This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]

On: 17 August 2013, At: 11:41

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucbs20
BOGDANOV'S TEKTOLOGIA, GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY,
AND CYBERNETICS
George Gorelik
a
a
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Published online: 03 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: George Gorelik (1987) BOGDANOV'S TEKTOLOGIA, GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY, AND CYBERNETICS,
Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal, 18:2, 157-175, DOI: 10.1080/01969728708902134
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01969728708902134
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Cybernetics and Syst ems: An International Journal, 18: 157-1 75, 1987
BOGDANOV'S TEKTOLOGIA, GENERAL SYSTEMS
THEORY, AND CYBERNETICS
GEORGE GORELIK
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Tektologia (1912), the recently "rediscovered" magnum opus of the Russian
philosopher and scientist A. Bogdanov, is currently regarded as the first funda-
mental variant of general systems theory and a precursor of cybernetics. In order
to show the uniqueness of tektology, we outline its basic concepts and methods
and note significant similarities and differences between tektology on the one
hand, and General System Theory (GST) of Ludwig von Bedanffy and systems
approaches in cybernetics on the other. We contend that while tektology contains
all the basic ideas later developed and popularized by GST and cybernetics, its
clear organizational focus, universal scope, the all-scientific methods and a com-
prehensive conceptual framework make teklologia something more than each of
them taken separately or simply added together. We further contend that tek-
tology is not a mere variant of general systems theory or some kind of cykrnet-
ics, but a unique paradigm of general science of organization. As such, it is the
ultimate expansion of any systems theory.
INTRODUCTION
A. Bogdanov (A. A. Malinovskii [1873-19281) is one of the most original
and challenging Russian thinkers of this century. Bogdanov was a prolific
and many-sided writer, who produced a series of seminal works in tro-
nomics (9, natural science ( 6) , sociology (7, 8). philosophy (9, 12), history
of ideologies ( l l ) , proletarian culture (17), gerontology and hematology
(20). However, his greatest work, which unites his manifold interests in
science and culture, is undoubtedly Tekrologia: VseobEaja Organimcion-
mja Nauka (Tektology: The Universal Organizational Science), published in
Financial Support from the Humanities and Social Sciences Grants Cornminee at the
University of British Columbia is gratefully acknowledged.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

Russia from 1912 to 1929 (10, 13, 16, la).' Here Bogdanov presents a
general theory of organization which cuts across all specialisms and provides
universal laws which govern the organization of all systems. Despite his
diverse activities as a political and social thinker, philosopher and scientist,
Bogdanov was always guided by a search for the unity of knowledge. He
therefore stood in direct opposition to the splintering scientific knowledge
into the various warring disciplines, already evident in his own time and now
perhaps one of the major obstacles to the scientific enterprise. Tektology,
with its attempt to create a universal organizational science, must be re-
garded as Bogdanov's magnum opus and the crowning achievement of his
life as a thinker.
Tektology represents one of the boldest attempts ever made to systema-
tize human experience and to provide a unified approach to the solution of
theoretical and practical problems on a new basis-the idea of organization.
Unfortunately, Bogdanov presented his tektological ideas to a hostile scien-
tific and political environment. His ideas, first vigorously attacked by his
ideological enemies, were later simply ignored. Tektology failed to conform
to official Marxist doctrine-Bogdanov himself being labelled as a
revisionist-and was therefore censored by the Soviet authorities. It is im-
portant to note that Bogdanov's ideas were attacked mainly on ideological
not scientific grounds. Tektology was never given a fair hearing, and
Bogdanov's originality remained una c kno~l e d~e d. ~
The need for a synthesis of knowledge, however, and a unified approach
to problems whose solutions often cross the boundaries of far-removed fields
of specialization outlived the condemnation and suppression of tektology.
Indeed, the more specialization developed, the more evident became the
inability of specialists to deal effectively with those problems. The dysfunc-
tional aspects of specialization became especially acute during World War II
and forced a number of specialists in England and the U.S. to join their
efforts in a series of interdisciplinary ventures under the general heading of
operations research. The success of the ventures pointed to the feasibility of
a common approach to problems in various fields and gave rise, among other
' ~e nnan translations of the first two volumes of Tekrologia have been available since the
late 1920s (19); and the first English translations of Bogdanov's Ocgrki VseobsZj Orgnnizar-
sionnoi Nauki appeared in 1980 (14) and 1984 (IS), (2nd ed., 1984(15) contains an additional
chapter on "Organizational Dialectic").
'see G. Gorelik (24) for the development of Bogdanov's tektological thought and its
impact, suppression and influence
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

