The nature of epistemic landscapes

From Dave's post today on the relationship between anthro-complexity, Human System Dynamics and the OODA Loop.: 

If orientation is constitutive of observation, and if the relevant unit of analysis in most complex situations is not the individual but the community of practice, the organisation, the institution, then the question becomes: where does collective orientation live? The answer is not inside any individual generative model. It is distributed across the epistemic landscape, the structured field of what is perceivable, thinkable, and actionable within a given community at a given time, prior to any individual act of observation or deliberation.
An epistemic landscape is not a shared mental model. It is not a consensus. It is the pre-reflective background that makes certain things available for perception and certain kinds of thinking possible before anyone decides to attend to them. It has terrain: available distinctions that make certain differences legible, narrative structures that make certain sequences of events coherent, inscribed artefacts that hold certain patterns stable, silences where distinctions have not been developed, and differences therefore do not register. Moving through it does not feel like a constraint. It feels like the world’s natural shape.

This is tremendously geeky stuff, but important reading. As he has been exploring these ideas in chapter-length essays, he is bringing clarity, for me, on the role and position of the practitioner within the field in which the practitioner is working.  These observations and declarations about the nature of epistemic landscapes, contexts, and constraints are important. 

Interventions that work on the landscape itself are of a different kind. You cannot do it by training people to think differently within existing categories, because the categories are what you are trying to change. You cannot do it through after-action review, because after-action review operates within the narrative structures the landscape already makes available. You have to work obliquely, through the practices, artefacts, distinctions, and narratives that constitute the background before anyone starts deliberately attending. This is harder, less amenable to programme design, and less visible as an intervention. It is also, in conditions of genuine complexity, the more consequential one.

Dave's essays are so timely for me assignee January I have been thinking a lot about how to make this same point within the dialogue tradition that privileges the container as the primary space of change. I think dialogic containers are very important but I believe that without understanding them in the context of the many layers of context – landscape, substrate, form of life, constraint regimes – we can only have limited effect in "making change."  And because dialogic containers are important places of encounter and the spaces in which people feel and experience change most intimately, they become seductive. They seem to be the easiest places to control and contribute which gives everyone a warm fuzzy feeling, but without attending to the larger scales of context and the affordances and avoidances that appear there, deeper structural change is impossible. Facilitation will not save the world, nor will hosting or any other kind of dialogic practice. Not alone, and not without attending to context. 

Dave concludes:

We still have much to do in anthro-complexity, both in terms of our own methods and in market acceptance, to make the shift from containers to landscapes and to substrate management. We’re not there yet, and the pressure from purchasing executives with Augustinian expectations can require compromise for survival. But we’ve started the journey, and the invitation is open for others to join.

This is the work.