"Synergistic effects of various kinds have also played a major causal role in the evolutionary process; in particular, synergistic effects have provided the underlying functional basis for the evolution of complex systems, in nature and human societies alike."
Peter Corning, The Synergism Hypothesis, 1998
"Synergy involves the working together of the parts of any complex system; and each person is not only an individual, but a part of the various groups and organizations to which he belongs, and to society as a whole. In the synergic mode, a human being acts naturally so as not only to achieve his own goals, but also, whenever feasible, to promote the goals of others, with least impedance to anyone. The Golden Rule - 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' - becomes not a moral commandment to be obeyed, but a natural and logical consequence of his mode of being, as natural as breathing, sleeping or sexual activity."
N. Arthur Coulter, Human Synergetics, 1976, Chapter 1
Many educated people today have heard of complexity science (also called complex systems science, complex adaptive systems or complexity theory), rather fewer seem to have heard of synergy (also called synergic/synergistic science or synergetics) which is the idea that wholes have properties (functional effects) different than those of the parts, yet these two ideas are highly interdependent and both are relationship oriented. Here we will investigate these two perspectives and see how far they can enhance each other, leading to a merging of both disciplines in an evolutionary metascience.
Most people in the world today seem to automatically treat their own system as if they were in competition with every other system, whether this is at a personal level, pressure group, nation or ideology (a one-dimensional exclusivist dogma). By doing this, important aspects of both systems are lost, indeed if the imagined 'competition' goes as far as mutual declarations of 'war' (explicit or implicit) then all aspects of both systems can be in mortal danger. We see this in conflict situations all over the world. Yet, in general, competition is a minor aspect of the natural world, and cooperation (two systems working together for mutual benefit) is far more prevalent. Why is this ? Despite widespread blinkered attitudes to this question (especially from reductionist geneticists) which refuse to even acknowledge the extensive scientific evidence, we can see the answers quite clearly within human society, and in fact this cooperation proves to be vital if we are to have any society at all. Without synergy, there is no complexity, no life and no humanity...
"So long as the system of competition in the production and exchange of the means of life goes on, the degradation of the arts will go on; and if that system is to last for ever, then art is doomed, and will surely die; that is to say, civilization will die.
William Morris (1834-1896)
We saw in our fitness introduction that there are, in essence, two transaction options when two active individuals (of any sort) meet, which will generate in turn two different fitness trajectories. These are the beneficial (cooperative) and destructive (competitive) interaction forms. But what is of vital important here is that we must evaluate fitness from the point of view of the whole and not of the parts, i.e. if we take a simplistic part view then we always reduce the whole to a subset and this blindness to emergent or synergistic properties leads us to invalid conclusions - such as the idea that competition itself leads to 'new' innovative levels of structure. This is simply not the case, since any competition (given fixed sharable resources) can at very best merely maintain those resources intact (swapping them, zero-sum) but generally wastes at least a portion of them due to the 'conflict' dynamics (negative-sum), thus the whole must become less than the sum of the parts over time. Failure to evaluate the whole is like praising a cancerous cell as a success story to be emulated - which is perhaps what many people and businesses actually do today !
What this implies is that fitness selection acts at the level of the group or whole and not just at the level of the part, there is a 'downward causation' affecting part behaviour and giving incentives for the part to behave in a way that gains benefits greater than would be possible for selfish actions. This is a form of internal selection (emergent selection, synergistic selection or self-organizing selection) in contrast to the external selection always employed within neo-Darwinist dogma. By neglecting this more powerful and immediate form of 'natural selection' the evolutionist viewpoint has become severely compromised and has somewhat restricted scientific merit. Restoring a proper balance, by embracing synergy, allows us to put cooperative behaviours onto a much firmer scientific footing than proves possible from the strained (and largely irrelevant) viewpoint of 'kin selection' or 'altruism'
An Application of Synergic Power: Ten Principles of Human Development
1. The principle of free existence. [choice]
2. The quality of perception principle. [vision]
3. The strength of identity principle. [confidence]
4. The principle of competence. [diversity]
5. The principle of authentic and intense commitment. [participation]
6. The principle of suspension and risk. [courage]
7. The principle of bridging the distance. [mutuality]
8. The principle of self-confirmation and self-transcendence. [respect]
9. The principle of dialectic leading to synergy. [balance]
10. The principle of feedback ordered into complexity. [development]
Charles Hampden-Turner, Radical Man, 1971 in N. Arthur Coulter, Human Synergetics, 1976, Chapter 17
Why do we do what we do ? Quite simply because it meets our needs and conforms to our values. These values are many and can be grouped into three evolutionary levels of needs, primal (material), social (interpersonal) and abstract (spiritual). These are all active simultaneously, so the usual simplification targeting just one need (e.g. 'survival') is rather naive. At any time however, and in a certain context, we do tend to focus on certain priorities and these drive our behavioural focus (providing that they do not conflict too strongly with other needs). Thus when we encounter other people one set of such needs is to the fore and we evaluate our encounter based upon its effects upon those particular needs.
