Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

Approaches and Implications of using Complexity Theory for

dealing with Social Systems
David Manuel-Navarrete.
PhD candidate. Department of Geography. University of Waterloo.
Email: david.manuel@campus.uab.es

Sociology can only describe society in society…It is a science of the social system and a
social system of science. To make matters even more complex, as a science and, as a
social system, sociology is also an internal observer of whatever system it participates in.
(Luhmann, 1994: 132-133)

ABSTRACT

There exist an increasing awareness within the scientific community for the need
to deal with the complex dimension of social systems. This paper examines three
approaches to incorporate complexity theory into the practice of social sciences. The first
approach consists of supplementing the modernist program with chaos theory. The
second one proposes a metaphoric application of complexity theory to describe social
systems. The third approach is based on Post-Normal Science. Both the first and the
second try to fit complexity theory into the paradigms used up to now in social sciences.
Although this exercise can provide some interesting methods for understanding of social
systems, it is argued that a fundamental change in the way Western society conceives
science is necessary. Complexity analysis (or synthesis) should not only consist of adding
more or different syntactical rules to the mathematical formal systems used to model the
causal relations perceived in the outside world. Rather, it should imply a generalization of
the scientific formalisms in order to include semantic relations, subjectivity, and context
dependency. Even more, this generalization should go as far as to include into the
umbrella of science a plurality of systems of knowledge in order to better understand the
multidimensionality of social systems. The legitimation of a broader spectrum of formal
systems of representation and communication of reality, will affect profoundly the
collective and individual way in which Western societies perceive the world, and the very
evolution of human beings as species.

Key-words: Social systems, complexity, chaos, post-normal science, systems of

knowledge.

Introduction: Why does complexity sound useful to social sciences?

The origin and development of Western Science has been dominated by modeling simple
causal relations operating in physical systems (Back, 1997). As a result, social science,
dealing with the complex two-way interactions of society, has until now been forced to
use logical and mathematical instruments originally designed to deal with
experimentation in hugely simpler systems (Eve et al., 1997).

1
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

Social scientist sought rescue in probabilistic models and developed statistics.

Probability, originally describing the bases of reasonable judgment, became an aspect of
the laws of nature. The normal distribution around a mean that occurred in so many
conditions was seen as part of the living and social world. Moreover, experimental data
included measurement and observation errors subject to the same probabilistic laws
(Back, 1997). Other formalisms, like the comparative method, also emerged as a
substitute for experimentation (when the number of cases is too small to permit statistical
manipulation.

Although statistics allows the use of numbers to describe social systems, it gives a
severely limited picture of social systems. Statistical inference is not about causality. It
basically consisting of seeing which mathematical form fit available historical and
longitudinal data sets. Although statistics was conceived as the study of randomness,
even it must concede the existence of unexplained residual behavior. This is defined as
noise, or variation in the dependent variable which is left over after independent variables
have explained all they can explain. Variation in a given variable, then, can be divided
into that which is explainable and which is not, and the later is not particularly
interesting. In summary, statistics only serves to confirm or disconfirm commonsense
hypotheses rather than to generate truly new ideas, perspectives, and knowledge (Marion,
1999).

Several myths have arisen with the intention of providing social sciences with the
category of a formal system able to represent causal relations (Back, 1997). Field theory,
sociometry, information theory, game theory, catastrophe theory, and fuzzy sets are some
examples of efforts to model the behavior of social systems using the language of
mathematics. These are representations, schemata, abstractions, simplifications, which
does not conform completely to common experience.

Chaos and complexity theory is seen by some as the culmination of this progressive
accumulation of new myths that create a new mathematics appropriate for dealing with
social phenomena (Eve et al., 1997). There exist the hope that this new mathematical
language will mirror the world as human beings experience it and even some of our
reactions to it. This long awaited event becomes realizable through the simple recognition
of complexity as a primary variable. Departing from this origin, the task of science can be
seen as the description of complexity in systems and its changes, both empirically and
mathematically. Going further on this direction, the analytical functions of traditional
mathematics may be supplemented by fractal functions that represent the actual world
with its irregularities. It looks like a step in the progression of social science, integrating
the ideas of its predecessors in a new synthesis. However, complexity theory shows that it
is not sufficient to have enough valid and reliable data, and correct methods of analysis
for having a definite mathematical solution to a given problem. Put in another way, for
many issues there is no sure way of finding a single and definite answer- no matter how
well the researcher has proceeded (Eve et al., 1997).

2
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

In any case, the implications that will follow to the development of complexity theory for
dealing with social systems are far from being a simple question. For example, Bausch
(2001) categorizes the social aspect of over 30 major systemic theorist as falling into five
broadly thematic areas: designing social systems, the structure of the social world,
communication, cognition, and epistemology. This paper identifies three main
approaches found in the recent literature on complexity theory applied to social systems:
(1) the Supplementing the Modernist Program Approach, (2) the Metaphorical-Analytical
Approach, and (3) Post-normal Science Approach.

