On Leverage Points for Regeneration
And holding paradoxes
The award-winning systems thinker Donella Meadows said that changing - or even transcending - paradigms is the greatest leverage point to change systems. She defines “transcending paradigms” as the ability “to keep oneself unattached in the arena of paradigms, to stay flexible, to realize that no paradigm is ‘true,’ that every one, including the one that sweetly shapes your own worldview, is a tremendously limited understanding of an immense and amazing universe that is far beyond human comprehension.”
I first want to talk about changing paradigms before I say a few words about transcending them.
Changing Paradigms
And before I do all that, I want to say that - though I also used the term paradigms in my research - I prefer to now talk about philosophies. Others refer to mental models, worldviews, narratives, or myths. They all point to something similar: the overarching story that shapes our ways of knowing, being and acting in the world. Each term has its own subtle nuances, but I find "philosophies" most useful for three reasons: (1) it relates to a practice of living, (2) it has a long tradition, and (3) it directly addresses what I believe is lacking nowadays, which is wisdom, and wisdom is to know, be and act rightly in the world.
When it comes to changing philosophies, many now argue for a necessary shift from mechanistic to relational philosophies. While mechanistic philosophies think the world into pieces in an attempt to control and dominate, relational philosophies reinvigorate the whole, embracing that everything is interconnected.
Mechanistic philosophies perceive reality as composed of separate, independent parts governed by fixed laws, likening reality to a machine where each component functions predictably. In contrast, relational philosophies see reality as interconnected and dynamic, emphasizing relationships and interactions over isolated properties. Reality is viewed as a complex web of interdependent processes and phenomena, where entities come into being through relationships. Something Karen Barad calls agential realism. Instead of a world made of discrete objects, and interactions happening between individuals that existed prior to the exchanges, she asserts the exact opposite, namely that individuals exist because of their intra-action with others.
While mechanistic philosophies typically conceptualize the self as a separate and autonomous entity, distinct from its environment, with a focus on individual agency and autonomy, relational philosophies see the self as inherently connected to its surroundings, continuously shaped by relationships with others and the environment. The self is understood as fluid and relational, molded by its intra-actions with the world.
In terms of causality, mechanistic philosophies adhere to a linear cause-and-effect understanding, seeking to identify underlying mechanisms governing phenomena. Relational philosophies recognize the multifaceted and interconnected nature of causality, where events are influenced by a myriad of factors and feedback loops. Causality is understood as relational and context-dependent, with no single cause or effect.
And though there are a lot more distinction, the last distinction I want to point out for now is that mechanistic philosophies often favor reductionist approaches to knowledge, breaking down complex phenomena into constituent parts for analysis through empirical observation and experimentation. In contrast, relational philosophies embrace a holistic and contextual approach, seeking knowledge through dialogue, relational inquiry, and deep engagement with lived experience.
A Flaw in Thinking
Many argue - like I did in my PhD research - that we need exactly this shift in our philosophies to deal with the phenomena of the Anthropocene, including issues like global warming.
However, when we acknowledge that everything is interconnected and challenge traditional cause-and-effect relationships, pinpointing a singular leverage point becomes impossible. Adopting a relational perspective then leads me to question the validity of the very model I used to advocate for new philosophies. Relational thinking exposes the limitations of the leverage points model, which fails to capture the complexity of reality (as no model can ever fully do).
The model employed by Meadows is obsolete once her insights on system functioning become part of the model. The idea that paradigms, narratives, or mindsets possess the greatest leverage to enact change is rooted in a mechanistic view of the world.
So what implications does this have? Should we discard the model altogether?
Transcending Paradigms
When I noticed the flaw in my thinking during my PhD thesis, I panicked for a moment. My entire argument for the importance of the research relied on Meadows’ leverage points model. So, I spent considerable time reflecting on it. And although it’s been a minute that I finished my thesis, I haven’t stopped thinking about it since.
Currently, my thinking on the matter is ridiculously simple.
What if the model is both true and not true?
Returning to the initial point of this article, the greatest leverage lies in the ability to transcend paradigms (or philosophies).
Transcending paradigms - as I came to understand it - means I can simultaneously hold multiple truths depending on the situation. I might operate from a mechanistic paradigm for practical reasons, while understanding that there's another perspective that could render my understanding flawed.
So, I can utilize the leverage points model in a mechanistic manner while acknowledging its limitations and the absence of a single leverage point. This doesn’t render it entirely useless.
As someone naturally inclined towards black-and-white, simplistic thinking, embracing this ambiguity initially felt incredibly uncomfortable and wrong.
However, over time, I've grown more comfortable dwelling in this mushy in-betweenness. It brings a sense of liberation knowing that truths can coexist and depend on the perspective I choose.
With wise readers like you, maybe I am late to the party.
I think this amounts to the ability of being able to hold paradoxes.
It reminds me of the zen koans and the one hand clapping. Where the answer may seem arbitrary, like pouring a glass of water on the table.
One of the challenges of our times is to hold paradoxes. In this case it’s to hold the paradox between knowing that there is no leverage to change the system, while also knowing, that there is.
📚Things I enjoyed reading, watching or listening
📝Article: Ontological Intervention by
📝Article: Astrobiologists Suggest the Earth Itself May Be an Intelligent Entity by Tony Ho Tran
📝Article: Rethinking Consumerism by John Foster
📚The Mind is Flat by Nick Chater