TEKTOLOGIA, GST. AND CYBERNETICS 159
things, to such new disciplines as general systems theory and cybernetics.
As we shall see, the originators of these disciplines revived, in a some-
what different form and, unfortunately, without being aware of Bogdanov's
w0rk.j the basic ideas of tektology developed some forty years earlier.
While the ideas of cybernetics and general systems theory are quite
familiar to most western scholars and systems approaches appear in a variety
of fields, Bogdanov's truly original contributions to systems thinking are still
by and large neglected. And this despite considerable efforts in the last
decade or so to bring the ideas of tektology to the attention of contemporary
organization and systems researchers (14, 15, 22, 24, 26, 32). In order to
demonstrate the significance and uniqueness of tektology, therefore, this
paper outlines its basic concepts and mechanisms and notes a number of
significant similarities and differences between tektology on the one hand,
and general systems theory and systems approaches in cybernetics on the
other.
BASIC CONCEPTS AND MECHANISMS OF TEKTOLOGY
The world, for Bogdanov, is in a continual flux; nothing remains constant,
everything is in a state of growth or decay, movement and activity. In this
world of constant strife and change, the observer can sense only the differ-
ences in energy tensions between the actions and reactions of various ele-
ments. The interaction of these warring elements results in a whole spec-
trum of complexes, which differ in their levels and degrees of organi-
zation.
Bogdanov distinguishes three basic types of complexes: organized, dis-
organized, and neutral complexes. An organized complex is one in which
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Here the activities of combined
elements can more successfully overcome opposing resistances than the sum
of activities of each element taken separately. For example, two men com-
bining their strength and skills can more efficiently clear a field of stones
than the two men acting alone; together they can clear the field in less than
halfthe time taken by one man because the resistances either do not add up-
the stone of 200 lbs has the same weight for one worker or two workers-or,
here are no references to Bogdanov's 72ktologia in the works of Ludwig von Rem-
lanffy. Norbert Wiener, and W. Ross Ashby. As far as I h o w, the first outlines of tektology in
the English language have only recently appeared in the systems, cybernetics, and organiza-
tional literature (22, 32, 27).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

if they do add up, they do this less perfectly than the activities which are
being organized. In a disorganized complex, on the other hand, the whole
turns out to be less than the sum of its parts. A dispute between the two men,
for example, will be counterproductive-their activities cancel one another
and the field remains uncleared. Finally, a neutral complex is one in
which the whole equals the sum of its parts. Here the two men clear the
field in approximately half the time it would take either of them separately.
The notions of organized, disorganized and neutral complexes are rela-
tive notions. The same complex can exhibit a high level of organization in
some environments and be disorganized or neutral in others. For example, a
complex composed of a tightly-knit group of factory workers represents a
highly organized system in relation to the technical processes of production.
But the same workers can be seen as a fairly loose group of citizens in the
economic and political sphere. Here each worker might follow his own path
in defending his interests and rights-such a complex of workers is obvi-
ously a highly disorganized one. Finally, the same group seen as consumers
forms an approximately neutral complex, since the members of the group
are almost entirely independent of one another. Clearly, the environment
plays a very important role in determining the level of organization of any
complex.
Bogdanov does not view complexes as static entities. On the contrary,
complexes are in constant interaction with one another and their environ-
ment. The interactions among the elements of a complex and the relationship
between the complex and its environment, however, are not random, but can
be described by regular patterns and well-defined mechanisms. The two
basic mechanisms which govern the formation, maintenance, expansion or
decline and destruction of complexes Bogdanov calls formative and regula-
tive mechanisms. The basic concepts of the formative tektological mecha-
nism are conjunction, ingression, linkage, disingression, tektological bound-
ary, and conjunctive and disjunctive crises.
Conjunction is simply the joining of interacting elements into a com-
plex. According to Bogdanov,
Conjunction is cooperation or any other social contact, such as speech
and the connection of concepts into ideas, the meeting of images and
aspirations in the field of consciousness, the fusion of metals, the elec-
trical discharge between two bodies, and exchange of goods between
enterprises, and an exchange of ray energy between heavenly bodies.
Conjunction binds our mind with the most distant planets which we see
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

TEKTOLOGIA, GST, AND CYBERNETICS 161
in the telescope, and with the smallest bacteria which we see in the
microscope. Conjunction is the assimilation of nourishment which sus-
tains an organism and of poison which destroys it, soft embrace:; of
lovers and mad embraces of enemies, congress of workers of the same
trade and a close fight of antagonistic detachments . . . (15, p. 65).
Thus, conjunction operates universally and constitutes "the primary moment
begetting changes, the appearance, destruction and development of orga-
nizational forms, or the base of regulating tektological mechanism" (15, p.
65).
Complexes are joined together by means of common elements which
create a linkage. Different systems may have different linkages. Thus, the
"linkage of two conjugating amoebas or bacteria is the merged part of their
bodies which equally belongs to both. The linkage of two links in a chain is
the part of one link which lies inside the other, and especially the surface of
their contact. The linkage of two associating images of consciousness is their
common feature; the linkage of cooperatively organized efforts is their com-
mon object, etc." (15, p. 69).
Generally, linkages are created by the entry or ingression (from the
Latin word ingressio, meaning "entry") of elements of one complex into
another. Ingression is the basic form of all organizational couplings. Its
nature depends on the plasticiry of the conjugating complexes. In the cask of
two ropes, for example, a direct linkage between the two can be formed by
weaving together the fibres of both or by tying their ends together. It is not
possible, however, to join directly two pieces of wood; it is necessary in this
case to resort to "introductory" or "instrumental" complexes such as glue,
nails, etc.
The basic form of disorganization is negative ingression or disingres-
sion. Disingression represents a breakdown in the linkage of a complex and
the creation of a new tektological boundary or separateness. This breakdown
occurs when new elements, that is, activities from the environment, enter the
complex. "There are not and cannot be complexes," writes Bogdanov,
"which are completely isolated: each is surrounded by an environment, by
other organized complexes and other activities. They are tektologically 'an-
tagonistic' to it; unfolding in their own ways, they can disturb its form and
destroy it; they do not do this precisely because the complex represents a
resistance. As soon, however, as at any of its points or regions the resistance
disappears or becomes equal to zero, external activities enter there and the
linkage of the complex is tom down." (15, pp. 72-73).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

