320.
Emergence
Reductionism is a form of scientism: the idea that natural
science is the only respectable form of knowledge, on the basis of experimental
facts and rigorous, preferably mathematically formalised argument. Reductionism
is analytical: it decomposes phenomena into fundamental elements that together
explain the whole.
The opposition claims that ‘the whole is more than the
sum of its parts’. In the formation of the whole something is added that cannot
be found in the parts. That is called emergence.
Aristotle already talked about it.
Emergence is akin to self-organization. That arises in nature, as in evolution, where forms do not arise from ‘intelligent design’, but from random trials that are selected out when they do not function well enough to survive and replicate.
More generally, in emergence elements have a potential
to unfold properties, in interaction with each other, and develop collective properties,
depending on the environment.
The fundamental theoretical argument for the novelty
that is added in synthesis is the following. The whole, be it an organ, an
organism, a brain, a sentence, an organization, a market, or a society, must achieve
some coherent functioning to survive in its environment, which determines what
works and what does not, and it must incorporate the conditions for it. As a
consequence, not everything comes ‘from inside’, from the components, but also
from outside, the functional conditions for survival. In that, the whole
reflects the external conditions, which did not lie in the parts.
Emergence arises widely in nature and society, on many
levels. Chemistry arises from physics, biology from chemistry, evolution from
genes, consciousness from neurons, organizations from people, markets from
firms, consumers and institutions, societies from people, communities, culture,
language and institutions.
In language, the meaning of a sentence depends on the
meanings of words in it, but also, the other way around, word meaning also
depends on sentence meaning. Earlier in this blog, I used the hermeneutic circle to analyse this
(items 36, 252 in this blog). Concepts are embedded in sentences, where they
obtain one of several potential meanings, but in the action context they can
also acquire a new meaning, which shifts the concept. Here, the outside
selection lies in the language community, and in what Wittgenstein called language games.
Meanings and ideas arise from action in the world. I
proposed (in item 29) that this yields an object
bias in our conceptualization of abstract notions as if they are like
things moving in time and space, and in terms of ‘what you can do with them’ (affordances). That also connects with
the idea from pragmatist philosophy that truth can be seen as ‘what works’.
Relationships are emergent. If individuals develop their
perception and ideas, and their judgements, in interaction with their physical
and social environment, then the course of
relationship is fundamentally uncertain. That means that it is not known
beforehand what can happen. One may have expectations about what people may do,
but one is regularly caught by surprise. One cannot even reliably predict one’s
own responses.
In groups, social constellations, complexity increases
further, in on he ne hand mimicry of conduct and on the other hand rivalry and
rebellion, in agreement or conflict. As discussed elsewhere in this blog (item
205), it looks like people have both an instinct for survival, by protecting
their interests, and an instinct for altruism, at least within one’s own group,
where one is prepared to make sacrifices at the cost of self-interest, in what
is called ‘parochial altruism’.
Organizations and institutions can lead to what I have
called ‘system tragedy’ (items 109, 159, 187 in this blog). The culture of an
organization, the (international) markets in which it finds itself, and the
public institutions of laws and regulations, form expectations, positions,
roles, interests, and entanglements between them, which routinely yield outcomes
that were not expected or intended, and where guilt cannot easily be attributed
to single individuals, who often could not, or did not dare to act otherwise,
given their positions. An example is that of ‘the banks’.
History is even more complex. It anything is
unpredictable it is that. Look at what has happened in just one year, with the
rise of populism, the election of Trump, Brexit, and the rise, apparently out
of nowhere, of Emmanuel Macron. With each of those one would have been declared
a lunatic if one had predicted it. Where does that complexity come from?
In an earlier item in this blog (item 100), concerning
the nature of causality, I analysed the emergence of the Dutch United East
India Company (VOC) in the 16th-17th century, as a mix of causal factors of
different kinds: accidental conditions of climate and geography,
entrepreneurial action, eclipse of competitors, technological and
organizational innovations, in more or less accidental ‘novel combinations’,
and conditions of war. If any of those factors had been different, or occurred
at another moment, nothing or something entirely different might have occurred.
No comments:
Post a Comment