Chaos and transformation: Implications of nonequilibrium theory for social science and society

Abstract

This article deals with all levels of both living (biological, psychological, sociological, and cultural) and nonliving (physical, chemical, and mathematical) systems. The idea of applying the natural scientific self-organizing, evolutionary, and non-equilibrium or "chaos" theory associated with the names of Prigogine and others to world problems of impending social, political, economic, and ecological "chaos" is gaining ground. The leap from natural science to social action, however, is impossible without considerable attention to the main intervening step: the development of "chaos"-equivalent, evolution-, systems-, and action-oriented social theory. Construction of such theory requires understanding by social scientists of natural scientific "chaos" theory as well as their own "chaos" theoretical heritage, of natural scientists of the now seemingly far distant social problem-solving potential of their nonequilibrium and self-organizing theories, and of both natural and social scientists of how advancement at both levels could help gain a peaceful as well as humanistic "order out of chaos" in this troubled world of ours. This paper surveys relevant concepts, problems, theorists, research, and works in progress within a perspective of the challenge of survival at a critical juncture in the evolution of our species.

Lessons from Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology for a Partnership Society

“…Dynamical systems theory was first introduced in the late 19 th Century by the great French mathematician Henri Poincaré to develop theories in the physical sciences, then gradually spread into the biological and social sciences as the variables in those fields became better understood. As Loye and Eisler (1987) pointed out, dynamical system approaches to the social sciences help to illuminate how a complex social system can make radical changes in direction, such as between partnership and dominator tendencies, in response to relatively small outside perturbing forces.…”

“…A few computational models have emerged of interactions among multiple intelligent agents (see, e.g., Sun, 2006) but none yet with the predictive capacity that models of individual brains are starting to reach. Extension of some current neural network models to multi-person interactions is likely to generate the type of breakthroughs in the social sciences that Loye and Eisler (1987) proposed.…”

Complex Adaptive Systems in the Behavioral and Social Sciences

“…Loye and Eisler (1987) refer to this as the "normative aspect of social theory, or the requirement of attention to the systems guidance question of ideal developmental forms that must be the prime concern of all policy makers" (p. 56). In the context of complex adaptive systems, this mission includes such goals as enhancing communication patterns, redressing the inequitable distribution of benefits within a society, uncovering peaceful solutions to group or international conflicts, and discovering mechanisms to make organizations and governments more responsive and effective.…”

Complex Adaptive Systems, Evolutionism, and Ecology within Anthropology: Interdisciplinary Research for Understanding Cultural and Ecological Dynamics

“…(Odum 1996a:16) Anthropologists and other scientists are beginning to apply complex systems theory to social theory. The biological and physical scientists have approached the problem from numerous perspectives and with uneven degrees of social science sophistication (Allen 1982;Costanza et al 1993;De Greene 1993;Dyke 1988;Eldredge and Grene 1992;Forrester 1987;Garfinkel 1987;Geyer 1991;Gunderson et al 1995;Harvey and Reed 1994;Holling 1995;Iberall 1985Iberall , 1987Jantsch 1982;Kahil and Boulding 1996;Lancaster 1989;Loye and Eisler 1987;Maruyama 1982;Nicolis and Prigogine 1989;Odum 1983;Ulanowicz 1996). Archaeologists have recently become interested (Kohler 1992, Gumerman andGell-Mann 1994), especially for applying the non-linear, or pulsing dynamics of complex systems to understanding the collapse of state societies (Tainter 1988, Yoffee andCowgill 1988).…”