A continuing process and method issue in Panetics is how to bring groups with different values and conflicting aims together in ways that will reduce the human suffering that their conflicts engender. At the 1999 Annual Meeting of ISP, Professor John N. Warfield, Director of the Institute for Advanced Study in the Integrative Sciences at George Mason University and a member of ISP's Board of Governors, summarized this report from his colleague, Carol Jeffrey, on the use of the process and methods of Interactive Management to get warring parties in Liberia to agree on ways to achieve disarmament and demobilization in Liberia’s Civil War.This paper summarizes the application of techniques developed by Warfield.

The author sets forth a number of conundrums which must be answered through further research and development before Panetics can be applied broadly to government decision-making on a wider scale.Nonetheless, he offers some reasons why the time may be propitious to introduce the use of panetic analyses into some government decision-making. Examples of situations to which Panetics may be applied. Government institutions where the capability may exist to conduct such analyses. Arenas of decision-making in which Panetic Analysis, in its current state of development, might prove most practicable.

In his 1999 Siu Memorial lecture, Saunders expressed skepticism about ISP's emphasis upon finding ways to quantify suffering.He stated, in part:

"Presidents make policy judgements in a highly complex domestic and international political environment. The variables are countless and the mix is continuously changing.

"Presidents reach those policy judgements primarily through deliberation, not calculation. With one exception, I have never seen a quantified presentation of the human condition play a part in presidential decision-making. Military balances were the exception.

"For more than a century the idea of "scientific objectivity" has dominated our research–the notion that we can only know what can be materially defined and measured and that other kinds of knowledge are "subjective" and therefore to be discounted. Now as we put human beings back onto the stage of our thinking about politics and international relationships, we recognize that there are ways of knowing that grow out of human experience. In fact, many people today recognize that there is a degree of authenticity that comes from personal experience that no scientific experiment or measurement can capture.

"I believe the challenge is not to measure the amount of pain in a given situation, but to enhance the likelihood that policy-makers and the policy-influencing public will respond effectively to it."

He then offers a suggested agenda for panetic research.

In this two-part paper, Striner uses as his "springboard" a critique of Johan Galtung's Siu Memorial Lecture on "Panetics and the Practice of Peace and Development." Listing Galtung's five points in praising Siu's formulations for panetics–

1. Man is the measure of all things.

2. The measure is subjective.

3. The measure is profoundly egalitarian.

4. The measure does not include sukha, bliss, and happiness.

The measure is non-theoretical.

Striner proceeds to differ proundly with Galtung on whether the measurement of suffering could–or even should–be egalatarian. He also differs with both Galtung and Siu on whether a victim's assessment of his or her suffering is, by itself, sufficient.

Ironically, though an economist, Striner also differs with both Siu and Galtung about whether a principal aim of panetics should be the quantification of suffering. He prefers "decisioning--value-based decision-making--and suggests that this is the path which Panetics should tread in the future.

"With the dukkha, we're in a realm of approximations. I want to be assured, not necessarily that the measure is theoretically 'precise,' but that it is sufficiently accurate for the purposes and contexts of use."

Commentary by Herbert Striner, former Dean, Kogod College of Business Administration, American University:

"All social measurements belong to the realm of approximations. Take the Consumer Price index used by economists. The starting point for estimation is the so-called 'market basket' of arbitrarily, albeit judiciously, selected goods. Another is the 'poverty' threshold established by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as being the 'right' summation of a 'proper' combination of considerations. These two judgmental figures have, over the years, assumed the status of 'objective' social indicators."

Session at: Meeting of The International Society for Panetics, Washington, October 14, 1992.

Those who attempt to study the causes and consequences of suffering among humans have much to learn from Jeremy Bentham. The author describes Bentham's efforts to measure pain and suffering.

Boulding explores the parallel methods of cost-benefit analysis and panetics and suggests that the parallels be carefully examined.

The author attempts to examinine possible relationships between dukkhas and wealth. It is obvious that poverty can cause suffering and wealth can alleviate it. Might the dukkha offer a way of expressing this axiom in some quantitative way?

In the course of his analysis, the author raises a number of troubling questions about the application of the dukkha.

Drawing parallels with the evolution of the natural sciences, the author argues that we can take quantified approaches to the management of "social friction".

The author argues that Panetics must pursue a two-track approach toward its development. While it may well continue to explore and apply a quantified approach, the author, though an economist, suggests that a more realistic approach would be values-based. He suggests that other disciplines take such a two-track approach.

Dr. Geelhoed outlines the advantages and limitations of "partist" analysis and trans-disciplinary "wholist" or integrative analysis. Panetics has set out to be an "integrated" discipline in order to avoid the limitations of specialized, narrowly focused analysis.

