ANDREA PITASI

www.hypercitizen.com

"The Fourth Paradigm" at the XVIII ISA World Congress of Sociology (July 13-19, 2014).

Session: Globalization, Development and Culture

Session date/time: Wednesday, July 16, 2014, 10:30 AM

Room: 419

ANDREA PITASI

THE FOURTH PARADIGM

Redesigning Evolutionary Complex Systems of Organizational Communication

ABSTRACT The paradigm shifts which featured the systemic thinking from the 1980s to the

end of the last century and the very beginning of the 21st lead to some radical

epistemological changes at the crossroads between communication sciences

and sociology. This paper on one side reconstructs the key paradigm shifts in

system theory from the whole /part one (P1) to the system /environment one

(P2) and then to the autopoietic paradigm shift (P3). Kuhnian normality was

rather unlikely in systems theory and still the key global economical,

technological, social challenges of our times required revolutionary shifts. The

other side of this paper is essentially focused on theorizing a fourth paradigm

shift which selects the fragments of the late XX century epistemological debate

turning them in a systematic (in the Mertonian meaning of the term) redesign

of the concept of system itself revealing that design and evolution are two

faces of the same coin.

“In any event, we have changed our own evolution but not ended it”.

(Barash 2008: 25)

“Some increase in plasticity is to be expected […]. It represents the extrapolation of a trend toward variability already apparent in the baboos, chimpanzes and other

cercopithecoids what is really surprising however is the extreme to which it has been carried. Why are human societies this flexible?”

(Wilson, 2000: 548)

1.1. Prologue

The paradigm shifts which featured the systemic thinking from the 1980s to the end of the last century and the very beginning of the 21st lead to some radical epistemological changes at the crossroads between communication sciences and sociology. This paper on one side reconstructs the key paradigm shifts in system theory from the whole/part one (P1) to the system/environment one (P2) and then to the autopoietic paradigm shift (P3). Kuhnian normality was rather unlikely in systems theory and still the key global economical, technological, social challenges of our times required revolutionary shifts. The other side of this paper is essentially focused on theorizing a fourth paradigm shift which selects the fragments of the late XX century epistemological debate turning them in a systematic (in the Mertonian meaning of the term) redesign of the concept of system itself.

1.2. Systems as Immaterial Constellations

Organizations in the 21st century have to increase their ability to manage their viability; the complexity of the social and business environment calls for continuous advances in the fields of communication and knowledge and the management of complexity in order to keep the viability o of the social system. To manage complex organizations, the systemic approach has been pivotal in opening up new lenses and the understandings of the inner dynamics of living systems. In recent times, we have witnessed the growth of the strategic role of communication for the governance and sense making of complex organizations of any kind and the emergence of fluctuating communication flows as a governance with very little control and extremely open to the Heideggerian Gegnet. Starting from the 1980s, a paradigm shift has taken shape in the managerial approach from the whole/part model to the systemic-environment approach and then the autopoietic turning point as a spin off of the system/environment paradigm. This shift has generated the epistemological frame of

the systemic approach to social sciences in the fields of sociology and communication studies.

The social and economic turmoil of our time calls for new paradigms to manage complexity. The systemic approach is open to interdisciplinary contributions that may also provide chances for “Kuhnian” revolutions that can undertake the current evolutionary challenges of complexity. The present global scene offers a wealth of thresholds and bifurcations; when faced with such opportunities, the most tragic and dangerous decision would be to not make any decision.

As outlined by Luhmann “The term complexity is meant to indicate that there are always more possibilities of further experience and action than can be actualized” (1990: 26).

Systems theory (ST) can provide a consensual domain for, among others, the following reasons:

a. It is currently the only field of knowledge which can offer an analytic, deductive system that is unified syntactically and semantically over all the sciences from biology to economics and from mathematics to sociology.

b. It is able to create an interface between science and humanities within the neo-Renaissance perspective of a Third Culture (as theorized by the Edge Foundation, www.edge.com).

c. It is able to decline this analytical, deductive and multidisciplinary system as an evolutionary theory of global society and is able to grasp the flow of communication.

d. The Systems Theory of global society therefore becomes the systems theory of communication flows in global society itself. Global society could be represented as the relationship between an operating system (Globus) and its related software (Mundus).

e. It has an interdisciplinary methodological and technical toolkit that can model and simulate alternative and other possible scenarios (Terna, 2006) to invent viable futures.

f. It is able to develop an embodied mathematics (Lakof & Nunez, 2005) that enhances the application range of science-based and knowledge-intensive policymaking.

