SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONAL THEORY AND NONLINEAR
DYNAMICS
Social Magic in Human Activity
T. R. Young
The Red Feather Institute
March, 1991
No. 149
Distributed as part of the Red Feather Institute Transforming Sociology Series.
The Red Feather Institute, 8085 Essex, Weidman, Michigan, 48893.
The world is not only stranger
than we believe it to be,
it is stranger than we can
imagine it to be.
...J.S. Haldane
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONAL THEORY AND NONLINEAR DYNAMICS
Social Magic in Human Activity
INTRODUCTION Chaos theory is producing a
fundamental shift in the knowledge process in all disciplines comparable
to the shift in the 16th century from premodern understandings to the missions
and methods of modern science. This shift in the knowledge process moves
symbolic interactional theory from the periphery of sociology to the deep
rich core of it. The ontology and epistemology of nonlinear dynamics subsume
the messy, squiggly, squirmy, emergent dynamics of symbolic interaction
far better than does the tight, rigid, mechanistic determinism of modern
axiomatic theory. 1
The consequences of this conversion of social behavior to
the language and logics of chaos theory for a philosophy of science should
not be underrated by those in the social sciences. In the first instance,
the mission of modern science assumes that there is, in fact, one set of
universal and eternal propositions which govern the dynamics of all societies.
That mission points all social research toward the discovery of general
theory. The assumption of general theory presumes that societies which
implement rational, lawlike social processes are higher on the evolutionary
ladder than those who use folk methods and social magic in organizing social
reality.
In the second instance, the presumed fact of linear dynamics and law-like
theories grounds research which is oriented to the discovery of such theory
through the method of successive approximations using hypotheses, prediction,
quantification, observation and estimates of correlation to confirm or
refute the truth value of theoretical statements. The ontology revealed
by chaos research does not support the presumption of either linear dynamics
nor formal, axiomatic theory. In turn, the method of successive approximations
becomes irrelevant to valid knowledge of natural and social systems.
The central feature of the natural systems illuminated by Chaos research
is the nonlinearity of their dynamics; while such nonlinearity is well
established and well researched in the natural sciences, there are very
few people working on nonlinear dynamics in the social sciences. In order
to encourage such work, in the next section, I will illuminate the nonlinearity
of social dynamics using symbolic interactional processes as the data with
which to do so. All this is prelude to the larger task of shifting social
science toward postmodern expressions of theory and method.
In all of this, the concept of magic must be carefully understood. By magic,
I simply mean the appearance of events which do not follow logically and
coherently from that which has gone before. In the kind of social magic
of which I speak, the ordinary canons of cause and effect, cherished as
the foundation of the modern knowledge process, are not operative. Rather
one finds things happening which surprise, astonish and bemuse those of
us who are accustomed to orderly and routine consequences in everyday life.
The terms we use with which to refer to such nonlinear dynamics include
miracle and indeed, the event is so unusual as to be worth looking at;
wonder, and indeed the event is a source of constant wonderment; and mystery.
However, Chaos theory removes most of the mystery. It is entirely within
the logic of natural change patterns that wondrous things happen. This
essay offers the reader an alternative to supernatural explanation for
magic.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONAL THEORY, SOCIAL MAGIC AND NONLINEARITY Symbolic
Interaction Theory is a loose set of assumptions about how symbols are
used to create a shared frame of meaning which, in turn, is used to organize
and to interpret human behavior in loose and everchanging patterns of work,
commerce, family, worship and play. This process, symbolic interaction,
is the solid empirical basis for a social magic in which that which does
not exist and which has no causal precursors, does in fact come into actuality.
It is a remarkable and wonderful process yet it happens everywhere two
or more human beings define a situation, reify it by means of belief, organize
their behavior as if such a social event were real and, in the consequence,
create a fractal, intersubjective social fact.
Hope, trust, faith, and belief are nonlinear (and non-material) psychological
processes essential to all effective symbolic activity. These psychological
processes produce nonlinear effects (and come to be taken-for-granted)
in all social life. All social reality requires the same 'leap of faith'
that many use to characterize belief in the supernatural. The nonlinearity
of the symbol using process draws upon trust, innocence and belief and
is sustained by them. Of course, trust, hope, faith and belief, while essential
to the production of all forms of social reality may be also used against
the social process. And, it may be used up--although human beings have
a rare capacity for believing and trusting in spite of all good evidence
to the contrary.
Part of the postmodern critique is that, living in an age of modern science
and exploitative economic, racial and gender relations, trust converts
into cynicism while cynicism bifurcates into raw power on the one side
or nihilism on the other. The subtext of this entire work can be read as
an effort to reinvent society in such a way as to minimize the sociology
of fraud and to enable the reinvestment of desire, trust, faith and belief
into ordinary human relations at school, in market, in sports, as well
as religion and government. Basic to the task is a knowledge process in
which nonlinear transformations in human affairs are understood as neither
irrational, imperfection nor deviancy but rather the stuff of which enlivening
social relations are made.
The concept of structure is one in great dispute
in the social sciences. Chaos theory offers a way to resolve the polemics
around which a whole literature called 'post-structural' critique is found
2 . In
brief, the argument goes that the very idea of structure is imposed upon
an infinitely complex and interconnected whole. Extraction of any given
pattern which explains, describes, predicts or otherwise accounts for the
vast and variable whole is a political act which privileges such an account.
Chapter 9, below, offers the argument in more detail. In social life-worlds,
Marxian theory, Christian theology, Gestalt theory, exchange theory, freudian
theory or any other such 'totalizing' explanation simply does not/cannot
do justice to the messy, fuzzy, contradictory and inexplicable realities
one encounters in daily life (Lyotard, 1984). Yet there are sufficient
data which form a connected whole from which to generate these 'grand narratives.'
