PHASE TRANSITIONS AS SOCIAL CHANGES
Jerome G. Manis, Ph.D
Like the traditional sciences, sociological studies of social change are
chacterized by linear analysis. Class, race, gender, economic, political,
and religious variables have been reported in such studies. In recent
decades, however, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, and biology have
been transformed by quantum, chaos and complexity theories. Based on these
perspectives, nonlinearity has become central to many thousands of
contemporary scientific publications. Applying a nonlinear viewpoint for
the study of social change may offer supplementary tools for sociology.
Although scientific focus upon dynamic, multidimensional processes largely
has relied upon quantitative methods, designs and explanations often have
been simpler and qualitative. Especially relevant for the study of social
change appear to be concepts and data pertaining to nonlinear phase
transitions. These have been identified and studied in electromagnetism,
planetary movements, nuclear fission, neural activity, and climatic shifts.
Phase transitions also seem to be an appropriate term for the study of major
changes among complex social groupings.
To Wallerstein (1991:270): ³...a viable alternative model of change is that
of nonlinear processes which eventually reach bifurcation points, where
slight fluctuations have large consequences.² To say that a society has
changed from feudalism to capitalism or from monarchy to democracy is to
describe a significant transition, a new phase state. That is quite
different from seeking to explain changed unities only as outcomes of
linear, sequential, and discrete processes.
This article seeks to identify and describe alterations of complex social
phenomena, here interpreted as phase transitions. Clarification of what is
meant by phases and phase transitions will be followed by discussions of
relevant concepts. These interrelated and often overlapping conceptions
also deemed relevant to sociology are: dissipative structures, bifurcation
points, turbulence, catastrophes, chaos, punctuated equilibria, and
self-organized criticality. Along with their descriptions will be
information about their sources. The aim is to avoid unsuitable analogies
while seeking possible applications of these conceptions to major changes of
social phenomena.
PHASES AND PHASE TRANSITIONS
Usage of complexity theory and nonlinear analyses by the sciences in recent
decades has led to new explanatory conceptions. Phases is one of such
concepts. Central to its usage is the awareness that complex systems can
only be understood as dynamic totalities which change as totalities.
Moreover, their multiple, interacting elements exist within equally complex
and dynamic environments. Phases and phase transitions are basic features
of chaos and complexity theories.
These new perspectives appear to have significant relevance to sociology.
Complex organizations are a long-familiar area of sociological inquiry.
However, the term complexity also appears to characterize many of the areas
of sociology. Consider divorce, crime, migration, family, political
parties, slums, financial centers, elections, jails, neighborhoods,
transportation, city, church. and sports arena. All of these involve
numerous and diverse elements in complicated sets of shifting
interrelationships.
Along with its multiplicity of internal aspects, each social unity exists in
a variety of linkages to external conditions--culture, laws, commerce, and
government, None of these is static and unchanging. In this vast interplay
of internal and external forces, each complex entity has a transient
character. At any given point in time, we may attempt to portray its
condition. That depiction may be called its phase state--its momentary and
changeable existence.
Phase state is a term widely used in modern science. For the most part, it
refers to the mathematical assessment of two or three well-defined and
interacting physical elements in a specific situation. To Gleick
(1988:134): ³In phase space the complete state of knowledge about a
dynamical system at a single instant in time collapses in a point. That
point is the dynamical system--at that instant.²
So described, phase states may seem inappropriate for describing social
phenomena These are far more complicated and extremely difficult to
describe and quantify. That is true for the other concepts which follow.
Justifying their applicability is a primary consideration.
Much of complexity theory, and its characteristics, such as phase
transition, is based upon experimental observations and mathematical
analysis. However, scientists also have relied upon graphic portrayals and
qualitative judgments. Cramer (1993:118-119) has depicted the phase space
of the stock market, including the variables of demand, bull and bear
markets, and the price index as well as phase transitions between liquids
and vapors.
Some scientists have offered concrete illustrations from other fields to
explain their concepts. Nobel physicist and complexity contributor Murray
Gell-Mann (1994:20) has offered a sociologically-relevant example of a phase
transition: ³A culture operating on the basis of a given schema reacts to
altered circumstance such as climatic change, invasion, and so forth, in
ways prescribed by that schema. If the climate turns warmer and drier, the
response of a group of villages may be to move to higher elevations.²
Less predictable are changes in traffic flow of vehicles on an expressway.
