Chaos and Transformation Theories: A Theoretical ... - CiteSeerX

Public Organization Review: A Global Journal 3: 339–372 (2003) # 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

Chaos and Transformation Theories: A Theoretical Analysis with Implications for Organization Theory and Public Management ALI FARAZMAND [email protected] School of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University, 111 E Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Key words: chaos and transformation theories, change, continuity, and complexity theory, bifurcation, systems design, world systems design, organization theory, organizational change and adaptation, public management

Abstract Chaos and transformation theories have emerged as new currencies in social sciences in general and in systems design and management, and in futuristic studies in particular. This article analyzes chaos and transformation theories in historical and contemporary perspectives, their contributions to social science in general, and organization theory and public management in particular. The notions of chaos and order, change and continuity, and uncertainty and certainty are analyzed along with the growing realization of complexity and non-linear dynamic features of modern organizations and the hard reality of a constant necessity to acquire new knowledge and learn to manage organizations with flexibility and innovation. Finally, the article addresses some of the limitations of chaos theory and outlines a number of implications for organization theory and public management in the age of globalization.

Introduction Chaos and transformation theories have emerged as new currencies in the social sciences in general and in systems analysis and futuristic studies in particular. However, the relevance and utility of chaos and transformation theories to organization theory are still being developed, with the present analysis offering a modest contribution. These theories also have significant implications for governance, administration, environment, and global studies. Some social scientists have elevated the status of chaos theory to a ‘‘new science’’ (Gleick, 1987; Wheatley, 1999; Uri, 1995), telling us that we live in a complex world full of uncertainties, randomness, and unpredictable events that can scramble plans and drive systems, including organizations, into chaos and catastrophic breakdown. Crises, surprises, sudden and rapid changes, confusions, and things out of control prevail in our world and characterize modern organizations

340

A. FARAZMAND

and all complex systems; leaders and managers must be prepared to deal with such chaotic phenomena and manage complex organizations accordingly. A key feature of paradigmatic chaos is what Warren Bennis (1967) calls ‘‘temporary society,’’ Peter Drucker (1969) calls the ‘‘age of discontinuity,’’ and Charles Handy (1997, 1998) calls the ‘‘age of unreason and beyond certainty’’ in which we must be prepared to mange our public and private lives by bold imagination, by ‘‘thinking the unlikely and doing the unreasonable,’’ and with a ‘‘hungry spirit beyond capitalism’’ pursue our ‘‘quest for purpose in the modern world’’ (Handy, 1999). Similarly, a fast growing monumental body of literature on globalization explains patterns of chaotic changes that seem to surprise nationstates, governments, policy-makers, and public administrators. For example, Huntington (1996) speaks of ‘‘clash of civilizations,’’ Fukuyama (1992) predicts ‘‘the end of history and of last man’’ due to the collapse of the Soviet Union leading him to conclude the end of any social system capable of challenging capitalism, and Rifkin (1996) speaks of the ‘‘end of work,’’ or biosphere and cyberpolitics (see Farazmand, 1999a for a detailed treatment of globalization and its implications for public administration). Also, Kaufman (1985) reminds us of the importance of ‘‘time, chance, and organizations facing natural selection in a peril environment,’’ and Weick (1995) prescribes ‘‘organizational sense-making.’’ Similarly, Murphy (1996) suggests chaos theory as a model for managing crises, Rosser (2000) proposes a ‘‘general theory of economic discontinuities’’ based on the paired theories of catastrophe and chaos to manage economic crises, and Argyris (1982) offers ‘‘learning organizations’’ as a solution to solve unpredictable problems, and to meet the challenges and uncertainties of the increasingly complex environment. These warning expressions indicate, both implicitly and explicitly, that current world crises, including many organizational problems, can no longer be solved or managed through traditional approaches and methods; they require new ways of thinking and solutions, nonlinear complex models of action, and chaotic models to deal with chaotic situations. Combine small-scale chaotic events with large scale catastrophic situations or breakdowns, we find ourselves chaotic ‘‘hysteresis,’’ a concept originated by Abraham and Shaw (1987) and developed by economist Tonu Puu (1990, 1997). Crises scramble plans and force organizations and management systems to wake up fast and act with blood rushing through their veins hundred times faster than ever before. Crises management requires nonlinear thinking, flexible and fluctuating structures, and value systems that must transcend all barriers rapidly and instantaneously (Farazmand, 2001a). Crises come in various forms, intensity, complexity, and appearance. Some crises are long-standing social problems seeking ‘‘opportunistic solutions’’ (Farazmand, 2001a) but solutions that can trigger bifurcative structures due to the temporal nature of the solutions to deep-rooted problems. Other crises happen suddenly and unexpectedly, during a seemingly stable and predictable situation or environment, resulting in massive ruptures of chaotic uncertainties and

