... In the realm of military strategy, paradigms are conceptual systems or structures of knowledge that are produced through systemic study of actual and virtual contexts, alike. However, since strategy is primarily concerned with shaping of future realities through the operation of policy, strategists rely on concepts as tools for both interpretation of circumstantial contexts, and design of future realities. Therefore, by its very nature, strategy evolves in the dynamic learning environment of praxis, which is a spatial reflection of the tensions between the ontological analysis of reality and the epistemological understanding of institutional knowledge, between conceptualization and application, theorizing and performance, institutionalization and change. On the one hand, it is concerned with scientific construction of paradigmatic structures of knowledge, and their institutionalized assimilation in the organization. Whereas, on the other hand, it employs these very same conceptual systems as a basis for designing and effectuating policies which generate, in their turn, new realities. Thus, strategy is a constant dialectical play transforming political situations and producing new states of knowledge, simultaneously. Moreover, constituting a fundamental characteristic of the nature of strategy, the complementary tension between transformations of political-strategic realities and changes in the state of operational-strategic knowledge imply that paradigmatic revolution is the essential mechanism for development of strategic thought.
Culturally, one can therefore argue that the dialectical relations or interplay between revolution, as a subversive intellectual trajectory, deconstructing an existing conceptual frame and defining new space for perceptual exploit, and anti-revolution, as a sisyphean effort to net (straiation) and administer the new mental territory, express the property of an ever changing expansion or the constant flux of development of strategic knowledge. A conceptual revolution emanates from an ongoing practice of "normal science" or institutionalized discourse, as a result of a cognitive crisis, or a realization of the irrelevance between the prevalent conceptual system and a certain strategic context. The revolutionary trend is driven by the cultural and political logic of subversion, whereas, anti-revolution deriving from the need for organizational stability and conceptual steadiness is characterized by institutionalization and doctrinal inclinations.
Attempting to rationalize a chaotic or ambiguous situation, and outline some operational directions for implementing coherent initiatives in the future, the revolutionary trend breaks the conceptual boundaries of the established paradigm, thus, opening unexplored territories for new strategic discourse. The development of new conceptualization, the dissemination of new ideas, the expansion of a consensus basis among the various schools of thought in the organization, through vigorous debate, the assimilation of new concepts, and finally, the institutionalization of subversive approach within the boundaries of a new paradigmatic structure, lead, almost naturally, from revolution to anti-revolution. Thus, together, revolution and anti-revolution constitute the organic cycle of development of organizational knowledge or strategic cognition...
... The constructing concepts constitute, in fact, the core of the discoursive system for knowledge creation in context. Since they represent the cognitive components of systemic reasoning, their combined application in course of the systemic operational design practice produces the holistic architecture of the application of military force.
The relations between the constructing concepts are not hierarchical, but dialectical and dynamic. The systemic method of design is not linear-sequential, but rather spiral-associative. The initial definition of a conceptual framework for the specific circumstantial context removes a principal cognitive barrier for the systemization of the conflict. The rationalization of the rival system, or rather the systemic conceptualization of the opposing entity in the conflict provides a cognitive reference for the framing of the operation. And the conceptualization of the operation in spatial terms renders the systemic architecture for the definition of its logical and mechanical components.
The operator uses this structure, or system of constructing concepts as an intellectual road map for cognitive orientation in the circumstantial labyrinth of the actual context confronting him. This structure serves also as a logical framework for systemic representation of the complex of insights and abundance of concepts, which have been created in the course of the discussion. Likewise, it serves as a network for representation of the map of generic operational knowledge, which results from the cultivation and refinement of the contextual conceptual maps. And finally, it serves as a logical framework for the construction of conceptual documents, and operational doctrine papers....
Another Reference Point...
Bookmarks