That flow may continue steadily for many hours. Suddenly, a ³traffic jam²
disrupts the usual movement. It is unwanted and unintended. To Bak
(1996:192-198), a physicist who has reviewed the literature; traffic jams
are an inherent occurrence wherever masses of vehicles move through limited
spaces. Each change of traffic flow must be considered as a different phase
needing investigation.
Transitions such as this one are said to take place in phase space--¹¹the
space of the possible² (Cohen and Stewart, 1994: 200). The range of
choices available to any system under stress in phase space always is
limited by the system limitations and schemas within that space. Moreover,
the available phase space is restricted by external forces.
Social phenomena clearly are influenced by the characteristics of their
phase space. Marriage in most societies is limited to two partners of the
opposite sex over a minimum age limit. Legislation prescribes the nature
and the dissolution of corporations, political parties, social agencies, and
philanthropic foundations. Moreover, traditions and customs define the phase
space and transitions of informal groupings.
Phase transitions are not the only way of conceptualizing changes of complex
systems. In the study of cultural evolution,²...archeologists refer to the
shift from one level to another as hinge points. Evolutionary biologists
would call them punctuations² (Lewin1992:20). Those terms refer to notable
similarities and suggest that sociologists may need to propose its own
conception of altering social unities. What is important is to designate and
study such important types of change.
That massive physical and social changes can take place is indisputable.
The concepts of phases and phase transition offer another fruitful focus of
attention on alterations of complex systems. Analysis of these changes have
led to explanatory conceptions some of which are based upon internal forces,
others upon external sources, or upon their mutuality. What are considered
the more appropriate and significant conceptions are characterized in the
following sections.
DISSIPATIVE STRUCTURES
For physics, the second law of thermodynamics is a well-documented
characteristic of transfers of energy between systems of matter. Thus,
within a closed space, a cold object will gain heat from a hot object until
both have the same temperature level. The loss of energy.which results from
the transfer is called entropy. Energy loss is said to be irreversible,
inevitable, and universal. From this perspective, it means: ³Everything
is downhill ³ (Cramer, 1993:15).
Physical systems have been categorized as ³dissipative structures² or
³conservative structures.² The former are characterized by entropy, the
loss, usually through friction, of energy or mass. As a consequence, such
systems are more likely to experience great phase transitions. The
conservative structures remain more stable, less likely to become chaotic.
Dissipative structures develop in complex systems that are ³far from
equilibrium.² In that situation, new circumstances occur. They are
typified by a chapter subheading: ³Dissipative Structures--The Generation
of Forms by the Consumption of Effort² (Ibid:18). These forms use
available energy to maintain the existence of the system.
The dissipative structure refers to the features responsible for the energy
loss. As available energy is limited, its declining availability becomes a
drain or weakening of the dynamic system. Without an influx of energy from
some external source, some components of the system may be disrupted or
disappear.
If dissipative processes are considered ³downhill,² the traditional view of
evolution may seem to imply the opposite tendency. Darwin¹s claim of
survival of the fittest suggests that contemporary life represents the
fittest survivors. Charts showing the development of the major species from
single-celled organism to human beings invariably place the former at the
bottom and the latter on top. The evolution of human societies from
hunter-gatherering, agricultural, and industrial also is considered to be a
progressive development.
A different view of evolution is expressed in the query-answer: ³So what
drives evolution? The very unexpected suggestion is that what drives
evolution is the second law of thermodynamics, i.e., producing entropy²
(Goerner, 1994:78). This contention is based on the claim that the
emergence of more complex organisms and organizations has been producing
higher and higher levels of entropy. From the first non-oxygen consuming
bacteria, to the grass-eating organisms, to the meat-eating primates,
greater levels of energy losses have been occurring. These declines have
scant influence upon the universe but have greater effects on the earth.
Modern societies also have had a devastating effect on the disappearing
species, the decline of fish populations, and the possible destruction of
the ozone layer.
Similarly, great empires seem to possess the entropic seeds of their own
dissipative structures. According to Jacobs (1984:182):
Successful imperialism wins wealth. Yet, historically, successful
empires such as Persia, Rome, Byzantium, Turkey, Spain, Portugal
France, Britain, have not remained rich. Indeed, it seems to be the
fate of empires to become too poor to sustain the very costs of
empire. The longer an empire holds together, the poorer and more
economically backward it tends to become.