The extent to which we are able to satisfy our needs relates to our quality of life, and thus to maximise that quality of life we must look to choose the best options available to us. In most situations this proves to be cooperation and not competition, despite the delusions of 'individuality' and the neo-Darwinian assumption of 'competition' as being at the heart of fitness enhancement ! Understanding the true options available to us, and not just taking 'me not you' as a given, is crucial to understanding synergy. Here we have three other possibilities, 'not me, not you' (do nothing destructive to QOL), 'you, not me' (if you can do it better !) and 'both you and me' if we can do it together but not alone (or not as well alone). We use all these options constantly, but the last one is the real synergic option.
In complexity theory we find that when several parts associate that attractors are formed, these are higher level phenomena and cannot exist at an individual part level.
They are also dynamical phenomena, their formation is a process of self-organization (a move from a 'basin of attraction' to the attractor itself) followed by a ongoing process (for cyclic or strange attractors). If the parts subsequently rearrange their connectivity (for any reason) then the attractor can dissolve and a new attractor come into being. Thus we see that a choice of connectivity can lead to a choice of outcomes, and each of these outcomes is (due to the associativity) a synergic one. Thus we can regard synergy as a form of dynamical attractor, and several such synergies can operate simultaneously in such networks (such as the illustrated 144 node Hamlet with 9 active 'synergies').
The idea that people are 'drawn' to an attractor is a powerful one. In many social situations there seems to be an irresistible dynamic such that, once initiated, actions seem forced, it is difficult to 'escape' from the inevitable consequences, from 'destiny' (e.g. in arms races). In such situations a perturbation is necessary to escape the basin of attraction, i.e. an effective change in connectivity such that we dissolve the attractor and instigate another (hopefully a more constructive one). Since most of our actions are determined by our viewpoints, then this perturbation can be seen to be equivalent to changes in our viewpoint - preferably from a 'competitive and exclusivity' stance to a 'cooperative and diversity tolerating' perspective.
"The major obstacle on the way to cooperation is possible evolutionary instability... Cooperation is evolutionary stable only if specific restrictions are applied on resource exchange. For example, several representatives of species A and B may form small groups, so that communication occurs only among members of a group... Thus, encapsulation makes a metasystem transition possible. Hierarchical systems have several levels of encapsulation and this makes them more stable than systems that have no restrictions for their interaction."
Alexei Sharov, Principia Cybernetica Web, Evolutionary Stability of Cooperation, 1998
But what holds these attractors together, why do they not automatically disintegrate or break apart ? Because they add value to the parts, i.e. there are functional interdependencies present such that if a part detaches from the whole it loses fitness, the whole is an 'Evolutionary Stable Strategy' because the parts have shared goals, the whole works for all of them ! Because this is the case then order is naturally stable, there is a selection force operating to maintain it even in the face of disruptive elements (rogue parts). A good illustration is to consider two rowers trying to cross a river (each with one oar), if both row it is easy, if neither do it is impossible, but what if only one rows (the other reneging) ? The boat goes in a circle and never gets anywhere ! Thus there is no incentive for the second rower to default, he must put in equal effort if the boat is to go straight. This works because both rowers have the ultimate (common) goal to cross the river.
This is in fact the key to maintaining synergy, our system is arranged in such a way that the incentives are to cooperate and not to defect. If this is not the case then invasion by freeloaders is almost inevitable, i.e. there is a fitness niche to be exploited due to flaws in the organizational dynamics. But note that the goals of all the members need not be the same, all that matters is that the 'system' acts in such a way as to meet the goals of each participant, they benefit more by being part of the collective than by being excluded. Thus the often assumed need for all social actors in collectives to behave exactly the same (that incessant bureaucratic monoculture) is a nonsense and is, in fact, highly destructive to the long term evolution (improvement strategy) of the whole, since it destroys that very diversity that leads to future innovative behaviour !
One of the most striking aspects of simple synergy of the sort that we have considered so far is that, given a common goal, new arrangements of part function become possible that greatly increase the efficiency of the system in reaching that goal.
This is best seen in the division of labour so central to manufacturing worldwide (and in many other areas). By specialising, i.e. creating niches (just like in ecology), the parts can operate much more efficiently. Adam Smith's pin-maker is a fine example, a single man could make, on his own, less than 20 pins a day; yet 10 men, dividing their labour and working to the common goal of producing pins, can each make 4,800 a day - a massive improvement of 24,000%.
