World Systems, Complexity, and Human Agency

The following essay maps out an alternative way of considering the place of complexity and human agency in history; an alternative I believe that better fits both the dynamics of World-Systems Theory as well as the Eonic Model.  I’m not sure I’d agree with all of it either, but it is yet another alternative we should consider as we move through this topic.  I expect it has both its definite merits and demerits.  In any case, good or bad as it may be, I welcome your assessments of it.  Best!

Luke R.

**********

Does Complexity open up space for human agency?  This is a very good question; (yes) I believe the dynamism of Complexity in nature does “allow” for this occurrence; I also believe that the study of complexity (& the understanding gained through research into CDS) allows for the emergence of renewed investigation into theories of human agency and the empirical basis for or against it based on the evidence we garner from the historical record and/or the social sciences.

Still, let’s be careful about saying this.  It’s not that complexity allows for or makes (human) agency possible in nature or history.  Say rather, that “agency” on the part of particular things in our universe (human beings, other kinds of organisms, and even inanimate objects) allows for the pattern of chaos and complexity we witness in physical systems and in history.  According to such a scenario – and I have to admit it being an alternative scenario (with all the ambiguity and non-concreteness that goes with such) – one starts off with what occurs at the micro-scopic level (physically, biologically, sociologically, & historically) and builds upward through ever progressive strata to the macro-scopic level (where, due to the processes of world history itself in its chronological character + the environmental and celestial processes of physical systems themselves, patterning emerges in/to all these microscopic dots of free action); a large chunk of what we see in this patterning of free activity (the dots) is the phenomena we refer to as chaos and complexity.

What theoretical and empirical doors are opened for us by virtue of this idea?  Well, for one, I think it helps to explain what we witness via World-Systems Analysis.  Notice that difference (historically) between the short-term and the long-term of World-Systems research … In the short term -> what do we notice in our world-systems scholarship?  Matters of military strategy, socio-politics, business, and finance predominate.  Then, in the long term, larger patterns of Core/Periphery relationships, Hegemony/Rivalry, and long cycles emerge out of the ongoing interconnection of shorter term (social, economic, political) policies and concomitant patterns (of human behavior)(and structural processes of mass human action in a contemporary context).

And, what do we see around us in our world?  Not the long term of history or the big picture of Society, Economics, Politics, and Culture.  What we see isn’t even (necessarily) the “zoom in” view of macro-scopic processes of world history and macro- social, economic, … civilizational trends.  What we witness are patterns of the short-term in World-Systems Theory.  [[ Thus even if we wanted to draw a direct line of connection between the macro-scopic in human affairs & trace it back to the micro-scopic level of shorter-term change in WST, we’d probably be unsuccessful in doing such (in any complete, wholistic sort of way), because the very terms of the Micro- and Macro- in human affairs and history are different.  You can’t trace the Macro- back it its atomized source in the Micro-; both levels have very different kinds of basic units to themselves.  Hence, even though we can trace a (dotted) line of (indirect) connection from the level of micro-processes in WST, we can’t trace a direct (causative) line back to the Micro- from the Macro- in order to arrive at the fundamental units of both (or the fundamental units of the Macro- within the Micro-).  Both the Micro-/Macro- scopic levels of World-Systems and world history are different, and would thus possess different sets of basic units, given the scenario I’ve just {roughly} described here. ]]

This makes sense for another reason as well.  We also see in the short term/Micro-level a greater emphasis on the subjective “ought” of social affairs more than the ontological and positive “is” of bigger-picture social science. Why?  Namely, because the processes/functions of the micro-scopic level reflect the open-ended free activity of its elements, its individual “source principles” or “cells.”  …

Just some thoughts; & perhaps not even the best ones at that.  I invite your opinions and insights.  Based on my discussion here (at this point), does anyone else have some other good insights into what a World-Systems perspective might bring to the forum of research into Chaos Theory and Complexity? 

---

Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now