SECTION2:MANAGEMENT/ORGANISATION

Self-responsibility. Thoughts tothe education of our management

elitesAndreas Philipp and Bastian Kuhl

PhilOs Management Consultants, Munich, Germany

Abstract

Purpose – How responsible is the management elite for the so-called “world-problems”, e.g. like “thescandalous economic scissors between north and south”, population growth and food scarcity orenvironmental problems? To give first answers on these questions is the purpose of this paper.

Design/methodology/approach – As we began to think about these sorts of questions, we becamevery much aware, that there are numerous reasons to get down from the “ivory tower” and start beingmore concerned about the role of business administration within this “world-problem” issue. Thetheoretical scope of the paper is observing management attitudes by the glasses of the system theory.The practical outcome of this work is giving managers the chance to reflect themselves.

Findings – By asking questions to the traditional business administration as a science and as apractice we will develop a new attitude of self-responsibility in the spirit of Heinz von Foerster for anew, alternative academic management education.

Originality/value – This paper describes the core elements of a new “I-want” reflection-theory andtries to “irritate”; better: perturbate management-systems in order to keep the dynamics ofself-reflection going.

Keywords Systems theory, Ethics, Management activities, Responsibilities, Trust

Paper type Research paper

Preliminary thoughts

The Earth Summit with its debates on load-capacity has shown the world, that environmentand development simply cannot be separated any more. But the complexity of the problems iseven narrower. In the first report of the club of Rome these problems moved (according toabout twenty reports to the club) to the centre perspective of the world.

The club talks about the world-problem. . . . The book represents impressive, that theworld-problem consists of at least ten problems interwoven with each other:

. Armament and wars.

. The scandalous economic scissors between north and south.

. Population growth and food scarcity.

. Environmental problems, growing energy demand and greenhouse effect.

. The trend towards mega-cities primarily in the developing countries.

. The collapse of socialism, which leaves the local and ethnic problems unsolvedparticularly in the former Soviet Union.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0368-492X.htm

Self-responsibility

427

KybernetesVol. 34 No. 3/4, 2005

pp. 427-438q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0368-492XDOI 10.1108/03684920510581611

. Economic tensions and cultural differences in the triad.

. Widespread mental impoverishment.

. The various new problems of the information society.

. And the problem of governability both national in modern democracy and at the globallevel in view of the world-problem even more serious. (Weizacker et al., 1995)

As we read this passage in the book “Factor Four” for the first time, we wondered whocould be held responsible for these circumstances and what one could do to offersolutions for the “world-problems”. The more we dealt with this issue while havingconversations, reading books, listening to lectures and attempting to reflect “the giveninformation”, the more we got the impression that – in memory of Albert Einstein –“world-problems” cannot be comprehended and worked on at broad “world-level” butonly on a much smaller scale. Applying this logic in a naıve approach, we came to thesmallest operative unit, the individual observer. The observer is the point from wherewe will start the following considerations (Maturana and Poerksen, 2002). Suddenly itbecame clear to us that a contribution to the solution of the “world-problems” can onlystart from myself as an individual; well aware, that I, all by myself, can neither be heldresponsible alone for the “world-problems”, nor be the sole solution for it either.However, we – as young, inexperienced naıve scientists – became more conscious thatthere are numerous reasons to leave the “ivory tower” and start being concerned aboutthe role of business administration (BA) in this “world-problem” issue. And it seems tobe most effective for us to start with the future of business administration as a scienceand a practical experience.

Because:

What will be lived on the places and streets tomorrow depends on what is studied at theuniversities today (Ortega y Gasset)

In the following text we will therefore develop a vision in which we describe howeducation of the future management elites could be arranged.

More concretely: We will do our best to give an answer to the central question:

What potential would business administration have at its disposal for the change of allegedeconomic realities with a new management education in order to give some necessaryimpulses for the solution of the “world-problems”?

In order to understand and clarify the background of this question, we will first take acloser look at “traditional” BA.

Questions to “traditional” BAAfter 100 years of institutionalized theory of business management the question aboutthe theoretical foundation, including epistemological questions, still seems to be a topicof high interest (Philipp, 2000).

If one looks at science’s theoretical access to the “traditional” science of businessmanagement, we can constitute the critical rationalism as the methodologicalspecifications of theory formation and empirical research (Winter, 1999).

