4.4.4 Entropy and Anarchy

Just in case you are not familiar with the word entropy, I will describe it simply as the tendency of a process (usually a chemical process) to move towards disorder.  (A fuller description can be found here).

A popular example that is often given is that of ice melting.  If we look at this from an energy point of view, we can see that in this case energy flows from a region of higher temperature (water) to a region of lower temperature (ice) in the form of heat. This reduces the state of order of the initial system, from very rigidly ordered blocks of ice, to the slightly more disordered ice and water to the totally disordered cooler water.

In this example we can see how entropy can be described as an expression of disorder or randomness in the worlds of physics and chemistry.  And while entropy is generally applied to those worlds (or, more specifically thermodynamics) it also has interesting applications in human society, and in particular energy usage. 

In the context of good design in child protection we will consider the psychological and societal applications of entropy, i.e. the efforts humans make to impose order on disorder or chaos.

Internal

In psychology entropy is concerned with the distribution of energy within us, which, over time, constantly tries to achieve balance.  Our spiritual, emotional, relationship, physical and mental dimensions, while being distinct, complement and are at-ease with each other, tending towards integration and balance, and not outright separateness.

This seeking of balance is of importance in healing.  It has been known, and used, in Oriental healing, (what we in the West commonly refer to as alternative or complementary healing) for millennia.  Imbalance in the human psyche causes dis-ease, (which we also looked at in a previous Chapter), and resultant lack of well-being.

External

In wider society entropy is applied to the structures of social systems.  It considers how the individual functions in society, how families, communities, cities, countries, and cultures (large groups of people) order themselves.  How social equilibrium, or balance, is seen as desirable and how disorder is seen as undesirable.

People who are perceived to contribute to disorder are generally excluded from society, and efforts are usually made to correct [1] their behaviour so that they can contribute to the order that is desired by the vast majority. In totalitarian regimes this order is rigid and unbending, whereas in more democratic countries the very fact that elections are held introduces a certain element of disorder.

The balance between order and disorder is important when considering how civilisations evolve, how legal systems, social/cultural norms, and religions develop, what societies choose over time as values, and, most importantly from our point of view, how people are included and excluded in society.

Human Behaviour

If we consider the energy we all use to ensure that order prevails over disorder in our lives we will get an appreciation of entropy as it applies to human behaviour.

For example it takes energy to get out of bed in the morning, to overcome inertia, (that is, our resistance to change) as we change from a sleeping state to a waking state and then to a getting-out-of-bed state and then to a getting-on-with-our-day state.

Overcoming inertia, and maintaining enough order that is necessary for us to function well requires a significant amount of physical and mental, but particularly emotional energy at all stages of our development.

Giving in to this inertia will result in disorder, unpredictability, and eventually chaos.

In this context consider the behaviour of an active, adult, addict.  He knows, cognitively, that the order that he observes around him in the majority of the population is a desirable state, (i.e. he thinks that he should have order, or routine in his life, and he knows that his disordered behaviour is not only disadvantageous to himself but also makes other people angry towards him).

However his body, the repository of his emotions, has not yet fully made this connection.

At a more macro level, I propose that when a critical mass of people in a community do not have the skills to maintain healthy routine and order in their lives then the community in general will be perceived to tend towards disorder.  Sometimes people (though not everyone) who are bothered by the general disorder in their neighbourhood leave and move elsewhere.  Others, of course, live disciplined and healthy lives in the midst of the disorder.

Still others get involved in community work and despite being very skilled and enthusiastic can sometimes feel that they are fighting an uphill battle [2].

It is also my belief that if we are an organisation that supports very vulnerable people we risk becoming mainstream unless we continually meet new challenges – and meet them with the most vulnerable as our priority. (I refer here to the Chapter in Section Three, Family Support Shamrock).

I was at a very enlightening seminar once presented by Dr. Dan Siegel, a neuroscientist.  He analogised the brain to be more like a fruit salad than a smoothie. That is to say, each element is diverse and distinct while still contributing to the whole.

Applying this to our family support organisation, and thinking again of the ice-water example that I gave above when I was describing entropy; it is a constant challenge for a staff team to stay fresh and maintain its fruit salad type nature.  That is, each member having a distinct flavour, combining to form an invigorating, distinct and stimulating taste, not being so alike that boundaries are blurred and the team melds into an indistinguishable porridgy mass.

That is probably why a family rarely becomes boring!

[1]. In most States in the USA prisons are run by a Department of Corrections.

[2]. For example, the wise and strong people in families identified in this post when I was describing the Focus Group. This website argues that some of the feeling of the work being an uphill battle arises from the paradigms of family support and/or child protection favoured by the Pillars.