Broadly speaking, the systemic approach embodies many different conceptions of “system” deriving from different disciplines and scenarios since the end of the 19th century or even earlier. In the field of systemic sociology, starting from the 1980s, a paradigm shift has emerged from the whole/part1 paradigm to the systemic/environmental one. This shift has generated the epistemological frame of the systemic approach to social sciences in the fields of sociology, management and economics.

1 Conceptualized by Talcott Parsons (1951) and even better by Ervin Laszlo (1998) and the Hungarian school that introduced a higher level of complexity when compared to the rigid variant of Parsons.

From a sociological perspective the paradigm shift is significantly represented by the evolution of systemic thinking from Parsons to Luhmann; this implies the change from the vision of systemic organizations such as “structures” to that of systemic organizations as communication flows, hence a change of focus from tangible to intangible assets. We define the whole/parts paradigm as “Paradigm 1” (P1), the system/environment paradigm as “Paradigm 2”, its autopoietic variant (P3), and the systemic perspective of “Globus/Mundus” Constellation as “Paradigm 4” (P4).

This essay has been developed at a theoretical level, focusing on reframing the systemic approach for the analysis of complex organizations as intangible portfolios. The shift reframes the concept of system itself by describing two pivotal Turning Points:

1. P1 was based on the idea that a system is basically a structure provided with some key/vital functions2. Despite their differences, Parsons’ and Stafford Beer’s systems in some way consider functions (F) as functional (f) to the system intended as a more or less rigid and homeostatic structure (S); so that F= (f) S. Does the Kuhnian revolution of P2 focused on a key upside down of this perspective so that S=(f) F. A system has, in some way, a structure, but it becomes softer and softer, more and more dematerialized. The power of functional equivalents easily and dramatically reshapes these soft and very flexible structures. An artificial heart works because it is a functional equivalent of the human heart and not because it is shaped and made of the same material of a human heart. The Autopietic P3 variant dramatically emphasized p2 upside down revolution.

2. The P1 idea of system is not complex. Even if the term “complexity” is sometimes used by the P1 thinkers, their conception of system is not complex at all given that they think complexity may be “controlled”, in spite of the fact that by definition complexity cannot be controlled. P1 theories attempt to cope with the chaotic, fuzzy and complex “order from noise” logic of complexity.

Parsons’ (1951) undoubtedly attempts to shape the borders of social order, rules and values though a normal/deviant pattern where normality was the only way to exist for the system. Stafford Beer’s “control system” asserted that a system might organize and structure its relationships with the environment keeping everything under control by controlling the parts and their relations.

Paradigm 4 is the “Globus/Mundus”, that will be discussed below. P4 represents a step forward from P3 and is based on a platform/catalog logic.

Moving from the Viable System Model (VSM) of Stafford Beer (1966; 1969; 1973; 1979) to value constellations of Norman (2001), the paradigm shift in systemic

2 Parsons’ LIGA pattern and Stafford Beer’s Viable Systems are typical examples of this perspective.

science in general has been smoother that in sociology in particular, Sociology dramatically anticipated though Luhmann’s works that a general theory of systemic organization, a general theory of economic/business/religious/political/scientific/legal or of, broadly speaking social systems is nothing more or nothing less than a general theory of communication systems.

Luhmann can be challenged and someway considered obsolete only by those systemic theories and paradigms which empower and radicalize the convergence of organization, business and society into communication. Theories and paradigms which try to “revise “ Luhmann by re-entrying structures, relations an culture are merely cheating as they call something old with a new name pretending it’s a new vision.

Today, the immaterial assets have overcome the material ones and business turns into communication. When we buy a product, we choose it according to its perceived differentiation; perceived differentiation is based, in the large majority of cases, on the judgments of the observer about the intangible, immaterial characteristics (i.e. brand, image, etc.) of the good. Firms’ networks plan and produce products in more than one plant; it is the network of communication and exchange of knowledge that produce them, since the physical plant is a secondary and contingent aspect.