Critical rationalism assumes an observer-independent, objective reality (Popper,1973) and strives, with the help of scientific methods, for an approximation to anontological reality (Fischer-Winkelmann, 1971). The primary difference of the

K34,3/4

428

epistemological distinction between “subject/object”, of the ontological distinctionbetween “being/non-being” and the logical distinction “true/false” mark a theorydesign conducting a final conclusion (Popper, 1969, 1984; Winter, 1999).

Showing this pre-distinction, science of business management makes the area of itsepistemological premises perceptible. BA constitutes what it can and cannot see.

Our concern is not to analyze or even criticize the “observation potential” ofcritical rationalism. We would rather like to offer an alternative entrance to scienceof business management and look into fundamental-theoretical considerations. Fromour point of view the theory of the observer (Winter, 1999; Philipp, 2000) representsthe most flexible and most comprehensible instrument in the present sciencecontext.

With support of this theoretical access, five questions to the “traditional”business administration can be formulated. Their answers provide informationabout the disciplines’ (wanted) social sphere of activity. In other words: BAdecides by its answers which social function it ascribes to, perhaps even expectsfrom, itself.

Does BA pre-suppose an objective cognition and perception of truth, reality andknowledge or does it offer a communication of reinventing its perception on a daily basis?This question reaches for the epistemological foundation of BA, asks for the markedprimary differences and asks the question of change options. Is BA ready

. to disengage from the premises of an ontological establishment of truth (Bateson,1997),

. to engage in observer-dependent, self-invented science-constructions (vonFoerster, 1998; Watzlawick, 1998),

. to live with the paradox, that we do not even know, what knowledge is (vonFoerster and Poerksen, 1998; Shannon and Weaver, 1949) and nevertheless wantto build an interdisciplinary, neural (knowledge-) network as well as

. to initiate an integrative and constructive “responsibility game” based on honestyand partnership?

The question about the self-image of BA walks along, i.e. does BA understand itself as ascientific community or as a systemic community (von Foerster and Broecker, 2002)?This question focuses on the scientific concept of BA and enquires about itsself-description:

. Does BA perceive its activity as separated from other sciences or does it work fora pattern that connects, for a matrix that embeds (von Foerster, 2002)?

. Does BA refer to itself as a delimited discipline, whose pre-determined social taskis the optimal need-satisfaction of individuals or does it claim for itselfnon-disciplinarity and does it construct its social task by itself (von Foerster andBroecker, 2002)?

. It is all about the question whether the house BA shall arise from knowncomponents. This house would reflect exactly what its components express. Orcan we abandon the known components because we feel safe as co-residents andparticipants in the “unknown” house of world-society?

Self-responsibility

429

The methodological question follows these considerations. Would BA be ready tosubstitute rational decision-models step-by-step through experimental intelligence?This experimental intelligence would begin with observer-dependent realityconstructions and would gradually find passable ways with the help of empiricalresearch, which then would be a constructivist empiricism. This empiricism wouldnot refer to its results as the correct cognition of reality any more but become a firstaid for entrepreneurial viability (passable-ness). The experimental intelligencecomprises:

. To think system-theoretical, to argue according to the distinction-theory(Spencer Brown, 1969) and to operate responsible.

. The rearrangement of the own attitude to skeptical-emotional enthusiasm(Philipp, 1999).

. Replacing “what-questions” by “how-questions”, that ask for the “not-knowing”,the “non-visible’ and the “non-allegeable’ matters (Baecker, 1998).

The question, whether BA would like to describe itself as a “you-shouldproblem-solution-science” or rather as an “I-want reflection theory”, is established at thelevel of science pragmatic considerations?This question aims at the fundamental paradigm premises of BA. Formulated binary itis all about two diametrical basic approaches:

. Competition and social-exclusion or cooperation and participation?

. Authority and distrust or responsibility and certainty?

. Individual-oriented cleverness or system-oriented honesty?

. Expert-approach and problem solver or reflection-partner and enabler?

. As Heinz von Foerster formulated it: acceptance of factual knowledge in an “Abetter B-culture” or a daily re-invention of economic realities in a “A is better off,when B is better off-culture” (Philipp, 2000).

Lastly, the question whether the studies of BA amplify choices and establish the freedom,“to do what one really wants to do”?Hereby we aim at the question, in what way the studies of BA

. allow, show and support different “journeys through life”;

. activate, develop, train and promote an entrepreneurial spirit;

. offer support with questions like “Who am I?”, “What do I want?” and “How do Iachieve that?”;

. put the intended study-contents in a context with society as a whole; and

. finally: Whether BA would like to train factual experts or co-developpersonalities?

