Applied Science, Faculty of
Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of
DSpace
UBCV
Slocombe, D. Scott
Master of Science in Planning - MSc (Plan)
University of British Columbia
The purpose of this work is the development of a conceptual model of the interaction of ecological, economic, and social factors in community evolution. The theory of self-organization (Ilya Prigogine and colleagues) is used to relate the growing body of insights into social and societal evolution derived from sociology, anthropology, economics, the community and economic development literature, and other fields to the problems of planning. A schematic of the interdisciplinary modelling process and a classification of models are developed. The assumptions and goals of the conceptual model presented here are made explicit through the use of a "knowledge vee" (Novak & Gowin, 1984). The conceptual model of community evolution developed here entails eight variables representing the ecologic, economic, and social factors (landscape, land tenure, land use, social inputs, historical inputs, production, consumption, and resources) and four variables derived from evolutionary, non-equilibrium social theory and self-organization theory ("mass," "energy," "tension," and "entropy"). These variables are related conceptually to form a nonequilibrium, self-organizing "model" of community evolution. Several possible examples of self-organization processes in human systems are briefly discussed. Various implications of the model for planning and understanding community evolution are examined. They include: the process view of evolution, the role of the internal history of the system, the stochastic element in self-organizing processes, the influence of environmental conditions, the importance of qualitative change, and the mechanisms of long-range order.
A SELF-ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL OF COMMUNITY EVOLUTION by D. Scott Slocombe B.I.S., The U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, 1983 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community and Regional Planning) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to t h e ^ e ^ i r e d ^ s ' t a j i d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1985 © D. Scott Slocombe, 1985 In p resen t ing this thesis in partial fu l f i lment of the requ i rements for an a d v a n c e d deg ree at the Univers i ty of Brit ish C o l u m b i a , I agree that the Library shall make it freely avai lable for re ference a n d study . I further agree that pe rm iss ion for ex tens ive c o p y i n g of this thesis for scholar ly p u r p o s e s may be granted by the h e a d of m y d e p a r t m e n t o r by his o r her representat ives . It is u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n of this thesis for f inancia l gain shall not b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t m y wr i t ten pe rm iss ion . D e p a r t m e n t of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g The Un ivers i ty of Brit ish C o l u m b i a 1956 M a i n M a l l V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V 6 T 1Y3 Date October 13 1985 DE-6(3 /81) i i ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s work i s the development of a c o n c e p t u a l model of the i n t e r a c t i o n of e c o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l f a c t o r s i n community evolution. The theory of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n ( I l y a Prigogine and colleagues) i s used to r e l a t e the growing body of i n s i g h t s i n t o s o c i a l and s o c i e t a l evolution derived from sociology, anthropology, economics, the community and economic development l i t e r a t u r e , and other f i e l d s to the problems of planning. A s c h e m a t i c of t h e i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y m o d e l l i n g p r o c e s s and a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of models are developed. The assumptions and goals of the c o n c e p t u a l model presented here are made e x p l i c i t through the use of a "knowledge vee" (Novak & Gowin, 1984). The c o n c e p t u a l model of community evolution developed here e n t a i l s eight v a r i a b l es representing the ecologic, economic, and s o c i a l f a c t o r s (landscape, l a n d tenure, l a n d use, s o c i a l inputs, h i s t o r i c a l inputs, production, consumption, and resources) and four variables derived from evolutionary, non-equilibrium s o c i a l theory and s e l f -o r g a n i z a t i o n theory ("mass," "energy," " t e n s i o n , " and "entropy"). These variables are r e l a t e d conceptually to form a nonequilibrium, s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g "model" of community e v o l u t i o n . S e v e r a l p o s s i b l e examples of s e l f -organization processes i n human systems are b r i e f l y discussed. V a r i o u s i m p l i c a t i o n s of the model f o r p l a n n i n g and understanding community e v o l u t i o n are examined. They i n c l u d e : the process view of e v o l u t i o n , the r o l e of the i n t e r n a l h i s t o r y of the system, the s t o c h a s t i c element i n s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g p rocesses, the i n f l u e n c e of e n v i r o n m e n t a l i i i c o n d i t i o n s , the importance of q u a l i t a t i v e change, and the mechanisms of long-range^5^der. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i L i s t of Figures v Acknowledgements v i Chapter 1 - Introduction 1 Chapter 2 - Self-Organization Theory 12 Chapter 3 - Community, Society, and Environment: D i s c i p l i n a r y Views 26 Chapter 4 - A Conceptual Model of Community Evolution 40 Chapter 5 - Discussion and Conclusions 62 References 73 Appendix I - Glossary 85 V LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 - Schematic Diagram of the Modelling Process 8 Figure 2 - A Typology of Modelling 8 Figure 3 - Knowledge Vee Diagram 11 Figure 4 - The Conceptual Models S t r u c t u r a l Variables 45 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am g r a t e f u l to Brahm Weisman, W i l l i a m E. Rees, Norman G. Dale, Ed Levy, and Henry C. Hightower of the Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia for t h e i r comments and su g g e s t i o n s on e a r l i e r d r a f t s of t h i s work. I am e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l to Scott Carley f o r encouragement and advice r e l a t i n g to the f i n a l c h a p t e r s . I am in d e b t e d to Norman Dale, P e t e r Boothroyd and Kathy Nelson for suggestions r e l a t i n g to examples of se l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i n human systems. I must a l s o acknowledge the c o n t r i b u t i o n of M u r i e l Kerr, without whose i n f l u e n c e the core of t h i s work might never have i n c l u d e d communities. F i n a l l y , I am g r a t e f u l to E r i c Higgs and James Kay of the U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo f o r d i s c u s s i o n s and su g g e s t i o n s , past and present, r e l a t i n g to s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory. 1 CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION Whenever human beings are involved, s o c i a l adaptations and evolution make i t c e r t a i n that trend i s not destiny, because l i f e s t a r t s anew, f o r us, with each sunrise. (Rene Dubos i n Ortner, 1983) The l a s t s e v e r a l decades have seen the widespread r e c o g n i t i o n of the e x i s t e n c e of s o c i e t a l problems w i t h e c o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l aspects. E f f o r t s to address these problems are as diverse as those making proposals to address them. One of the more widely accepted of these e f f o r t s i s the concept of sustainable development — a concept that may be seen as a p o l i c y - o r i e n t e d melding of s t e a d y - s t a t e economics (Daly, 1973; 1974) and b i o r e g i o n a l i s m (Dodge, 1981; S a l e , 1985). The concept was brought to the a t t e n t i o n of d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s around the world by the World C o n s e r v a t i o n Strategy (IUCN/UNEP/WWP, 1980; Croner, 1984) and i s gaining acceptance as a p o l i c y g o a l i n many areas ( c f . Environment Canada, 1984). Yet t h e r e are a great many d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of, or even d e f i n i t i o n of, s u s t a i n a b l e development. Most of the d i f f i c u l t i e s are a r e s u l t of the i n t r i c a c i e s of t h e s o c i a l , e c o l o g i c a l , and e c o n o m i c p a r t s of our environment, e.g. the issues of s o c i a l and economic equity i n e v i t a b l y raised by discussions of environmental conservation. This work, by developing a conceptual s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l model of the i n t e r a c t i o n s of e c o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l f a c t ors i n the process of community e v o l u t i o n , seeks to c o n t r i b u t e to the understanding of the fundamental, s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of these factors. This approach, with 2 i t s use of a r e l a t i v e l y new, physical-science-based theory i s i n contrast to the more usual s t a t i c , d i s c i p l i n a r y , philosophical, e t h i c a l , p o l i t i c a l , and p l a n n i n g approaches to the i n t e g r a t i o n of these t h r e e f a c t o r s (as, f o r example, i n the World C o n s e r v a t i o n S t r a t e g y i t s e l f ) . S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory goes beyond the u s u a l systems view by f o c u s s i n g a t t e n t i o n on a system's i n t e r n a l dynamics and structure. S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory d e s c r i b e s and attempts to e x p l a i n the g e n e r a t i o n of order out of d i s o r d e r , out of chaos, to use I l y a P r i g o g i n e ' s term, i n complex, open systems t h a t are f a r - f r o m - e q u i l i b r i u m w i t h t h e i r environment and which involve p o s i t i v e feedback loops nonlinear processes. Human systems are, of course, such systems and the tendency toward greater structure and order i n human systems through h i s t o r y i s pronounced, i n spite of the seemingly chaotic pattern of events and actors at any given time. Our t a s k w i l l be to use s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory t o examine the i n t e r a c t i o n of ec o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l f a c t o r s i n human systems. To t h i s end, a conceptual model of community evolution w i l l be developed to i l l u s t r a t e the process of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i n a human system. F i n a l l y , the imp l i c a t i o n s f o r planners and planning of a s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l conception of human systems are examined. T h i s t h e s i s i s l e s s an experiment or a hypothesis than an examination of the p o t e n t i a l usefulness, h e u r i s t i c value, of a new c o n c e p t i o n of the f u n c t i o n i n g of human systems. The goal i s understanding, not proof, of the r o l e of se l f - o r g a n i z i n g processes i n human systems, e.g., a community. The course followed i s an intermediate one between the two extremes of attempting either to define p r e c i s e l y and r e d u c t i o n i s t i c a l l y what i s meant 3 by "fa c t o r s " and by "community' or the meaningless, i f true, exploration of the statement th a t a l l these f a c t o r s i n t e r a c t and intergrade i n e x t r i c a b l y w i t h each other. The u n i f y i n g theory of t h i s work i s s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n ( N i c o l i s & Prigogine, 1977). The context i s developed from recent work i n economic and c u l t u r a l anthropology, ecosystem ecology p o l i t i c a l science and sociology, geography and history, and economic and community development. The rest of t h i s chapter w i l l make clear some assumptions I have made i n d e l i m i t i n g and choosing my topic and my methodology. I t w i l l provide an o u t l i n e of, r a t i o n a l e f o r , and comparison w i t h some other p o s s i b l e methodologies. This should enable the reader to understand what I have and have not done i n what f o l l o w s . Chapter 2 w i l l present s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory i n d e t a i l . Here I w i l l merely e x p l a i n why I have chosen i t as the u n i f y i n g theme of t h i s work. Chapter 3 w i l l review the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of community, society, and environment from the perspective of the d i s c i p l i n e s mentioned above. T h i s m a t e r i a l p r o v i d e s the substance from which the c o n c e p t u a l model of the i n t e r a c t i o n of e c o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l f a c t o r s i n community e v o l u t i o n (presented i n Chapter 4) i s developed. A f i n a l chapter d i s c u s s e s the o v e r a l l u s e f u l n e s s and a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l view of s o c i e t a l p r o c e s s e s presented i n t h i s t h e s i s ; , focusing on the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g model for community and regional planning. To e l a b o r a t e on what I am examining, community''' e v o l u t i o n d e s c r i b e s A "community" as used i n t h i s work may be thought of as a subset of a s o c i e t y i n both space and time. Such a subset i s much more e a s i l y modelled than would be an en t i r e society (e.g., North American society, European s o c i e t y ) . 4 the changes that occur i n an aggregation of people i n a c e r t a i n geographical l o c a t i o n i n the course of time — from the formation of that community to i t s d e s t r u c t i o n ( M a r t i n d a l e , 1964), whether t h a t be f i v e y ears or f i v e thousand years. During that time, there w i l l be i n t e r a c t i o n s between the community and i t s natural environment ("ecological factors"): there w i l l be i n t e r a c t i o n s between the community's components and i t s s o c i a l and economic environments and, e s p e c i a l l y as the community grows ( i n numbers and area), i t w i l l develop an i n t e r n a l s o c i a l and economic s t r u c t u r e t h a t i n t e r a c t s w i t h the s o c i a l and economic s t r u c t u r e of the environment - thus the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of " s o c i a l " and "economic" f a c t o r s . The l a t t e r p e r s p e c t i v e may be seen as c e n t r a l to socio-economic impact assessment — SEIA — (cf. L e i s t r i t z & Chase, 1982). Community development seeks to manipulate the i n t e r a c t i o n s and the development process ( w h i l e SEIA seeks to a s s e s s and e v a l u a t e the impacts of such m a n i p u l a t i o n s ) i n order to a c h i e v e a "more desirable" i n t e r n a l structure or environment (e.g., Durston, 1977). The theory of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n , s imply put, i s a theory of the o r g a n i z a t i o n ( e v o l u t i o n ) of systems i n which f u t u r e s t a t e s depend non-d e t e r m i n i s t i c a l l y on the system's h i s t o r y . I t i s a r e s u l t of the work of I l y a Prigogine and h i s co-workers over the past f o r t y years i n the f i e l d of n o n - e q u i l i b r i u m thermodynamics ( P r i g o g i n e , 1962; G l a n s d o r f & P r i g o g i n e , 1971; N i c o l i s & P r i g o g i n e , 1977). S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory, although developed i n the context of c h e m i c a l thermodynamics, i s i n f a c t i d e a l l y s u i t e d ( f o r reasons made c l e a r i n the next chapter) f o r the m o d e l l i n g of s o c i a l processes. The prime d i f f i c u l t y , as N i c o l i s and Prigogine (1977, p. 5 473) have noted, i s choosing the relevant variables. T h i s d i f f i c u l t y has r e s u l t e d i n the main a p p l i c a t i o n s of s e l f -organization theory to non-physical-science problems being e i t h e r cases such as urban growth (Allen & Sanglier, 1978; Marchand, 1984), simple population ecology models (Allen, 1976) models of early b i o l o g i c a l evolution (Eigen, 1971), or s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of hymenoptera ( P r i g o g i n e , 1976) where the v a r i a b l e s can be chosen f a i r l y r e a d i l y or a r b i t r a r i l y ; or e l s e p u r e l y t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n of how s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n might proceed i n a human s o c i e t y ( T a y l o r , 1976; P r i g o g i n e , 1976: Ja n t s c h , 1980). I attempt to be intermediate to these two. S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a systems theory, but i t i s not a theory of systems. I t does represent a general property of systems and perhaps even a u n i f y i n g p r i n c i p l e i n s c i e n c e (of. P r i g o g i n e , 1980, 1985). Although i t u t i l i z e s many systems concepts ( c f . A c k o f f , 1971) i t i s not a theory t h a t r e l a t e s systems but r a t h e r one t h a t d e s c r i b e s the ( i r r e v e r s i b l e ) time e v o l u t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l systems ( P r i g o g i n e & Stengers, 1979). T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s i m p l i c i t i n Bunge's (1979 - quoted i n M a t t e s s i c h , 1982) mathematical systems theory d e f i n i t i o n of a s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n process. Self-organization theory i s perhaps intermediate between the "inexpungible c r a v i n g f o r g e n e r a l i t y " and numerous other f a u l t s of systems theory as a formal d i s c i p l i n e ( B e r l i n s k i , 1977), and the extreme reductionism of so many c l a s s i c a l models of s o c i e t y (e.g., i n economics, Solow, 1956). Although inv o l v i n g much more than a simple melding of systems science and physical c h e m i s t r y , s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory e x h i b i t s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the contributions of systems science to physics i d e n t i f i e d by Willems (1984) — 6 that i s a bridging of the d e s c r i p t i v e / p r e s c r i p t i v e gap and the consideration of dynamic systems with external variables. The paradigm of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n goes beyond the p r o b a b i l i s t i c systems theory paradigm i n several ways. Systems theory i s a way of describing the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the elements of a system at a given p o i n t i n time; s e l f - o r g a n i z a i t o n theory i s concerned w i t h the i n t e r n a l dynamics and processes of the system and, most importantly, with the system's s t r u c t u r a l e v o l u t i o n over time. I n d e t e r m i n a c i e s i n systems theory are u s u a l l y the r e s u l t of complexity or lack of knowledge, i n s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory they are i n t r i n s i c to the nature of the evolutionary process. Systems theory i s a p u r e l y t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t or way of l o o k i n g at the world: s e l f -o r g a n i z a t i o n i s an observed phenomenon i n c h e m i c a l and p h y s i c a l systems, with several competing theories to describe i t . The benefits of i n t e r p r e t i n g a region's or community's h i s t o r y through systems theory are e s s e n t i a l l y s t r u c t u r a l : i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of key elements of the community s t r u c t u r e , d e f i n i t i o n of the system boundaries and subsystems, and h i e r a r c h i a l p a t t e r n s of c o n t r o l and feedback. A f u l l y developed s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would go further and permit i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the c r u c i a l processes that determine the evolution of the system, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c r i t i c a l p o i n t s i n the system's h i s t o r y where minor f l u c t u a t i o n s produced major changes i n the system, and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the c o n d i t i o n s i n the system t h a t made (and w i l l make) the system susceptible to s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n events. Such, b r i e f l y , i s the background and the context of the work presented 7 i n the f o l l o w i n g chapters. Mention should be made of the main p r e v i o u s e f f o r t s , of which the author i s aware, to look at the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s of society and environment i n an h o l i s t i c and synthetic way. This i s the work of M i l l e r (1978, 1982) i n m o d e l l i n g a c o a s t a l B.C. f i s h i n g v i l l a g e . H i s approach i s t h a t of H o l l i n g ' s (1978) a p p l i e d systems a n a l y s i s ( p r e v i o u s l y exemplified by Chambers, 1971); the d i s c i p l i n a r y background he draws upon i s rather s i m i l a r to that described i n Chapter 3. However, M i l l e r ' s c e n t r a l concern was to develop a model f o r p o l i c y - m a k i n g i n the c o n t e x t of a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i o - e c o l o g i c a l s i t u a t i o n (the f i s h i n g v i l l a g e ) rather than to t e s t the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of a general theory (self-organization) i n the search for "lessons" about the process of community evolution. Let us look now at the methodology by which my model i s generated. F i g u r e 1 g i v e s a schematic diagram of the process of model g e n e r a t i o n . F i r s t , a c o n c e p t u a l s y n t h e s i s , or theory, i s developed based on extant d i s c i p l i n a r y knowledge, i n response to needs and objectives, i.e. a problem. Next, a formal synthesis or model i s formulated based, f o r example, on the mathematical techniques of q u a l i t a t i v e a nalysis — that i s methods for the analysis of unquantifiable s t r u c t u r a l change (Katzner, 1983). These include s e t theory (Dalen et a l . , 1976, Halmos, 1960), topology ( K e l l e y , 1961), and group theory ( L j a p i n , 1974). T h i r d l y , an o p e r a t i o n a l s y n t h e s i s , or simulation, i s prepared and implemented as a program running on a computer. This t h i r d step makes possible the l a s t step — that of generation of output or p r e d i c t i o n s f o r comparison w i t h " r e a l " systems and the c o n v e n t i o n a l wisdom of d i s c i p l i n a r y knowledge — by allowing multiple runs of the model with d i f f e r e n t data and assumptions. 