I will make several points from Chaos theory which helps sort out these
polemics, coming down on the side of structural analysis for the most part
but a very different kind of structure from that presumed by modern science
and its post-structural critics.
It is the story of these remarkable geometries and nonlinear changes in
the nonlinear dynamics of symbolic interaction that Chaos theory can help
us understand. In that understanding is the promise of a society in which
dynamics are created by intending human beings sufficiently stable to satisfy
the human need for continuity and intersubjective agreement yet variable
enough to satisfy the human need for change and renewal.
In making the case for nonlinearity, I ask the reader to visualize the
actual embodiments of the various social forms to which I refer remembering
that each such embodiment is a complex, variable and finely tuned whole
that changes from moment to moment, day to day, year to year yet keeps
much of its essential characteristics. If one imagines concrete social
occasions in which one has been immersed, it will help the reader see the
nonlinear, hence chaotic nature of social interaction and the everchanging
realities it produces.
Strange Attractors There are several points
at which the nonlinearity of symbolic interaction and the theoretical framework
of chaos theory are easily connected. A centering concept in Chaos work
is that of the 'strange attractor.' Such an attractor gets its name for
two reasons; first, it is called an attractor since key parameters in the
life of a set of human beings tend to create a pattern in the time-space
of such persons. That pattern is called a 'strange' attractor since it
does not fit the dynamics expected within the linear mechanics of a newtonian
paradigm 3
. Newtonian scientists expect sameness and precision; symbolic interaction
produces similarity rather than sameness. Newtonian scientists expect smooth
transformations which can be plotted by linear equations; symbolic interaction
often leads to nonlinear transformations in human behavior.
A close look at what each of us do every day reveals the nonlinearities
and the discontinuities of social discourse.
In everyday life, human beings use four sets of symbols with which to generate quasi-stable embodiments of social reality. Iterations of all such embodiments in phase-space taken together has the self-similarity of a strange attractor.
These four media include voice, body movement, body decoration including
clothing, as well as whole lines of behavior. The developing child learns
to read each and every symbol in each and every one of these most personal
of media. The developing child learns to weigh the harmonious and disjointed
meanings embodied in the parallel expressions of symbolic messages by voice,
body, clothing and behavior. It is a task that exceeds the capacities of
even the most advanced mathematics or the most complex computers. To do
symbolic work is to be human and it requires a most remarkable capacity;
a capacity to create, store, retrieve and to use an infinite set of meanings.
In learning the use of each common symbol in each of the four linguistic
systems mentioned, the child learns to use each such symbol in a variable
but similar way. Thus the word, hand can refer to billions of concrete
but different objects of which human beings have two each. The word hand
has, in terms of meaning, a number of different attractor states; it can
refer to a fingered appendage, a worker, a round of bridge, a round of
applause, a set of cards, handwriting, assistance, or any number of variations
there on. It is important to note that, in the actual use of any such symbol,
the concrete object or the specific process to which it refers in never
quite the same; it is similar but more--or less--different. Meaning always
takes the shape of a strange attractor.
The pattern any given body gesture, any given item
of clothing or any given cosmetic display as well as any line of behavior,
if assigned meaning in a culture, also takes on the character of a strange
attractor. Any embodiment of sound or motion has two components; one stable
and one which varies depending upon conditions at hand. The use of signs,
symbols and significations resemble the geometry of a mandelbrot set with
infinite length, infinite center, and infinite detail. 4
Nonlinearity The actual process by
which symbols are called forth is nonlinear; the use of any given word
is chosen from among a set of closely related attractor states of meaning.
5 Thus
were the next word I use in this passage to be 'passage,' I could have
selected other terms including; section, text, paragraph, sentence, story
or essay. It is impossible to predict linear causal linkage between the
use of one word in a text and the appearance of the next word. Indeed,
graceful writing and eloquent speech as well as apt behavior requires both
pattern and variety. Writing in which either words or actions are entirely
predictable is said to be trite; speech which is entirely familiar is said
to be cliche. Surprise and variety is the spice of life in the preparation
and presentation of food as in the art of love.
One can make probability statements, indeed authorship
of ancient texts is attributed on the basis of habitual usage. However
habitual is such usage, even so, it is not deterministic usage given
the standards use in modern science. 6
All uses of symbols are nonlinear since different stimuli produce the same symbol; the same symbol produces similar but not identical response.
The human voice has several variable attributes upon which meaning can
be assigned: pitch, timbre, volume, pace, harmonics, tone and so on all
of which can be modified by use of lungs, larynx, tongue, lips, teeth,
nose and other parts of the sound chambers. No one sound is ever exactly
like another sound in any given iteration of that sound since body states
vary, air quality varies, sound dynamics vary with architecture and since
the sound waves from other sources make interference patterns.
No one gesture is ever precisely like another, similar gesture even though
the same meaning might be assigned to it. Body position, muscle tone, nerve
signals and states of awareness vary and interact in varying ways to produce
an ever changing pattern for the same hand shake of welcome, nod of agreement,
shrug of contempt or smile of delight. The fact that differences are ignored
or that missing data are supplied in any such gesture means that symbolic
activity is, again, nonlinear activity.
Hands, face, body posture, body tension, legs, feet as well as arms and
shoulders are used to convey meaning. Facial muscles in combination can
produce over 100,000 discernible bits of information. When one considers
all the possible iterations of all possible embodiments of a single symbolic
encoding using just body parts as a linguistic medium, one begins to see
that each one can have a veritable mandelbrot set of iterations with infinite
length, infinite centers, and infinite detail. No two iterations of a gesture,
pose, or stance are ever alike. There is no linearity between the thought
and the deed when it comes to body talk yet there is the human capacity
to conceptualize any given embodiment as part of a region of meanings in
a basin of concepts.
