Paul Cilliers

Complexity, Deconstruction and Relativism

The acknowledgement that something is complex, it is argued, implies that our knowledge of it will always be limited. We cannot make complete, absolute or final claims about complex systems. Post-structuralism, and specifically deconstruction, make similar claims about knowledge in general. Arguments against deconstruction can, therefore, also be held against a critical form of complexity thinking and a defence of the view from complexity (as presented here) should take account of them. Three of these arguments are investigated: that deconstruction and complexity-thinking lead to relativism, that they are subject to the performative contradiction and that their claims are vague. It is shown that these critiques are not really effective and it is suggested that a responsible approach to complexity has to be provisional, i.e. modest, without being vague or relativistic.

What Can We Learn From a Theory of Complexity

The aim of this article is to investigate the implications of a general theory of complexity for social institutions and organizations, such as business corporations. Complexity theory has implications for the way we conceive of the structure of an organization, as well as for the way in which complex organizations should be managed. However, a preliminary warning is necessary: The lessons to be learned from the study of complexity are somewhat oblique. Any hope that a study of complex systems will uncover the way of running an organization is in vain. While we will not come up with a quick fix, the lessons are most certainly important. The first half of the article will investigate what we can learn from a theory of complexity. Most of these insights are widely accepted, but it is useful to revisit them briefly. This general understanding of complex systems also provides the background to the second half of the article, in which I investigate what we cannot learn from complexity theory. The “negative” part of the article is at least as important as the “positive” part. There I will investigate the unavoidability of an ethical dimension to all decisions made in a complex environment.

From representation to emergence: complexity's challenge to the epistemology of schooling

In modern, Western societies the purpose of schooling is to ensure that school‐goers acquire knowledge of pre‐existing practices, events, entities and so on. The knowledge that is learned is then tested to see if the learner has acquired a correct or adequate understanding of it. For this reason, it can be argued that schooling is organised around a representational epistemology: one which holds that knowledge is an accurate representation of something that is separate from knowledge itself. Since the object of knowledge is assumed to exist separately from the knowledge itself, this epistemology can also be considered ‘spatial.’ In this paper we show how ideas from complexity have challenged the ‘spatial epistemology’ of representation and we explore possibilities for an alternative ‘temporal’ understanding of knowledge in its relationship to reality. In addition to complexity, our alternative takes its inspiration from Deweyan ‘transactional realism’ and deconstruction. We suggest that ‘knowledge’ and ‘reality’ should not be understood as separate systems which somehow have to be brought into alignment with each other, but that they are part of the same emerging complex system which is never fully ‘present’ in any (discrete) moment in time. This not only introduces the notion of time into our understanding of the relationship between knowledge and reality, but also points to the importance of acknowledging the role of the ‘unrepresentable’ or ‘incalculable’. With this understanding knowledge reaches us not as something we receive but as a response, which brings forth new worlds because it necessarily adds something (which was not present anywhere before it appeared) to what came before. This understanding of knowledge suggests that the acquisition of curricular content should not be considered an end in itself. Rather, curricular content should be used to bring forth that which is incalculable from the perspective of the present. The epistemology of emergence therefore calls for a switch in focus for curricular thinking, away from questions about presentation and representation and towards questions about engagement and response.

Requisite Simplicities to Help Negotiate Complex Problems

Decision makers responsible for natural resource management often complain that science delivers fragmented information that is not useful at the scale of implementation. We offer a way of negotiating complex problems by putting forward a requisite simplicity. A requisite simplicity attempts to discard some detail, while retaining conceptual clarity and scientific rigor, and helps us move to a new position where we can benefit from new knowledge. We illustrate the above using three case studies: elephant densities and vegetation change in a national park, the use of rules of thumb to support decision making in agriculture, and the management of salt in irrigation. We identify potential requisite simplicities that can allow us to generate new understanding, lead to action and provide opportunities for structured learning.

Complexity, Modeling, and Natural Resource Management

This paper contends that natural resource management (NRM) issues are, by their very nature, complex and that both scientists and managers in this broad field will benefit from a theoretical understanding of complex systems. It starts off by presenting the core features of a view of complexity that not only deals with the limits to our understanding, but also points toward a responsible and motivating position. Everything we do involves explicit or implicit modeling, and as we can never have comprehensive access to any complex system, we need to be aware both of what we leave out as we model and of the implications of the choice of our modeling framework. One vantage point is never sufficient, as complexity necessarily implies that multiple (independent) conceptualizations are needed to engage the system adequately. We use two South African cases as examples of complex systems—restricting the case narratives mainly to the biophysical domain associated with NRM issues— that make the point that even the behavior of the biophysical subsystems themselves are already complex. From the insights into complex systems discussed in the first part of the paper and the lessons emerging from the way these cases have been dealt with in reality, we extract five interrelated generic principles for practicing science and management in complex NRM environments. These principles are then further elucidated using four further South African case studies—organized as two contrasting pairs—and now focusing on the more difficult organizational and social side, comparing the human organizational endeavors in managing such systems.