Only five years after her book¹s publication, the USSR disintegrated. We may
wonder if China will avoid a similar outcome. More immediate is the
possible implication that entropy may affect lesser scale organizations such
as corporations, cities, or families. Still, the possibility that evolution
may turn out to be a dissipative process remains controversial and
uncertain.
Identifying dissipative structures often is needed for understanding phase
transitions. The diversity of complex systems requires appropriate study in
order to locate and understand specific dissipative structures. Also needed
is awareness of the ways that such systems become altered in response to
entropy. Although the study of dissipative structures by physicists often
involves quantitative methods, descriptive interpretation
of methods and meanings allows for application to other processes.
³In the framework of complex systems, the dynamics of a society
is understood in terms of phase transitions of a dissipative
system exchanging material, energy, and information with its
environment.,,For instance, in neolithic villages, the institution
of farming changed from dry farming to irrigation when the food
supply was no longer secured by the established social structures ³
(Mainzer 1994:268).
Viewing the relevance of dissipative structures for social complexities is,
to some extent not difficult. Loss of energy and other basic resources is
common to many features and phases of social entities. Quite obvious and
notable are those resulting from military conflicts. Modern wars are
essentially dissipative structures. Their enormous costs to societies in
losses of lives and resources hardly need to be documented.
The prevalence of war suggests that they are structural features of some
complex systems but not that they are inevitable. Cities like Sparta and
Rome often engaged in war. Although the number of cities has increased
greatly, warfare between them now is rare. In the modern world,wars are
uncommon dissipative structures of urban communities. Some nations have been
more prone to such conflicts.
Dissipative structures of modern societies use much greater resources, such
as fuels and produce higher levels of pollution. Organized crime flourishes
in deteriorated urban areas resulting in economic and other losses to the
area and often to the larger community. Corrupt links between some
enterprises and political cliques also are costly to the rest of the
society.
PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
New data and explanations have enhanced and broadened Darwin¹s original
interpretation of evolution. To his emphasis on ³struggle for survival² has
been added awareness of the importance of a complex cooperation between
species and between individuals. That chance and interrelationships can
offset ³survival of the fittest² is being recognized. Implications that
evolution is a form of progress have been questioned. These and other
modifications appear to offer a view of evolution that seems appropriate for
sociological studies of social change.
The original views of linear evolution are not incorrect only insufficient.
Viewing evolution also as a complex process of many interrelated aspects
facilitates analysis. Complex units have many interconnected features which
facilitate system and component survival. Adaptive systems also are able to
deal with the vagaries of their environments. Fruitful phase transitions
occur as responses to those internal and external conditions.
The evidence of evolution is substantial. However, the interpretations of
its causes, nature, and consequences have become more rather than less
controversial. Among the issues is a question of teleology, the assumption
of inevitability and predictability. In opposition is the claim of major
effects of fortuitous or chance occurrences (Gould 1991).
remains uncertain. Punctuated equilibria is another conception that has
been opposed by traditional Darwinists.
Herbert Spencer, a strong supporter of Darwinism, appears to have had some
insight into that issue. According to Ruse (1995:93): ³Spencer argued that
evolution is characterized by a series of moves, from one state of balance
to another. We have what he called a process of dynamic equilibrium¹ with
ongoing jumps up from one stable point to another.² That interpretation
resembles punctuated equilibrium.
The actual concept was introduced in an article by Eldredge and Gould
(1972). To them, evolution was not the gradual process widely accepted by
evolutionists. Rather it referred to the major disruptions of species
characteristics or existence which occurred as interruptions in lengthy
periods of stability. Since then a book by Eldredge has offered expanded
justifications for punctuated equilibria.
I agree with systems ecologists who understand ecosystems as
complex entities. They believe ecosystems are formed of
populations of many distinct species, held together by the complex
flow of energy between different populations and the nonbiological
environment ((1995:6).
Such views may be considered nonlinear rather than linear and complex rather
than simple. Evolutionists who hold this view refer to punctuated equilibria
as referring to transient transitions between stable phases. According to
Bak (1996:29), it is.²...a period of tranquility, or stasis, between
intermittent bursts of activity and volatility in which many species become
extinct and new ones emerge.² Although that view implies a long-range
condition, the concept may be applicable to more brief periods of stability
interrupted by sporadic instability.
