Political Geography: Essay 1

Title: To Scale or Not to Scale? Complex Systems Theory and The Third Side

Author: Patrick Meier, PhD candidate at The Fletcher School, Tufts University © Contact: (E) [email protected]; (C) 646-361-2645; Feedback welcome

For: Contribution to the Third Side Newsletter Date: March 17, 2006

The term “complexity” denotes the degree to which a system is difficult to analyze, understand or manage. Complexity is said to arise when systems contain a large number of mutually interacting parts at many different scales. The more complex the system, the more detailed, and therefore lengthy, our analysis tends to be. The term scale refers to the level of abstraction we choose to describe the interacting parts of a system, which in effect depends on how far we stand from the system we seek to describe. For instance, we can easily provide a simple description of a forest by standing at a reasonable distance or instead describe with more intricate detail the masterful distribution of individual leaves should happenstance have us closer. What does this have to do with The Third Side? Far more than meets the eye at this scale. In what follows we take a closer look at the forest and draw on some basic principles from complexity theory to show why The Third Side is the most appropriate scale to prevent and manage violent conflict.

The complexity of social systems arises from the interactions between and among many individuals, communities, and countries, and so on at many different scales. At a high level of abstraction or aggregation the interacting parts of a social system could be called states or nation-states, cloaking more local events and internal interactions. At a higher level of abstraction, we might begin using the word civilization, which to a certain extent shrouds the internal character or polity of individual states. In contrast, communities and individuals represent a lower level of abstraction. The trade-off between complexity and scale is illustrated by the three curves in Figure 1 below. Figure 1

Complexity Independent, highly complex

more info Organized, complex

Structured, simplified less info

less abstract Scale more abstract

Complexity as a function of scale for three kinds of systems: independent, organized and structured. The way a system is organized affects how it is seen at different scales. In social systems for instance, people in crowds move more independently than a structured army, while modern international companies reflect some organization yet less hierarchy (adapted from Bar-Yam 2004, 55).

Describing and managing systems in the world involves a decision about the level of detail we wish to provide—and plan to act on. As noted above, the amount of information necessary to describe a system is a function of scale or the detail we can observe from a given vantage point. In Figure 1, the horizontal axis indicates “how far away” we are from the system being described. In other words, it indicates the level of precision or scale of the description. The closer the object is, the greater the detail and the more precise the description. The vertical axis indicates the complexity of the system described

2 by an observer such as The Third Side. This represents the amount of information we need to describe a system moving in time and space at different scales.

What are the implications of this complexity-scale trade-off for conflict prevention and management? “Like any complex social phenomenon, violent conflict does not result from the linear summation of a neatly defined set of causes, but from interactions among multiple phenomena in a complex system with several levels of organization (…) As complexity and chaos theories show, in such a system behaviors will not respond in a linear way to changes in one variable, however significant that variable may be” (Rubin 2004, 22). Attempting to prevent or mitigate violent conflict at the wrong scale or level of complexity may produce new problems in unlikely locations or scales.

“Conflating the levels of analysis is common so that inferences derived from one level of analysis are often applied to another, termed the ecological fallacy” (O’Loughlin 2004, 6). There is also a “Netownian” fallacy of cause and effect; namely that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This assumption is commonly applied to conflict management, which professes that reversing the root or proximate causes of conflict—the complexity of which is a function of scale—is inherently preventive. However, Rubin suggests that, “preventive action may not work by reversing the value of particular ‘causes,’ but by introducing new factors that change the effects of those factors or transform the system (one way of conceiving of ‘conflict transformation’)” (2002, 22). At what scale ought these factors be introduced? Not surprisingly, the answer to this question has to do with complexity.

One way to avoid the confusion of scales is to develop a response-oriented organizational structure that matches the complexity of the environment within which it operates. Many private sector companies today are not strict hierarchies but rather hybrids of hierarchies and networks that reflect more flexibility and creativity. As Figure 2 below shows, this hybrid approach provides numerous lateral connections corresponding to additional communication channels between individuals.

3 Figure 2 provides an important insight for The Third Side. “To the extent that a single individual is in control of an organization, the organization is limited in complexity to the overall complexity of that single human being” (Bar-Yam 2004, 66). To realize why this is an important observation is to understand why an organization (or indeed any other system) needs to be complex.

Figure 2

Three types of control structures. Type (a) represents a network; (b) is a hybrid structure while type (c) depicts a hierarchical control structure.

