Yesterday I introduced a series of diaries about the role of complex systems science in our understanding of politics. I'll link to it at the end of this diary. It seems clear from the response to yesterday's diary that Kossacks are generally not into this kind of discussion. That may be one reason why we find ourselves in the mess we are now in. The underlying idea behind what I am talking about is that for some time our thinking about almost everything has been on a track that is leading us farther and farther from the real world (whatever that is). How could that be true? Well human history actually tells this story over and over again. Our most recent "cycle" in Western thought began not all that long ago. I refer to the 18th century enlightenment. George Lakoff has written about this and his ideas have been relevant to the way we operate in today's world. The election campaign we just endured was replete with uses of the word "change". Just what was that all about? Look below the fold to see what some of it entailed.
In systems science there is a very relevant notion of "stability". Stable systems resist change. This idea of stability appears in many ways in many different fields, but the basic notion is that a system is stable if we can expect a response within "reasonable" bounds to stimuli that are "sufficiently" small. The quotation marks are how we introduce a certain inevitable subjective component into discussions of even the most rigorous kinds.
What has this to do with politics and, in particular, present day politics? Everything! The notion of "change" has invoked responses in different audiences based on how they deal with the idea in their own world model. Political "radicalism" is often definable in these terms. Radicals are not in favor of changes that do not result in structural changes in the system. What they argue is that if we are afraid of structural change we can not have real change over any significant period of time. I would say that they are correct in this view.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is what we might term "extreme conservatism". This extreme form of conservative thinking often arises out of fear of the radical idea of change. Rather than risk structural change it is prudent to stop anyone from "tinkering" with the system.
So as the word "change" was being used in almost every possible manner we saw all kinds of polarizations grow around it. What is interesting is that these extremes are almost too obvious and that lesser forms of these behaviors are what really are involved in the dynamics of today's politics. What I am saying is that we have a situation where at least some, if not all, of the following things are happening:
A. Radical change may be happening without any identifiable agent being its direct cause.
B. People who profess to want change also want a stable system of Capitalism in which the change must occur (A stability criteria)
C. People who profess to want change want some form of limited structural change (for example: capitalism is replaced by a form of democratic socialism)
D. People want change only if it does not interfere with their ability to use the system to their advantage
There are other possibilities and these are certainly not mutually exclusive, but you get the picture.
Any individual's attitude toward change is therefore a complex result of their world view, their incomplete understanding of how systems work, and the things their leaders can get them to accept on "faith", among other things.
This is why I am writing this series of diaries. It has become clear to me that we spend a lot of time using words that have different meaning to each party in any given discussion. This will never go anywhere. It would be necessary if there were no information available to help us get to the point, namely solving the urgent problems that confront our Nation and the World in these times.
I'll link us to yesterday's diary now with the hope that I have explained why this information is relevant to what we are here at this site trying to accomplish: Systems Science and Political Science: How are they related? Give it a try and maybe we can get a discussion going.