In describing what physicist Stapp calls ³The dynamical evolution of the
physical world,² he refers to ³the gradual evolution via deterministic laws
analogous to the laws of classical physics is punctuated at certain times,
by sudden uncontrolled quantum jumps, or events² ( his italics,1993:19).
Such abrupt punctuations are followed by restored stability..
Seemingly dubious about this concept, a much-published science writer has
remarked that in testimony at a public trial: ³Gould was forced to admit,
in effect, that punctuated equilibrium was not a truly revolutionary theory;
it was a rather minor technical matter, a squabble among experts²
(Horgan1996:120). Whether it is minor or otherwise can only be determined
by other inquiries. Explanations of interruptions of equilibria as as well
as interpretations of their restoration are considered in remaining
sections.
BIFURCATION POINTS
The clarity of meteorologist Edward Lorenz¹s important observations and
explanations is apparent in this view of bifurcations--²,,,the abrupt
changes that can take place in the behavior, and often in the complexity, of
a system when the value of a constant is altered slightly² (1994:147). The
contention that a slight alteration in a system can have abrupt and very
great consequents is now widely accepted throughout the sciences.
Rosser (1991:10) has offered a dramatic example of an abrupt change
resulting from a slight alteration in ³escape velocity.² Describing a rocket
traveling into space, Rosser points out that: ³A rocket traveling less than
6.9 miles per second will escape earth¹s gravity but one traveling more than
6.9 miles per second will escape.² That bifurcation point for rocket travel
away from earth is narrow, yet extremely influential.
Focusing on the outcome of bifurcation, Goerner suggests that: ³A
bifurcation is a transformation from one type of behavior to a qualitatively
different type of behavior (author¹s italics).² Certainly, the change of
escape velocity of the rocket from linear movement to extremely turbulent
motion is a drastic transformation.
Somewhat different is the interpretation of complex theorist Brian Goodwin
(1994:96) who has asserted that bifurcation refers to the phase transition
from lower to higher complexity. That view appears to reflect an
evolutionist perspective bearing similarity to that of Devillers and Chaline
(1993:75): ³,,the idea of evolutionary bifurcation which underlines the
concept of discontinuities interrupting evolution.²
Another interpretation has been offered for the extreme phases in
which³...constant changes in the environment sooner or later produce
conditions under which certain self-stabilizing cycles can no longer
operate. The systems encounter a point known in dynamical systems theory as
catastrophic bifurcation² (Laszlo, 1991:116). Given such diverse
characterizations or forms of bifurcation, sociologists must be wary of
applying the concept uncritically but need not ignore the controversies.
Using examples from the Internal Revenue Service, the Postal Service, and
other governmental agencies, Kiel !994) has illustrated the broad
application of bifurcation points. He has described their outcomes as
³transformations¹² and ³symmetry-breaking.² and has claimed that these
outcomes are increasing in modern societies. Related to that view is the
title of a subsection of a volume on evolution by Faber and Proops (1995):
³Bifurcation and the Emergence of Novelty,² They contend that many
unexplained variations may be traced to bifurcation.
Clearly, bifurcation points can be extreme forms of phase transitions. They
are not limited to physical and biological systems. The sharp decline in
Great Britain¹s world dominance after World War II may possess a bifurcation
point. So, too, does Gorbachev¹s reforms seem to mark the end of Russian
communism. The defeat of the Kuomintang by the communist armies in 1949 is
another such instance. On a lesser scale, is the possible applicability of
bifurcation points to the bankruptcy of long-successful enterprises,
marriages and divorces, college graduations, and criminal convictions.
TURBULENCE
Describing the simple effect of a heating a pan of liquid, Merry (1995:41)
states that: ³In this state the liquid¹s flow becomes increasingly
disordered, with eddies and whorls. The increasing difference in
temperature, between the upper and lower levels, changes the form of the
flow.² The resulting turbulence is a recurrent similarity in heating of
water. That example of turbulence is clear, common, and not especially
important. Others are considered to be of great concern.
