Dear Michal,
The paragraph in question offered the idea -- as
a joke -- that when all stakeholder interests are
aligned with the interests of one decision-maker,
there can be no wicked problems. This, of course,
is the idea of most forms of dictatorship,
theocracy, and centralist planning, and of most
kinds of dirigiste government.
One can suppress, oppress, or eliminate
stakeholders with different needs and opinions,
but this does not eliminate the reasons for
differences. These arise from many factors. These
include, as you note, differences in position.
Information theory and complexity theory both
demonstrate the impossibility of perfect
information, perfect knowledge, or comprehensive
control based on a perfect plan. This also
explains the impossibility of only one legitimate
interest. I was suggesting in jest what Louis XIV
supposedly meant when he allegedly said "L'État,
c'est moi." It also explains why Leninism didn't
work, why Maoism failed, and why the
Fuhrer-prinzip would ultimately have required the
collapse of the Third Reich if other forces had
not done so first.
Genuine differences are inherent in any social
structure involving the interests of more than
one human being. This gives rise to wicked
problems. That is why I believe that wicked
problems are not as result of designer feelings
and reactions, but the reactions and feelings of
all stakeholders in a process. Processes that
allow for the legitimate representation of
difference and a legitimate process of
negotiation resolve wicked problems, as Anders
Skoe's problem-solving method does.
While I am a splendid fellow -- as my dog Jacob
will tell you -- it is only in jest that I could
say that "alignment of stakeholder interests with
my interests would be the very definition of
legitimacy." And now I must find a snack to
reward Jacob for his endorsement. The alignment
of Jacob's interests with mine is frequently
based on my appreciation of his needs.
Yours,
Ken
--
Michal Popowsky writes:
Ken writes:
"In fact, alignment of stakeholder interests with
my interests would be the very definition of
legitimacy. "
Ken-
1.do you mean that there only ONE legitimacy?
2.do you mean that every legitimacy is acceptable?
|