A tektological boundary is created at the points where opposing activi-
ties are neutralized. A vivid illustration of such a boundary is the front line
which separates two hostile armies. The line passes through those points
where the antagonistic efforts of the two armies are held in balance and only
for as long as they are so held.
A breach in a tektological boundary between any two complexes is
generally the start of conjunctive processes, that is, the creation of new
complexes, the transformation and appearance of new links, and partial or
full disingresions. Bogdanov calls this breach an "organizational crisis" and
denotes it as "crisis C" or conjunctive crisis. The establishment of new
tektological boundaries is also a crisis, but of a different type. It is de-
noted as "crisis D" or disjunctive crisis. Since any separation is always
preceded by conjunctive processes, crisis C is primary and crisis D is sec-
ondary.
At the base of the regulative mechanism lie various processes of selec-
tion. Although the concept of selection is taken from biology, it is freed in
tektology from its biological specificity and is understood in a general way.
By means of the selection mechanism, a complex which is an open system
assimilates and dissimilates the requisite variety from its environment, and,
in effect, is regulated by it.
The first scheme of the universal regulative mechanism is that of con-
servative selection, which involves the preservation of complexes. It tends to
produce static forms characterized by stable equilibria in the inorganic
world. The stability of such forms depends on the minimum of the trans-
forming influences of the environment or, what is the same thing, on the
maximum of their own resistances to such influences.
Tektology, however, is concerned mainly with activities which produce
changes. A pure preservation of forms, one that would constitute a real
absence of changes, is impossible. For Bogdanov, preservation "is always
only a result of immediately equilibrating each of the appearing changes by
another opposing change; it is a dynamic equilibrium of changes" (15, p.
78). Dynamic equilibrium is a feature of all complexes, even those which
appear to be stable or static. It alone pennits the perception of stable com-
plexes in nature.
In a changing environment, the "only thing which can give a relative
guarantee of preservation is the growth of the sum total of activities or the
preponderance of assimilation" by a complex. Then the "new unfavourable
influences are encountered by an increased resistance rather than the former
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

TEKTOLOGIA, GST, AND CYBERNETICS 163
one" (15, p. 81). It follows, therefore, that the dynamic process of destruc-
tion leads to opposite results.
Bogdanov defines the preponderance of assimilation over disassirnila-
tion as positive progressive selection and the reverse process as negative
selection. Positive selection transforms the complex into a structure display-
ing a greater heterogeneity of elements and complexity of internal relation-
ships. Negative selection, on the contrary, leads to a greater homogeneity
and simplicity of relationships within the complex.
Here is a simple example of selection processes at work. In the hollow of
a leaf lies a drop of water. From its surface water molecules evaporate contin-
uously (disassimilation); at the same time, other water molecules fall on it
from the atmosphere (assimilation). In a saturated atmosphere, both processes
are approximately equal and we have a dynamic equilibrium of assimilation
and disassimilation processes. When the air is oversaturated with moisture as a
result, for example, of the lowering of temperature, we have condensation,
and the drop of water enlarges in size. This is progressive selection in a
positive form. When saturation of atmosphere is partial, then there is a pre-
ponderance of evaporation which aims at destruction of the water drop. This is
a negative form of progressive selection (10, Vol. I, p. 63).
The continued operation of positive selection produces systemic differ-
entiation which eventually triggers instability and crises leading to the col-
lapse of the system. This collapse can only be forestalled if the diverging
systemic parts are reintegrated or the process of selection is reversed. The
opposite is true in the case of negative selection. Negative selection can
increase the stability of a system, but if continued beyond a certain point it
too leads to systemic crises and disintegration, which can only be reversed
by a change in the sign of selection.
For Bogdanov, positive and negative selection embrace the entire
dynamics of the development of all individual systems and the universe
as a whole. He sums up his theory of evolutionary systems as follows:
Positive selection by making a system more complex and increasing its
variety supplies for it in the evergrowing quantities of material from the
environment; negative selection by simplifying this material removing
from it all that is volatile, discordant, antagonistic, introducing into its
connections homogeneity and coordination, brings order and systemati-
zation to this material. Both these processes complement each other and
spontaneously organize the universe (15, p. 221).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

