Social change and complexity, past, present, and future

For some years, I have been wondering just how close our social system was to self-organized criticality. Now I think I know. Two recent events may have initiated an avalanche, a sudden, rapid, and complete reorganization of our system. Perhaps it will turn out to be a more limited reorganization, but it is clear by now that some significant change is happening. Technically, these kinds of reorganizations are called catastrophes.

One key feature of complex systems, such as our societies, is that extra-ordinary consequences don’t require extra-ordinary causes. Far reaching change can be caused by ordinary or mundane events. What determines the extent of an event’s consequences is not its nature, but the state of the environment in which it happens.

When an environment is ready for change, it is close to a state of self-organized criticality (SOC). When it is far away from SOC, even very large, extra-ordinary events may have very limited consequences. The system is stable and resilient to change. It will resist even concerted, intentional attempts at reform.

When the system is close to SOC, even the proverbial butterfly flapping its wings can generate a hurricane. Given the slightest input, the system will slide into a catastrophic avalanche of change. It will resist any attempt at stabilization. It will only become stable again when it reaches a new state far away from SOC.

We’ve had pandemics before. Some of them quite recently. Some of them deadlier and more widespread than the current one. The reaction to this one has been very different. The measures taken all make sense, especially if we are interested in protecting the vulnerable, but they are unusual. The pandemic is the reason for the measures, but it isn’t the reason for their extent and socio-economic reach. These are extensive not because the pandemic is unusual, but because it happened in an unusual context.

Black men have been killed by police officers before. Many, often, recently, constantly. Many voices, many activists, many decent ordinary people, many cultural influencers, many political and community leaders have tried to do something about it. They have been arguing, pushing, preaching change. It hasn’t happened. The murder of George Floyd is no different. However, it happened in a different context, than other recent ones, and so its impact is going to be different.

That isn’t to say that the work of activists, the earnest efforts of ordinary people, the voices of political and community leaders are irrelevant. Their words, spoken, written, recorded, and their actions, witnessed and felt, are the potential energy stored in the system, that becomes kinetic once there is a release, like in an earthquake. They are what allows a butterfly’s wings to cause a hurricane.

The big unresolved question for me is whether that energy is purposefully directional. Does it prepare the system to shift suddenly, rapidly, in a given direction related to the intentions of the actors, or, once it starts moving, does the system have a mind of its own?

Is the resulting system state related to the intentions and wishes of the actors, or is it purely driven by impersonal, unseeing and uncaring chaotic forces? I want to think that intentions are directional drivers of change, but given the past record of sudden social realignments, I have trouble believing it. Still, I will behave as if intentions drive outcomes, because that is all we can do.