There is a philosophical tradition, popular among some radical atheists, called reductionism. At its most extreme it contends everything can be explained in terms of its constituent parts. So, if we understand the chemical reactions in brain cells we understand human behaviour. Someone could tell from the chemical reactions in my brain that I have fallen in love. Presumably they could also tell whether I was really in love or just having lustful thoughts. Or perhaps they would find love and lust are the same thing.
I don’t deny there are chemical changes in my brain when I fall in love. But will those chemicals tell the observer who I have fallen in love with? If I fall in love with Gill will these changes differ from if I fall in love with Susan? And would you be able to tell from examining these changes, which chemical means Gill and which Susan? If I’m in love with Gill and you inject me with Susan’s chemical, will I be in love with Susan? The point is chemicals are an inadequate account of humanity’s tangled emotions; just about anything is!
As a response to reductionism, some people talk about qualia. These are qualities that cannot be described. Describe the colour red without saying it’s like something that is red. Gill and Susan are distinct beings and my feelings for one or the other cannot be reduced to a chemical (or mixture of chemicals). The distinctive characteristics of something as simple as a colour or as complex as a person, cannot be reduced to something else. The chemicals in my brain that interact when I see red, are not themselves the experience of the colour red. They may always accompany the experience (do they?) but they are not the experience.
I prefer the term ‘logical type’. There are levels of complexity (called logical types) and you need the right tool for each level. Chemistry is not the right tool for researching human relationships. No-one is denying there are chemical reactions in my brain when I fall in love. What is dubious is the view you can explain love by studying chemistry.
What Has This to do with Website Design?
When people think about web design they think of languages such as html, css, php, JavaScript, etc. They are similar to the chemist’s tools. Essential to a functional website surely but by no means the only tool the web consultant needs. These are the tools a web developer uses to build new programs such as plug-ins. They are not tools the consultant needs although the consultant might benefit from understanding them.
With content management systems (CMS) such as WordPress you can get by without them (not necessarily something I recommend) because you can use plug-ins. Nevertheless, you still cannot get by without organisation theory (though many try). The focus has moved in recent years from building your website to building your organisation using websites and other online and offline media. You cannot do this if you don’t understand organisations; you can do it if you don’t understand html.
So, if you want your website to work for your organisation’s purpose, you need to understand your organisation. How else can you possibly hope to create a website that works for your organisation? The web consultant’s role is to help you build a site that transform your organisation.
