New Administrative Theories for Psycho-Social Education and Community Education for the Next Millennium.
Richard J. Spady,* President
Table of Contents:
"The invisible influences that field theory exposes can help us manage other amorphous aspects of organizational life. For example, vision-organizational clarity about purpose and direction-is a wonderful candidate for field theory. We would start by recognizing that in creating a vision, we are creating a power, not a place; an influence, not a destination. Now we need to imagine ourselves as beacon towers of information, standing tall in the integrity of what we say, pulsing out congruent messages everywhere. We need all of us out there, stating, clarifying, reflecting, modeling, filling all of space with the messages we care about. If we do that, a powerful field develops-and with it, the wondrous capacity to organize into coherent, capable form." -Margaret J. Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science, 1999
If a theory used at the micro-level (the relationship among individuals) is accurate for an individual or organization, then it is equally valid at the macro-level.
The Unified Social Field Theory concerns the functioning of society as a whole. It is a theory which asserts the fundamental unity of all the constituent parts and levels of society. Thus, it expresses an important idea about society:
If a theory used at the micro-level (i.e., the relationship between an individual and someone else) is accurate and valid in an organization, then it is equally valid at the macro level.
For example, the social dynamics operative in simple groups and organizations could also be spoken of for institutions and nations. If these dynamics subsequently prove out at a lower level, then they should be applicable at a higher level. In other words, if it works at the micro level, it will work at the macro level. It is just harder to test at that level.
The content of the Unified Social Field Theory is a new expression of an old idea that "life is one."
Medievals called this the Great Chain of Being, and this idea is fundamental to sociology as a whole. Indeed, the Unified Social Field Theory seems to reinforce the "Mass-Time Triangle" cosmological model of our late colleague, Dr. Stuart C. Dodd. (1) In this remarkable study, Dr. Dodd looked at the march of civilization through a mathematical lens. At one place in his writing, I noticed a curious reference to "one to the third power." Since the cube of one is still one, I asked him what it meant.
"What it means is unity," Dr. Dodd said. "Unity is what we in the human race are moving toward in the world."
This brings up an interesting conundrum: If 1=1 and 1n power also equals one, then perhaps we who are of this world-past, present, and future-are each now and always have been and always will be simultaneouslyan individual and a corporate (i.e., "corporate societal") one! I call this the "Royal One" or the "Royal1" because it indicates that the real sovereignty-ranging from a small group or a large nation-is in the people and not the King or the dictator or the leader, i.e. "royalty." Perhaps this is an insight that should be considered when people think about our next theory, just being introduced here now, which we call Social Quantum Mechanics (SQM), in the future study of administrative theory, social science and-theology.
Physics and social-theory have much in common; both deal with the subtle organization of multitudinous elements. In the case of matter, it exists simultaneously as individual particles and as waves. In the case of people, they exist simultaneously as
Todd Stedl at the University of Washington writes, "In 1690 Christian Huygens theorized that light was composed of waves, while in 1704 Isaac Newton explained that light was made of tiny particles. Experiments supported each of their theories. However, neither a completely-particle theory nor a completely-wave theory could explain all of the phenomena associated with light! So scientists began to think of light as both a particle and a wave." (2)
"One of the greatest discoveries of the twentieth century has been quantum mechanics. It is a very complex branch of physics, which rivals relativity theory for its opposition to common sense and for its use of super-advanced mathematics." (3) But like all science, it offers powerful imagery and conceptual apparatus for social science.
"Quantum Mechanics deals with the behavior of "quanta" [packets] of matter at the sub-atomic level. It deals with probabilities and uncertain outcomes, but as a whole its math works, and inventions such as transistors and integrated circuits depend on it." (4)
"The quantum theory of the emission of atomized packets of energy explains that electrons and other particles of matter behave, not in accord with "classical physics," but more subtly. Matter is envisioned as particles that are ëgranularí or discontinuous. All physical matter, according to the early quantum physicists, is a collection of ëgrainsí of energy that are discontinuous and discrete." (5)
"But quantum physics also reveals a universe, which is cooperative! Particles can be observed to behave in a manner which suggests that they have made decisions based on decisions made by other particles." (6)
Matter is a sub-atomic dance of collaboration. This is true even if the sub-atomic particles are far apart. There is, as physicist David Bohm says, an "implicate order." (7)
Old-style (classical) physics and old-style sociology postulated atoms, or social atoms (people), which were separate individuals, but "social quantum mechanics" can be seen to require a more subtle account of the elements of society and their ways of interacting. Margaret Wheatley in her book Leadership and the New Science has described some of these ideas, but here we generalize to a theory of society. In this way we follow in the footsteps of our mentor Stuart C. Dodd. Dr. Doddís "cosmic sociology" and "social cosmology" (8) was a rich interaction of cosmology and sociology. Thus, "social quantum mechanics" is a direct descendant of his work.