8 d i s c i p l i n a r y (Inputs) knowledge (Theory) (Model) (Simulation) (Predictions) Figure 1 - Schematic Diagram of the Modelling Process Space Local Global Q) r 1 Projection " s p e c i a l i z e d expert" P r e d i c t i o n "comprehensive" t v-"§ Simulation " h o l i s t i c " Modelling " g l o b a l " Needs data (on whatever i s 4 being modelled) d i s c i p l i n a r y knowledge. — Testing . (feedback) Objectives d i s c i p l i n a r y knowledge I ..Conceptual synthesis 1 Formal synthesis I Operational synthesis — Outputs Figure 2 - A Typology of Modelling 9 While t h i s work develops the model to only the c o n c e p t u a l stage, the p r o c e s s o u t l i n e d above c o u l d be a p p l i e d . The t e c h n i q u e s of q u a l i t a t i v e a n alysis could be combined with those of vector analysis — the calculus of d i r e c t i o n a l forces — (Grossman, 1981; Buck, 1978; Royden, 1968) to develop a f o r m a l model of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l processes. An o p e r a t i o n a l model could be developed as a model of r e l a t i v e l y simple (is o l a t e d , small), well documented communities (e.g. i n the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s : Devine, 1981, 1982, 1984) and compared with an h i s t o r i c a l model of a larger, older region such as Vancouver. Taking t h i s l a s t step would open the model to evaluation by standard m o d e l l i n g - f o r - p o l i c y techniques (e.g. Majone & Quade, 1980). Ad d i t i o n a l l y , computerization i s l i k e l y the only way to adequately simulate the complex r e p e t i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d i n s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n and, i n a d d i t i o n , p r e s e n t s an i n t e r e s t i n g programming problem i n m o d e l l i n g the p a r a l l e l processes of society on a sequentially processing machine (Wolfram, 1984). Figure 2 further c l a r i f i e s the int e n t i o n of the model presented here by d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between four types of "modelling" c l a s s i f i e d along two (space and i n f o r m a t i o n ) dimensions i n a t y p o l o g y developed by the author. The present e x e r c i s e i s intended as a " s i m u l a t i o n " i n the sense of being s p a t i a l l y r e s t r i c t e d and ( r e l a t i v e l y ) i n f o r m a t i o n a l l y comprehensive. F i n a l l y , I w i l l make use of a "knowledge vee diagram" (Figure 3) which, to quote i t s o r i g i n a t o r s , (Novak & Gowin, 1984) i s an h e u r i s t i c , "a scheme f o r 'unpacking' the knowledge i n any p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d " (p. 55). I t i s 10 intended as a f i n a l c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the c o n c e p t u a l and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l assumptions and steps i m p l i c i t i n the development of the ideas that form the heart of t h i s work. I t compares the c o n c e p t u a l and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of a b s t r a c t i o n and f o r c e s one to i d e n t i f y the bases of one's methodology. From concepts to theories, on the one side, and records to r e s u l t s on the other, the contents of the fi g u r e describe the conceptual framework which the author brings to bear on t h i s work. 11 CONCEPTUAL ENTITIES WORLD VIEW: an h o l i s t i c approach to understand-ing an evolutionary universe community ( c f . Jantsch, 1980; Wuketits, 1984). PHILOSOPHY: a b e l i e f i n d i v e r s i t y of " s c i e n t i f i c research programmes" (Lakatos, 1970; Feyerabend, 1970). THEORY: s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n ( N i c o l i s & Prigogine, 1977) PRINCIPLES: non-equilibrium, nonlinear s o c i a l systems (Diener, 1980; Perroux, 1983) and h e u r i s t i c value of p r e d i c t i v e theories (Friedmann, 1953). CONSTRUCTS: community, tension FOCUS QUESTION: CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURES: system, mass, energy, environment, entropy. CONCEPTS: landscape, land use, land tenure, production, consumption, resources, s o c i a l inputs, h i s t o r i c a l inputs. METHODOLOGICAL ENTITIES VALUE CLAIM: as an h e u r i s t i c i n the study of communities and the f a c i l i t a t i o n of sustain-able development. KNOWLEDGE CLAIM: that the present model repre-sents a new exploration, compatible with present d i s c i p l i n a r y knowledge. INTERPRETATION: of the theory i n the context of community and society. RESULT: a d e s c r i p t i o n of evolution of communities i n terms of the theory of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n . TRANSFORMATIONS: the observations of econ-omists, anthropologists, h i s t o r i a n s , s o c i o l o g i s t s , e c ologists, and develop-ment workers about communities. FACTS: observed processes of community evolution (e.g., Martindale, 1964; Arndt, 1981; C o t t r e l l , 1976; Bowles, 1981; B l i s h e n et a l . , 1979). RECORDS OF EVENTS OR OBJECTS: com-munity h i s t o r i e s and time-series data. e.g. for Northwest T e r r i -t o r i e s (Devine, 1981, 1983, 1984). EVENT: Community evolution. Figure 3 - Knowledge Vee Diagram of Conceptual Structure for t h i s Work 12 CHAPTER 2 - SELF-ORGANIZATION The beginner should not be discouraged i f . . . he f i n d s t h a t he does not have the prerequisites for reading the prerequisites. (P. Halmos, 1950) The theory of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a l a r g e , complex, and h i g h l y mathematical subject. The treatment given here i s intended to develop the i n t u i t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e understanding of i t necessary f o r understanding the c o n c e p t u a l model of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n processes i n community evolution presented l a t e r . In what follows I have drawn p r i m a r i l y on Prigogine (1962, 1976, 1978, 1980), N i c o l i s and P r i g o g i n e (1977), P r i g o g i n e et a l . (1978), and P r i g o g i n e and Stengers (1984). Other r e f e r e n c e s w i l l be c i t e d as needed. T h i s t h e s i s f o l l o w s P r i g o g i n e ' s s c h o o l of self-organization. Other s i m i l a r t h e o r i e s which use d i f f e r e n t mathematical t h e o r i e s (Haken, 1983a,b) or are intended to apply to non-human systems (Zeleny, 1981) do e x i s t but are beyond the scope of t h i s work to consider. C e n t r a l to the theory of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n are the concepts of i s o l a t e d , closed, and open systems, and entropy as formulated i n chemical thermodynamics. An i s o l a t e d system exchanges neither matter nor energy with i t s environment, a closed system exchanges energy, an open system both matter and energy, with i t s environment. Entropy, S, i s defined (by the second law of thermodynamics) as a function of the state of the system (i.e., of a number of s p e c i f i e d independent variables assumed to describe the system) and i s an extensive property (i.e., defined by the system as a whole as are mass, m, and volume, v). I n t e n s i v e p r o p e r t i e s , e.g., p, p r e s s u r e and T, a b s o l u t e 13 temperature are those which take on well-defined values at each point i n the system. The change i n entropy w i t h i n a system, dS, may be s p l i t i n t o two parts, due to entropy production external (e) and i n t e r n a l ( i ) to the system: dS = d eS + d iS at equilibrium dS = d gS = d^S = 0 (1) In an i s o l a t e d system ther e i s no entropy f l o w as d gS = 0 and dS = d^S S 0. I f d^S = 0 then the system i s at e q u i l i b r i u m . T h i s s i t u a t i o n i s i r r e v e r s i b l e i n the absence of exchanges w i t h the system's environment, i.e., entropy i s not conserved, i t i s always p o s i t i v e or zero and, therefore, provides a universal law of the macroscopic (i.e., large-scale, v i s i b l e i n c o n t r a s t to the m i c r o s c o p i c or m o l e c u l a r ) e v o l u t i o n of physico-chemical systems. In a closed system: dS = dC^ = dE + pdv; where E = energy p = pressure T T T T = abs. temp. Q = heat v = volume (2) t h a t i s , the entropy of the system equals the sum of heat (a measure of i n t e r n a l energy) produced i n the system plus work (a function of changes i n pressure and volume) done at the boundary (of the system). A l t e r n a t i v e l y , F = E - TS F = Helmholtz free energy (3) which i s the c l a s s i c a l statement of the c o m p e t i t i o n between entropy and energy. When T i s low, the contribution of E predominates, when T i s high, the entropy term dominates. T h i s c o m p e t i t i o n i s embodied i n Boltzmann's 14 ordering p r i n c i p l e , which applies near equilibrium and, expressed i n terms of molecular disorder i n an i s o l a t e d gaseous system, i s expressed as: S = K log P. K = Boltzmann's constant 1.38 x I C T 2 3 j k _ 1 P = Number of complexions = the number of ways n molecules can be divided i n t o 2 groups n-^ and n 2 n! n x ! n 2 ! (4) The value of S = KlogP reaches a maximum when n-^ = n 2 = n/2 — the normal s i t u a t i o n i n a gaseous system at e q u i l i b r i u m . E q u i v a l e n t l y , i n a c l o s e d system, F reaches a minimum when the system i s at equilibrium, r e f l e c t i n g the f a c t S i s at a maximum. E q u i l i b r i u m s t r u c t u r e s , those which commonly r e s u l t i n i s o l a t e d and c l o s e d systems, a f t e r a s u f f i c i e n t l y long p e r i o d of time, as a r e s u l t of i r r e v e r s i b l e entropic (spontaneous) processes, are dominated by Boltzmann's ordering p r i n c i p l e , the competition between energy and entropy — thus at low temperatures we have r e l a t i v e l y ordered structures — things freeze — while at high temperatures we have gases. I t i s , however, open systems f ar from e q u i l i b r i u m t h a t w i l l be of primary concern to us here. I t i s here that " d i s s i p a t i v e structures" — structures that are maintained by flows of energy and matter a c r o s s the system boundaries, t h a t d i s s i p a t e energy i n s t r u c t u r a l maintenance, appear and the p r i n c i p l e of "order through f l u c t u a t i o n s " replaces Boltzmann's ordering p r i n c i p l e . An open system can e x i s t i n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t forms: thermodynamic e q u i l i b r i u m , l i n e a r n o n - e q u i l i b r i u m , and f a r from e q u i l i b r i u m when the 15 c o n s t r a i n t s on the system m a i n t a i n i t t h a t way. An open system at thermodynamic e q u i l i b r i u m i s d e s c r i b e d by e q u a t i o n 4 above. For an open system i n the region of l i n e a r non-equilibrium: cLjjS = Z X • J • S 0 where the J •' s represent the dt j r a t e s (of r e a c t i o n s ) and the X-'s the c o r r e s p o n d i n g f o r c e s (diffus i o n ) of the i r r e v e r s i b l e or e n t r o p i c processes occurring i n the system. (5) The f o r c e s cause the f l u x e s and both have a macroscopic order to them (Prigogine & Stengers, 1979). At thermodynamic eq u i l i b r i u m J j = Xj = d^S = 0 f o r a l l i r r e v e r s i b l e p rocesses s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . An i m p o r t a n t g e n e r a l r e s u l t of non-equilibrium thermodynamics i s that d i s s i p a t i v e structures, and thus s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n , can only occur i n systems f a r from e q u i l i b r i u m where the processes occurring are non-linear and involve c a t a l y t i c steps sustained by flows of energy and matter from outside the system (i.e., where equation 5 does not hold). In an open system d eS = -d^S < 0 which i s to say t h a t a decrease i n the entropy of a system can occur as a r e s u l t of exchanges (flows) of energy and matter over the boundary of the system. While i t i s p o s s i b l e to describe the entropic evolution of an i s o l a t e d or closed system r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l y u s i n g the c l a s s i c a l methods of e q u i l i b r i u m thermodynamics, or P r i g o g i n e ' s e x t e n s i o n of those methods f o r open, " l i n e a r " systems, such a d e s c r i p t i o n f o r an open n o n l i n e a r system i s very complex, even i n theory. N i c o l i s and P r i g o g i n e (1977; Chapter 5) d e r i v e g e n e r a l equations f o r the 16 time evolution of a chemical system con s i s t i n g of mass-balance equations: 3£ = f i ( { P i } ) + Di V ^ i 9t Di = d i f f u s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t Pi = composition variables of the system f i = describe the o v e r a l l rate of production of constituent X i (6) and an equation for i n t e r n a l energy conservation: 3T = div AVT + Z(-H )W (T,{ P i}) 1 3t p v v J Wp = v e l o c i t y of reaction p C = s p e c i f i c heat of the mixture AHp = heat of reaction p with mathematically appropriate boundary conditions, usually e i t h e r , (7) D i r i c h l e t Neumann {p x. Pn } = {const} or Z Z {n« Vpj, . . ., n*Vp} = {const} (8) (9) which b a s i c a l l y provide a vector calculus evaluation of heat produced and work done at the boundary of the system. Of p a r t i c u l a r importance i n the m o d e l l i n g of a c o n c r e t e problem are the form of the " c h e m i c a l " laws determining the reaction rates and the value of such parameters as d i f f u s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s , r a t e c o n s t a n t s , the s i z e of the system (too s m a l l a system 17 w i l l always be dominated by boundary c o n d i t i o n s [Hanson, 1974]) and the nature of the applied constraints ( N i c o l i s & Prigogine, 1977). To r e t u r n to a more q u a l i t a t i v e approach to the problem of m o d e l l i n g the evolution of the structure of an open system f a r from equilibrium, l e t us r e i t e r a t e that as a system moves from equilibrium to far from equilibrium and/or from i s o l a t i o n to openness, i t becomes more complex, i t s i n t e r n a l dynamics become n o n - l i n e a r and, f i n a l l y , i t s s t r u c t u r e or s t a t e , becomes l e s s s t a b l e . That group of s t a b l e s t a t e s of the system i n a f i n i t e neighbourhood of the equilibrium state i s known as the thermodynamic branch (branch r e f e r s to a" b r a n c h " of s o l u t i o n s of the s t a t e e q u a t i o n s ) . Beyond some c r i t i c a l v alue of a s t a t e parameter or c o n s t r a i n t , however, t h e r e i s the p o s s i b i l i t y that the states on the thermodynamic branch become unstable. In such a case, a seemingly minor disturbance, or f l u c t u a t i o n , may cause the system to evolve i n a new d i r e c t i o n , away from the previous thermodynamic branch — i n mathematical terms we have a b i f u r c a t i o n that r e s u l t s i n a new family of solutions to the state equations. The d i s s i p a t i v e structure which occurs f ar from equilibrium manifests i t s e l f i n a l l c a s e s by " c o h e r e n t b e h a v i o r " a t a m a c r o s c r o p i c , or supramolecular, l e v e l . I t r e s u l t s i n order, often "new" order, as a r e s u l t of the a m p l i f i c a t i o n of f l u c t u a t i o n s ( t h i s i s the r o l e of the n o n - l i n e a r mechanism of the system's dynamics) i n the neighbourhood of a b i f u r c a t i o n point on the thermodynamic branch of the system. In chemical systems, t h i s s p a t i a l l y coherent behaviour may be manifested by the appearance of a time p e r i o d i c i t y i n a c h e m i c a l r e a c t i o n . Thus, N i c o l i s and P r i g o g i n e (1977) d e s c r i b e the e v o l u t i o n of a d i s s i p a t i v e s t r u c t u r e as a s e l f - d e t e r m i n i n g 18 sequence. A c c o r d i n g to t h e i r scheme, s t r u c t u r e impacts f u n c t i o n which impacts f l u c t u a t i o n which feeds back to structure again. The b i f u r c a t i o n i n t r o d u c e s h i s t o r y i n t o p h y s i c s and c h e m i s t r y ( P r i g o g i n e , 1980, 1985; P r i o g o g i n e & Stengers, 1979, 1984). In c o n t r a s t , the e v o l u t i o n of most c h e m i c a l r e a c t i o n s i s determined by the i n i t i a l r e a c t i o n s and e x t e r n a l conditions, such as P and T. T h i s approach i n v o l v e s both d e t e r m i n i s t i c and stocha s t i c elements i n describing the time evolution of the macroscopic system. At points f a r from b i f u r c a t i o n the d e t e r m i n i s t i c equations s u f f i c e (i.e., equations 6-9), near the b i f u r c a t i o n p o i n t s s t o c h a s t i c elements become e s s e n t i a l i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of which f l u c t u a t i o n i s a m p l i f i e d and thus what new thermodynamic branch the system w i l l follow. I t i s here that Thorn (1975) parts from Prigogine — by a mathematical s i m p l i f i c a t i o n he determines the system parameters and founds catastrophe theory. As a methodological aside, I might note that I am using Prigogine's mathematical approach as a guide, r a t h e r than c a t a s t r o p h e theory, because of the l a t t e r ' s p r e f e r e n t i a l a p p l i c a b i l i t y to systems that maximize or minimize some (potential) function (e.g., entropy or energy, respectively), i.e., optimize some functions (Post & Stewart, 1978). Many s o c i e t a l subsystems (firms, i n d i v i d u a l s , etc.) may o p t i m i z e but to a t t r i b u t e such a goal (or even the e x i s t e n c e of such a f u n c t i o n ) to s o c i e t y or community, seems at best premature, at worst a singular instance of hubris on the part of the th e o r i s t . The s t o c h a s t i c element c o n s i s t s of two p a r t s : 1) The a p r i o r i p r o b a b i l i t y f o r having a c e r t a i n f l u c t u a t i o n i n a complex system, and 2) the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h i s f l u c t u a t i o n spreads and at t a i n s a macroscopic range 19 and amplitude. D i f f u s i o n plays an e s p e c i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the second of these components by dampening the spread and growth of system f l u c t u a t i o n s . D i s s i p a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s show t h a t long-range (space-time structure) order can be generated by processes at the microscopic l e v e l . Jantsch (1980) summarizes the essence of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n quite well when he describes i t as "the co-evolution of macro- and micro-cosmos" and c a l l s i t an emerging paradigm wi t h t h r e e key a s p e c t s : "a s p e c i f i c macroscopic dynamics of process systems, continuous exchange and co-e v o l u t i o n w i t h the environment, and s e l f transcendence, the e v o l u t i o n of e v o l u t i o n a r y processes" (p. 9). Two f i n a l aspects of se l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory need to be c l a r i f i e d here before we proceed to a b r i e f review of the relevance of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory for modeling of s o c i a l processes. They are the r o l e s and treatment of s t a b i l i t y and s t o c h a s t i c i t y i n the evolution of d i s s i p a t i v e structures. When we t a l k about the s t a b i l i t y of the thermodynamic branch we are concerned with two d i f f e r e n t kinds of s t a b i l i t y — Lyapounov s t a b i l i t y and s t r u c t u r a l s t a b i l i t y . Although t h e r e are complex f o r m a l d e f i n i t i o n s of both, the d i s t i n c t i o n i s put si m p l y and s u c c i n c t l y by H a s t i n g s (1984) — Lyapounov s t a b i l i t y i s concerned w i t h p e r t u r b a t i o n s , s h i f t s i n the quantitative state of the system, while s t r u c t u r a l s t a b i l i t y i s concerned w i t h the e f f e c t of p e r t u r b a t i o n s i n the q u a l i t a t i v e parameters of the system. Prigogine (1980) expresses s t r u c t u r a l s t a b i l i t y as r e f l e c t i n g the i d e a of i n n o v a t i o n , the appearance of a new mechanism or s p e c i e s t h a t was i n i t i a l l y absent from the system. Methods of a c t u a l l y a s s e s s i n g the 20 s t a b i l i t y of a system d e f i n e d as i n e quations 7 to 10 above are q u i t e complex, when indeed they e x i s t , and won't be explained here. Although t h e r e i s a b r a n c h o f s t a t i s t i c a l m e c h a n i c s known as f l u c t u a t i o n theory, i t i s not of much use i n other ap p l i c a t i o n s due to the d i f f i c u l t y of d e f i n i n g the form of the system's p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n . S t o c h a s t i c theory i s of more use to us here. I t s b a s i c i d e a i s t h a t the v a r i a t i o n of a^ v a l u e s , as a r e s u l t of a f l u c t u a t i o n ( i n an ensemble of variables {a^} determining the macroscopic state of the system) does not depend on the independent variable (time) i n a well-defined manner, i.e., i s a random or s t o c h a s t i c process. Thus, o b s e r v a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t members of a representative group of systems r e s u l t s i n d i f f e r e n t functions a^(t) from which we can define s u i t a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s such as, P r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s are often described by a few " t y p i c a l values" of which the expectation: P 1({a} t) {da} = P r o b a b i l i t y of f i n d i n g {a} within {d}, ' {a + da} at t ?2^ai^t\ {a2}t2){da^}{da2} = P r o b a b i l i t y of f i n d i n g {a^} within {a-i}, {a-i + da-i} at (10) <ax> = E a k P,({ a i} ({a}), t) , {a} (11) 21 i s the most important. As i t does not depend e x p l i c i t l y on f l u c t u a t i o n s , however, one must introduce expectations of quadratic or higher order from which v a r i a n c e can be d e r i v e d ( N i c o l i s & P r i g o g i n e , 1977, p. 225). There are three p r i n c i p a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s : the binomial, Poissonian, and Gaussian (see P o l l a r d , 1977). The binomial and Poissonian a r i s e i n cases inv o l v i n g B e r n o u i l l i t r i a l s ; the Gaussian, t y p i c a l l y as a l i m i t i n g case of the law of l a r g e numbers. From t h i s and the d e f i n i t i o n of an e x t e n s i v e s t o c h a s t i c v a r i a b l e i t can be shown t h a t the r e l a t i v e importance of f l u c t u a t i o n s d i m i n i s h e s as the s i z e (volume) of the system i n c r e a s e s ( N i c o l i s & P r i g o g i n e , 1977) — but f o r n o n e q u i l i b r i u m i n s t a b i l i t i e s l e a d i n g to d i s s i p a t i v e structures t h i s ceases to be true and the law of large numbers breaks down (that i s to say, that the p r o b a b i l i t y of the sample average and the p o p u l a t i o n mean d i f f e r i n g by l e s s than a p r e s c r i b e d amount ceases to approach one as the number of variables approaches i n f i n i t y ) . Thus, i t has been shown that for nonlinear reactions occurring f a r from equilibrium the v a r i a t i o n (form of the u n d e r l y i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n ) of f l u c t u a t i o n s changes q u a l i t a t i v e l y as t h e i r s c a l e i n c r e a s e s . They may be a m p l i f i e d i n the presence of i n s t a b i l i t i e s and drive the system to a new and d i f f e r e n t state. One approach to obtaining a master equation d e s c r i p t i o n of f l u c t u a t i o n s i s to t r e a t t h e i r g e n e r a t i o n as a Markovian " b i r t h and death" process (a stochastic process i n which the future depends s o l e l y on the present state) by assigning a set of t r a n s i t i o n p r o b a b i l i t i e s describing the process i n the space of some appropriate stochastic variables ( N i c o l i s & Prigogine, 1977). This approach suf f e r s from i t s emphasis on c o l l e c t i v e variables, treatment 22 of the system as a whole, and the g l o b a l c h a r a c t e r of the b i r t h - a n d - d e a t h method. What i s needed i s a l o c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of f l u c t u a t i o n i n non-e q u i l i b r i u m systems. S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a r e s u l t of the breakdown of the law of l a r g e numbers , a r e s u l t of the f a c t that nonlinear systems f a r from equilibrium c o n s i s t of d i f f e r e n t macroscopic regions that do not evolve independently but r a t h e r become coupled v i a long-range c o r r e l a t i o n s (of f l u c t u a t i o n s ) . That i s to say that the system's behaviour becomes non-Poissonian, although i n a s m a l l enough r e g i o n of the system, i t s behaviour (as the mean-square deviation <fx >) can be approximated by a Poissonian (in terms of t r i a l s and s uccesses of f l u c t u a t i o n s ) . Thus the system's e v o l u t i o n i n terms of the average of some extensive stochastic variables can be described i n terms of a macroscopic e x p r e s s i o n and the d e v i a t i o n from the P o i s s o n i a n ; which deviation u l t i m a t e l y takes over and drives the average to a new macroscopic regime. Thus a c h e m i c a l r e a c t i o n e x h i b i t i n g s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l be e x h i b i t i n g s p a t i a l l y coherent, synchronized behaviour (e.g., regular colour changes) at a macroscopic, v i s i b l e l e v e l (Turner, 1982). Micro s c o p i c a l l y , at a s u f f i c i e n t l y small s p a t i a l and temporal scale, the reaction structure w i l l be f l u c t u a t i n g randomly. The essence of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i s the s e l e c t i v e a m p l i f i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n m i c r o s c o p i c f l u c t u a t i o n s over a macroscopic range to y i e l d m a c r o s c o p i c a l l y coherent behaviour t h a t i s fundamentally d i f f e r e n t from the previous (random) behavior. T h i s has been an attempt to o u t l i n e the p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e o r i g i n s and mathematical methods of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory. The c r u c i a l concepts and mechanisms are those of non-linear, far-from-equilibrium open systems, whose 23 time evolution along the thermodynamic branch may pass through regions of i n s t a b i l i t y where m i c r o s c o p i c f l u c t u a t i o n s can be a m p l i f i e d (by the n o n l i n e a r processes) c a u s i n g a macroscopic d e p a r t u r e from the t y p i c a l l y Poissonian behaviour of such f l u c t u a t i o n s , r e s u l t i n g i n long-range order v i a f l u c t u a t i o n s , a new q u a l i t a t i v e behaviour of the system. The r i g o r o u s a p p l i c a t i o n of these ideas and techniques to simple physical and b i o l o g i c a l problems i s d i f f i c u l t — a s i m i l a r a p p l i c a t i o n to s o c i a l systems i s undoubtedly i m p o s s i b l e at the present time. Yet, t h a t i s not to say t h a t nothing can be l e a r n e d from an a p p l i c a t i o n of the theory of s e l f -organization to s o c i a l systems. N i c o l i s and Prigogine (1977) acknowledged the temptation (as a r e s u l t of the widespread presence of "structure" i n human s o c i e t i e s ) to apply s e l f -o r g a n i z a t i o n theory (and e s p e c i a l l y the i d e a of s t r u c t u r a l s t a b i l i t y ) to s o c i o - c u l t u r a l evolution. They noted a couple of examples of applications ( A l l e n , 1976; A l l e n & S a n g l i e r , 1978, 1981), and t h a t " i t c l e a r l y appears s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory i s an emerging paradigm of s c i e n c e " (p. 474). Self-organization theory i s intermediate between the basic laws of c l a s s i c a l and quantum dynamics and the representation of natural phenomena by games of w h i c h " t h e b a s i c e l e m e n t s a r e c hance and law, . . . and i t i s the consequences of chance t h a t are s u b j e c t to r e g u l a t i o n " (Eigen & Winkler, 1981, p. x i i i ) . Prigogine (1976) c i t e d Frangois Perroux's idea of the d i a l e c t i c between the mass and the minority i n human society i n a summary of h i s description of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory as a p o s s i b l e u n i f y i n g theory i n s o c i o l o g y . 24 Mass represents the average behaviour of man, minority the f l u c t u a t i o n s i n society which, when they exceed a c r i t i c a l l e v e l , influence the average by d r i v i n g the system to a new average l e v e l . From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , he emphasized the nonlinear nature of the evolution of s o c i a l phenomena, the coherent behaviour of a society, the importance of change i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of s o c i a l systems as coherent systems, and the f a c t t h a t s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e finds i t s expression i n constraints imposed upon the i n d i v i d u a l . The r o l e of the i n d i v i d u a l i n s o c i e t a l s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o c e s s e s has r e c e i v e d prominence i n two separate accounts; one from the point of view of economics (Day, 1983), the o t h e r from the p o i n t of view of c o g n i t i v e s c i e n c e (Smith, 1983). S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i s , i m p l i c i t l y and e x p l i c i t l y , a major p a r t of Rosnay's (1979) "macroscope" (see also Anthony, 1969; Odum, 1971); a new way of looking at and dealing with modern society (the book might be thought of as a c o n t i n e n t a l answer to how to manage "The T h i r d Wave"). H i s main achievement i s r e c o g n i t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of modern s o c i e t y t h a t make the postulation of s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g processes plausible. Balkus (1983) has attempted, i n a r a t h e r d i f f i c u l t s e r i e s of papers, to " d e s c r i b e the s t r u c t u r e and process of s o c i e t a l s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n " i n terms of s o c i a l necessity giving r i s e to organizing forces and thence to f u n c t i o n a l domains or plans. A c c o r d i n g to him p l a n n i n g and p l a n s are the v e h i c l e s of the s o c i e t a l s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n process; they i d e n t i f y and amplify f l u c t u a t i o n s . T h i s i s an i d e a to which we w i l l r e t u r n at the end of t h i s t h e s i s i n the context of community development and planning. C l e a r l y , there i s some j u s t i f i c a t i o n and precedent for the modeling of 25 community evolution as a s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g process. Self-organization occurs i n complex systems that exchange matter and energy with t h e i r environment and at l e a s t some of where i n t e r n a l p r o c e s s e s are r e g u l a t e d by p o s i t i v e feedback loops. Such a system w i l l be f a r - f r o m - e q u i l i b r i u m w i t h i t s environment. The evolution of the system w i l l include times of i n s t a b i l i t y of the system structure or organization when a seemingly minor event within the system t r i g g e r s a major change i n i t s structure and organization. This new order i s the r e s u l t of the c o u p l i n g of many minor changes over r e l a t i v e l y long d i s t a n c e s w i t h i n the system. T h i s new order i s a d i s s i p a t i v e structure, the r e s u l t of self-organization. What we hope to gain i s an understanding of the dynamics of the process to supplement the more usual s t a t i c d e s c r i p t i o n of the steps i n the process. There are two c r u c i a l problems: the c h o i c e of v a r i a b l e s (addressed i n Chapters 3 and 4) and the question of how to a c t u a l l y model the process that r e l a t e s the v a r i a b l e s (addressed i n Chapter 4). The m a t e r i a l i n the next chapter w i l l form the basis for the actual model. 26 CHAPTER 3 - COMMUNITY, SOCIETY, AND ENVIRONMENT: DISCIPLINARY VIEWS A r t would l i k e to stop being pretense and play, i t would l i k e to become knowledge. T. Mann, Doctor Faustus The goal of t h i s chapter i s to present d i s c i p l i n a r y views of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of community, s o c i e t y , and environment and the nature and r e l a t i o n s h i p s of t h e i r e c o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s and processes. I want to suggest that there are strong common themes among the d i s c i p l i n a r y views that emphasize connectedness, s t a b i l i t y , d i scontinuity, f l u c t u a t i o n and evolution and the r o l e of these i n determining structures and processes. These ideas are c r u c i a l to the elaboration of the concep-t u a l model i n the next chapter. S o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s and p r o c e s s e s i n human systems may have s e v e r a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s . One of the most important i s c u l t u r e — the developed s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y . E c o l o g i c a l a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s see c u l t u r e as s u b j e c t to the laws governing l i v i n g organisms as a r e s u l t of c u l t u r e ' s immanence i n l i v i n g organisms (Rappaport, 1971). Thus, Bennett (1978) argued that most s o c i a l or human e c o l o g i c a l systems, t y p i c a l l y open systems, are never i n a s t a t e of t r u e e q u i l i b r i u m : they "move c o n s t a n t l y from one l e v e l of o r g a n i z a t i o n to another, w i t h the terms of ( t h e i r ) e x i s t e n c e c o n s t a n t l y changing from s t a t e to s t a t e " (p. 259). The more ( p o l i t i c a l l y ) r a d i c a l c u l t u r a l and economic anthropologist would take t h i s further and say that the laws to which culture i s subject are s o c i a l as well as e c o l o g i c a l (Ingold, 1979), or that the problem i s "to conduct the s t r u c t u r a l analysis 27 of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s i n such a way t h a t the ' c a u s a l i t y of the s t r u c t u r e s ' upon each other could be analysed' (Godelier, 1978, p. 102). Most recently these i d e a s have begun to be s e t w i t h i n a systems framework. Friedman (1979) was e x p l i c i t i n arguing for the use of " d i s s i p a t i v e structures" and s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory i n modeling s o c i a l phenomena because " s o c i a l systems tend to be of an accumulative nature, stable 'cybernetic' cycles are contained within long-term secular trends leading to c r i s e s , breakdowns and reorganization" (p. 269). Returning to an e c o l o g i c a l anthropologist, Diener (1980) has r e c e n t l y suggested t h a t i n order to understand the l a r g e - s c a l e evolution of c u l t u r a l change, i t i s necessary to concentrate on the " f i e l d " of economic and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s of society, and on the unstable — for i t i s i n t h i s context that change has occurred i n the panorama of history. From our s t a r t i n anthropology, we have a l r e a d y i n t r o d u c e d two very important i m p l i c i t concepts — t h a t of time, of a h i s t o r y (and a f u t u r e ) , and t h a t of environment ( s p a t i a l extent and c o m p l e x i t y ) . H i s t o r y i s , of course, very important to us — i t s introduction to physical processes i s one of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory's most important c o n t r i b u t i o n s . Here a useful d i s t i n c t i o n can be made between d i f f e r e n t types of history, d i f f e r e n t views of the nature of the flow of society and culture over time. Following Braudel (1969) there i s the hi s t o r y of man i n r e l a t i o n to h i s surroundings, the "longue duree," the form of h i s t o r y with which we are interested here; there i s an intermediate s o c i a l h i s t o r y of groups and groupings which i s the " h i s t o r y " of the a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , and t h e r e i s the h i s t o r y of events, " l ' h i s t o i r e e v e n e m e n t i e l l e " . (As an a s i d e , t h i s i s the form of h i s t o r y most amenable to the manipulations of catastrophe theory; s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n 28 theory, i n contrast applies to the "longue duree.") For Braudel the past i l l u m i n a t e s the present and h i s t o r y i s an explana-t i o n of the past, so i n a sense, we see the p o s s i b i l i t y of s o c i e t a l s e l f -o r g a n i z a t i o n as a model of h i s t o r y i n an analogy between the h i s t o r y of a society and the i n t e r n a l h i s t o r y of a s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g system. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Diener (1980) made much of the ro l e of i n s t a b i l i t y i n c u l t u r a l macroevolu-ti o n , while Friedman (1979) emphasized the r o l e of cycles, d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s and transformation i n s o c i e t a l evolution. The evolution and spread of ideas and p r o c e s s e s has been shown to f i t q u i t e w e l l the l o g i s t i c e q u a t i o n — w h i l e d e v i a t i o n s have o f t e n been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i r r e g u l a r l y i n f r e q u e n t events such as wars, s t r i k e s , and economic pa n i c s ( M o n t r o l l , 1978; M a r c h e t t i , 1985) t h a t are sources of i n s t a b i l i t y , o f t e n c y c l i c a l and c e r t a i n l y discontinuous and transformational. Thus, diverse anthropological and h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s on the past suggest the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of elements of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory to s o c i a l evolution. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the wide v a r i e t y of c y c l e s t h a t may be observed i n a d i v e r s i t y of s o c i a l behaviour (Young & Ziman, 1971) p r o v i d e s not only a p a r a l l e l with the prevalence of c y c l i c a l or o s c i l l a t o r y manifestations of se l f - o r g a n i z i n g processes i n physical systems but has proved a major impetus for an important school of s p a t i a l geography, the so- c a l l e d chronogeographic p e r s p e c t i v e (Parkes & T h r i f t , 1980). T h i s i s an i n t e g r a t i o n of time and space and people, ( c f . HHgerstrand, 1971) i n p u r s u i t of the go a l of under-standing the regional patterns of human a c t i v i t y . This l i n k i n g of time and space and i n d i v i d u a l s i n human a f f a i r s i s c r u c i a l to s o c i e t a l s e l f - o r g a n i z a -29 tion. This approach i s i n strong contrast to the standard regional science (e.g., I s a r d , 1975) approaches such as l o c a t i o n a n a l y s i s ( p r i m a r i l y space alone), i n p u t - o u t p u t a n a l y s i s ( l o c a t i o n / r e s o u r c e s / p r o d u c t s alone) or economic base analysis (location-time). One c o n n e c t i o n t h a t has been r e c o g n i z e d by r e g i o n a l s c i e n c e i s t h a t between ecology and economics or, better, between society and environment. Although the c l a s s i c approach to t h i s connection (Isard et al . , 1972) i s the r e s u l t of a p u r e l y l i n e a r , economic s c i e n c e approach (i.e., i n p u t / o u t p u t analysis extended to include e c o l o g i c a l resources) others have taken a more general view of the matter. Seddon (1984) went further i n recognizing the importance of c u l t u r a l and e c o l o g i c a l properties of the environment i n h i s comparisons of primary human ecosystems (hunter-gather, p r e - i n d u s t r i a l a g r i c u l t u r e , i n d u s t r i a l a g r i c u l t u r e , p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l agriculture) concentra-t i n g on properties such as impact, change, d i v e r s i t y , v a r i a t i o n , landscape, productivity, energy input, and s t a b i l i t y . A s i m i l a r emphasis may be seen i n S t a t i s t i c s Canada's framework f o r an e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t a t i s t i c a l system (Rapport & Friend, 1979): concern with a c t i v i t i e s — e s p e c i a l l y production and consumption, restructuring, resources, stresses, and responses. Others have i d e n t i f i e d the importance of the r e s o u r c e concept i n an a p p l i e d , or s o c i e t a l , ecology (Norton & Walker, 1982). More recently, the concept of a resource as c e n t r a l to plant and animal populations and communities has been given a t h e o r e t i c a l foundation: A r e s o u r c e i s an e n v i r o n m e n t a l f a c t o r t h a t i s d i r e c t l y used by an organism and t h a t may p o t e n t i a l l y i n f l u e n c e i n d i v i d u a l f i t n e s s . Resources . . . e x i s t i n the environment i n a p a r t i c u l a r abundance and d i s t r i b u t i o n a l configuration. (Wiens, 1984) 30 I n t e r e s t i n g l y , Wicken (1984) makes the o p p o s i t e argument by u s i n g a s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g ( a u t o c a t a l y t i c ) view of organismal evolution to emphasize the c r e a t i v e a s p e c t s of e v o l u t i o n and l i b e r a t e the e v o l u t i o n a r y paradigm from the need f o r competition f o r scarce resources. Resources are necessary inputs to both human and animal/plant communities and the resultant i n t e r a c -t i o n has probably been c h r o n i c l e d best i n Cronon's (1983) study of the co l o n i z a t i o n and development of New England. He describes h i s goal as that of l o c a t i n g "a nature which i s within rather than without histor y " (p. 15). The c r u c i a l components of t h i s 'nature history' which he i d e n t i f i e s are the i n t e r n a l and external dynamics of the e c o l o g i c a l environment, and society's economic r e l a t i o n to the land (i.e., perception of commodities, commitment of ecosystems t o the marketplace, l a n d tenure , and la n d use). Cronon's prime achievement i s the e x p l i c i t d e l i n e a t i o n of the i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n s between the economic aspects of a society and the evolution of i t s e c o l o g i -c a l environment over time. Human ecology provides a further perspective on s o c i e t a l structures and processes. I t has o r i g i n s i n the study of c i t i e s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y , of urban growth. I t was o r i g i n a l l y concerned w i t h the ecology, the s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and the s o c i a l psychology of urban l i f e , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h r e s p e c t to the i n t e r a c t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l and the o r g a n i z a t i o n or i n s t i t u t i o n (Wirth, 1938) — e s s e n t i a l l y a geographical human ecology that c u l m i n a t e d i n Hawley's (1950) tome t i t l e d "Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Structure." Human ecology has d i v e r s i f i e d since i t s beginnings — the organizational human eco l o g i s t s have come to the point where they study " p o p u l a t i o n s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s " and i n t e r n a l (e.g., c a p i t a l investment, 31 information constraints, p o l i t i c a l , and h i s t o r i c a l constraints) and external ( b a r r i e r s to change of o r g a n i z a t i o n a c t i v i t y , legitimacy constraints, and constraints of c o l l e c t i v e r a t i o n a l i t y ) p r e s s u r e s t h a t shape o r g a n i z a t i o n s and the i n d i v i d u a l s i n them (Duncan & Schnore, 1959; Hannan & Freeman, 1977; McKelvey, 1982) — e s s e n t i a l l y a s o c i o l o g i c a l human ecology. Another group has concerned i t s e l f w i t h the r e c i p r o c a l e f f e c t s of man on the n a t u r a l environment and of the modified environment on man i n large c i t i e s — high population d e n s i t i e s together with c l i m a t i c and atmospheric changes lead to "enduring e f f e c t s upon human f e e l i n g ' (Fellenberg, 1984, p. 393) and thus on human s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s such as f a m i l y s i z e . The p a t t e r n s and problems created by the i n t e r a c t i o n between man and h i s biophysical environment i s t r e a t e d by Dasmann (1984). Some go even f u r t h e r and make of ecology a science of design f o r human l i f e s t y l e s (Todd & Todd, 1984). A s i m i l a r view of human ecology i s to be found i n Ge i s t ' s (1978) normative e n v i r o n m e n t a l c r i t e r i a (based p r i m a r i l y on e v o l u t i o n a r y and ec o l o g i c a l biology, anthropology, and the health sciences): s o c i a l milieu, n u t r i t i o n , physical exercise, i n t e l l e c t u a l exercise, education, keeping out of d o o r s i n n a t u r a l s u r r o u n d i n g s , and c o n t r o l of the environment. Ultimately, he argues that q u a l i t y of l i f e must measure not "user s a t i s f a c -t i o n but p h y s i c a l , b e h a v i o u r a l and s o c i a l i n d i c a t o r s " (p. 423). Rather s i m i l a r ideas are i m p l i c i t i n Paolo Soleri's (1969) conception of " c i t i e s i n the image of man" — " a r c h i t e c t u r e . . . as the p h y s i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of a m u l t i l e v e l , human ecology" (p. 31) — that i s , housing that i s b i o l o g i c a l l y and e c o l o g i c a l l y suited and designed f o r human. 