Such is the benefit of synergic organization, which dwarfs by a vast margin the 'advantage' given by mere 'genetic mutations' (equivalent to individuals being forced to work 'faster') - no wonder nature prefers the former ! What is necessary to achieve this gain, is of course the freedom to self-organize optimally.
Surprisingly, even with just 4 people, there are 5,764,801 different ways in which they could possibly interact as a group, even about just a single issue - compared to just 16 options if they all operate as disjoint individuals ! If this freedom is curtailed, by inappropriate control structures, then the possible gains are often lost. One way this occurs is if some parts become dependent upon the whole and lose sight of the true purpose of the exercise, of why the system exists as a higher level entity in the first place, of the synergic purpose. This is often the case with bureaucracies, where maintaining the 'system' unchanged become their dominating goal, since it pays them to do so (distorted incentive structures have arisen). These effective parasites then suck the life and freedom from the whole and gradually destroy all traces of synergy (paper-pushing replaces pin-pushing as it were). This is, in fact, another form of defection or freeloading, whereby the downward constraints are changed to benefit the invader (whose goals are decidedly not the same as those of the original cooperators !). To avoid such effects we must evaluate all behaviours and incentives critically in terms of the original real goals of the collective.
"Consider a system S of any kind. Suppose that there is a way to make some number of copies from it, possibly with variations. Suppose that these systems are united into a new system S' which has the systems of the S type as its subsystems, and includes also an additional mechanism which controls the behavior and production of the S-subsystems. Then we call S' a metasystem with respect to S, and the creation of S' a metasystem transition. As a result of consecutive metasystem transitions a multilevel structure of control arises, which allows complicated forms of behavior.
Here is the sequence of metasystem transitions which led, starting from the appearance of organs of motion, to the appearance of human thought and human society:
- control of position = movement
- control of movement = irritability (simple reflex)
- control of irritability = (complex) reflex
- control of reflex = associating (conditional reflex)
- control of associating = human thinking
- control of human thinking = culture"
Valentin Turchin, Principia Cybernetica Web, The Metasystem Transition, 1993
So far we have assumed that the goals of the parts or 'agents' have been personally generated ones, in other words the set of goals is invariant regardless of the number of participants. However the main benefit of synergy is that it goes beyond this. When several participants are available then there are actions possible that none of them could even attempt alone. This implies that completely new goals become attainable, for example a band or dance group cannot realistically be formed and perform alone (one-man bands notwithstanding !), the delight of such groupings depends upon the unpredictable and emergent whole. Many of our more abstract pursuits come into this category, as do team sports, many business ventures, and community activities. It would, in fact, be fair to say that most human activity today would be impossible for single people isolated as 'desert island castaways' - however educated and resource rich they may have been before their separation from society.
This aspect of synergy, the idea that the whole is quite beyond the imagination of any isolated parts is crucial to its value. But it does imply that none of the parts is 'bright enough' to comprehend just what they have become. This is a major problem in the study of complex systems, since the emergent properties of the whole do not exist in the vocabulary of the parts. In the case of humans however, we have the ability, by being self-reflective, to consider the whole from a somewhat higher perspective and to internalise (to some extent) those new possibilities within our own being. Thus we expand or develop our worldviews, some times quite well, but often in distorted and incomplete ways since we find difficulty in truly comprehending a whole so much greater than ourselves (analogous to understanding the attributes of a 'God').
The key to such internalisation, in becoming aware of wider issues, of synergic possibility, is our ability to communicate, to share our ideas, and of course this in itself is a major form of social synergy. Ideas can be shared freely, so both parties gain at no cost to either of them - it is a win-win situation.
By sharing ideas in this way new combinations arise, i.e. novelty comes into being, we make new connections between disparate ideas and develop new understandings and analogies which lead to creativity. New options are added to our expanding state space. But whilst our possibilities do expand considerably (the more experience we have, the more alternative cultures we encounter, the deeper and wider our education becomes) there is a limit to the creativity that we seem able to employ.
True novelty seems to involve something unpredictable, something that cannot be reduced to just new combinations of existing ideas, and here we encounter again the complexity science idea of emergence. Emergent properties are concepts that simply do not exist within the language of the parts, new words are needed to describe them, new labels and categories even to identify them. It is here we find the true nature of synergy, a step-up in our view of 'reality', a quantum-leap in possibility space. It is often difficult for people to relate to these concepts, they exist completely outside the worldview deeply embedded within their psyche. Hence the common tendency to denigrate genius as 'nonsense', as 'fantasy', as simple 'error' or even 'insanity' ! Yet once the transition has been made, once the idea has actually flown (literally for the Wright brothers !), the concept becomes 'obvious' and can embed itself into common knowledge and become completely familiar.