Anarchy (which I also discussed in a post in the Chapter on Anthropology when describing hunter-gatherer societies) has some implications for the amount of energy available to do work in organisations.

When I was studying physics I was aware of and interested in chaos. (Of course, the fact that I was interested in it doesn’t mean I understood it fully)!

Anyway, many years later I began to be interested in how chaos is manifest in the human experience.  In this context, I began to consider the continuum of chaos in society.

My understanding of it was that the Army, in which I was at the time serving, was among the least chaotic of environments in society.  In the army, I never felt that I really had a say in my own destiny as almost all decisions were made by someone else who was of superior rank to me and then I was informed of the decision.

The most obvious parallel is of course being in prison, where one doesn’t have much of a choice about decision-making either.

In society in general, (in what we call Western society at least) we have a democracy.  We can vote for what we want.  This introduces chaos to the scene, and that chaos is managed to the extent that the vast majority of people can live reasonably ordered and structured lives.

Anarchy, however, in most people’s understanding of it, is chaos in action, and it has a bad press, conjuring up images of men lobbing no-warning bombs into establishment institutions to destabilise society.

And I remember many years ago there was a book entitled The Anarchist’s Cookbook (which nowadays would probably be dwarfed by the amount of stuff on the internet) that gave instructions in how to grow, do and make all sorts of illegal things that would get one arrested.

When I was in the Army, in a post that required more paperwork that anything else (and which I didn’t particularly like) the senior officer in charge gave me a book to read.  It was entitled Anarchism; and was written by George Woodcock.  My superior officer’s intention was (I’m pretty sure) to copper-fasten my beliefs in respect of the primacy of the well-ordered, top-down structure of society and particularly the military where everyone knew their place.

However the book had the opposite effect on me!

The images conjured up in George Woodcock’s book (and other material that I subsequently read – i.e. Kropotkin in the previous Chapter on Anthropology) were focused more on self-organisation and individual responsibility, an existential given.

Both are very interesting characteristics to study in the context of chaos and order.

In most working environments – and not only in very structured, ordered, environments such as the army, police or prison – the amount of self-organisation is minimal. Also, the amount of individual responsibility that we take for our actions can be diminished.  We follow an order, and if the order contradicts what our conscience tells us we accommodate it as we have been conditioned – often from a young and impressionable age – that we are obliged to do what we’re told [1]. Mostly, the conditioning is so pervasive and subtle that we are not really aware of its effects. (I’ll be revisiting this topic here).

Anarchy in its truest sense, on the other hand, implies not only individual responsibility for our actions but also responsibility for the impact that our actions have on others, our family, our community and society at large. I believe that if we are committed to sharing power, positive elements of anarchy – combined with good leadership where people are invited rather than coerced – will result in far higher levels of energy among staff than rigid top-down structures.

In the Table below I list organisations that are on a continuum from very structured to very anarchic.  (You may have to scroll across to see all the Table). You will note that I feel that an army is more structured than a prison or police force.  The reason for this is rooted in systems theory, i.e. an army, generally, doesn’t have day-to-day dealings with the public – so can remove itself a little more from chaos.

More Anarchic <<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>> More Structured

Yes, everyone taking individual responsibility is a bit Utopian – again!  After all, most people would wonder if a hippie colony ever actually achieved anything.

Well, in the nineteen-sixties and early nineteen seventies, it could be argued that the influence of hippie-type behaviour, where peace and love was promoted over war and hate, was a causative factor in stopping the Vietnam War.  (And as I said in a previous Chapter – this was – from my point of view anyway – the pinnacle of true democracy in my lifetime).

What about the next one up – the Art/Drama Company?  Well-functioning art, music and/or drama entities can absorb all the anarchic argumentation and conflict that arises where you have a lot of creative people with (possibly) big egos.  (Remember the tension from the last Sub-Chapter).  They can manage all this anarchy, maintain order and put on wonderful shows and uplifting productions.

Utopian or not, it is of value to community workers to know something about what I might call ideal anarchy where people take responsibility for their actions.

Because in mainstream democratic society, we actually do, in that we choose those who make decisions for us, at election time.  If the decisions are against what our conscience or values ordain we can (in theory at least) choose other people more in tune with our values to govern us at the next election.

Of course in a typical modern democracy this process is distorted by many factors such as the level of honesty of those hoping to be elected and, in turn, our gullibility when we are voting, but in theory it is sound.

[1]. ‘Theirs is not to reason why, theirs is but to do or die’ as quoted from a poem ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade‘, about a battle in the Crimean War in the second half of the 19^th Century.