Approaches to use complexity theory for the analysis/synthesis of social systems

It is the opinion of the author that the excessive reliability of social sciences on the
paradigms and methods employed in physics have provoked a misrepresentation of what
a social system is and what aspects or elements it includes. Before I describe the three
approaches identified, I will comment on some aspects of social systems which have been
poorly tackled in social sciences because of the “handicaps” imposed because of the kind
of formal system applied:

1) In physics, different objects of the same type behave quite the same. The details of
context or history in which the object finds itself does not usually determine its behavior.
This is not an appropriate requirement for social sciences in which contextual details are
a major factor. Complexity brings context to the fore. In human affairs, it is beginning to
look as if history and tradition, even individual acts and decisions, are far more powerful
determinants of how a society is organized than the economic and political “forces” that
nineteenth-century social theory reduced to social laws.

2) In social systems cause and effect are not tied in such a way that individuals has no
room for self-determination, or to affect the larger society. Power and knowledge are two
aspects of the same process. Social systems carry information about themselves and their
environments, and are able to act on such information (Marion, 1999).

3) It is argued that social systems are different to natural systems because in the former
the observer forms part of the very system. It is arguable whether human beings are not in
a similar way embedded and form part of ecosystems, but the relation observer-observed
can be identified differently in both cases.

4) The question of agency has been broadly debated in sociology and political science. In
human societies the origin of perturbations may be internal to society itself. In human
systems, perturbations of far from equilibrium conditions can originate in the values and
actions of humans themselves. This raises the distinction between teleology and
causality. Teleological action requires a sort of control of success, which becomes the
foundation of the interaction between subject and object. Goal-oriented or purposeful
action is thus held together through the unity of consciousness. It effects a differentiation
of the Ego from the object-world and constitutes a conscious interweaving of subjective
energies with objective existence.

3
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

5) Consciousness is the next missing piece in the traditional social science puzzle. The
requirement for unconsciousness refers to the difficulties posed for any experiments
involving human beings by their human capacity of understand what is going on, attach
meanings to it, and act according to their own purposes and meanings.

6) Social systems are products of not only physical aspects, and living dynamics, but also
of symbolic communication. Consequently, the internal structure of a social system is
typically far more ordered that is that of a purely physical system.

The use of complexity theory could help to incorporate some of these missing elements in
the analysis/synthesis of social systems. The three approaches identified in this paper can
be seen as ordered from less general/more specific to more general/less specific (see
Rosen 1991). In the three cases, having complexity into account implies a generalization
of the traditional scientific formalisms. Human beings respond to symbols (syntactic
aspect of languages), such as words, ideas, concepts, opinions, emotions, projections, and
beliefs. We join social movements because of abstract beliefs, certain words can
galvanize us to group action, we join discussion groups to share ideas, marry because of
love, create armies because of fear, and socialize because of friendship (Marion, 1999).
We assign meaning to things that have no physical substance. These mental constructs
interact with reality in complex ways and catalyze us to create complex webs of alliances
that we call social structure. Is mathematics or complexity theory a suitable formalism for
describing all these aspects of reality?

The study of social systems implies the use of systems of symbols suitable for describing
or attaching meaning to the inner world processes and dynamics of individuals. Maybe
the mathematical symbols are not the most appropriate to develop this task. Social
sciences have imported lots of symbolisms used in science for describing the material
world. This has favored the study of the material outer side of human beings, while
societies have been depicted by the aggregated behavior of rational individuals. This
material bias could change dramatically with the advancement of complexity.

First Approach: Supplementing the Modernist Program with chaos theory

According to this approach, applying complex theory consists basically of modifying the
formal systems used to describe the outer world incorporating the mathematics of chaos.
Thus, theories of chaos and complexity while recognizing some limitations of the
modernist program provide the mean to ground social sciences within the “scientific”
tradition. By correcting inadequacies in our scientific paradigm, we may appropriately
and fruitfully continue to do “science” (Price, 1997). The basic assumption underling is
to consider mathematics as isomorphic with the world as it is. Chaos and complexity
theory provide new rules to enrich the old formalisms. We just need to introduce some
“adjustments” for explaining the dynamics of certain phenomena. Chaos theory suggest
that simple events generate behaviors so complex that one is tempted to call them

4
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

random, yet they are entirely deterministic and can be modeled with simple mathematical
equations. In that way we have reached finally a real and legitimate “Social Science”.