According to Gleick (1988:122), in many cases
³...turbulence means disaster. Turbulent airflow over a wing
destroys lift. Turbulent flow in an oil pipe creates stupefying
drag. Vast amounts of government and corporative money are staked on
the design of aircraft, turbine engines, propellers, submarine
hulls, and other shapes that move through fluids. Researchers worry
about flow in blood vessels and heart valves. They worry about
the shape and evolution of explosions. They worry about
vortices and eddies, flames and shock waves.²
A notable feature of turbulence is the sudden, sharp transitions among
apparently stable systems. Transformations may be abrupt, often unexpected.
In a summary of research by American and French experimenters, Gleick (1988:
194) has noted that ³..turbulence arrived in a sudden transition.² The
often surprising alteration has made for great difficulties in observation,
analysis, and predictability. Still, its universality, as well as
seriousness, has led to considerable research.
That such characteristics of turbulent changes are major phase transitions
is evident. There is ample evidence of turbulent occurrences among many
forms of social phenomena. Trivial disagreements have turned crowds into
rampaging mobs. Victory in an athletic arena can lead into destructive
celebrations on the neighboring streets. Rumors have led to race riots with
resulting destruction of property, physical injuries, and loss of lives.
CATASTROPHE
Commonly credited with the formulation of ³catastrophe theory² is a French
mathematician Rene Thom. In his book, Thom proposed a mathematical theory
of discontinuous processes. To him, dynamical systems often encounter
changed conditions. At times, small changes can produce consequences with
varying intensity. These variations are affected by the number and
importance of the system¹s components. Thom¹ work demonstrated that the
seriousness of the interruptions could be measured precisely for some
physical unities.
Since then, catastrophe has been widely applied and, at least, partially
sustained. According to Casti (1990:179 of), considerable support was
offered at an international conference several years after Thom¹s book was
published. This report covered embryonic development, animal aggression,
economic growth, and prison riots. However, only the embryonic studies have
been most successfully reproduced.
Especially critical of Thom has been science writer John Horgan (1996:208)
who has called his viewpoint an ³oversold metatheory²--although others seem
more favorable. Thus, evolutionary biologist Stuart Kauffman (1995:175) has
suggested that: ³The sensitivity of our most complex artifacts to
catastrophic failure from tiny causes--for example, the Challenger disaster,
the failed Mars Observer mission, and power-grid failures affecting large
regions--suggests we are now butting our heads against a problem that life
has nuzzled for enormously longer periods; how to produce complex systems
that do not teeter on the brink of collapse.²
³Catastrophes Follow a Simple Pattern² is the title of a book subsection by
Bak (1996:12). Evidence for that contention is offered from studies of
earthquakes, floods, biological extinctions, and financial disasters. Among
them are periodic regularities as in the ratio of small-scale earthquakes to
large ones. Also, ³the probability of having small and large variations on
prices of stocks, cotton, and other commodities follows a simple pattern,
known as a Levy distribution² (Ibid:14).
These great variations in the scope of catastrophes ³..can be described by a
power law; that is, big responses are rare, small responses are common, and
intermediate responses fall between² (Lewin1992: 61). Power laws have been
ascribed to a variety of physical and biological occurrences. Whether they
apply to the domain of the sociologist appears to be an open question.
Despite such claims of simplicity, catastrophes refer to substantial
transitions of complex systems. Even small earthquakes or floods can have
serious consequences. Also their occurrence are difficult to understand and
to predict.
CHAOS
Chaos shows that along with a world of order, certainty,
predictability, and regularity there exists and intertwines a
nonlinear deterministic world of randomness, uncertainty,
unpredictability, and irregularity. These features are ingrained in
reality and will not disappear with the advance of human knowledge
(Merry, 1995:21).
That characterization of chaos partially is traceable to interpretations of
a study by meteorologist Edward Lorenz in the 1960s. While comparing the
effects of small changes in his numeric data, the outcome was an
unexpectedly great change in his eventual findings. Describing that
experience in a recent book, Lorenz (1993:8) wrote): ³...in some dynamical
systems it is normal for two almost identical states to be followed, after a
sufficient time lapse, by two states bearing no more resemblance than two
states chosen at random from a long sequence.² Lorenz has traced that
divergence to, what he has called, ³sensitive dependence upon initial
conditions.²
To Lorenz, this condition often is basic to chaos. He has suggested that
the variations in pinball-machine outcomes are occurrences of chaotic
outcomes. Any trivial difference in releasing the plunger sends the ball in
varying and completely unpredictable pathways. If those brief journeys of
the ball were extended on an extremely large platform, the resulting routes
would be even more diverse and chaotic.
