The ultimate potential of self-organising systems
The key to understanding our nature as Systems Beings
cenzon-Fc9TtSfjKjE-unsplash
The human brain has a network of nearly 70 billion neurons and the cosmic network of galaxies is thought to have at least 100 billion galaxies. Given the vast difference in scale, what could these two most challenging and complex systems in nature have in common? New research suggests that both are self-organising networks. This finding offers a fresh perspective not just on who we are as human beings, but how we naturally organise as living systems.
Is the universe is one giant brain?
Research by scientists Vazza and Feletti (2020) found evidence that both the universe and the brain operate as self-organising systems using similar principles of network dynamics. This seems incredible not just because of the enormous different scales and processes at play, but also because they are made up of very different parts. Both systems are comprised of complex networks spread out in long filaments linked by nodes. By investigating the structural, morphological, network properties, and memory capacity of both systems the researchers concluded that “similar network configurations can emerge from the interaction of entirely different physical processes, resulting in similar levels of complexity and self-organization, despite the dramatic disparity in spatial scales” (Vazza and Feletti 2020).
The idea that we are by nature complex self-organising beings, situated within a universe which is organised in the same way, should give us all pause for thought. It has profound implications for how we could potentially organise society, our organisations, and our lives. As Fritjof Capra (1996) points out — the hallmark of self-organisation is that when a system is thrown way off balance, new structures and behaviours emerge.
What is self-organising and why it matters so much
Self-organisation is a process whereby order or patterns arise from what at first glance seems to be a disorganised system. While technological systems have been organised by commands issued externally: “…many natural systems become structured by their own internal processes: these are the self-organizing systems, and the emergence of order within them is a complex phenomenon that intrigues scientists from all disciplines” (Yates 1987).
The concept of self-organisation is attributed to Ross Ashby, a psychiatrist interested in how the brain restores health after illness. For Ashby however, change was dependent on the level of variety contained within a given system, which curtailed its evolutionary or creative potential. Later thinkers such as Prigogine, who developed complexity theory, came to understand that when a system is thrown off course, or far from equilibrium (e.g. a pandemic), that this is precisely the point where they either collapse or something new is made possible.
What is key to understand here is that order emerges from what may look unruly or chaotic: there is no blueprint, there is no grand plan, just an ever-flowing emergence. And there is a cost to over-controlling the direction of flow…
What self-organising tells us about how we can govern our institutions better
The rule and norms of societal institutions are often what stops change. They are notoriously conservative and self-serving — the exact opposite of what we are talking about here. Creativity and purpose is sucked dry in governance systems that rely on 10 year strategies, blueprints, targets, outputs, outcomes and impacts. Our collective potential for self-organising debunks the assumption that we humans are too selfish and self-serving to behave in ways that serve a common purpose, and we have bought into a lesser vision of ourselves.
Self-organising systems got a bad name in the social sciences when it was assumed that people will inevitably act out of self-interest to the detriment of the common good. Hardin (1968) wrote about the tragedy of the commons archetype, where people would act in self-interest, thus decreasing everyone’s resources. In other words, we would put short-term gain ahead of long-term sustainability. This view gained far more traction in a neoliberal world and could be said to have become a self-fulfilling prophecy in many of the most publicly observed events of our time. But there are other options. We behave in ways that serve the common good all the time. Elinor Ostrom, political scientist and the first woman to win a Nobel prize in Economics, developed 8 principles for sustainable cooperation which rely on clear boundaries, transparent governance as well as acknowledgment and recognition within the meta-system.
Elinor Ostrom Principles of Self-organisation (Author)
What Self-organising shows us about running organisations
Similarly running organisations as top down hierarchical structures is giving way to other options such as the Viable Systems Model (VSM) and Teal Organisations which chime with the findings about how brain and universe self-organise. Both propose flatter non-hierarchical structures which are not only more adaptive to external conditions (Hoverstadt 2008) but are also more profitable (Laloux 2015) .