The subject of physics is immense and varied, including energy, matter and its elements (particles, waves, fields, quanta etc.), the power of these physical ingredients of nature, and their applicability in the service of humanity. The subject of social theory is society and its elements (individuals, groups, fields, organizations, societies) and social power, human thinking, behavior and energy, and their constituent elements. We believe it is not too much of a stretch to see that if there is an "implicate order" in the structure of matter, there may also be one at work in human society.
Indeed, according to our theory of Social Quantum Mechanics, humankind is simultaneously both separate and orchestrated; we literally "act in concert." We further believe that the Zeitgeist (the "Spirit-of-the-time") is the conductor of this temporal orchestra; the musicians are the elected and duly appointed leaders, i.e., the "Chiefs of state" of society, public and private; and those who listen, i.e., the audiences, are the public, constituents, and members. Their reaction, at all organizational levels-small and large-further shapes the Zeitgeist in a purposeful, harmonic, social melody in a "symphonic fusion and rhythmic orchestration"(9) of civilization building subsequently effected through the dynamics of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
The result of this societal metaphorical concert? A working democracy with improved organizational, community, and societal mental health!
For some, societal improvement is about improving the individual's performance in society-through improved education, more personal responsibility, a greater emphasis on individual morality and the like. By their philosophy, Lone Ranger individualism is bad; the real need is for greater cooperation and community building from within every person.
For others, the real problem for societal improvement is organizational, i.e., we need better functioning organizations and institutions, mainly governments, public and private.
We believe the truth is-we need bothsimultaneously!
I think, then, that there is the possibility of the transformation of consciousness, both individually and collectively. Itís important that it happen together-itís got to be both. And therefore this whole question-of communication and the ability to dialogue, the ability to participate in communication-is crucial.
On Dialogue by David Bohm, theoretical physicist, University of London, 1996, (Page 95). (10)
Many-to-Many communication theory (and Zeitgeist communication as we have described it in our books) we believe is the social-theory counterpart of quantum mechanics in physics.
Social quantum mechanics is the social theory appropriate to civilization building as we are defining it. As quantum mechanics led to the modern world of electronics and all its benefits, so "social quantum mechanics," we suggest, can lead to the building of brilliantly luminous civilizations of the near and far future. (11)
But, many ask, "How can I do it? Iím just one person. Iím not rich, powerful, or influential. Itís just not possible in this big, impersonal world of insurmountable problems for me to count. I give up."
Perhaps some individuals will give up, but the human race in the world can not, should not, and we believe-will not give up on the social, technical, and economic problems of our day. There is a way to be counted simultaneously as individual "quanta" and equally as participants in organizational and group relationship-webs using Many-to-Many communications and symbolic dialogue to create a vision of the future that ought to be, i.e., "ethics."
There is a name for the process-it is called "politics." But in this case the politicians and bureaucrats in our republic will have helped frame the larger social problems faced in common by all. Out of this routine interaction primarily by "chiefs of state" with their constituents in a continuous symbolic dialogue, a vision of the Zeitgeist, the "Spirit of the time" will emerge. Since the Zeitgeist is also the "Supreme Governor," political leaders and bureaucrats should tend naturally to develop regulations and laws consistent with the common vision; to do otherwise would entail political risk for them. If they feel the people "donít have the facts," (which is often the case) they will try to bring new information to the people. This kind of effort is a "natural factor" in action.
Yet our elected or appointed leaders will continue to make the legal and policy decisions as they now do because we live in a republic and representative government-not a pure democracy. Leaders everywhere, political and non-political, will have ample opportunity to exercise their statesmanship when they feel it is required. It is just that they will now do it in open communication with their constituents. Better governing and "following" should result, with "authority" flowing strongly from the people in support of their political, economic, cultural and other leaders, with a reduction of social and organizational tensions, greater social and economic efficiency, and an increase in happiness! So, we will then have come full circle, as happiness is one of the reasons we form all "governments," public and private-for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!
