At #STSP26 I argued systems practice is a humanism.

At #STSP26 I argued systems practice is a humanism. Join the conversation on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/posts/antlerboy_systems-practice-is-a-humanism-benjamin-activity-7444641345589280768-k8AD?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAACuq-oBecVFDW6PCf3lkoG-peMeuLBeoho

At #STSP26 I argued systems practice is a humanism. Søren Kerndrup made the argument more clearly than I did in his summary:

“advances the claim that systems practice constitutes a form of humanism, drawing on an analogy with Sartre’s Existentialism is a Humanism. Rather than treating models, methods, or tools as primary, it conceptualises systems practice as a normative and epistemic stance that positions humans as agents, not objects of need, and foregrounds relationships as constitutive systemic infrastructure. Central to this stance is the practitioner’s responsibility for boundary judgments, recognising their ethical and practical consequences.
“The argument further conceptualises systems practice as the craft of constructing recursive learning loops within and across individuals and collectives, enabling systems to “know themselves” and thereby enhancing their adaptive capacity. The talk interrogates the categorical separation of citizen and service, showing how it produces deficit oriented logics when framed as “fixer” and “fixed.” In response, it outlines a practical agenda for cross boundary feedback architectures that support co evolutionary learning, relational agency, and forms of system adaptation compatible with ways of living that uphold dignity, humility, and care.”

Thanks!

That matters more than it may sound. In public service, we still slip far too easily into a grammar where the service acts and the citizen is acted upon. The service intervenes. The professional assesses. The case is processed. Need is managed. In that world, the person appears mainly as something to be handled.

But the reality is people interpret, adapt, resist, cooperate, withdraw, cope, invent and learn. They aren’t outside the system, waiting to be processed by it. They are inside the patterns, helping to produce what happens next. If you take that seriously, systems practice becomes less about description and more about participation.

That’s why I put so much weight on learning. The serious work is to help a system notice more, interpret better, and adapt with more honesty.

The challenge is not mainly technical. We know a fair bit about what to do. The harder issue is identity. Managers are asked to be accountable without real visibility, to project certainty under pressure, and to hold control across boundaries they do not in fact control. So it is not surprising that organisations retreat into role, process and performance theatre. This blocks learning in the guise of professionalism.

The question is not whether our systems language is elegant. It is whether our practice helps create ways of working that people could live inside with some dignity, agency and truth.

What, in your own organisation, is currently being translated out of existence so that the system can go on telling itself a simpler story?