We shall focus on how and why complex organizations need to be considered as value constellations of intangible assets. This implies that 21st century enterprises depend much more than in the past on their portfolio of intangible assets; the value of intangible assets is strongly dependent on communication, that consequently becomes crucial for the existence and viability of the organization.

We shall illustrate the taking over of intangibles in complex organizations considering a structural-cultural conception of organization reconfigured as a constellation created by a continuous flow of memetic re-combinations.

We sketch the shift from P1 to P2 and P3 in social sciences, reframing the evolutionary, chaotic system of the 21st century organizations, in order to propose a fourth paradigm

1.3. Luhmann’s Theory and the Paradigm Shift in Sociology

The increase of connectivity and abstraction has become more and more powerful through the paradigm shift from the whole/part logic (Parsons, 1965; Laszlo, 1998; Mintzberg, 1992) to the system/environment one (Luhmann, 1995; 1997; Normann, 2001). In spite of the Kuhnian revolution, this paradigm shift represented, it took its time and gradually removed obsolete knowledge along a smooth continuum which can be represented as follows: Parsons – Alexander – Laszlo – Stafford Beer – Mintzberg – Normann – Luhmann.

In P1, Ervin Laszlo’s conceptual model of whole/parts is based on substantive integration and synthetic holism, inspired by a logic of interdependence and interconnectivity through which the evolutionary system adapts to the external environment by recombining ideas and thought patterns in a very informative manner, even if sometimes it verges on “less scientific”, “new age” statements.

A great evolutionary leap was achieved with P2, thanks to the monumental work of Niklas Luhmann.

In the system/environment logic of P2 integration is a purely methodological model in terms of functional equivalents. In this sense, P2 is not strictly “holistic”, but rather it aims at a viable and functional unitas multiplex between differences that make a real difference. The evolutionary power of P2 and then of its turning point to P3 is based more on autopoiesis rather than interdependence, more on recursive and self-referential adaptation, rather than adaptation to a presumed external environment. Its organizational logic is software/hardware, therefore devoid of syncretism with a strong contingency of selective encoding and decoding. In P2 the software program is “blind”, therefore the future is “elusive” – it is a horizon that moves away the closer you try to get to it. The paradigm P3 shares with P2 the conceptual, organizational and heterarchical model even if this heterarchy is so nuanced and fragmented as to create mere space-time contingencies, where social change almost always proves an illusion of perspective. The knowledge capability is considered at the technical level of communication and information for self-organization.

That is why he Paradigm 3 is a step forward from P2; it is based on autopoiesis within the system/environment coding while P4 redesigns the system/3enviromnent coding into a platform/catalog logic, an evolution of the system/environment paradigm. Nevertheless, it shares with P2 and P3 the modal reproduction for functional equivalents and the idea of unitas multiplex as well as the hardware/software organization. However, it hypothesizes selective self-referential codes (as in P2 and P3) that are able to understand the differences that make a difference (as in P2 and P3 again), but it does this by tracing the trajectories of great evolutionary bifurcations (as in Laszlo’s variant of P1). In terms of policymaking, P4 presents a reconfiguring evolutionary strategy that reveals how the future is to be neither predicted (as in P1)

nor considered elusive (as in P2), but it is to be seen as an invention for creating models. P4 shares with P2 and P3 the heterarchical organizational model, while the space/time proves to be a platform/catalog paradigm that is active in “zero time of desire”, where if V=R/W, then V is the maximum viability because W is reduced to a minimum. Social change is, therefore, understood primarily as the maximization of V, and the epistemological model is the third culture.

P4 shares with P2 the concept of the horizon of “otherwise possible”, but unlike P2, P4 treats it as a catalog from which different strategic problem-solving solutions can be selected.

V= evolutionary Velocity of the process; R= diffusion of innovation according to Rogers’s model (1956) as adapted by Pitasi (2003); W= Williamson’s Costs.

It is also important to underline the main frame of the theoretical evolution of the shift up to the “Globus/Mundus variant” that characterizes the platform/catalog paradigm, which is evolving from P2 through functional differentiation, in the light of the theory of global society conceptualized by Luhmann (1997).

