Dokumentumok

Nyomtatóbarát változat

Cím:	“Serendipity and the snowflakes”
Szerző:
Ország:
A kiadás helye:
A kiadás éve:
Kiadó:
Terjedelem:	9
Nyelv:	angol
Tárgyszavak:
Állomány:	Közösségfejlesztési partnerségépítés Közép-Kelet Európában
Forditas:
Megjegyzés:
Annotáció:
Leltár:
Raktári jelzet:	E

Article for SCCD Newsletter (May 1999)

“Serendipity and the snowflakes”

Alison Gilchrist

This may seem a rather curious title for an article about community development. I have used it to convey two important aspects of a model of `community’ which I hope will make sense to members of SCCD. It uses from complexity theory to examine and explain the importance of networking in the development of mature resilient communities. This is a sequel to the `Connectors and catalysts’ article which appeared in the Winter 1998 issue of SCCD News and carried forward the argument in more detail.

Community as a complex system

Complexity theory has developed from the study of complex systems within the scientific domains of (for example) meteorology, genetic biology, ecology and archeology (Lewin, 1993). It encompasses chaos theory, and seeks to understand (amongst other things) the ways in which order seems to emerge out of `chaos’, without the need for outside interventions or an internal control mechanism. Complex systems consist of a multiplicity of elements connected with one another through local links and clusterings. Within the system occur dynamic and recurrent interactions and each element responds to the combined input of its neighbours according to fairly simple rules.

The effect of these patterns of mutual influence is the appearance over time of complex, but stable configurations, known as `strange attractors’. Their approximate shapes reflect characteristic of the system - the nature and diversity of the interacting elements and the extent to which they are connected. Their specific content are determined by features of the environment in which the interactions take place. Snowflakes are one example of naturally occurring `strange attractors’. Their hexagonal shape is constant for all snowflakes and is governed by chemical rules for the molecular combination of freezing water. The unique beauty of each specific snowflake captures the specific environmental conditions in which it is formed, namely the temperature gradient and degree of saturation of the air through which it falls. Computer simulations of complex systems evolving over time, using relatively simple (Boolean logic) equations have produced exquisite images of natural looking patterns, which have come to be known as `fractals’.

My complexity model of `community’ proposes that the familiar forms of self-organisation and decision-making that regularly appear in human societies are examples of fractals, order crystallising out of apparent chaos as a result of countless interactions and environmental pressures. In particular I am arguing that the `optimal’ community (which I have previously termed `well-connected’) is one which is able to adapt effectively to external changes and to sustain its own forms of collective organising and governance. This state is achieved when the relevant human system reaches and maintains itself at the `edge of chaos’.

Order at the `edge of chaos’

Complexity theory suggests that complex systems can be ranged along a continuum. At one end we see a situation where the connections between the elements are sparse and rigid so that the system barely responds to changes in its environment. Its interactions appear frozen or stagnant. At the other end, the system is in a state of chaotic disequilibrium unable to settle into any kind of stable pattern. Between these two extremes is a region of the spectrum for which the mathematician Norman Packard coined the term the `edge of chaos’. It has been suggested that naturally occurring complex systems spontaneously evolve towards this state of dynamic equilibrium, with micro-rules generating macro-order (Kauffman, 1995).

The `edge of chaos’ is achieved if there is a critical diversity of interacting elements and a balance between the costs and benefits of maintaining sufficient levels of inter-connectivity. Systems operating at the `edge of chaos’ are excellent information processors and highly creative. They are sensitive to slight changes in external conditions and internal events, generate innovative responses to these which adapt or evolve to suit the current environment. Complex systems are able to do this despite having no central control or co-ordinating mechanism, and without the need for local elements to have an overall awareness or sense of purpose. This process of self-organisation has been termed `autopoiesis’ and refers to the ability of a system to develop stable (but not static) patterns and structures to support continuing interactions.

Informal networking

In human terms these ideas can be translated into looking at the ways in which informal social networks are the foundation for our experience of `community’. It is clear from personal experience and from social psychology that our thoughts and actions are influenced by the behaviour and attitudes of those around us. We are not autonomous, and yet we do have a sense of `free will’, believing that our decisions and responses are not pre-ordained, even though they are affected by previous experience. We interact on a daily basis with friends, neighbours, colleagues and family members, usually taking into account their expectations and reactions. These exchanges tend to follow social conventions, whilst also reflecting local or personal circumstances. Some people are more influential in our lives than others. We tend to be most sensitive to the views and actions of those with whom we have a strong emotional bond or who have some power over us. This has both positive and negative effects; it can be empowering and oppressive.