In order to guarantee a full application of chaos theory, human systems must fulfill three
conditions: (1) non-linearity, (2) iteration, and (3) sensitivity to initial conditions. The
isomorphism is granted with the following arguments:
(1) Complexities of human behavior are sufficient for supplying any degree of non-
linearity. There are linear predictable phenomena in social systems, but there are
also many nonlinear processes.
(2) Social interactions are frequently iterative in nature. Values of the so-called
explanatory social variables are influenced, at some point in time, by that we wish
to explain.
(3) Prediction is abandoned, but we still can exert a certain degree of control through
the description of possible trajectories and their associated strange attractors. This
search of trajectories descriptions compels to strive for more precise
measurements, and the collection of more accurate historical and longitudinal
data.

The main shift consists of adding the notion of dynamic order (deterministic chaos) to the
traditional descriptions based on premises of static order. It is argued that periodic and
point attractor stability has blinded us to alternative perspectives of stability.
Traditionally, a phenomena is either repetitive and stable, or random and without pattern.
Non-linearity teaches us that randomness and unpredictability are givens, and that they
can build order, albeit a rather complex one (Marion, 1999). As in statistics, this approach
states that there is patterns to many seemingly unpredictable events. The problem is that
the statistic analysis has been largely restricted to the study of static phenomena. There is
much to be gained from studying the dynamics or trajectories of behavior.

Thus, deterministic chaos permits the continuation of the modernist program. Complexity
is the modernist antidote against the post-modernist threat. The trick consists of finding
order within chaos. In fact, chaos is identified as a crucial element in creating order. In
the shift from linear reductionistic science to non-linear and emergent science. Some
additional rules must be considered in the mathematical and conceptual models, but all
the rest remains the same: (1) science still represents a privileged truth that is to be
established through empirical investigation, (2) research is organized in tightly closed
disciplinary areas, (3) science seeks to identify global properties (i.e. natural laws) (Price,
1997), and (4) the kind of formalisms applied force the use of numbers as the only way to
describe what is real. The problems of reification and adequacy of measurements are
considered solvable limitations. Generally speaking, what it is measurable is (quite
freely) identified with what is real.

The central idea in the case of social science is to apply the quantitative methods or
formalisms used in complexity/chaos in the physical sciences to the kind of quantitative
descriptions of the social world that social scientists have available to them. Complexity-
based research can be adapted to social scientific purposes, and the existing tools of
social scientific research can be used as part of a complex program (Byrne, 1998). Social

5
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

systems are seen as consisting of a set of highly interdependent variables evolving over
time. Rules can be specified to describe how the system changes from one state to
another with respect to time. Now, the time axis is not Newtonian and continuous, but
rather it represents transitions (Byrne, 1998). Time is irreducible, irreversible, and
asymmetrical (Eve et al., 1997).

In addition to what it has been commented up to now, there are three basic conceptual
contributions of applying a chaos/complexity analysis: (1) emergence, (2) phase
transition, and (3) dissipation.

The incorporation of emergent processes in the analysis means to look for explanations of
discontinuous and fundamental changes in the character of the social system as a whole.
Once we express this process mathematically, emergence becomes an empirical reality. It
is considered that social structures are actually composed of emergent properties. These
are very simple rules for individual interactions which create chaotic formal systems
(implying iterations of equations with feedbacks). Changes in those simple rules about
how individuals interact with one another socially, politically, or economically might
result in a completely different social structure after a few million cycles of interaction
(Eve et al., 1997).

The second key-element of analysis is formalized under the concept of ‘strange

attractors’. Mathematically, strange attractors “come to existence” as the result of
allowing operating the feedback terms of the equation. They are the fractal form
embedded in any nonlinear feedback process. Any of the millions of dots that compose a
strange attractor represents a single solution to an iterative equation involving feedback
(when chaos is present). In such a way, deterministic chaos/complexity theory constitutes
the new vehicle for continuing the main endeavor of science, which is to find the
equations describing the patterns of “reality”. In this exercise there is implied a certain
notion of “pseudo-predictability”; we do not know what will happen, but we know there
are only a set of alternatives (strange attractors) greater than one but less than too many
(Byrne, 1998). An additional problem to prediction is imposed by the existence of
bifurcation points, which determine trajectories leading to different strange attractors
(Byrne, 1998). This situation of “soft predictability” forces the use of looser criteria when
establishing modeling relations with natural or social systems. In that way, the
formalization becomes more general (in the sense of Rosen) than the linear ones used
within traditional science.

The third element, dissipative structures, is treated as something close to chaotic

dynamics. Mathematically it means that parameters are determined not only by
externalities, but also by other internal components inside the model (Lee, 1997). The
example of the sand pile is used to illustrate the implications of considering social
systems as self-organized structures: in spite of millions of chaotic events (the sand
poured) that afflict individuals within society, the social structure itself (the sand pile)
remains largely unchanged.