CHAOS AND TRANSFORMATION THEORIES

341

bifurcations into unpredictable dynamical changes in a system full of surprises. A clear example of this kind of crises and chaotic situations is spontaneous and mass revolutions, such as the Iranian Revolution of 1978–79. Its dynamic process produced surprises after surprises and kept all key players at bay (see Farazmand, 1989 for details). Nothing happens out of nowhere; that is there is a cause-and-effect relationship to most crises and phenomena. However, it is also possible to see impossible things happen out of chance and accident during stable situations with potentials for causing chaos. This is where chaos and crisis theories can help us understand and manage complex problems born out of highly complex and dynamic systems. Innovations in modern technology, development of large and complex systems, and our dependence on them, increase at the same time the intensity and chance of system breakdowns that leads to crises and chaotic situations. Crisis-related risk is more pervasive in modern society than ever before. Charles Perrow (1986) reminds us that crisis is associated with increased technology and modern society’s drive to change nature and to build more things ‘‘that crash, bum and explode’’ (Perrow, 1986, 9). As the organizational environment becomes more complex, more pressuring, more hostile, and more dynamic, the probability of rupturing changes and unexpected breakdowns increases with high intensity. Today, globalization of capital, technological change, global population explosion, immigration and mass poverty problems, and a multitude of other global problems are ready-made recipes for disasters and social and economic crises that can only be dealt with by non-conventional methods and policy solutions. No one in the world could even speculate, let alone predict, the September 11, 2001 disaster in the United States, or the sudden collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to present an analysis of chaos and transformation theories as applied in social sciences, with implications for organization theory and public management. Understanding chaos theory is important because of its significant implications for world systems design, organization design and administrative behavior, and public policy analysis and implementation (see, for example, Allen, 1982; Farazmand, 2001a). Regrettably, little work has been published on chaos theory and its applications in public administration, and almost nothing has been written on chaos and transformation theories with implications for, or contributions to, public organization theory and public management. Exceptions are Keil’s (1989) informative work on the implications of nonequilbrium theory for public administration, contribution through a symposium on chaos theory, and Farazmand’s (2001a, 2002b) treatment of chaos and transformation theories and their implications for organization theory and public management. Few other works are found in generic organization theory and behavior with a focus on business management (see, for example, Argyris, 1982; Gemmill and Smith, 1985; Ross, 1999; Uri, 1995; Weick, 1995). Given the significance of the subject matter, these works represent a minimal effort toward understanding this rather highly complex issue. This

342

A. FARAZMAND

paper is an expanded treatment of my recent work. It is hoped that other studies will follow this task to further illuminate the relevance and significance of chaos theory for public organization theory and behavior in the future. Therefore, the rest of this article focuses on the following presentations: Section 2 discusses the concept and background of chaos and transformation and evolutionary theories, treating the old and new notions of the concepts in an historical perspective. It is argued that, contrary to recent claims, chaos and transformation theories are not new concepts and that they have been presented before by philosophers and scientists from the ancient time. Section 3 analyzes chaos theory and its potential application, followed by a presentation in Section 4 of an analysis of transformation and evolutionary theory. Section 5 discusses some implications of both chaos and transformation theories for global and systems designs in general. Section 6 offers several significant implications of chaos and transformation theories for organization theory and public management. Finally, in conclusion, some limits of chaos theory are explored with due warnings of its potential dangers or harms to social action and knowledge advancement in social sciences in general, and in organization theory and administrative behavior particular. I argue that change and continuity, nonlinear and linear relationships, chaos and order, and systems breakdown and transformation are dynamics of dialectical process in the evolution of nature and living as open systems. As a consequence, chaos and transformation theories may not entirely be new discoveries; they have been around for a very long time. However, what is new about these theories is the new conceptualization supported by new discoveries that advance them in natural and social sciences. Therefore, this article offers a novel contribution to the body of literature on organization theory by presenting a fairly thorough analysis of the chaos and transformation theories with implications for world systems design and organization theory and public management. Yet, the article cautions against oversimplifications and overgeneralizations by explaining the limitations of the chaos theory and subsequent potential dangers that its application in public policy and administration may ensue.