Figure 1 summarizes the questions just formulated and shows the degrees of freedom,inclusive of the new orientation of BA and sketches their potential of action.

To enable higher degrees of freedom, we would like to mark a couple of curricularideas of the society-oriented BA (Philipp, 2000) for a better understanding. In our

K34,3/4

430

opinion, we should start with the education of the future decision makers in economyand politics to make a lasting and sustained change possible for a society-oriented BA.This BA as a theoretical and a practical discipline is able to define its newresponsibility in the context of the world society. Society-oriented BA should:

. offer a communication of reinventing its perception on a daily basis;

. understand itself as a systemic community;

. place emphasis on experimental intelligence;

. describe itself as a I-want reflection-theory;

. increase choices; and

. establish the freedom, to do what one really wants to do.

Outlines of a self-responsible BA

Not the “learning by heart”, which is senseless anyway, seems to be the effort of studies but tolearn how to handle oneself, that one can shake of casualness and self-evident matters bit bybit and therefore can take on contra-intuitive cognition (Norbert Bolz, 1998).

It would be valuable if BA managed to build up a circular relationship from theoryand practice, in which one learns from the other, what it can see if one does her/hisbest recognizing her-/himself through the eyes of the other (von Foerster andBroecker, 2002).

Our considerations are based on the belief that A is better off better when B is betteroff (von Foerster, 1985). Under this belief neither a socialist nor altruistic body ofthought may be understood. It rather is all about the idea that every realityconstruction must be in principle of equal right because it has been created according

Figure 1.The new business

economy: degrees offreedom, new orientation,

potential of action

Self-responsibility

431

to the same operation. Therefore the contrast of different “positions” is relativized and“Ego” does not regard “Alter” as a threat but as enrichment.

One could formulate: Self-responsibility starts at oneself by starting at the other,from whose view you are the “other” and therefore all “others” are “others” to eachother. Through this circular Alter-Ego-relation everybody can (implicitly: must) listento his neighbor, who must listen to his neighbor, who he can be himself (Maturana andPoerksen, 2002). That means the new BA starts with a mental shift, which relies on ashift in paradigmatic premises:

. Individual self-responsibility, comprises the freedom of plural choices.

. Systemic relatedness, comprises cooperative interaction.

. Society-orientation, comprises distinction-theoretical constructions.

In the core, we consider the main task of society-oriented BA, to offer chances ofsurvival for preferable many individuals, i.e. we favor an intelligent humanitarianism,which consists of freedom, “enlightenment”, assistance, cooperation, etc. Thisrepresents a considerably more efficient way to solve the global problems of worldsociety. In that regard, the new BA can take on an important “catalyst-function” withinthe economic- and scientific-system.

Self-responsibility of the new BA concretely begins in earliest childhood andaccompanies curriculum vitae. It favors continuity of one’s own work (from earlychildhood age up to retirement) and modulates individual careers. The society-orientedBA can organize lectures, seminars, workshops etc. with kindergarten, schools,families etc. in which “self-responsible management” is exemplified. Aim should be todevelop a culture of mutual confidence, which makes it possible to experience theadvantages of co-operation.

The new curriculum of a society oriented BA builds upon these “advances” now. Itdeepens knowledge about the self-responsible way of life and creates incentives for it.There is a distinction theoretical, non-disciplinarity attitude of BA. That is, the mainpurpose of business management education remains knowledge (transfer) of how tosatisfy needs, however with different means (better: learn-contents). Explicitly we speakof learn- and not teaching contents; it is not about the dogmatic lecturing of contents,that is passed on from the sender to the receiver, but about creating a constructiveprocess of mutual learning, i.e. sender (lecturer) and receiver (student) “throw” ideas,stimulation and irritation to each other, from which then something new is emerging,new, in the sense of not yet known (von Foerster and Broecker, 2002).

These learn-contents are recognized through trans-disciplinarity, mutual respect andlove (Maturana and Poerksen, 2002). This new curriculum is actively showing andcreatively promoting different science positions, due to the inclusion of alternativeways of cognition in the business and non-business management context.