32 Nothwithstanding the unquestionable achievement of human ecology i n t u r n i n g a t t e n t i o n to the ecology of humans, one must be c a r e f u l of the unquestioning a p p l i c a t i o n of e c o l o g i c a l concepts such as carrying capacity, ecosystem s u c c e s s i o n , and s t a b i l i t y to a n a l y s e s of human s o c i e t y (e.g., Odum, 1969), because w h i l e "ecology can i d e n t i f y s i g n i f i c a n t problems b e a r i n g on the b i o l o g i c a l s u r v i v a l of mankind, . . . i t cannot p r o v i d e the [ d i s c i p l i n a r y ] s o c i o l o g i c a l reasons f o r t h e i r e x i s t e n c e " (Cajka, 1980, p. 133). At the same time, Hawley (1973) d e s c r i b e s human ecology as a synthetic s o c i a l science which, while s t a r t i n g with e c o l o g i c a l s i m i l a r i t i e s (between i n d i v i d u a l s , groups, organizations) cannot help converging on, and even becoming synonymous with, s o c i a l s c i e n c e . What i s needed more i s a melding or convergence of the ideas of bio-ecology and human ecology. Another s t r a n d i n our web i s the i d e a of a " s o c i a l ecology" as s o c i a l l e a r n i n g t h a t o c c u r s at both the l e v e l of the i n d i v i d u a l and the l e v e l of the group. Such a conception implies c r u c i a l r o l e s i n society f o r organiza-t i o n , h i s t o r y , a c t i o n , i n f o r m a t i o n , and i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research (Dunn, 1971). T h i s i s a dynamic, e v o l u t i o n a r y , model of s o c i e t a l change t h a t i s r e a d i l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n terms of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory and suggests further that we turn to sociology to inform our perspective on the structure and processes of society. C a r n e i r o ' s (1970) theory of the o r i g i n of the s t a t e i n the f a c t o r s of resource concentration and s o c i a l c i r c u m s p e c t i o n which " i n t e n s i f y war and ( r e d i r e c t ) i t toward the t a k i n g of l a n d " (p. 737) and Flannery's (1972) s i m i l a r theory of the e v o l u t i o n of c i v i l i z a t i o n which bears s t r i k i n g p a r a l l e l s with ideas from s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory are c l a s s i c examples of 33 theories of the evolution of s o c i e t a l structure as a r e s u l t of the i n t e r a c -t i o n of e c o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l f a c t o r s . (For example, "Enough c e n t r a l i z a t i o n promotion and l i n e a r i z a t i o n may move the state toward hyper-coherence and i n s t a b i l i t y . . . hypercoherence can l e a d to c o l l a p s e and devolution" [p. 423]). Carneiro (1982) has given s e v e r a l examples ranging from the food supply of a N e o l i t h i c v i l l a g e to the c r a s h of 1929 of l a r g e perturbations i n a society that resulted i n a r e e q u i l i b r a t i o n ; a change i n the q u a l i t a t i v e structure of the society. That the evolution of s o c i e t i e s possesses a structure i s i m p l i c i t i n Braudel's notion of the longue duree; that such structure e x i s t s has been abundantly i l l u s t r a t e d by Braudel's h i s t o r i e s of the Mediterranean. S t r u c t u r a l sociology sees the explanation of t h i s structure or pattern as a p a r t i c u l a r conception of c a u s a l i t y as manifold, sequential, and cumulative (Abrams, 1982). A d d i t i o n a l l y , s t r u c t u r a l i s m i d e n t i f i e s the importance of d i f f e r e n c e s of time, of the d i s t i n c t i o n between s t r u c t u r e and system i n s t u d y i n g the s o c i a l t o t a l i t y and of t r a n s c e n d i n g s i m p l e s u b j e c t / o b j e c t d u a l i s m (Giddens, 1979). A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n i t s emphasis on time and space differences s t r u c t u r a l sociology has important t i e s to chronogeography. In p a r t i c u l a r i t emphasizes s o c i a l change as uneven development within s o c i a l systems, or as c r i t i c a l phases of major i n s t i t u t i o n a l , s o c i e t a l change, and a ' l e a p f r o g ' i d e a of change (Giddens, 1979). S t r u c t u r a l s o c i o l o g y c l e a r l y presents a view of s o c i e t a l change that r e i n f o r c e s our f a i t h i n the a p p l i c a -b i l i t y of self-organization. S t r u c t u r a l sociology, too, recognizes aspects of s o c i e t i e s t h a t w i l l be i m p o r t a n t to a view of s o c i e t y as a s e l f -34 organizing system. We have so f a r been mainly concerned with the society l e v e l , l e t us now turn more e x p l i c i t l y to communities — s o c i e t a l subsets — the theory of whose s o c i a l and economic development may be seen as r e f l e c t i n g many of the themes of the f i r s t part of t h i s chapter i n the r e l a t i v e l y simple, concrete context of the i n d i v i d u a l and the community and i t s r e l a t i v e l y r e s t r i c t e d spatio-temporal context. What i s a community? For our purposes we can c o n s i d e r i t "a s e t of i n s t i t u t i o n s comprising a t o t a l way of l i f e " (Martindale, 1964, p. 71). The community a r i s e s i n order to s o l v e problems of m a s t e r i n g the n a t u r a l environment, the need f o r s o c i a l i z a t i o n , and the need f o r s o c i a l c o n t r o l . I t a c h i e v e s these g o a l s through s t a b i l i z a t i o n , consistency and closure of i n s t i t u t i o n s (Martindale, 1964). This d e f i n i t i o n i s of course f u n c t i o n a l i s t giving r i s e l a t e r to the concept of the "competent" or successful community which was seen as e n t a i l i n g commitment, self- o t h e r awareness, a r t i c u l a t e -ness, communications, c o n f l i c t c o n t r o l , p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and mechanisms to manage i n t r a - and inter-community i n t e r a c t i o n s ( C o t t r e l l , 1976). These concepts were f u r t h e r developed i n t o those of s o c i a l v i t a l i t y , economic v i a b i l i t y , and p o l i t i c a l e f f i c a c y ( B l i s h e n et a l . , 1979) w i t h the s t i l l l a t e r addition of the idea of formal and informal sectors of each of these dimensions of community and the idea of i n t e g r a t i o n of a l l dimensions at the l e v e l of both the i n d i v i d u a l and the community (Mathews, 1983). Given t h e o r e t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s of community competence, one i s i n e v i t a -b l y concerned w i t h i t s assessment i n r e a l l i f e . B l i s h e n et a l . (1979) present a l i s t of i n d i c a t o r s for each of the three dimensions. For economic 35 t i o n , and s i z e ; f o r s o c i a l v i t a l i t y — h e a l t h , support programs, s o c i a l p a t h o l o g i e s , communication, education, and l e i s u r e ; and f o r p o l i t i c a l e f f i c a c y — p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , v o l u n t a r y p o l i t i c a l organizations. Heesch (1979) noted s i m i l a r requirements under the heading of "community f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s " as w e l l as o b s e r v i n g the need f o r attention to formal and informal sectors. Others have distinguished areas of concern f o r m o n i t o r i n g , e.g., f a c t o r s of p r o d u c t i o n , i n t e r m e d i a t e products (e.g., s o c i a l s e r v i c e s ) , o b j e c t i v e and subjective welfare i n d i c a -tors (House, 1981) and economic/demographic disaggregators f or each area of concern (OECD, 1982). The strong i n t e r a c t i o n s between economic and s o c i a l a s p e c t s of a community have been made c l e a r by v a r i o u s s c h o l a r s i n s o c i o -economic impact assessment (Davis & Webster, 1981; L e i s t r i t z & Chase, 1982). A more g e n e r a l approach i s to c o n s i d e r the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s o c i e t i e s i n terms of c o m p a t i b i l i t y between components and c o m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h the external environment (Hawrylyshyn, 1980). Community e v o l u t i o n i s not the same as community development — development presupposes to most of us the choice of a better d i r e c t i o n , an improvement as a r e s u l t of development i n the q u a l i t y of l i f e of the community's inhabitants. Evolution of a community may, or may not, include "development" of the community. Nonetheless, insofar as most communities wish some form of development, and i t i s i n the context of development that most community s t u d i e s are undertaken, we s h a l l examinine some of the relevant community development l i t e r a t u r e . The term economic development has i t s o r i g i n s i n Marx's work (Arndt, 36 1981) and was i n t r o d u c e d to orthodox economists p r i m a r i l y by Schumpeter (1961/26). For much of t h i s century, economic development has been synony-mous with growth of labour force and production — GNP i n other words (e.g., Solow, 1956; H a l l , 1983). In the l a s t few decades t h e r e has been a movement to separate the ideas of economic growth (purely quantitative) and economic development ( q u a l i t a t i v e as w e l l as quantitative) and to put the need f o r economic development i n a g l o b a l , p o l i t i c a l , and e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n t e x t (Dadzie, 1980). At the same time as t h e r e was a c a l l f o r a "new i n t e r n a t i o n a l economic order" i n the context of economic development, there has been a c t i v i t y at the o p p o s i t e pole — economic development at a community l e v e l , whether i n an orthodox, cen t r a l i z e d , corporate form (e.g., Brodhead et a l . , 1981) or a more d e c e n t r a l i z e d , l o c a l , unorthodox form (e.g., Nugent & Yotopoulos, 1979). Economic growth i n a r e g i o n i m p l i e s growth i n p r o d u c t i o n , growth i n flows into and out of the region. Economic growth, per se, im p l i e s nothing about the magnitude of the tangible or intangible benefits which may or may not accrue to the m a j o r i t y of the region's i n h a b i t a n t s as a r e s u l t of growth. Economic development, however, implies tangible benefits f or the i n h a b i t a n t s of the r e g i o n i n which i t occurs, e.g. i n c r e a s e d employment, m u l t i p l i e r e f f e c t s , a wider tax base f o r r e g i o n a l government. Community development implies, i n addition, more in t a n g i b l e s o c i a l benefits such as development of community i d e n t i t y , s o c i a l services or r e c r e a t i o n a l opportu-n i t i e s . Development i n t h i s sense means "the transformation upward of the en t i r e s o c i a l system" (Myrdal, 1975). Development i s a complex process requiring basic s t r u c t u r a l changes i n 37 the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s o c i e t a l goods. T h i s n o t i o n reaches an extreme i n b i o r e g i o n a l theory i n which the s o c i a l , e c o l o g i c a l , and s p i r i t u a l are conjoined to produce a new form of economic development (Dodge, 1981; Sale, 1985). Development i n v o l v e s s o c i a l and economic, s p a t i a l and temporal, l o c a l and national actions; as w e l l as techniques f o r popular p a r t i c i p a t i o n ( f o r development as a s o c i o l o g i c a l process, see Western, 1977). I t i s a c o n t i n u i n g p r o c e s s aimed at meeting development needs (Durston, 1972). Self-organization has been r e f l e c t e d i n both the theory and pra c t i c e of community development — e p i t o m i z e d by Perroux's (1983) d e f i n i t i o n of community development as evolutionary, active, c o n s i s t i n g of linked growth of sectors i n i r r e v e r s i b l e time, together with resultant s t r u c t u r a l changes or s h i f t s ; or by Jane Jacobs' view of economic development as "improvisa-t i o n , " as import replacement by c i t y economies " t h a t sparks oth e r c i t i e s " and then t r a d i n g networks, which a l l have a c a t a l y t i c e f f e c t i n i n d u c i n g further development further a f i e l d . I t i s more d i f f i c u l t to define i n d i c a t o r s of development than to choose i n d i c a t o r s of community competence. T h i s has been r e c o g n i z e d f o r almost t h i r t y years ( P e r l o f f , 1956) and stems from the need to c o n s i d e r not only the present state of things (much the same as f o r community competence) but also the p o t e n t i a l i t i e s f o r development i n the future. If development has i t s o r i g i n s i n economics and the ideology of growth, economists have also been the source of some of the more innovative notions concerning economic development: Georgescu-Roegen's (1971) l i n k i n g of the concepts of entropy and economy led to one of the f i r s t formal suggestions 38 of some " l i m i t s to growth"; then Daly's (1973, 1977) s u g g e s t i o n of the steady-state, sustainable, l a r g e l y closed ( i n terms of resources) economy as a necessary goal of society. The authors and d i s c i p l i n e s c i t e d above a l l contribute to the postula-t i o n of s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g processes i n human systems i n general and communi-t i e s i n p a r t i c u l a r . From anthropology, we have the r e c o g n i t i o n of human systems as open, never i n a state of equilibrium, as i n v o l v i n g e c o l o g i c a l , economic and s o c i a l components, and including cycles of " c r i s e s , breakdowns, and r e o r g a n i z a t i o n " . The Annales h i s t o r i a n s c o n t r i b u t e r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t there i s both a (microscopic) h i s t o r y of events and a (macroscopic) h i s t o r y of system structures. From geography and ecology we have the importance of ( e c o l o g i c a l ) r e s o u r c e s and p o p u l a t i o n p a t t e r n s i n c r e a t i n g p a t t e r n s of a c t i v i t i e s and behaviour i n time and space; Cronon, e s p e c i a l l y , l i n k s the economic and e c o l o g i c a l components of the human system. Human ecology takes us further, extending e c o l o g i c a l methods to the s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of human systems on the one hand, while elaborating the impacts of the e c o l o g i -c a l environment on the s o c i a l component of human l i f e on the other. The s o c i o l o g i c a l views presented return to the dynamic, evolutionary nature of human systems and the existence of catastrophes, d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s , and r e - e q u i l i b r a t i o n s i n human s o c i e t i e s throughout h i s t o r y . From the expe r i e n c e of community development we l e a r n of the s y n t h e s i s of s o c i a l v i t a l i t y , economic v i a b i l i t y , and p o l i t i c a l e f f i c a c y i n t o community, and t h e i r i n d i c a t o r s . Economics and economic development further elaborate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the e c o l o g i c a l , economic and s o c i a l a s p e c t s of development and, e s p e c i a l l y , the need to consider these aspects as defining 39 a system. T h i s chapter has aimed to develop our understanding of the s e l f -o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a s p e c t s of, and the i n t e r c o n n e c t e d n e s s of, the s o c i a l , e c o l o g i c a l , and economic components of human systems. The next chapter w i l l use t h i s understanding to develop a conceptual model of the evolution of one p a r t i c u l a r type of human system — the community. I t i s not a working model t h a t "runs"; i t i s a c o n c e p t u a l , w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n of a s t r u c t u r e and process that s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n could follow i n a community. I t i s intended as an a i d to c o g n i t i v e understanding of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i n community systems. 40 CHAPTER 4 - A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF COMMUNITY EVOLUTION "Seek s i m p l i c i t y , but d i s t r u s t i t . " - A l f r e d North Whitehead In previous chapters, we have examined P r i g o g i n i a n s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory and a vari e t y of d i s c i p l i n a r y views of human systems which support the view that s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n occurs i n human systems. The goal, here, i s to present a c o n c e p t u a l model or s c e n a r i o of community e v o l u t i o n t h a t e x p l i c i t l y i n c l u d e s s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n processes. I t i s not c l a i m e d t h a t s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i n any p a r t i c u l a r community or human system proceeds i n the manner here d e s c r i b e d . Rather, the model i s i n t e n d e d as an h e u r i s t i c device to aid our understanding of se l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i n human systems. It i s postulated that the human system the earth has become possesses t h r e e main subsystems — the e c o l o g i c a l , the economic, and the s o c i a l subsystems. D i s t i n c t s o c i e t i e s (e.g., the North American) form other, horizontal, subsystems. A community, i n turn, i s a subsystem of a society. A community i s d e f i n e d i n a r e l a t i v e l y l o c a l i z e d p l a c e and e v o l v e s i r r e v e r s i b l y — t h a t i s , h i s t o r y does not repeat i t s e l f , t h e r e i s no i n e v i t a b l e end s t a t e . There i s a boundary t h a t s e p a r a t e s i t from i t s environment. The forces that shape the community derive from properties of i t s e c o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l components. At the l e v e l of a community we speak of components r a t h e r than subsystems because at t h i s l e v e l one i s not d e a l i n g w i t h e n t i r e subsystems but on l y p a r t s of the eco l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l subsystems of the human system. This i s the core of our model, and formalizes ideas expressed by Martindale (1964), 41 Matthews (1983), Blishen et a l . (1979), and Perroux (1983). The model consists of eight s t r u c t u r a l variables which represent the ec o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l components of community structure, and four process variables which attempt to characterize the state of the process of community evolution. Each of these variables i n e v i t a b l y subsumes within i t many s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a c t u a l c o m m u n i t i e s ; t h e y a r e i d e a l i z a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the many elements t h a t make up each component. T h e r e f o r e , I a l s o speak of i n d i c a t o r s and g i v e a few examples for each variable, which are actual, observable community c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s subsumed by the variable. There i s no purely objective way to choose eight v a r i a b l e s by which to represent community structure. I have made my choice on the basis of what I p e r c e i v e d to be the common themes among the authors c i t e d i n the l a s t c h a pter ( e s p e c i a l l y B l i s h e n , et a l . , 1979; C o t t r e l l , 1976; Cronon, 1983; G e i s t , 1978; Hannan & Freeman, 1977; M a r t i n d a l e , 1964; Matthews, 1983; Rapport & F r i e n d , 1979; Wiens, 1984) as w e l l as on the b a s i s of a need to i n c l u d e i n the model both macroscopic and m i c r o s c o p i c , e x t e n s i v e and i n t e n s i v e v a r i a b l e s . T h i s because the go a l of the model i s not to r e d u c t i o n i s t i c a l l y describe a community but to construct a dynamic, s e l f -organizing model. Eight s t r u c t u r a l variables, explained further below and i n F i g u r e 4> were chosen: landscape ( I s ) , l a n d tenure ( I t ) , l a n d use ( l u ) , r e s o u r c e s ( r e ) , p r o d u c t i o n ( p r ) , consumption (co), h i s t o r i c a l i n p u t s ( h i ) , and s o c i a l i n p u t s ( s i ) . The v a r i a b l e names do subsume much. Rather than c o i n a neologism, common terms have been chosen and s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n s given below and i n the Glossary (Appendix I ) . 42 Landscape i s an h o l i s t i c v a r i a b l e that represents the o v e r a l l i n t e g r i t y of the community's e c o l o g i c a l component as i n d i c a t e d by, f o r example, e c o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y and c o m p l e x i t y , n a t u r a l n e s s , or r e s i l i e n c e . Land tenure corresponds to the system of determining land ownership and use with in d i c a t o r s such as the h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l at which the system operates and the r e l a t i v e r o l e of governments, organizations, or i n d i v i d u a l s . Land use i s the s i t e - s p e c i f i c use of l a n d and i t s r e s o u r c e s ; i n d i c a t o r s i n c l u d i n g the i n t e n s i t y of bu i l d i n g or grazing on the s i t e , the number of wells, the amount of r e s o u r c e s e x t r a c t e d from the s i t e . Resources r e f e r s to the q u a n t i t y of r e s o u r c e s on a s i t e and t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h i n i t , as indicated by, f o r example, the absolute amount of the resource, i t s quality, and the ease of extracting i t . Consumption r e f e r s to the u s i n g up of renewable and non-renewable r e s o u r c e s ; w i t h s i m p l e i n d i c a t o r s such as the q u a n t i t y used (degraded). Production r e f e r s to the r e s u l t s of resource extraction and processing and the economist's consumption — g e n e r a t i o n of u s e f u l products f o r l a t e r consumption and non-useful wastes; i n d i c a t o r s such as the amount and types of products, the r e l a t i o n between useful and waste products. S o c i a l inputs are the e f f e c t s of the community s o c i a l structure on the s o c i a l , e c o l o g i c a l , and economic components of the community, indicated by, for example, number of c o n f l i c t s w i t h i n the community, the number and s t a b i l i t y of s o c i a l groupings, the s t a b i l i t y and c o h e s i v e n e s s of community membership. And f i n a l l y , h i s t o r i c a l inputs are the impacts of past s o c i a l structure i n the form of myth, r i t u a l , and t r a d i t i o n , w i t h i n d i c a t o r s i n c l u d i n g the 43 importance of myth and h i s t o r y i n community l i f e , the r e l a t i v e s t r i c t n e s s of t r a d i t i o n , and s o c i a l rules. Landscape and r e s o u r c e s r e p r e s e n t the e c o l o g i c a l component of the community; consumption, p r o d u c t i o n and l a n d use the economic, and land tenure, s o c i a l i n p u t s and h i s t o r i c a l i n p u t s the s o c i a l components of a community. The extensive v a r i a b l e s are emergent properties of the whole system, do not take on s p e c i f i c v a l u e s at each p o i n t i n the system; the i n t e n s i v e variables are s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the system i t s e l f , are defined at each point i n the system. The macroscopic v a r i a b l e s serve to characterize the s t a t e of the e n t i r e system; the m i c r o s c o p i c v a r i a b l e s are meant to represent the i n t e r n a l structures that determine change i n the macroscopic variables. Extensive/intensive r e f e r s to the way i n which the variables may be defined; macroscopic/microscopic r e f e r s to the scale at which they are s i g n i f i c a n t . M i c r o s c o p i c v a r i a b l e s are an i n t e r m e d i a t e step between macroscopic determinism and random "emergent" properties (Klee, 1984). Land tenure and landscape are macroscopic because they r e f e r to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the system that are manifested at the l e v e l of the entire system; s i m i l a r l y r e s o u r c e s and l a n d use are used to d e s c r i b e the e n t i r e system. The l a t t e r are i n t e n s i v e , however, as they are d e f i n e d a t each point i n the system, while the former are not. H i s t o r i c a l inputs and s o c i a l i n p u t s are e x t e n s i v e , not r e a d i l y d e f i n a b l e at each p o i n t i n the system, w h i l e consumption and p r o d u c t i o n , i n t e n s i v e v a r i a b l e s , are so d e f i n a b l e . These four v a r i a b l e s are microscopic because 1) they are representative of the i n t e r n a l structure of the system rather than i t s external, macroscopic 44 form, and 2) they are major determinants of large-scale c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as l a n d tenure, landscape, r e s o u r c e s , and l a n d use. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 4 has been u s e f u l to the author i n choosing and defining the variables. I t i s represented, i m p l i c i t l y , i n the model i t s e l f by the placing and r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the variables. The eight s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s trace t h e i r o r i g i n s to the main themes present i n the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i s c i p l i n e s from ecology to planning to hi s t o r y anthropology. The four process variables, to which we now turn, have t h e i r o r i g i n s i n the main themes of the t h e o r i s t s presented i n the l a s t chapter. These v a r i a b l e s serve to r e l a t e (as w i l l be shown below) the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s and to r e p r e s e n t some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i m p o r t a n t i n a s e l f -o r g a n i z i n g c o n c e p t i o n of communities. The d e c i s i o n on how the v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e i s the author's, based on h i s knowledge of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory, the materials presented i n the l a s t chapter, and more conventional sources such as mainstream economics and p o l i t i c a l science. From Rappaport to Giddens to Jacobs, we have read of the importance of e v o l u t i o n , a d a p t a t i o n , and change i n c u l t u r e s and s o c i e t i e s . Others have reported on the s h i f t away from the dominance of the concept of equilibrium (K. Jacobs, 1984) of which Lorenz' (1963) paper on the r o l e of i n s t a b i l i t y and n o n - e q u i l i b r i u m i n m e t e o r o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s was one of the e a r l i e s t examples i n the n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s . Moreover, J. Jacobs (1984) suggested society may fear c u l t u r a l or economic stagnation as a r e s u l t of s t r u c t u r a l i n f l e x i b i l i t y . T h i s view of s o c i a l e v o l u t i o n i s the b a s i s of the four process variables postulated here. EXTENSIVE VARIABLES INTENSIVE VARIABLES MACROSCOPIC - land tenure ( I t ) - resources (re) the system of determining land ownership and land. - landscape (Is) ecosystem i n t e g r i t y : e c o l o g i c a l dynamics, d i v e r s i t y , naturalness, connectedness, r e s i l i e n c e . abundance and d i s -t r i b u t i o n . - land use ( l u ) use of land and i t s resources on a s i t e -s p e c i f i c basis. MICROSCOPIC - h i s t o r i c a l inputs consumption (co) the legacy of past s o c i a l structure: information and r i t u a l , r a t i o n a l i t y , l e g i t i m a t i o n , t r a d i t i o n . - s o c i a l inputs ( s i ) use and harvest of renewable and non-renewable resources. - production (pr) s o c i a l structure: s o c i a l m ilieu, s o c i a l i z a t i o n , s t a b i l i z a t i o n , c o n s i s t -ency, closure, c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . generation of useful products and non-useful wastes and energy on a s i t e -s p e c i f i c basis. Figure 4 - The Conceptual Model's S t r u c t u r a l Variables: Indicators and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 46 F i r s t "mass," m, a measure of community s t r u c t u r a l i n e r t i a or s t a g n a t i o n , d e f i n e d as s t r u c t u r a l r i g i d i t y p l u s s o c i a l c o n f o r m i t y . In a community mass or i n e r t i a measures the resistance of community i n s t i t u t i o n s , administrative structures, and citi z e n ' s groups to change. This w i l l be a function not only of organizational structure but also of the a t t i t u d e s of those within them. I t w i l l be a r e l a t i v e measure and best evaluated v i a an h i s t o r i c a l study of s t r u c t u r a l change i n the community. In a given community one might look at the rate of acceptance and date of introduction of such i n n o v a t i o n s as e l e c t r i c i t y , telephone, the automobile, r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n ; or at the e x i s t e n c e and/or change i n time of the community's governing bodies; or at the d i v e r s i t y and modernity of the forms of entertainment e x i s t i n g and popular i n the community. "Energy," E, r e p r e s e n t s a d a p t a b i l i t y and i n n o v a t i v e n e s s . I t can be d e f i n e d as t h e e x t e n t of l e a r n i n g ( n e g a t i v e feedback) r e l a t i v e to o p p o r t u n i t y , p l u s the r a t e of i n n o v a t i o n r e l a t i v e to other s i m i l a r communities. The energy or a d a p t a b i l i t y of a community i s the opposite of mass. I t measures the community's a b i l i t y to generate i n n o v a t i o n and to learn from and a n t i c i p a t e change. This w i l l be a function of the education and e x p e r i e n c e of community members and more p a r t i c u l a r l y of t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to accept new i d e a s and experiment w i t h d i f f e r e n t ways of o r g a n i z i n g t h e i r community and u s i n g i t s r e s o u r c e s . E i s a b i l i t y to respond, m i s r e s i s t a n c e to change. The r e l a t i o n between E and m i s u n l i k e l y to be constant, although probably b a s i c a l l y inverse, as change w i l l be discontinuous due to p a r t i c u l a r stresses and responses. 47 For example, a small r u r a l community that f i n d s i t s e l f being drawn into an urban a g g l o m e r a t i o n w i l l u s u a l l y i n i t i a l l y r e s i s t the changes t h i s implies (high m). In time, as pressures f o r a s s i m i l a t i o n increase, so too w i l l energy i n the form of proposals f o r a s s i m i l a t i o n , u n t i l a b i f u r c a t i o n occurs with the i n e v i t a b l e a s s i m i l a t i o n being accepted. At t h i s point, mass i s i n c r e a s e d c o n s i d e r a b l y and energy decreased as the s t r i c t u r e s of m e t r o p o l i t a n l i v i n g a re accepted and many a l t e r n a t i v e s to u r b a n i z e f o r e c l o s e d . Once the community i s f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the c i t y , energy may be increased and mass decreased. Between b i f u r c a t i o n s , mass, and energy may move together; over the long-term, i n c l u d i n g b i f u r c a t i o n s , they w i l l not. These two v a r i a b l e s are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to a t h i r d , t e n s i o n , T, (somewhat akin to "temperature" i n a physical system). Tension represents "goodness of f i t " ; i t i s a present-oriented s t r u c t u r a l concept, defined as the appropriateness of community s t r u c t u r e to g i v e n e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t s ( p r e s s u r e s ) . The worse the goodness of f i t , the h i g h e r the t e n s i o n . Community tension r e f l e c t s i n c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s between the community and i t s environment (i.e., other communities and the broader s o c i e t y ) t h a t are r e f l e c t e d i n t e r n a l l y as a f u n c t i o n of community d i s o r d e r or entropy. T e n s i o n may be assessed by an a n a l y s i s of the d i f f e r e n c e s between the community and i t s environment i n terms of the s t r u c t u r a l variables land use, lan d tenure, p r o d u c t i o n , consumption, and s o c i a l i n p u t s (by, f o r example, the i n d i c a t o r s of these v a r i a b l e s l i s t e d above); together with, of course, an assessment of entropy as d e s c r i b e d i n the next paragraph. Q u a l i t a t i v e and quantitative differences i n these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s u f f i c i e n t degree 48 and c e r t a i n type (i.e., incompatible differences) w i l l r e s u l t i n tension. As an i l l u s t r a t i o n consider a community with a low i n t e n s i t y of land use, e q u i t a b l e l a n d tenure system, low and balanced consumption and p r o d u c t i o n , and s t a b l e and a d a p t i v e s o c i a l i n p u t s , and r e s u l t i n g low entropy. T e n s i o n c o u l d be expected to r e s u l t i f t h i s s e l f - c o n t a i n e d community were to f i n d i t s e l f surrounded by a l a r g e r s o c i e t y , or i n the "shadow" of a major urban a g g l o m e r a t i o n w i t h a h i g h l a n d use i n t e n s i t y , c e n t r a l i z e d and i n e q u i t a b l e l a n d tenure system, h i g h and unbalanced consumption and production, and r e s u l t i n g high entropy. And f i n a l l y , we must c o n s i d e r community entropy, S, a measure of disorder. I t can be considered a r e s u l t of the i n e f f i c i e n t or i n e f f e c t i v e use of the system's resources, and defined as deviation from that "ordered" s t r u c t u r a l s t a t e necessary to meet the needs and g o a l s of the system or community. S o c i a l disorder or entropy i s a r e s u l t of i n e f f i c i e n c i e s i n the community such that inadequacies i n the use and d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources r e s u l t , which i n t u r n cause the needs of some members of the community to not be met. I n e f f i c i e n c y and inadequacy are simply defined r e l a t i v e to the needs and goals of the community. These i n d i v i d u a l i n e f f i c i e n c i e s lead to community-wide i n e f f i c i e n c i e s which are r e f l e c t e d i n the output and structure of the community as a whole — e.g., low production, innovation, and/or learning i n comparison to other communities. The i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r n a l i n e f f i c i e n c i e s w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n the incidence of s o c i a l pathologies, or the proportions of the populations e x i s t i n g below some poverty l i n e etc. For a l l of the proc e s s v a r i a b l e s the a c t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c or 49 phenomenon that i s assessed w i l l depend not only on the p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n but also on whether or not the s i t u a t i o n i s pre- or post-bifurcation, i.e., before or a f t e r a perceived d i s c o n t i n u i t y i n the community's evolution. For example, before the Stock Market crash of 1929 one might have measured T by the great demands placed on the f i s c a l structure of the economy by so many having great (paper) wealth; a f t e r the c r a s h t e n s i o n would b e t t e r be measured by the g r e a t demands p l a c e d on the system by so many w i t h no wealth, and a very few whose wealth survived. Tension and entropy are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the e v o l u t i o n a r y process, mass and energy are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the system that d i r e c t l y influence the process. Tension and entropy are l i k e l y to be d i r e c t l y proportional but not d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d , as were mass and energy i n v e r s e l y . "Tension" and "entropy" should tend to r e i n f o r c e each other, w i t h "energy" the main countervailing force (remember free energy = i n t e r n a l energy minus absolute temperature times entropy from Chapter 2). Tension i s defined by reference to the system and i t s environment, entropy i s purely i n t e r n a l to the system. S and E can a l s o be r e l a t e d through the n o t i o n of system e q u i l i b r i u m and nonequilibrium. Were the community system at e q u i l i b r i u m i t s structure would be s t a t i c , t h e r e would be n e i t h e r change, nor progress, nor development, and the change i n energy and entropy would both equal zero while mass might be high or low and tension low — s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n would not occur. A community system would be at equilibrium i f i t was not subject to tension as a r e s u l t of i n t e r n a l disorder generated by differences between i t and the community's environment. The community would be f u l l y integrated e c o n o m i c a l l y , s o c i a l l y , and e c o l o g i c a l l y w i t h i t s s o c i e t a l environment. 50 C l e a r l y , t h i s i s an exceedingly u n l i k e l y event. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , the system may be i n a n o n e q u i l i b r i u m s t a t e ( f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes the only p o s s i b i l i t y ) i n which the s t r u c t u r e i s dynamic, changing, " e v o l u t i o n " i s occurring, the changes i n entropy and energy are not equal (one i s greater than the other) and mass and tension (within s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n cycles) w i l l l i k e l y be decreased as a r e s u l t of the system's evolution. If the change i n entropy and energy were equal, but not equal to zero, then the system would be i n t e r n a l l y s t a b l e but moving towards a b i f u r c a t i o n as a whole. The system i s , by d e f i n i t i o n , far-from-equilibrium with i t s environment. S e l f -organization would not occur i n an equilibrium system. Assuming that each of the process variables could increase, decrease, or remain the same, there are 81 possible combinations. That i s too many to examine i n d i v i d u a l l y . We w i l l , however, use h y p o t h e t i c a l examples to i l l u s t r a t e three cases — those where change i s a r e s u l t , respectively, of high entropy, high tension, and high energy — to demonstrate r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the f a c t that i n any given case c e r t a i n variables may be important and others not. C o n s i d e r a community c h a r a c t e r i z e d by high entropy — poor s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , l a c k of c o h e s i v e n e s s , d i s s a t i s f i e d community members — perhaps a town where the economic base has been eroded or l o s t . I t w i l l l i k e l y have low energy as a r e s u l t of poor organization to take advantage of opportunities, and a l o s s of sources of new ideas or opportunities to other communities. Mass i n the community w i l l l i k e l y be low — everyone recognizing the need f o r change. Tension may or may not be high. I f i t i s 51 high, as a r e s u l t of obvious contrasts with the environment or perhaps other outside pressures (e.g., to close down the town), the community may " s e l f -o r g a n i z e " i t s way to lower entropy and h i g h e r energy. I f t e n s i o n i s low, the community may stay trapped i n disorder and decline. A community t y p i f i e d by h i g h t e n s i o n would be one, such as t h a t d i s c u s s e d above under the d e f i n i t i o n of energy, t h a t f i n d s i t s e l f i ncreasingly i n an urban shadow. Tension, energy, and mass are l i k e l y a l l to be high, while entropy i s low; the f i r s t two as a r e s u l t of the c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n , the t h i r d i s t y p i c a l of most r u r a l communities. Af t e r the s e l f -organization that changes the community from being r u r a l to suburban, i t s energy and tension w i l l decline as i t i s a s s i m i l a t e d i n t o the metropolitan r e g i o n and the c o n f l i c t and t e n s i o n s ease, i t s i n h a b i t a n t s homogenized; while mass and entropy w i l l probably increase. A h i g h energy community might be one such as S i l i c o n V a l l e y where change i s the order of the day, c r e a t i v i t y and i d e a s the d e f i n i t i o n of m e r i t . In t h i s example, community entropy ( i n c o n t r a s t to c o r p o r a t e entropy) would be high as a r e s u l t of the i n s t a b i l i t y of community composition. Mass would be low as the d i v e r s i t y of ideas negates any f i x i t y with which they are held. Tension i s high both because of the differences between t h i s community and those around i t and because of the i n h e r e n t i n s t a b i l i t y of the h i g h - t e c h i n d u s t r y and those i n i t (when compared to almost any other). Depending on the a b i l i t y of the outside world to support i t , t h i s community may p e r s i s t or i t may self-organize i n t o a more normal one of lower entropy, tension and energy, and high mass. T h r o u g h o u t t h e s e e x a m p l e s one s h o u l d b e a r i n mind t h a t t h e 52 (microscopic) patterns of change i n the v a r i a b l e s between b i f u r c a t i o n s i s not the same as the (macroscopic) p a t t e r n over s e v e r a l b i f u r c a t i o n s . The l a t t e r i s the major, s t r u c t u r a l e f f e c t of sel f - o r g a n i z a t i o n . For example, tension and entropy may we l l decrease immediately f o l l o w i n g a b i f u r c a t i o n , but over time and s e v e r a l b i f u r c a t i o n s , both are l i k e l y to i n c r e a s e . (See also p. 54 and R i f k i n , 1980, p. 241.) Next we s h a l l d e s c r i b e the model i n more d e t a i l — i n p a r t i c u l a r the i n t e r a c t i o n s between the v a r i a b l e s paying s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n to the occurrence of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g systems, i.e., openness, nonlinearity, f a r - f r o m - e q u i l i b r i u m , f l u c t u a t i o n s , and p e r i o d i c i n s t a b i l i t y . We w i l l begin, as s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n begins, w i t h the d i s t i n c t i o n between the system and i t s environment and the flows bet ween the two. These flows r e f l e c t the f a c t that the system i s open and f a r - f rom-equilibrium with i t s environment. In the community system these flows w i l l c o n s i s t of raw resources, produced goods and wastes, and information i n the form of ideas, knowledge, and people. Evolutionary biology has come to recognize that the units of evolution "both make and are made by t h e i r environment" (Lewontin, 1983). Communities e v o l v e s i m i l a r l y . These f l o w s w i l l have t h e i r main impacts i n the entropy, energy, and t e n s i o n v a r i a b l e s . Mass, being a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the system d e t e r m i n i n g the process, i s not a f f e c t e d d i r e c t l y by transboundary f l o w s . The present community s t r u c t u r e w i l l r e f l e c t h i s t o r i c a l i n p u t s and, e s p e c i a l l y , past i n t e r a c t i o n s between the community and i t s environment. Pressure f o r change w i l l be the r e s u l t of 53 demands f o r , f o r example, r e s o u r c e s , p r o d u c t i o n , changes i n s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , from the community's i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l environment. The community's a b i l i t y to respond w i l l f i r s t l y be the r e s u l t of i t s s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l i n p u t s which are s y n t h e s i z e d i n the p r o c e s s v a r i a b l e s energy (system a d a p t a b i l i t y and innovativeness) and mass (resistance to change). In some cases a b i l i t y to respond to stresses w i l l a lso be a function of the e c o l o g i c a l or economic components of the system — e.g., the a b i l i t y to change consumption or p r o d u c t i o n l e v e l s , l a n d tenure systems w i t h t h e i r concomitant impacts on land use and resources. This process of change, of adaptation to stress, w i l l i n e v i t a b l y involve feedback loops and nonlinear processes. We can i d e n t i f y two here: the f i r s t , between s o c i a l i n p u t s , land tenure, and consumption r e f l e c t s the tendency of the community's s o c i a l and economic s t r u c t u r e s to coevolve or r e i n f o r c e each other. The second, between consumption, production, resources, tension and mass, r e f l e c t s the mutual interdependence of the e c o l o g i c a l and economic components of the community and the ratchet e f f e c t of people's expectations f o r consumables. As the s t r e s s on a community i n c r e a s e s i t s s t r u c t u r a l r i g i d i t y and c o n f o r m i t y and i t s consumptions of r e s o u r c e s a l s o u s u a l l y i n c r e a s e ( c f . Tuchman's [1984] review). U l t i m a t e l y , the e f f e c t of the s t r e s s e s and system's responses w i l l be seen i n the v a r i a b l e s landscape and entropy — the community ecosystem's i n t e g r i t y and disorder. The entropy of the system w i l l i n c r e a s e , community s o c i a l and other s t r u c t u r e s w i l l l o s e t h e i r s t a b i l i t y . As t e n s i o n and entropy i n c r e a s e so too may the system energy ( e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e s e n s e of i n n o v a t i v e n e s s ) as community members (i n d i v i d u a l s and organizations) search f o r solutions. 54 C l e a r l y , few s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s , l e a s t of a l l human communities ( d i s r e g a r d i n g a few r e g u l a t e d , u s u a l l y r e l i g i o u s communities) are homogeneous. Disorder and tension, the search for solutions, encourage the appearance of i n f o r m a t i o n a l f l u c t u a t i o n s ; encourage the i n d i v i d u a l s and groups whose i d e a s , g o a l s , and/or a c t i o n s are, i f not i n o p p o s i t i o n to, at l e a s t a c o n t r a d i c t i o n of the e x i s t i n g community s t r u c t u r e , to make t h e i r i d e a s known. More i m p o r t a n t l y , i t r e s u l t s i n the other members of the community g i v i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n to t h e i r ideas. T h i s i s the source of f l u c t u a t i o n s of p o t e n t i a l forces f o r re-organization that s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n can s e i z e upon. The frequency of f l u c t u a t i o n s can be expected to vary i n response to the community's energy, tension, and entropy, increasing as a l l t h r e e increase. When the t e n s i o n and entropy of the system pass a c e r t a i n p o i n t , the community s t r u c t u r e w i l l become h i g h l y u n s t a b l e and the p r o b a b i l i t y of a b i f u r c a t i o n i n the system's s t r u c t u r a l h i s t o r y w i l l be high. A b i f u r c a t i o n w i l l occur as a r e s u l t of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n when one of the f l u c t u a t i o n s , a l t e r n a t i v e solutions to the impending c r i s i s , i s widely recognized as the solution. In s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory one speaks of the a m p l i f i c a t i o n of a f l u c t u a t i o n to create long-range, macroscopic order; i n the human community i t i s communication, both i n d i v i d u a l and v i a the mass media, t h a t w i l l r e s u l t i n t h i s c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n of o p i n i o n and new order. J u s t which f l u c t u a t i o n ( a l t e r n a t i v e ) w i l l be a m p l i f i e d i s a random event but the e x i s t i n g h i s t o r i c a l and s o c i a l inputs, environment, and system of production and consumption could be expected to influence the outcome. The r e s u l t w i l l 55 be a reduction of tension i n the community but quite possibly an increase i n mass and s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l s t r u c t u r e s as connectedness i n c r e a s e s n e c e s s i t a t i n g management of more s t r e s s e s and responses. C o n c u r r e n t l y , transboundary flows w i l l increase, as w i l l energy and i t s rate of change, i n response to g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r , and demands f o r , a d a p t a t i o n and change as the community becomes more complex. R i f k i n (1980, p. 241) makes a s i m i l a r point. S e v e r a l pages back some b r i e f examples of the e f f e c t s of s e l f -organization on the process v a r i a b l e s were given. Here, I want to expand on the example of the r u r a l community t h a t f i n d s i t s e l f i n c r e a s i n g l y i n the urban shadow of a metropolis i n order to further i l l u s t r a t e the use of both s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory and the model v a r i a b l e s . The m e t r o p o l i s w i l l d i f f e r from the r u r a l community i n almost a l l the d e s c r i p t i v e v a r i a b l e s : production, consumption, resources, land use, landscape, and s o c i a l inputs; l a n d tenure and h i s t o r i c a l i n p u t s may be r e l a t i v e l y s i m i l a r . These d i f f e r e n c e s , e s p e c i a l l y those i n p r o d u c t i o n , consumption, r e s o u r c e s , and land use are what lead to the pressure (stress) on the community to become a p a r t of the m e t r o p o l i s . The community i s v a l u e d f o r i t s l a n d and as an access point to the hinterland behind i t . Tension i n both w i l l be high — i n the metropolis due to i t s dependence on i t s environment f o r resources; i n the community due to i t s resistance of i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o the metropolis. Entropy i n the community w i l l be low, i n the m e t r o p o l i s high. Both community and m e t r o p o l i s w i l l be