The concept and background of chaos theory Understanding chaos theory requires a deeper understanding of the relationships between parts and whole, of segments and system, and of dialectical relationships between constant and change, of opposing systems, and of stability and chaos, leading eventually to a new form of order and stability. This is the dialectical nature of phenomena, whether natural or social, in the universe. Originally, the concept of chaos theory seems to have appeared in natural sciences, just like the earlier systems theories of the 1960s, but then the concept began to find its equivalence in social sciences with contributions to recent implications for organization theory and public administration. It is ironic, though,


343

that both chaos and transformation theories in social sciences have a very long historical origin back to ancient times, yet as focuses of scientific inquiries, they became subjects of interest to natural sciences in the late twentieth century. Thus, contrary to the popularly held view, it was not the natural sciences that started the concepts with social sciences following; the social sciences did it first. As a background to our main discussion, we may note that the early systems theories of the 1960s had brought to our attention the imperative of (1) environment and its effects on organizations; (2) the need for adaptability as a necessary property of open organizations to survive and develop; (3) the concept of negative or neg-entropy that dynamic open organizations possess as living systems, a quality that enables systems to detect and correct malfunctions, system erosion, and parts that have performance disorder; (4) the interconnectedness of parts or components of an organization or system that serve as subsystems functioning in harmony toward goal achievement; (5) the relationship of an organization or system in relationship to a larger and broader system or environment within which the organization or system operates; (6) the importance of feedback, and feedforward, as a warning radar system; and (7) the characteristic that systems or organizations tend to maintain their stability or equilibrium at almost any cost (see, for example, Katz and Kahn, 1978; Farazmand, 1994, ch. 1, 2002b, ch. 2, for a detailed analysis of systems theory). Systems theories are claimed to have borrowed from natural sciences, but it was not the first time that these theories had been discussed. In fact, Marx and Engels (nineteenth century) and before them Hegel (nineteenth century), Jean Bodin (sixteenth century) and before him the Persian Islamic philosopher Abu-Ali Sina [Avicenna] (tenth/eleventh century) as well as some earlier Greek philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle (fifth/fourth century B.C., and Epicurus before them) may be considered systems theorists who had presented eloquently some of the key features of systems and chaos theories through a ‘‘dialectical’’ discourse theory. These features included the interrelationship between parts, the idea that organization is conditioned by the larger environment—sociopolitical and economic—within which a system operates, and that systems contain dialectically conflicting parts that inherently contradict each other, and that systems tend to protect their equilibrium at any cost and crush forces of system challenge. Sina presented a grand ‘‘synthesis’’ of the dialectical processes of change, including chaotic change, that follow a pattern of stability and order, and expected chaos or disorder (Weinberg, 1964, 105– 125). For Sina, this youngest philosopher of the world in history from Persia (by age 18, Sina had mastered all sciences and philosophical works, and was already a renowned philosopher, and a pioneering medical scientist whose original textbooks later served European as well as Islamic medical schools; and by his death at the age of 59 he had written over 295 books), the dialectics of nature included the good and bad, the ‘‘material and ideal,’’ the forces of certainty and