6
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

Finally, it is important to point out how this approach seeks legitimacy in the use of
computational strategies that were not available a few years ago: “Now we have not only
the technology- the computer, capable of endless, fast, accurate iterations of operations
involving mutually dependent elements- but also the theoretical machinery of fractal
mathematics and chaos science. We can now create facsimiles of reality by successive
tweaking of the variables and the connections among them. This reverses the top-down
theory to phenomena approach. Not just describing the universe, but creating possible
universes and then selecting the one closest to the actuality” (Eve et al., 1997: XXV).

Second approach: Metaphoric-analytical application of complexity for describing

social systems

As in the case of the first approach, the Metaphoric-analytic approach proposes a “tool-
kit” to solve some drawbacks, and allow the continuation, of the modernist program. This
modification could be described as a reconstruction of the modernist program (in contrast
to the deconstructive approach of postmodernism). A new philosophical standpoint,
Realism, emerges from the tension between modernism and post-modernism. Realism is
seen as a philosophical ontology which can be complemented with complexity as a
scientific ontology (Byrne, 1998). This indicates clearly that science is considered as the
truly way of representing reality and not just a language or system of knowledge among
others.

In contrast with the first approach, now complexity and self-organization are considered
as more important theoretical concepts than chaos itself. We can build models of social
systems as self-organizing systems in which the mathematics of chaos are useful to
describe certain social dynamics (i.e. to describe some patterns of behavior). Complexity
is seen as a middle way between order and chaos, and it is argued that social systems
dynamics are usually complex rather than chaotic or stable. In social systems we usually
deal with very different sorts of data (many units, few observations versus many
observations of single units over a long time period), and therefore we should focus more
in complex transformation of state (evolutionary development) rather than on chaos.
Change in self-organized systems is adaptive; that is, relationships between components
at one level change in response to changes taking place in other levels. Adaptive systems
are both changing and stable.

The “modification” of the linear formal premise for modeling reality is more radical in
this approach than it was in the previous one. Here, it is promoted the use of non-
mathematical categories for representing breakdowns of linearity, even though the
production rules will be still essentially of a mathematical character. Complexity helps to
legitimate qualitative approaches. Nicolis remarks on the impossibility of a full
quantitative understanding of complex phenomena (Nicolis, 1995). Under this point of
view, the disagreements between positivists and adherents to the strong interpretative
program of qualitative social science are irrelevant and pointless (Byrne, 1998).
Mathematics, which depends on underlying continuity is not easily isomorphic with
qualitative distinctions, but it can still be used as analogy for the world as it is (Byrne,

7
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

1998) (i.e.: strange attractors is not only a matter of a formula with solutions, but the
concept is used for analogies and for understanding phenomena from a different
perspective or view).

One of the most obvious mathematical metaphors for social phenomena according to this
approach is the use of strange attractors for representing different state of the system (Eve
et al., 1997). Here, the idea of attractors is based on resonance or sync-ness: Individual
particles (people) interact with one another, and their behavior correlate as a result. The
system crosses over an invisible boundary and the landscape of attractors alters
dramatically. As in the first approach, such changes are called bifurcations. These
“metaphorical attractors” can be detected through techniques such as cluster analysis of
data sets (Byrne, 1998). The justification for the analogy of strange attractors with social
system is summarized in the following points:
• Attractors are stable, but (as social systems) their trajectory never repeats itself.
They have the capacity to change and adapt.
• Both can grow or shrink to encompass a broader or a narrower range of behaviors,
can alter their appearance, and convert to a completely different state or even fad
away.
• They can learn and carry information about their past, anticipate the future, and
reproduce.

Such metaphorical comparisons do not prove that social behavior are strange attractors,
but if social systems looks like attractors and behave like attractors, why do not see if
attractors will tell us something about social systems.

Implicitly, there the idea of discovering the “thermodynamic state variables” of social
systems, and then try to find the equations, through cluster analysis, which relate these
variables in general, or for specific situations: “What matters is not the individual
trajectory of social atoms, but rather the changing characteristics of the complex social
order within which those trajectories occur. We have to understand how the micro is
aggregated into something beyond the sum of its parts, to understand society as
constituted by sets of attractors within the range of possible condition spaces, and to
understand how changes in controlling variables for the whole system can come to
reconstitute the form of that attractor set ” (Byrne, 1998: 71).

The definition of time is similar to the one given in the previous approach, but now the
evolutionary dimension (accounting for developmental and phase-shift processes, and
fundamentally historic changes) receives more attention than the continuous (although
non-linear) conception of time (Byrne, 1998).

It is important to mention that the idea of promoting the application of chaos and
complexity concepts metaphorically does not exclude the development of more analytical
applications. In fact, the role of numerical data is still crucial in any representation of the
real world, and, furthermore, it is argued that the very data can generate a reflexive
process in which: “the theory serves as a basis for the organization of the model but the
data itself is also used to generate ideas in an exploratory way“ (Byrne, 1998: 67).

