At the School of Art No. 2 in Ust-Ilimsk, in the department of decorative and applied arts, there is a specialty in “Design”. Children, learning design art, learn the basics of fine art: drawing, painting and composition. But this is not enough. A designer needs such educational subjects as prototyping, composition in materials, design, world artistic culture, i.e. mastering art in various forms.
Students study at the department for 4 years. Based on the results of four years of study, examination paper, on a chosen topic - in one of the areas that they studied at school. Here are examples of my students' final exam papers completed in 2013.
Drawing, painting:
“Still life with a teapot” watercolor, paper. Cherepanova Valeria 14 years old, 2012 Rev. Shebodaeva K.A “Head of Venus” pencil, paper. Malovinskaya Evgeniya 16 years old, 2013 Teacher. Shebodaeva K.A “Dried flowers” gouache, paper. Shcherbinin Dmitry 14 years old, 2012 Rev. Shebodaeva K.A
Layout, architecture:
Panel “Fantasy City” paper, hardboard. Safargaleeva Valeria 12 years old 2011 Rev. Shebodaeva K.A Layout “Constructivism” colored cardboard, paper. Kustikova Katya 14 years old 2012 Teacher. Shebodaeva K.A
Composition in the material: examination work of Malovinskaya Evgenia lamp “Japanese motives”.
(from sketch to real object)
Graduate work. Lamp “Japanese motifs” wooden frame, fabric painted using batik technique. Malovinskaya Evgeniya 17 years old 2013 Rev. Shebodaeva K.A
I think the main goal of our classes is to touch the world of art, because what if not personal experience can be valuable and individual? Inner experience, the experience of self-awareness in art, is the main task of a creative person. The teacher must not only teach the student certain technologies, but also “fall” him in love with art so much that it becomes a part of him. This can be achieved by gaining some experience. The main characteristic of experience is its integrity; experience cannot be divided into internal and external, that is, into internal sensation, “foresight,” and external ability to work with the material. Only through experience can something become “present to me.” It is no coincidence that philosophers write: “only in experience is there an awareness of an event as an event, that is, as significant for me.” I really like that getting to know yourself, the so-called “journey to yourself,” usually begins spontaneously, and as a result becomes eventful and meaningful. Often, gaining internal experience is like an instantaneous change of images and experiences. It occurs like an immersion, a “dive” into the well of the soul. Thanks to diving into oneself, a person finds himself in another world. I lived this, felt it myself, as an artist, and I try to convey it to my students. Therefore, having conceived a personal exhibition together with the young artist Maria Belchikova, I invited my students to take an active part in organizing the opening and to become participants in the performance. The children supported the idea and became full-fledged organizers and participants in the entire event. And the process that takes place during the preparation and opening of the exhibition became that “immersion” for them.
We called our exhibition “SH&B”
Poster for our personal exhibition “Sh&B” Opening of the exhibition “Sh&B” authors and participants of the opening, performance. My students are participants in the performance.
On the opening day of the art exhibition “Sh&B”, children took part in the performance, reviving the installation “Rebirth” literally from the inside.
In the hall of the art gallery there was a structure in the form of a cube with sides made of stretched light fabric. There are lamps installed inside. The children, while inside, moved according to the concept. Visitors to the exhibition could see silhouettes outside the cube, as if emerging from cocoons.
From the outside, the structure is a luminous form with a volume of 5.5 m2 with shadows similar (on the sides of the cube) to children’s scribbles, strange drawings something like cocoons. And inside it is a space in which cocoons, the semantic parts of the installation, are interconnected by threads. They create a double impression: either they are just weaving, or they are no longer needed and huge butterflies have already fluttered out of them, tearing the shell. One side of the cube is not covered with fabric so that the viewer can enter the installation and gain a personal viewing experience.
Spectators, walking through the hall, look at the paintings, and meditative music sounds. The action of the performance begins suddenly. The creatures come to life, they, in the process of REBIRTH, figuratively repeat the path from the cocoon to the butterfly (association with the development of the human soul). Creatures move chaotically, examine, touch everything that is inside a given space, or spontaneously organize themselves in dance-like movements, without stopping for a moment. The cyclicality and continuity of the process informs the viewer about his internal REBIRTH.
The concept of the performance “Rebirth” is as follows: the cocoon is symbolically one of the stages of the natural cycle of human life. This is one of the stages of transformation that we go through throughout life, necessary for our further development. In the COCOON stage, you need to look into yourself to connect the idea with your own person. Degeneration from one state to another (for example, as happens at conception, birth). The soul puts on a body and changes. We will never be the same as we were a second ago, life in the process of physical and chemical changes gives us the opportunity to new sensations of ourselves and the world around us, for everyone this is special and unique.
Performance “Rebirth” Installation cube before the start of the performance Performance “Rebirth”
Performance "Rebirth" Performance "Rebirth"
The music ends and the girls leave the cube, as if getting into real life.
The conceptual basis of the event is for gallery guests to perceive the entire process visually, and nothing more. No words are needed, only personal visual and sensory experience. The students handed out leaflets with warning text about what was about to happen, so the visitors got the impression of some kind of chaos and even misunderstanding. But this was also part of the idea of discovery.
Participants in the performance "Rebirth". My students. Zemlyanukhin. Daria Safargaleeva Valeria Malovinskaya Evgenia Cherepanova Valeria
Our goal was to create an environment for everyone present at the opening of our first solo exhibition to gain some personal experience, so that everyone could look into themselves and connect the ideas of the authors with their own feelings.
According to audience reviews, impressions of what was happening were different. Someone immediately got involved in the process and could easily perceive what was happening, becoming an accomplice in the action. Some people did not understand what was happening and perceived it fragmentarily. But everyone unanimously said that it was bright and intense from the beginning to the end of the event.
My students, who took part in the performance for the first time, talked a lot about its concept; they had to try this idea on themselves, truly feel it from the inside, diving into the “well” of their soul.
After everything, the guys said that it was very exciting at the very beginning of the event, when people began to enter the hall, then everything went by itself, their fears disappeared. The performance switched them to a sensual, spontaneous perception of what was happening, interacting with the installation, and then with the guests. They were interested in watching people's reactions when they received the leaflets. Every moment of the performance and the entire event as a whole became a new personal experience for the girls, which they described as a different perception of reality, not clothed in any verbal characteristics, it is something more and individual. Now the girls have a conscious desire to become participants in other performances or similar projects.
The idea of organizing such an opening of an art exhibition aroused interest among the staff of the art gallery and creative people our city, we received words of gratitude and suggestions for organizing similar events in the future.
Having analyzed our first experience, taking into account all the mistakes and shortcomings, we plan to organize many more exhibitions and projects with my students.