344

A. FARAZMAND

uncertainty, and the non-linearity of the brain functions in which patterns of stability are always followed by turbulent commands of thought and action (Gohlman, 1994). Although Sina’s philosophy rested mainly on cause-and-effect relationship between ‘‘matter’’ and ‘‘intellect’’ or higher being, he always alluded to the importance of chance and accidental change, including chaotic and destabilizing changes, that trigger major bifurcations of ‘‘orderly matters into disorder,’’ and then return to possible eventual order; the only unity the universe possesses is the eventual unity of ‘‘matter’’ with the absolute being, that is the God; hence a grand synthesis. To him physics and metaphysics have a dialectical relationship, both leading to new evolutionary phenomena which are subject to constant change themselves. Therefore, to Sina, ‘‘the sublunar world of matter is a world in which there is constant change, the coming-into-being and perishing of individual material things’’ (Weinberg, 1964, 118). To Sina, nature and man are the two elements of the same being; man is conditioned by his environment (habitat, or muhit-e-zist) he tries to tame, control, and change, and by changing the nature, man also changes himself, a process that evolves in the universe. This dual or mutual interdependence is not always in balance, and when it is imbalanced chaos and unexpected changes occur that can produce chaos with unpredictable outcomes, but in the end the balanced order will return and must return, as it is a law of the nature; hence a transformation of a non-equilibrium state to an equilibrium state of life. Sina’s grand ‘‘synthesis,’’ therefore, is produced through change and stability, discontinuity and continuity, chaos and order, matter and idea/intellect, man and nature, and ultimately the material world and the highest being, God. For Marx (1967, 1984) and Engels (1873), change is central in all living systems, including organizations, and there is always a dialectical contradiction, an inner tension, a tenacious urge among parts of system representing stability and change, negation of the negation, order and disorder, and stagnation and breakaway within an organization or system. Dialectics of nature, as Marx and Engels (1873, 1940) presented over a century ago, may have formed an early foundation of the modern scientific views on chaos and transformation (Loye and Eisler, 1987). Without turbulence and change stagnation and decay prevail, causing a halt in system survival and continuity. This is well illustrated in their analysis of class struggle of inner contradictions within the capitalist system; the more intense the class struggle, the more likely the system breakdown and bifurcation into chaotic and dissipating structures capable of producing new order due to the evolutionary and historical materialism through dialectical materialism. Aristotle’s dialectic, Epicurus dialectical view of alienation of man from nature, and later philosophers’ understanding of the process of change in natural and social sciences need to also be noted in this context (Foster, 2000; Parsons, 1977; Ross, 2000). According to Plato, ‘‘wonder’’ produced philosophy, which served as a source of various sciences for a long time, until its division into various sciences, such as psychology, physics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, biology, and more


345

(Sabine, 1963). Philosophy was until the twentieth century considered the mother of sciences, and a philosopher was expected to have mastered all or most of those sciences. The breakdown of philosophy into various branches of science represents an example of the division through bifurcation that living systems do and go through. It is a process of transformation and evolution. Today, each of these sciences is studied so narrowly that the big picture or the system and its holistic change process are ignored by natural scientists. The inductive approaches and methods of scientific studies have become atomistic and have lost interconnections with the rest of the systemic interactions and feedback processes so necessary for system development, breakdown or disorder, and returning pattern of order and stability. Focusing on trees without looking closely at their interactions with the rest of the forest can lead us to wrong conclusions and misleading interpretations. This dialectical law of nature is a principle that has become a powerful force in producing order and disorder, chaos and stability, equilibrium and disequilibrium, and static–dynamic relationship. Environments cue or stimulate, stabilize or intensify these dialectical forces of order and disorder, resulting in new changes and possible chaos, as in the case of revolts and revolutions when systems totally break down with uncontrollable or unpredictable outcomes. Further, Marx’s view was an evolutionary one, through historical transformation of material life of nature and phenomena, not an idealistic one as Hegel’s dialectic suggested, but materialistically as the existence of matters was realized. Marx and Engels’s view on nature and ecology is based on the dialectical process of change and continuity, of organic interdependence, of the ‘‘unity of man and nature,’’ of being one. Marx wrote: Industry is the actual, historical relationship of nature, and therefore of natural science, to man. If, therefore, industry is conceived as the exoteric revelation of man’s essential powers, we also gain an understanding of the human essence of nature or of the natural essence of man . . . One basis for life and another basis for science is a priori (Marx quoted in Parsons, 1977, 9). Thus, according to Marx, in his universal development, man is ‘‘able to understand his own history as a process, and to conceive of nature . . . as his real body.’’ In an interaction with nature, ‘‘man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material reactions between himself and nature . . . and by thus acting on the external world changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature’’ (quoted in Parsons, 1977, 9–10). In an organic, dialectical process through both active and receptive dynamics, man humanizes the nature and becomes part of nature himself. But, human capacity to conquer nature is limited by the human dependence on the natural system of which humanity is a part. Thus, man may behave so far as to harm nature with his selfishness, alienate himself from nature, and thus cause an imbalance in his relationship with nature. By so doing, man endangers not only the ‘‘ecosystem’’ of geographical areas but

