1936) on “Logic and Epistemology” and took part in a seminar organized by this neo-positivist philosopher and founder of the famous “Vienna Circle” in 1929.” (Pouvreau, 2009). Milan Zelený claims that -by referring to Finnish systems scientist Ilmari Susiluoto’s work (1982)- Moritz Schlick, “… the author of General Theory of Knowledge (Allgemeine Erkenntnislehre) in 1918”, “… was backing Bogdanov in his lectures.” (1988, p. 332). In this article Zelený refers to Susiluoto, yet Susiluoto himself clarifies, in his article, that he could not find any proof for Schlick passing information to von Bertalanffy about Bogdanov and his Tektology. What Susiluoto indeed claimed was that Schlick did back Bogdanov when he stood up against the criticism of Einstien’s relativity theory in Russia, after the 1917 Revolution. And he backs this with a reference to the 1923 symposium edited by Bogdanov and his friends (Bazarov and Yushkevich) on Einstein’s theory -titled Einstien’s Theory of Relativity and Its Philosophical Interpretation and published in Moscow. In this book, the principle article was that of Bogdanov entitled ‘The principle of relativity from the organizational point of view’ (Bogdanov, 1923). And the second article after Bogdanov’s was by Schlick.

The fact that one of von Bertalanffy’s favourite teachers on the topic of epistemology, who was his thesis supervisor and with whom he would stay connected until his death after an attack by a Nazi supporter student in 1936, knew about Bogdanov and his work (which was highly relevant to the dissertation von Bertalanffy wrote) makes things very curious. Von Bertalanffy published his first book two years after completing his doctoral dissertation. The year second part of Tektology came out in German and soon after that Bogdanov passed away. Von Bertalanffy was so fresh in his studies on the idea and so closely following the debates related to the ‘unity of science movement, which was popular in Vienna and Berlin circles. Both Bogdanov and Plenge were well-known figures to both these circles, which makes things even more interesting. Moreover, Hayek, to which von Bertalanffy refers in his “An Outline for the General Systems Theory” (1950), devoted an entire chapter on Plenge in his Road to Serfdom. Hayek and von Bertalanffy were both present at the 1960 Symposium on Principles of Self-Organization, organized by Heinz von Foerster, well-known cybernetician and relative of Hayek and Wittgenstein. These connections do increase the chance that von Bertalanffy knew Plenge and they decrease the chance that von Bertalanffy did independently develop his ideas from those presented by Bogdanov. Yet still, he never referred to or credit his precursor, even after the rediscovery of Tektology in the 1960s in Russia (Pouvreau, 2009). Von Bertalanffy was explicitly and consciously anti-ideological, especially in terms of Marxism. In addition, Marxism was seen as a threat in academic circles in general, in Germany and the US. Therefore reference to the work of a known Bolshevik leader would have meant the end of von Bertalanffy’s career as well as his GST. Thus he might have remained silent on the issue.

After von Bertalanffy died in 1972, Bogdanov (and Tektology) gained wider international recognition as the forerunner and precursor of systems thinking and cybernetics. We will never know how would have von Bertalanffy reviewed Tektology if he had lived through the 70s and 80s. Yet to a large extent because of von Bertalanffy’s silence this recognition remained rather limited. In the end, von Bertalanffy and his GST still get the most credit even today as the founder of the systems paradigm, enjoying this recognition against the historical facts. The new generation of systems thinkers takes von Bertalanffy’s foundership status for granted. When suggesting to see Tektology as an attempt to build a general system science (Allgemeine Systemtlehre) Plenge was also offering another, shorter, term general “systematology” to use instead. It is very ironic that a similar term ‘systemology’ is being suggested 80 years later, by new-generation systems scholars (Pouvreau and Drack, 2007) to replace the term with von Bertalanffy’s GST, celebrating it as a full-fledged science of systems.

Alexander Bogdanov

All in all, taking together the fact that the terms ‘general system theory’ (Allgemeine Systemslehre) and ‘general science of systems’ were already coined in the 1920s by Johann Plenge to describe Bogdanov’s tektology and the fact that Tektology was inclusive many of the terms and principles suggested by von Bertallanfy and presented more (Dudley, 1996) we need to finally conclude that it was not von Bertalanffy and his GST but Bogdanov and his Tektology was the moment of emergence of the new worldview that called later in the 20th century systems (and later complexity) science/thinking. What emerged with Tektology, in its original form, however, was a critical and historical unifying science, to serve as a tool for building new systems and eventually a new world to be replaced with capitalist one; instead of being a tool-box for solving its problems or managing the complexities it encountered from the point of view of the ruling classes. In Bogdanov, the new worldview (as picked up by von Bertalanffy) is meant to be developed from the point of view of the ruled and oppressed (the part left out by von Bertalanffy). This latter aspect gave the main characteristic to Bogdanov’s work and it meant taking social power relations and inequalities at the core. It also meant taking social classes as part of the societal whole ontologically. These main aspects of Bogdanov’s Tektology were shaved off or missed in von Bertalanffy’s version.