Current page: 1 (book has 2 pages in total)
A.A. Bogdanov
Tectology. General Organizational Science
1912
Volume I
Chapter I. Introduction.
Historical necessity and scientific possibility of tectologyAny human activity is objectively organizing or disorganizing. This means: all human activity - technical, social, cognitive, artistic - can be considered as some kind of material organizational experience and explore with organizational points of view.
In everyday speech, the words “organize”, “organization”, “organizational activity” are given a narrower, more special meaning. But if we want to give concepts scientific certainty and precision, then this everyday meaning cannot be retained as vague and containing inconsistencies.
Most often, the term “organize” is used when it comes to people, their work, their efforts. “To organize an enterprise,” “to organize an army” or “campaign,” “defense,” “attack,” “research,” etc. means to group people for some purpose, to coordinate and regulate their actions in the spirit expedient unity. But let’s analyze one of these examples more closely, let’s say the most typical one – “organize an enterprise”, and we will immediately discover that even here the concept is broader, that it refers not only to human activities.
The organizer of the enterprise unites workers, combines them labor acts. Many of these acts may be replaced car movements. When a machine is introduced, the organizer faces the task in the following form: to coordinate, i.e., to expediently organize actions of workers with the operation of machines. The organized object turns out to be both living and dead activities taken together.
But the car is one of guns, more complex than others, and that's all. In technology, tools represent the complement of the organs of the body, the organizational elements of the labor force; and the improvement of any instrument or the introduction of a new one causes a regrouping of labor forces or a change in the connection of labor actions. The same applies to varying degrees to other means of production. Therefore, the task here is to organize labor and means of production into a smoothly functioning system; this is an organization people and things into a purposeful unity.
When an inventor combines and builds a machine, then the elements that he organizes for a predetermined goal are things with their specific energies: a “dead” machine can be considered separately as some kind of organized system, although this characteristic of it is hardly familiar to the everyday thinking.
In general, the entire process of man’s struggle with nature, the subjugation and exploitation of its elemental forces, is nothing more than a process peace organizations for a person, in the interests of his life and development. This is the objective meaning of human labor.
Even more obvious is the organizational nature of cognition and thinking in general. Its function is to coordinate the facts of experience into coherent groupings - thoughts and systems of thoughts, i.e. theories, doctrines, science, etc.; and this means organizing experience. Exact sciences organize all modern machine production technology; they are capable of this only because they themselves represent the organized experience of the past, primarily also technical.
Artistic creativity has as its principle harmony and harmony, and this means organization. With its special methods, it organizes people’s ideas, feelings, and moods, coming into close contact with knowledge, often directly merging with it, like fiction, poetry, and painting. In art, the organization of ideas and the organization of things are inseparable. For example, taken by themselves, an architectural structure, a statue, a painting are systems of “dead” elements - stone, metal, linen, paints; but the vital meaning of these works lies in those complexes of images and emotions that unite around them in the human psyche.
We see that human activity - from its simplest to its most complex forms - comes down to organizing processes. All that remains is destructive activity. If we consider it directly and separately, then its function is disorganizing. But a more complete study shows that it is also the result of a collision of different organizational processes. If people kill and eat animals, then they disorganize other life systems in order to organize their elements in the composition of their own body. If they exterminate predators, it is because they find disorganizing forces in them and, by eliminating them, thereby organize their living environment in their own interests. If societies, classes, groups collide destructively, disorganizing each other, it is precisely because each such collective strives organize the world and humanity for themselves, in their own way. This is the result of the separateness, the isolation of the organizing forces, the result of the fact that their unity, their common, harmonious organization have not yet been achieved. This struggle of organizational forms.
IN general scheme The entire content of human life has unfolded before us, and now we can sum it up. The old teacher of scientific socialism, F. Engels, expressed them with the formula: production of people, production of things, production of ideas. Hidden in the term “production” is the concept of organizing action. And we will make the formula more precise: organization of external forces of nature, organization of human forces, organization of experience.
What happened? Humanity has no other activities other than organizational ones, no other tasks other than organizational ones.
So, all interests of humanity are organizational. And from here it follows: there cannot and should not be any other point of view on life and the world other than the organizational one. And if this is not yet recognized, it is only because people’s thinking has not yet completely emerged from the shells of fetishism that have shrouded it on the path of development.
Well, let it be this way: we, people, are the organizers of nature, ourselves, our experience; We will consider our practice, knowledge, and artistic creativity from an organizational point of view. But spontaneous nature, is it really an organizer? Wouldn't it be naive subjectivity or poetic fantasy to apply the same point of view to her events and actions?
Yes, of course, nature is great first organizer; and man himself is only one of its organized works. The simplest living cell, visible only at magnifications of thousands, far surpasses in complexity and perfection of organization anything that a person can organize. He is a student of nature, and is still very weak.
But if the phenomena of life can be studied and understood as organizational processes, is there not, besides them, a vast region of the “inorganic” world, dead nature, which is not organized? Yes, life is a small part of the universe, lost in the ocean of infinity; but lifeless, “inorganic” does not mean unorganized. This old delusion until recently reigned over the thought of mankind precisely as a result of its organizational weakness; it comes to an end.
It would be strange, recognizing a certain organization behind the crystals, to consider as “unorganized” the slender, titanically stable systems of suns with their planets that took shape over myriads of centuries. But for modern theory The structure of each atom is the same in type, with its amazing stability, based on the immeasurably fast, cyclically closed movements of its elements - electrical activities.
Complete disorganization is a concept without meaning. This is, in essence, the same thing as naked nothingness. In it one must accept the absence of any connection; but that in which there is no connection cannot present any resistance to our effort, and only in resistance do we learn about the existence of things; therefore, for us there is no existence here. And absolute incoherence can only be thought of verbally; no real, living idea can be put into these words, because an absolutely incoherent idea is not a idea at all and is nothing at all.
Even the imaginary emptiness of world space - the world ether - is not devoid of lower, elementary organization; and she has resistance; only with a limited speed does movement penetrate through it; and when the speed of a moving body increases, then, according to the ideas of modern mechanics, this resistance also increases - at first with an elusive slowness, then more and more quickly; and at the limit equal to the speed of light, it becomes completely insurmountable - infinitely great.
In a latent form, ordinary thinking also accepts this point of view, designating inorganic complexes as “systems,” which essentially expresses the idea of an organized whole, and attaching to them the concept of “destruction,” which would have no meaning in relation to the absolutely unorganized.
Beyond life lie, therefore, only inferior types and levels of organization: the absolute absence of organization is unthinkable without contradiction.
In technology we have found the organization of things for human purposes; now we find it in nature outside of human purposes. All of nature, in turn, turns out to be a field of organizational experience.