After defining and illustrating the basic tektological concepts and mech-
anisms, Bogdanov turns to a deep investigation of actual organizational pro-
cesses in nature and society. He discusses various forms of systemic organi-
zation, particularly centralist forms, where there is a central nucleus to
which the other elements of the complex are hierarchically subordinated, and
skeletal forms, where the unity of the whole is maintained by a frame or a
"skeleton." Bogdanov thoroughly investigates the stability of organizational
forms, the differentiation of systems, the divergence and convergence of
forms, the paths and results of selection, the structural transformations of
systems, the various forms of limiting equilibria, and the mechanisms
which remove systemic contradictions threatening the viability of the sys-
tems, and ends the exposition of his tektology with a study of organizational
dialectic.
The scope of this paper does not permit the consideration of these and
many other things of great interest. Suffice it to say that Bogdanov illu-
strates all of them by examples from the most varied realms of human expe-
rience.
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEKTOLOGY,
GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY, AND CYBERNETICS
So long as tektology remained an isolated science, it was difficult to recog-
nize its significance. With the appearance of the work of Norbert Wiener
(31) and W. Ross Ashby (1) on cybernetics and the General System Theory
of Ludwig von Bertalanffy (3), however, it became quite clear that tektology
was not in vain. "The point is," writes Setrov, "that between these works
there exists an unquestionable succession. It is especially interesting and
important that many generally theoretic problems of the systemic approach
are elaborated more fully and rigorously by A. Bogdanov than in the case of
contemporary theory of systems and in cybernetics" (29, p. 59). Similar
conclusions were reached by other Soviet researchers (21, pp. 26-27, 25,
30). Therefore, the original negative evaluation of tektology was subjected
in the late 1960s to a radical review by the Soviet scientists themselves.
Currently, tektology is regarded by them as the first fundamental variant of
general systems theory and a precursor of cybernetics.
Is tektology, then, a variant of a general systems and cybernetics, or
is it what Bogdanov meant it to be-a general science of organization? To
answer this question, we need to compare tektology to general systems the-
ory and cybernetics, and note their fundamental similarities and differences.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

TEKTOLOGIA, GST, AND CYBERNETICS 165
General systems theory embraces a great variety of trends and ap-
proaches to the study of systems (26). A comparison of tektology with even
a small number of major variants of general systems theory is obviously
beyond the scope of this paper. A look, however, at the significant similari-
ties and differences between tektology and the General System Theory
(GST) of Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972), the renowned Austrian-born
biologist, and the systems approach of cybernetics is essential. Indeed, the
basic ideas of GST and cybernetics have since the early 1950s become de-
parture points for subsequent elaborations of the systems approach, systems
analysis, and systems thinking, etc. The fact that tektological ideas antedate
GST and cybernetics well demonstrates Bogdanov's power of thought and
originality.
Similarities between Tektology and GST
Tektology and GST are remarkably similar in a number of ways. They share
common assumptions, aims, basic concepts and a number of generaliza-
tions. Both Bogdanov and von Bertalanffy use identical arguments to justify
the right to the separate existence of their disciplines, and have similar ideas
about the relation of their disciplines to the special sciences.
First of all, both Bogdanov and von Bertalanffy assume that the universe
is monistic and describe their monism in virtually identical terms. '''The
universe," writes Bogdanov, is "an infinitely unfolding fabric of al l types of
forms and levels of organization from the unknown elements of ether to
human collectives and the star systems. All these forms, in their interlace-
ment and mutual struggle, in their constant changes, create the universal
organizational processes, infinitely split in its parts, but continuous and un-
broken as a whole" (15, p. 6). For von Bertalanffy reality is also "a tremen-
dous hierarchical order of organized entities, leading, in a superposition of
many levels, from physical and chemical to biological and sociological sys-
tems" (3, p. 164). For both men, the preception that the universe is orga-
nized at all levels guarantees its oneness and unity.
The objectives of tektology and GST, too, are essentially the same.
Tektology "aims to systematize the organizational experience as a whole and
explain the most general organizational regularities, rising to the universal
laws of organization of any elements. The organization of things, the organi-
zation of people, the organization of ideas-technology, economics, and
ideology-do not lie for it in separate planes, but appear as structural combi-
nations in general" (13, p. 300). The subject matter of GST is also "the
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