This conception of systemic science applied to social issues reveals its full-heuristic epistemic power in scenarios where it is clear that “the more radical the renewals are from a scientific-technological viewpoint, the higher the proportion of social knowledge must be if society is – to be put in a position to appropriate them culturally and thus transform them in a way that gives them sense and meaning” (Nowotny, 2008: 134).

In this sense, systemic sociology is the constellation (Normann, 2002) in which social knowledge is generated and evolves. It is also the constellation that prompts Rogers’s complex cycles and accelerates the V in the formula V=R/W. It recombines and reconfigures the boundaries of sense of the social system by activating codes, procedures and programs that select sense (Luhmann, 1990; 1993), considered as a memetic recombinant (Jouxtel, 2010), and enable the system to distinguish between systemic communication (the memetic reconfiguration cycles of V=R/W) and ambient noise.

In essence, a third culture is revealed as the institution qualified to issue “Scientific Citizenship” (Nowotny, 2008) of the Knowledge Based Economy Society in which science and technology cross the border between the present and future by bringing them closer, and the present no longer dominates over a future that has become repetitive, monotonous, dictatorial and eternally present, but rather it is the future that will bring immobility crashing down and thus expand the horizons, which are otherwise possible so that “reality will eventually imitate theory” (cfr Ivi: 114; 132).

After so many futile debates about the limits to growth (associated with a naïve idea of the predictability of the future), systemic sociology argues that there is no limit to systemic evolution (biological, psychological, social, etc.) as “in finding and producing the new, the process between the not-yet and the no longer (which cannot be given precise temporal limits) always points beyond itself” (Nowotny, 2008: 68) and opens to the idea that the future is uncertain and not without risks, yet at the same time full of amazing opportunities that could facilitate ever more complex logics of evolution. This idea of the future is the very best game (Atlan, 1986) from an indefinite recombination of all the memes circulating on the Globus as presented by the Mundus catalog, which demonstrates how memetics functions well as an algorithm of deconditioning (Jouxtel, 2010). In this sense, sociology as a systemic science proves to be a memetic recombinant and reconfigurator of algorithms that

have evolved through differentiation of the autopoietic cycles V=R/W and, therefore, a chaotic “laboratory” for the invention of an ever growing and open range of futures in which memes interact.

1.3. The Systemic Paradigm Shift

1.4.

As we have outlined in the previous paragraphs, the paradigm shifts from P1 to P3 are pivotal to understand global change mostly though communication autopiesis. The most prominent theorist of the system/environment paradigm is Niklas Luhmann, while Richard Normann can be considered as the one who implicitily used a Luhmann-like paradigm for the analysis of the organizational change. Normann’s idea of the firm fits perfectly with Luhmann’s approach in spite of the fact that Normann never quoted Luhmann in his works. The P1 theories describe the systems as (rigid or flexible) structures with a hierarchical configuration (macrosystems, microsystems, subsystems, etc.), and they state that a system interacts with its external environment. The paradigm shift toward the system/environment vision denies both these pillars of the P1.

Theories belonging to P2 and P3 affirm there is no meaningful hierarchy among systems. Each system (educational, economic, juridical, political, scientific, religious, etc.) has its own binary code and its own program to evolve within its semantic-conceptual-logical boundaries (with no physical ones).

As each system has its own code and program to communicate, and the environment does not, the environment is not a system, and thus cannot communicate but merely produce noise. According to this view, the environment is simply a meaningless and noisy world from which each system can selfreferentially select meaningless noise to be turned into meaningful communication. The competence of a system to: observe the variety of noise; select the noise which can be self referentially turned into meaningful communication according to the system’s self referential coding and programming; and stabilize long lasting operative-organizational situations framed within the conceptual status of “contingency” represent the system’s effective power to evolve self referentially and by self reproduction. The system always evolves either by expanding or by imploding. The “boundaries” of this expansion/implosion are not physical.

If for instance we consider the brand value of a firm, we can observe how the increasing value of intangibles leads to dematerialization. In the same way, we can observe the liquefaction of the concept of organized system and structure that turns into a dematerialized intangible. Normann pointed out how high density, conceptual and abstract ideas need to be communicated beyond any kind of border.