Thus, based on the facts and ideas of modern science, we inevitably come to the only holistic, only monistic understanding of the universe. It appears before us as an endlessly unfolding fabric of forms of different types and levels of organization - from elements of the ether unknown to us to human collectives and star systems. All these forms - in their mutual interweaving and mutual struggle, in their constant changes - form a world organizational process, unlimitedly fragmented in its parts, continuous and inseparable in its whole. So, the area of organizational experience coincides with the area of experience in general. Organizational experience is all our experience, taken from an organizational point of view, that is, as a world of organizing and disorganizing processes.
Despite countless parallels and coincidences in the most diverse spheres of experience, the old world, anarchically fractional in its social basis, could not come to the idea of universal unity of organizational methods - to the task of universal organizational science.
In the first edition of this book, two years before the World War and five years before the revolution, it was written: “The vital imperfection or contradiction of specialization, consisting in the fact that it masters organizational experience only at the cost of its increasing fragmentation, which undermines its connection as a whole , - this contradiction was not felt by humanity for centuries, because it did not result in significant practical inconveniences. Those organizational tasks that were posed by life were successfully resolved on the basis of specialization, because these were the tasks partial character.
A society built on the division of labor and exchange, which does not represent an organized system of labor as a whole, and cannot set its tasks on a scale other than partial. This is self-evident in relation to each of the millions of individual households or enterprises that form such a society. There is, however, also a state organization, the tasks of which formally relate to society as a whole. But they are always presented in a specialized form, such as military, financial, police, etc., despite their breadth, they are completely partial in their content. Of course, even the sciences that systematize the organizational experience of society cannot, under such conditions, understand their tasks on a universal scale.
But the more a society grows and develops, the stronger and more painful its disorganization as a whole affects it. The gigantic mass of living activities, continuously accumulated in it, keeps its balance more and more difficult and less and less perfectly. Spicy and chronic diseases social system - the disasters of fierce competition, local and global crises, the increasing tension of the struggle between nations over markets, unemployment, merciless class conflicts - all this together forms a colossal waste of social forces and creates an atmosphere of general uncertainty about the future. These are formidable manifestations general disorganization processes, and the fight against them using partial methods available to specialization is, by the very essence of the matter, doomed to failure.
Thus, the very course of life more and more urgently and steadily puts forward organizational tasks in a new form - not as specialized and partial, but as integral. And now humanity is experiencing an intermediate, transitional era: it is not yet able to take on the direct solution of universal problems, but the partial ones that are accessible to it, it poses and solves on an ever wider scale, compared to the previous one - a truly grandiose scale.
In practice, this process is expressed in the colossal growth of enterprises, on the one hand, and class organizations, on the other. Of the mass of individual enterprises, the largest ones turn out to be the most stable among the general social imbalance; they absorb other businesses and expand even further. The shareholder system and then syndicates and trusts continue this trend much further. There are enterprises with hundreds of thousands of workers and employees, such as the Krupp joint-stock factories or the American steel, oil and other trusts - enterprises, each of which covers an entire industry of a huge country or even several such industries, previously separate ones. Organizations of different social classes - political, cultural and others - are developing even faster, partly already leaving state-national boundaries and becoming international, global.
But since the disorganization of the social system as a whole nevertheless remains, the fundamental imbalance that oppresses it also remains, with all its consequences: and they continue to worsen due to the accelerating growth and complexity of the social process. The idea of the need to transition to its integral organization is gradually gaining ground in the consciousness of thinking elements, especially economists, sociologists and politicians, and not just one, as it was before, but the most diverse social classes. Their radical divergence in terms of interests, aspirations and understanding of the paths of social progress remains in full force: some believe that only financial and industrial capital, which has already created cartels and trusts, can implement a general social organization; others assign this role to the state with the intelligentsia - bureaucratic, scientific and vocational; still others find such strength in the developing organization of the working class. We do not need to examine at this moment which views are more correct. It is enough to take what they have in common, and, based on this, determine the size and nature of the organizational task facing humanity: they do not depend on which social force will bear the brunt of this task.
It is easy to see how the new problem is incommensurate with all that have been posed and solved so far. The entire amount of labor society - tens and hundreds of millions of diversely differentiated units - will have to be harmoniously linked into one collective and accurately coordinated with all available the sum of the means of production– the totality of things at the disposal of society; Moreover, in accordance with this gigantic system there should be sum of ideas, dominant in the social environment, otherwise the whole would turn out to be unstable, mechanical unity would turn into internal struggle. This triune organization - things, people and ideas - obviously cannot be built except on the basis of strict scientific planning, namely, all the organizational experience accumulated by humanity. But it is also clear that in its current form, fragmented, torn into special sciences, it is insufficient for this. It is necessary that it itself be organized holistically and harmoniously, otherwise its application cannot go beyond fractional, partial tasks. Therefore, it is necessary universal organizational science.
It would be the greatest, truly childish naivety to think that a unified social and labor system can be organized in an ordinary empirical way, similar to how most people now organize their private economy, or through a simple conspiracy, parliamentary discussion and decision, etc. meanwhile, this is still a fairly common idea. Of the three aspects or aspects of social activity, the organization of things according to their very object is undoubtedly characterized by the least complexity; and, however, would the technology of machine production be conceivable without the exact special sciences? When it comes to organizing two other, much more complex aspects of the social process, and about their simultaneous coordination and mutual adaptation, all three, then the need for a science that embraces them all together and in parallel becomes clearly indisputable.
But such a science cannot arise immediately, without historical preparation: organizational experience develops continuously, its new forms emerge sequentially, step by step. It would be completely fruitless to talk about a universal organizational science if reality itself did not provide its elements, if a living, real tendency towards its emergence was not revealed.
Since then, the course of things has clearly posed for everyone the organizational tasks of humanity on a global scale and revealed the powerlessness of old points of view, old ways of thinking in relation to them. Humanity needs fundamentally new point of view, new way of thinking. But they appear in history only when something develops new organization of the whole society, or a new social class emerges. In the 19th century It is precisely this class that has emerged – the industrial proletariat.
In his life relationships, in the environment of his work and struggle, there were conditions that gave rise to a way of thinking that did not exist, a point of view that was lacking. It took time for it to develop, for it to be realized and expressed. But now it is clear enough, and its basics are obvious.
The obstacle to the development of monistic scientific-organizational thinking was specialization and anarchic fragmentation of the labor system. The proletariat of machine production, in the main and constant conditions of its social life, had a starting point for overcoming the spirit of specialization, the spirit of anarchy.