out of e q u i l i b r i u m w i t h t h e i r environment but t h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e of the m e t r o p o l i s which d i s s i p a t e s (or degrades) v a s t amounts of energy and 56 material i n order to maintain i t s ( d i s s i p a t i v e ) structure. Energy and mass w i l l probably be high i n both community and c i t y i n i t i a l l y ; i n the l a t t e r because of i t s c o m p l e x i t y and d i v e r s i t y , i n the former because of the tensions i t faces and i t s r e l a t i v e l y closed past. As time passes the s t r e s s on the community w i l l i n c r e a s e , as the m e t r o p o l i s c o n t i n u e s to grow. More of the young l e a v e to work i n the metropolis or get an education, land values skyrocket pushing f o r land use changes, there i s more t r a f f i c of people and goods through the community and so on. These changes w i l l induce other changes i n the community through p o s i t i v e feedbacks: the more people who l e a v e , the more o t h e r s w i l l be tempted to l e a v e ; the more who s e l l t h e i r l a n d, the more o t h e r s who w i l l s e l l ; new and d i f f e r e n t people come i n t o the community and the greater the changes i n community c o m p o s i t i o n the l e s s a b l e w i l l the community be to present a united f r o n t against a s s i m i l a t i o n i n t o the metropolis. Tension w i l l increase, so w i l l entropy as cohesiveness i s l o s t and the metropolis i n t r u d e s . Mass w i l l tend to i n c r e a s e as the people l e f t behind i n the community become more stubborn i n the face of the i n e v i t a b l e . Energy too w i l l increase as new people and ideas flo o d the community, as people seek to f i n d s olutions (zoning) to the dilemma of r u r a l l i f e vs. c i t y l i f e — these are f l u c t u a t i o n s . Ultimately, t h i s s i t u a t i o n w i l l become unstable — too many accumulated minor changes i n the environment, too much t e n s i o n — and the s e l f -o r g a n i z a t i o n process w i l l be completed w i t h a b i f u r c a t i o n t r i g g e r e d , perhaps, by a community le a d e r ' s d e c i s i o n to s e l l and l e a v e . Most of the 57 community members f o l l o w s u i t . Now we have a suburb. I t too w i l l be subject to change, perhaps other b i f u r c a t i o n s w i l l r e s u l t i n i t s becoming p a r t of the downtown or a ghetto. But f o r the p r e s e n t i t i s s t a b l e , r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous. Tension and energy have been decreased. Mass and entropy probably i n c r e a s e d . The "community" w i l l be much more c l o s e l y connected to the c i t y , w i l l i n v o l v e much h i g h e r f l o w s of people, energy, matter between i t and i t s environment. I t s p a t t e r n s of p r o d u c t i o n , consumption, land use, landscape, resources, and s o c i a l inputs w i l l be very d i f f e r e n t from what they were b e f o r e the d i s c o n t i n u o u s (compared to past changes) change t h a t was the r e s u l t of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n and a s s i m i l a t i o n i n t o the metropolis. The main example of the p r e c e d i n g pages has been t h a t of the a s s i m i l a t i o n of a community in t o an urban centre or metropolis. The process by which the community i s a s s i m i l a t e d i s described as a s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n process. The actual event of a s s i m i l a t i o n i s but a part of the much larger p r o c e s s termed u r b a n i z a t i o n . No attempt i s made to d e s c r i b e t h i s l a r g e r process f o r there i s a vast l i t e r a t u r e dealing with i t , and many aspects of i t s , such as i t s general s p a t i a l and economic form are both predictable and planable. This does not, however, preclude the usefulness of applying s e l f -o r g a n i z a t i o n theory to c e r t a i n c r i t i c a l p o i n t s i n the v a s t phenomenon of u r b a n i z a t i o n : i n p a r t i c u l a r , to the p r o c e s s t h a t determines the course ( r a t e , ease) of a s s i m i l a t i o n of a s p e c i f i c community. T h i s process, w i t h i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f l o w s between c i t y and community, i t s n o n l i n e a r feedbacks, and c e n t r a l r o l e of i n d i v i d u a l (microscopic) actions i s a c l a s s i c example of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i n a human system. 58 In contrast, f o r example, the impact of the private automobile, per se, on urban form i s not a s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n process. The growth of the road and highway network i s such a process (and indeed i s one of the e a r l i e r a p p l i c a t i o n s of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory, e.g, Al l e n , et a l . , 1978-80) as i s the e v o l u t i o n of urban form as a f u n c t i o n of many economic, s o c i a l , and t e c h n o l o g i c a l f o r c e s . I n n o v a t i o n or the spread of new technology i s not self - o r g a n i z a t i o n . The former i s purely random, the l a t t e r an example of exponential or l o g i s t i c growth (see, f o r example, Montroll, 1978). S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n o c c u r s i n every community. I t i s the i n e v i t a b l e response to the dynamic n o n l i n e a r n ature of a s o c i a l community and the s t r e s s e s , or t e n s i o n s , t h a t e x i s t w i t h i n a community as a r e s u l t of both i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l p r o c esses. There i s no t y p i c a l community i n which s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n o c c u r s f o r i t w i l l happen sooner or l a t e r i n a l l communities. The t i m i n g and r a t e of the process w i l l be a f f e c t e d by the t e n s i o n of the community, by the r a t e s of communication both w i t h i n the community and with i t s environment, and by the hi s t o r y of the community. At some c r i t i c a l point the i n t e r n a l and external tensions w i l l become such as to prevent the community from functioning with i t s e x i s t i n g structure. The e x i s t i n g structure w i l l become unstable and an a l t e r n a t i v e structure w i l l appear as a r e s u l t of the s e l e c t i o n and a m p l i f i c a t i o n of what had, u n t i l then, been o n l y an i n f o r m a t i o n a l f l u c t u a t i o n . One of the many p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e community structures (or responses) i s adopted as a consequence of communication of information from outside the community and, l a t e r , as a r e s u l t of spread of the information (alternative) w i t h i n the community. The 5 9 change i n s t r u c t u r e s due to s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n should lower t e n s i o n and i n c r e a s e energy. I am often asked f o r an example of a s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n event i n a human system, or asked whether such-and-such i s an example. By considering some of these s u g g e s t i o n s , and g i v i n g some examples of my own, I hope to make c l e a r e r my c o n c e p t i o n of s o c i e t a l s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n . One s u g g e s t i o n was t h a t the o r g a n i z a t i o n , e d u c a t i o n and m o t i v a t i o n of U.B.C. SCARP P l a n n i n g students i n the face of the p o s s i b i l i t y of the School being terminated was a s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g process. I t i s not, at l e a s t i n the sense I use the term, because of the c e n t r a l r o l e of s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s i n i n i t i a t i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g the proc e s s and because i t was a p u r e l y i n t e r n a l , i n d i v i d u a l process that did not r e s u l t i n new structures — i t was merely a s h o r t - l i v e d f l u c t u a t i o n . Another suggestion was that of a neighborhood group organizing i n order to gain c o n t r o l of i t s environment and to develop a sense of community among i t s component i n d i v i d u a l s . This i s a better example i n that i t i s l i k e l y to include a l l the elements of a se l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n process that were i d e n t i f i e d e a r l i e r but the r e s u l t s of the proc e s s w i l l a t best a f f e c t s o c i a l structures, just one component of the t o t a l human system. The best suggestion was that of the process that might occur i n an area were i t proposed to b u i l d a major i n d u s t r i a l plant on a s i t e where i t would destroy an e c o l o g i c a l resource c r u c i a l to the residents of the area. Here, the r e s u l t i n g s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n could e a s i l y involve s o c i a l , e c o l o g i c a l and economic processes and structures, but t h i s example, l i k e the previous two, s u f f e r s from one key problem. A l l these examples i m p l y the e x i s t e n c e of 60 macroscopic human-directed s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g processes. This i s a f a u l t y use of the idea. S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i s not a t o o l of the planner but r a t h e r a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the systems w i t h i n which he or she works. Each of the s i t u a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d above might t r i g g e r a b i f u r c a t i o n , but w i l l not necessari l y do so and i s not, i t s e l f , s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i n the sense used i n t h i s thesis. S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i s the key only to the broad structure of a system, not to i t s p a r t i c u l a r s . Self-organization processes i n human systems w i l l be detectable i n the same way t h a t such p r o c e s s e s are d e t e c t a b l e i n c h e m i c a l and b i o l o g i c a l systems — by t h e i r e f f e c t s , by the spatio-temporal patterns they produce. These are, broadly speaking, discontinuously changing s t r u c t u r a l patterns, such as c y c l i c a l waves i n chemical systems. Detection of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n processes i n human systems w i l l , however, be complicated by the l a r g e r - s c a l e at which the processes display t h e i r e f f e c t s . At any l e v e l , the patterns of se l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n may be obscured by the passage of time or the c l u t t e r of h i s t o r i c a l d e t a i l , or be s u b j e c t to c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Proof of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i n human systems, i f such i s ever p o s s i b l e , may have to await a better understanding, and modelling, of the processes that shape the human system. Meanwhile, I w i l l o f f e r two possible examples of the e f f e c t s of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n processes at a global, s o c i e t a l l e v e l : the f i r s t , the s h i f t i n g pattern of p o l i t i c a l and economic dominance of the globe over the l a s t f i v e c e n t u r i e s , the second, an impending b i f u r c a t i o n , i n the c l e a r t e n s i o n s (and i n c i p i e n t demise) of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l banking system's p o s i t i o n between t h e d e v e l o p e d and t h e d e v e l o p i n g n a t i o n s . S e l f -61 organization i s a process that takes place i n a system. Revolutions alone are not examples of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n — they are the i d e a l i z a t i o n s of catastrophe theory. S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i s the v e h i c l e of r a p i d r e v o l u t i o n a r y change i n a community or society, becoming manifest only at c r i t i c a l points as a r e s u l t of the accumulation of tension and i n s t a b i l i t y . S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n proceeds i n a manner akin to that of the s a l t a t i o n a l or punctuated e q u i l i b r i a model of b i o l o g i c a l evolution (Gould & Eldredge, 1977). Sel f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i s not t h e r e s u l t o f c h a n g es i n one or even a few community ( s y s t e m ) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t cannot be r e d u c t i o n i s t i c a l l y p r e d i c t e d . I t i s the r e s u l t of a s y n e r g i s t i c i n t e r a c t i o n between the community and i t s environment. As the next chapter should make c l e a r , s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory represents a q u a l i t a t i v e change i n our way of viewing the world, as fundamentally new as was once the systems approach. 62 CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS It w i l l long o f f e r to those who pursue i t the comfort that to journey i s better than to a r r i v e . C. Sherrington (quoted i n Lewis, 1981) U l t i m a t e l y , the sources of the c o n c l u s i o n s we are to d i s c u s s i n t h i s c h apter are a model and a theory. The model i s a c o n c e p t u a l one, of the structure, r e l a t i o n s , and dynamics of a subset of the comprehensive e n t i t y we term society. This model, or s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , of community evolution i s supported i n i t s p a r t s by the views of s c h o l a r s i n a number of f i e l d s yet, as a whole, i t i s a h y p o t h e s i s , perhaps unique t o i t s author (as are a l l l a r g e - s c a l e s o c i a l - s y s t e m s models — Meadows, 1982). The t h e o r y i s Prigoginian s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n . A further stage i n the development of t h i s model and theory would be to simulate the s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n / e v o l u t i o n of a community or society using data from, f o r example, the work of h i s t o r i a n s such as I. W a l l e r s t e i n and F. Braudel, land-use studies such as those of the Canadian Lands Directorate (e.g., Fox & Macenko, 1985), and s o c i a l planning studies such as those of Blishen et a l . (1979). Fundamentally, what has been ac h i e v e d here i s the development of a model which includes "microscopic" s t r u c t u r a l components that not only allow the development of s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g p r o c e s s e s but a l s o suggest how such p r o c e s s e s a r i s e i n a s o c i a l , community system. T h i s i s a step beyond previous s o c i e t a l models such as those of Taylor (1976) or Prigogine (1976) which l i m i t e d themselves to a q u a l i t a t i v e d i s c u s s i o n of where s e l f -organization might and does a r i s e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , an e f f o r t has been made i n 63 Chapter 3 to i d e n t i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of human systems that support the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory. I f the model of the l a s t chapter has any usefulness as such, as opposed to as an h e u r i s t i c a i d to understanding how s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n may occur i n one p a r t i c u l a r human system, t h a t u s e f u l n e s s l i k e l y l i e s i n the process variables — energy, entropy, mass, and tension — and the d i a l e c t i c a l view of the i n t e r a c t i o n s of human systems that they suggest. What do a s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l view of human s o c i e t i e s and the model of community evolution presented here have to say about and f o r community and regional planning? This chapter draws p r i m a r i l y on the general i m p l i c a t i o n s of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory r a t h e r than the s p e c i f i c model of Chapter 4 because the l a t t e r was in t e n d e d to i l l u s t r a t e the p r o c e s s of s e l f -organization, not to generate s p e c i f i c l e s s o n s f o r community development. The most im p o r t a n t l e s s o n s may w e l l be the most g e n e r a l . That i s , t h a t s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l processes i n human society are transformational — that i s , they bring about non-linear, non-cumulative changes. Referring back to Pr i g o g i n e ' s schema (p. 16) of s t r u c t u r e / f u n c t i o n / f l u c t u a t i o n i t i s f l u c t u a t i o n s ( i d e a s , i n n o v a t i o n s , r e v o l u t i o n s ) t h a t a l t e r s t r u c t u r e ( i . e . l e g a l , economic, p o l i t i c a l , and m o r a l / e t h i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s ) which then impact on s o c i e t a l f u n c t i o n s which feed back i n t o the g e n e r a t i o n and a m p l i f i c a t i o n of f l u c t u a t i o n s . The r e s u l t of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i s s t r u c t u r a l and f u n c t i o n a l change t h a t t r a n s f o r m s the community. Several r e c e n t works on s o c i a l and s o c i e t a l change have r e c o g n i z e d t h i s , most n o t a b l y M a r i l y n Ferguson (1980), but a l s o M o r r i s Berman (1981) and Robin 64 Morgan (1982) with t h e i r discussions of s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of new physical science paradigms. Anthropologists too have recognized the transformational nature of human society, most notably i n the development and r o l e of myth i n human communities ( P r i g o g i n e & Stengers, 1979; Luc de Heusch i n Baudson, 1984). F i n a l l y , P r i g o g i n e and h i s t h e o r i e s have even gained mention i n s e v e r a l r e c e n t s c i e n c e f i c t i o n books (e.g., A t t a n a s i o , 1981). L e t us look i n more d e t a i l at some of the components of t h i s model before returning, at the end of t h i s chapter, to the global, transformational, theme. S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a process. A s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l view of community evolution s h i f t s the emphasis away from p a r t i c u l a r states during the evolutionary process toward considerations of the process as a whole. Complementarily s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n implies a dynamic conception of community e v o l u t i o n and continuous, dynamic pro c e s s t h a t i s never at e q u i l i b r i u m , never s t a t i c or s t a t i o n a r y . P l a n n e r s need to be p l a n n i n g the process, o b s e r v i n g , d i s c o v e r i n g i t s m a c r o s c o p i c m a n i f e s t a t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n endeavouring to plan i t s state or structure at a point i n time — an attempt that i s doomed to have temporary success at best. A s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l view of community e v o l u t i o n i m p l i e s the importance of u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t the i n t e r n a l h i s t o r y of the system i s d e t e r m i n i s t i c a t the l e v e l of a p o i n t i n the system but s t o c h a s t i c at the l e v e l of the system as a whole. The system's h i s t o r y can imply the appearance of c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r e s , processes, or changes ( P r i g o g i n e & Stengers, 1979). This h i s t o r i c a l determinism i s most apparent perhaps i n the form of c e r t a i n of the world's great, o l d c i t i e s such as Rome ( I l y a Prigogine and Serge Pahout i n Baudson, 1984). This h i s t o r i c a l determinism 65 works p r i m a r i l y through a f f e c t i n g the timing of b i f u r c a t i o n (the onset of i n s t a b i l i t y ) , the time a t which s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n ( b i f u r c a t i o n ) i s i n i t i a t e d , and through e f f e c t s on the outcome of the process as a r e s u l t of s e l e c t i v e a m p l i f i c a t i o n of f l u c t u a t i o n s . Thus, the planner should be aware of the i n t e r n a l , s t r u c t u r a l h i s t o r y of the community and, through knowledge of the s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g process, consider how i t may a f f e c t the future of the community. One of the most s u r p r i s i n g r e s u l t s of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory was that near b i f u r c a t i o n the law-of-large-numbers breaks down (G l a n s d o r f & Prigogine, 1971). That i s to say that the p r o b a b i l i t y of macroscopic events becomes non-Poissonian; instead of the average d r i v i n g the mean, i n d i v i d u a l f l u c t u a t i o n s do so i n an a p r i o r i unpredictable way. This was and s t i l l i s a shock to science, which has hardly become accustomed to the s t a t i s t i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n of thermodynamics or the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the Heisenberg Uncertainty P r i n c i p l e . More p r a c t i c a l l y , f o r us i n the study of community e v o l u t i o n t h i s a s p e c t of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n emphasizes the u l t i m a t e u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of community e v o l u t i o n and the n o n - l i n e a r nature of the processes of that evolution. One must remember that the community i s always " i n time", changing, never "out of time", or s t a t i c ( P r i g o g i n e , 1985). The planner must learn to think of community evolution d i f f e r e n t l y than he has i n the past. Community s t r u c t u r e i s u n p r e d i c t a b l e , apt to e v o l v e non-l i n e a r l y , and most importantly, a f t e r b i f u r c a t i o n occurs may be incomparable to the previous structure (Allen, et a l . , 1985). Two other more te c h n i c a l r e s u l t s on nonequilibrium chemical structure 6 6 suggest another i n t e r e s t i n g p o s s i b i l i t y . Such systems have been found to be s e n s i t i v e t o weak g r a v i t a t i o n a l or e l e c t r i c or p o l a r or c h i r a l f i e l d s (Kondepudi & Prigogine, 1981; N i c o l i s & Prigogine, 1981). A s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g system at the point of b i f u r c a t i o n i s able to be influenced by environmental c o n d i t i o n s and to s e l e c t as a r e s u l t s p a t i a l l y asymmetric s o l u t i o n s . In communities i t i s l i k e l y t h a t t h e r e w i l l be f o r c e s on the community analogous to the physicist's f i e l d s (e.g., economic — Dyckmann, 1984) which w i l l influence the subsequent structure of the community — quite probably toward asymmetry i n time (i.e., a q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t regime) w i t h r e s u l t a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e p l a n n i n g . That i s an i n f r a s t r u c t u r e s u i t a b l e f o r the p r esent c i t y s t r u c t u r e may be t o t a l l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n the f u t u r e . T h i s symmetry b r e a k i n g has been p e r c e i v e d and shown by many a r t i s t s over the l a s t few m i l l e n i a ( G r e g o i r e N i c o l i s i n Baudson, 1984). S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i m p l i e s an emphasis on q u a l i t a t i v e change ( A l l e n , 1982; A l l e n et a l . , 1985) and on time (Umberto Eco i n Baudson, 1984; P r i g o g i n e , 1985), which i s o f t e n n o t a b l y absent i n both s c i e n c e and p l a n n i n g . F l u c t u a t i o n s are i n n o v a t i o n s , i d e a s . They are n o n - r a t i o n a l , c r e a t i v e and as such the u n p r e d i c t a b l e p r e c i p i t a t o r s of b i f u r c a