8
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

One of the main endeavors of applying this approach to social systems is the
identification and description of interactions: “In social science we still lack insight into
the nature of social interactions, what the variables are, and what the functional
relationships between them may be. To show that chaos theory can explain events in a
social science setting, we must begin to understand the nature of those variables,
interactions, and relationships”(Marion, 1999). Special attention is devoted to the micro
(individuals)- macro (society as a whole) interactions: “Conceptualizing the relationship
between the conscious agency of individual and/or collective social actors and the social
conceived of in terms of social structure” (Byrne, 1998). Society overall behavior can
only be understood as an emergent consequence of the holistic sum of all the myriad
behaviors embedded within. Because of the dynamic interactions among individuals, a
system emerges. It is not deliberately created, it may, and very often does, just happen.
The system exerts a commanding influence on the behavior of the individuals, thus
further assuring its vitality and survival: Social systems as self-organized emergent
entities (Marion, 1999).

Departing from the consideration of individuals as the building blocks of social life, the
task becomes either modeling the connections between levels or figuring out general
bridging laws able to connect statements about regularities observed at different levels.
Both activities require taking measures at different hierarchical levels to account for
micro-macro relations. As suggested by Byrne (1998), the data collected can be
organized into contingency tables (n dimensional condition space within which cases
(individuals) are found in certain sub-domains and not in others). This accounts for the
social system in terms of elements within the system, but we also may have measures of
the state of the whole social system in terms of key descriptive attributes. Sometimes the
system measures are an aggregate value of individual measures, but its systemic
implication is different from that of any of the individual components which makes it up.
It is important to note that we may consider the condition state of a social system as a
whole in terms of a set of indices. Here we can use time series data to describe whole
societies over periods of change and see if the changes are non-linear (Byrne, 1998).

Finally, this approach establishes a very clear dichotomy between holism (looking at the
whole society) and reductionism (looking to aspects of society or of individuals). In lots
of its aspects the approach is clearly declared as anti-reductionist. However, there is not
any awareness about (1) the reductionistic risks of holism (i.e. reduction to the whole),
and (2) the possible inconveniences of still being applied by sociologists, within social
sciences, and considering exclusively traditional social variables.

Third approach: Post-Normal Science

The previous approaches described chaos and complexity theory as a formal system that,
with the supplement of reductionism (or vice versa), would provide a way of describing
the whole reality as an ultimate truth. The Post-Normal Science Approach questions the

9
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

ability of any specific formalism (or system of knowledge) to account for the whole
reality. This serious doubt brings the suggestion of transforming our conception of what
science is, including under the label of “Scientific Knowledge” a multiplicity of Systems
of Knowledge (SK). A SK can be defined as a fundamental code of a culture which
construct the episteme, and that determine the empirical orders and social practices of a
particular group in a particular historical era. An episteme is an organization of relations
that allows a discourse to make sense.

An important implication of this broad generalization of the scientific method is to face

the possibility that mathematics is not sufficient to encompass the human and social
world (Back, 1997). We may then turn to other aspects of imagination and creativity (i.e.
art and literature). Complexity theory may help in this direction, but we must consider the
possibility that some aspects, which are relevant for understanding social systems, cannot
be encompassed by this formalism, even though it is more general than the used
traditionally by reductionistic research. For instance, we could question whether Western
thinkers have blinded themselves to important understanding in their zeal to remove
spiritually from the gaps in our understanding. Nature is not a predestined automaton;
rather it is capable of free will, of creativity, of teleology. God cannot, after all, be
banished from the gaps, for the gaps are axiomatic in nature (Marion, 1999). The
question is whether complexity theory is an appropriate way for incorporating the
spiritual aspect relevant for the description of social systems. Generally speaking, if an
aspect is considered important for the description of social systems, and this is a decision
rather than a technical issue, then we have to look for an appropriate way of representing
it. In this context, ‘appropriate’ refers mainly to the ability of communicating the
information linked to the aspect to be considered.

To adopt a pluralism of SK involves a lesser emphasis in measurements. Numbers are not

the only way of representing reality and are not more objective than other kinds of
encoding. Scientists are not someone collecting numbers, but someone interacting with
the other individuals, in the society, as an individual knower.

The crucial shift comes from the acceptance of truth as just a convention that allows us to
communicate with the rest of individuals and within different parts of our inner world.
We cannot know analytically whether there is a reality out there. This is a question of
both faith and practicality, which opens the discussion about what languages are more
suitable in any given situation for any given purpose. As a consequence, the starting point
of any scientific endeavor consists of identifying the personal or collective purpose
underlying any specific research exercise.