formulation and deduction of those principles which are valid for 'systems'
in general . . . whatever the nature of their component elements or relations
or 'forces' between them" (3, p. 139).
Both Bogdanov and von Bertalanffy use as a staring point for the devel-
opment of their basic concepts the age old expression "the whole is greater
than the sum of its parts." I have already noted Bogdanov's interpretation of
this expression and his classification of all complexes into three categories:
organized, disorganized and neutral.
In tektology, the level of organization or systemness of a complex is
determined by comparing the activities-resistances of the whole complex
with the sum of activities-resistances of its individual parts, or simply by
comparing the whole with the sum of its parts. The greater the difference
between the complex as a whole and the sum of its parts, the better orga-
nized it is. And conversely, the lesser is the whole than the sum of its parts,
the more disorganized it i s 4 ~ o r von Bertalanffy, the maxim "the whole is
greater than the sum of its parts" means "simply that constitutive character-
istics of 'the whole' are not explainable from the characteristics of isolated
parts", but only in terms of the relations between the parts (4, p. 55). This
explication is similar to Bogdanov's interpretation, except for one important
thing-the absence of a systemic environment. Significant consequences of
this omission are noted later.
Von Bertalanffy defines a system as "a set of elements standing in inter-
relation" (4, p. 55), and elaborating this definition in the form of differential
equations, he mathematically derives a number of properties of systems such
as wholeness, progressive segregation, leading pan, hierarchical order, and
equifinality and finality, etc. These concepts all find their close analogues in
Bogdanov's concepts of organized complexes, progressive differentiation,
egressive center, hierarchical centralization, and various forms of limiting
equilibria or "final" states to which the developing systems tend.
The theory of open systems (that is, systems continuously exchanging
matter-energy with their environments) which von Bertalanffy began to ad-
vance in the early 1930s and later incorporated into his GST is remarkably
close to Bogdanov's theory of dynamic equilibrium. This theory became an
integral part of tektology from the very start. However, while von Berta-
lanffy distinguishes between open and closed systems, which are isolated
4~gdanov does not formulate his criteria of systemness in mathematical terms. For a
review of some interesting recent attempts at mathematical formulations of such criteria, see. G.
Gorelik (23).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

TEKTOLOGIA, GST, AND CYBERNETICS 167
from their environment, Bogdanov, holds that all systems interact in some
way with their environment and are, therefore, open.
An important task of GST, writes von Bertalanffy, "is to generalize
physical principles such as those of minimum action, of Le Chatelier, or the
conditions of the existence of stationary and periodic solutions and of steady
states, etc., in such a way that they apply to systems in general" (3, p. 1.42).
These principles are not only fully considered in tektology but also general-
ized to all systems of dynamic equilibrium (15).
Both GST and tektology claim that they deserve to be regarded as sci-
ences on the grounds that they are non-philosophical disciplines dealing with
universal laws. In support of this claim von Bertalanffy notes the similarity
of GST to probability theory and Bogdanov the similarity of tektology to
mathematics. Mathematics and probability theory are considered to be sci-
ences, since they deal with universal laws; GST and tektology constitute
sciences for the same reason. The status of tektology, writes Bogdanov, "is
entirely analogous to that of mathematics, where the calculation of uni-
verses, atoms, units of energy, psychic representations are special instances
of calculation in general which are subordinated to the same laws" (13, p.
300). Von Bertalanffy conducts his defense of GST as a science upon similar
lines, arguing that its status "is similar to that, for example of probability
theory which is in itself a formal mathematical doctrine but which can be
applied to very different fields, such as thermodynamics, biological and
medical experimentation, genetics, life insurance, etc." (3, p. 139).
Finally, both Bogdanov and von Bertalanffy hope that their general theo-
ries will help unify the special sciences-tektology through a general organi-
zational methodology (15, p. 60) and GST through the establishment of
isomorphic laws in various fields of science and reality (3, p. 164).
Similarities between Tektology and Cybernetics
Cybernetics, defined by Norbert Wiener as the science "of control and com-
munication . . . in the animal and the machine" (31, p. 1 l ) , also shares a
number of concepts with tektology. First of all, the notion of feedback,
central to cybernetics, has its counterpart in Bogdanov's notion of a bi-
regulator. The bi-regulator manifests itself when two complexes (or elements
of the same complex) are coupled in such a way that a change in the parame-
ters of one complex (or elements) also changes the parameters of the other.
For example, it is possible to coordinate the pressure of steam and the speed
of a steam engine so that they regulate one another. Bogdanov maintains that
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

the mechanism of bi-regulation is common, and can be seen in the familiar
systems of water-ice at 0, in "mutual control" in society, and in organisms
in the form of living protoplasm, etc. (15, pp. 162-166).
In particular, the conceptual framework of cybernetics developed by W.
Ross Ashby bears a close resemblance to tektology (28). Both theories place
great emphasis on mechanisms in organizational processes, and indeed de-
fine these mechanisms in similar terms. For Bogdanov a "mechanism" and
for Ashby "a machine" is a system whose behaviour can be understood and
predicted. Furthermore, both agree about the crucial importance of selection
processes, and understand and interpret in similar terms the notions of
constraint, variety, and regulation. Bogdanov, however, has a richer set of
forms of selection and provides a deeper analysis of those forms.
Contemporary science (and cybernetics in particular) heavily relies on
modelling in the study of complex systems. As we shall see, Bogdanov also
advances modelling as one of the most promising methods of establishing
organizational regularities.
Differences between Tektology and GST and Cybernetics
There are, of course, a number of significant differences between tektology
and GST and cybernetics, differences in focus, scope, methods, and the
approach used in the formulation of their subject matter.
To begin with, Bodganov's aim of developing a general science of orga-
nization by adopting a clear organizational focus is seminal. Tektology calls
for the study of any phenomenon and "any system both from the point of
view of relationships among all of its parts and the relationship between it as
a whole and its environment, i.e., all external systems" (13, p. 300). This
point of view, known today as systems approach, is now widespread. But
Bogdanov deserves recognition for being the first to create and develop this
paradigm. By adopting an organizational focus, Bogdanov was able to de-
velop and present a truly comprehensive theory of organization right from
the start in the first volume of tektology (10).
Von Bertalanffy also aims to develop a general theory of organization,
but focuses only on systems, as indicated in the name for his theory, General
Systems Theory. He defines systems as organized collections of elements
and thereby excludes from his consideration disorganized and neutral com-
plexes. Moreover, von Bertalanffy, concentrating primarily on the interac-
tions of elements within a system, largely ignores the interactions between
the system and its environment. Consequently, GST has a narrower scope
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