With the help of the education trilogy “vision-experience-responsibility” animprovement of the ability to self-reflect is aimed at for students but also for thesocial system BA as a whole. This shall be achieved by sensitization for the Un-visible,Un-heard and the Un-describable. What does education not teach, of what do politiciansnot speak, which questions do journalists not ask, which pictures do media not show,which topics do science not treat, in which cases does market economy not work, whenis legal power not legitimate, when does justice not administer justice, etc.?

K34,3/4

432

All these questions, slightly modified, under omission of the word not can be askedas How-questions; that is exactly what we are interested in the new BA.

This mental approach can be promoted implicitly by conveying the principle: Doeverything you want, but do what you really want. Such thinking increases choices andcreates an “aura” of entrepreneurial activities. By the term “entrepreneurial activities”we understand communications that get ideas, recognize, grab and use opportunitiesand therefore generate creative unrest for society.

Completely in the sense of Dirk Baecker, who understands the entrepreneur as a gapfinder “. . . to whom the gaps, which he can find for his products or his company,cannot be shown in advance, but who (the entrepreneur) can be trained to ask thosequestions, that draw attention to the gaps: . . .‘What is missing?’ ‘What is not decided?’‘Who does not go along with that?’ ‘What is not important?’” (Baecker, 1998). The goalis not the system preservation but the evolutionary system-design.

The term “entrepreneurial activities” not at all only marks classic entrepreneurship.It rather is about modifying BA studies so that instead of educating allegedly rationalmanagers and administrators trying to create emotional inventors who find solutionswhere others do not even realize and recognize free spaces.

An implicit attitude of self-responsibility should be experienced throughout the entirestudies. This attitude looks for the pattern that connects and builds on the solidconviction, that we live in every moment exactly the life, that we want to live and aretherefore free to switch to another life at any time (von Foerster and Broecker, 2002).

It would be our aim to develop studies, which would give students the “capacity” forthe construction of an implicit-ethical intelligence (Figure 2), i.e. an intelligence which

Figure 2.The intelligence-matrix

Self-responsibility

433

both builds on the ability to find solutions in unknown situations and is able to putthese solutions in a context with society as a whole.

As a summary: we would like to help with the development of personalities, thattake responsibility for themselves and the environment created by them – that isexactly what matters.

The following part outlines a possible way of conducting the new studies of asociety oriented BA.

A curricular learn-model of the new BAThe new curriculum of a society oriented BA is traditionally structured into basicstudies and advanced studies. It would be the aim of the basic courses to put thescientific and practical economic world into a broader global context withnon-disciplinary issues, i.e. to discuss trans-disciplinary ideas and problems throughthe observer standpoint of business management. It all centers around epistemological,philosophical, physiological, biological and sociological considerations in the contextof the new BA. After the sensitization for these topics rather unknown to traditionalBA it is all about “gaming with different positions”, oriented at and referred to “real”business-management questions and considerations. On this fundament of ourcontent-suggestion in Table I, concrete teaching curriculums could be created anddeveloped for the actual realization of such studies.

The knowledge of the basic courses could then be applied in the advanced studies toconcrete business management questions. The goal would be to make thetrans-disciplinarity of economic problems and questions perceivable so that anattitude of personal responsibility for social contexts is conveyed implicitly.

. In a first phase, the “new” mindset should be introduced to the traditionalsub-disciplines of BA and from that on “be continuously developed”.

. In a second phase, we would encourage an increasing break-up of the traditionalsub-disciplines in BA.

. Before phase three risks the “turnaround” of the existing procedures. It then is nomore about the question what the mindset of the new BA can do for the differentsub-disciplines but what kind of contribution every single sub-discipline canoffer for the new, society-oriented BA (see Table II).

In the focus we see the development of an integrated view and way of thinking bywhich options are opened and increased. The following aspects should be centered:

. Formation of an reflection elite – plural truths, new- and re-invention, I-wantreflection-theory.

. Trans-disciplinarity – systemic community.

. Looking for the un-known – experimental intelligence.

. Authenticity elite – I-want ethic.

. New entrepreneurship – enlarge choices and establish the freedom “to do whatone really wants to do”.

