DOI
issn 0967-3407
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20723040

Summary
This paper gives an account of the participatory, democratic and pluralistic perspectives of Boulding and other important figures in the General Systems Community (GSC). It contrasts their perspectives with the technocratic ap proach of H.T. Odum, as analysed in particular by Peter Taylor. It argues that GSC s concern with systems in relation to their environment is more complex than simply mediated energy, information or currency flows crossing the boundaries of Odum's systems. This ensures there is no privileged place for an outside observer/manipulator of the GSC system; in fact, the analyst is often part of the GSC system. Moreover, the interactions within GSC systems are not reduced to a simple metric, such as Odum's energy currency.

Relevance for Complex Systems Knowledge
Many papers related to coupled systems, like social-ecological systems have a technocratic, utilitarian and managerial approach. If the social institutions are set up right, society will be able to manage the ecological environment in a sustainable way. This paper challenges this view by taking off from original ideas in general Systems Theory. The main idea is that goals and roles are central concepts in critiques of systems thinking as ideology that focus on the implicit project of scientific management of society. The paper questions the role of the scientist having a privileged vantage point from which he/she can decompose nature into systems that are manageable to be efficient and productive.
Instead of such a managerial view, the article proposes a participatory, democratic way of defining the systems to engage with, depending on the relevant knowledges of the actors in the process. One issue is to recognize that the persons that are defining the systems are part of it. Another key issue is that general systems theory should be seen as a mode of inquiry rather than a rigid model of nature. A third issue is a warning of applying methods for study lower level system to the complex systems at higher levels. And a fourth issue is that the way we apprehend a system is dependent on values, which is a reason to do the system analysis in a participatory and democratic way.

With this critique of to static ideas on coupled systems, the authors still believe in doing system analysis: “systems models can provide a useful tool if they are supplemented with a continual re-examination of the values and assumptions upon which they are based. Some models clearly emphasise control. Others, however, which take seriously the interactive nature of social and ecological systems, foster a more participatory and inclusive conception of social organisation.”

Point of Strength
This paper would be very useful in a course on coupled systems, It goes back to the fundamentals of General Systems idea to plea for a more open-minded, participatory and democratic way of doing systems analysis,