Fig. 1. Drivers promoting density – overview (Normann, 2001: 30)

A firm is essentially the intangible networked system which goes through the

cycle, reproducing its self reference through communication which is the shape of meaning and its value constellation is metaphorically better described by the “stock exchange” organizational logic than by the “industrial” and boundary, based on the whole/part paradigm.

Probably the key challenge for systemic sociology is to create a consensual epistemological domain within the Globus/Mundus paradigm (Paradigm 4) for several reasons .

The first reason is that by saying that the physical borders are obsolete doesn’t mean that organizations are obsolete. Stating that organizations are made of “intangible” assets doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Making a parallel with hard sciences, and physics in particular, we can see the origin of this paradigm shift: quantum physics found that the atom is empty; there is no matter inside the matter but just energy, vibrations, etc, depending on the different theories. So if even the material world is made of “intangibles”, there is no reason why a firm cannot be made of intangibles to create value inside a self referential and autopoietic value constellation.

References

Archer M., Essere Umani, Marietti, Genova 2010.

Archer M., Riflessività umana e percorsi di vita, Erickson, Trento, 2009.

Archer M., La conversazione interiore, Erickson, Trento, 2006.

Archer M., La morfogenesi della società, Franco Angeli, Milan, 1997.

Atlan H., Tra il cristallo e il fumo: saggio sull'organizzazione del vivente, Hopefulmonster, Florence, 1986.

Barash D.P., Natural Selections, Bellevue, New York 2008.

Beck U., Cosmopolitan Vision, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK 2006.

Blackmore S., La macchina dei memi, Instar Libri, Turin, 2002.

Cesareo V., Vaccarini I., La libertà responsabile, Vita e Pensiero, Milan, 2006.

Dawkins R., Il gene egoista, Mondadori, Milan, 1976.

Delattre P., Teoria dei sistemi ed epistemologia, Turin, Enaudi, 1984.

Delattre P., Teoria dei sistemi ed epistemologia, Turin, Enaudi, 1984.

Donati P., La matrice teologica della società, Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli, 2010a.

Donati P., Relational Sociology, Routledge, London, 2010b.

Donati P., la società dell’umano, Marietti, Genova, 2009.

Donati P., Oltre il multiculturalismo, Laterza, Roma-­‐ Bari, 2008a.

Donati P., (a cura di), Laicità. La ricerca dell’universale nelle differenze, Il Mulino, Bologna 2008b.

Donati P., La cittadinanza societaria, Laterza, Roma-­‐Bari 1993.

Donati P., La famiglia nella società relazionale, Angeli, Milan, 1987.

Donati P., Teoria relazionale della società, Angeli, Milan, 1991.

Espejo R., Harnden R., The Viable system Model. Interpretations and Applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM, Wiley, 1989.

Ford D. H., Lerner R. M., Developmental Systems Theory: An Integrative Approach, Sage Publications, Usa, 1992.

Galgano F., La globalizzazione nello specchio del diritto, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2005.

Giner S., El futuro del capitalismo, Peninsula, Barcelona, 2010.

Golinelli, G.M., L’Approccio Sistemico al Governo dell’Impresa, Vol. I “L’impresa sistema vitale,” CEDAM, Padova, 2000.

Golinelli G., Viable Systems Approach (VSA). Governing business dynamics, CEDAM, Padova, 2010.

Goudsblom J., Nichilismo e cultura, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1982.

Goudsblom J., Fire and Civilization, Penguin, London 1994.

Harris J., Enhancing Evolution, Princeton University press, Princeton 2007.

Imada T., Self Organization and Society, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2008.

Irti N., Nichilismo Giuridico, Laterza, Roma 2004.

Jouxtel P., Memetica. Il codice genetico della cultura, Bollati Boringhieri editore, Turin, 2010.

Kauffman S.A., Levin S., Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes”, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 128: 11–45, 1987.

Kurzweil R., La singolarità, in Brockman Garzanti, Milan, 2005.

Lakoff G., Nunez R. E., Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being, Basic Books, NY, 2008.

Laszlo E., The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time, Hampton Press, New York, 1996.

Laszlo E., Il pericolo e l’opportunità, Aracne, Roma, 2008a.