At this point, it is easy to get stuck into the debate around the existence of an objective
world, but the point is that even if such a thing exists, there would not be a unique way of
grasping the whole reality. Conversely, if an objective reality does not exist, then we also
need to construct different formal systems and conventions for allowing communication
among humans. A strategic decision is to see reality as an elusive commodity. The best
we can do is closer and closer approximations. We may never arrive at absolute and total
reality. SK serve to manipulate parts of reality, understand what it is made up of, and

10
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

communicate with others our own personal perceptions and experiences, but none
formalism should not be confounded with ‘the reality’. Knowledge is perspectival,
requiring multiple viewpoints to interpret a heterogeneous world. Every individual
perceives the world singularly. This provides any individual with an intrinsic value. But
in order to communicate, we need to agree on a common representation of our different
perceptions.

Two important assumptions of this approach are that: (1) the observer cannot be detached
from the observed, and (2) situations are unpredictable in themselves, not only by virtue
of the limits of their observers. This unpredictable character of reality allow us to devote
our efforts to other ways of understanding, where surprise can be seen as something
positive and creative. Freedom recovers its meaning as a word usable by science and
philosophy (Eve et al., 1997).

These assumptions imply a new science, new scientific institutions (if any) moving from
a scientific public administration to a publicly administered science. The new Science
might deal with diverse kinds of systems and situations (not only the simplest physical
ones) through the use of different languages and formalisms. The price is to abandon the
pretension of objectivity. This brings to the fore the need for a new conception of quality
control of the scientific discourse. It becomes essential to understand the formal
mechanisms operating in any SK, so that we can check the coherence of contextual
applications with regard to the internal formal rules and symbols (semantic checking).
More importantly, a crucial aspect of research becomes the understanding of the deep
implications of choosing among different SK on (1) our way of perceiving the world, (2)
our social structures and organizations, (3) the power relations in our society, and (4) our
structures of values, among other aspects. Part of this understanding comes through the
study of the history and philosophy of the scientific pursuit. It is not only important to
know how to use tools of analysis, but also what does to use these tools mean, where they
come from, which significance have in our lives and in our way of representing reality. It
is questionable whether current research institutions are prepared for facing this
challenge.

According to this approach, complexity should not be based on an unfolding of the

modern paradox into dichotomies of local versus global, individual versus social, order
versus disorder, or human versus non-human (Lee, 1997). The idea of complementarities
could be a good candidate for substituting the breakdown of linear dichotomies. Thus,
nearness and distance, subjectivity and objectivity, individual and societal, and so on are
not seen as mutually exclusive opposites but rather as a relation of mutual improvement
(reciprocal causation); that is, the development of one side of a dichotomy is a
precondition of the development of the other side (i.e. exchange is not the addition of two
processes of giving and receiving but rather a new, third one which emerges while each
of the two processes is, absolutely simultaneously, the cause and effect of the other (Eve
et al., 1997)). The world becomes gray rather than black and white. Whether it will be
considered as black or white will depend on the SK used to describe it.

11
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

Complementarity of dichotomies does not prevent SK of having associated values (i.e.

influencing the decision on which aspects of reality focus our inquiry) that should be
described and taken into account. Apart of these subjective values, there is another kind
of values intrinsic to the analysis of social systems, which emerge as a result of the
balance among power relations, determining the decision of using a specific SK over
another. This latter kind of values is very close to ideologies (a form of conceptual
simplification, prescribing certain notions and proscribing others). The difference is that
while SK has the main goal of explaining one part of reality (discerning truth), ideologies
seek for changing one part of the reality in a certain direction. It could happen that certain
values intrinsic to a certain SK fit better into the scheme of a certain ideology. This
would promote the use of that specific SK in order to articulate the discourse within that
specific ideology. However, this is different than saying that all SK are necessarily
ideological and political. On the other hand, SK influences our perception of the world,
our sense of reality, and this has an effect in the way we organize society (i.e. power
structures). In any case, we are speaking about very complex relationships.

Post-Normal Science shifts radically the main focus of the first and second approaches.
The point is not to discern whether complexity theory represents a complement of the
scientific program or a transforming paradigm within this program that will allow a better
representation of truth. The relevant issue now is what are the implications of applying a
specific SK (i.e. complexity theory) to describe a specific and context-dependent
situation. The main endeavor of science becomes making available to individuals the
plethora of SK that can be relevant in a specific situation. Therefore, the key question to
address here is; how does this approach evaluate the implications of applying complexity
theory to the specific context of ‘social systems’?

From the stand point of the Post-Normal Science approach, two main decisions must be
taken in order to answer the former question: (1) what aspects of social systems should be
represented using complexity theory, and (2) which is the purpose of the description? (i.e.
if the purpose is to get a paper published, then you are going to use the language which
has a highest degree of legitimacy in the journal you are writing to).