As machines improved, the role of the worker changed its character. The deepest separation within the framework of cooperation was that which separated the organizer from the performer, mental effort from physical effort. In scientific technology, worker labor combines both types. The organizer's job is management and control over the performer; performer's work - physical impact to objects of labor. In machine production, the activity of the worker is management and control over the “iron slave” - the machine - by physical impact at her. The elements of labor power here are also those that were previously required only for the organizational function - technical awareness, consideration, initiative when the normal course of business is disrupted; and those that characterized the executive function - dexterity, speed, skill of movements. This combination of types is very weakly expressed at the very beginning of the development of machine technology, when the worker is a living appendage of the machine, making up for its rough, simple movements with the mechanical dexterity of his hands. The combination of types becomes sharper and more definite as the machine improves and becomes more complex, approaching more and more the type of “automatic”, self-acting mechanism, in which the essence of the work is live control, proactive intervention, and constantly active attention. The combination will be completed when an even higher form of machines is developed - self-regulating mechanisms. This, of course, is a matter for the future; but even now the unifying tendency appears sharply enough to paralyze in the worker’s thinking the influence of the previous gap between “mental” and “physical” labor.
Another division of workers - their technical specialization - is also being overcome step by step. "The psychological content of various labor processes becomes more and more homogeneous: specialization is transferred to the machine, to the working tool; and as for the differences in the experience and experiences of the workers themselves, dealing with different machines, these differences are increasingly decreasing, and with higher technology they become practically insignificant compared to the amount of similar experience, identical experiences that are included in the content of work - observation, control, control of the machine. In this case, specialization, in fact, is not destroyed - branches of production do not actually mix with each other, each has its own technology - namely overcome, loses its harmful sides, ceases to be a network of partitions between people, ceases to narrow their horizons and limit their communication, their mutual understanding.”
As for the social anarchy, competition, and struggle of man against man that arose from the division of labor, this too, as the working class develops, loses its dividing influence on it, because in its midst it is actually eliminated. The comradeship in work, the community of interests in relation to capital give rise to the unity of the proletariat into various class organizations, which step by step, with hesitations, but inevitably lead it to unification into a world collective.
The working class carries out the task of organizing things in its work, organizing its collective human forces in its social struggle. He has to combine the experience of both areas into his own special ideology - the organization of ideas.
Thus, life itself makes him an organizer of the universal type, and the all-organizational point of view a natural and even necessary tendency for him.
This is reflected in how easily a specialist worker frees himself from the guild prejudices of the profession, and in how greedily advanced proletarians strive for encyclopedic knowledge, rather than highly specialized ones, and in how willingly they assimilate the most monistic ideas and theories in all areas . But this does not mean that a new point of view, appearing in a mass of private manifestations, could, in all its gigantic scope, be easily and quickly realized and take full shape. The industrial proletariat itself is only gradually emerging into a new social type, being re-educated by the power of life relations into which it found itself relatively recently. Ideology is generally the most conservative side of social nature; developing a new way of life, a new worldview, a new culture is the most difficult task in the life of a class.
The great social crisis of recent years should be the most powerful impetus for the awareness and formulation of an all-organizational point of view. Both parts of the crisis World War and came out of it world revolution– are leading the working class in this direction in various ways.
The World War itself was the greatest organizational school, caused an unprecedented strain in the organizational abilities of every individual, every team that directly or indirectly participated in it, and gave them an unprecedented richness of organizational experience. This experience is distinguished by its exceptionally strict formulation of the problem, which must be solved at all costs or perish, and comprehensiveness tasks. The unity of organizational point of view is imposed with the greatest force and creates an urgent need for unity of organizational methods.
The war was the first phase of a great organizational crisis; it caused the second phase - the revolution. The revolution not only forced the working class to organize its forces hastily and intensely, it put it in an unprecedented position: at least in some countries, it forced it to take control of the organization public life in its entirety. This situation, whether temporary or final, changed the scale of the organizational task for the working class from limited to universal. The sharper the contradiction between the nature of the task and the lack of formalization of organizational experience, its skills and methods among the working class, the brighter the need to formalize all this, the more pressing the need for general organizational science.
This is how all the vital prerequisites for this science were created. Humanity has walked a long and difficult path towards it. It is a universal science in the highest and most full meaning this word.
Its idea was excluded for the old classes by the fragmentation of their existence, the fragmentation and one-sidedness of their experience. When the forces of history put forward a new class in a new, unifying position, then the time had come for this idea to be put into practice, where it would become the forerunner and a powerful tool for the real organization of humanity into a single collective.
Speech is essentially also an organizational process. Through it, the practice of people is organized, goals and means of achieving them are established.
Everyday experience is preserved for more complex forms- in folk wisdom: in proverbs, fables, fairy tales. Many of them are expressions of the laws and principles of organization theory. Let's remember the proverbs. Where it's subtle, that's where it lies. Strike while the iron is hot (that is, use favorable conditions). Parable about twigs (one twig is easier to break than a broom).
The specialization of human experience into different sciences has led to the specialization of methods, terms and designations. Nevertheless, here too the unity of organizational processes can be traced. In technology - produce a product, build a bridge. In physics, discover a law (element). To make a dress.
All these are special designations of one fundamental concept. In addition, it is common for science to transfer methods from one area to another. For example, the use of explosives in military affairs is to transfer them to an internal combustion engine.
Thus, there is a unity of organizational experience.
Among modern approaches to organization, the following areas can be distinguished:
1. The school of decision-making places emphasis on management decision(as a criterion for management effectiveness), in contrast to the influence of motivation and the human factor in other areas.
2. The systems approach originated in the middle. 70s 20th century This approach considers all phenomena and processes in an organization in the form of integral systems that have new properties that are not inherent to them. separate elements. Systems research occurs at the social, open, and socio-technical system level.
3. The situational approach (probabilistic) appeared in the late 60s. This approach considers the concept of a situation - this is a specific set of circumstances, as well as uncertainty (probability). According to this approach, there is no best in management, only the right decision. Rather, this concept is a way of thinking that requires optimal solution with initial factors.
4. Organizational development approach (Wendell French, Cecil Bell). Effective management determined by the ability to learn intensively and continuously in a changing environment. This is where the concept of a self-learning organization arose.
As an organization develops, a certain resistance to change arises. This phenomenon is caused, in particular, by the principle of organizational inertia.
The classification of organizational development models was first developed by Gouldner, who used rational (determined by the implementation of the project) and natural (as an evolutionary socio-cultural process) models. M. Hannon and J. Friedman identified a selection model of organizational development (selection natural selection), balance (adaptation and balance with external environment) and random (development as a result of the action of weakly controllable factors).
Now let's look at some modern models of organizational development that exist in theory:
— Innovative approach — focuses on innovation, that is, the introduction of qualitatively new changes into the organization — innovations.