We don't have to see the whole elephant, as Don Michael argues, to deal with a problem like world poverty.

A Dialogue of Critics discuss Bentham's Utilitarianism and Siu's Panetics.

What is happening to the human race, in the large, is too complex, too interconnected, too dynamic to comprehend, in the large. There is no agreed upon interpretation that provides an enduring basis for coherent action based on an understanding of the enfolding context .

Take any subject that preoccupies us. Attend to all the factors that arguably might seriously affect its current condition, where it might go, and what might be done about it, and how to go about doing so.

If one were attempting to comprehend the factors seriously affecting poverty,for example, one would have to attend to at least technology, environment, greed, crime, drugs, family, media manipulation, education, governments, market economy, information flows, ethics, ideology, personalities and events. All of these infuse any topic that we pay attention to and try to do something about. But we can't attend to all of these (and others) because each has its own realm to be attended to.

ISP President Ralph Widner has suggested that there are at least four big methodological challenges that we face when we apply panetic analysis to complex decision making or instances of human suffering:

(1) The Challenge of Complexity;

(2) The Challenge of Forseeability;

(3) The Challenge of Time Limits; and--

(4) The Challenge of Conflicting Perceptiuons and Values.

Dr. Song provides a "state of the art" summary of current approaches to complexity. Dr. Song’s paper gives us a framework to address both the challenge of complexity and the challenge of conflicting perceptions and values. He focuses much of his attention on the pioneering work of Professor John Warfield, a member of the Board of Governors of the International Society for Panetics.

The ethicist/philosopher Peter Singer, now on the faculty at Princeton University, would agree with that question. Much of Singer's controversial thought is consonant with panetics.

The second "interview" with three great thinkers about whether panetics can become a science.

Robert L. Schwartz has had two professional careers--one as a journalist and publishing executive; the other as an entrepreneur and businessman.

As a journalist, he served for 20 years in various executive roles at TIME, LIFE, HARPER'S and NEW YORK magazines.

As an entrepreneur he created the conference center business in the US. He created the Tarrytown Conference Center. He is now a consultant to multinational corporations.

He wrote this essay in advance of his participation in the Panetics Workshop to chart future initiatives of the Society held August 27-29, 2001.

For many years, John Warfield has been engaged in epistemological analysis of the logic underlying disciplines. In this brief take on economics, he asks for suggestions about to go forward with his crtique and analysis of the mother of social sciences.

To: ISP Board of Governors

From: ISP Executive Committee

Re: Recommended Actions on Members Workshop Proposals

Twelve members of ISP convened in a Workshop August 27-29, 2001 to propose future directions for the Society. They made 13 recommendations.We have examined these recommendations for their feasibility within the Society's resource constraints (both fiscal and human). The Board should decide what its final recommendations to the membership at the Annual Meeting on November 13 should be.

The Workshop proposals are enumerated below with our own comments and recommendations and an assessment of the budget implications.

1. A "That’s Not Right" Column and Video

Workshop proposal: Each quarter a "conjectural" commentary on an important infliction submitted by any author would be selected for publication in the journal, dissemination on the website, and wide distribution to the media. Any submission must describe the infliction, the inflictors, and try to suggest ways to reduce the infliction. Cynthia Overweg suggested that eventually video or film documentaries should also be produced to help reach a still wider audience and increase understanding.

Our recommendation: The Committee has already instigated the journal column in a reformatted October 2001 issue of Panetics and media/Internet distribution of the columns should begin.

Cynthia Overweg should be requested to prepare a more detailed proposal for the videos, including cost estimates, before proceeding with that part of the proposal.

Budget implications: We believe that this proposal can be implemented within the budget usually provided for journal publication.

2. Annual "Call for Papers" Competition

Workshop proposal: Each year, ISP should choose a subject or theme, then issue a "call for papers" with a significant award, an opportunity to present the paper before a prestigious audience, and an opportunity to be published.

Our recommendation: That the proposal be implemented in the following way: A theme or themes for 2002 should be chosen by a special committee appointed by the Chair at the time of the Annual Meeting. A call for papers based on the theme should be issued. Submitted papers will be published in the four issues of the journal over the year. At the end of the year a jury will select a winner to be announced at the Annual ISP meeting. A special trophy or medal will be presented and the paper will be included in the book that results from that year's Siu Lecture and Symposium.

Budget implications: The budget would have to provide for the trophy/medal, the travel and lodging expenses of the winner when he/she comes to the Annual Meeting. Publication costs would be included in the expense budget associated with the Siu Lecture and Symposium. It is necessary to budget an additional $1000 to cover circularizing the "Call for Papers".

3. Siu Awards

Workshop proposal: A series of Siu Awards was proposed--one each year for the journalistic piece deemed to have contributed most to public awareness and understanding of the nature of inflicted suffering or ways to reduce it and a similar award to recognize persons who, through either leadership or civic involvement, have helped reduce inflicted suffering.