Fibrillation of the heart has been used to illustrate the inability of
linear analysis to illustrate the nature of chaos:
One perplexing feature of fibrillation is that many of the heart¹s
individual components can be working normally. Often the heart¹s pacemaking
nodes continue to send out regular electrical ticks. Individual muscle cells
respond properly. Each cell receives its stimulus, contracts, passes the
stimulus on, and relaxes to wait for the next stimulus. In autopsy the
muscle tissue may reveal no
damage at all. That is one reason why chaos experts believed that
a new, global approach was necessary (Gleick 1988:283-84).
While noting the appearance of chaos in a great variety of studies by
physicists and other natural scientists, Lundqvist (1988:1) suggests that:
³Chaotic behavior occurs in a variety of systems...It also applies, for
instance, to the growth of biological populations, economic theory, social
theory, and to predictions of revolution and war.²
Using mathematical models and formulas, studies of chaos may seem
inappropriate for the crude concepts and data of sociology. However,
qualitative analysis also is considered appropriate. ³As a qualitative
study, chaos theory investigates a system by asking about the general
character of its long-term behavior, rather than seeking to arrive at
numerical predictions² (Kellert,1993:3-4). That would seem wise for studies
of such social catastrophes as stock market crashes, public riots,
earthquakes, and massive traffic disasters.
SELF-ORGANIZED CRITICALITY
In the opening words of the preface to How Nature Works, Bak (1996:xi)
suggests that
³Self-organized criticality is a new way of viewing nature. The
basic picture is one where nature is perpetually out of balance, but
organized in a poised state--the critical state--where
anything can happen within well-defined statistical laws. The aim
of the science of self-organized criticality is to yield insight
into the fundamental question of why nature is complex, not
simple, as the laws of physics imply.²
Following that statement, Bak points out that since his publication of the
concept in 1987, over 2,000 papers on this topic have appeared.
One followup by Cramer (1993:213) makes a distinction between subcritical
and critical complexity. In the former case, a system may appear complex
but still can be simplified, possibly mathematically. The critical stage
involves structures which include subsystems that are barriers to
simplification.
The latter circumstance has been described by Merry (1995:172-173):
³Self-organization is a process whereby, in effect, components as
one level interact and amalgamate to create a structure at a higher
level. Components at that higher level interact and combine to
again create an even higher level. This is found in all complex
systems like teams creating departments and departments becoming a
company. The richness of the interactions allows the system as a
whole to go through spontaneous self-organization²
A somewhat different view of self-organization has been offered by
Mainzer1994:139):
³...organisms are not fully determined by genes containing a
blueprint which describes the organism in detail. Each stage of brain
organization involves some kind of self-organization. Genes would
not be able to store the complex structure of the brain.With a
cerebral cortex of about 1014 synapses, ontogeny could not
select the correct wiring diagram out of all alternatives. Thus,
ontogeny must use the self-organization of neural systems to handle
their complexity".
Despite varied conceptions of self-organization, there is much agreement
about its prevalence and significance. Despite much perturbation, complex
systems are said usually to regain equilibrium (Bechtel and Richardson
1993:22). Only very high levels of disruption tend to overcome
self-organizational tendencies.
An important implication of this perspective is its conflict with Darwin¹s
theory of evolution, offering a powerful alternative explanation. Instead
of depending upon ³natural selection² resulting from a struggle for
survival, evolution is being linked to processes of self-organization. To
Kauffman ³...much of the order in organisms many not be the result of
selection at all, but of the spontaneous order of self-organization²
(1995:25). In other words, self-organization is characterized as a natural
process occurring at detectable levels of development.
Just how significant self-organization is to Kauffman is apparent in the
following statement: ³Self-organization may be the precondition of
evolvability itself. Only those systems that are able to organize
themselves spontaneously may be able to evolve further. (author¹s italics,
Ibid:184). Although that claim remains speculative, it accords with the
view of others that the critical aspect of evolutionary development rests on
the ability of complex systems to self-organize.