— The population perspective describes organizational development as a process driven by environmental pressures, but occurring at the level of an organizational population rather than an individual organization.
— The theory of resource dependence says that an organization as a system dependent on other organizations in the external environment is capable of reducing environmental uncertainty and dependence on it as a result of targeted, conscious policies.
— The theory of random transformations is a modern irrational model of changes in an organization. A change in structure is not the result of the implementation of a project or strategy, but appears as an accident, the result of uncoordinated actions of individuals and the influence of factors.
Of course, A. Bogdanov, the bulk of whose works dated back to the first quarter of the 20th century, had a huge influence on the development of organizational science. He can rightfully be considered the founder of modern organization theory.
In his book “Tectology. General organizational science" all natural phenomena, including human activity, are studied from an organizational point of view. The world, according to the scientist, is a continuous movement that consists of organization and disorganization.
At the same time, the tectological (external) boundaries of the enterprise do not coincide with the internal ones.
Somewhat later, I. I. Prigogine develops the theory of self-organization and the theory of nonequilibrium as a source of order (1979). In the 20th century, the theory of cycles was developed (N. Kondratiev, A. Chizhevsky).
From all of the above we can draw a conclusion. Different theories and schools of thought in management provide different interpretations and approaches to the concept and role of organization and organizational experience. But all of them are special cases of the concept of “organizational experience” as an object (the ordered state of the elements of the whole) and as a process (by their ordering into a purposeful unity).
Conclusion People have been accumulating, systematizing and storing their organizational experience since prehistoric times, ever since forms of group behavior were recognized.
The behests of the ancestors were passed on from generation to generation. In them, organizational experience was concentrated in the form of customs or rules relating to the practices and behavior of people. Everything was regulated by these rules: family relationships, organization of the community and the work of its members, technical methods of building houses, making tools and household items, cooking, rituals, worldview and worldview.
The accumulation of experience occurred spontaneously, without any connection or consistency. In the books of different peoples one can often see a conglomeration of the most heterogeneous elements: cultural rules, hygiene, legal and technical, economic customs and political doctrines.
Any theory has its own object, subject of research and system of research methods. The object of the theory of organization is organizational experience: it covers the material of all sciences and all life practice from which they arose, studying and generalizing methods, ways of organizing nature and human activity, establishing patterns and trends in their development.
In the presented work, we examined the concepts of organization and organizational experience. So, by organization we accepted a certain arrangement, combination, unification of something or someone into one whole; bringing into a harmonious system. By organizational experience we mean the entire experience of humanity, taken from an organizational point of view.
We examined the essence and laws of organization and the organizational process.
The second chapter of this work describes the beginning of the formation of organizational thought and the development of organization theory. We touched on the concept of “organization paradigm”.
We looked at how organizational experience is concentrated over time, how experience is accumulated..
The paper presents modern approaches to organization and organizational experience as the object of our research.
Humanity stores and systematizes its experience in the form of established rules, traditions, and established customs. Such experience in the scientific world is commonly understood as “organizational experience.”
Any human activity can be considered as some material of organizational experience and studied from an organizational point of view. Thus, we can consider any human activity from an organizational point of view.
Aron R. Stages of development of sociological thought / General editor. and preface P.S. Gurevich. - M.: Publishing group "Progress" - "Politics", 1992.
Artashes Ghazaryan. Manager and organization. - Mann, Ivanov and Ferber.; 2011. - p. 336.
Bandurovsky K. V. Problems of ethics in the “Summa Theology” of Thomas Aquinas // Questions of Philosophy. - 1997. - No. 9. - pp. 156-162.
Bogdanov A. A. General organizational science. Tectology - M., 1993. book 1.- p. 127.
Borodai T. Yu. The question of the eternity of the world and the attempt to solve it by Thomas Aquinas // Intellectual traditions of antiquity and the Middle Ages (Research and translations). - M.: Krug, 2010. - P. 107−121.
Burkov V.N., Korgin N.A., Novikov D.A. Introduction to the theory of management of organizational systems. - M.: Librocom, 2009. - p. 264.
Vasiliev V. A. Confucius on virtue // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2006. No. 6. P. 132−146.
Gouldner A. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2003. - 575 p.
Kravchenko E. I. Max Weber. - M.: Ves Mir, 2002. - p. 224.
Kravchenko, A. I. Classics of management sociology: F. Taylor, A. Gastev. St. Petersburg, 1998.
Lewis J. Marxist criticism of the sociological concepts of Max Weber. - M., 1981.
Novikov D. A. Introduction to the theory of management of educational systems. - M.: Egves, 2009. - 156 p.
Olkhova L. A., Koshelev A. N., Ivannikova N. N. - M.: Equilibrium: Scientific book, 2004 .- 1 electron. wholesale disk (CD-ROM).
Plato. Collected works in 4 volumes, Volume 1. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Publishing House; "Oleg Abyshko Publishing House", 2006 - ISBN 5−89 740−158−6
Sitarov V. A., Smirnov A. I. Culture of entrepreneurship: theory and practice. - Moscow-Vologda: Polygraphist LLC, 2006 - p. 192.
Sun Tzu. Treatise on the art of war. Per. from other China Shaban V. A. - S.-Pb. almanac "F2", 2008.
Organization theory: Tutorial. / Dronenko D. M. Volgograd.state. tech. univ. - Volgograd, 2004. - p. 59.
A. A. Bogdanov. General organizational science (tektology). Digital library. http://www.modernlib.ru.
A.A. Bogdanov. General organizational science. Tectology - M., 1993. book 1.- p. 127.
A.A. Bogdanov. General organizational science. Tectology - M., 1993. book 1.- p. 49.
Olkhova, L. A. Management [Electronic resource]: business manual / Olkhova L. A., Koshelev A. N., Ivannikova N. N. - M.: Equilibrium: Scientific book, 2004 .- 1 electron. wholesale disk (CD-ROM).
Text in your own words. See: Sitarov V. A., Smirnov A. I. Entrepreneurship culture: theory and practice. - Moscow-Vologda: Polygraphist LLC, 2006 - 192 p.
Electronic version of the article: Paradigm in linguistics and language theory // Horizons of modern linguistics: Traditions and innovation: Collection. in honor of E. S. Kubryakova. / Rep. ed. N.K. Ryabtseva. - M.: Languages of Slavic Cultures, 2009. - (Studia philologica). — P. 27 — 37.
Introduction1. Human experience in organization theory
2. Organizational experience as an object of research ConclusionList of references
Bibliography
1.Aron R. Stages of development of sociological thought / General ed. and preface P.S. Gurevich. - M.: Publishing group "Progress" - "Politics", 1992.