Complexity is key to survival. This is because being complex is generally the only way to succeed in a complex environment where there are far more possibilities to make the wrong choice than the right decision. In a complex and competitive environment making the right selection requires an eye for details. As a general rule this requires a high level of complexity.

Take for example the flight deck of a passenger aircraft. Flying the plane safely requires at least two pilots (not to mention traffic control, cabin crew and ground crew). Why two pilots? The answer has to do with the complexity of the environment—the flight instruments and the weather for example—and that of the individual pilot—which is

4 dependent on experience, attention span, dexterity and so on. Add a second pilot and the complexity of the environment is immediately distributed between two individuals which creates more options or flexibility. This in turn increases their chances of making a correct decision based on their combined expertise or complexity.

“The rule of thumb is that the complexity of the organism has to match the complexity of the environment at all scales in order to increase the likelihood of survival” (Bar-Yam 2004, 67). In Figure 2, the complexity of the hierarchical control structure is limited to the complexity-handling ability (or complexity profile) of the one individual at the top, which in our example might be the equivalent of having only one pilot behind the instruments of a Boeing 747-400 experiencing heavy turbulence and noticeable crosswinds at sixty thousand feet with no radio uplink to air traffic control. Not a comfortable thought. The same argument can be made in the context of conflict. If the conflict environment within which an organization operates is very complex, many decisions must be made correctly in order to preventing further violence at multiple scales.

In summary, while Figure 1 demonstrates the trade-off between complexity and scale, Figure 2 suggests that the success or survival of an organism/organization depends on both complexity and scale. Adapting to this environment requires that an equally complex albeit response-oriented organization operates: (1) at a finer scale and (2) in a distributed manner. Until recently, however, the approach to early response looked more like Figure 3a than Figures 3b and 3c below.

The complexity of the environment increases over time as demonstrated by globalization. Organizations themselves should become more complex in order to manage this complexity and adapt to changing circumstances. In the figures below, the environment axis is shorter than that of the organization axis reflecting that the complexity of the environmental complexity increases relatively quickly while institutional and societal

5 change in the direction of greater organizational complexity lags behind. This mismatch in complexity profile significantly constraints the ability of an organization to make the right choices.

Figure 3a Figure 3b Figure 3c

Complexity of Environment

Leader Leaders Third Side

Third Third Leaders Side Side Complexity of Organization

From mismatching to matching complexities: both axes denote increasing levels of complexity over time. Figure (3a) portrays a hierarchical control; (3b) Jean-Paul Lederac’s approach to peacebuilding; and (3c) a hybrid control structure.

Figure 3a denotes a hierarchical control structure with a small ruling elite with a relatively passive Third Side engaged in limited response. The interface between the leader and the environmental complexity is a one-to-many relationship, which, as

6 suggested earlier, limits the complexity of this control structure to the complexity- handling ability of the individual at the top. Inspired from Jean-Paul Lederac’s work on peacebuilding (1997), Figure 3b reveals an increasingly active civil society. In this figure, the leadership is more accountable to the people who take on more responsibility as The Third Side. This is reflecting by the increase in area below the dotted line in Figures 3a and 3b. In contrast, Figure 3c shows a flourishing Third Side with a matching, many-to- many relationship with the scale and complexity of the environment, while the leadership is also matched in scale and complexity to the environment based on its complexity profile.

William Ury considers prevention as the most effective form of intervention and The Third Side offers a conflict prevention systems approach that matches the complexity of the conflict environment. In his own words, the “third side is the surrounding community, which serves as a container for any escalating conflict […] a kind of social immune system preventing the spread of the virus of violence” (2000, 7). He reminds us that, “no dispute takes place in a vacuum […] there are always others around–-relatives, neighbors, allies, neutrals, friends, or onlookers.” This is the scale at which The Third Side matches the complexity of the environment: from many interacting parts at a finer scale— relatives, neighbors, allies, neutrals, friends, or onlookers.

So is The Third Side to scale, or not to scale? You decide.

REFERENCES

Bar-Yam, Y. Making Things Work Solving Complex Problems in a Complex World (NECSI Knowledge Press, 2004).

Ury, W. The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can stop (Penguin non-classics, 2000).

Ledearch, J.P. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997).

7 Rubin, B. Blood on the Doorstep: The Politics of Preventive Action (The Century Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations, 2002).