The best way for people to communicate with each other is face-to-face, eyeball-to-eyeball, which is merely the counseling relationship among human beings. Everyone participates in this process whenever he or she talks and thus counsels with another person. Far from being merely preparation for change, it is dynamic change occurring itself, according to Howard Ellis and Ted McEachern. (12)
But we face a problem in logistics. No one individual has the time or the physical capability to talk with but a few of one's peers in any but the smallest group or organization. At this stage of mankind's technological development, the best answer seems to be to utilize new computer and scanning communication technology to "talk" to each other "symbolically" and on paper so that people in small groups of eight to twelve, ideally without limitation as to numbers overall, can interact with each other. This will be an intellectual and rational experience in an on-going, problem-solving, creative-thinking, future oriented, social process approach. This process will be humanizing and self-actualizing, even mega-actualizing, an activity bringing dignity and relevancy to people presently lost anonymously in the vastness of large organizational, religious, and societal hinterlands. "What is wanted is knowledge, a type of knowledge that has escaped us in two hundred years of prosperous development. How to substitute human responsibility for futile strife and hatreds." (Mayo) (13)
Similarly, George Soros, international financier and philanthropist, writes:
"Collective decisions cannot be based on the dictates of reason; yet we cannot do without collective decisions. We need the rule of law exactly because we cannot be sure what is right and wrong. We need institutions that recognize their own fallibility and provide a mechanism for correcting their own mistakesÖ.Why should we accept open society as an ideal? The answer should be obvious by now. We cannot live as isolated individuals. As market participants, we serve our self-interest, but it does not serve our self-interest to be nothing but market participants. We need to be concerned with the society in which we live, and when it comes to collective decisions we ought to be guided by the interests of society as a whole rather than our narrow self-interest. The aggregation of narrow self-interests through the market mechanism brings unintended adverse consequencesÖ." (page 96)
"Democracy is supposed to provide a mechanism for making collective decisions that serve the best interests of the community. It is meant to achieve the same objective for collective decision making as the market mechanism does for individual decision makingÖ." (page 200)
"We need a worldwide alliance of democratic countries that cooperates in promoting the principles of open society." (page 232) (14)
As human beings exercise and use their greatest human capacity, their ability to think, against the foils of real organizational and societal problems by personally participating in the clarification of the Zeitgeist, they will learn. This is done through the dynamics of the Socratic Method, the Theory of Learning. At the same time in the process, persons participating become "new persons," psychologically speaking, and contributing to their own happiness, to improved morale, esprit de corps, individual and thus community mental health. In effect, the process is therapeutic and leads to peace. First it leads to peace of mind for the individual participating, the final sanctuary for every person. If an individual can somehow capture a little piece of mind in his or her own daily routine, the world isn't all that bad.
As more and more people in an organization achieve peace of mind, organizational peace follows. As more and more organizations achieve peace of mind, institutional peace will follow. And when more and more of our institutions of government, business, education, and religion achieve peace of mind-then will humankind finally achieve the peace of civilization itself.
It is in the task of civilization building as a citizen that each person in the world can find his or her true identity as a social being.
As we said at the beginning of this work, when we talk of civilization building we mean
Author Jaideep Singh argues that an "enlightened organization" is characterized by "spiritual mission, unified intentionality, egalitarian hierarchy, situational leadership, harmonious teams, relational validation, self-determined self-actualization, entrepreneurial thrust, dynamic equilibrium, and symphonic fusion-the last attribute implying the rhythmic orchestration of all the above characteristics into the organizational way of life." (16)
In our work-a-day world we are born, we are young, we are learning, we are a homemaker, we are employed or unemployed, or we are retired. Everyone participates and goes through these phases. But that constitutes our work-a-day world, which is a kind of "play" world in which we each have roles to play. Before we enter that world, though, everyone is born into the "real" world as a citizen of the world, and has a task from birth until death.
That task is civilization building!
We can be unemployed in the work-a-day world, but we can never be unemployed in our role as a citizen of the world. So, each of us-every last one of the now-six billion people on this planet-is never truly unemployed or retired in the real sense of the word. Because from the day we are born to the day we die, we all have a singular, ongoing, inescapable responsibility: make civilization better!