"The universe is a Systems-Hierarchy. It has evolved in a cumulative manner, each higher step in this hierarchy, after the first, consisting of lower step components plus a new entity which has emerged out of the hierarchy, mutually modified. The world is therefore at the same time 'richly strange and deeply simple'...
When you observe the cumulative edifice from below you are amazed to see that the structure of all the higher rings is potential and implicit in the forms and laws of the lower ones. And conversely, when you observe the universe from its highest rings you see that they collapse into huge numbers of their lower ring components."
Edward Haskell, Full Circle, 1972, Ch. 2
Given that the whole really is a whole, and thus comprises a large number of different aspects (e.g. consider all the different roles and values within any society), then we need to ensure that when we are deriving the synergic fitness that we take into account all these myriad issues. Focusing on just one issue, as is so often done in, say, 'single-issue' politics, is the same error as we find in focusing upon one part, which we saw was destructive to the fitness of the whole. This implies that we consider not only the values of the parts (the human participants in a society) but the emergent properties also (the social institutions and their effects upon each other and on the parts). But note that our society is not isolated, thus we also need to consider its effects upon the values and goals of those other societies (including animal ones) that it encounters over time.
We see then that synergic fitness is a complex issue, which is why of course the tenets of complex systems science are so relevant. Study of complex systems tells us that causality operates in loops, so the part interactions will cause them to coevolve, thus the usual one-directional control structure we see in so many societies is fundamentally flawed in its basic philosophical concept. Effects are also found to be nonlinear in such systems, so it is again an error to assume that the effects of any action will be directly proportional to the size of the cause, they so rarely are - due to feedback effects which oppose change or escalate it. This also brings in the phenomenon of chaos, where predictability becomes impossible, so we must embrace unexpected results and give up our obsession with 'control'.
"Nature, with equal mind,
Sees all her sons at play;
Sees man control the wind,
The wind sweep man away."Matthew Arnold, Empedocles on Etna, 1852, act I, sc. ii, l. 257
Given that we can generate concepts that transcend individuals, which become group ideas and potentially synergic for the whole, e.g. libraries which make available collective knowledge; how are we to retain such benefits if we deny control ? Traditionally social 'stability' has been assumed to have to be maintained by having bosses (kings, presidents, police, bureaucracies of all sorts), who impose top-down restrictions (the law) that prevents 'anarchy'. Yet when we look at nature the absence of such control freaks is very evident (even 'alpha males' have very limited social power), but where is that Hobbsian 'anarchy' ? Nature maintains its order very well, thank you very much ! How can this be ? Have humans got it all so very wrong ? It seems they have. We saw earlier that metasystem transitions established control of the lower level by the higher, but what sort of control is it ? It is certainly nothing to do with giving control of the whole to a single agent at the lower level !
Downward causation (as it is called) is a distributed form of control, a form of mutuality or synergy. On the one hand, as we saw earlier, shared goals mean that (ideally) our incentive to 'defect' (i.e. to be a criminal) should be absent, we can see the benefit of a 'social institution' (e.g. an hospital system or transport infrastructure), on the other hand our communication ability allows us to monitor and 'blow the whistle' on defectors, to collectively control socially destructive 'freeloaders'. Both of these of course depend upon openness and education. But there is more to this and it is our mindset. Currently we simply do not understand these ideas, thinking (again) that competition is positive (freeing) and cooperation negative (restrictive) and even covering up for dishonest people in our 'clique' that harm our own society and ultimately ourselves also - out of a mistaken sense of 'loyalty'. The opposite is the case, our freedom to choose comes directly from society, it provides our extended choice, those higher values of our culture (arts, sciences, environment) that enhance our quality of life. When we fight (whether we call it 'patriotism', 'competition' or whatever) we denigrate ourselves, our societies and our globe.
In considering emergence and downward causation, especially in nature, we often assume that the parts have no choice in what happens to them. The higher level entity (e.g. an organism) acts, and the cells go along for the ride (dying maybe as a result - regardless of their 'wishes'). Is such a 'God' driven 'destiny' relevant to humans in society too, is the collective level then more important than the individual ? Canalization is the term used to denote restrictions in our possibilities or state space, and this implies boundary conditions act to constrain the evolution of the constituents.