t i o n s and s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n . P l a n n i n g too must be c r e a t i v e , i n n o v a t i v e , even non-r a t i o n a l to the extent t h a t the g o a l s and a c t i o n s of the members of a community may be non-rational, i f i t i s to have any hope of a n t i c i p a t i n g or i n f l u e n c i n g a b i f u r c a t i o n . P l a n n e r s too must study and p l a n f i r s t of a l l f o r q u a l i t a t i v e changes i n s t r u c t u r e — not more or l e s s of the same but something completely d i f f e r e n t — i f they wish to keep up with the evolving, 67 s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g community. T h i s , on a v a s t e r s c a l e , i s Braudel's (1984) point when he says, apropos of the world economy: Are not the day-to-day remedies proposed to meet the c r i s i s completely i l l u s o r y ? For the re v e r s a l of the secular trend i s a s t r u c t u r a l c r i s i s which could only be resolved by thorough-going s t r u c t u r a l demolition and reconstruction. (p. 618) Systems e c o l o g i s t s ( C l a r k & H o l l i n g , 1979) too have r e c o g n i z e d the importance of q u a l i t a t i v e s t r u c t u r a l change i n r e a l world s i t u a t i o n s (the spruce budworm). F i n a l l y , we may observe t h a t w h i l e i t i s f l u c t u a t i o n s t h a t d r i v e the mean near a b i f u r c a t i o n , they do so because one or a few of them have attained a macroscopic "coherence length" and begun to generate long-range order. T h i s i s evidence of communication, i n the broadest sense of the word, and even l e a r n i n g ( A l l e n e t a l . , 1985) w i t h i n t h e s y s t e m . F l u c t u a t i o n s are a m p l i f i e d , as a r e s u l t of communication and l e a r n i n g i n order to generate macroscopic order. Communication and learning are the key so we should not be s u r p r i s e d to see a paper g i v i n g a s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l model of an urban system i n the report of a "Symposium on C i t i e s and Regions as N o n - l i n e a r D e c i s i o n Systems" ( A l l e n , 1983). The planner need concern h i m s e l f w i t h the substance and pro c e s s of communication a t two l e v e l s . Within the community where communication w i l l have a primary e f f e c t on the growth and spread of selected f l u c t u a t i o n s (cf. Watzlawick, et al. , 1967 on the systems theory of group communication) and between the community and i t s environment where the pri m a r y e f f e c t w i l l be on the s e l e c t i o n of f l u c t u a t i o n s and the r a t e of t h e i r spread ( a m p l i f i c a t i o n ) — c f . Toynbee 68 (1968) on the r o l e of such communication i n b r e a k i n g down the b a r r i e r s of national sovereignty — perhaps the ultimate s o c i a l b i f u r c a t i o n . I want to conclude with some general remarks on s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n and pla n n i n g . In Chapter 1, we noted the i d e a t h a t p l a n n i n g and plan s are the veh i c l e of the s o c i e t a l s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n process. In view of the r o l e s of choice and s t r u c t u r a l change i n self- o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h i s cannot be true f o r i t i m p l i e s an a b i l i t y to p r e d i c t and manage a proc e s s t h a t by d e f i n i t i o n cannot be predicted. The b e l i e f i n society's a b i l i t y to predict and manage the broad form and d e t a i l of i t s own f u t u r e i s today one of the l e a s t t e n a b l e of the human c o n c e i t s . The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory w i l l b r i n g about a r e v o l u t i o n i n the way we t h i n k about the human environment (as s c i e n t i s t s or p l a n n e r s or c i t i z e n s ) i s one of the more promising and important of the theory's i m p l i c a t i o n s (Prigogine & Stengers, 1979). Though we manage on a s h o r t - t e r m , c o n t i n g e n c y b a s i s now, we never have and probably never w i l l be a b l e to guide the long-term e v o l u a t i o n of human society. Planning t h e o r i s t s have a tendency to favour e i t h e r a s o c i a l science-based approach or a natural science-based approach (with many va r i a t i o n s of each and l i t t l e unanimity on which i s best). Ozbekhan (1968) even suggested planning was the core of s o c i a l science (in contrast to the more i n t u i t i v e l y l i k e l y opposite). Most planning t h e o r i s t s , however, have had a predictive, r a t i o n a l management o r i e n t a t i o n ( n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n s i n c l u d e Friedmann & Weaver, 1979; Schon, 1983). I t i s t h i s which must, most of a l l , change i n the face of a s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l view of community evolution. Community 69 and regional planners w i l l s t i l l work with c i t i z e n s , with l o c a l and other i n s t i t u t i o n s , t r y i n g to meet community needs and goals, but they w i l l have to do so b e a r i n g i n mind the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o c e s s ( c o m p l e x i t y , n o n l i n e a r i t y , d i s c o n t i n u i t y ) and the d i f f e r e n t goals t h i s w i l l f o r c e on them: management of change, of communication, of s t a b i l i t y and i n s t a b i l i t y , awareness of history, always with an eye to the o c c u r r e n c e of the next b i f u r c a t i o n , how they might i n f l u e n c e i t and what s t r u c t u r a l changes i t w i l l b r i n g . As Higgs (1985: p. 45) put i t , " C a r e f u l design w i l l serve to match e x i s t i n g and p o t e n t i a l environmental conditions of the system with i t s s p e c i f i c s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g properties." As the theory and a p p l i c a t i o n of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n are f u r t h e r developed i t should become possible to i d e n t i f y impending b i f u r c a t i o n s by a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s o u r c e s and m a g n i t u d e s of i n c r e a s e s i n t e n s i o n , i n s t a b i l i t y , and entropy i n the system. At the l e v e l s of communities and s o c i e t i e s , p l a n n e r s may w e l l be i n the best p o s i t i o n to r e c o g n i z e these signs and to i d e n t i f y measures i n t e r n a l and external to the system capable of i n f l u e n c i n g the s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n process. Such measures might include measures to f a c i l i t a t e the flow of materials and information i n t o and out of, and within, the community; attempts to encourage p a r t i c u l a r s t r u c t u r a l changes w i t h i n the community; and e f f o r t s to t r a c k the pace of change through the use of computer and information technologies. S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory asks the planner to face the broad, long-term pattern and evolution of the systems i n which he works, as w e l l as i t s day-to-day functioning. I t i s not simply a matter of developing a systems view — everything connected to everything else — but a more complex view that 70 emphasizes the dynamic evolution of human systems — as we have endeavoured to p r e s e n t i n the p r e c e d i n g pages. At the l e v e l of communities and s o c i e t i e s s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory requires, and provides the framework for, the planner to expand h i s understanding of the e v o l u t i o n a r y p r o c e s s e s of these systems and to take a r o l e i n the development of the t h e o r e t i c a l understanding of human systems — by himself looking at and working with t h i s new conception of the nature of the evolutionary process. T h i s i s the approach necessary i f we a r e to make s u s t a i n a b l e development a r e a l i t y . I t i s a l e a r n i n g , a d a p t i v e approach t h a t aims to e l u c i d a t e i n t e r - and i n t r a - s y s t e m r e l a t i o n s h i p s through an immediate and c o n t i n u i n g c o mbination of theory and a p p l i c a t i o n s . S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n theory, by i t s emphasis on s t r u c t u r e , change, and pro c e s s e s , may i n time provide one way of u n i t i n g e c o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l structures i n human systems and thus f a c i l i t a t e sustainable development planning. In Chapter 1, I compared t h e s y s t e m s and s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of a community or regional history. The dif f e r e n c e was that between s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n and dynamic process description. Here I want to examine some of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e f o r p l a n n i n g and planners. While the s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l view of human systems i m p l i e s a b a s i c i n d e t e r m i n a c y i n the e v o l u t i o n of the system, t h i s i s no argument not to plan — p r e c i s e l y the opposite. At small s p a t i a l and chronological scales p l a n s and p l a n n i n g may be l i t t l e a f f e c t e d . But the " b i g " plans, the r e g i o n a l s c a l e and l a r g e r , over l o n g e r time p e r i o d s , must change. Not 71 a b o l i s h e d , but made to i n c o r p o r a t e u n c e r t a i n t y and the l i k e l i h o o d of d i s c o n t i n u o u s change, to r e c o g n i z e the n o n l i n e a r p r o c e s s e s t h a t generate change, and to have b u i l t i n t o them the m o n i t o r i n g f u n c t i o n s necessary to t r a c k the proc e s s of change and to be prepared f o r the unexpected ( c f . Goldberg, 1985). At t h i s l e v e l , the r o l e of the planner w i l l be m o n i t o r i n g change and m a n i p u l a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n and communication i n an e f f o r t to guide the s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n process. That i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n the sense of i n p u t s to and outputs of the processes underlying the s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n structure, and communication between the elements of the s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g system whether i n d i v i d u a l s , organizations, or computers. This i s a r o l e that w i l l require the melding of the s c i e n t i f i c s k i l l s of the systems t h e o r i s t and information s c i e n t i s t with the understanding and sense of d i r e c t i o n of a good community planner and organizer. Of course t h e r e i s much s t i l l t o be l e a r n e d about human systems and about s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h i n them. We can think of the t y p i c a l systems view of a community as l i k e the basic s e r i e s of f o s s i l s that trace the form of a s p e c i e s ' e v o l u t i o n , w h i l e the s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n view i s l i k e the e f f o r t s of the paleoecologist and pa l e o b i o l o g i s t s to e s t a b l i s h the external e c o l o g i c a l environment and the i n t e r n a l genetic environment that shaped the e v o l u t i o n of those forms w i t h which we are f a m i l i a r . The f i r s t i s of h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e and d e s c r i p t i v e ( c l a s s i f i c a t o r y ) usefulness but only the l a t t e r can e x p l a i n the proc e s s and h o l d any hope of p r e d i c t i n g the future — or understanding what Milan Zeleny (1985) has c a l l e d the existence of "spontaneous s o c i a l orders." We may not be a b l e to c o n t r o l s e l f -72 organizing processes and b i f u r c a t i o n s , but l i k e the changes involved i n the t r a n s i t i o n to an i n f o r m a t i o n s o c i e t y ( C o r d e l l , 1985) we can attempt to understand i t and to manage i t s e f f e c t s i n order to make the most of the b e n e f i t s and t o m i n i m i z e t h e d i s b e n e f i t s . A s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s o c i e t a l e v o l u t i o n may not p e r m i t p r e d i c t i o n of the r e s u l t s of s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n but i t may permit i t s preemption. 73 REFERENCES Abrams, P h i l i p . 1982 H i s t o r i c a l Sociology. Shepton Mallet: Open Books. Ackoff, Russell L. 1971. Toward a system of systems concepts. Man. Sci., A, 17(11): 661-71. A l l e n , P.M. 1976. E v o l u t i o n , p o p u l a t i o n dynamics and s t a b i l i t y . Pro. Nat. Acad. S c i . USA, 73; 665-8. A l l e n , P.M. 1983. S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n and e v o l u t i o n i n urban systems. Pp. 29-62 i n R. Crosby (ed). C i t i e s and Regions as N o n - l i n e a r D e c i s i o n Systems. Boulder: Westview Press. A l l e n , P.M., J. Deneubourg, M. S a n g l i e r , F. Boon, & A. De Palma. A Dynamic Model, of I n t r a - u r b a n E v o l u t i o n . Reports to the USA Department of Transportation under contracts TSC-1185, 1460, and 1640. A l l e n , P.M., G. Engelen, & M. S a n g l i e r . 1984. S e l f - o r g a n i z i n g dynamic models of human systems. In F. Fr e h l a n d (ed) From M i c r o s c o p i c to Macroscopic Order, pp. 150-171. B e r l i n : Springer. A l l e n , P.M., & M. S a n g l i e r . 1978. Dynamic models of u r b a n growth. J. Soc. B i o l . S t r u c t . , 1: 265-80. A l l e n , P.M., & M. S a n g l i e r . 1981. Urban e v o l u t i o n , s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n and decision-making. Env. & Planning, A, 13:167-83. A l l e n , P.M., M. S a n g l i e r , M. Engelen, & F. Boon. 1985. Towards a new s y n t h e s i s i n the modelling of evolving complex systems. Env. & Planning, B. 12:65-84. Anthony, P i e r s . 1969. Macroscope. New York: Avon. Arndt, H.W. 1981. Economic development: a semantic h i s t o r y . Econ. Dev. & C u l t . Change, 29(3): 457-66. Attanasio, A.A. 1981. Radix. New York: William Morrow. Balkus, Kozmas. 1983. S o c i e t a l S e l f - O r g a n i z a t i o n Pts. I - I I I . Int. Cybern. Newsl., #27: 551-9, #30: 579-88. Baudson, M i c h e l (ed.). 1984. L'Art et Le Temps. Geneve: Musee Roth/Musee d'Art et d ' H i s t o i r e . 74 Bendavid-Val, Avrom. 1983. Regional and L o c a l A n a l y s i s f o r P r a c t i c t i o n e r s . New York: Praeger. Bennett, John W. 1976. The E c o l o g i c a l T r a n s i t i o n : C u l t u r a l Anthropology and Human Adaptation. New York: Pergamon Press. B e r l i n s k i , David. 1977. On Systems Analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press. Berman, M o r r i s . 1981. The Reenchantment of the World. I t h a c a : C o r n e l l Univ. Press. B l i s h e n , Bernard R., A. Lockhart, P. C r a i b , & E. Lockhart. 1979. S o c i o - Economic Impact Model f or Northern Development. 2 vols. Ottawa: DINA. B o t k i n , J.W., M. Elmandjra, & M. M a l i t z a . 1979. No L i m i t s to L e a r n i n g : Bridging the Human Gap. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Bowles, Roy T. 1981. S o c i a l Impact Assessment i n Small Communities. Toronto: Butterworths. B r a u d e l , Fernand. 1969. Merits sur l ' H i s t o i r e . P a r i s : Flammarion. Braudel, Fernand. 1984 [1979]. C i v i l i z a t i o n and C a p i t a l i s m 15th - 18th Century . V. I I I . The Perspective of the World. [Transl. Sian Reynolds]. London: C o l l i n s . B r o d h e a d , P.D., M. D e c t e r , & K. Svenson. 1981. Community-Based Development: A Development System f or the 1980's. CEIC Labour Market Development TAsk Force Tech. Stud. No. 3. Buck, R.C. 1978. Advanced Calculus, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bunge, Mario. 1979. T r e a t i s e on B a s i c P h i l o s o p h y , Vol. IV, Ontology II: A World of Systems. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Cajka, Frank. 1980. E c o l o g i a y e l e s t u d i o de sociodad. America Indigena, 40(1): 121-33. C a r n e i r o , Robert L. 1970. A theory of the o r i g i n of the s t a t e . Science, 169(3947): 733-8. Carneiro, Robert L. 1982. Successive r e e q u i l i b r a t i o n s as the mechanism of c u l t u r a l e v o l u t i o n . In W.C. Schieve & P.M. A l l e n , (eds.), pp. 110-115. Self-Organization and D i s s i p a t i v e Structures: Applications i n the Phys i c a l and S o c i a l Sciences. Austin: U n i v e r s i t y of Texas Press. Chambers, A. 1971. S i m u l a t i o n of Cottage Lot Subdivision: A Synthesis of So c i a l , Economic, and Environmental Concerns. Ph.D. Thesis. Un i v e r s i t y of B.C., Vancouver. 75 C l a r k , W.C. & C.S. H o l l i n g . 1979. Process models, e q u i l i b r i u m s t r u c t u r e s , and population dynamics: on the formulation and t e s t i n g of r e a l i s t i c theory i n ecology. Fortschr. Z o o l . 25 (2/3):29-52. C o r d e l l , Arthur J. 1985. The Uneasy Ei g h t i e s : The T r a n s i t i o n to an Inform- a t i o n S o c i e t y . Ottawa: S c i e n c e C o u n c i l of Canada Background Study No. 53. C o t t r e l l , Leonard S., Jr. 1976. The competent community. In Further Explor- ations i n S o c i a l Psychiatry, B.H. Kaplan, R.N. Wilson & A.H. Leighton, (Eds.), pp. 195-209. New York: B a s i c Books. Croner, Stan. 1984. An I n t r o d u c t i o n to the World C o n s e r v a t i o n S t r a t e g y . Greenbrae, C a l i f o r n i a : IUCN Comm. on Education. Cronon, W i l l i a m . 1983. Changes i n the Land: Ind i a n s , C o l o n i s t s and the Ecology of New England. New York: H i l l and Wang. Dadzie, K.K.S. 1980. Economic development. Scient. Amer., 243(3): 59-65. D a l e n , D. Van, H.C. D o e t s , & H. De S w a r t . 1978. S e t s : N a i v e , Axiomatic and Applied. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Daly, Herman E., ed. 1973. Toward a S t e a d y - S t a t e Economy. San F r a n c i s c o : W.H. Freeman. Daly, Herman E. 1977. Steady-State Economics. San Francisco: Freeman. Dasmann, Raymond. 1984. E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s e r v a t i o n , 5th ed. New York: Wiley. Day, R i c h a r d H. 1983. A d a p t i v e economics. In C i t i e s and Regions as Non- L i n e a r D e c i s i o n Systems. R.W. Crosby, (Ed.), pp. 103-142. Boulder: Westview Press. Davis, H. C r a i g & D.R. Webster. 1981. A c o m p o s i t i o n a l approach to r e g i o n a l socio-economic impacts. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci., 15: 159-63. Denbigh, Kenneth. 1981. The P r i n c i p l e s of Chemical Equilibrium, 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Devine, Marina. 1981, 1982, 1984. NWT Data Book 1981, 1982/83, 1984/85. Yellowknife: Outcrop Publ. Diener, Paul. 1980. Quantum adjustment, m a c r o e v o l u t i o n , and the s o c i a l f i e l d : some comments on e v o l u t i o n and c u l t u r e . Curr. Anthrop., 21(4): 423-43. 76 Dodge, Jim. 1981. L i v i n g by l i f e : Some b i o r e g i o n a l t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e . Coevol. Qtly., #32: 6-12. Duncan, O t i s Dudley & L.F. Schnore. 1959. C u l t u r a l , b e h a v i o r a l and e c o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s i n t h e s t u d y of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . Am. J. S o c i o l . , 65: 132-53. Dunn, Edgar S., J r . 1971. Economic and S o c i a l Development: A Process of So c i a l Learning. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Durston, John W. 1972. Regional socio-economic development: a conceptual framework. Int. Soc. Dev. Rev., #4: 3-10. Dyckman, John W. 1984. Economic F o r c e s i n World Metropolitan Structure. Working Paper No. 1 of The Johns Hopkins European Centre f o r R e g i o n a l Planning and Research. Eigen, Manfred. 1971. S e l f - o r g a n i s a t i o n of matter and the e v o l u t i o n of b i o l o g i c a l macromolecules. Naturwiss., 58: 465-523. Eigen, M. & R. Winkler. 1981. Laws of the Game: How the P r i n c i p l e s of Nature Govern Chance. [Transl. Robert & R i t a Kimber] New York: Knopf. Environment Canada. 1984. Sustainable Development. A submission to the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects f o r Canada. [Ottawa?]: Environment Canada. Fellenberg, G. 1984. Stadtbkologie. Naturwiss., 71: 393-403. Ferguson, Marilyn. 1980. The Aquarian Conspiracy. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, Inc. Feyerabend, P.K. 1970. C o n s o l a t i o n s f o r the s p e c i a l i s t . In C r i t i c i s m and the Growth of Knowledge. Pp. 197-230 i n I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. F l a n n e r y , Kent V. 1972. The c u l t u r a l e v o l u t i o n of c i v i l i z a t i o n s . Ann. Rev. E c o l . Syst., 3: 399-426. Fox, M i c h a e l F & S. Macenko. 1985. The Agriculture-Forest Interface: An Overview of Land Use Change. Ottawa: Environment Canada, Lands Directorate, Working Paper #38. Friedman, Jonathan. 1979. Hegelian ecology: between Rousseau and the World S p i r i t . In S o c i a l and E c o l o g i c a l Systems. P.C. Burnham & R.F. E l l e n (eds.), pp. 253-70. London: Academic Press. Friedmann, John & C. Weaver. 1979. T e r r i t o r y and F u n c t i o n : The E v o l u t i o n of Regional Planning. Ottawa: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada. 77 Friedmann, Milton. 1953. The methodology of p o s i t i v e economics. In Essays i n P o s i t i v e Economics, pp. 3-43. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Geist, Valerius. 1978. L i f e S t r a t e g i e s , Human E v o l u t i o n , E n v i r o n m e n t a l Design: Toward a B i o l o g i c a l Theory of Health. New York: S p r i n g e r -Verlag. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. Giddens, Anthony. 1979. Central Problems i n S o c i a l Theory. Berkeley: Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a Press. G l a n s d o r f f , P. & I. P r i g o g i n e . 1971. Thermodynamic Theory of S t r u c t u r e , S t a b i l i t y and Fluctuations. London: Wiley Interscience. G o d e l i e r , Maurice. 1978 [1965]. The o b j e c t and method of economic anthropology. In R e l a t i o n s of P r o d u c t i o n , David Seddon, (ed.), pp. 49-126. London: Frank Cass. Goldberg, Michael A. 1985. F l e x i b i l i t y and adaption: some cues f o r s o c i a l systems from nature. Geoforum, 16 (2): 179-190. Gould, Stephen Jay & N i l e s Eldredge. 1977. Punctuated e q u i l i b r i a : the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3:115-51. Grossman, Stanley I. 1981. Calculus, 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press. HSgerstrand, T o r s t e n . 1970. What about people i n r e g i o n a l s c i e n c e ? Papers Reg. S c i . Assoc., 24: 7.21. Haken, H. 1983a. S y n e r g e t i c s : An I n t r o d u c t i o n . 3rd ed. ( 1 s t ed. 1977). B e r l i n : Springer-Verlag. Haken, H. 1983b. Advanced Synergetics. B e r l i n : Springer-Verlag. H a l l , Peter. 1983. Growth and Development: An Economic A n a l y s i s . Oxford: Martin Robertson. Halmos, J.H. 1950. Measure Theory. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand. . 1960. Naive Set Theory. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand. Hannan, M i c h a e l T. & John Freeman. 1977. The p o p u l a t i o n ecology of organisations. Amer. J. S o c i o l . , 82(5): 929-64. Hanson, M.P. 1974. S p a t i a l s t r u c t u r e s i n d i s s i p a t i v e systems. J. Chem. Phys., 60(8): 3210-14. 78 Hastings, Harold M. 984. S t a b i l i t y of large systems. BioSystems, 17: 171-7. Hawley, Amos. H. 1950. Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Structure. New York: The Ronald Press Company. Hawley, Amos H. 1973. Ecology and population. Science, 179(4079): 1196-1201. Hawrylyshyn, Bohdan. 