Similarities between postmodernism and complexity thinking

Complexity thinking has been described as a multidisciplinary, holistic, flexible, integrative systemic approach that is increasingly being applied to organisational management

(Macmillan 2004, Mitleton-Kelly 2003, Capra 1996, Johnson 2009:xi). In a complex adaptive system ‘agents both make and are made by the environment and are thus actors in their own evolutionary history’ (Harman 1994:385). In other words, as in affirmative

postmodernism, agents are actively involved in co-creating the system of which they are a part. Both perspectives acknowledge that all agents in the situation both constitute and affect everything else in the situation in some way, such that we exist in a fabric of

relationships from which we cannot be isolated (Clarke 2005, Luhman 1985). This shared co-evolutionary ontology suggests that what we perceive as reality cannot be seen as an independently existing reference point, as the self, the environment and knowledge are mutually constructed, in a constant state of being in which it is not possible to separate the known from the observed (Darwin et al 2002).

‘If epistemology is about what know and how we know what we know (what is inside) and ontology is about what there is to know (what is outside) then the most fundamental

95

challenge that complexity science makes is that these can no longer be considered as separable’. (Allen and Varga 2007:19)

Applied to this research, humans, as active participants in the system become co-creators of the natural environment, as Gaia theory suggests (Lovelock 2000). This is very different from the linear rational approach which sees nature and society as separate and discrete

(Metzner 1995). The recognition that humans and non humans are equal participants, interacting in networks, means that concepts like nature and science become human constructs, open to interpretation (Latour 2004). Latour describes social as

‘networks of connections between human agents, technologies and objects.’ (Couldry 2004:1)

Significantly for this research, this suggests that the natural environment is a post hoc justification, our understanding of which is shaped by discourse. Approaching sustainable development from this perspective and moving away from seeing nature as an asocial, objective source of truth, shifts our focus away from examining facts to exploring the relationships between the agents, structures and policies that influence behaviour. This means that matters of concern, like sustainable development, climate change, poverty or injustice could be explored as discourses rather than as truth or reality (Blewitt 2010).

Postmodern research methods therefore, will help us to uncover the various narratives and discourses that co-create the system (letters of the alphabet) and complexity thinking will provide a framework from which to explore the patterns or relationships that give meaning to our lives.

Another significant similarity between postmodernism and complexity thinking is the inability for prediction. A complex system is a collection of interdependent, interacting agents that both influence their environment and are influenced by it. The system is co-created without deliberate intent (Stacey 2001, Cilliers 1998) as each agent responds differentially to feedback, making prediction impossible. Postmodern also denies the possibility of cause and effect relationships, acknowledging that the multiplicity of narratives make the world

‘so complicated that concepts such as prediction and causality are irrelevant.’ (Kilduff and Mehra 1997:455)

96

The acceptance of diversity is another area that postmodernism and complexity thinking have in common. Postmodernism exposes the different perspectives that constitute a situation and acknowledges the diversity of views that contribute to our perceptions of reality (Clarke 2005:xxiii). The underlying principle is that revealing the diverse narratives that are hidden beneath dominant meta-narratives opens up the possibility of change.

Complexity thinking similarly, acknowledges the role of diversity in a system as emergence is a product of interacting agents and lack of diversity can bring the system to a standstill (McDaniel 2007, Macmillan 2004). Diversity is particularly relevant in the context of this research which is attempting to capture the diverse voices in the voluntary sector in order to uncover what sustainable development means for the sector and how they respond to the call for behaviour change.

A final similarity between complexity thinking and postmodernism is the acknowledgement that that all knowledge is partial and value laden and that knowledge claims must be set within the conditions of the world as it is today (Johnson and Duberley 2000). A complex system, like human society, is dynamic and constantly changing in response to feedback. It is not possible to re-create any situation as all outcomes are constantly being renegotiated and open to change through discussion and participation (Cilliers 1998). Postmodernism, like complexity thinking, denies the possibility of meta-narratives, preferring to see reality as a product of historically and culturally located discourses.

To sum up therefore, postmodernism can be seen as a useful tool for uncovering the diverse narratives that co-create the complex world in which we live, and complexity thinking can provide a framework for examining the relationship between these narratives and how they influence the construction of the system. It has been suggested that sustainable

development, a complex, multi-dimensional problem, cannot be easily managed by classical, problem solving approaches (Voss et al 2006) and the application of a complexity

framework would not only challenge the current dominant linear approaches to change (meta-narrative), but it would also challenge how we understand the natural environment and recognise our embeddedness in the wider ecology (Borland 2009). Exploring the role of the voluntary sector in the promotion of behaviour change for sustainable development in this way would encourage voluntary sector participants consider the role of sustainable development, not from the linear perspective of right or wrong or good or bad, but by

97

focussing on what is more or less useful, important and acceptable to the them at the time.

It must be noted that this approach will not provide prescriptive solutions as with first or second order change, but it will create the possibility of doing things differently in a way that is re-affirmative, oppositional and critical, alternative and innovative (Cilliers 1988). It could, in other words, offer a ‘restructuring of modernist assumptions with something larger, fuller, more true.’ (Jenks 1992:11) and counter the modern ideological flight from body, nature and place, and the separation between humans and nature (Spretnak 1997).

However this will only happen, if sustainable development is seen as a narrative that is important enough to require action (legitimized). Morgan (2006) acknowledges that environmental problems require shared understandings and an ability to reframe system dynamics. The value of this research therefore, is that by encouraging an inclusive debate around the relationship between humans and the natural environment (shared

understanding) and opening up the discourses around the interdependency between economic development, environmental development and social development inherent in the concept of sustainable development, this could reframe the system dynamics and support new behaviours.