Our networks reflect our preferences, our prejudices and our priorities. It is not
possible to maintain an infinite set of connections and relationships, so we prioritise
those that are most useful, most enjoyable or simply most convenient. This changes
according to what is going on in our lives - our needs and interests, fears and desires.
The processes of networking are idiosyncratic, but not random. The interactions and
exchanges that occur between individuals or between organisations settle down over
time into familiar and fairly stable patterns. Some of our connections become more
structured. We set up or join groups, organisations and committees which support and guide collective strategies for achieving our goals or simply surviving difficult times. Voluntary associations emerge in response to shared concerns and these develop according to whether they attract sufficient members, resources or attention. Human intuition and ingenuity are constantly throwing up imaginative combinations and possibilities. Those that `fit’ the current environment survive. Those that don’t find their `niche’ or are threatened by other organisations competing for the same resources dissolve back into the web of relationships or merge.

Self-organisation

The probability of successful forms of collective organisation developing is increased if members and potential participants are `well-connected’. By this I mean that there are strong, positive relationships within the organisation and also that the relevant network has good links with more powerful institutions. These provide access to resources, expertise and influence which may help the group achieve its goals. Studies of different types of organisations indicate that network-forms are most suitable in `turbulent’ environments where there is rapid and unpredictable change. Networks are flexible and can adapt easily to shifts in their operating conditions. They are able to take in and process information from a variety of sources. Indeed this diversity of input and experience is an advantage in helping the organisation to anticipate changes and to experiment with novel responses.

My argument suggests that what we mean by the term `community’ is a complex human system operating at the `edge of chaos’. Members of a `well-connected’ community are able to communicate easily and openly with one another, tolerate and learn from different perspectives, and do not attempt to impose a rigid, often artificial consensus. `Community’ in these (post-)modern times of globalisation and social fragmentation is not necessarily about promoting unity, social inclusion or consensus. Instead `community’ can be conceptualised as a set of overlapping and interacting networks which allow people to share diverse experience, ideas and resources. It is a kind of non-directive integrating mechanism that enables people to work together to develop collective solutions to common problems.


Professional interventions

`Community’ represents the process, the context and the outcome of networking between individuals and formal inter-organisational liaison. In this model, the purpose of `community development’ reverts to its natural meaning as the development of `community’. In other words, the task of professionals engaged in community development practice is primarily to create and foster opportunities for people to meet, exchange and learn from one another through dialogue and collective reflection (Jaworski, 1996). Good community development will nurture interactions which are both challenging and supportive, enabling people to discover and compare new insights into their world and to develop their ability to work across the various social divisions, organisational boundaries and power differentials that they will inevitably encounter.

Many community development workers currently see their role as a combination of outreach, organising, training, advice and information, management and consultation. Government policies emphasise the provision of services, support for self-help initiatives and the encouragement of active citizenship. Community development approaches are being enthusiastically adopted by health workers, environmentalists, crime prevention officers and the like. This is to be welcomed. However, genuine, sustainable community development offers far more than `quick-fix’ projects, techniques for `delivering’ local participation or the means of reaching the `socially excluded’. It requires long-term investment in generic community work posts which are core-funded and provide secure and satisfying employment.

Connecting and communicating

I have argued that community is `achieved’ when a human system attains the `edge of chaos’. This will occur when a given population (whether defined by locality, identity or interest) has developed (and is able to manage for itself) optimal levels of connectivity and sufficient socio-diversity to generate and maintain its own forms of collective organisation and communal activities. In plain English, this means that people in a community are able to contact one another relatively easily, that they have access to a range of contrasting and complementary skills and knowledge, and that they understand and respect different cultures and lifestyles. The quality and extent of the relationships between individuals will make a major contribution to the way in which people experience and value their `sense of community’. This is not to imply that everyone will necessary like and agree with one another, nor that disputes and antagonisms will miraculously disappear. Rather that people (individually and collectively) will have developed the capacity to articulate and resolve tensions, to manage shared resources and to advocate effectively for their own interests.

A community at the `edge of chaos’ is creative, resilient, vibrant, adaptive and sustainable. It does not need external interventions or centralised regulations. It is well-integrated and uses its connections to co-ordinate individual and collective responses to changes in the environment. Much of this is through informal networking - people using their links to find the information, the emotional support and the practical assistance they need. Sometimes these networks crystallise into more formal organisations - working parties, residents associations, clubs, playschemes, coalitions, campaigning groups or whatever. Like snowflakes they adopt familiar shapes and develop structures which are appropriate to the local context (its culture, funding priorities, the presence of other similar bodies). Their exact membership and specific functioning is unpredictable, often depending on chance conversations and happenstance encounters.