Complexity theory can contribute in the representation of social systems as nested

hierarchies composed by: structures of communication, systems of meaning, or discourse,
ideologies, roles of individuals (i.e. “priests” in charge of preserving the current
structure), power relations, values, individual perceptions, technology, knowledge,
configurations of energy, matter, money, information fluxes, human time allocation
structures, rituals, and others. It is arguable that complex theory is useful to represent all
of these aspects. Nevertheless, this is not a decision to be taken in the frame of this paper.
The rules governing this decision are neither universal nor grounded in structures of the
mind. Rather they are historically contingent and situationally specific. This recognizes
the connections between SK (discursive phenomena) and non-discursive phenomena
(institutions, political events, economic practices and processes). Objects of knowledge
(i.e. social systems) may have both discursive and non-discursive conditions of existence.
The decision will depend on the person(s) who are deciding. With this respect, science
must be seen as a part of art. There are some techniques that are useful, but the artist has

12
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

to look inside and express or project aspects of the self. Then the techniques (Systems of
Knowledge) are just means for developing the artistic activity and for communicating the
results. This artistic activity must be seen as a self-referential exercise carried out by
individuals (i.e. through a social process of individualization) and societies (i.e. through
institutional changes). We build up our social system by shaping our relationships with
the environment. A crucial component of every social system is the internal structure of
the self.

In summary, this approach proposes to change the rules of quality governing science. The
shift is from the current strict formal rules derived from mathematical formalisms, to
pluralistic sets of rules including at the same time very general and very specific
formalisms. To do so, it is argued that what is important is the individual process of
decision or the social process of negotiation that must lead to the use of a specific set of
SK in any specific situation. Within the academic world there is a strong resistance to
recognize that any objective system of quality has only legitimacy inside its formal
system of knowledge. On the other hand the alternative of leaving the evaluation of
quality exclusively to a process of negotiation has the strong inconvenience of depending
on the existing power structures and beliefs (i.e. the already existing legitimacy among
the currently used systems of knowledge) within the process of negotiation takes place.

Some implications of the ideas presented

The alternative use of the different approaches explained above have profound
implications in the way we think about the world and the way we use mathematics as a
description of it.

The resulting picture coming from the application of a reductionistic paradigm shows a
world of regular changes, functioning like a mechanical machine, and giving intellectual
support to the rise of technology and industry. Order is traditionally seen as the fruit of
work: “our culture is characterized by an almost primal or subsconscient acceptance of
the work ethic, the conviction that good results from effort” (Marion, 1999: XII). This
misunderstanding about the emergence of order has been a powerful metaphor for
promoting interventionism oriented to stabilize and make systems more predictable. The
scientific endeavor has been shaped according to this objective, namely to describe the
stable patterns operating in the physical, biological, and social systems.

Complexity theory brings into fore an important concept: self-organization. According to

it, order emerges naturally because of unpredictable non-linear interactions. Self-
organization implies a balance between order and chaos. This way of describing reality
could be more helpful for explaining adaptation, deliberative behavior, reproduction, and
evolution. Social systems must be able to map their past (memory) and consolidate gains
(order), but at the same time stimulate novelty to adapt to changes in their environment.

According to an approach based on supplementing the Modernist Program, the new

nonlinear science would suggest that the answer, if there is one, might lie in a totally

13
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

unexpected direction (i.e. emergence of a new dimension of interdependencies).

Application of complexity theory to the social sciences may be difficult because of our
frequent inability to impose rigorous controlled conditions for the conduction of many
studies (Eve et al., 1997), but chaos theory gives hope for attaching quantities to variables
meaningfully. In this way, we are be able to finally forecast processes at the social level
through chaos theory. Chaos can lead to order and indeed to a form of stability that gives
us an improved ability to forecast and even control the future. Chaos is first and foremost
deterministic, and it is this determinism that is illuminating, not indeterminacy. This view
could lead, for instance, to a representation of society where people organize themselves
into an economy through a myriad of unconscious individual acts of buying and selling; it
happens without anyone being in charge or consciously planning. In social systems, the
mechanism for selection of one social alternative over another would be “communicative
success”.

In the viewpoint of the Metaphorical-analytical Approach, any system that obeys rules-
even if the behavior is chaotic- can be controlled once the rules are known (Byrne, 1998).
Change in self-organized systems is adaptive; that is, relationships between components
at one level change in response to changes taking place in other levels. On the other hand,
the system under study has chaotic dynamics, but human actions and policies are still
seen as ordered rational actions using the information made available by science (being
science the application of mathematical formalism, although now we speak about non-
linear equations). The lessons of nonlinear dynamics indicate that through the
manipulation of relevant politic, economic and social inputs, desirable social outcomes
may not be realistically attainable (Byrne, 1998).

