What can properly be called a utopia? - Glenn Negley

Any pattern of analysis or any system of categories for the classification of knowledge is simply a suggestion for the arrangement of the data of experience. An analysis of this experience can be made in terms of certain points-of-view, categories and sciences (including Administration).

It seems that the best method of utilizing the sciences for purposes of analysis-and this would include the science of Administration - is to conceive of them as concentrating upon the relations existing between categories rather than as describing particular categories themselves. The various sciences or fields of investigation are not distinguished because they investigate different kinds of facts or subject matter; they differ because they have developed a specialized technique for observing different aspects of the same subject matter. A rock is an adequate subject of observation for any science whatsoever. What geology does, for example, is to restrict its observations to certain aspects of the rock; economics may look at the rock from another point-of-view, chemistry from still another, and so on through the entire range of science, Geology cannot break from the rock a fragment which is of geological interest only; the sciences are distinguished according to the viewpoint taken by each in observing the rock, not by a specific difference in content in the rock.

Administration is an activity which demands correct analysis and accurate orientation with relation to other sciences. To analyze and through analysis to understand and through understanding to make possible the final fruition of rational and creative action-this is the highest end which man can conceive for himself. The primary problem of rational activity is one of method, of organization. If society is to be ordered intelligently, the intelligence which is to serve as the ground of order cannot itself be without organization. Our knowledge must have some order, some method, or its application in ordering activity will be haphazard. It is often said that "man's reach exceeds his grasp"; but in regard to the knowledge contributed by research and analysis, it seems at present rather more appropriate to say that man's grasp greatly exceeds his reach. The pressing problem for most of us is not so much the acquisition of more knowledge as the more adequate employment and organization of the knowledge we already have.