Our recommendations: This idea has been discussed in the past and rejected, based on the argument that so many awards are made that the awards of ISP might be lost in the dust of competition. That aside, there are significant logistical problems that must be resolved. Who will scan activities throughout the world to determine worthy recipients? Who and how will the field be narrowed down? What costs would be involved in such a selection process. What should the award consist of? Cash? A trophy/medal?

The Chair should appoint a committee to throughly evaluate the resources, personnel and procedures necessary to implement this proposal before the Society proceeds toward implementation.

4. Siu PhD Research Fellowship

Workshop proposal: To help attract more young scholars to help develop a science or discipline of panetics, a competitive Research Fellowship should be awarded every 1 to 2 years to support the work of a promising PhD candidate on some important panetic issue.

Our recommendation: Such a fellowship would require $15,000-$17,500 in support. At this stage in ISP's evolution, it does not seem that the benefits of such an expenditure would extend widely enough to warrant the outlay. The Fellowship might have been appropriate had the Workshop recommended publication of an "Inflictions Monitor", but the character of initiatives proposed indicates to us that the idea of a Siu Fellowship should be implemented some years hence when the Society's research programs are more advanced.

Budget implications: Moot.

5. Quantification and Monitoring of Suffering

Workshop proposals: Three Workshop proposals can be linked as the mandate of a new "Panemetric" committee within the Society:

Undertake an inventory of already existing databases that try to measure inflictions of human suffering in order to provide the first foundations for any effort by ISP to monitor suffering.

A committee to begin work on the collection and interpretation of quantitative data concerning the infliction of suffering.

An inventory of past efforts to define the indicators of a healthy society evaluating them critically from a panetic point of view. Our recommendation: The core of such a committee formed during the workshop consisting of Daoust, Warfield, Wulff and Widner. The Chair should appoint the committee and recruit additional members from the Society to its membership.

Budget implications: Perhaps $1000 should be provided to obtain data or other materials as the committee pursues its inquiries.

6. Committee on Small Initiatives

Workshop proposal: A committee to determine how some small initiative might begin to start a series of interventions that would "snowball" and eventually lead to large results in the reduction of inflicted suffering around the world." There is some desire to undertake an initiative that is small or local rather than international or global so that results can be seen and measured directly.

Our recommendation: That the Chair recruit a committee of members interested in pursuing such initiatives with the charge that the committee develop a proposal for a specific small initiative that can be considered by the Society for implementation. Robert Daoust and Reed Whittemore are both actively interested in such an initiative.

Budget implication: Minimal in 2002, though perhaps $1000 should be budgeted for materials and other support that the committee might require.

7. Propaganda and Perception Management

Workshop proposal: A concerted research initiative into the influence of propaganda, advertising and so-called "perception management" in either inflicting or hiding infliction.

Our recommendation: This might possibly be a theme for the "Call for Papers" in 2002.

Budget implications: Covered in recommendations 3 and 4.

8. Terminology Committee

Workshop proposal: ISP’s current terminology is a semantic impediment to credibility and ways should be found to express ISP’s concepts in more comfortable and understandable terms.

Our recommendation: That the Chair appoint a Committee of members to examine terminological problems and make recommendations.

Budget implications: Minimal.

2001 ANNUAL MEETING

International Society for Panetics

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, DC

9:30 am to 1:30 pm

1.Meeting convened by Chairman William J. Lanouette.

2. President’s Report.

3. Treasurer’s Report and Recommended Budget

4. Nominations for Board of Governors.

5. Report on election of officers for 2002.

6. New Initiatives for 2002

(Review of Proposals from Members’ August 27-29 Workshop.)

7. New Business

8. Adjournment

To: ISP Board of Governors

From: ISP Executive Committee

Re: Recommended Actions on Members Workshop Proposals

Twelve members of ISP convened in a Workshop August 27-29, 2001 to propose future directions for the Society. They made 13 recommendations.We have examined these recommendations for their feasibility within the Society's resource constraints (both fiscal and human). The Board should decide what its final recommendations to the membership at the Annual Meeting on November 13 should be.

The Workshop proposals are enumerated below with our own comments and recommendations and an assessment of the budget implications.

1. A "That’s Not Right" Column and Video

Workshop proposal: Each quarter a "conjectural" commentary on an important infliction submitted by any author would be selected for publication in the journal, dissemination on the website, and wide distribution to the media. Any submission must describe the infliction, the inflictors, and try to suggest ways to reduce the infliction. Cynthia Overweg suggested that eventually video or film documentaries should also be produced to help reach a still wider audience and increase understanding.