Body parts are often shaped by surgery, binding, tattooing or burning to
convey information. Some societies file teeth, stretch necks or lips, cut
off clitoris, or insert bone, metal or fiber objects into body parts in
order to help define social status-role, social occasions or social boundaries.
The iteration of body decoration for any given person is unique. Age, height,
skin tone, skill, materials available, and all other components of body
talk converge to form an infinitely variable universe of symbols. In actual
symbolic interaction, both small and large differences in embodiments of
body talk symbols are ignored and with that subjective interpretation,
nonlinear meaning is taken and returned for validation.
Clothing, cosmetics and body paint, weaponry, tattoos, manicure, and jewelry
are used in great array to define social standing, age, occasion, gender,
religion, sexual preference, marital status, kinship grouping and other
social facts. No one piece of clothing is ever worn exactly as before or
as another wears. Body posture, body health, time of day, lighting or humidity
affect shade, shape, or other features of display in infinite variety.
Those who read such data take an active part in the language process. All
symbolic interaction is interactive; that means it is not causal in a linear
fashion [i.e., a ® b]; as presumed in most
formal theoretical models of social causality.
Runs of behavior, from simple hand motions summoning, greeting or dismissing
others to whole cycles of behavior that take years to complete are, also,
assigned meaning. Psychiatrists become adept at reading the private meaning
of cycles of destructive behavior for their primal meaning of rebellion,
resentment, guilt or neurotic compulsion. Psychiatrists are often helpful
in teaching patients to sort out the double, triple and quadruple binds
in which they are put by differing messages being encoded and communicated
in the same phase-space region by parents or other significate persons
using voiced expressions to say one thing, body talk to say another, cosmetic
and dress to say still a third thing and lines of behavior to confound
and negate the other lines of meaning read out by the trying and failing
child, wife or friend.
Preparation of a meal may denote an anniversary; the bringing of roses
may denote a fine appreciation of a loved one; the re-enactment of the
Stations of the Cross at Easter time may denote a re-commitment to private
and public redemption of our sins. No one run of behavior is ever just
the same as a previous embodiment nor is the meaning of a given run of
behavior exactly the same, yet there are common themes which suffuse all
such runs of behavior and produce self-similarity sufficient to stabilize
meaning and social relationships.
Each of the millions of iterations of Thanksgiving Dinner are centered
in terms of date, time, and condiments. One can be pretty certain about
the social connections of the celebrants at any given iteration of the
holy day; relatives have a high but not perfect certainty. Membership from
one year to the next is stable but far from the stability required for
modern, linear science. But the very concept of thanksgiving permits a
far wider variety of ingredients than those listed here; such variability
does not sit comfortably in the citadel of modern science.
Fractal Geometries The reality-creating process
involving symbolic interaction thus takes on the fractal geometry
of a mandelbrot set; a recognizable configuration of stability of meaning
together with an understandable variation of new and unique usage. It is
in the fractal nature of language processes as in its nonlinearity that
symbolic interaction is most clearly seen to be a chaotic process. 7
A fractal is a measure of the degree
to which a system uses the space available to it. In modern science, the
geometry of natural and social objects have the usual number of dimensions;
one, two or three. Boundaries of objects in modern science are clear and
unambiguous. One can discern between point and nonpoint; between line and
nonline; between plane and nonplane; between sphere and nonsphere. Not
so in the world as revealed by research in Chaotic regimes. 8
In Chaos theory, it is possible to have less than two but more than one
dimension; that is to say order and disorder can occupy the same time-space
continua.
It is of considerable interest to note that, in the unfilled space of a
fractal, still other fractals can be found. The same is true for social
realities. More than one social reality can be found in the same social
occasion; indeed some of the unit acts in a social occasions are components
of two quite differing social facts occurring at the same time in the same
space by the same persons. A clerk at a supermarket could be checking out
the value of the groceries of a friend and, in the same activity, reaffirm
friendliness and embody clerkness.
The boundaries of all social events are fractal; one cannot discern a sharp, discrete boundary between the social event and its larger environment.
One can never identify precisely when an individual
social actor, a social relationship, a social occasion or a social system
begins or ends. One cannot identify with precision the boundaries of any
social fact. For any given social role, social occasion, social establishment
or whole society, the boundaries are loose and permeated by other sets
of unit acts (some intended; some physiological lapses and some unit acts
compatible with other social realities but not compatible with the situation
under construction. 9
In boxing, fencing, or basketball, as in conferences, prayer
meetings, and festivals there are, as Goffman put it, opening moves that
signal the beginning of a contest or a cooperative endeavor. In boxing,
contestants touch gloves; in fencing, there is a set of three moves which,
if not made, signals a false start. In racing, a shot is fired; in football,
a whistle blown, in basketball, a ball tossed in the air. All signal the
beginning of the social event. In church, a song or a prayer is used to
disperse other competing lines of activity with other, competing interpretations.
Yet however precise the effort to distinguish between event and nonevent,
there are smaller or larger variations in the begin of play. Sometimes
it takes a team several minutes to 'really' get into the game. Sometimes
given players are 'out of it' for the whole game. Boundaries are hard to
determine.
In many sports events, there are games within games not all of which are
'visible' to the innocent spectator. Sometimes one or more team members
will conspire to shave points or subvert victory. Sometimes a player will
'grandstand' for a friend on the sidelines. Sometimes owners will conspire
to fix team rosters, rules or outcomes in ways not congenial to the publicly
known rules of the game. Possibilities for fraud in religion, market, school
and marriage abound. Unit acts which are distinctly outside the logic of
the occasion can be reinterpreted by a skilled player to take on the semblance
of legitimate action.