1980. Effectiveness of s o c i e t i e s — an overview, pp. 1-11; and Measure of e f f e c t i v e n e s s , pp. 183-93. In Road Maps to the Future. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Heesch, Jack R. 1983. Socio-economic s t u d i e s , pp. 184-8 i n Proc. A l a s k a Symp. on the S o c i a l , Economic and C u l t u r a l Impacts of Natural Resource Development. S a l l y Y a r i e , ed. F a i r b a n k s : Dept. of Conferences and In s t i t u t e s , Univ. of Alaska. Higgs, E r i c S. 1985. Holism, Reductionism and Pl a n n i n g . Univ. of Waterloo, School of Urban & Regional Planning. Unpubl. Ph.D. Comp. Exam Paper, pp. 55. H o l l i n g , C.S. 1978. Ad a p t i v e E n v i r o n m e n t a l Assessment and Management. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. House, James S. 1981. Special i n d i c a t o r s , s o c i a l change, and s o c i a l action: toward more i n t e g r a t e d and dynamic models. In S o c i a l A c c o u n t i n g Systems: Essays on the S t a t e of the Art. F. Thomas Juster & K.C. Land (eds.), pp. 421-52. New York: Academic Press. Hughes, Barry B. 1985. World Futures: A C r i t i c a l Analysis of Alternatives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Ingold, Tim. 1979. The s o c i a l and e c o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s of c u l t u r e - b e a r i n g o r g a n i s m s : an e s s a y i n e c o l o g i c a l d y n a m i c s . I n S o c i a l and E c o l o g i c a l Systems. P.C. Burnhan & R.F. E l l e n , (eds.), pp. 271-91. London: Academic Press. I s a r d , Walter. 1 9 7 5 . I n t r o d u c t i o n to R e g i o n a l Science. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Isard, Walter, et a l . 1972. Ecologic-Economic Analysis f o r Regional Develop- ment. New York: The Free Press. IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1980. World Conservation Strategy: L i v i n g Resource Conser- vation f o r Sustainable Development. Gland: IUNC/UNEP.WWF. Jacobs, Jane. 1984. C i t i e s and the Wealth of Nations. New York: Random House. 79 Jacobs, Konrad. 1984. Die Mathematik im Kreise der Naturwissenschaften II. Naturwiss., 71: 500-6. Jantsch. Erich. 1980. The Self-Organizing Universe. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Katzner, Donald W. 1983. Analysis without Measurement. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Kay, James J. 1984. S e l f - O r g a n i z a t i o n i n L i v i n g Systems. Univ. of Waterloo. Unpubl. Ph.D. t h e s i s i n Systems Design Engineering. Kelley, John L. 1961. General Topology. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand. Klee, Robert L. 1984. M i c r o - d e t e r m i n i s m and concepts of emergence. P h i l , of S c i e n c e , 51(1): 49-63. Kondepudi, D. K. & I. P r i g o g i n e . 1981. S e n s i t i v i t y of n o n e q u i l i b r i u m systems. Physica 107A:l-24. Lakatos, Imre. 1970. F a l s i f i c a t i o n and the methodology of s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h programmes. Pp. 91-182 i n C r i t i c i s m and t h e Growth of Knowledge. I. L a k s t o s & A. Musgrav, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. L e i s t r i t z , F. L a r r y & R.A. Chase. 1982. Socioeconomic impact management systems: a review and evaluation. J. Env. Man., 15: 333-49. Lewis, J e f f e r s o n . 1981. Something Hidden: A Biography of Wilder Penfield. Toronto: Doubleday Canada Inc. Lewontin, R.C. 1983. Gene, organism and environment. Pp. 273-85 i n Evolution from Molecules to Men. D.S. Bendall, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Ljapin, E.S. 1974. Semigroups. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Lorenz, Edward N. 1963. The p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of hydrodynamic flow. Trans. N.Y. Acad. S c i . , Ser. 2, 25: 409-32. McKelvey, B i l l . 1982. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S y s t e m a t i c s . B e r k e l e y : Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Majone, G. & E.S. Quade, eds. 1980. P i t f a l l s i n A n a l y s i s . New York: W i l e y (ISASA 8). Marchand, B. 1984. Urban growth models revisted: c i t i e s as s e l f - o r g a n i z i n g systems. Env. & Ping., A, 16(7): 949-64. 80 M a r c h e t t i , Cesare. 1985. Swings, c y c l e s and the g l o b a l economy. New S c i e n t . 106 (1454):12-15. M a r t i n d a l e , Don. 1964. The f o r m a t i o n and d e s t r u c t i o n of communities. In E x p l o r a t i o n s i n S o c i a l Change. G.K. Z o l l s c h a n & W. H i r s c h (eds.), pp. 61-87. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n . M a t t e s s i c h , R i c h a r d . 1982. A x i o m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the systems framework: s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between Mario Bunge's World of Systems and my own systems methodology. Cybern. & Systs., 13:51-75. Matthews, David Ralph. 1983. Three key dimensions i n regional development: economic v i a b i l i t y , s o c i a l v i t a l i t y and p o l i t i c a l e f f i c a c y . In The C r e a t i o n of R e g i o n a l Dependency, pp. 148-66. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press. Meadows, D o n e l l a H. 1982. Lessons from g l o b a l m o d e l l i n g and m o d e l l e r s . Futures, 14 (Apr): 111-21. M i l l e r , P h i l l i p C. 1978. A B r i t i s h Columbia F i s h i n g V i l l a g e . Vancouver: Univ. of B.C. Unpubl. I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Ph.D. Thesis. . 1982. S i m u l a t i o n of socio-economic impacts: m o d e l l i n g a f i s h i n g v i l l a g e . Env. Man., 6(2): 123-44. Morgan, Robin. 1982. The Anatomy of Freedom: Feminism, Physics and Global P o l i t i c s . New York: Doubleday. M o n t r o l l , E l l i o t W. 1978. S o c i a l dynamics and the q u a n t i f y i n g of s o c i a l forces. Proc. Nat. Acad. S c i . USA, 75 (10):4633-7. Myrdal, Gunnar. 1975. What i s development? E k i s t i c s , 237: 84-7. N i c o l i s , G., & I. P r i g o g i n e . 1977. S e l f - O r g a n i z a t i o n i n N o n e q u i l i b r i u m Systems. New York: Wiley. N i c o l i s , G. 1981. Symmetry b r e a k i n g and p a t t e r n s e l e c t i o n i n f a r - f r o m -e q u i l i b r i u m systems. Proc. N.A.S. USA, 78 (2):659-63. Norton, G.A. & B.H. Walker. 1982. A p p l i e d ecology: towards a p o s i t i v e approach. I. The context of applied ecology. J. Env. Man., 14: 309-24. Novak, Joseph D. & D. Bob Gowin. 1984. L e a r n i n g How to Learn. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Nugent, J e f f r e y B. & P.A. Yotopoulos. 1979. What has orthodox development economics learned from recent experience? World Dev., 7:541-54. 81 Odum, Eugene P. 1969. The s t r a t e g y of ecosystem development. Sc i e n c e 164:262-70. Odum, Howard T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. New York: Wiley. OECD. 1982a. The OECD L i s t of S o c i a l Indicators. P a r i s : OECD. Ortn e r , Donald J., ed. 1983. How Humans Adapt: A B i o c u l t u r a l Odyssey. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Inst., Press. Ozbekhan, Hans. 1968. Toward a general theory of planning. In Perspectives of P l a n n i n g . E. J a n t s c h (ed.), pp. 45-155. P a r i s : OECD. Parkes, D.N. & N.J. T h r i f t . 1980. Times, Spaces and P l a c e s : A Chrono- geographic Perspective. Chichester: Wiley. P e r l o f f , Harvey S. 1957. Problems of assessing regional economic progress. In Regional Income: Studies i n Income and Wealth, pp. 35-62. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. Perroux, F r a n c o i s . 1983. A New Concept of Development: B a s i c Tenets. London: Croom Helm/UNESCO. P o l l a r d , J.H. 1977. A Handbook of N u m e r i c a l and S t a t i s t i c a l Techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Poston, Tim & Ian Stewart. 1978. Cat a s t r o p h e Theory and i t s Applications. London: Pitman. P r i g o g i n e , I l y a . 1962. I n t r o d u c t i o n to Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics. New York: Wiley-interscience. . 1976. Order through f l u c t u a t i o n : s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n and s o c i a l system. Pp. 93-133 i n E v o l u t i o n and Consciousness, E. J a n t s c h & CH. Waddington, eds. Reading: Addison Wesley. . 1978. Time, structure and flu c t u a t i o n s . Science, 201(4358): 777-85. . 1980. From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity i n the Physical Sciences. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. . 1985. Time and human knowledge. Env. & Planning, B. 12:20. , P.M. A l l e n & R. Herman. 1977. Long term t r e n d s and the e v o l u t i o n of complexity. Pp. 1-63 i n Goals i n a Global Community, Vol. 1, E. Laszlo & J. Bierman, eds. New York: Pergamon. 82 & I. Stengers. 1979. La N o u v e l l e A l l i a n c e : Metamorphose de l a Science. Paris: Gallimard. . 1984. Order out of Chaos. Toronto: Bantam. Rapoport, A n a t o l . 1983. M a t h e m a t i c a l Models i n the S o c i a l and Behavioral Sciences. New York: Wiley. Rappaport, Roy A. 1971. The sacred i n human evolution. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2:23-44. Rapport, David A. & A. Friend. 1979. Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Environmental S t a t i s t i c s : A Stress-Response Approach. Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada. R i f k i n , Jeremy ( w i t h Ted Howard). 1980. Entropy: A New World View. New York: Viking. Rosnay, J o e l de. 1979. The Macroscope: A New World S c i e n t i f i c System. [Transl. Robert Edwards]. New York: Harper & Row. Royden, H.L. 1968. Real Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan. Sale, Kirkpatrick. 1985. Dwellers i n the Land: The Bioregional V i s i o n . San Francisco: .Sierra Club Books. Schon, Donald A. 1983. The R e f l e c t i v e P r a c t i t i o n e r . New York: Basic Books. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1961 [1926], The Theory of Economic Development. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Seddon, George. 1984. Journey through N a t a l : r e f l e c t i o n s on " n a t u r a l " ecosystems. Landscape Arch., 74(6): 60-7. Smith, Terence R. 1983. Computational P r o c e s s models of i n d i v i d u a l decision-making behaviour. In C i t i e s and Regions as Non-Linear Decision Systems. R.W. Crosby (ed.), pp. 175-210. Boulder: Westview Press. S o l e r i , Paolo. 1969. A r c o l o g y : The C i t y i n the Image of Man. Cambridge: MIT Press. Solow, Robert M. 1956. A c o n t r i b u t i o n to the theory of economic growth. Q. J. Econ., 70:65-94. Sprout, H a r o l d & M. Sprout. 1965. The E c o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e on Human A f f a i r s . Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 83 T a y l o r , A l a s t a i r M. 1976. P r o c e s s and s t r u c t u r e i n s o c i o c u l t u r a l systems. In Evolution and Consciousness. E. Jantsch & CH. Waddington (eds.), pp. 169-84 Reading: Addison-Wesley. Thorn, Rene. 1975. S t r u c t u r a l S t a b i l i t y and Morphogensis. [ T r a n s l . D.H. Fowler]. Reading! Benjamin/Cummings. Todd, Nancy Jack & John Todd. 1984. Bioshelters, Ocean Arks, C i t y Farming: Ecology as the Basis of Design. San Francisco: S i e r r a Books. Toynbee, Arnold J. 1968. The reluctant death of sovereignty. The Center Mag. 1(3):28-33. Tuchman, Barbara W. 1984. The March of F o l l y : From Troy to Vietnam. New York: A l f r e d Knopf. Turner, J.S. 1982. S e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i n n o n - e q u i l i b r i u m c h e m i s t r y and biology. In Self-Organization and D i s s i p a t i v e S t r u c t u r e s . W. Schieve & P.M. A l l e n (eds.), pp. 40-63. A u s t i n : Texas Univ. Press. Watzlawick, Paul, J.H. Beavin, D.D. Jackson. 1967. Pragmatics of Human Com- munication: A Study of I n t e r a c t i o n a l Patterns, Pathologies and Para- doxes. New York: W.W. Norton & Comp., Inc. W e i d l i c h , W. & G. Haag. 1983. Concepts and Models of a Q u a n t i t a t i v e Sociology. B e r l i n : Springer-Verlag. Western, John S. 1977. Development planning: a s o c i o l o g i c a l approach. In Planning i n Turbulent Environments. J.S. Western & P.R. W i l s o n (eds.), pp. 106-21. St. L u c i a : Univ. of Queensland Press. Wicken, J e f f r e y S. 1984. Aut o c a t a l y t i c c y c l i n g and s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n i n the ecology of evolution. Nature and System, 6:119-135. Wiens, John A. 1984. Resource systems, p o p u l a t i o n s , and communities. In A New Ecology: Novel Approaches to Interacting Systems. P.W. Price, CN. S l o b o d c h i k o f f , & W.S. Gaud (eds.), pp. 397-436. New York: Wiley. W i r t h , L o u i s . 1938. Urbanism as a way of l i f e . Amer. J. S o c i o l . , 44(1): 1-24. Wolfram, Stephen. 1984. Computer s o f t w a r e i n s c i e n c e and mathematics. Scient. Amer., 251(3): 188-203. Wuketits, Franz M., ed. 1984. Concepts and Approaches i n E v o l u t i o n a r y Epistemology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 84 Young, M i c h a e l & John Ziman. 1971. C y c l e s i n s o c i a l behaviour. Nature, 229 (5280):91-5. Zeleny, M i l a n (ed.). 1981. Autopoiesis: A Theory of L i v i n g Organization. New York: North Holland. 1985. Spontaneous s o c i a l orders. Int. J. General Systems, 11: 117— 31. 85 APPENDIX I - GLOSSARY Note: the names of var i a b l e s i n the model are c a p i t a l i z e d . a m p l i f i c a t i o n — increase i n magnitude; here to increase i n s p a t i a l scope, e.g., a m p l i f i c a t i o n of m i c r o s c o p i c f l u c t u a t i o n s to c r e a t e long-range order. a u t o c a t a l y t i c — the s i t u a t i o n when one of the prod u c t s of a proc e s s enhances the rate of the process which produces i t . b i f u r c a t i o n — an abrupt (discontinuous) change between the way things have been and the way they w i l l be i n f u t u r e , e.g., a b i f u r c a t i o n i n the evolution of the state of a system. closed system — from thermodynamics; a system that exchanges energy but not matter with i t s environment. community — a cohesive assemblage of i n d i v i d u a l s and t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s i n a r e l a t i v e l y l o c a l i z e d place and time, c f . society. community s t r u c t u r e — the t o t a l of the e c o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l structures that c o n s t i t u t e a community. component — a major constituent part of a (sub)system that i s not, at the l e v e l of complexity under consideration, i t s e l f a system; a determinant of community structure. connectedness — a p r o p e r t y of systems; i m p l i e s t h a t a change i n a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of one system w i l l a f f e c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those systems to which i t i s connected. CONSUMPTION — the a c t u a l u s i n g up (degrading) of renewable and non-renewable resources. d e t e r m i n i s t i c — a system i s d e t e r m i n i s t i c i f i t s f u t u r e s t a t e can be p r e d i c t e d on the b a s i s of g i v e n i n i t i a l c o n d i t i o n s and a knowledge of the forces acting on i t . d i s c o n t i n u i t y — a break i n the structure of a system; a q u a l i t a t i v e change i n the fundamental nature of a process or structure. 86 d i s s i p a t i v e s t r u c t u r e — P r i g o g i n e ' s term f o r the s t r u c t u r e s t h a t r e s u l t from s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n as a consequence of the n o n l i n e a r , c a t a l y t i c processes within the system that d i s s i p a t e matter and energy i n creating and maintaining system structure. dynamic — a p r o p e r t y of systems; the o p p o s i t e of s t a t i c ; i m p l i e s a complex, changing pattern of structures and processes wi t h i n the system over time. e c o l o g i c a l — 1) of or pertaining to the b i o l o g i c a l or p h y s i c a l systems of the human environment, e.g., the b i o s p h e r e , l i t h o s p h e r e , atmosphere, hydrosphere; 2) i n the sense of " e c o l o g i c a l a n t hropology" or "human e c o l o g i c a l systems" e c o l o g i c a l r e f e r s more s i m p l y to the p a t t e r n of i n d i v i d u a l s and groups and t h e i r growth, decline, and i n t e r a c t i o n . economic — of or p e r t a i n i n g to those ( a r t i f i c i a l ) systems of the human e n v i r o n m e n t i n v o l v i n g t h e exchange between i n d i v i d u a l s and/or organizations of goods and s e r v i c e s and the u t i l i z a t i o n of e c o l o g i c a l resources. emergent properties — properties of systems that appear spontaneously once a c e r t a i n l e v e l of complexity has been reached. ENERGY — system a d a p t a b i l i t y and innovativeness; defined within a given system as the e x t e n t of l e a r n i n g ( n e g a t i v e feedback) r e l a t i v e to opportunity plus the rate of innovation. entropy — i n thermodynamics, a measure of the disorder of the system; a measure of the energy a v a i l a b l e to do work. ENTROPY — a r e s u l t of i n e f f i c i e n t or i n e f f e c t i v e use of a (human) system's re s o u r c e s ; d e f i n e d w i t h i n a s p e c i f i c system as d e v i a t i o n from t h a t ordered s t r u c t u r a l s t a t e n e c e s s a r y to meet the needs and g o a l s of the 'system. environment — a l l those components of the human system t h a t are not included i n the p a r t i c u l a r subsystem being considered. e q u i l i b r i u m — a system i s i n e q u i l i b r i u m i f the forces acting on i t sum to zero; i.e., i f i n the absence of a change i n the f o r c e s a c t i n g on i t , i t undergoes no s t r u c t u r a l change. evolution — the process of continuing change i n the nature of a system as a r e s u l t of forces external and i n t e r n a l to i t . extensive — defined by and extending homogeneously over the e n t i r e system; e.g., mass and volume i n physico-chemical systems. 87 far-from-equilibrium — a state, f a r from that which would otherwise r e s u l t (equilibrium) that i s mantained by flows of energy and matter over the system boundaries. f l u c t u a t i o n — a s m a l l change i n the v a l u e or nature of some system c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which, under most circumstances, w i l l disappear r a p i d l y . f o r c e — t h a t which changes the s t a t e of a system from what i t would have been i n the absence of the force. f u n c t i o n a l i t y — usefulness; of or pertaining to what a system, structure, or process does or should do. HISTORICAL INPUTS — l e g a c y of past s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e i n the form of myth, r i t u a l , t r a d i t i o n , e tc. human system — the t o t a l system of the earth or some part of i t invo l v i n g the e c o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l subsystems. i n d i c a t o r — a c t u a l , o b s e r v a b l e community c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s subsumed by a va r i a b l e . information — fact, knowledge; anything which j u s t i f i e s a change i n a plan or st r u c t u r e . i n t e n s i v e — d e f i n e d a t , and o f t e n t a k i n g on a d i f f e r e n t v a l u e at, each p o i n t i n a system, e.g., p r e s s u r e and temperature i n p h y s i c o - c h e m i c a l systems. i n t e r n a l h i s t o r y — the h i s t o r y of the s t r u c t u r e s and p r e s s u r e s w i t h i n a system i n c o n t r a s t to a h i s t o r y of the system's r e l a t i o n s w i t h i t s environment, e.g., the s p a t i a l pattern of a c i t y over time. i r r e v e r s i b l e — a process i s i r r e v e r s i b l e i f i t s past i s not knowable from a knowledge of i t s present state and the forces acting on i t . i s o l a t e d system — a system that exchanges neither matter nor energy with i t s environment; a t h e o r e t i c a l i d e a l u seful i n thermodynamics. LANDSCAPE — the o v e r a l l i n t e g r i t y of the e c o l o g i c a l component of community. LAND TENTURE — the system of determining land ownership and land use. LAND USE — the s i t e - s p e c i f i c use of land and i t s resources. macroscopic — large-scale; v i s i b l e ; of the same order of magnitude as the e n t i r e system. 88 MASS — a measure of community s t r u c t u r a l i n e r t i a and stagnation; defined as s t r u c t u r a l r i g i d i t y plus s o c i a l conformity. microscopic — small-scale, i n v i s i b l e ; of the same order of magnitude as the constituents of the system; e.g., molecules are microscopic, a gas cloud i s macroscopic. nonlinear — a nonlinear reaction or process i s one which involves c a t a l y t i c steps or feedback loops. open system — a system which exchanges both energy and matter w i t h i t s environment. parameter — c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( c o n s t a n t s or other terms i n a mathematical equation) of a system that d i s t i n g u i s h i t from fundamentally d i f f e r e n t ones. PRODUCTION — the r e s u l t of consumption; generation of u s e f u l products and non-useful wastes. q u a l i t a t i v e — concerned with quality; the nature of a thing, rather than i t s quantity. quantitative — concerned with the magnitude or quantity or measurement of a thing rather than i t s fundamental nature or q u a l i t y . r e d u c t i o n i s t — attempting to reduce complex phenomena to the simplest terms possible; i . e . , the usual method of the physical sciences. RESOURCES — the actual amount and d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources on a s p e c i f i c s i t e . r e v e r s i b l e — a r e v e r s i b l e p r o c e s s i s one whose past i s knowable from a knowledge of i t s p r e s e n t s t a t e and the f o r c e s a c t i n g on i t , e.g., the t r a j e c t o r y of a dropped b a l l i n c l a s s i c a l mechanics. s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n — the generation of order i n an open, nonlinear system as a r e s u l t of processes i n t e r n a l to the system. s o c i a l — of or p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e i n t e r a c t i o n and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s with other i n d i v i d u a l s . SOCIAL INPUTS — the e f f e c t s of the community's s o c i a l s tructure. s o c i a l structure — the formal (e.g., governments, laws) and informal (e.g., classes, castes) mechanisms by which the r e l a t i o n s of the i n d i v i d u a l s of a society are regulated. 89 society — a c o l l e c t i o n of communities and i n d i v i d u a l s with a common s o c i a l structure. s t o c h a s t i c — a stochastic process i s one whose evolution i s determined by random events. s t r e s s — a f o r c e f o r change i n a system; most o f t e n , but not always, o r i g i n a t i n g outside the system. s t r u c t u r a l change — change i n the structure, i n the mode of functioning, of a system. s t r u c t u r a l s t a b i l i t y — s t a b i l i t y of a system i n the f a c e of s t r u c t u r a l change — does the change take over the system or i s i t r e s i s t e d . system — a complex whole c o n s i s t i n g of t h i n g s , p a r t s , i n d i v i d u a l s , structures, processes, and systems. TENSION— goodness of f i t ; d e f i n e d as a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of community s t r u c t u r e g i v e n e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t s . The worse the goodness of f i t , the higher the tension. v a r i a b l e — the a c t u a l components of the model which r e p r e s e n t the e c o l o g i c a l , economic, and s o c i a l components of community.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Planning
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
A self-organizational model of community evolution
Text