The questions to traditional business administration developed in the second part ofthis paper find themselves explicitly again in the curricular design of the basic studiesof the new BA. Lecture 3 of the advanced studies picks up, resumes and reflects the

K34,3/4

434

Area Contents PS

Basic courseGeneral basics

A: How does the worldget into the head:basics of theepistemology

The philosophy of BA Theautopoiesis of BA Thecybernetic logic of BA

10 per cent

B: The nontrivialmachine (NTM):basics of beinghuman

Anthropological basicsNeurobiologicalPhysiological EducationalBasics of man

5 per cent

C: Knowledge andconscience: basics ofself-responsibility

From the ‘you-should’ tothe ‘I-want ethic’ Theesthetics of BA

5 per cent

Special basicsD: BA as a science:

basics of a societyoriented attitude

The function systems andtheir interplay Thefunction of businesseconomy

5 per cent

E: BA as a practice:from theadministrator to theentrepreneur

Investment and financeslogistics and materialMarketing Mathematicsand statistics New mediaand information systemsOrganization andmanagement Personalmanagement AccountingBusiness law Economics

25 per cent

Advanced studiesArea Contents PS Sub-disciplinesLecture 1:The bio-cybern-ethic ofBA

Autopoiesis and cognitionfrom logic and reflectionZero sum and non Zerosum game ethic andesthetics of BA

15 per cent Traditionalsub-disciplinesþpotentially new topics(e.g.) Informationmanagement Media andpublic relationsTechnology andinnovation managementWorld economy New workand life management

Lecture 2:The communication of BA

Education andconsciousness economyand science power andmass media market andworld society

15 per cent

Lecture 3: Thesociety-oriented attitude ofBA

Work and occupationmoney and conscienceecology and economyemployers and socialresponsibility nationaland international businessrelations

20 per cent

Note: PS – part of study

Table I.The curriculum of the

society oriented BA

Self-responsibility

435

central question formulated in this paper. This represents the implicit recursivity of thedeveloped thoughts within this paper. As it seems to us this circularity paints a lastingpicture of one constructivists thinking, which is nicely illustrated by Heinz vonFoersters quotation “. . . an observing organism is itself part, partner and participant ofits observed world . . . ” (von Foerster, 1997).

Focus self-responsibility: “I-want” attitudeWe would like to outline a couple of short remarks on the pragmatic realization of thesesketches of a “new BA” in conclusion. It surely still needs deepening considerations onhow these first thoughts can be leveraged to the level of concrete actions (inclusive ofthe (academic) political discussion).

We wish to bring about a trans-disciplinary dialog, which is stimulated by thedifferent experience-contexts of the ones involved and therefore allows a more integralproblem – but also solution-consciousness. We are confident that the experience ofbeing interested in each other would be a remarkable step forward. Taking this intoaccount, the installation of first courses into the basic studies could be started quitepragmatically. Then first adaptations would derive from the emerged experiences. Tokeep these in mind for further developments would be very helpful. Certainly these ideasmust not remain restricted to the science of business management; every discipline canmake “its society oriented contribution” to the solution of the “world-problems”.“Operating” parallel definitely would increase the degree of effectiveness considerably.It would be all about a continuous learning process from made experiences and thecustomizations of the curriculum interconnected with it. The curriculum should notdescribe itself as a stiff “entity” but as an open learning system itself.

But: Who does it? The answer is simple: Everybody starts with himself/herself!The well-known “exculpations-rituals” – starting with realization-doubter and

ending with inherent-necessities – lose their dynamics. Nobody can be forced to dothings differently. Everybody is free to participate with his/her ideas. But everybody isalso for her-/himself and for the world “created” by her/him responsible (von Foersterand Broecker, 2002).

We would like to take just a little responsibility for the abstract term “society” in thatwe would still expect of business management to bear with the confusion most likelyexperienced when confronted with our provocative theses in order to keep the dynamicsof self-reflection going. We are aware that it can merely be a modest contribution,however we would not like to abstain from it. Referring to the central question of thispaper formulated in the preliminary thoughts, we hereby see a good chance for the “new”BA and the “new” entrepreneurs of making valuable contributions to the“world-problem” issue. We do not really succeed in living these ideas every day; butwe try not to hold the circumstances responsible for our “non-action”.

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

A new thinking is integratedinto “traditional”sub-disciplines

Gradually dissolve andconnect sub-disciplines

Society oriented BA is in the focus– single sub-disciplines makecontribution for it

New BA ! sub-disciplinesof old BA

New BA Y sub-disciplinesof the BA

Sub-disciplines of the BA ! newBA

Table II.The three phase processto the “new businessadministration”

K34,3/4

436

The quotation of Heinz von Foerster symbolizes this attitude very beautifully in thecontext of the academic teaching.

