In my early work on social theory (summarized and a bit updated
in the Postscript to _Textual Politics_), I found I needed a
similar notion, which I called 'counter-functional' practices.
The origin of this idea for me was the biological notion of
'reserve plasticity': that evolved and adapted systems need to
keep themselves from becoming so specialized and 'over-adapted'
to particular environmental conditions (ecological contexts) that
they cannot respond to serious environmental changes (or
opportunities). In order to maintain this 'plasticity' they must
actually work against their own adaptedness to any set of present
conditions. In my more recent work I have come across this same
notion at the ecosystem level in theories of ecological
'resilience', the most interesting of which, for me, says that
ecosystems frequently avoid falling into any of the possible
attractors of their dynamics (roughly, 'stable configurations',
actually dynamically meta-stable homeorheses), by charting a
course that just barely misses each of them, and so wanders
about, sometimes chaotically (unpredictably) among them. There
are real examples of this in nature. My thesis is that in fact
nearly all evolved biological systems do this, and those that do
not tend to become extinct pretty quickly (mere millions of
years?).
I think this notion provides an important antidote to
'functionalist' thinking about human systems, which is based on
the notion of adaptedness. Adapting too perfectly, being too good
a student, teacher, little boy or girl, closes down our options
for responding to novelty in the environment. It is not a good
survival strategy in a changing environment. Whatever its
consequences for the individual, it is doubly necessary for the
group or species. It also provides a way of seeing, as Bill
suggests, that cultures of reproduction (i.e. all cultures that
persist) should be expected to _contain within themselves_
cultures of resistance, which serve an essential function in
their long-term survivability and resilience. Our rebels are our
'wildtype genes', and they are conserved in the population. This
is why societies produce deviance as well as conformity,
criminals as well as law-abiders, perverts as well as breeders.
It shows us that they too are part of the community, not outside
it.
Their role in maintenance is perhaps some subtle variant of
keeping the majority on its toes, but their main role is in
change. Yet they do not represent change agents from outside
(except insofar as we foolishly try to exclude them); they are
part of what we are part of. They are not totally alien to us,
but co-adapted to upset our well-planned activities in just the
right ways. The integration of the ecosocial system should then
insure that some aspect of the practices proper to any activity
somehow also prevents that activity from unfolding in a
completely predictable manner. These counter-functional elements
ensure emergence and surprise. They are part of the reason we
cannot always smoothly pursue pre-planned goals, but must adapt
to changing and emerging ones in activity. JAY.
JAY LEMKE.
City University of New York.
BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU