Talk:Sociology and complexity science

Issues with the article

While this article is important it reads like a promotional essay from a particular perspective (for example the cybernetics/systems references). It also contained (I have removed most of them) multiple claims etc. about the quality of individuals which are unsupported. The British School does not seem to be a school based on the evidence, the only distinction seems to be an organisation form of some type. I have left it in with a fact tag for the moment. The maps are useful (I have seen and used them myself) but they represent a perspective on the field and need to be qualified as such. I have done what I can this morning but it needs a lot more work, in particular the use of reliable third party references for many of the claims. --Snowded ^TALK 07:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

British School

I appreciate the additions but I can't see how this is distinct. The statement "innovate sociological understanding through the usage of complexity science" applies to all the other schools and is not distinctive. The qual/quant point again doesn't seem distinct in any way. The first reference exactly mirrors this article which makes me think that at the moment the article is too linked to one way of thinking. I thought I had all editors of Emergence but I can't find 3 to check that. Can you provide a quote or two from those references which justifies this as a distinct school?--Snowded ^TALK 19:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good points. give me a chance.--Bcastel3 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, based on your excellent challenge, I went back to the book and articles and wrote up a new paragraph. This work is small but growing--and John Urry, David Byrne and Nigel Gilbert are certainly at the forefront. They do not yet call it a school, but that was, in part, the purpose of the book, Sociology and Complexity Science, to bring some recognition to this area because what they are doing is distinct amongst sociological inquiry. As Urry and Byrne and Gilbert graduate more students, their ideas are spreading. An excellent example is Byrne's influence on the latest work in community health from a complexity science perspective.--Bcastel3 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So Gilbert is the lead of two schools? If they don't call it a school then it probably isn't. Not only that it would need third party reference not reference from people in it. I can't see any evidence at the moment so will tag it.--Snowded ^TALK 07:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced Tag

I thought about this, but I think the tag is justified. This is an important article, but it is written from a specific perspective that sees Complexity as part of a flow of thinking with Systems Dynamics/Cybernetics etc. Now that is one perspective, but its not the only one. If we look at Smith and Jenkins in Qualitative Complexity, both sociologists they have a very different perspective on history building on multi-disciplinary sources. I think part of the problem here may be the maps which are constraining the whole article. I wonder if they should be referenced in the text (as they have web versions) rather than dominating the history? --Snowded ^TALK 08:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur, not only Smith & Jenks' approach is invisible here, but also the whole work of Edgar Morin (La méthode) who has been very active from the 1970's onwards in making the "complexity turn"... I know, it's up to us, wikipedia users, to work on improving this article ourselves, so I apologize for not being able to make a real contribution myself right now, for lack of time :-) --Sacha Kagan - Leuphana University Lueneburg195.37.31.213 (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point! there are always so many people who need to be recognized and it is important to make sure they get the proper acknowledgement. i put morin's name into the introduction.--Bcastel3

The problem is that its expressed as an opinion, needs a third party citation (actually the whole article needs a rewrite) --Snowded ^TALK 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. A good reference is Jenks and Smith (2006) Qualitative Complexity: Ecology, Cognitive Processes and the Re-Emergence of Structures in Post-Humanist Social Theory. New York, NY: Routledge.

Here, however, are some comments reflecting the veracity, for example, of Morin's work--all stated regarding his book: On Complexity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences) [Perfect Paperback]

1. Edgar Morin is one of the most prestigious figures in French, and indeed European, culture. Giovanni Reale, Author A History of Ancient Philosophy, Professor, Università San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

2. Edgar Morin is a person with a deep understanding of the social and historical aspects of human life. This understanding is the source of his concern and reflections on epistemology and complex systems. It is also the reason that what he says in those domains deserves to be read carefully. Humberto Maturana Romesin, Instituto de Formacion Matriztica, Co-author, The Tree of Knowledge.

3. I have not been this excited about anything rooted in general system theory since reading von Bertalanffy and Boulding many years ago. As one invested in interpretive epistemology and related methodologies, I had all but given up any hope of inspiration from this quarter. But Edgar Morin has changed all that with this marvelous book. Not only does he reinvigorate general systems theory, and its close companion complexity theory, by giving their epistemological foundations some much needed attention, he has laid down a tantalizing challenge to think more complexly about everything from self to society and provided plenty of inspiration for doing so. I hope that all my colleagues in organization studies will read this book and respond to it. It is deserving not only of our attention, but will be of interest to those working in all the fields of science, social science and the humanities. Mary Jo Hatch Author, Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives Professor Emeritus McIntire School of Commerce University of Virginia, USA

4. Edgar Morin's excellent On Complexity can be compared to some of the great books of modern culture such as Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Spinoza's Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione, and Vico's De Nostri Temporis Studiorum Ratione. Jean-Louis Le Moigne, Emeritus Professor of Systems Science, University of Aix-Marseille

5. The biology of 21st century is moving from the reductionist approach of molecular biology to the systems approach of the new science of systems biology. More than 20 years ago Edgar Morin had already articulated the paradigm of complexity that gives us the clues needed to address the conceptual changes in modern biology. Magali ROUX-ROUQUIÉ Senior scientist-CNRS (French National Research Center) Deputy director USAR-CNRS

6. Morin is a representative thinker of humanity's planetary age. In remedying the deficiency of Western classic analytic thinking, Morin's complex thinking shows some affinities to the Chinese classic synthetic thinking, such as the emphasis on the union of the universal and the particular. Morin path indicates that the creation of the paradigm of complexity depends on the fusion of Western and Eastern thinking, each of which has its strength and weakness. Yi-zhuang Chen, Professor of Philosophy, Central-South University, People's Republic of China

7. The Apollo of complexity, Edgar Morin is a solar presence, helping us to live and to hope. His work constitutes a major contribution to transdisciplinarity. Basarab Nicolescu Theoretical physicist, CNRS, University of Paris 6 Professor, University Babes-Bolyai de Cluj, Rumania President, CIRET (International Center for Research on Transdisciplinary Studies). Author of Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity.

7. Edgar Morin's writing on film, its stars, and the human beings who engage with them, remains the richest treatment of these phenomena available. Magic, wonder, the poetic as well as the prosaic, are a feature of his work generally, which refuses reductiveness while maintaining rigor. An intellectual monument in France, his theory and commentary--passionate, ethically engaged and never leaving the life out of life--is at last beginning to have the impact it deserves in the English-speaking world. Lorraine Mortimer, Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Anthropology, La Trobe University, Melbourne

8. Someone once said that the avoidance of complexity is the essence of tyranny. For this reason alone, Edgar Morin's book is worth reading. Even more, we need to embrace and to understand complexity. Ian Mitroff Professor Emeritus, University of Southern California University Professor, Alliant International University Visiting Professor, UC Berkeley

9. What I like best in the work of Edgar Morin is the fundamental difference he makes between what is complex and what is just complicated. The real world is complex, meaning that antagonism and complementarity go hand in hand. Once I understood this, and other aspects of Morin's paradigm of complexity, my research took a new turn. Peter Westbroek, Professor of Geophysiology, University of Leiden, The Netherlands

--Bcastel3 —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Major Update

I went through the article in an attempt to address the major concerns others had with it, namely (1) to make it more like the style of wikipedia; (2) to widen its empirical base and intellectual lineage; (3) to acknowledge that other traditions beyond just systems theory have influenced the work in SACS; (4) to point the reader to areas beyond the original five areas of study identified in the work of Castellani and Hafferty; (5) to calm down any language which introduces opinion, such as words like "pioneer" or "baroque"; (6) to downplay the centrality of the maps, so that readers are free to move beyond them; and (7) to acknowledge the controversy around the legitimacy of the British-based school of complexity, primarily by highlighting the work of McLennan, who wrote an article about the work in this area, and by using the word "emerging" to make it clear that this area is still under development. .--Bcastel3

I think it is still deeply problematic as an article in that it is in effect an exposition of a particular perspective (exemplified by the use of the model) on the field rather than the field as a whole. I will try and find some time to review over the next week. For the moment I have reinstated the tag. --Snowded ^TALK 04:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the article is deeply problematic. It just needs more work. Developing these articles is a bit of a job, given the desire to be informative and yet not too technical. One of the things I was going to do next, which if anyone else wanted to try would be great, is to put a bit of historical background in for each of the five areas of research. This way, the reader can see more of the historical nuances and variations. For example, in our book on SACS, we draw out a lineage for each area. For example, for computational sociology, we talk a bit about James Coleman and micro-sociology, rational choice theory, and mathematical sociology.

I will give it a try myself. See what everyone thinks. .--Bcastel3 —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC).

Cool - while complexity is my field, sociology is less so, more philosophy and decision theory in terms of application. I do think there is a generic problem in that people conflate CAS with modeling, ignoring Gell-Mann's comment on the "only valid model of a system is the system itself", and also fail to realise that in a human CAS we need to deal with intentionality and identity, not just agency. --Snowded ^TALK 14:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Article merger

I am willing to work on a merger of this article with the article Social_complexity. They are both the same topic. This topic is also closely related to two other articles: Social dynamics and Differentiation, although those two could remain separate articles with appropriate links between. All of these relate back to the topic of complex systems, which in turn relates back to systems theory (and social systems theory). Perhaps a nested list of 'see also' will do the trick. If not, I may further propose to merge both articles with the article social systems, which could use some work also. In any case, the merged article should use the Sociology topic template. I am open to suggestion and discussion and will be moving slowly on this activity, working on this as I can, 1-2 days a week. Meclee (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger and redirect to Social_complexity complete. Meclee (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)