The use of multiple, reinforcing symbol sets to constitute the beginning
of a social occasion or relationship means that there is no clear and sharp
edge to social reality. The initial but decreasing mismatch in meaning
and social standing between the person who signifies and the person(s)
who interprets the signified also testifies to the loose geometry of the
social fact.
If we were to peer closely inside any given social occasion, social institution
or social formation, we would find that only a small part of the activity
going on is relevant for the symbolic integrity of the occasion under construction.
Speech acts, to begin with, are full of belches, grunts, pauses, mispronunciations
and other 'errors' which lay there ignored by the symbolic using, making
parties. Body motions; squirms, scratching, picking, plucking, pulling
and squinting are in the phase-space of the social occasion are treated
as if they were not there.
If we were to look closely at a shop, store, office, or even whole society
that pronounces itself to have a capitalist system under symbolic construction,
we would find within the same time-space continua, whole lines of activity
that have nothing at all to do with capitalism. Production and distribution
in homes, churches, schools and many government agencies are based upon
need rather than profit. Charities, auctions, garage sales, church bazaars
and thrift shops do not follow the symbolic logic of capitalism in any
linear way. Crime in all its variety is outside the logic, understood as
linear aristotlean logic, of free market capitalism. In any store, factory
or society that defines itself as a capitalism form, perhaps as much as
50% to 95% of the unit acts actually observable, lay outside the situation
as defined.
One could make similar analyses of sports events, religious occasions,
electoral politics or any complex social process. Those who work in hospitals
know of its many non-medical activities. Those in police work know the
many parallel but non-game activities engaged in by police and public alike.
Marriage itself is a very loose and very fractal social form. All attest
to the fractal geometries of social reality rather than the euclidean geometry
presupposed by linear models of social realities.
Structure and Region When looking at an
entire basin of outcomes of any given instance of reality making in symbolic
interaction, that part of an outcome basin which shows sufficient self-similarity
in iterations of a unit act across time-space can be, properly, conceived
as one kind of structure while those occupying another region of in a basin
outcomes may, properly, be identified as another, qualitatively different
structure. 10
The emergence of social structure does not depend upon the behavior of any one member of a set; rather structure is an attribute of a large set of interactive events.
It is most certainly true that the single individual is itself a 'structure.'
It has parts which work together to constitute a whole. It is certainly
the case the behavior of a given individual takes on the character of a
'structure.' If we followed the behavior of such a person over days, months
and years, we would see regularities of sufficient coherence to call the
patterns found, structure. Yet, if we are speaking of social structure,
then we must speak of the interaction of two or more persons--even, strangely
enough, when but one person is within view.
If we observe a single individual going to work (or to class or to dinner)
with regularity day after day, we can focus on the motives, needs, urges,
proclivities, values, and drives of that individual in order to explain
that behavior. Or we can focus upon the expectations, reactions, orders,
commands, or requests of others significant to the acting individual. If
we do the former, we are said to be psychologists. If we do the latter,
we are said to be social psychologists. Yet we could focus upon rules,
norms, laws, morés, customs, traditions, sanctions, or status-roles
with which to explicate the very same behavior. If so, we are said to be
sociologists.
But that is not the end of the elements which go into the production of
strange attractors. We could look at the way architecture limits and directs
human behavior; if so, we take the point of view of the urban ecologist
in explanation of the same phenomena. We could look at more macro-structural
features of the eco-system in which that behavior is found. Capitalism
offers opportunities and limitations not found in socialist economics.
Patriarchy limits and prefigures gender relations. Racism is a distinctly
macro-social process in which physical features, otherwise trivial, are
singled out with which to discriminate in favor or against social discourse.
One can see the grounds for the post-structuralist critique of 'totalizing'
structural theories. Yet there is merit to such theorizing. Chaos theory
introduces the concept of scale with which to sort out such interconnected
and complex dynamics. In order to do social science, one must specify the
scale upon which one focusses and, in order to do macro-analysis, one must
be ready to look for varying connections between dynamical structures.
As we shall see, sometimes it is appropriate to speak of a totalizing system
(as in the case of the single physiological entity we call the human animal.
Yet sometimes, a system can occupy the same time-space continuum and not
at all be a part of the whole. The concept of the soliton is explicated
below.
Scale and Structure. The concept of scale is, then, of epistemological
importance in ways not known in modern science. In modern science, phenomena
at all scales of observation are coherently connected. Some modern scientists,
most notably astrophysicists, await the time when all dynamics from sub-atomic
particles to the creation of whole cosmos can be written in tidy fashion
with one equation which will fit on the front of a tee shirt. In Chaos
theory, there are intractable and untrackable discontinuities as one changes
scale of observation. Yet, self-similarity reappears unpredictably at differing
magnitudes of observation.
The nonlinearity of social dynamics take on even greater clarity when we
observe the behavior of whole societies over generations, centuries and
millennia. Given human scales of observation and understanding, history
seems to stand still and social forms seem forever. If we would speed up
the time dimension of phase space, we could see the nonlinearity of economics,
religion and politics with startling vision. Two societies with about the
same resources, with the same religion, with the same population dynamics
would diverge greatly were they isolated from each other for a few centuries.
If we were to open up the space dimension of phase space, we would see,
in the one direction, an infinite number of self similar social structures
answering to the name of family, tribe, clan, friend, or firm. In the other
direction in phase space, we would see infinite detail in the dynamics
of actual families, each embodiment of, say, a dinner or a caress, similar
but different from all previous and all future such events.
Scales of space and time, thus, open up our understanding of the nonlinear
nature of social action. We see social reality as a seething cauldron of
coalescing, changing, diverging, emerging and reuniting patterns of speech,
worship, gender forms, marriage forms and political forms.