TEKTOLOGIA, GST, AND CYBERNETICS
than tektology, and lacks the concept of the regulative mechanism of selec-
tion and the criteria of systemness.
While the focus of cybernetics is clear enough, its scope is restricted to a
subset of organized complexes, that is, to those systems which are regulated
on the basis of feedback and the exchange of information among their ele-
ments. The scope of tektology, on the other hand, embraces all comp1e:res
regardless of their nature, specificity or the mode and level of their organiza-
tion.
Tektology also differs from GST and cybernetics in its methods of in-
quiry. The methods of any science are determined by its problems. The
problem of tektology is to systematize man's organizational experience. This
means, according to Bogdanov, that tektology is an empirical science and
must begin the formulation of its generalizations on the basis of induction.
Bogdanov elaborates on this as follows:
Tektology must clarify that modes of organization that are perceived to
exist in nature and human activity; then it must generalize and systema-
tize these modes; further it must explain them, that is, propose abstract
schemes, of their tendencies and laws; finally, based on these schemes,
determine the direction of organizational methods and their role in Lhe
universal process. This general plan is similar to the plan of any natural
science; but the objective of tektology is basically different. Tektology
deals with organizational experience not of this or that specialized field,
but of all these fields together. In other words, tektology embraces the
subject mater of all the other sciences and of all the human experience
giving rise to these sciences, but only from the aspect of method, that is,
it is interested only in the modes of organization of this subject matter
(10, Vol. I, pp. 36-37).
Bogdanov distinguishes three basic forms of induction: generalizing-
descriptive, statistical, and abstract-analytical. He considers the last method
to be the most promising for tektological studies. Its essence lies in the
decomposition and analysis of complex objects and conditions and the crea-
tion of physical or logical models which would remove complicating features
of the phenomenon under study and reveal its basic organizational tenden-
cies. This method, known today as the method of modelling, is not new in
science. Bogdanov notes the power of the method in the speculations of
Nicholaus Copernicus in astonomy, Mayers in physics, and Buchli,
Rhumbler, Herrer, Leduc, and Leman, etc., in biology, and recommends its
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

use in establishing the organizational laws of individual phenomena (15, pp.
55-59).
The laws so formulated would then serve as a basis for broad tektologi-
cal deductions which, when empirically confirmed, should provide "a firm
support for systematic organizational activity and remove from practice
and cognition elements of spontaneity and anarchical search" (10, Vol. I,
p 40).
In sum, Bogdanov proposes the use of both induction and deduction as
well as analysis and synthesis. "As a universal science," he writes, tekto-
logy, "must in full measure and with the greatest harmony unite in itself the
all-scientific methods" (15, p. 59).
In contrast, von Bertalanffy emphasizes only the use of the empirical-
inductive method and Ashby concentrates only on deductive methodology.
Instead of "studying first one system, then the second, then the third,
and so on," Ashby "goes to the other extreme, considers the set of all
'conceivable systems' and then reduces the set to a more reasonable size"
(2, p. 2).
Furthermore, while Bogdanov uses analysis and especially favours the
abstract-analytical method, both von Bertalanffy and Ashby reject analysis
because it destroys the emergent properties of systems. In their view, sys-
tems should be studied with all their "internal interactions intact" (2, p. 2).
To study such intact systems, von Bertalanffy proposes an indirect method of
inquiry by means of "teleological differential equations" where the actual
interactions of systemic elements are inferred from the equilibrium states
achieved by the systems in question. Ashby recommends that a system be
treated as 'a Black Box, and insists that its functional connections can be
deduced from observations of inputs into the Box and outputs from it (2,
P 4).
The Black Box model of cybernetics and the "teleological" descriptions
of von Bertalanffy are just two of the many possible approaches to the study
of systems, and are far from being perfect for the task. It is difficult
to see, for example, how such complex systems as social systems or eco-
systems can be fruitfully studied using these methods. The methods lack
"the means for actually penetrating into the systems" (21, p. 62) in order to
determine their "real" organization. The a "all-scientific" approach of
Bogdanov appears to offer a better strategy for the study of such complex
"wholes."
Tektology is distinguished by still another unique feature-its concepts
and generalizations are developed from a historical perspective. In studying
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