This is no more a 'God' than a prison van is in preventing us getting outside. However it has just the same effect - we must 'go along for the ride'. But note that we made that van, just as our cells made us. Such 'constraining conditions' are inherent in all self-organizing systems - the attractors reduce the available state space or options, but the higher level emergence adds many more dimensions. Freedom in some dimensions must, it seems, be reduced if we are to gain extra freedom in other dimensions. The higher level benefits come at a price.
But this price is well worth paying, even for cells. It gives us added power, so much so that it makes living in isolation (mentally or physically) look so primitive ! Our options in interacting, in interdependency, as we saw, are quite staggering - each one is a new choice, a new freedom, a new opportunity, a new power. And at human level (if not perhaps for amoebas) we can exercise that power innovatively, we can create and that is the essence of synergic power, a power that is more dependent upon a developed mindset, an inherent wisdom, than it is upon material resources. Remember, knowledge is free, and there are always rather better ways of achieving any end (if we use our imagination) than by those wasteful "conspicuous consumption" methods of today's individualistic (divide and conquor) manipulative practices. As Mr Spock might have said, "the power of the one is worth sacrificing to gain the greater power of the many".
"Citius-Altius-Fortius"
(Faster-Higher-Stronger)Olympic Motto
Although we have stressed cooperation as a basis for synergy, there is a form of competition that is win-win. This is the form central to amateur sporting rivalry, whereby friends try to better their personal fitnesses and performances by pitting themselves against each other. This is synergistic, since the main aim is personal improvement and not reducing the current fitness of any rival (unlike big business competition where poaching another's customers is central today). It is thus at worst a win-neutral strategy, no harm is caused by the competitors dynamically feeding off each other, in fact they do so in positive ways, the 'competition' provides the incentive for personal development.
An aspect of this friendly competition is to be found also in ecological behaviour where competition for resources leads to diversification. In other words the two 'competitor' species or individuals agree (usually implicitly) to target different resources or territories, effectively diffusing the competitive disadvantages - just like two competing athletes may decide to concentrate upon different events, recognising that slight differences in ability make diverse goals more productive for both of them overall. Their performances act to improve team synergy and this mutual support and common interest is yet another demonstration of synergy in what is often regarded as a 'dog eat dog' pursuit. In fact, it is true to say, that without mutually beneficial collective behaviours then such social sports are simply impossible to contemplate, there would be no incentive to pursue them.
When we admit that the properties of the wholes are determined by the behaviours of the parts, then we have to ask ourselves, how can the parts influence and generate emergent properties beneficial to themselves.
This is basically the same question that we ask in querying the meaning of democracy. For what does democracy mean, if not the way the parts generate an acceptable social whole ? In other words, how they determine whether the 'downward causation', or emergent properties (i.e. their government behaviours) act in ways conducive to their quality-of-life or in opposition to it ? Being honest, and looking around us, we can perhaps understand that many of our so-called democracies are exceedingly poor at doing just that, they act to suppress and restrain the 'parts' in ways completely opposite to what synergy should be all about !
How can we resolve this problem ? Well, the very essence of any synergistic behaviour is that the two parts both benefit, and in larger systems all participants should benefit. If they do not, then there is no win-win synergy, just a lose-win or even a lose-lose dynamic. It seems clear then that if we are to achieve genuine synergy then any of the parts that perceive themselves to be losing in the dynamic must have a veto such that such a dynamic is immediately terminated. This may seem an impossible dream, especially for large groupings of people, but a method of achieving this, called Ortegrity (organizational tensegrity), is now available. In a world of infinite possibility, losers are signs of failure, signs of incompetence by the 'leaders', or of inadequate and unimaginative bullying by selfish interests. As such, it defies the very idea of democracy, the ideal that the 'parts' associate for mutual benefit. No such benefit, means no valid democracy. To achieve synergy, as we saw, requires part freedom of association, so any control structure that opposes that (other than preventing criminal or mutual destruction, i.e. win-lose or lose-lose behaviours !) will prove to be disadvantageous to the fitness of that society.
"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us.
When we see land as a community to which we belong,
we may begin to use it with love and respect."Aldo Leopold (1886-1948)
By considering all aspects of a situation, we move naturally to today's more global situation with its emphasis upon sustainability. Sustaining the whole relates to not doing anything that impinges negatively upon vital aspects of our ecosystem. To act like this is to enforce a win-win dynamic, but before we can do so we need to understand the complex system that forms the world's ecosphere. Complexity science helps provide the connectivity knowledge that relates to the dynamics of such highly interacting, evolving and fragile systems, so naturally combines with our emphasis upon synergy to ensure that our behaviours as humans do not impinge destructively upon the many plants and animals that prove essential to the health of our Gaian world.