346

A. FARAZMAND

also the entire ‘‘biosphere,’’ a term Marx used to refer to the whole Nature of which man is a part (Engels, 1940; Foster, 2000; Burkett, 1999, 22). Had he read Sina’s theory? He must have. Both Hegel’s and Marx’s views on ecology and evolution were, therefore, dialectical, but while Hegel spoke of alienation of man from his labor and his selfconsciousness, Marx expanded that notion further to include (a) work alienation, (b) social alienation, and (c) self-alienation, and developed a ‘‘synthesis’’ of both Hegel’s idealistic view of alienation and Epicurus’ materialistic view of alienation in which man, by attempting to change and conquer nature, produces his own inner contradictions and forces of dialectical change and throws himself into situations of chaotic, social, and revolutionary changes (Foster, 2000, 232). To Marx and Engels (1873, 1940), then, this is a dialectical, organic process of nature. But unlike Hegel’s mechanistic perspective, Marx’s dialectical view was a dynamic dialectical process in which evolution takes place. Change is necessary and inevitable, and chaotic changes are bound to occur as seemingly stable systems crumble from within, and under external environmental pressures, producing disorder, a cycle that eventually leads to the resolution of contradictions under communism. Under this higher state of society and life, where matters reach harmony and unity with each other, an integrated balance is reached between man and nature (for further on this see, Parsons, 1977; Engels, 1873; Marx, 1967; Burkett, 1999; Foster, 2000). Marx’s theory of ecology and nature, and by extension of chaos and transformation theories, were further elaborated by Engels (1873, 1940) in his, Dialectics of Nature, a work that has received renewed attention recently for its ‘‘ecological’’ implications (Burkett, 1999; Foster, 2000; Parsons, 1977; Perelman, 1987). Rejecting the then popular ‘‘emergent theory’’ of evolution, Engels also rejected the French ‘‘materialists’’ who had ‘‘sought to dispose of chance by denying it altogether’’ (Engels, 1940, 231), a view of ‘‘determinism’’ which Engels considered being opposed to dialectical materialism. Affirming Darwin’s theory of evolution, and of the role of ‘‘chance’’ or contingency in nature, Engels argued that ‘‘necessity’’ was grounded on chance or contingency. Chance overthrows necessity, as conceived hitherto (the material of chance occurrences which had accumulated in the meantime smothered and shattered the old idea of necessity). The previous idea of necessity breaks down. To retain it means dictatorially to impose on nature as a law of human arbitrary determination that is in contradistinction to itself and to reality, it means to deny thereby all inner necessity in living nature, it means generally to proclaim the chaotic kingdom of chance to be the sole law of living nature (Engels, 1940, 234). Here, while Engels acknowledges the important role of chance and chaos in the evolution of nature, he rejects the notion of degrading necessity to chance. According to him, accident, or chance, and necessity ‘‘exist side by side in


