OWS: Time to Move Towards Sensitive Hierarchy?

December 01, 2011

Category: Complexity Theory, Leadership - Initiative, Community Development, Society-Threefolding

Should the Occupy Wall Street movement be evolving some form of hierarchy, the better to deal with its environment?

 

At the dawn of modern complexity theory, Theodor Schwenk described sensitive chaos. His photographs  of flowing water showed order emerging out of chaos. Today we term self-organizing systems “complex,” and observe their tendency to encompass lower and higher (as well as overlapping and intermeshing) levels, sometimes called holons. The organization of holons, in both nature and human society, can be “flat” or hierarchical. The neural nets of simple animals such as sponges are flat. In a sponge, all cells are pretty much the same and no cell, or group of cells, exerts leadership over the whole organism.

In social groups, flat leadership structures are often seen as better and more fair because everyone is equal. And they can indeed work well, as among a small group of friends. However, once a social system becomes fairly complex, with numerous members and differentiation of roles, flat structures can become extremely cumbersome. If everyone needs to be involved in every decision—there being only one decision-making body, comprised of the whole community—things tend to become difficult.

In contrast, hierarchy can be highly efficient. Higher, more complex animals have central nervous systems rather than neural nets. In these, some type of brain serves to collect information from all bodily sub-systems and to coordinate their activities for optimal wellbeing—of both part and whole.

If only things were so simple in human social systems! Here hierarchy does indeed have a tendency to be abused, as the forces of human egotism can lead to those "in charge" making self-serving decisions that actually hurt the common good. Such authoritarian models are top-down. As a consequence, they tend to be extremely ill informed, being averse to input and information from lower levels. They also resist shared decision-making with other holons. A non-egotistical hierarchy requires both top-down and bottom-up flows (as well as lateral ones), making it extremely sensitive and nimble.

OWS’s wariness of hierarchy is likely a reaction to authoritarian abuses. By being flat, OWS has avoided being tied to some specific list of “demands.” Its open, inclusive atmosphere has fostered a reappraisal of the systems we all inhabit. The creative OWS process has been likened to the activity of imaginal cells within the chrysalis, when the old caterpillar structures have dissolved and the new ones of the butterfly are yet latent.

Yet such a state can’t last. The butterfly must emerge—and, like the caterpillar, it needs to be a hierarchical being. OWS seems poised on the brink of a new stage. It may be that the “occupy” phase has run its course. A new form must now be imagined, and begin to take shape, or a unique opportunity will be lost (though, in any case, precious seeds have already been sown). OWS has avoided being co-opted by bigger and more established players, with their own particular social DNAs—a remarkable achievement! But now it must mature. It must find and express its own DNA, letting its imaginal cells give shape to a new being with a holonically sophisticated and integrated structure. To do so, it will need to discard the empty chrysalis of its flat organizational and embrace whatever form of sensitive hierarchy can best embody its tender beauty and transformative promise.

John Miller is a former Camphill coworker, Emerson College student, and longtime Waldorf teacher, who now works on Whole Systems Healing with the University of Minnesota’s Center for Spirituality and Healing. He is also involved with the transpartisan movement, seeking ways to bridge social and political divides and create cohesive community. A longer article on complexity theory and anthroposophy is appearing in the Winter 2011 being human.

Related Item