Inviting systemic self-organization: Competencies for complexity regulation from a post-cognitivist perspective
Journal of Dynamic Decision Making January 6, 2024 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.11588/jddm.2023.1.93037 via DOAJ
Summary
Expert regulators of complex systems (therapeutic, economic, organizational, etc.) do not control these systems but skillfully impose constraints that create openings for self-organization. Drawing on dynamic systems theory and 4E cognition (embodied, embedded, enactive, extended), the author argues that regulation involves multi-pronged, multi-timescale constraints and enactive competencies for emergence management. The intellectualistic complex problem solving literature overlooks these skills. The author proposes treating regulation and target system dynamics symmetrically using complexity theory concepts.
Study at a glance
| Design | theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Key finding | Expert regulators skillfully impose constraints on complex systems to enable self-organizing dynamics, rather than exerting direct control, and this requires enactive competencies for emergence management that are missing from existing accounts. |
Abstract
This contribution discusses competencies needed for regulating systems with properties of multi-causality and non-linear dynamics (therapeutic, economical, organizational, socio-political, technical, ecological, etc.). Various research communities have contributed insights, but none has come forward with an inclusive framework. To advance the debate, I propose to draw from dynamic systems theory (DST) and “4E” (embodied, embedded, enactive, and extended), cognition approaches, which offer a set of perspectives to understand what expert regulators in real-life settings do. They define the regulator's agency as skillfully imposing constraints on a target system and hereby creating context-sensitive openings for self-organizing dynamics, rather than “controlling” the system. Adept regulators apply multi-pronged and multi-timescale constraints to achieve nuanced effects. Among other things, their skill set includes scarcely noted enactive processual competencies for “emergence management”, which the intellectualistic and insufficiently ecologically situated accounts of the complex problem solving literature omit. To capture the nature of system regulation, I advocate treating regulation dynamics and target system dynamics “symmetrically” by grounding regulator competencies in concepts from complexity theory.