Complexity Thinking and Difference 1

Complexity Thinking and Difference:

A 21st-Century Paradigm for Accessing Hidden Potentialities

David Holzmer

Union Institute and University

 Complexity Thinking and Difference 2

Complexity Thinking and Difference:

A 21st-Century Paradigm for Accessing Hidden Potentialities

In his critical examination of the psychological growth and developmental

challenges faced by individuals living in contemporary societies, Harvard psychologist

Robert Kegan (1994) has observed that those of us living in the modern age have

become perilously detached from the collective wisdom and insight many humans once

enjoyed through membership in tightly knit clans, tribes, and communities. Since for

many these groupings no longer exist, Kegan advises that the task before each of us

now is to develop his or her individual insight and psychological resiliency in order to

forge a personal reservoir of “tribal wisdom”. This will not be an easy task; as we grow

increasingly removed from our source of collective sensemaking, there is also the

added challenge that the world around us grows more and more complex, ambiguous,

and foreboding. One of the many reasons for this is that, despite the extraordinary

material progress we have experienced since the dawning of the Enlightenment--

progress which has allowed us to gain precarious mastery over our physical

environments--there are certain fundamental aspects of our social environments that

remain both confounding and largely underdeveloped. Our ability to effectively respond

to issues of diversity--which includes the myriad forms these issues take in our lives

such as racism, sexism, classism, ableism, etc.--is one such area. As a result of this

gap, as Gregory and Raffanti (2009) point out, we are bereft of the capacity to see

beyond the “adversarial and non-productive outcomes of diversity tension” (p. 42) in

order to apprehend the greater field of potential that lies beyond our problematizing
 Complexity Thinking and Difference 3

perceptions. In an earlier work, Gregory (2008)—citing the influence of renowned

diversity scholar Roosevelt Thomas—points to the “fractured, distorted, and limited

perspective of diversity” (pp. 542-543). As Gregory notes, Thomas’s proposal is to shift

the entire context and constellation of values surrounding diversity by reframing the

matter within a whole-systems model of social organization. With this paper I intend to

suggest an approach that holds the potential to do just that.

In the pages that follow I will attempt to succinctly argue that the positivist

orientation currently underscoring much of the public rhetoric surrounding issues of

diversity, keeps us bound to a narrative that problematizes diversity and matters of

difference rather than affording us an opportunity for greater social cohesion and

creative problem-solving. For illustrative purposes I will focus my argument on issues of

race and, as such, employ principles taken from Crenshaw et al.’s (1995) work on

critical race theory. In so doing I will argue that under the current liberal agenda it is

common practice to compartmentalize perceived problems with race into isolated

violations undertaken by an identified wrongdoer who—as a consequence of that

individual’s own self-interest or moral failing-- has broken with socially-accepted

standards of legal and/or moral doctrine. I will show that by choosing such an atomizing

approach, rather than ameliorating the issue, we are in fact preserving the chronic and

enduring nature of what becomes perceived as the “problems” of diversity. Following

the suggestion of several scholars (Crenshaw et al.; Gregory, 2008; Gregory and

Raffanti, 2009) I will move for shifting the focus towards a broader systemic framework

—in this case primarily by suggesting a different perspective grounded in the tenets of
 Complexity Thinking and Difference 4

complexity science—and suggest how matters of diversity might be effectively “de-

problematized” and thus approached as an occasion for strengthening the social fabric

and perhaps also as an opportunity for forging a more sophisticated paradigm of

cognitive development.

In order to move towards this more effective framework for diversity—meaning,

one that both fosters a higher order of understanding of current issues while also

helping to influence a less polarized environment for social justice and moral progress—

it is incumbent upon scholars, theorists, and other critical thinkers to develop a more

nuanced approach to the contentious and factionalizing issues of race and diversity.

Central to this development is a reoriented frame of reference that looks to the deeper

micro-infractions (Juarrero, 2010) to see beyond the presenting breech as more than

simply an episodic transgression of law, ethics, or moral standards and thus locates the

real conflict in our unexamined belief systems that privilege homogeneity over

difference. Gregory and Raffanti (2009) point the way out of such thinking and towards

a closer examination when they assert that a more mature view of diversity issues

demands “study and research that provides increasing clarification about [diversity’s]

role in systems…to reveal its unrealized power and potential” (p. 543). This thought

echoes that expressed by complexity scholars Miller and Page (2007) who declare that

“[i]f heterogeneity is a key feature of complex system, then traditional social science

tools—with their emphasis on average behavior being representative of the whole—may

be incomplete or even misleading” (p. 14).

