3.2.7 Strength In Diversity – Self-Organisation, Emergence Again

While there is an element of unpredictability there is also creativity in emergence.  There is potential to come up with solutions that are innovative and novel, and perhaps more suitable to the local environment than a structure that is put upon from the outside.

This is important in family support and that is the main reason why I include an exploration of systems theory.

Coming up with solutions from within implies self-organisation as our family adapts to external influences, the external environment adapts to our family, and due to feedback, (movement between the external environment and our family) we adapt our norms, values, behaviour etc. to cope, and vice versa. 

Of course, there is no guarantee that the adaptation will move in a positive direction – that is, the direction we want it to go in – but in nature, adaptation generally seems to favour growth, with accompanying increase in complexity. Otherwise we’d all still be amoebas! [1]

The trial and error, chaotic nature of the ordering of society implies that we are all constantly trying to maximize our position.  As stated already, not everyone else will be happy with this so there will be frequent conflict.  Eventually two or more of us find mutual relevance, that is, something that is beneficial to both or all of us.

As each adapts to our own and others’ needs, a group of us will form a network whose interests or concerns are similar.  This network will exert pressure on and/or influence neighbouring networks, or groups, and the inevitable tensions that arise will cause further adjustment.

(Of course, the network will have a particular activity – or activities – that is/are common to all those participating).  What is a given (that is, what is certain) is flexibility implying continual change.

Whether it is a primitive organism like the aforementioned amoeba, or a sophisticated network of humans like a family, when creation is through self-organisation, there is uncertainty in the duration, frequency and nature of changes, the behaviour of each member and, ultimately, the whole.

If there was certainty (for example like a computer programme), the entire organisation would actually be far less robust.

This of course is well known to us.  Most people are aware that, while thoroughbred dogs, horses etc. may perform better in the specific area for which they are trained, and for which they were bred by man, mongrels are healthier and generally more robust.  And a computer will only do what it is told.

So interestingly, uncertainty that is anathema to almost all organisations (particularly large ones) implies strength because of flexibility built from the trial and error nature of the process of growth.

This is very obvious in a well-enough functioning family if we take the time to observe closely.

[1]. I’m using this term to describe the most primitive form of life on Earth – I’m not sure whether or not it is, really.

Self organisation occurs in a wide variety of inanimate (for example crystal formation) and animate settings; (like examples I already gave, e.g. swarms of birds, beehive and anthill construction, distribution of trees in a forest). 

We are concerned with its application in human settings – in particular within a family, where behavioural patterns build up over time, beginning when two people meet and a family is started, and ultimately establishing a culture which has elements of, but is different to the cultures of the families of origin of the family starters.

The established cultures that become sedimented and cause particular patterns of behaviour in families are usually very enduring. 

Self-organisation is usually internal and can often be spontaneous.  It can be inspired or triggered by outside events or stimuli but when a system begins self-organising it is generally not controlled from the outside anymore.  If it was it wouldn’t be self-organising!

Whether or not a new practice (or even a new idea) becomes established as a pattern in a system such as a family (or, indeed, any group of people) depends on how it is enabled or facilitated within.  If those within (usually people who are persuasive, energetic or people of influence) notice a characteristic in a member (or members) they may behave in a way that causes it more likely to happen again by drawing more attention to it, or less likely to happen again by ignoring it.

And remember, in a family the people of greatest influence might not always be the parents. For example, a child’s behaviour may reveal a characteristic that, perhaps, parents may have consciously tried to avoid.

The extent to which something is made more likely or less likely to happen again depends more on the internal reaction than on what an outside observer thinks to be advantageous.  Reaction to the idea (or characteristic) among members increases the likelihood of a practice becoming established as a predictable feature, that is, a pattern.

(External factors will also of course have some influence on whether a new pattern becomes the norm – but they do not have the power of the internal influences). 

Eventually the new pattern develops a quality of predictability (though not certainty) that was not there before.

A lot of organisations are life-less.  They are like a nice shiny apple on the outside but decayed at the core, because growth from within is stymied – it is sad if growth can only take place if it’s ordered, or directed from outside.

In self-organisation, voluntary buy-in by members makes patterns of behaviour quite robust and enduring – and hard to change.

In society, and in particular in communities, entities that are set up to help others often start out from the ground up (from the grassroots) and have a high level of self-organisation in their early days. However, when they look externally to the Pillars for assistance, they run the risk of becoming over-controlled and top-down, very often to their detriment.

That is, the Pillars usually impose their norms and values.  (I have mentioned the effects of the dominance of Pillars thinking in the Chapter on Important Descriptions and I will refer to it again in the Chapter on The Family Support Shamrock).

This website promotes a different way of helping people in distress, which involves trusting the wisdom of people in communities who are courageous enough, and who care enough, to try and start something in the first place. In doing this we take systems theory and its characteristics very seriously, and because of that we need to consider the effect of emergence described at the start of this Chapter in the context of self-organisation.

One reason why the Pillars tend to try and control self-organising entities, that are not only tolerant of emergence, but allow it to flourish, is that they want to measure what is going on in anything that they have a stake in.

But an important aspect of emergence is the difficulty that we have in measuring it, or indeed its effects! Also, it is impossible to have precision in statistical analysis or prediction and planners of budgets don’t like this.

Let us look at this for a moment.

In the reductive world, it is possible to measure accurately and also predict future behaviour of a system if its properties are rigid (like a crystal), or random (like a gas).

In contrast, in self-organising entities which are neither random nor rigid, but, because of the property of emergence, are alive and flexible, accurate measurement (or prediction) is based almost totally on qualitative or intuitive factors.  That is, if we put A in place B will happen.  Why?  Because that is what usually happens, or that is what I intuitively predict – see bottom of this post – will happen.  (Note:  A is the cause and B is the effect).

Bureaucrats seem to have difficulty accepting this in the field of assisting people in distress, involved in imprisonment etc. because they cannot predict for definite that it always happens.

I believe that this is partly due to the fear of what the result will be if it doesn’t happen, as well as the general tendency to ignore the opinions and wisdom of the Focus Group, coupled with bureaucrats’ learned assumption that nothing will work anyway.

The Pillars seem to have no problem embracing it in such areas as tourism, the economy etc., which also can have a high degree of self-organisation. This is probably because 1): the people involved have been educated and socialised into Pillars thinking so they trust them to organise themselves in a way that won’t be a threat to them, 2): risk-taking in economic activity will yield profits and therefore more taxpayers, 3): they are lobbied strongly by people who have a good track record in being successful and making money, and, I suppose, (in fairness) 4): they fear that the chaos that is evident in families affected by addiction, imprisonment etc. may find its way into the self-organisation and resultant measurement.

Because of the above (and other reasons) self-organisation rarely holds much attractiveness for the Pillars when it comes to families affected by imprisonment.

The other reasons are many and varied, but are mostly to do with Power and Control, which is one of the reasons that I devoted an entire Chapter to that subject in the previous Section.