reinforcing manner. In both types of analyses checking for the 5 P’s helps develop a
thorough understanding of path dependencies: which ones lie at the roots of the
development trajectory of the system or thorny problem one is tackling? Where in
their dynamic interplay do stabilizing feedback loops or the potential to unlock
them lie? And, linking it back to humans as the loci of change: where do the power
potentials to achieve that unlocking lie?
Each specific system setup harbors different types of power potentials that will
make it easier to induce change for some actors and less so for others. Of course,
money and role-defined authority come to mind, but following Gramsci’s guidelines also means being sensitive to the structural power enjoyed by those privileged
under the status quo and its overarching paradigm: it tends to be perceived (or
presented) as the default position against which proposals for change have to argue
their case, and the arguments have to fit with the prevailing common sense.
With this in mind, the following provides a slightly more detailed description of
what ‘hackers’ should look for in each of the P’s, and also serves as a very brief
summary of the arguments in this book:
• ‘People’ and ‘Planet’ are more explicit reminders that this is what sustainable
development is about. Also, that these elements exist independently of the
human-made institutions in the process circle. Yet, the manner in which they
exist and develop lies exactly in the contextually and historically diverse ways
that processes are set up. Statements that humans are just x, y, or z, or analysis
based on this kind of assumption signal a difficult mind-set for repurposing
work.
• ‘Processes’ comprise the dynamic workings that ‘defend’ particular behavioral
patterns and development trajectories over time. The term ‘path dependencies’
highlights that this encompasses physical infrastructures and technology choices
as much as politico-economic rules and incentive configurations like remuneration standards or interest-bearing money. This book makes the point that they
also include sociocultural and individual role definitions, identities, habits, and
mind-sets that shape what seems possible, justifiable or desirable. Usually, an
alteration of some process configurations will impact the dynamics of the entire
system, and change that is too abrupt or intense will lead to resistance or crisis.
Given the multiple mutually reinforcing feedback loops behind path dependencies, existing systems show a high degree of resistance to transformational
change. This is especially high if the system’s generative rule or aim is
challenged.
• So ‘Purpose’ lies at the heart of any system’s behavior because it encapsulates
its raison d’être. It connects overarching paradigms (assumptions about how the
world is) with collective choices (which processes should we therefore set up)
and individual values, beliefs, and actions (is this good and what is my role).
A change in purpose is therefore a radical decision, and due to the multiple
limiting factors referred to above, will usually require incremental steps to be
successfully accomplished. Another possibility is not so much that the purpose
will be changed, but the overarching paradigm changes and thus makes the
5.2 Transformative Literacy: Hacking Systems and Their Purpose
159
thorough understanding of path dependencies: which ones lie at the roots of the
development trajectory of the system or thorny problem one is tackling? Where in
their dynamic interplay do stabilizing feedback loops or the potential to unlock
them lie? And, linking it back to humans as the loci of change: where do the power
potentials to achieve that unlocking lie?
Each specific system setup harbors different types of power potentials that will
make it easier to induce change for some actors and less so for others. Of course,
money and role-defined authority come to mind, but following Gramsci’s guidelines also means being sensitive to the structural power enjoyed by those privileged
under the status quo and its overarching paradigm: it tends to be perceived (or
presented) as the default position against which proposals for change have to argue
their case, and the arguments have to fit with the prevailing common sense.
With this in mind, the following provides a slightly more detailed description of
what ‘hackers’ should look for in each of the P’s, and also serves as a very brief
summary of the arguments in this book:
• ‘People’ and ‘Planet’ are more explicit reminders that this is what sustainable
development is about. Also, that these elements exist independently of the
human-made institutions in the process circle. Yet, the manner in which they
exist and develop lies exactly in the contextually and historically diverse ways
that processes are set up. Statements that humans are just x, y, or z, or analysis
based on this kind of assumption signal a difficult mind-set for repurposing
work.
• ‘Processes’ comprise the dynamic workings that ‘defend’ particular behavioral
patterns and development trajectories over time. The term ‘path dependencies’
highlights that this encompasses physical infrastructures and technology choices
as much as politico-economic rules and incentive configurations like remuneration standards or interest-bearing money. This book makes the point that they
also include sociocultural and individual role definitions, identities, habits, and
mind-sets that shape what seems possible, justifiable or desirable. Usually, an
alteration of some process configurations will impact the dynamics of the entire
system, and change that is too abrupt or intense will lead to resistance or crisis.
Given the multiple mutually reinforcing feedback loops behind path dependencies, existing systems show a high degree of resistance to transformational
change. This is especially high if the system’s generative rule or aim is
challenged.
• So ‘Purpose’ lies at the heart of any system’s behavior because it encapsulates
its raison d’être. It connects overarching paradigms (assumptions about how the
world is) with collective choices (which processes should we therefore set up)
and individual values, beliefs, and actions (is this good and what is my role).
A change in purpose is therefore a radical decision, and due to the multiple
limiting factors referred to above, will usually require incremental steps to be
successfully accomplished. Another possibility is not so much that the purpose
will be changed, but the overarching paradigm changes and thus makes the
5.2 Transformative Literacy: Hacking Systems and Their Purpose
159