2.Artashes Ghazaryan. Manager and organization. - Mann, Ivanov and Ferber.; 2011. - p. 336.
3.Bandurovsky K.V. Problems of ethics in the “Summa Theology” of Thomas Aquinas // Questions of Philosophy. - 1997. - No. 9. - pp. 156-162.
4. Bogdanov A. A. General organizational science. Tectology - M., 1993. book 1.- p. 127.
5. Borodai T. Yu. The question of the eternity of the world and the attempt to solve it by Thomas Aquinas // Intellectual traditions of antiquity and the Middle Ages (Research and translations). - M.: Krug, 2010. - P. 107−121.
6. Burkov V. N., Korgin N. A., Novikov D. A. Introduction to the theory of management of organizational systems. - M.: Librocom, 2009. - p. 264.
7. Vasiliev V. A. Confucius on virtue // Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2006. No. 6. P. 132−146.
8. Gouldner A. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2003. - 575 p.
9. Kravchenko E. I. Max Weber. - M.: Ves Mir, 2002. - p. 224.
10. Kravchenko, A. I. Classics of sociology of management: F. Taylor, A. Gastev. St. Petersburg, 1998.
11.Lewis J. Marxist criticism of the sociological concepts of Max Weber. - M., 1981.
12. Novikov D. A. Introduction to the theory of management of educational systems. - M.: Egves, 2009. - 156 p.
13. Olkhova L. A., Koshelev A. N., Ivannikova N. N. - M.: Equilibrium: Scientific book, 2004 .- 1 electron. wholesale disk (CD-ROM).
14.Plato. Collected works in 4 volumes, Volume 1. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Publishing House; "Oleg Abyshko Publishing House", 2006 - ISBN 5−89 740−158−6
15. Sitarov V. A., Smirnov A. I. Culture of entrepreneurship: theory and practice. - Moscow-Vologda: Polygraphist LLC, 2006 - p. 192.
Main merit Russian researchers - development of fundamental methodological problems of organization theory. One of the outstanding scientists who made the most significant contribution to the development of organizational science is A.A. Bogdanov (Malinovsky)
Share your work on social networks
If this work does not suit you, at the bottom of the page there is a list of similar works. You can also use the search button
Tectology by A. Bogdanov.
Synergetics
- General organizational science (tektology of A. Bogdanov and his contribution to the formation of systemic concepts)
- Merits of A.A. Bogdanov in the development of organizational science
1.2 A.A. Bogdanov and his tectology
- Praxeology of T. Kotarbinsky
Literature
1.1 Merits of A.A. Bogdanov in the development of organizational science
The main merit of Russian researchers is the development of fundamental methodological problems of organization theory. One of the outstanding scientists who made the most significant contribution to the development of organizational science is A.A. Bogdanov (Malinovsky) (1873 - 1928). He presented the acquired and logically constructed knowledge on these problems in the fundamental work “Tectology. General organizational science.” Bogdanov’s tectology is a general theory of organization and disorganization, the science of universal types and patterns of structural transformation of any systems, a science that unites the organizational experience of mankind, a theory of organizational systems that studies each of them from the point of view of the relationships between its parts, as well as the relationships of the system as a whole whole with the external environment. According to A. Bogdanov, the subject of organizational science should be general organizational principles and laws, in accordance with which organizational processes take place in all spheres of the organic and inorganic world, in the work of spontaneous forces and the conscious activity of people. They operate in technology (organization of things), economics (organization of people), ideology (organization of ideas).
Analyzing the essence of the organization, A. Bogdanov expressed the idea of the need for a systematic approach to its study, characterized the relationship between the system and its elements, showing that the organizational whole is greater than the simple sum of its parts.
A.A. Bogdanov identified and formulated two leading laws. Formulation first law , according to A.A. Bogdanov, reflects organizational and disorganization experience and states: “... if a system consists of parts of higher and lower organization, then its relationship to the environment is determined by the lower organization. For example, the strength of a chain is determined by the weakest link, speed squadron - the least fast of its ships, etc. According to this law, the expansion of the economic whole depends on its most lagging part.” This law, according to A. Bogdanov, applies to all systems: physical, biological, mental, socio-economic, political.
Considering organization to be the essence of living and inanimate nature, Bogdanov ultimately reduced any activity to organizational activity. In his opinion, humanity has no other activity other than organizational activity, no other tasks, no other points of view on life and the world other than organizational ones.
Bogdanov considers disorganizational activity to be a special case of organizational activity. “If society, classes, groups collide destructively, disorganizing each other, it is precisely because each such collective strives to organize the world and humanity for itself, in its own way. This is the result of the separateness, isolation of organizing forces , is the result of the fact that their unity, their common, harmonious organization has not yet been achieved. This is a struggle of organizational forms.”
Human organizational activity, no matter what area it is carried out, always consists, according to A. Bogdanov, in the connection and separation of any finite elements. “Thus, the labor process comes down to the connection of different materials, tools and labor and to the separation different parts of these complexes, resulting in an organized whole - a product.”
Second Law Bogdanov called the law of divergence. Complexes (systems) diverge and differ from each other due to primary heterogeneity (initial difference), environmental differences and under the influence of initial changes.
In life, the law of divergence plays an important, guiding role. He points out that, firstly, in the relationships and interconnections between systems in most cases there are various contradictions, secondly, behind any diversity one must see the comparative uniformity from which it came, from the complex to ascend to the simpler, in- thirdly, the resulting parts will have progressive differences; fourthly, these differences will be aimed at creating additional connections that stabilize the system. Another conclusion suggests itself: if additional connections are broken through intervention in the system, the system will disintegrate. An essential feature of the law of divergence is its irreversibility, i.e. if you somehow connect the parts into a single whole, you will get a new systemic formation that has character traits, different from the organizational features of the system existing before the divergence.
- A.A. Bogdanov and his tectology
Contribution of A.A. Bogdanov to the development of organizational science
Bogdanov (real name Malinovsky) Alexander Alexandrovich (1873-1928) Russian philosopher, economist, political figure, publicist, natural scientist, doctor by training. In 1896 he joined the Social Democratic Party. In 1903 he joined the Bolsheviks, although even then his disagreements with V.I. Lenin began on a number of fundamental issues. During the years of reaction, one of the leaders of the otzovists-ultimatumists. In 1909, he was expelled from the Bolshevik party for factional activities. After October revolution 1917 withdrew from direct political activity. He lectured on economics at Moscow University. In 1918, he headed the cultural and educational organization Proletkult. Since 1921, he switched to research work. In 1926 he became the organizer and director of the Institute of Blood Transfusion; died while experimenting on himself. The ideas of tectology were not accepted during his lifetime and later.