 Complexity Thinking and Difference 5

This predilection for “average” or homogenized groupings has roots that run deep

into our cultural and political heritage toward the long-standing tradition of positivist

thinking that, until the postmodern movement, had informed a majority of the west’s

epistemological structures. The notion that all natural phenomena—including all

culturally-sanctioned social behavior—are the result of identifiable laws or principles of

nature, has largely influenced western views on religion, family, commerce, and

community. Even today, this positivist orientation can be seen in beliefs or standards

that assume people should behave in a particular way because “that is just the way

things are meant to be.” Agger (1991), writing on the pervasive and enduring nature of

positivism’s oppressive impact, characterizes its current role as “the most dominant

form of ideology in late capitalism in the sense that people everywhere are taught to

accept the world ‘as it is’” (p. 109). Some scholars have pointed out that within

contemporary society, the enduring influence of positivist thought can also be felt in the

unquestioned and omnipresent bias toward binary thinking. This leads to a popular

rhetoric that goes something like this: because the “good” is so clearly defined, it

becomes very easy to identify the “not good”. One scholar identifying such problematic

thinking is Patricia Hill Collins (1986) who points to the centrality of this type of thinking

as an enduring precondition for the maintenance of racist thought and other forms of

oppression. Hill Collins (1986) make a strong case that

Either/or dualistic thinking, or what I will refer to as the construct of

dichotomous oppositional difference, may be a philosophical lynchpin in
systems of race, class, and gender oppression. One fundamental
characteristic of this construct is the categorization of people, things, and
ideas in terms of their difference from one another. For example, the terms
in dichotomies such as black/white, male/female, reason/emotion,
 Complexity Thinking and Difference 6

fact/opinion, and subject/object gain their meaning only in relation to their

difference from their oppositional counterparts. (p. S20)

An alternative way of approaching issues of race and diversity is one informed by

complexity thinking (Cilliers, 2010; Wicomb, 2010). This paradigm, originally drawn from

study of advanced mathematics and advances in quantum mechanics attempts to bring

coherence to the seemingly erratic and unpredictable behaviors often seen in highly

interdependent systems. Complexity as such is the study of a systems deep properties.

A growing cadre of scholars—including Cilliers and Wicomb—view complexity theory as

a way to help reconcile deep incongruities like those which Crenshaw et al. (1995)

highlights as the “systemic and ingrained” (p. xiv) antecedents of racial oppression. A

cursory overview of the general principles underscoring complexity thinking quickly

reveals two aspects that offer strong support for a more conciliatory approach for

matters of racial discord. The first seen in complex systems is a resiliency predicated

upon heterogeneous interactions at the local level. For example, Cilliers (2010)—

echoing Crenshaw et al.’s call to examine the deeper, systemic sources of racism—

writes that “to understand the ‘logic’ of difference, we must first look at difference as a

necessary condition for meaning at a ‘low’ level” (p. 5). In other words Cilliers suggests

that the seat of coherence in complex social systems is found within the interactions of

heterogeneous actors at the least advanced level of interaction. Cilliers, like others

(Juarrero, 2010) makes the case that coherence at the level of these micro-diversities

fosters systems that are strong, fertile, and resilient.

 Complexity Thinking and Difference 7

This reliance upon the integrity of local interactions, in turn, informs the second

advantage of a complexity perspective; this is the fact that in such systems strength and

stability are based on the normativity of difference. This feature, of course, stands in

direct opposition to the enduring tenets of positivism and prompts Wicomb’s (2010)

observation that there is tremendous benefit to be gained from such disparities; in fact,

as Wicomb goes on to point out, the discontinuity and tension occuring “between

diversity and inclusion is indeed not a problem to be solved” (p. 127). In this same spirit

Cilliers (2010) also notes that the interaction of heterogeneous elements creates a

unique environment of synerging which in turn serves as a necessary “precondition for

the existence of any interesting behavior” (p. 3).

