Re: Misunderstandings of "complexity"

plaese unsign jscheephetnet.nl from your list
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Robert M. Cutler <rmc@alum.mit.edu>
Aan: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Datum: donderdag 28 januari 1999 18:14
Onderwerp: Misunderstandings of "complexity"


To write that 

> Once the conditions for a complex system have been
> created, the "freedom" of a participant within that system (be it
> an atom, molecule, or human) to alter the dynamics of the system  
> itself are highly constrained by the macro-dynamics of the
> system, hence minimized.

is a misunderstanding of "complexity" that most likely results from the 
incorrect synonymous substitution of the word "complexity" for 
"overdetermination". One of the points of complex systems is that 
aggregate phenomena emerge that cannot be accounted for by 
individual-level actions. This is not emphatically not the same as saying 
that individual-level actions are (over)constrained. But neither does it 
mean that one can identify the individual atom whose perturbation 
sets a kettle of water on boil. Nor does it mean, further, that such an 
identification would be to the point of any analysis. In the real world, 
reflection upon everyday life should teach us not only that we cannot 
foresee all the consequences of our actions, but moreover that we 
cannot *see* all the consequences of our actions even after those 
consequences have manifested.  

It would be a lesser misunderstanding to suggest that a complex system 
holds greater potential for "liberating" the individual. But even this 
point of view would risk reducing a network to a mechanism, betraying 
an inability to surmount the duality of hierarchy/subordination that is 
inherited from and expressed by the Durkheimian concept of a 
"mechanistic" division of labor. This is, for example, one of Kenneth 
Waltz's errors, which however he attempts to cover up by asserting 
that all states are somehow equal because they share the attribute of 
sovereignty, all while asserting, and not only in the fine print, that 
superpowers do indeed have a special regulatory function in the 
international system that distinguishes them qualitatively from other 
states.

"Complexity" is a fundamentally new way of looking at physical, 
biological, and social phenomena and should not be used as a novel 
category for pouring old wine into new bottles. If one wishes to seek a 
radical inspiration as regards social phenomena, one could do worse 
than re-read Marcuse.

Whether one wishes to embrace Marcuse or not, the presence of 
"structure" is today no longer the absence of "emancipation". The 
insistence that they are mutually exclusive is not only a one-sided 
pessimism but moreover a false duality that over-emphasizes the 
repressive quality of communication in the totalitarian and 
posttotalitarian age. 

The fact of the simultaneous presence of "structure" and 
"emancipation" is one of the differences between a hierarchy 
and a network. The question is the degree to which the tolerance is 
repressive. This answer to this question cannot be extrapolated from 
past experience but must be sought in the present and future. This is 
not equivalent to saying it cannot be subjected to analytical reflection. 
However, it *is* to say that that question cannot be reduced to 
metaphysics.   

Respectfully,

Robert Cutler


--
| Robert M. Cutler, Fellow, Inst. of Eur. & Rus Stud., Carleton University
| Postal address:  c/o Succursale "H", C.P. 518, Montreal, Canada H3G  2L5
| Phone: (+1 514)939-2769  Fax: (+1 514)932-4457   Email: rmc@alum.mit.edu
| Web URL: http://www.panix.com/~rmc          Back-up email: rmc@panix.com