In the field of philosophy, Bogdanov went through a complex and extremely contradictory path - from a spontaneous materialist, natural-historical materialist to an opponent of materialist dialectics, he tried to replace the Marxist doctrine of the struggle of opposites with the theory of equilibrium, which denied the inevitability of internal contradictions and depicted contradiction only as a struggle of external oppositely directed forces . According to equilibrium theory driving force The development of society is not the class struggle, but the relationship of people with nature, with the natural environment.
Since 1906, Bogdanov worked on his main work, “General Organizational Science. Tectology.” The purpose of tectology is to give an idea of the forms and types of any organizations, because the whole world, according to Bogdanov, is one or another organization of experience. Truth, according to Bogdanov, is not a reflection of objects and phenomena of the external world, but an organizing form of collective experience. In his theory of knowledge, Bogdanov included the “substitution” of collective experience in place of individual experience and the “adaptation” of consciousness to existence. In “Tectology” Bogdanov expressed a number of ideas (about the study of systems, modeling, feedback etc.), later developed in cybernetics and general systems theory. Modern literature emphasizes that Bogdanov was a pioneer of the systems approach and anticipated the most important ideas of cybernetics 20 years before the publication of the famous book by N. Wiener (1948).
Although the formation of the concept of “system” in science, associated with the general theory of systems, dates back to the second half of the 20th century, the origin of these ideas occurred at its beginning. One of the first attempts at a broad systemic and organizational vision of the world book by A.A. Bogdanov “Universal organizational science. Tectology" (1912-1917), on which he worked for 20 years and which he considered the main work of his life.
Tectology A.A. Bogdanov can rightly be considered the historical basis of modern organization theory. A.A. Bogdanov (Malinovsky) (1873-1928) put forward the idea of creating a science of general principles organization tectology, thereby anticipating some of the provisions of cybernetics. The first volume was published in 1912, in St. Petersburg, it remained misunderstood by the scientific community and was not in demand by economists, politicians, or philosophers. The second volume was published in 1917 In the preface to it A.A. Bogdanov writes: “The historical urgency of the task at hand seemed to me sufficiently clear, and its grandeur was capable of attracting the most active and courageous minds. But soon a world war broke out. At the first blows of the gigantic crisis, I, of course, realized that the fulfillment of my hope had been postponed by life, that no one cared anymore.” But then, as you know, there was a revolution in Russia, and then criticism and misunderstanding of his ideas. Insisting on the universality of the system-organizational approach, Bogdanov unwittingly turned out to be an opponent of Marxian dialectics. For these “philosophical wanderings” V.I. Lenin sharply criticized him in his book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.” Unfortunately, this historical circumstance, as well as the incompatibility of the totalitarian-communist regime of the Soviet period with the scientific foundations of the organization of society and the economy, seriously influenced the timely perception of A.A.’s ideas. Bogdanov in the 20th century.
Bogdanov’s concept is a striking example of the emerging systems thinking of the beginning of the last century, an approach to general science organizations. Considering organization to be the essence of living and inanimate nature, he ultimately reduced any human activity to organizational activity. The subject of organizational science, according to Bogdanov, should be general organizational principles and laws that operate in technical systems (organization of “things”), in economic (organization of ideas) and public (organization of people). Bogdanov’s concept is not limited to searches in one area or the universalization of one principle, but creates tectological models various types and forms of organization, schemes applicable to any objects and processes, regardless of their material basis. Tektology describes any complex from the point of view of its organization. Bogdanov is interested not so much in the functioning of the complex as in the principles of constructing an expedient unity and organization. He writes: “We will call the general organizational science tektology. Literally translated from Greek it means “the study of construction. Construction” the broadest, most suitable synonym for the modern concept of “organization.” Tektology should scientifically systematize the overall organizational experience of mankind.” Bogdanov considers any activity—technical, social, cognitive, cultural—as some material of organizational experience. The area of organizational experience coincides with the area of experience in general. “Organizational experience is all our experience taken from an organizational point of view, i.e. as a world of organizing and disorganizing processes.” In this work, he does not use the term “system”, believing that the concepts of “complex” and “element” are more suitable for the tasks of tectology. Discussing the term “organization”, Bogdanov says that it is used as a rule , in relation to human activity, when it comes to people, their work or efforts: organize an enterprise, army, company, defense, attack, research, i.e. group people around a goal, coordinate and regulate their actions in the spirit of expedient unity. But the task of tectology is broader. “It is easy to see how incommensurate the new problem is with all those that have been posed and solved so far... This triune organization of things, people and ideas obviously cannot be built otherwise than on the basis of a strict scientific plan, namely: everything organizational experience accumulated by humanity. But it is also clear that in its current form, fragmented, torn into special sciences, it is insufficient for this... Therefore, a universal organizational science is necessary.”
Bogdanov’s “organizational point of view” implies the study of a system both from the point of view of “the relationships within it and between all its parts” and the relationships between it “as a whole and its environment”, i.e. everyone external systems. This means that he views any organization as an open system. On the other hand, he is the first to explain the mechanism of development of any complex complex (system), thereby being far ahead of N. Wiener and G. Spencer.
Bogdanov’s entire work is a study of two universal organizational principles: “the formative principle of ingression and the regulating principle of world selection.” The task of the ingression method is to explore the possibilities of elements entering a complex or one complex into another (ingression) and to study the intermediate links required for the construction of complexes. The connection of complexes is the main mechanism of tectology, it is called the biological term conjugation. Systems are ingressive, if they consist of complexes united by a ligament. Along with the connection of complexes, there is their constant separation and the formation of “new compartments”, which means new boundaries. He calls this process disingression. Thus, the most important task of tectology is the optimal selection of elements of the complex and the “possibilities of their connection.”
- Bogdanov's laws that predetermine the functioning and development of organizational systems
Analyzing the essence of the organization, A. Bogdanov, long before the founders of the systems approach (A. Optner, L. von Bertalanffy), expressed the idea of the need for a systems approach to its study, characterized the relationship between the whole (system) and elements (parts), showed that the organizational whole is not a simple sum of its parts .If one person clears 1 tithe of a field from stones a day, then two together - 2Vi-21/z tithes, and with three or four workers the relationship may turn out to be even more favorable! so up to a certain limit. Of course, a situation cannot be ruled out when two, three or four workers doing work together will do less than working separately. This depends on the way these forces are combined (“personal activities”). In one case, we can talk about “organization” in another - about “disorganized”.
“An organized whole is, in fact, practically greater than the simple sum of its parts, not because new activities were created in it out of nothing, but because its existing activities are combined more successfully than the resistances opposing them. Our world is generally a world of differences.” So these and other reasoning led A.A. Bogdanov to substantiate one of the basic laws of organization - the law of synergy.