Laszlo E., Worldshift, Franco Angeli, Milan, 2008b.

Luhmann N., Essays on Self-Reference, Columbia University Press, New York, 1990.

Luhmann N., Stato di diritto e sistema sociale, Guida, Naples, 1990.

Luhmann N., Social Systems, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1995.

Luhmann N., Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt a. M., 1997.

Luhmann N., Essays on self Reference, Columbia University Press, New York, 1999b.

Luhmann, Soziologische Aufklaerung, WestdeutscherVerlag, Opladen 2010.

Magatti M., Libertà Immaginaria, Feltrinelli, Milan, 2009.

Maturana, R.H., Varela, F.J., Autopoietic systems, BLC Report 9, University of Illinois, 1975.

Maturana H., Varela F., Autopoiesi e cognizione, Marsilio, Padova, 1985.

Maturana H., Varela F., Macchine ed esseri viventi, Astrolabio, Roma 1992.

Maturana H., Autocoscienza e realtà, Cortina, Milan, 1993.

Maturana R.H., Varela F.J., The tree of knowledge, revised edition, Shambala, Boston, 1998.

Mintzberg H., Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Prentice Hall, 1992.

Normann R., Ramirèz R., From Value Chain to Value Constellation: Designing Interactive Strategy, Harvard Business Review, July-August 71(4): 65-77, 1993.

Normann R., Wikstrom S., Mitroff I., Knowledge and Value: A New Perspective on Corporate Transformation, Routledge, London, 1994.

Normann R., Reframing Business: When the Map Changes the Landscape, Wiley, Hoboke, 2001.

Normann R., Ramirez R., Designing Interactive Strategy: From Value Chain to Value Constellation, Wiley, Chichester, 2008.

Nowotny H., Insatiable Curiosity: Innovation in a Fragile Future, Cambridge, USA and London, UK, 2008.

Nowotny H., Testa G., Die glaesenen Gene, Suhrkamp Verlafg, Frankfurt am Main, 2009.

Parsons T., The social System, Free Press, Washington, 1951.

Pitasi A., Le monde hyperhumain. Systèmes juridiques et changement social, L’Harmattan, Paris 2011.

Pitasi A., Teoria dei sistemi e complessità morfogenetica del capitalismo, Aracne, Roma, 2010.

Pitasi A., Ferone E., Il tempo zero del desiderio, McGraw Hill, Milan, 2008a.

Pitasi A., Un seimiliardesimo di umanità, Guerini Scientifica, Milan, 2008c.

Pitasi A., Sfide del nostro tempo, Aracne, Roma, 2007.

Pitasi A., Universi paralleli. Saperi della pubblica amministrazione, cambiamento sociale e stili di vita dei cittadini, Franco Angeli, Milan, 2003.

Rogers E., Diffusion of Innovation, the Free Press, Washington, 1956.

Schelling T. C., La strategia del conflitto, Bruno Mondadori, Milan, 2006.

Schuermann R., Dai principi all’anarchia, Il Mulino, Bologna 1995.

Schumpeter J.A., Capitalismo, socialismo, democrazia, Etas, Milan, 2001.

Schumpeter J.A., Teoria dello sviluppo economico, Etas, Milan, 2002.

Stafford Beer A., Cibernetica e direzione aziendale, Bompiani, Milan, 1969.

Stafford Beer A., L’azienda come sistema cibernetico, ISEDI, Milan, 1973.

Stafford Beer A., Decision and Control, Wiley, Hoboken, 1966.

Stafford Beer A., The Heart of the Enterprise, Wiley, Hoboken, 1979.

Stafford Beer A., Brain of the Firm, The Penguin Press, Usa 1972.

Stafford Beer A., Cybernetics and Management, English University Press, 1967.

Stafford Beer A., Diagnosing the System for Organizations, Wiley, Hoboken, 1985.

Terna P. (ed.), Modelli per la complessità, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2006.

Ubertazzi L.C., La proprietà intelletuale, Giappichelli, Turin, 2011.

Williamson O., L’organizzazione Economica. Imprese, mercati e controllo politico, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1991.

Wilson E.O., Sociobiology-­‐the New Synthesis 25th anniversary edition, The Bellknap press of the Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass, 2000.