If the complexity frame of reference is applied to human behavior in ter=
ms of
meaning making then we are self-referencing and self-organizing our meani=
ngs
and experiences with other persons and groups, using all sorts of tools,
cultural artifacts. Interests, motives, values, social relations are
interdependent phenomena.
I see considerable recursion among Mead, Dewey, Vygotsky, Bakhtin with th=
emes
in complexity theory. I sometimes think that we in the social sciences an=
d
humanities get into trouble when we take our physics, biology, chemistry,=
and
mathematics cousins so literally that we forget the cultural historical c=
ontext
in which their concepts emerged. Agency and responsibility remain alive=
and
well, at least in my interpretation and use of complexity theory.
Molly
Phil Graham wrote:
> Molly wrote:
>
> >That is what complex adaptive systems do....continually
> >self-reference and feedback onto themselves in terms of new situations=
, to
> >which they have contributed.
>
> After investing much intellectual effort in chaos and complexity theory=
, I
> realised the metaphorical strengths of the paradigm. However, I must ad=
d
> that they are just that: picturesque, and sometimes obfuscating, metaph=
ors.
>
> Often, an asocial, agentless (even though its often agent based, as in
> "Sociology from the Bottom Up": SFI: 1997) complex system is cited whic=
h
> removes human responsibility. Thus, complexity is appealed to in much t=
he
> same way as a God. I'm not saying that this is what _you_ are doing, Mo=
lly,
> to the contrary (and I gladly risk raising the ire of persons with a
> similar intellectual investments to both yourself and myself), but 'tak=
e,
> for instance, Bella=92s (1997) assertion that complex systems theory la=
rgely
> divests the tobacco industry of culpability in deceiving the public abo=
ut
> the dangers of tobacco:
>
> "Leaked documents and public testimony point to widespread distortion o=
f
> information within the tobacco industry. The model describes such behav=
iors
> as emergent outcomes not reducible to or sufficiently explained by
> individual fraud and deliberate deceit. Critics of the tobacco industry
> often fail to appreciate the role of self-organization in complex syste=
ms.
> They presume rational design. Consequently, they imply more intentional
> deceit, deliberate planning, and conspiracy needed to explain the
> distortions that actually occurred. The tobacco industry expresses gene=
ral
> phenomena found in many large-scale human systems =85 They are
> self-organizing." (Bella 1997, pp. 977-978).
>
> Bella=92s sophistry is, unfortunately, somewhat typical of sociological
> complex systems theorising, especially in the areas of management and
> organisational communication. Bella=92s agenda is ultimately transpare=
nt and
> exemplifies Sokal=92s criticism of current applications of Complexity t=
heory
> in sociology. Bella also indicates the direction in which a pre-biologi=
cal
> view of human behaviour might take sociological theory' (taken from a
> forthcoming paper for Social Semiotics: Graham P & McKenna B).
>
> Phil
>
> Phil Graham
> p.graham who-is-at qut.edu.au
> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html