I have always seen science as an activity which creates knowledge. An experience as astudent has made this particularly clear to me. It was a lecture on the kinetic theory of gases,lectured by an important physicist, Professor Mach, after whom a physical unity is namedalso.

He developed a long-winded proof of a sentence of the theory and had covered half the panelwith equations already, there he suddenly stopped, kicked back a step in order to judge – soto speak – the whole development of distant. He leafed through his notebook, looked on thepanel again, shook his head: “My lady, sirs (there was at that time only one lady) it seems tome that something isn’t correct in this derivation but I don’t see it at the moment. I mustreconsider this. The class is dismissed!”

Does the monolith have a hole? No! Professor Mach has a sense of responsibility (vonFoerster, 1998).

References

Baecker, B. (1998), “Das Handwerk des Unternehmers. Uberlegungen zurUnternehmerausbildung”, in Miller, M., Deecke, J., Keyser, Ch. and von Sperber, B.(Eds), Familienunternehmer heute: Herausforderungen, Strategien, Erfahrungen, GablerVerlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 199-229.

Bateson, G. (1997), Geist und Natur: eine notwendige Einheit, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.

Fischer-Winkelmann, W.F. (1971), Methodologie der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Goldmann,Munchen.

Maturana, H. and Poerksen, B (2002), Vom Sein zum Tun – Die Ursprunge der Biologie desErkennens, Carl-Auer-Systeme Verlag, Heidelberg.

Philipp, A. (2000), Die Selbstverantwortung der Betriebswirtschaft – Versuch einergesellschaftsorientierten Haltung, verlag neue wissenschaft, Frankfurt.

Popper, K.R. (1969), Logik der Forschung, Mohr, Tubingen.

Popper, K.R. (1973), Objektive Erkenntnis: Ein evolutionarer Entwurf, Hoffmann und Campe,Hamburg.

Popper, K.R. (1984), Ausgangspunkte: Meine intellektuelle Entwicklung, Hoffmann und Campe,Hamburg.

Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W. (1949), Mathematical Theory of Communication, University ofIllinois Press, Urbana, IL.

Spencer Brown, G (1969), Laws of Form, Allen und Unwin, London.

von Foerster, H. (1985), Sicht und Einsicht: Versuche zu einer operativen Erkenntnistheorie,Vieweg, Braunschweig.

von Foerster, H. (1997), “Entdecken oder Erfinden: Wie laßt sich Verstehen verstehen?”, inGumin, H. and Meier, H. (Eds), Einfuhrung in den Konstruktivismus, Piper, Munchen,pp. 41-88.

von Foerster, H. (1998), “Das Konstruieren einer Wirklichkeit”, in Watzlawick, P. (Ed.), Wiewirklich ist die Wirklichkeit: Wahn – Tauschung – Verstehen, Piper, Munchen, pp. 39-60.

von Foerster, H. (2002), Der Anfang von Himmel und Erde hat keinen Namen, Kadmos, Berlin.

von Foerster, H. and Broecker, M. (2002), Teil der Welt: Fraktale einer Ethik – Ein Drama in dreiAkten, Carl-Auer-Systeme Verlag, Heidelberg.

Self-responsibility

437

von Foerster, H. and Poerksen, B. (1998), Wahrheit ist die Erfindung eines Lugners: DerMathematiker und Philosoph Heinz von Foerster im Gesprach mit Bernhard Poerksen,Carl-Auer-Systeme Verlag, Heidelberg.

Watzlawick, P. (1998), Wie wirklich ist die Wirklichkeit: Wahn – Tauschung – Verstehen, Piper,Munchen.

Weizacker, E.U., Lovins, A.B. and Lovins, L.H. (1995), “Faktor Vier: Doppelter Wohlstand –halbierter Naturverbrauch”, Der neue Bericht an den Club of Rome, Droemer Knaur,Munchen.

Winter, W. (1999), Theorie des Beobachters – Skizzen zur Architektonik eines Metatheoriesystems,verlag neue wissenschaft, Frankfurt.

Further reading

von Foerster, H. and von Glasersfeld, E. (1999), Wie wir uns erfinden: Eine Autobiographie desradikalen Konstruktivismus, Carl-Auer-Syteme Verlag, Heidelberg.

K34,3/4

438