Rules and Complex Systems

September 30, 2000 · Emergence Paul Cilliers Cilliers P. Rules and Complex Systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization. 2000 Sep 30 [last modified: 2016 Nov 21]. Edition 1. doi: 10.emerg/10.17357.7ebe3f257be831cef34e80a1ff65dd36. A central philosophical problem, one that has concerned scientists as much as philosophers, is the relationship between our descriptions of the world and the world itself. This problem is present in one way or another in many different theoretical discourses: in discussions of the status of models and theories in science (instrumentalism, reductionism, realism, etc.), in theories of representation, theories of meaning, and in the realm of law and ethics.1 I do not want to propose a final solution to this problem, but in order to clarify the issue, I want to analyze one of the central notions in most of the discourses mentioned, namely, that of rules. More specifically, I want to investigate the use and the status of rules when we deal with complex phenomena like the brain, language, or social and cultural systems.2

DIFFERENCE, IDENTITY, AND COMPLEXITY

The notions of difference and diversity have been recognised as important, but the underlying philosophical characteristics of these notions do not always receive sufficient scrutiny. An attempt to broaden the discussion is made here from the perspective of a critical theory of complexity informed by deconstruction. In structuralist and post-structuralist theories of language, difference is the source of meaning. Similarly, in complex systems, difference is responsible for the structural characteristics of such systems. It is argued that the play of difference can nevertheless not generate meaning if differences reverberate infinitely. Meaning only comes to be under bounded conditions, even though these constraints and the resultant meaning are in constant transformation. There has to be a certain “economy of difference”. Furthermore, we cannot use the notion of difference without reference to the notion of identity. Yet, identity does not determine difference, it is produced by it. Complex systems and their components are constituted through the constrained play of difference, which makes difference a resource to be cherished, not a problem to be solved. Some of the implications of acknowledging the importance of difference for our understanding of organisations are discussed.

Complicated, complex, and compliant: best practice in obstetrics

In this study, the distinction between complicated and complex is used to shed some light on compliance with best practice guidelines. Data were gathered related to obstetric practice in labor wards and operating theaters at two Scandinavian hospitals, one of them being a university hospital, and in a training facility. The complexity of obstetrical intervention is analyzed in this paper, as is the potential of compliance-based routines in obstetrics. Complex situations are different from complicated ones and patient safety management efforts should recognize and enhance the sort of diversity that helps the emergence of resilience in complex situations.

Unpacking the Ethics of Complexity: Concluding Reflections

The objectives of this concluding chapter are threefold. In the first place it provides a narrative which attempts to integrate the various ways in which the concepts “complexity”, “difference” and “identity” are used by the various authors in this volume. All the contributions contain an element of critique which urges us to re-think the frameworks of our interventions and to acknowledge the inevitable normativity which our engagement with complex systems implies. The second objective is thus to develop an “ethics of complexity” in a little more detail. It is argued that the critical position is a constructive one, and that all our decisions should be provisional in principle. The notion of the “provisional imperative” is introduced. Finally the chapter aims to highlight some of the implications of these insights for our understanding and management of organisations. These insights depart significantly from the more traditional or mechanistic approaches found in contemporary business ethics discourses. Employing notions from “critical complexity”, several suggestions are made to assist the development of a more transformational approach to business ethics.

Towards an economy of complexity: Derrida, Morin and Bataille

In this article we explore the possibility of viewing complex systems, as well as the models we create of such systems, as operating within a particular type of economy. The type of economy we aim to establish here is inspired by Jacques Derrida’s reading of George Bataille’s notion of a general economy. We restrict our discussion to the philosophical use of the word ‘economy’. This reading tries to overcome the idea of an economy as restricted to a single logos or master narrative. At the same time, however, Derrida illustrates that we always operate from a restricted framework and as such something will always escape and interrupt our understanding of the world. In this paper we will propose that one could use Derrida’s reading of Bataille, along with notions such as différance, in order to move towards an understanding of complex systems as existing within certain sets of possibilities and constraints. We argue that this view of an economy agrees with the work of Edgar Morin on complexity and his conceptualization of general complexity.