In the case of symbols and symbolic interaction, if we listen to one word
or one tone at a time, neither meaning nor music emerges. In order to generate
meaning, we must specify which of many possible scales of observation it
is to which we refer. If we want to know the meaning of a word, we must
locate it in its larger context. If we want to know the meaning of a book,
we must locate it in its cultural context. If we want to know the meaning
of a war, we must locate the war in the grand sweep of history; in predatory
economics, in feudalism, in colonial conquest or in capitalist requirements
for oil, metals, markets and surplus labor reserves.
Deep Structures When a lot of people orient themselves in a systematic
way across a variety of social occasions without much reflection or overt
discussion, the patterns of meaning and action which emerge are the deep
structures of society; age grades, gender differentiations, class relations,
race and ethnic, religious and nationalistic orientations, as well as other
'structures' including whole economic formations, multinational coalitions,
and transgenerational programs.
The degree of facticity of such structures vary with the scale with which
they are observed. Norbert Elias (1983) thought the term, Pattern, was
too strong a term to use for the degree of facticity involved in such deep
structures; he preferred the concept of 'figuration.' From the point of
view of the single individual life-time, figurations tend to be a fixed
part of human nature but from the point of view of a generation, there
is glacial change; from the point of view of the whole society, figurations
change with bewildering speed much as the figurations of clouds in fast
motion film.
Fernand Braudel (1980), a historian, was more systematic in his approach
the to use of scale in conceptualizing social facticity. Braudel saw time
flowing in three time scales: the short time span of a single event, say
a party or a confirmation; the conjuncture or medium time span, say an
epoch in science or economics; and the long duration of time (longue duree)
of a historical span that bridges several epochs in geology, biological
evolution or social knowledge. Politics operate in the short time frame,
economics on the medium time scale and geo-physical factors in the long
term to produce the deep structures and preshape the observable structures.
For Braudel, the longer the time span the more clearly the structure emerges
as a bounded fact.
Of Reduction and Reification The ancient quarrel between process
and structure, between hasty reductionism on the one side and false reification
on the other is partly resolved by Chaos theory. What is process at one
scale of observation is structure at a different scale. The argument between
free will and necessity also yields to the concept of scale and nonlinearity:
what is freedom of choice at one scale of observation is fractal (and changing)
probability at another. Polemics about boundary, individuality and autonomy
are clarified by concepts of scale and by nonlinear dynamics. What is the
operative, autonomous unit of functioning at one level of observation is
part of a larger interacting and interdependent whole at another level.
Thus contrarieties are accommodated within the logics of Chaos theory.
At the same time, such co-existent contrarieties
have the double hazard of artificial freezing of deep structures as a fact
of nature or necessity on the one side and a danger for attribution of
their authorship to non-human agency on the other hand. Without the concept
of the fractal, it is easy to reify these deep structures and to assign
them a linear (and supra-natural) determinism that does not respect the
probabilistic, hence openness, of the ontology at hand. 11
The opposite conceptual error is also made easy by our propensity
to think in terms of continuous or discrete facticity rather than fractal
facticity. When one looks at a forest and sees only trees, one at a time,
one is prone to reduce to the individual tree. When one looks at a high
crime society and sees only the individual criminal acting as an autonomous
individual, one is prone to support policy which speaks to the behavior
of individuals taken one at a time. This reductionist point of view is
opposite of the false reification of structure. With the concept of the
fractal applied to emergent social structures, we can walk the fine line
between over-generalization on the one hand and concrete thinking that
is limited by personal interests and politics on the other.
With the concept of the fractal in combination with the concept of scale,
one can accept understandings that forests and human families have fractal
facticity, fractal dynamics as well as discontinuity in causality; a fractal
and changing causality if you will. This understanding does not set well
at all with modernist assumptions of thingness, causality and change. Yet
if we see the individual criminal as a whole person whose criminal behavior
is a soliton that sweeps through larger solitons of prosocial behavior,
we might take a different policy stance. If we see a criminal as a nonlinear
product of a similarly situated population in a larger soliton that is
criminogenic, we might focus on the attractors and feedback patterns that
produce the soliton rather than try to punish or rehabilitate the individual
criminal since we would understand that there, but for the grace of small
differences of chance or luck, go each of us.
Chaos and Connectedness In choosing to focus upon one region of
a complex connected whole, we often make arbitrary judgments about the
degree to which each region is autonomous from other close or remote regions.
In some regions of phase space, causal connections are tight enough to
speak of a dynamic system; in other regions of phase-space, connections
are loose enough to judge that region a separate autonomous entity. In
fact, all such connections are constantly changing and the fate of any
given system is now self determined and now part of a larger dynamic whole.
The nonlinear character of social dynamics can be observed as between levels of systems organization; symbolic interaction produces mind, self and society, each of which has fractal boundaries and each of which is part of and dependent upon the other levels of system functioning.
In the same moment of defining meaning and creating
social reality by the use of symbols, several nonlinear but interacting
levels of social fact are created. Mind, self and society are born in the
instant one reaches toward another person with a set of symbols. Mind,
self and society are destroyed in the same instant one turns away--ceases
to express and embody information in a symbol set--from a friend, a spouse,
or a student. The human mind consists of shared meanings in personal expression
of a symbol or set of symbols. We cannot think without symbols; and when
using symbols in the algorithms of speech, then and only then do we have
a mind. 12
For the most part or at least a large part of cognitive
activity of a human being, before, during and sometimes after an actual
social engagement, that cognitive activity is oriented to trying to share
mind; understood as symbolic activity with other persons. In that respect,
it makes considerable sense to say that mind and society are twinborn;
the intersubjectivity of shared meaning and activity parallels the subjectivity
of each mind taken separately. We often use symbols when alone; however
most of that use, that calling forth of mind, is oriented to rehearsal,
to reflection, to self critique or to remembrance of or in anticipation
of agency in designing and building the specific form of social reality
one desires.