Under the Post-Normal Science Approach, freedom implies discoverable meaning in an

act (distinguishing an act from an event). A free act is unpredictable but retrodictable
after it has occurred in that it makes sense. Choosing is the kernel of scientific activity
(rather than discovering). To explain an event in terms of free choice is to turn one’s
research efforts to the history of semantics of the complex personal and social feedbacks
that underlie it (Eve et al., 1997). The decision of broaden the concept of science has far-
reaching implications as, for instance, to question the primacy of Western Systems of
Knowledge, or the suitability of using Systems of Knowledge related with the outer
material world as a basis for building the knowledge in other fields.

Conclusions

Science based its authority on experiment and observation, but it needed something to
counteract extreme raw empiricism. This non-empirical role has been played by
mathematics as the ultimate source of authority. It was claimed that mathematics is not
only a convenient way of representation, but it may represent an ultimate reality.
Mathematics conform a myth for perfection (analytic-synthetic model). The procedure of
science was based on the assumption that we can assign numbers to any state of affairs,
that ever-increasing accuracy in measurement is possible and will lead to better theories,
and that we can handle the requisite number of variables. Any state of affairs that cannot

14
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

be handled in this way must either be transformed into a manageable form or they must
lie outside the purview of science.

Chaos theory is attractive to some social scientist partly because it offers a hope of
bringing the attributes of a mature science to an area that until now has seemed
intractably complicate except in descriptive terms. The main goal is to find regularities
through approaching the precise functional relationships between variables, which is the
goal of a mature “mathematized” science. Chaos theory is embraced by social scientist
owing to the hope of mathematical validity or perhaps, better, mathematical validation
(Eve et al., 1997). But chaos and complexity theories are just two symbolic
representations of the world among others.

In an unchanging universe, systems with negative feedbacks are more stable. But in a
universe like ours, a positive feedback system, with unpredictable new properties being
produced all the time, may well have a better chance of running just to stay in place.
Traditional science has developed lots of negative feedback mechanisms, but the primacy
of this system of knowledge is not sustainable any longer. In order to allow human
knowledge to run in harmony with the environment, we need to preserve our own cultural
reserves of unpredictable positive feedback so as to be able to respond appropriately to
those that surround us (Eve et al., 1997). The big shift consists of building a pluralistic
(and by extension less corporative) science. This is already happening and the best proof
is the lack of trust in those institutions built on negative feedback processes.

It is important to conciliate contextual research and general formalisms. There is a broad

range of systems of knowledge from more general to more specific, each one being
suitable to account for a specific aspect of reality. None of these formal systems should
be applied universally. Here it is important do not confound global with universal, and
universal with general. Even the most general formalism should be applied contextually.
There is not only a question of spatial scale.

Institutions have to change in parallel with the development of a new science. Part of this
change consists of giving a greater emphasis by government on the cultivation of virtue
in the population, and a somewhat lesser priority on the immediate fixing of problems.

15
Complexity and social systems David Manuel-Navarrete

References

Back, K.W. (1997) “Chaos and complexity. Necessary myths”. In Eve, R.A., S. Horsfall,
and M.E. Lee (Eds.) (1997). Chaos, Complexity and Sociology. Myths models and
theories. (39-51). Sage Publications. USA.

Bausch, K.C. (2001) The Emerging Consensus in Social Systems Theory. Kluwer
Academic Publishers. Dordrecht.

Benathy, B. (1996) Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. Kluwer Academic

Publishers. Dordrecht.

Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. An introduction.

Routledge. London / New York.

Eve, R.A., S. Horsfall, and M.E. Lee (Eds.) (1997). Chaos, Complexity and Sociology.
Myths models and theories. Sage Publications. USA.

Funtowicz, S., and J. Ravetz (1995) “Science for the post normal age”, in L. Westra and
J. Lemons (eds.), Perspectives on Ecological Integrity, 34-48. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, The Netherlands.

Lee, M.E. (1997) “From enlightenment to chaos. Toward non-modern social theory”. In
Eve, R.A., S. Horsfall, and M.E. Lee (Eds.) (1997). Chaos, Complexity and Sociology.
Myths models and theories. (15-30). Sage Publications. USA.

Luhmann, N. (1994) “’What is the case?’ and ‘What lies behind it?’: The two sociologies
and the theory of society. Sociological Theory, 12 (2): 126-139.

Marion, R. (1999). The Edge of Organization. Chaos, complexity theories and formal
social systems. Sage Publications. USA

Nicolis, G. (1995). Introduction to Nonlinear Science, Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge.

Pierce, B. (1997) “The myth of postmodern science”. In Eve, R.A., S. Horsfall, and M.E.
Lee (Eds.). Chaos, Complexity and Sociology. Myths models and theories. (3-14). Sage
Publications. USA.

Rosen, R. (1991) Life Itself: A comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin, and
fabrication of life. Columbia University Press. New York.

16