Hull University Business School Seminar, Hull, UK
December 14, 2011
Dr. Viacheslav Maracha, Russia, Moscow
Non-Profit Research Foundation "The Schedrovitsky Institute for Development"
The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Thinking, Systems and Critical Practices
in the Moscow Methodological Circle
The Goal
 to describe briefly the history and
general features of, and recent
developments in, Russian systems
thinking and critical practices in the
Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC);
 to consider the relation of the given
methods and practices to those
developed in traditions of Critical
System Thinking (CST).
The Moscow Methodological Circle
(MMC)
 was organized and led for more than
forty years by G. P. Shchedrovitsky
(1929–1994);
 was created in the USSR in the year of
I. Stalin’s death (1953) when logic was
the only area of free philosophical
thought;
 now it exists as the “Methodological
Movement” and a few institutions
associated with it.
The Idea of Methodological thinking as
universal: general features and principles
 the “methodological turn” from thinking about systems
as objects to the process of thinking systemically. This
paradigm shift has been pursued in Russia and could be
compared with the shift from “systems sciences” to
“systems rationality” in critical systems thinking (CST).
 universalism and reflexivity in relation to the other
types of thinking (in science, designs, engineering etc.);
 practical orientation (connections thinking-activity etc.);
 reflectivity as practical orientation of thinking to itself:
capability to re-construct and re-direct itself.
Three programmes and three paradigms
of thinking being undertaken by the
Moscow Methodological Circle
Three programmes:
 'Logical Researches‘;
 'Activity Theory‘;
 'System-Thinking-Activity‘.
Three paradigms of thinking:
 'Epistemological-Semiotic‘;
 'Thinking-as-Activity‘;
 'Socio-Cultural'.
MMC First Programme
 became the programme of logic researches of
the thinking, meaning “methodological turn”
of thinking from objects to the thinking itself;
 the thinking was considered epistemologically
(as generating new knowledge) and as
activity (operations with the signs replacing
objects of thought);
 the systemic approach was used and
developed for organizing processes of
resolving complex problems by multiprofessional teams.
Shift from Objects to Thinking
 characterizes MMC from the beginning;
 has allowed MMC to formulate original vision
of problems of the systemic approach: not to
investigate “systemic objects”, but to
conceptualize
and
resolve
“systemic
situations” as a form of work with complex
problems;
 corresponds to the shift of interest from
“systems sciences” to “systems rationality” as discussed in tradition CST.
Conceptualization of Systemic
Situations: Two Components
 subject (subject matter) and object
distinction when systemic situations were
represented as a situation of presence of
several subject representations of one
object which need to be correlated and
connected with each other;
 “the Scheme of Multiple Knowledge”
based
on
Configurator-Model
(or
Configuration Plan) and Configuration
Method.
“The Scheme of Multiple Knowledge”
Fig. 1. “The Scheme of Multiple
Knowledge”
Fig. 2. “Projections” and Configurator-Model
 Particular points of view on the object are considered as
“projections” (subject “cuts”) – which are taken at
various turns of a whole “multi-dimensional” object that
should be recreated on the base of the projections
“The Scheme of Multiple Knowledge”
(continuation)
Fig. 3. Systemic construction of
synthesized knowledge
Fig. 4. The Configuration Method:
Configurator-Model and Configuration Plan
 the
restored
complex
object
is
called
the
Configurator-Model, and the method of construction of
similar models – the Configuration Method.
MMC Second Programme
MMC Second Programme was based on:
 the General Theory of the Activity;
 System-Activity approach (SA-approach).
In MMC Second Programme:
 Configuration
Method
was
proved
via
representing Thinking as Activity;
 “The scheme of multiple knowledge” was
represented as the scheme of the multipositional organization of activity in which the
Thinking-as-Activity
acted
as
design/
programme.
Forms of Specific MMC Practice:
Methodological Seminars and
Organizational-Activity Games
 Methodological Seminars as the form of
collective thinking became specific MMC
practice (MMC Seminars), allowing to develop
systemic situations in the “here-and-now”
mode;
 Step-by-step, having originated as the form
of discussions within MMC, Methodological
Seminars became the form of discussion of
interdisciplinary problems;
 Finally, MMC Seminars generated “a new way
of organization and a method for developing
collective thinking-activity” – OrganizationalActivity Games.
Organizational-Activity Games (OAG)
 OAG were invented by G. P. Shchedrovitsky in 1979;
 OAG became specific technology of work with largescale systemic situations (e.g. reforms, etc.) via:
 performance of collectively-distributed thinking, and
 engaging activity of carriers of various subject
knowledge, operating with them in a mode of the
multi-positional organization;
 interaction between representatives of different
positions was performed not only on the basis of the
cooperative organization of activity, but also
according
to
the
principles
of
intellectual
communications – “Thinking-Communication”.
MMC Third Programme




Introduction of Thinking-Communication concept
leads to:
abandoning of the Thinking-as-Activity Concept;
transition to the System-Thinking-Activity approach
(STA-approach) based on the Thinking-Activity
Scheme (see fig. 5 – the next slide).
the thinking and activity are represented in the form
of different “layers” (“Pure Thinking” and “ThinkingAction”), divided by a “Thinking-Communication”
layer;
links between Thinking-Activity layers are mediated
by Reflection and Understanding processes.
The Thinking-Activity Scheme
P. Th.
Th.-C.
Th.-A.
Fig. 5. The Thinking-Activity Scheme
Three concepts of systems used by the
Moscow Methodological Circle
 natural “thing” systems;
 activity systems;
 socio-cultural systems, or systems
with internal sense (e.g. institutions
as a case of systems with internal
sense).
Conclusions
MMC has offered two basic ways for the
resolving systemic situations:
 epistemological, based on the Configuration
Method;
 practical (SA/STA), using OAG Method.
Both ways mean the reflective practice
carrying out both development of knowledge,
and development of the activity/thinkingactivity,
providing
completeness
of
knowledge development life cycle.
Conclusions (continuation)
 The Configuration Method is constructed on the
basis of a metatheory (and consequently is
“imperialistic”).
 Vice-versa OAG Method means formation of
Thinking-Activity Space in which the free, intelligent
and responsible choice of the point of view, a way of
action and the form of its discussion is possible.
 In OAG not only means and the ends, but also the
values can be made problematic.
 Therefore it is possible to assume that OAG Method
corresponds to a Triple Loop Learning in CST.
Thank you for attention!
Dr. Viacheslav Maracha, Russia, Moscow
The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Non-Profit Research Foundation "The Schedrovitsky Institute for Development"
Ph.: +7 495 978 6489
E-mail: [email protected]