TEKTOLOGIA, GST, AND CYBERNETICS 171
centralist systems, for example, Bogdanov clarifies not only the relationship
between the central nucleus and peripheral parts of the system, as does von
Bertalanffy, but goes on to inquire into the origins and the subsequent devel-
opment of centralized systems. Thus, Bogdanov conveys a deeper under-
standing of the organizational processes involved than von Bertalanffy and
other modem systems researchers who study systems from a functional, non-
historical point of view.
Finally, unlike cybernetics and especially modem system research,
tektology is basically a non-mathematical work. One of the objectives of
tektology, however, is to develop ultimately an abstract symbolism similar to
that of mathematics, but better able to model the organized complexity and
dynamics of systems. Bogdanov writes:
For tektology, as for mathematics, all phenomena are equal and al l ele-
ments indifferent. The few generalizations of experience from which
mathematics departs are not only universally general, but also maximally
abstract. The tektology of organized and disorganized complexes must
obviously work out many more generalizations than the 'tektology of
neutral complexes,' i.e., mathematics, but nevertheless generalizations of
the same type. The path to their development is longer, inevitably present-
ing a series of stages at which generalizations are tied to various elements,
as they are in the specialized sciences; the difference lies in there being
posited in advance an aim to overcome this restriction and find formula-
tions which would be suitable to any other element (15, p. 56).
Thus, a clear understanding, explanation and systematization of the or-
ganizational modes which are perceived to exist in nature and human activity
are the preconditions to their non-verbal formalization.
This plan appears to be quite logical. Tektological constructs have an
empirical and contextual character. Therefore, the premature "mathematiza-
tion" of tektology would separate it from the concrete sciences, rob it of
content, and convert it into a branch of mathematics. The "mathematiza-
tion" of tektology may, however, be appropriate after its conceptual basis
has been clearly established (30, p. 274).
I
CONCLUSIONS
Enough has been said to demonstrate that tektology is neither a general
system theory nor cybemetics. While tektology contains the basic ideas later
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

developed and popularized by GST and cybernetics, its clear focus, univer-
sal scope, well-defined methods and a comprehensive conceptual framework
make it something more than each of them taken separately or simply added
together.
Tektology has a distinctive domain-all the modes of organization in
nature and human activity. It uses scientific methods in formulating its
generalizations. Tektological generalizations are subject to empirical verifi-
cation. They are lawlike, explaining and predicting the behaviour of
complexes. Therefore, tektology is what Bogdanov meant it to be-a general
science of organization. It represents the ultimate expansion of any systems
theory.
It is true that Bogdanov only laid the foundations for his science and did
not test its hypotheses. This he left to future researchers. "What I will not
do," Bogdanov wrote prophetically, "will be done by others. Science is not
an individual but a collective matter and its realm is infinite" (10, Vol. 11,
p. 12).
The unquestionable relevance of tektology to contemporary science
stems not only from the fact that it antedates modem generalizing sciences
and has much in common with them but also for a number of other reasons.
Tektology is a unique paradigm of the general science of organization within
natural, social and artificial systems. It is a completely human science with
man and not machines at the center of its attention. Many of its findings,
particularly on evolutionary systems, are still neglected by contemporary
science. And last but not least, tektology represents an important link in the
history of ideas. It is the first attempt in the history of science at formulation
of the general principles of organization on a broad base of natural and social
sciences.
Soviet scholars well recognize the historical importance of tektology and
admit its influence on systems research in the Soviet Union. This recognition
is remarkable in view of the official exclusion of tektology from Soviet
science and practice on the grounds that tektology presents a challenge and a
threat to Marxism (24). Given Soviet ideology, the censorship of tektology,
though regrettable, is understandable. It is hard to explain, however, the
strange silence of the western historians of systems about Bogdanov and his
tektology. The problem of the neglect of tektology is yet unresolved, and is
one which, sooner or later, historians and researchers of systems theory will
have to face.
Contemporary systems research is highly specialized and, consequently,
far removed from the aims of tektology or GST. The need, however, for a
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