Applying the synergic veto on the behalf of endangered plants and animals, along with recognising the need to maintain their diversity, will focus our attention better upon alternatives, upon goal choices, upon ignored values and upon overall fitness. These aspects relate to additions to our current science, to developing a dynamically-oriented metascience suitable for the correct treatment of complex systems and this is a goal we have previously pursued.
"We shall never understand the natural environment until we see it as a living organism. Land can be healthy or sick, fertile or barren, rich or poor, lovingly nurtured or bled white. Our present attitudes and laws governing the ownership and use of land represent an abuse of the concept of private property�"
Paul Brooks, The Pursuit of Wilderness, 1971, Ch. 1
One aspect of our unsustainable world is excessive consumption. This is based upon the concept of personal ownership, such that every human on the planet is ultimately encouraged to purchase and accumulate at least one of everything made, even being prevented from sharing such 'goods' by overly restrictive 'copyright' provisions. Considering that a human can only do one or a few things at any time, then this means that well over 90% of products privately owned are (on average) completely unused, and many of the more socially valuable are actually selfishly locked away in bank vaults and never utilised to meet any human values at all ! This colossal wastefulness is clearly a form of madness and highly destructive to the planet's resources - not the mention the problems that are also caused by the endless disposal of old goods, associated with the latest fashions and planned obsolescence, for mere profit 'maximisation'...
Devising a better way to deal with our common need for certain material possessions, a way that embraces a form of synergic consumption,
is not easy within a worldview of 'individuality'. In such a belief system every person in a community separately goes everywhere; to the out-of-town hypermarket, to entertainment places, to and from work (often commuting long distances and passing other commuters doing just the same thing in the opposite direction); whilst companies move all their goods separately, again over long distances, and duplicate all their common functions, to avoid cooperating with their 'rivals' ! These behaviours act to maximise everyone's costs, but they maximise their wasted time and resources too ! Considering this dispassionately, we could hope for an 'integrated community' in which goods, where personally necessary, are communally delivered or loaned and where consumption and waste are minimised rather than the unsustainable opposite. There is much to do before this is the case, although we should add that such was often possible in rural communities before economic greed and selfish social blindness allowed all possible (now centralised) company costs to be externalised onto every local community - to their considerable disadvantage in terms of quality of life.
"Understanding (recognizing) the paradoxes of complex systems:
Stable and adaptable
Reliable and controllable
Persistent and dynamic
Deterministic and chaotic
Random and predictable
Ordered and disordered
Cooperative and competitive
Selfish and altruistic
Logical and paradoxical
Averaging and non-averaging
Universal and unique"Yaneer Bar-Yam, Unifying Principles in Complex Systems , 2002
Synergy is the most important feature of complex systems, the aspect that makes the system worthwhile, its meaning, i.e. what ultimately leads to 'hierarchy' or higher levels of structure. Each emergent level adds values to the whole, new possibilities that change dramatically the fitness world of the parts. Complexity science concentrates upon interactions, on relations between the parts and their effects upon the whole, so the two disciplines are natural partners. What then are the insights that a combined 'synergic complexity science' gives us, especially in social areas ?
Synergy - this shows us that interacting systems can find novel solutions that are simply not available to isolated systems. The evolutionary growth of complex structure and associated cooperation is driven by overall mutual fitness benefits. We need to recognise the all encompassing nature of this effect.
Multilevel Values - complex systems have structure at many levels, with meaning and values existing at each of these levels, so our overall social value must be a synergic and holarchic whole, involving material, social and spiritual aspects. We need to reverse our specialist educational fixations on isolated levels and single values.
Epistasis - values always interact, usually nonlinearly, thus considering them in isolation simply gives invalid results. Treating isolated single-value problems will frequently generate new problems in the ignored values. We must be suspicious of such simple 'solutions' - especially when they are touted as the 'only option', they never are.
Multicausality - every event has multiple causes, and every cause affects multiple events (fan-in/fan-out), there are no single cause-single event occurences within complex systems. We must consider the synergic whole as a whole with attention given (without prejudice) to all stakeholders .
Circularity - effects in complex systems are connected back to causes, there are no isolated cause-effect chains, causes and effects are effectively the same. Thus blaming others blames ourselves also since we are all part of the same system and equally responsible for it. We should take a more holistic perspective in such cases.
Nonlinearity - the superposition principle does not hold in complex systems, thus adding two isolated part 'right's can give a system 'wrong'. Compromise (a middle way) is necessary to avoid dualist excesses (e.g. under or over 'eating'). Most social focuses on extremes (e.g. maximisation of profit, minimisation of cost) are thus seen to be dysergies in terms of the whole, and need to be avoided.