Our recommendation: The Committee has already instigated the journal column in a reformatted October 2001 issue of Panetics and media/Internet distribution of the columns should begin.

Cynthia Overweg should be requested to prepare a more detailed proposal for the videos, including cost estimates, before proceeding with that part of the proposal.

Budget implications: We believe that this proposal can be implemented within the budget usually provided for journal publication.

2. Annual "Call for Papers" Competition

Workshop proposal: Each year, ISP should choose a subject or theme, then issue a "call for papers" with a significant award, an opportunity to present the paper before a prestigious audience, and an opportunity to be published.

Our recommendation: That the proposal be implemented in the following way: A theme or themes for 2002 should be chosen by a special committee appointed by the Chair at the time of the Annual Meeting. A call for papers based on the theme should be issued. Submitted papers will be published in the four issues of the journal over the year. At the end of the year a jury will select a winner to be announced at the Annual ISP meeting. A special trophy or medal will be presented and the paper will be included in the book that results from that year's Siu Lecture and Symposium.

Budget implications: The budget would have to provide for the trophy/medal, the travel and lodging expenses of the winner when he/she comes to the Annual Meeting. Publication costs would be included in the expense budget associated with the Siu Lecture and Symposium. It is necessary to budget an additional $1000 to cover circularizing the "Call for Papers".

3. Siu Awards

Workshop proposal: A series of Siu Awards was proposed--one each year for the journalistic piece deemed to have contributed most to public awareness and understanding of the nature of inflicted suffering or ways to reduce it and a similar award to recognize persons who, through either leadership or civic involvement, have helped reduce inflicted suffering.

Our recommendations: This idea has been discussed in the past and rejected, based on the argument that so many awards are made that the awards of ISP might be lost in the dust of competition. That aside, there are significant logistical problems that must be resolved. Who will scan activities throughout the world to determine worthy recipients? Who and how will the field be narrowed down? What costs would be involved in such a selection process. What should the award consist of? Cash? A trophy/medal?

The Chair should appoint a committee to throughly evaluate the resources, personnel and procedures necessary to implement this proposal before the Society proceeds toward implementation.

4. Siu PhD Research Fellowship

Workshop proposal: To help attract more young scholars to help develop a science or discipline of panetics, a competitive Research Fellowship should be awarded every 1 to 2 years to support the work of a promising PhD candidate on some important panetic issue.

Our recommendation: Such a fellowship would require $15,000-$17,500 in support. At this stage in ISP's evolution, it does not seem that the benefits of such an expenditure would extend widely enough to warrant the outlay. The Fellowship might have been appropriate had the Workshop recommended publication of an "Inflictions Monitor", but the character of initiatives proposed indicates to us that the idea of a Siu Fellowship should be implemented some years hence when the Society's research programs are more advanced.

Budget implications: Moot.

5. Quantification and Monitoring of Suffering

Workshop proposals: Three Workshop proposals can be linked as the mandate of a new "Panemetric" committee within the Society:

Undertake an inventory of already existing databases that try to measure inflictions of human suffering in order to provide the first foundations for any effort by ISP to monitor suffering.

A committee to begin work on the collection and interpretation of quantitative data concerning the infliction of suffering.

An inventory of past efforts to define the indicators of a healthy society evaluating them critically from a panetic point of view. Our recommendation: The core of such a committee formed during the workshop consisting of Daoust, Warfield, Wulff and Widner. The Chair should appoint the committee and recruit additional members from the Society to its membership.

Budget implications: Perhaps $1000 should be provided to obtain data or other materials as the committee pursues its inquiries.

6. Committee on Small Initiatives

Workshop proposal: A committee to determine how some small initiative might begin to start a series of interventions that would "snowball" and eventually lead to large results in the reduction of inflicted suffering around the world." There is some desire to undertake an initiative that is small or local rather than international or global so that results can be seen and measured directly.

Our recommendation: That the Chair recruit a committee of members interested in pursuing such initiatives with the charge that the committee develop a proposal for a specific small initiative that can be considered by the Society for implementation. Robert Daoust and Reed Whittemore are both actively interested in such an initiative.

Budget implication: Minimal in 2002, though perhaps $1000 should be budgeted for materials and other support that the committee might require.

7. Propaganda and Perception Management

Workshop proposal: A concerted research initiative into the influence of propaganda, advertising and so-called "perception management" in either inflicting or hiding infliction.

Our recommendation: This might possibly be a theme for the "Call for Papers" in 2002.

Budget implications: Covered in recommendations 3 and 4.

8. Terminology Committee

Workshop proposal: ISP’s current terminology is a semantic impediment to credibility and ways should be found to express ISP’s concepts in more comfortable and understandable terms.

Our recommendation: That the Chair appoint a Committee of members to examine terminological problems and make recommendations.

Budget implications: Minimal.