Stafford Beer developed VSM in recognition of the fact that organisations needed to be “light on their feet and ready to accommodate themselves to the new situations that would arise faster and faster as time passed” (Beer in Pickering 2004 p499). He used the brain as a model for creating a viable system that relied on both the notion that each part of a viable system both contains and is contained within a viable system. This the concept of recursion — which echos the findings of the current research on the link between the brain and universe. While VSM assumes that someone can intervene and re-engineer the system to work better, others place the people within the system and understand that we are integral parts of the system we seek to change.
Frederic Laloux’s approach to reinventing organisations invites people to bring their whole selves to organisational purpose rather than being straight-jacketed by role. Teal organisations are characterised by self-management, rather than power and control based on title. They emphasise peer relationships where people have high levels of autonomy and are accountable for coordinating with others. Strategy is based on what the world is asking of them and responding accordingly. This makes being part of an organisation or an institution an inevitably ethical enactment of our humanity.
What self-organisation shows us about our systems being
Fritjof Capra suggests that an understanding of how we self-organise can enhance our understanding of ourselves as authentic beings. For Capra, self-organisation occurs where there three conditions are met: diversity, connectivity, and local interaction. In other words, action requires that we engage a system comprising of different elements and authentic action leads to the emergence of something new, rather than an outcome that is preordained by the thinking mind. This is the foundation of our humanity.
“The ideas of self-organization are very important to understand the autonomy, the authenticity and basic humanity of people.” Fritjof Capra
It may seem like a contradiction, but if the brain uses self-organising principles, then it also follows that our bodies cannot just be there just to ferry our brains about on their important business. Our whole being is involved in our organising processes. We do not need to remind ourselves to digest our food or breathe — our organs self-organise. But we also co-regulate our physiological states with each other using not just the brain but the nervous system face and heart (Porges 2017). We are fractal parts of a larger whole: in other words, that we are interconnected beyond our wildest imaginations.
“The essential feature in quantum interconnectedness is that the whole universe is enfolded in everything, and that each thing is enfolded in the whole” David Bohm
We cannot avoid being connected to other people because we are wired for connection. We cannot sidestep the consequences of our actions, because we are our actions. We cannot separate our private selves from our public selves, because we are responsible for what we contribute to the whole. And we cannot hide behind our words, because we live in language. We are at heart autonomous systems beings. In the words of David Bohm: “the essential feature in quantum interconnectedness is that the whole universe is enfolded in everything, and that each thing is enfolded in the whole.” That includes us Systems Beings.
About the Author: I am a doctoral researcher in psychology and lecturer in systems thinking. I am interested in how we learn to live in our bodies whilst engaging with technology. I am an advanced embodiment practitioner, thinking partner, and facilitator, with an interest in finding our way through messy systemic issues using body wisdom. I live with my husband, son, cats, hens, and bees in Dublin, Ireland. I also edit https://medium.com/living-in-systems.
If this article speaks to you, I would love to get your feedback — remember you can clap up to 50 times for an article! Follow me or https://medium.com/living-in-systems to keep articles like this popping up in your feed.
References:
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. Retrieved November 30, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1724745
Hoverstadt, P. (2008) The Fractal Organisation, Wiley, London.
LaLoux, F (2015) Strategy and Business. https://www.strategy-business.com/author?author=Frederic+Laloux
Ostrom, E. (2012) The Future of the Commons: Beyond Market Failure & Government Regulations Institute of Economic Affairs: Occasional Papers
Porges, S. W. (2017). The pocket guide to the polyvagal theory: The transformative power of feeling safe. WW Norton & Co.
Vazza F., Feletti A. (2020) The Quantitative Comparison Between the Neuronal Network and the Cosmic Web, Frontiers in Physics, Vol. 8 p 491
URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphy.2020.525731
Yates, F, E. (1987) Self-Organizing Systems: The Emergence of Order, Plenum Press. New York and London.