TEKTOLOGIA, GST, AND CYBERNETICS 173
synthesis of man's organizational experience appears to be just as great if not
greater today than it was in Bogdanov's time. Fo~tunately, tektology exists
and need not be reinvented. Having been enriched with subsequent organiza-
tional knowledge, tektology can play an integrative role by becoming a basis
for a further development of what Bogdanov wanted most of all-a general
science of organization.
REFERENCES
I . W. R. Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics, Methuen, London 1956.
2. W. R. Ashby, "General Systems Theory as a New Discipline," General
Systems 111 (1958), 1-16.
3. L. von Bertalanffy, "An Outline of General System Theory," British J.
Philos. Sc. I (1950), 134-165.
4. L. von Bertalanffy, General System lheory, Brazilier, New York, 1968.
5. A. Bogdanov, Kratkii kurs economii.eskoi nauki (A Short Course in
Economic Science), Moscow, 1897.
6. A. Bogdanov, Osnovnye elementy istorii.eskogo vzgliada na primdu
(Basic Elements of Historical Approach to Nature), St. Petersburg,
1899.
7. A. Bogdanov, Poznaniye s istorii.eskoi tozki zreniya (Cognition from an
Historical Point of View), St. Petersburg, 1901.
8. A. Bogdanov, Iz pskihologii obizesrva (From the Psychology of Scri-
ety), St. Petersburg, 1904.
9. A. Bogdanov, Empiriomonism, 3 Volumes, Moscow, 1904-1906.
10. A. Bogdanov, VseobEaja organizationnaja nauka: Tektologia (The
Universal Organizational Science: Tektology), Vol. I, St. Petersburg,
1912; Vol. 11, Moscow, 1917.
11. A. Bogdanov, Nauka ob obi~estvennom soznanii (The Science of Social
Consciousness), Moscow, 1914.
12. A. Bogdanov, Filosofija Zivogo Opyta (The Philosophy of Living Expe-
rience), Moscow, 1920.
13. A. Bogdanov, Ozerki VseobEej Organizacionnoi Nauki (Essays in the
Universal Organizational Science), Smaara, 192 1.
14. A. Bogdanov, Essays in Tekrology, Transl. by G. Gorelik, Intersysterns,
Seaside, California, 1980.
15. A. Bogdanov, Essays in Tektology: nte General Science of Organiza-
tion, 2d ed., Transl. by G. Gorelik, Intersystems, Seaside, California,
1984.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

16. A. Bogdanov, Tekrologia: VsecbEaja Organizacionnaja Nauka (Tekto-
logy: The Universal Organizational Science), 3 Volumes, Isdatelstvo A.
I. Grschebina, Moscow, 1922.)
17. A. Bogdanov, 0 Proletarskoj Kulture (On Proletarian Culture) Lenin-
grad, Moscow, 1924.
18. A. Bogdanov, Vseob4i.aja Organizacionnaja Nauka (Tektologia).
(Tektology: The Universal Organizational Science) 3d ed., 3 Volumes,
MOSCOW, 1925-1929.
19. A. Bogdanov, Allgemeine Organisationslehre (Tektologie), Alexander
und Lang, Berlin, Bd. I, 1926, Bd. II, 1928.
20. A. Bodganov, Bor'ba za .%nesposobnost' (The Struggle for Viability),
Moscow, 1927.
21. I. V. Blauberg, V. M. Sadovsky, and E. G. Yudin, Systems 7heory:
Philosophical and Methodological Problems, Progress Publishers, Mos-
cow, 1977.
22. G. Gorelik, "Principal Ideas of Bogdanov's 'Tektology:' The Universal
Science of Organization," General Systems XX (1975) 3-13.
23. G. Gorelik, "On Some Measures of Organization," Organization and
Administrative Sciences, 8, 4(1977), 35-43.
24. G. Gorelik, "Bogdanov's Tektology: Its Nature, Development, and In-
fluence," Studies in Soviet nought 26 (1983), 39-57.
25. A. A. Malinovskii, "Bogdanov," Bolshaja Sovetskaja Enciklopedija
(The Great Soviet Encyclopedia), 3d ed., Vol. 3, Moscow, 1970.
26. R. Mattessich, "The Systems Approach: Its Variety of Aspects," Jour-
nal of American Sociery for Information Science November (1982). 383-
394.
27. R. F. Miller, "The New Science of Administration in the USSR," Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly 16. 3(197 I), 247-257.
28. M. I. Setrov, "Ob Obi& Elementax Tekrologii A. Bogdanova, Ki-
bernetiki i Teorii Sistem" (On Common Elements of A. Bogdanov's
Tekrology, Cybernetics and Systems neory), Uchemie Zapiski Kafedr
0bii.estvenny.x Nauk Vezov G. Leningrada, Filosofia 8 (1967), 49-60.
29. M. I. Setrov, "Princip Sistemnosti i Yego Osnovnie Poniatija" (Sys-
temic Principle and Its Basic Concepts) Problemy Metodologii Sistem-
nogo Issledovanija (Problems of Methodology in Systemic Research)
Editors, Blauberg, I. V., Sadovsky, V. M., and Yudin, E. G., Moscow,
1970, 49-63.
30. A. L. llixtajan, "Tektologia: Istorija i Problemy" (Tektology: History
and Problems), Sistemnie Issledovanija (1972) 200-277.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

TEKTOLOGIA, GST, AND CYBERNETICS 175
31. N. Wiener, Cybernerics, Wiley, New York, 1961.
32. M. Zeleny, "Cybernetics and General Systems-A Unitary Science?"
Kybernetes 8 (1979) 17-23.
Received August 11, 1986
Request reprints from George Gorelik, Faculty of Commerce, The Univer-
sity of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Y8.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
R
M
I
T

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]

a
t

1
1
:
4
1

1
7

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3