Down through history, every individual has faced six questions:
"Who am I?"
"Where did I come from?"
"What is my role in life?"
"Where do I fit in?"
"Where am I going?"
"Where do I want to go?"
We believe that as humanity emerges from the Second Millennium, these six may turn out to have been the most important questions of the 20th Century. They are all spiritual questions. And of the six, the last- Where do I want to go?- implies the reciprocal question, How can I get there? which may turn out to be the organizational question of the Third Millennium for society itself.
So, according to our theory, it is in the task of civilization building as a citizen, that each person in the world can find his or her true identity as a social being. This work, hopefully, will continue to take place within the theory of civilization which we are working to develop in the Forum Foundation and the Stuart C. Dodd Institute for Social Innovation here in Seattle. (17) Perhaps you can help us.
Like physical science, we believe the work of theory is never finished, but each current theory should just be better than the one before which it replaces.
Hopefully, the research and work of Seattle's Forum Foundation will continue to update and improve the administrative theories presented here in our books as concepts evolve and clarifications are made. Thus, until proven incorrect, each of our 13 administrative theories should be useful until we get a better theory. What follows is a brief summary and paraphrase of them as further documented in our book and this paper: (18)
9. The Zeitgeist Principle -- To work properly, human organizations and institutions (from married couples to civilization itself) require a functional feedback communication capability. This is best accomplished in most organizations by 1) a democratic, open, participative, reliable, viable, anonymous, routine, and objective feedback system. , and 2) Mmost organizations, institutions, and governments in the world today have no such system which embodies a symbolic dialogue between organizational and societal leaders (i.e., elected or duly appointed "chiefs of state") and their constituents.
10. The Natural Factors -- Three "natural" and favorable administrative dynamics spontaneously tend to occur when organizations or institutions have a democratic, open, participative, reliable, viable, anonymous, routine, and objective feedback communication system. These dynamics improve decision-making through better diagnosis, expand individual, organizational, and institutional learning in a process of community education, and reduce tensions and conflict, and lead leading toward peace..
11. The Unified Social Field Theory -- If a theory used at the micro-level (the relationship between an individual and someone else) is accurate and valid in an organization, then it is equally valid at the macro-level in society. Each person is simultaneously an individual and a part of a corporate, societal, "one," i.e., a "Royal One."
13. A Theory of Civilization -- It is in the task of civilization building as a citizen that each person in the world can find his or her true identity as a social being. "Civilization is fundamentally spiritual, not material." And the spiritual destiny of humankind is unity and love for each other!
The late Erik H. Erikson, a pre-eminent national and international psychologist, postulated that adolescents require "psycho-social moratoria."
Robert Pranger, a professor of political science at the University of Washington in Seattle, wrote a booklet in 1968 entitled, The Eclipse of Citizenship. In it he stated, "This need of the adolescent for psycho-social moratoria, as defined by Erikson (where adolescents can talk together without fear of reprisal, i.e., moratoria-no threats) is so important, it is of equal importance to the need of a small child for maternal care."
This is in recognition that the adolescent exists at a crucible-forming time in his or her development toward maturity, and if parents and society don't get it right then, they may never get it right. The child is told by the parent, "this is a fact;" by the teacher, "this is a fact;" by the culture, "this is a fact." But when the child reaches adolescence, he or she becomes aware of ambiguity. There are differences of opinion, everything is not cut and dried. And what every child needs at that point in his or her life is the experience of a variety of "psycho-social moratoria," i.e., public arenas where each can talk with peers and parents and others without fear of reprisal. That is, young people require a "timeout" place to talk! This can be accomplished by the use of "symbolic dialogue" which is none-threatening to the individuals participating.
This is an "intellectual gaming" process in our schools and communities similar in scope and importance to physical gaming in schools. Instead of exercising their bodies to get stronger as in physical gaming, young people will exercise their minds to help develop their reasoning skills. While they are in this search for meaning of the facts in life as they understand them, there are no "right" or "wrong" answers during the quest itself because there are differences of opinion. The youth are just practicing how to think.
However, in the final analysis, each child will have an opportunity to receive the final counsel from his or her parents who can say, "Look, son or daughter, even though all other children say this or all other parents say that (from the reports), I want to call your attention to this fact." They can then convey and explain their own value judgment to their own child-which is the parental prerogative.