Attractor Generation - interacting parts will generate dynamical attractors, these can be fixed points, cycles or strange forms within a multidimensional state or phase space. Attractors are inherently synergic, higher-level phenomena, and we need to become more aware of their presence within all our social groupings.
Multiple Attractors - complex systems contain a mix of attractors, thus there are always many possible solutions to any problem, which is the best is contextual (based upon associated environmental values) and is not an absolute. Our typical scientific focus upon just finding 'a' solution therefore neglects many possible others of which we need to be attentive.
Niched Solutions - several solutions can be equally fit and optimum within complex systems, since these involve multiple interacting objectives, thus diversity is allowed and encouraged, even for maximization problems. We should therefore be more tolerant of alternative lifestyles, opinions and cultures.
Dissipation - complex systems are far-from-equilibrium, thus need an energy flow to persist, this energy must be renewable if the system is not to die or dissolve and waste energy dissipates and cannot be reused. We thus need to preserve our energy supplies and greatly reduce waste if civilisation is to persist in its current form.
Diversification - adaptation to unexpected events needs maximum choice, thus heterogeneous (non-uniform) parts are necessary. Sustainability requires the resilience implied by such inherent variety. Loss of ideas and historical differences caused by a drive to a global monoculture is socially just as damaging in human terms and we need to preserve such knowledge and our cultural diversity.
Self-Organization - better results can always be found by allowing combinatorial freedom, thus external control is detrimental to the fitness of complex systems. We must decentralise for efficiency, creativity and adaptability at all levels of our social world: education, business and politics. Centralised bullying is thus unacceptable in any area of society and should be opposed.
Modularity - the most effective self-organization occurs when groups are relatively small, too large or too connected groups fail to progress, too small ones fail to have enough diversity. The corporate focus upon 'bigger is better' and 'economies of scale' is just as serious an error as a focus upon excessive 'individuality', we need to avoid such poor aims.
Feedback Escalation - the dynamics of values within complex systems can escalate positively (win-win) or negatively (lose-lose), stability is found to be an unstable state due to the circular causality central to complex systems. Synergy requires positive-sum actions, and we need to better monitor our transaction dynamics.
Time Dynamics - due to the external nature of feedback loops, the time for a system to settle into an attractor can be long, and significant effects can occur at remote points. Proximal (local) analysis needs to be augmented by distal (remote) forms - we need to become more 'long-sighted' and aware of the long-term effects of our actions.
Unpredictability - cause and effect within complex systems are not obvious, small causes can have big effects (the chaotic butterfly effect) and large ones no effect (perturbation resistant attractors). Thus all forms of long-term planning are expected to ultimately prove futile. Gradual self-adjusting changes are more effective, we need to micromanage not macromanage our societies in a 'hands-off' way.
Natural Balance - complex systems self-organize to an edge-of-chaos state which allows an optimum fitness mix of stability and adaptability, neither static order (totalitarian restrictions) nor dynamic chaos (anarchic freedom) are valid solutions. Components need to be able to adjust their behaviours in order to reach this synergic state and our social institutions should be redesigned to facilitate and not obstruct this.
Evolution - complex systems are constantly evolving, changing their constituents and balances around the edge-of-chaos position. The 'stable' becomes 'unstable' and the 'unstable' becomes 'stable' over time. Change should then be expected and plans designed which can accomodate the unforeseen.
Phase Transition - stressed groups can spontaneously jump to a completely new arrangement, a new functional balance, that mimics physical changes of state (e.g. ice/water/steam). The effects on current values and goals can be vast. We can stress complex environmental systems only so far if we are to retain their synergy, so should avoid adding to and escalating such stresses.
Lock-In - history causes complex systems to become canalized, thus preventing them searching all of state space. Finding optimum synergic solutions needs perturbation driven escapes from such limited viewpoints. New more open modes of thought are now necessary, transcending dualist biases, and this needs addressing within our educational systems.
Emergence - properties of the whole do not relate to the mathematics of the separate parts, thus such novelty is indescribable using standard mathematical reductionism. New techniques, e.g. category theory, are necessary for complex systems analysis. Qualitative rather than quantitative methods may now need to be used, replacing our social obsession with bottom-line 'numbers'.
Connectivity - since systems are interconnected wholes, then dividing them destroys their integrity. Reductionist analysis thus analyses something very different than the synergic real system. Synthesis not analysis is necessary, we must talk to other disciplines and viewpoints and act in more transdisciplinary ways.
Variability - complex systems are not validly classifiable using dualist logic concepts, multiple and multistate attributes means that probabilistic logics (e.g. fuzzy) should be used, or preferably matrix or integral logics if these become available. We must recognize that there is no being only becoming.