Yet social reality is comprised of two or more
persons interacting within status-role sets. A status-role exists when
two or more persons organize their behavior in ways compatible with the
cultural definition of an occasion. Thus the husband-wife relationship--or
any social relationship--exists only when symbols are shared and embodied
by at least two human beings defining themselves as spouse and acting in
ways congenial to that definition. 13
Many of the symbols used are symbols denoting and hence
calling forth social identities. The symbols embodied by 'wife'
call forth 'husband' and the symbols used by 'husband' call forth wifehood.
The facticity of each social identity depends sensitively, upon the degree
to which symbols arouse the same meanings, feelings, and complementary
actions in both parties. That sensitive responsivity illuminates the feedback
loops and the connectivity of mind, self and society.
For any given person there is a set of mutually created social identities
(wife, mother, Catholic, friend and so forth) making up core of the self
system; thus it is appropriate to say that mind, self, and society
are trineborn. That core of self could not exist, ontologically, by itself.
The idea of a wife without a husband, a mother without a child, a priest
without a parishioner or a friend without another; these are nonsense ideas
without flesh and bones in actual life. The same geometry of symbol sets,
mentioned above, are found in the geometries of mind, self and society;
the boundaries are fractal, the degrees of facticity variable, and the
strange attractors of self, society and mind infinite in their variation.
Bifurcations and Social Change Perhaps the
most challenging implication of Chaos theory to a full understanding of
social dynamics is the finding that systems change from near-to-stable
dynamics to far-from-stable dynamics when they undergo bifurcations in
their parameters of rhythm, period and cycle. 14
Although the reason is not clear, dynamic systems undergoing four or more
bifurcations tend to break apart and to use all the time-space available
to it, thus lose much of the order and pattern they have.
Qualitative social change arises from bifurcations in the dynamics of social life. 15
Cheryl We can get an idea of how bifurcations in social rhythms
produce far from stable dynamics by looking at the life space of Cheryl
J. Cheryl is a bright young woman who, at the age of 22, has written two
books, several songs and many poems...all unpublished but still indicative
of the level of her talent and ambition. In the next year, she will have
married, left her home town and enrolled in college while taking on a job
at a local Red Lobster restaurant. Cheryl is full of energy, full of confidence
and full of plans; she wants to teach.
In many respects, her life is typical of that for which many young women
plan and work. Each line of activity; work, marriage, and school takes
on a routine each with its own cycles and rhythms. Work and school have
the least forgiving cycles; if Cheryl is to succeed, it is the marriage
which will have to adjust. One must attend work if one is to be paid; one
must attend class if one is to pass. Yet marriage is an interactively rich
and informationally rich social form that requires a lot of time and energy;
especially in the first years as newly married persons get to know what
to expect and how to interpret a move, a mood, a word or a glance.
If chaos theory and its findings for nonlinear dynamics is relevant, then
we can expect the bifurcations in time, finances, and energy resources
between work, school and marriage to produce a fractal basin of outcomes
for persons in Cheryl's position; we will not be able to predict which
activity will end in far from stable dynamics but we can predict that,
as a class, some unknown number of students will fail and some unknowable
number of marriages will fail.
Each line of her activity has its own economics;
the expenditures of marriage on food, shelter and clothing must compete
with the expenditures of school on tuition, books, computer hardware and
software. Work has its own costs; transport, clothing, and food. Many young
people try to support several forms of recreation, each with their own
economic demands. If the pattern of income bifurcates from the pattern
of expense, one can expect the onset of chaos. 16
In the case at hand, the epistemic correlate of far-from-stable dynamics
for Cheryl and her new husband would be divorce; for Cheryl and her classmates
would be dropping out; for Cheryl and her workmates, unemployment.
There are nonlinear feedback loops which may stabilize
her three (or four) lines of reality creating; her professors may not count
her absences for work as significant to the grading process. Her parents
may count her debts as their debts. Her husband may count her work and
school as part of marriage situation. State and/or federal legislators
may create student aid programs and award funds nonlinearily on the bases
of merit, gender, ethnicity or age. Cheryl may work out some feedback loops
that integrate work and school or work and marriage. But, given three parallel
reality processes to create; the bifurcations in energy, funds and time
may just explode to shatter her life. 17
Chaos and Creativity The work of researchers on chaos and
creativity show that nonlinear systems do not tend toward entropy (as the
laws of thermodynamics require) nor do they tend toward point attractors
(as formal models of social organization require). Instead, social forms
take the shape of limit attractors and torus attractors until bifurcations
occurs to fill the time space available to a group. Instead of remaining
in disorder, chaos work reveals that interactions occur in the soupy murk
of disordered dynamics that produce new and quite unpredictable forms.
What one can expect for Cheryl and her small family, and many of the millions
of new families similarly situated, is the development entirely new marriage
forms; living arrangements, job forms and child care forms. The present
situation is so uncertain that, while one cannot predict what will emerge,
one can predict with great certainty that the causal basin in which such
couple reside will add new outcome basins.
Agency for Cheryl and her husband is very tenuous. She might do just the
right thing at the right moment to make a great change in her life. She
may write a song, a book or a play which will move her from the downward
spiral which most young families face in a declining economy. Or, she may
say the wrong thing at work and lose a job at just the wrong moment. Then
several possibilities await; Michael or she could become part of organized
crime marketing drugs, sex and violence as have so many young people. She
could return home to live with her parents whose economic future itself
is sensitively dependent upon the automobile market. Caught as they are
between outcome basins; one in which traditional family forms are found
and many others, there is little which traditional science can say.
Chaos research can gauge the new tongues at the margins of social tori,
and it can tell us quite precisely when a new wing of an outcome basin
will appear but it cannot tell us which of the millions of young families
will move toward which outcome basin. Chaos research can tell us when intervention
is the most efficacious and requires the least input into the damping or
the amplification of new social forms but it cannot tell us what those
new forms might be.