With this new perspective on the advances of heterogeneous commingling, we

can better appreciate the fact that the fundamental nature of a complex system is one of

difference. As such, the system’s strength as well as its collective identity emerges

through the interaction of disparate elements. This perspective, in turn, up ends

traditional positivist thought which asserts that the strength of a system is derived from

the similarity of its constituent elements. But as Wicomb (2010) points out, in diverse

systems—be they societies, organizations, or even a classroom—the collective identity

emerges not through abstract principles but via “the interaction of all the members with

each other and their environment” (p. 126). Wicomb’s point, in turn, helps illuminate the

value and insight contained in Cillier’s (2010) succinct observation that in complex

systems “there are only differences” (p. 5).

 Complexity Thinking and Difference 8

While this paper has concerned itself with presenting an argument that is largely

theoretical, it is important to recognize that such abstractions are offered with the

understanding that they are intended as a foundation for a larger effort aimed to

generate organizational development practices that, along with being theoretically

sound, are also highly actionable and effective. As the present trajectory for my own

research is focused on the creation complexity-based methods of dialogue that support

the emergence of collective intelligence in organizational settings, I feel strongly that the

derivative nature of this present exploration will yield very practical tools for use by

those in positions of leadership. To this end, it is my contention that for leaders to

productively address issues of race or diversity tension, a basic understanding of

complexity thinking and its reliance upon the principles of heterogeneity is essential for

effectively addressing the tensions and incongruencies that regularly arise within

complex social systems. Viewed through a complexity lens, the disparity and

misalignment encountered in such settings become—rather than a source of conflict

and derision that somehow needs to be reconciled—indicators of untapped innovation

and reservoirs of creative strength.

Finally, it is important to stress that, despite what some might think, complexity

thinking is not about quickly applying some kind of superficial veneer of amicability or

dissociating from ongoing conflict based on deeply-rooted discontinuities. For

leadership in particular, a complexity perspective need be grounded in a commitment to

explore the deeper, untapped regions of people’s thoughts and feelings—a place where

matters of racial discord and diversity tension act as indicators of an as-yet

 Complexity Thinking and Difference 9

unrecognized, higher-order paradigm of coherence. Perhaps this notion is best

expressed by Robert Kegan (1994) who, writing on the deeper meaning of conflicts

based on difference, proposes that

The protracted nature of our conflict suggests not just that the other side
will not go away, but that it probably should not. The conflict is a likely
consequence of one or both of us making prior, true, distinct, and whole our
partial position. The conflict is potentially a reminder of our tendency to pretend
to completeness when we are in fact incomplete. We may have this conflict
because we need it to recover our truer complexity. (p. 319, italics in original)
 Complexity Thinking and Difference 10

Resources

Agger, B. (1991). Critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological

relevance. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 105-131.

Cilliers, P. (2010). Difference, identity, and complexity. In P. Cilliers & R. Preiser (Eds.).
Complexity, difference and identity: An ethical perspective (pp. 3-18). New York:
Springer.

Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (1995). Critical race theory: The
key writings that formed the movement. New York: New Press.

Gregory, T. A. & Raffanti, M. A. (2009). Integral diversity maturity: Toward a

postconventional understanding of diversity dynamics. Journal of Integral Theory
and Practice, 3, 41-58.

Gregory, T. A. (2008). An evolutionary theory of diversity: The contributions of grounded

theory and grounded action to reconceptualizing and reframing diversity as a
complex phenomenon. World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, 7, 542-
550.

Hill Collins, P. (1986) Learning from the outsider within: the sociological significance of
Black feminist thought, Social Problems, 6, S14–S32.

Juarrero, A. (2010). Complex dynamical systems theory. Retrieved on February 14,

2011 from http://www.cognitive-edge.com/ceresources/articles/100608%20
Complex_Dynamical_Systems_Theory.pdf

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Miller, J. H. & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: an introduction to

computational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wicomb, W. (2010). The complexity of difference, ethics, and the law. In P. Cilliers & R.
Preiser (Eds.). Complexity, difference and identity: An ethical perspective (pp.
115-129). New York: Springer.