In the May/June 2000 issue of The Futurist is a "State of-the-Union Address and the Youth-of America" Opinionnaire® to which subscribers can respond together with teachers and students as a new example of Zeitgeist communication programming in community education and civilization building. (See sample handout provided of Opinionnaire® and machine-scannable response sheet.)
We in the Forum Foundation are grateful for this opportunity to learn more about this new communication technology, and we welcome others, especially teachers, in our quest.
The greatest futurist of the 20th century, perhaps of any century, was Herbert G. Wells, according to Edward Cornish, President, World Future Society. For that reason, we can think of no better ending for this paper and our book than to quote key extracts from Wells' address given in 1902. (19)
"And now, if it has been possible for men by picking out a number of suggestive and significant looking things in the present, by comparing them, criticizing them, and discussing them, with a perpetual insistence upon why? without any guiding tradition, and indeed in the teeth of established beliefs, to construct this amazing searchlight of inference into the remoter past, is it really, after all, such an extravagant and hopeless thing to suggest that, by seeking for operating causes instead of for fossils, and by criticizing them as persistently and thoroughly as the geological record has been criticized, it may be possible to throw a searchlight of inference forward instead of backward, and to attain to a knowledge of coming things as clear, as universally convincing, and infinitely more important to mankind than the clear vision of the past that geology has opened to us during the nineteenth century?
I must confess that I believe quite firmly that an inductive knowledge of a great number of things in the future is becoming a human possibility. I believe that the time is drawing near when it will be possible to suggest a systematic exploration of the future. And you must not judge the practicability of this enterprise by the failures of the past. So far nothing has been attempted, so far no first-class mind has ever focused itself upon these issues; but suppose the laws of social and political development, for example were given as many brains, were given as much attention, criticism and discussion as we have given to the laws of chemical combination during the last fifty years, what might we not expect?
To the popular mind of today there is something very difficult in such a suggestion, soberly made. But here, in this Institution which has watched for a whole century over the splendid adolescence of science, and where the spirit of science is surely understood, you will know that as a matter of fact prophecy has always been inseparably associated with the idea of scientific research. The popular idea of scientific investigation is a vehement, aimless collection of little facts, collected as the bowerbird collects shells and pebbles, in methodical little rows, and out of this process, in some manner unknown to the popular mind, certain conjuring tricks--the celebrated wonders of science--in a sort of accidental way emerge. The popular conception of all discovery is accident. But you well know that the essential thing in the scientific process is not a marketable conjuring trick, but prophecy.
And if I am right in saying that science aims at prophecy, and if the specialist in each science is in fact doing his best now to prophesy within the limits of his field, what is there to stand in the way of our building up this growing body of forecast into an ordered picture of the future that will be just as certain, just as strictly science, and perhaps just as detailed as the picture that has been built up within the last hundred years to make the geological past?
In reply to which I would advance the suggestion that an increase in the number of human beings considered may positively simplify the case instead of complicating it; that as the individuals increase in number they begin to average out.
Let me illustrate this point by a comparison. Angular pit sand has grains of the most varied shapes. Examined microscopically, you will find all sorts of angles and outlines and variations. Before you look you can say of no particular grain what its outline will be. And if you shoot a load of such sand from a cart you cannot foretell with any certainty where any particular grain will be in the heap that you make; but you can tell-you can tell pretty definitely- the form of the heap as a whole. And further, if you pass that sand through a series of shoots and finally drop it some distance to the ground, you will be able to foretell that grains of a certain sort of form and size will for the most part be found in one part of the heap and grains of another sort of form and size will be found in another part of the heap. In such a case, you see, the thing as a whole may be simpler than its component parts, and this I submit is also the case in many human affairs. So that because the individual future eludes us completely, that is no reason why we should not aspire to, and discover and use, safe and serviceable generalizations upon countless important issues in the human destiny.
Such, then, is the sort of knowledge of the future that I believe is attainable and worth attaining. I believe that the deliberate and courageous reference to the future, in moral and religious discussion, would be enormously stimulating and enormously profitable to our intellectual life.
