The sources indicate that the distinction between a system and its environment is subjective because it is not an inherent property of the physical world but a mental construct or choice made by an observer[1].
Several key factors explain why this distinction is considered subjective across different systemic frameworks:
1. The Role of the Observer
A primary reason for this subjectivity is that a system only comes into being when an observer draws a distinction[5][6].
• Mental Models: A system is defined as a “way of looking at the world” or a mental model created to make sense of complexity[7]. It is the observer who decides which elements to include (the system) and which to exclude (the environment)[8].
• Observer-Dependency: What one person considers a system (e.g., a specific department), another might view as part of the environment for a larger system (e.g., the whole corporation)[9][10].
• Arbitrary Boundaries: The boundary separating the two is often described as an arbitrary line or a “fictitious” distinction made for the purpose of analysis[3].
2. Purpose and Interest of the Inquirer
The boundary is typically drawn based on the specific goals, interests, or analytical tools of the person conducting the study[9].
• Problem Framing: The distinction is a strategic process of “framing”[15][16]. Observers define the boundary to reduce overwhelming complexity into a manageable “system of interest”[17][18].
• Convenience: Geoffrey Vickers notes that the boundary is often a “matter of convenience” decided based on which relationships the observer wishes to study[19].
3. Degree of Control and Agency
Many theorists, such as C. West Churchman and Russell Ackoff, argue that the distinction depends entirely on who is identified as the decision-maker[20][21].
• Controllability: The “system” generally consists of elements that can be strongly influenced or controlled by the decision-maker[10].
• The Environment as “Given”: Conversely, the “environment” consists of factors that influence the system but are outside the direct control of the actors involved[20].
• Contextual Shift: A variable might be part of the environment for a low-level manager but part of the system for a senior executive who has the power to change it[21].
4. Epistemological and Cognitive Acts
The act of separating a system from its environment is a fundamental cognitive act[28].
• Law of Calling: Patrick Hoverstadt refers to this as the “Law of Calling,” where defining a system involves drawing a distinction based on perceived differences[29].
• Re-entry: Niklas Luhmann posits that a system constitutes itself by the difference it creates from its environment, and rationality involves the system’s ability to copy that difference back into itself[30][31].
• Variables vs. Parameters: In W. Ross Ashby’s cybernetics, a system is simply a list of variables selected by an observer from the infinite number available in a material object[32]. The environment is then defined functionally as the remaining variables that provide input or receive output[33].
In summary, the sources suggest that the line between system and environment is fluid and malleable, shifting according to the observer’s focus, the level of recursion, and the specific problem being addressed[34].
References
[1] Bob Williams.md [3] John Warfield.md [5] Horst Rittel.md [6] TOG.md [7] John Flach.md [8] MOM.md [9] Ian Mitroff.md [10] OU Course.md [15] Paul Cilliers.md [16] Paul Cilliers.md [17] John Warfield.md [18] OU Course.md [19] Geoffrey Vickers.md [20] C. West Churchman.md [21] Russ Ackoff.md [28] Roger James.md [29] Patrick Hoverstadt.md [30] Niklas Luhmann.md [31] Niklas Luhmann.md [32] Ross Ashby.md [33] Ross Ashby.md [34] Hylton Boothroyd.md