Downward Causation - emergent properties have causal effects upon part freedoms, restricting and biasing them (such properties are supervenient, but are neither just aggregates nor epiphenomenal). Cultures inherently embody such fitness affecting biases which are often overlooked, we need to become aware of them.
Fractality - structures within complex systems span all space and time scales, all emergent levels operate according to the same systemic principles, thus these complexity science insights apply to all aspects of our world. Applying them to the world's social problems should be a priority.
Level Interaction - upward and downward causation means that the levels interact, they are not disjoint. Thus abstract ideas affect both physical and social reality and vice-versa. Our world is a 'mesh' or a 'web', i.e. more an 'heterarchy' than an 'hierarchy', and we should change our focus accordingly.
Coevolution - feedback loops involve other entities and other systems, these adapt and evolve based upon their local characteristics (individual values) and interaction dynamics - there is no static 'self', it is a dissipative and forever changing autopoietic structure. Human development is an ongoing dynamic, we do not have 'fixed' abilities or competances, so should not act as if we do.
Untestability - the combinations possible between complex systems and complex environments are such that exhaustive testing is completely impossible. Social claims of certainty in any area (e.g. drug or GMO safety) are thus seen to be dangerous fabrications, and should be seen for what they are - forms of manipulation.
Requisite Variety - any successful cybernetic control system must have the same numbers of options as the environment to which it connects. Our social environment is thus far too complex for effective control by any 'boss' human or even groups of humans. We should give up our 'delusions of grandeur'.
Autonomy - at higher evolutionary levels the parts develop emergent autonomy, this makes them heterogeneous and thus their responses are contextually individualistic and not behaviourally predictable based upon contextual or environmental similarities. External bureaucratic standardisation is thus not a viable option if we are to maximise or even retain our humanity and synergy, and we should oppose such abuses.
Creativity - synergic possibilities tend to be novel ideas and not easily understandable from lower level perspectives, tolerance and imagination are necessary in their treatment, along with trial-and-error experiment. Educationally we must now avoid closing down options and possibility in a striving for simple 'right' answers.
Liberation - if people can get beyond their norms, and enter an edge-of-chaos state, then they tend to find the possibilities liberating and rewarding, a self-actualizing experience, a state in the 'Zone', with frequent synchronicity events and high group coherence and synergy. We should embrace this possibility.
Honesty - knock-on effects in concealed dimensions make all desired improvements in complex systems sensitive to lies and deceits. Truthfulness is necessary to ensure positive trajectories and is an essential element in the trust needed to maintain social synergy. Our social tolerance of deceit and manipulation should end.
"The 'co-operative work' - the �syn-ergon� - among people or sectors has to go beyond its mere quantitative dimension, and the often dissonant �poly-phony� of many distinct voices has to be reconceived to reach a higher level of harmony. It has to be 'transformed' into a �sym-phony�...
In striving for this synergy, one should not rely upon ready-made procedures, stereotyped formulas, and standardized answers. One should not be afraid of leaving behind familiar ground, nor be fearful to admit ignorance in front of the unknown. One should learn to be comfortable with uncertainty, and be ready to trust. In other words, be ready to get transformed, in order to see things getting transformed."
Yersu Kim, Transdisciplinarity: Stimulating Synergies, Integrating Knowledge, 1998, Preface
By merging synergy and complexity science we bring better scientific rigor to synergy as a concept, whilst also focusing the complexity sciences better upon what is really important about complex systems, i.e. their ability to bring greater benefit to the parts than would be possible without their cooperative associations. This does indeed need some innovative thinking that goes beyond the standard scientific reductionism so common today. Looking at wholes requires that we admit that we do not know everything. In fact, getting beyond the closed partial theories held (by all parties) with the full certainty of dogmatic fervour, shows us that currently our actual knowledge of complex systems is pretty minimal, and our knowledge of synergy proves to be even less. Neglect of the study of overall behaviours, of integrated values within complex systems, has allowed a delusion of knowledge (based upon isolated parts) to replace real knowledge of holistic properties and their dynamical evolution.
Yet, by integrating our (however limited) insights into both these disciplines, we can make considerable progress, and we have highlighted many of these insights. Building upon this start would benefit by a more committed focus upon holarchic valuation, the way multiple semi-autonomous systems can look to balance their interacting values; along with a more open metascience focus upon new possibilities, upon how, once systems interact (willingly or not, as the case may be), we can capitalise upon the synergic benefits that become available - benefits that can often dissolve the limited dualist biases that we so often see today, which lead to the many stalemates and conflicts in our world. Our possibilities here are endless, only time will tell if humanity is ready and wise enough to collectively enact them.