Fractal Basins of Outcomes Modern science understandings of the
dynamics of social systems, if predicated on the newtonian paradigm, would
presume a basin of outcomes for a person or a process in which all such
outcomes would be identical. Chaos research reveals a basin of outcomes
in which there are qualitatively different outcomes for the same initial
conditions.
For any given population of persons, groups or societies, given the same initial conditions, one may expect a basin of outcomes with qualitatively different regions with fractal boundaries between regions.
The fractal nature of outcomes of any given social form can be seen in
divorce cases, bankruptcy cases or criminal cases as well. Given some number
of marriages in a population, we don't know how many will last three years;
how many will last seven years or how many will last until death. But we
do know that the basin of outcomes of such marriages is fractal; there
are no clear and predictable boundaries separating the conditions that
produce marriages which last from those that fail. Again, small differences
in the dynamics of such marriages will produce large and unpredictable
outcomes. The same is true of businesses, juvenile delinquents and humming
birds.
When a person or a group goes through any cycle of behavior (destructive
or constructive), each person modifies tactics from past confrontations,
from past errors, from present conditions and from future expectations.
Over time, if we were to map out the differences and similarities of such
runs of behavior, we would see a fractal basin of outcomes. Some part of
that basin of outcomes would be recognizable, predictable, understandable
but some part would be surprising, contradictory, qualitatively different.
In gender struggles, economic machinations, political infighting or religious
conversions, there is pattern with dis-continuous change.
Although persons who are seriously ill can still be effective persons in
the sociological sense; the basin of outcomes of such performances is fractal;
we can't predict how many or who of all such ill persons will function
within the confines of a given normative structure. Given limited access
to resources, we can't predict the effects of any given sub-system or mega-system
on the basin of outcomes of any given effort to be a wife or a friend or
a Catholic; we can only see the changing patterns of outcomes over time.
Solitons and Symbols The fractal geometry
of social realities make it possible for whole sets of social interaction
can pass through a given social form without affecting the integrity of
the social form at hand. One can use waves in a lake as a rough metaphor
for the nature of social solitons. 18
Waves from passing boats pass through each other with minimal effect. In
like manner, such social structures as friendships, kinships, or clans
keep their identity and integrity even though successive waves of warfare,
economic forms, political regimes or religious institutions occupy the
same time-space territory.
The ontologies created by symbol using humans takes the form of a soliton, a coherent and connected dynamical pattern of interaction between members of a social occasion.
If we were to observe closely the dynamics of any given social occasion,
we would observe several different sets of activities ongoing at the same.
Each set of activity might take on the dynamics of a soliton. If so, then
each set of activity would keep its own integrity apart from what happens
in the other solitons through which it passes.
We can take the life of Cheryl J., above to make the point. Cheryl is now
involved in a marriage; it is possible that her husband might come into
the restaurant in which she works. The two dynamical systems, marriage
and restaurant occupy the same time space continua but may (or may not)
interact. If they do not interact, than each preserves its integrity. As
an example, if Cheryl were to give her husband food without charging him
for it, then the systems would be interconnected and the restaurant system
changed (at least for that event). Or, were Cheryl to take her husband
to class, the dynamics of the class and the dynamics of husband-wife would,
likely, remain intact; solitons in the classroom can meet and pass through
each other without changing form.
Fractal Causality It is an attribute of
nonlinear systems that small differences can produce very different outcomes.
19 It
is an important attribute of chaotic systems that one is unable to predict
which small changes will be absorbed and which will produce large changes;
thus, the basin of outcomes of any such sets of nonlinear, chaotic social
systems will consist of some, unpredictable portion of outcomes that are
expected and some, unpredictable part of outcomes that are new and very
different.
All social reality has a fractal causality that varies nonlinearily according to the quality of the symbolic interactional process.
The transformation of individuals to personhood is a non-linear event.
Across a basin of outcomes of parenting, for example, there are regions
of mechanistic predictability and regions of far from stable outcomes.
When a women gives birth to a child, we can predict with some certainty
that she will embody the status-role of mother, yet there are times when
the biological mother does not take that role. In the universe of all biological
mothers, some small differences will produce a deterministic pattern toward
parenting while for other mothers, the same small differences will defeat
the parenting process.
The nonlinear character of parenting can be seen in adoption cases. At
time one, the individual is not a son or daughter; at time two, the individual
is a son or daughter complete with mother and father. In like fashion,
a court order can remove or reallocate parenting. All that is required
to initiate or defeat either social reality process is a few words pronounced
by a Judge and a piece of paper with symbols written on it.
In postmodern expressions of science and human
knowledge, it becomes incumbent upon the social scientist to give fractal
truth values rather than absolute, binary (there-not there) truth values.
There is, in chaos theory, same work that helps one to generate fractal
truth values. The next generation of symbolic interactionists will have
to master and modify that work to their own. 20
Praxis and Rationality The assumption of modern science
about rationality is a great obstacle to postmodern praxis and to its ideas
of praxis societies. Reason and rationality are, for the modern scientist,
the discovery and reporting of a final set of laws which subsume linear
dynamics while, for the putatively rational citizen of a putatively modern
society, reasonable action consists in compliance with those iron laws.
For the bureaucrat oriented to modernity, it is reasonable to use rules
to shape the behavior of all who come before the bureau while reason is,
for the state, the use of force to ensure compliance with its rules.
The foreign policy of many nations, informed by the logics of modern science
and taking itself to be the embodiment of reason and rationality, use force,
guile and bribery to modernize third world nations after their own images
of modernity. All management science presumes the utility of operant conditioning,
the linearity of financial incentives and the necessity of stratification
to the success of a firm. Nonlinear dynamics mediate all these presumptions
in support of postmodern understandings.