Since the early 2000s, there emerged a discussion on the nature of the development of the systems paradigm and calls were made to understand the reasons behind its relative failure (in becoming a genuinely general/universal science with a clear and unifying methodology and principles, as it was promised yet not delivered by von Bertalanffy and his colleagues like Boulding, 1956/2004). Thus prominent figures in the systems science/thinking community have been debating on the issue and inviting their colleagues to return to the origins for a re-evaluation (Rousseau et. al. 2016). Rousseau and at. al. even developed a proposal for such a model for a ‘really general’ General Systemology (2018). Yet although they do themselves make the call, the sources where they return at best is again the work of von Bertalanffy and those who work with him. The emergence is one of the key concepts for the scholars and experts of system and complexity science/thinking, thus, it is a serious contradiction that systems and complexity scientists/thinkers insist on referring to von Bertalanffy as the founder and the inventor of the GST and not seriously engaging with the general and unifying methodology proposed by Bogdanov in Tektology, decades earlier.

Even if there was no case of plagiarism whatsoever to talk about (for von Bertalanffy’s work) there is an urgent need for broader recognition of and engagement with Bogdanov’s work and his Tektology; not only as the precursor of the GST (as well as Cybernetics, OR, etc) but as a value in itself. The current situation is misleading and promoting a wrong conception of ‘the emergence of systems/complexity thinking itself’ and as a result, new researchers are missing an important source of inspiration and knowledge. Even more, ironically, Marxian and post-Marxian scholars and theorists who were inspired and influenced by systems and complexity science/thinking do not know about and recognize Bogdanov and Tektology; amongst them worldwide recognized scholars and philosophers such as Immanuel Wallerstein, Jurgen Habermas, Gilles Deleuze, Jaques Derrida, Michael Foucault, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Bob Jessop, Antonio Negri, so on so forth. This must change and it is high time to turn from a historical mistake and make the correction.

References

Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science, page: His Life — Bertalanffy’s Origins and his First Education. Retrieved 2019–02–04 Archived July 25, 2011, at the Wayback Machine

Bogdanov, A. (1923) “Printsip otnositel’nosti s organizatsionnoi tochki zreniya” (The principle of relativity from the organizational point of view), In: Teoriya otnositel’nosti i ee filosofskoe istolkovanie (Moscow, Izd. t-vo Mir, 156 pp.), pp.101–122. [Articles also by M. Schlick, V.A. Bazarov, P.S. Yushkevich. RGASPI, f.259, op.1, d. 36 (printed text) Kremlin Library; RGB (Russian State Library)]

Bogdanov, A. A. (1926). Allgemeine organisationlehre (tektologie), book I. Hirzel. Berlin.

Bogdanov, A. A. (1928). Allgemeine organisationlehre (tektologie), book II. Hirzel. Berlin.

Boulding K. (1956/2004) “General Systems Theory — The Skeleton of Science”, in Management Science Vol. 2 №3, April 1956, 197–208. Reprinted in E:CO Vol. 6 Nos. 1–2, Fall 2004, 127–139.

Dudley, P. (1996) “Back to Basics? Tektology and General System Theory (GST)”, Systems Practice, Vol. 9 №3., 273–284.

Hayek, F. A. (1944) Road to Serfdom, GeorgeRoutledge&Sons.

Hofkirchner, W. (2010) General Systems Theory: The Origins of General Systems Theory. Online at: www.hofkirchner.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/GSTcombined.pdf

Hofkirchner, W. (2005) “Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Forerunner of Evolutionary Systems Theory”, in: Gu, J., Chroust, G. (eds.) The New Role of Systems Sciences For a Knowledge-based Society, Proceedings of the First World Congress of the International Federation for Systems Research, Kobe, Japan, CD-ROM (ISBN 4–903092–02-X), 6

Plenge, J. (1927) “Um die Allgemeine Organisationslehre”, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 25. Bd. (1927), pp. 18–29, online at: https://ia802808.us.archive.org/1/items/PlengeReviewOfTektology/Plenge%20Review%20of%20Tektology.pdf [Google translated version of Plenge’s review is online at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/125b9eToOruGxJ1HL4sv5SsCupz0XX-sJg4dKlUNfQZY/edit?fbclid=IwAR18hpcKwGAQVlwz_KbRQd0nHyYkLZRRbI0pu7F15iDGiTzL07uHhlXayzE%5D

Prouveau, D. (2009) The Dialectical Tragedy of the Concept of Wholeness: Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s Biography Revisited, ISCE Publishing.

Pouvreau, D. and Drack, M. (2007) “On the history of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s “General Systemology”, and on its relationship to cybernetics”, International Journal of General Systems, Vol. 36 №3 June 2007, pp. 281–337.

Rousseau, D. et. al. (2018) General Systemology: Transdisciplinarity for Discovery, Insight, and Innovation, Spingler.

Rousseau, D., Bellingham, J., Wilby, J., & Blachfellner, S. (2016) “In Search of General Systems Theory”, Systema, pp. 76–99.

Susiluoto, I. (1982) The Origins and Development of Systems Thinking in the Soviet Union, Dissertationes Humanarum Litteratum no. 30, Academia Scientarium Fennica, Helsinki, 1982.

White, J. (2019) Red Hamlet: The Life and Ideas of Alexander Bogdanov, Historical Materialism Book Series, Brill.

Zelený, M. (1988) “Tectology”, International Journal of General Systems, Vol. 14, №4, 331–342.