The significance of serendipity

Many of the things that actually happen in communities are serendipitous. Chaos scientists call this the `butterfly effect’, when an apparently insignificant event triggers sweeping changes within the whole system. An example from community work might be bumping into somebody and discovering through your conversation a really useful contact or possibility for collaboration. Most people will have experienced the way in which a casual remark sparks off a discussion (often after a meeting has officially ended) which cascades into a stream of `crazy ideas’ until `suddenly’ a vision or the perfect solution emerges and can be developed into a realistic plan of action.

The complexity of the system of interactions makes it impossible to predict specific outcomes. Everyday life throws up hundreds of possibilities, only some of which are feasible. However, the more that people interact with others and the greater the diversity of experiences that are brought to these interactions, the higher is the probability of a `critical mass’ of collaborators emerging to produce innovative and successful projects (Marwell and Oliver, 1993). Serendipity plays its part in making the most of fortuitous events. It operates to best effect in an environment which supports relationships which reach across traditional boundaries to make connections which are diverse and unexpected - the `well-connected community’ operating at the `edge of chaos’.

Interactions and integration

Community development workers assist these processes of mutual influence and self-organisation by creating and managing spaces which encourage networking, and also provide it with some structure. It is important that these opportunities are neither too stagnant nor too chaotic. They might be special events (such as International Women’s Day celebrations or a conference), regular activities (monthly lunch clubs, keep-fit classes), quasi-public spaces (drop-in centres, village halls), communication systems (community newsletters, websites) or organisations which allow different views and experiences to be exchanges (neighbourhood councils, race equality forums).

Community development core principles assert that all the above should be organised to ensure access, choice and equality for participants. Complexity theory explains that these aspirations are not about abstract (and contestable) moral or political values, nor about rigid `political correctness’. Rather they are about enabling community networks to function effectively at the `edge of chaos’. There are very practical reasons for anti-oppressive strategies to be embedded in community development practice. They are needed to ensure that relationships in the `well-connected community’ are based on trust, respect and reciprocity. The emotional aspects of these links are often overlooked, and yet they are a vital force in people’s motivation and commitment when participating in collective activities (Klandermans, 1997).

Meta-networking

If the development of `community’ is fundamentally about the quality of the connections that sustain life at the `edge of chaos’, then the funding and management of community development must afford greater recognition to the skills and strategies that workers use to support networking, especially in contexts where people find it difficult to form connections (e.g. due to poverty, segregation, oppression or mutual suspicion). Capacity building is not about enhancing the skills and confidence of individual local `leaders’. Nor is it about setting up the organisational mechanisms for community involvement in regeneration partnerships. As a professional intervention, community development should be concerned with helping people to establish and nurture connections and communication for and amongst themselves. I have invented the term `meta-networking’ to describe what I think is the primary purpose of developing the `edge of chaos’ community.

Effective meta-networking involves skills, strategy, support, spaces and structures. The aims of the work are simply to create circumstances and conditions which people can use to connect and communicate around a whole range of issues and ideas. Working programmes and evaluation criteria need to be flexible, capable of accommodating experimentation and the unexpected. Managers and policy officers responsible for community development strategies need to acknowledge that it may not be possible (or even desirable) to work towards pre-determined targets or performance criteria. The complexity model of `community’ outlined here allows only for forecasts, rather than predictions. A community which is sufficiently connected and diverse provides the optimal context in which appropriate and effective collective action will evolve to meet demands and opportunities in the environment.

The capacity of a community is held in its networks. It is the `macro-property’ which emerges from the `micro-interactions’. Some might call this `community spirit’. Others prefer the term `social capital’. Community development can make a tremendous contribution to re-weaving the tattered fabric of society. Strengthening and extending the web takes time, trust and tolerance, but is vital in achieving the `edge of chaos’ community and allowing for the appearance of both `snowflakes’ and serendipity.

References

Jaworski J. (1996) `Synchronicity: the inner path of leadership’. San Francisco. Berrett-Koehler.
Lewin R. (1993) `Complexity: life at the edge of chaos’. London. Phoenix.
Kauffman S. (1995) `At home in the universe: the search for the laws of complexity’. London. Penguin.
Klandermans B. (1997) `The social psychology of social protest’. Oxford. Blackwell.
Marwell G. and Oliver P. (1993) `The critical mass in collective action: a micro-social theory’. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.


2600 words

Dokumentumok