3.2.10 Chaos In Systems Theory

Our evolution as a species from hunter gatherer communities to what we deem to be our modern sophisticated civilisations has had many driving forces. We will come back to these again in the Chapter on Anthropology.

One of these driving forces is getting rid of as much uncertainty in our lives as we can.  (In fact, the first stage, i.e. the move from hunter gatherer to farmer was, in itself, a move towards certainty in food supply).

We obviously believe that if we increase certainty we will be happier, richer, more secure, more comfortable, ultimately safer, and our species will propagate more successfully.

And, in the important area that our blog covers, i.e. the family, the certainty of long-term stable marriage was obviously seen as more favourable than the uncertainty of communal parenting for ensuring that our species propagated and prospered.

But human beings are nothing if not paradoxical!

The very certainty that we continually yearn for, and promises so much also brings challenges in many spheres (such as relationship, spirituality, family, joy, creativity, grief, sadness and the inevitable chaotic events of life) that are the very essence of being alive.

Such vital elements of our existence demand that we embrace, and understand the importance of uncertainty just as much as certainty.

Studies in, and theories on systems, chaos, complexity, etc. interest me because I am interested in the family – and the family is an uncertain, complex, constantly changing system.

And whereas society tries to eliminate chaos from its institutions entirely, the good enough family seems to thrive on a tolerable level of chaos.

But once it becomes intolerable, it becomes harmful.

In our human context, chaos can be considered to be a state of disorder that results from a number of unexpected events that happen too frequently and/or too close together to be processed by people impacted by the events, but in particular people who perceive themselves to be in charge.

I am sure that you are familiar with the term organised chaos, like a family getting ready for a wedding, or a newspaper editorial office just before the deadline for publication.  A well-trained team playing a match might also be an example.  These are states of what I will call manageable disorder, which a casual visitor or onlooker might well perceive to be total disorder, but in reality is a state where everyone present intuitively knows what they have to do and what others have to do also so that the end result is achieved.

Let us look at this in the context of self-organisation. A major characteristic of manageable disorder is that if an unexpected event happens, the whole has enough belief in its ability to self-organise to absorb the unexpected event and recover enough cohesion to function well again.

For example if wine is spilt on the wedding dress there is enough self-belief in the family to firstly not get into a panic and start blaming each other, and secondly come up with a solution. Or, in a well-trained team, an unfortunate own-goal or a sending-off will upset us temporarily but will not do permanent damage.

This is resilience.

This tolerance of chaos is both dependent on, and seems to have the function of, allowing members to be themselves.  The difference between what I might call chaos and organised chaos is that in organised chaos people are able to manage their emotions so while their cognitive and emotional processing is on the limit (and may actually manifest in a burst of anger, or impatience or an intemperate remark) it is not in overload.

In overload chaos, there is panic, a state of incoherence and disorder where people or organisations are in danger.  This overload chaos is manifest in the tragedies of Hillsborough, Bradford, etc.  These are situations where people’s natural abilities to self-organise appear to freeze and no leader or leadership group takes charge.

Panic ensues, and the level of anxiety and fear in a critical mass of the group reaches a tipping point (the point of no return). Rationality and the ability to think coherently reduce to the point where normal cognitive processes of cause and effect are overwhelmed by fear, and every individual decision is made from the perspective of self-survival with no consideration as to how the decision will affect the group.

Nor is the bigger picture taken into consideration.  That is, that I, as an individual in the group, affect how the group behaves, and how that will ultimately affect me. (See this post).

An example of chaos on the limit might be the iconic picture of Fr. Edward Daly on Bloody Sunday in Derry in 1972 waving the white flag as he attended to the injured.  This simple expression of compassion appeared to have a calming effect on everyone, including the soldiers, and reduced the level of chaos.

I mention this because I have often experienced how compassion can reduce harmful chaos to a level where a rational decision can be made and will give two examples of this in the Chapter on Modalities.

Exploration of Systems Theory and complexity leads us to consider how the dance between chaos and order can be applied in the world of helping people. 

Traditionally, insights from, and observations of the natural world were not thought to be relevant to the world of society/behaviour/helping etc., which was Church based. 

When they did become relevant, in behavioural psychology, psychiatry etc. the same method of examination (that I described already, i.e. objective, reductionist, Newtonian) was seen to be the most reliable method of measurement, drawing conclusions, and then planning interventions.

I believe that this might be fine except for the presence of emergence, which was generally not factored into the reductionist methods of measurement and analysis that psychiatry, behaviourism and classical psychology employed.

Due to emergence, and our interactions with our environment, human behaviour is intrinsically unpredictable and full of chaos.

The most relevant aspect of this, for us anyway, is the notion that from uncertainty and unpredictability in humanity emerges an order which is somewhat but not absolutely predictable, and influenceable by different pressures within or from the environment in which we live.

The origin of order (and indeed intelligence, compassion, cruelty, loyalty, kindness, greed and many uniquely human attributes) that we observe all around us cannot be explained using Newtonian or classical science.

Order evolved because of our continual adaptation to the random, unpredictable chaotic events that are part and parcel of living.  We have interacted with each other and our natural environment for thousands of generations, influencing and being influenced.

And because influencers evolve through continual interaction and adaptation, we can apply systems theory to the process of growth no matter what our area of interest is (e.g. physical, chemical, biological or social).