Another general law of organizational science was formulated by A. Bogdanov as the “law of least”, by virtue of which the strength of the chain is determined by the weakest of its links: the speed of the squadron is determined by the least high-speed of its ships, yield is determined by the conditions of fertility that are available in relatively small quantities and etc.
From the law of least A.A. Bogdanov deduced a number of consequences that actually received the status of laws of organization: the law of dynamic equilibrium, the law of composition - proportionality. The stability of the equilibrium of all organizational forms, according to Bogdanov, is determined and limited by the “strength” of the weakest link, which is of particular importance for ensuring proportionality and balance of various aspects , spheres of human activity (including education, vocational training, etc.).
Distinguishing between balanced and unbalanced systems, A.A. Bogdanov considers the equilibrium state of the system not as a once and for all given, but as a dynamic equilibrium. A system that is in equilibrium, in the process of development, gradually loses this quality and experiences this state as a “crisis”, and overcoming it, it comes to a new equilibrium at a new level of its development. “Conservation is only the result of the fact that each of the emerging changes is immediately balanced by another, its opposite - it is a moving equilibrium of changes.”
This principle of mobile equilibrium is universal. Whether we are talking about creation or liquidation, merger or division, consolidation or disaggregation of various structural units from a single enterprise to complex organized systems of large size (sectors of the economy, departments, territorial units, states, etc.). All these processes are described in the most generalized and abstract form by Bogdanov in the terms he proposed: conjugation, ingression, disingression, degression, egression, etc.
Considering organization to be the essence of living and inanimate nature, A. Brgdanov ultimately reduced any activity to organizational activity. In his opinion, humanity has no other activity other than organizational, no other tasks, no other points of view on life and the world other than organizational ones. Organizational activity of a person, no matter in what sphere it is carried out, consists, according to A. Bogdanov, in the connection and separation of any existing elements. Thus, the labor process comes down to the connection of different materials, tools and labor and to the separation of different parts of these complexes, resulting in an organized whole - a “product “Along with the connection of complexes, there also occurs a separation, “disintegration” of the conjugated system, the formation of new units, new “boundaries”, i.e. e. disingression, disorganization.
Disorganizational activity is a special case of organizational activity. “If society, classes, groups collide destructively, disorganizing each other, it is precisely because each collective strives to organize the world and humanity for itself, in its own way. This is the result of the separateness, isolation of the organizing forces, the result of the fact that their unity, their common harmonious organization has not yet been achieved. This is a struggle of organizational forms.”
Considering the issues of changing organizational forms, A. Bogdanov identifies in a system consisting of individual parts, “system differentiation” of elements and the corresponding “system divergence”. Since the parts of the whole are separate, the increase in differences leads to increasingly stable structural relationships. Thus, The law of system development states: “System divergence contains a development tendency directed towards additional connections.”
Changing organizational systems, in addition to systemic divergence, can also be carried out by the method of convergence of forms, as “the result of a similarly directed selection from a similar environment,” which either acts as a “casting mold” or is assimilated. In addition, changing organizational systems can be carried out using a bioregulator (“double regulator”) A. Bogdanov explains the meaning of a bioregulator as such a combination of system complexes in which two complexes mutually regulate each other without interference from the external environment.
A.A. Bogdanov paid great attention to issues of organizational forms, which he considered both centralist (“egression” - concentration of activities) and skeletal (“degression” - fixation of activities). “Degression... is an organizational form of a huge positive value: only it makes possible the highest development of plastic forms, fixing, consolidating their activity, protecting delicate combinations from their rough environment.”
Considering organizational forms, A.A. Bogdanov distinguishes two types of structures: “fused” and “rosary” (from the word “rosary”). “Inaccuracy” is characterized by generally uneven connections in different parts complex or in different directions; the higher the uniformity, the greater the “unity”. The “fused” structure can be compared with the centralist one, and the “beaded” one - with the federal type of structures.
The stability of structures depends on environmental factors: with negative selection, “fused” is more favorable, with positive selection, “beaded”.
Thus, the contribution of A.A. Bogdanov's theory of organization can be defined as follows:
Proved the generality and universality of organizational processes in living and inanimate nature;
Defined the subject of organizational science - the principles and laws of organization, common to all spheres of the organic and inorganic world;
Introduced and substantiated the concepts of “organization” - spontaneous unconscious ordering of processes (inherent in the entire objective world) and “organization” - a conscious, intelligent process of artificial ordering (belongs only to man);
Long before the founders of the systems approach (systems theory), he gave a description of the whole (system) and elements (parts). He showed that the whole is not a simple addition of parts, “... it is necessary to consider each whole in relation to the environment (!) and each part in relation to the whole”;
Formulated a number of general laws and principles of organization and the basic category-conceptual apparatus: the law of least, connection and disconnection, chain connection, the principle of minimum, the principle of feedback (bioregulator), the law of dynamic equilibrium, the law of compositions - proportionality, the principle of differentiation and integration, the law of synergy , the law of structural transformations, the selection mechanism in social and economic systems.
The global idea of tectology “everything is an organization”, and the laws of organization are the same for any objects; this frightens the author himself; he is fully aware of the full responsibility of this step and in the preface to the first volume he writes: “The failure of the attempt, the erroneous formulation of the main questions, the incorrectness of the first decisions could compromise the task itself for a long time, diverting interest from it for years and years.” the attention of those who must work on it. And yet I decided, because I have to start someday. It is possible that others would have done the job better, but we have to wait for these others...” Indeed, his theory did not become a leap in science; it was connected with the prevailing worldview of the era, with its monism, i.e. with the idea of creating a holistic picture of the world. This idea has always been present, the unity of science served and continues to serve as the basis for this. But all the concepts remained only natural-philosophical declarations, without the means of a real scientific analysis of integrity. According to E. Haeckel, “monism is a clear and integral worldview of the latest natural science at the end of the 19th century.” E. Mach spoke about the construction of a “single monistic building” of science, V. Ostwald about a unified energy picture of the world. The idea of tectology “everything is organization, and laws organizations are the same for any objects” embodied in the conclusion that the “organizational point of view” on life and the world is the only possible and universal, and the new science for the first time “creates real world formulas.” Bogdanov failed to create a universal organizational science and derive unified world formulas formulas, but he was the first to pose the problem of the need to study unified organizational principles.
His work became in demand only in the second half of the 20th century. With the emergence of the general theory of systems and cybernetics, this work was remembered, it was often commented on, and the principles and approaches contained in it were used. His works were republished in 1995 at one of the English universities (Norwich) at the conference “Origins and Development of Organizational Theory in Russia” »the main attention was paid to the tectology of A.A. Bogdanov)