Rationality, informed by linear logic, sets one and only one outcome basin
in an outcome field as the preferred, normal, politically correct basin
while rational judgment concludes that all other outcome basins (and the
people who therein dwell) are abnormal requiring either the services of
a psychiatrist or the benefit of a penitentiary where the deviant can reflect
upon his/her irrationality and chose to be rational.
Postmodernism, as a science and as a generic world-view, de-legitimates
all claims of normality, perfection, progress, or preference. Rather than
explaining variation from theory, hypothesis, or social form as observer
error, substandard theory, faulty instrumentation, inadequate operationalization
or more simply as deviancy, postmodern sensibility treats such differences
as, simply, different regions in an infinitely large basin of possible
outcomes.
Postmodern views of the natural world, including social forms, are very
different from modernist views: there is no one preferred form of plant
or animal life, of personal or social organization. All scientific endeavor
and preference are informed by human desire and human interest; all efforts
at control as well as all claims of psychiatric pathology are equally political
endeavor. One cannot appeal to nature or to theology for legitimacy in
such endeavor, one can only deconstruct the human desires and human interests
in the explanation of such activity.
Opposed to the view that society is shaped by natural, eternal and law-like
forces is the view that social relations are the product of struggling,
seething human beings using power, deceit, anxiety and hope to solve the
problem of order in the drama of social life. Opposed to the view that
there is one final social formation toward which all societies evolve is
the view that no one form of social life is natural and normal; that all
are equally possible, equally normal. A survey of deep phase-space reveals
only infinite variety, infinite centers, infinite detail and infinite length
of the structures found there.
In postmodern science, contraries can be true; causes can emerge and fade;
prediction and control are possible but limited to small regions of phase-space;
there are a plurality of natural and normal social orders rather than a
series of stages evolving toward rationality and perfection. As tools of
enquiry, postmodern science demotes prediction, rational numbering systems,
euclidean algebra, aristotlean logic, differential equations as well as
distributive and symmetrical mathematics. These are useful for relatively
small regions in any universe of real systems. Prediction and replication
are equally limited as tools for verification while truth statements become
fractal truth quotients.
In its more emancipatory moments, postmodern social
psychology helps illuminate the variability of the reality constituting
process in symbol using creatures and thus legitimates spontaneity, variety,
authenticity and democratic participation in the reality process. 21
Modern science, on the other hand with its assumptions of external, universal
and pre-existing laws of social development and social organization; with
its directive to social scientists to discover and to validate these laws,
and with its notions of perfection and deviancy, helps justify partisan
forms of social action as right, normal, universal and necessary.
CONCLUSION The dynamics of social processes, when in near-to-stable
equilibrium, take the form of a strange attractor exhibiting self-similarity
in phase-space but never moving on exactly the same pathway. All social
processes, social facts and social forms founded upon symbolic interaction,
are nonlinear. Social forms have fractal facticity while social interactions
produce fractally true (or fraudulent) fulfillments of given social prophecies.
Chaos theory offers an empirically solid and conceptually elegant envelop
in which to insert postmodern expressions of art, music, family, religion,
politics, economics and science itself. As such, it forces social science
to reconsider both its commitment to the missions of modern science as
well as to its methods of enquiry. The preferred tools of enquiry now used
in American social science have limited utility for nonlinear dynamics.
Replication is impossible while falsification is a nonsense concept for
systems displaying nonlinear dynamics. Given the role of symbolic interaction
in all knowledge processes and given the options to select regions in phase-space
for analyses and for generalization, all efforts to build general theory
or universal laws are shown to be both a poetics and a politics.
Part of the postmodern project is to emphasize the human authorship of
both reality and theories of reality. Chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics,
implicit in symbolic interaction ground that effort. It is that very interactivity
between object of knowledge and subject of knowing that means that science,
religion and sociology are but different names for different aspects of
the same reality process. The boundaries between such knowledge processes
are fractal and everchanging. Understanding that, we can begin to institutionalized
the many connections between science, symbolic interaction, social structure,
truth, and social justice.
References and Bibliography
Braudel, Fernand. 1980 On History. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.
Briggs, John and F. David Peat. 1989 Turbulent Mirror: An Illustrated
Guide to Chaos Theory and the Science of Wholeness. New York: Harper and
Row.
Feigenbaum, Mitchell, 1978 Quantitative Universality for a Class of Nonlinear
transformations, in the Journal of Statistical Physics, 19:25-52.
Cited in Gleick, p. 157.
Gleick, James, 1988 Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin
Books.
Lyotard, J.-F. 1984 The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis: the University
of Minneapolis Press.
Mandelbrot, Benoit 1977 The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York:
Freeman.
Norris, C. 1987 Derrida. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Penrose, Roger, 1989 The Emperor's New Mind. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers, 1984 Order out of Chaos: Man's
New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books.
Rickman, H. P., 1990 "Science and Hermeneutics" in Phil. of
the Social Sciences, V. 20, No. 3. Sept. 295-316.
Rosenau, Pauline. 1992 Postmodernism and the Social Sciences. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Walliman, Isidor, ed., 1989 Research in Inequality and Social Conflict.
Volume 1. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
Weaver, Jefferson, ed., 1987 The World of Physics, Vol. I: the Aristotlean
Cosmos and the Newtonian System. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Young, T. R. 1989 The Drama of Social Life. New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction Books.
Young, T. R. 1991 Change and Chaos Theory, in the Social Science Journal.
28(3). Fall.
Young, T. R. 1991 Chaos theory and Symbolic Interaction, in the Journal
of Symbolic Interaction, 14:3, Fall. [An earlier version of this
chapter].