It is possible to believe that all past is but the beginning of a beginning, and that all that is and has been is but the twilight of the dawn. It is possible to believe that all that the human mind has ever accomplished is but the dream before the awakening. We cannot see, there is no need for us to see, what this world will be like when the day has fully come. We are creatures of the twilight. But it is out of our race and lineage that minds will spring, that will reach back to us in our littleness to know us better than we know ourselves, and that will reach forward fearlessly to comprehend this future that defeats our eyes. All this world is heavy with the promise of greater things, and a day will come, one day in the unending succession of days, when beings who are now latent in our thoughts and hidden in our loins, shall laugh and reach out their hands amidst the stars."
In closing, we believe Wells is describing some of the principles of our new theory of Social Quantum Mechanics.
We are also struck by the similarity between administrative theory and theology. Theology is the application of one's religious beliefs in the world; it is where "the rubber meets the road." Similarly, administrative theory is the application of one's social, organizational, philosophical, and administrative beliefs in the world. Perhaps administrative theory, as a pathway to civilization building, is just a secular version of theology and another continuing chapter in "His story!"!
1. This diagram and a few other papers by Stuart C. Dodd will be published in the appendix of our new book Leadership and Civilization Building in the Future, Volume 1: Administrative Theory and Zeitgeist Communication (Spady and Bell) and Volume 2: Implications for the Future (Spady, Kirby, and Bedell). Estimated book publication date is Fall, 2000. After publication, copies can be ordered initially from the World Future Society at www.wfs.org or call 1-301-656-8274; from University Bookstore, Seattle, 1-800-335-READ. [For Russian translations contact Dr. Tatyana Tsyrlina, Kursk State Pedagogical University, email@example.com.] If further help is needed see www.ForumFoundation.org or phone 1-206-634-0420; fax 1-206-633-3561. return to text
2. Todd Stedl (firstname.lastname@example.org) and modified on 25 July 1996. See http://www-theory.chem.washington.edu/~trstedl/quantum/quantum.html. return to text
3. Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time p 55-6 Bantam, 1988 return to text
4. ibid. return to text
5. Daniel Liderbach, The Numinous Universe [Paulist Press, 1989]. P.70 return to text
6. Liderbach, op.cit., p.85 return to text
7. David Bohm, On Dialogue, edited by Lee Nichol, 1996, Page 14. return to text
8. Stuart C. Dodd, The Probable Acts of Man and The Probable Acts of Men [State University of Iowa, 1963] return to text
9. from ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY, 1984, Ramesh K. Arora, Volume Editor, Indian Institute of Public Administration, Indraprastha Estate, Ring Road, New Delhi, India 110002. (Page XXII and Page 122 by Jaideep Singh). return to text
10. On Dialogue, Edited by Lee Nichol. © 1996 Sarah Bohm, for the original material by David Bohm; Lee Nichol for selection and editorial matter, Reprinted 1997, 1998. Published by Routledge, 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001. return to text
11. Assistance on developing this idea of Social Quantum Mechanics was provided by our editor, The Rev. Dr. Richard S. Kirby, Theologian. Dr. Kirbyís doctoral dissertation was titled "The Theology of Cosmic Disorder" (1992), Kingís College London. So Stuart Dodd in 1963, Richard Kirby in 1992, and ourselves today arrived independently at similar conclusions at different times. That is heartening. return to text
12. Howard Ellis and Ted McEachern, Reflections on Youth Evangelism, General Boards of Education and Evangelism, The Methodist Church, (1959). return to text
13. Harvard Professor Elton Mayo; preface, Management and the Worker by Roethlisberger and Dickson, Harvard University Press; 1939.
14. The Crisis of Global Capitalism, 1998 by George Soros. Pages 96, 200, and 232; by Public Affairs, Perseus Books Group, ISBN: 1-891-620-27-4 (hc).return to text
15. A.D. Ritchie, Civilization, Science, and Religion, Page 9 (Penguin Books, New York); 1945. return to text
16. "Administrative Theory," 1984, Ramesh K. Arora, volume editor, Jaideep Singh, Page XXII and Page 122 (Indian Institute of Public Administration, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi) 1984. return to text
18. This paper is a sequel to: The Search for Enlightened Leadership
This paper is also extracted from an unpublished manuscript, The title of the book is:
19. "The Discovery of the Future" was presented at the Royal Institution of Great Britain on January 24, 1902, and first published in The Smithsonian Report for 1902. return to text