Kauffman who has done much to explore this viewpoint suggest such evidence
as: ³...the origin of life as a phase transition in chemical reaction
systems, the supracritical behavior of the biosphre, or the patterns of
evolution at higher levels--ecosystems, economic systems, even cultural
systems.² What is least clear is the specific conditions under which
ongoing systems spontaneously go through the process of self-organization
That self-organized criticality occurs within complex social phenomena
seems apparent. Human beings settle in communities. The growth of cities
precedes nationhood. Individual enterprises which are successful grow and
incorporate. Competition forces corporations to make notable changes in
their management, structure, policies, and goals. Through internal
elections, civic groups change leadership and procedures. Newly wed couples
often find that many personal and interpersonal adaptations if the marriage
is to survive.
Awareness of nonlinearity, complexity, and self-organization has been
recognized by public management specialists. Kiel (1994: states
that:³Self-organization refers to the agency¹s capacity to generate
self-renewal and the potential for real discontinuous leaps and qualitative
shifts in performance and service.² Much of his analysis incorporates
knowledge of social structure, groups, interaction, communication, and other
conceptions familiar to sociologists.
REFERENCES
Bak, Per,1996. How Nature Works. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bechtel, William and Robert C. Richardson, 1993. Discovering
Complexity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Casti, John L. 1990. Searching for Certainty. New York: William
Morrow and Co.
Cohen, Jack and Ian Stewart, 1994. The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering
Simplicity in a Complex World. New York: Viking.
Cramer, F., 1993. Chaos and Order: The Complex Structure of Living
Systems. New York: VCH.
Eldredge, Niles, 1995. Reconstructing Darwinism. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Eldredge, Niles and Stephen Jay Gould,1972. ³²Punctuated Equilibria: An
Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism.² Pp. 82-115 in Models ofPaleobiology
ed. by T.J.M. Schopf. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper.
Faber, Malte and John L.R.Proops, 1995. Evolution, Time, Production, and
the Environment. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gell-Mann, Murray, 1994. ³Complex Adaptive Systems.² Pp. 17-46 in
Complexity: Metaphors, Models, and Reality ed. by George A. Cowan, David
Pines, and David Meltzer. Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Gleick, James, 1988. Chaos: Making A New Science. New York: Viking
Penguin.
Goerner, Sally J.,1994. Chaos and the Evolving Ecological Universe.
Langhorne, Penn.: Gordon and Breach.
Goertzel, Ben, 1994. Chaotic Logic. New York: Plenum Press.
Goodwin, Brian 1994. How the Leopard Changes Its Spots. New York: Charles
Scribner¹s Sons.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1991. ³Introduction.² Pp. xiii to xvii in Extinction:
Bad Genes or Bad Luck?² by David M. Raup. New York: W. W. Norton.
Horgan, John 1996. The End of Science. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co.
Kauffman, Stuart1995. At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of
Self-Organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kellert, Stephen H., 1992. In the Wake of Chaos: Unpredictable Order in
Dynamical Systems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kiel, L. Douglas, 1994. Managing Chaos and Complexity in Government. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lewin, Roger, 1992. Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Co.
Lorenz, Edward N., 1993. The Essence of Chaos. Seattle: University of
Washington Press.
Lundqvist, Stig, 1988. ³Chaos, Order, Patterns, Fractals--An Overview.²Pp.
1-37 in Order and Chaos in Nonlinear Physical Systems. ed. by Stig
Lundqvist, Norman H. March, and Mario P. Tosi. New York:Plenum Press.
Mainzer, Klaus, 1994. Thinking in Complexity: The Complex Dynamics of
Matter, Mind, and Mankind. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Merry, Uri, 1995. Coping With Uncertainty: Insights from the New
Sciences Of Chaos, Self-Organization, and Complexity. Westport,
Conn.: Praeger Publishing.
Rosser, J. Barkley, Jr., 1991. From Catastrophe to Chaos: A General
Theory of Economic Discontinuities: Boston: KluweAcademic.
Publishers.
Ruse, Malte, 1995. Evolutionary Naturalism. New York: Routledge.
Stapp, Henry P., 1993. Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Thom, Rene 1975. Structural Stability and Morphogenesis. Reading, Mass:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Wallerstein, Immanuel, 1991. Unthinking Social Science: The Limits of
Nineteenth Century Science. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Copyright Jerome Manis, 2004