347

nature, of which some are accidental, the others necessary, and it is only a matter of not confusing the two sorts with one another’’ (Engels, 1940, 230). He further contended that ‘‘[E]ach advance in organic evolution, is at the same time a regression, fixing one-sided evolution and excluding the possibility of evolution in many other directions’’ (quoted in Foster, 2000, 234). As Engels insisted, this evolutionary development needed to be seen both from the standpoint of the ‘‘harmonious co-operative working of organic nature,’’ as in theories of metabolic exchanges, and in terms of the struggle for existence within nature (Foster, 2000, 234). Therefore, according to Engels, it was a combination of these two elements, taken together, that created the possibility of ‘‘rifts’’ or sudden and unexpected points of breakdown in nature in connection with the human ecology, a fact that Marx had understood long before contemporary chaos theorists appeared (Foster, 2000). Therefore, to both Marx and Engels, and to Sina before them, chaos and transformation theories were the dialectical laws of the nature of which humanity is a part; they are not entirely new ideas. However, the conceptualizations, methodologies, and techniques of inquiry have improved, and sophistication has characterized the modern scientific studies of chaos and transformation theories. Nevertheless, chaos and transformation theories present implications for the evolutionary process of humankind and provide springboards for future strategic social action on the basis of past and present patterns in the universe, and in living systems, including organizations and their ecological environment. It is, thus, astonishing to observe how ignorant, or reluctant at best, the modern Western scientific community has been about the dialectical nature of chaos and transformation theories, with an exception of some economists (see, for example, Rosser, 2000). Yet all the discoveries of this very community in both natural and social sciences have proven the fundamental law of the dialectical nature of change and continuity, of chaos and order, equilibrium and disequilibrium, linear and nonlinear processes of change, and stability and turbulence. How many resources could have been saved and used for other healthy purposes had this scientific community—and elsewhere by the governments funding this work—accepted the dialectic nature of patterns of chaos and order, and change and stability, as presented by earlier philosophers and scientists? How far could we have gone in our scientific enquiry regarding nature, living systems, and organizations? What, then, has been discovered regarding chaos theory? Of transformation theory? The latter two questions are dealt with separately below, with potential implications of both for organization theory and public management.

Chaos: Theory and application The idea of chaos or non-equilibrium theory is claimed to have began with a rigorous new scientific discovery on how order gives way to chaos and how

348

A. FARAZMAND

chaos leads to order. Studies are found in both natural sciences and social sciences, with appealing theoretical and practical implications for economics, political science, governance, and public administration. Scientists claim a major breakthrough in discoveries about how the universe operates and how it affects social phenomena traditionally viewed or understood as developments on linear paths with predictability. The works of the scientists in the natural science tradition can be too exhaustive to list, but key examples are Laszlo (1972, 1984), Capra (1982), Sivard (1983), Polanyi (1944), Feigenbaum (1980), Prigogine and Stengers (1984), Eldredge and Gould (1972), Csanyi (1980), Csanyi and Kampis (1985), Maturana and Varela (1980), van Bertalanffy (1968), Boulding (1978), Miller (1978), Wiener (1984), and Abraham and Shaw (1984). The contemporary works in the social sciences are also too many to cite, and their roots date back to the ancient time, as we will see below. Examples of these contemporary social scientists are Parsons (1951, 1968), Maslow (1966), Myrdal (1969), Marx and Engels (1983), Pareto (1961), Durkheim (1951, 1964), Max Weber (1947, 1961), Kurt Lewin (1951), Sorokin (1941), Spengler (1932), Toynbee (1947), Rene Thom (1972), Zeeman (1977), Jantsch (1980), Masarovic and Pestel (1974), Capra (1982), Burns and Ogilvy (1984), Loye (1977, 1980, 1978), Loye and Eisler (1987), Drucker (1969), Allen (1981), and all the systems theorists as well as those social scientists working on futurism and contributing to such futuristic research projects as the Club of Rome, and so on.

Definition The notion of chaos denotes crisis and disorder, a state of non-equilibrium, instability, turbulence, rapid or rupturing changes that scramble plans and cause unpredictability, with consequences of anxiety, fear of unknown, and triggering and tripling effects of destruction and systems breakdown. There is no single definition of chaos theory. The notion has been used interchangeably with such concepts as non-linear systems models, disorder theory, and dynamical complex theory. The notion has also appeared in association with ‘‘catastrophe’’ theory (Thom, 1972; Zeeman, 1977) developed out of Poincare’s (1880–90) ‘‘bifurcation’’ theory and ‘‘discontinuity’’ theory (Ross, 2000; Follmer, 1974; Brook, 1993; Brock and Durlauf, 1995), ‘‘nonequilbrium’’ dynamical theory, ‘‘dialectical dynamic’’ theory (Ilyenkov, 1977; Farazmand, 2002b), ‘‘complexity’’ theory of the Brussels School (Nicolis and Prigogine, 1977), and ‘‘synergetics’’ theory developed by Haken (1983) of the Stuttgart School. A key question for social and natural scientists is how to control chaos so that its destructive effects could be eliminated or minimized while its positive properties maximized. This is a notion that has until recently prevailed in traditional ways of thought and action in social science. However, as explained


349

by chaos theory, social and natural phenomena do not exist or develop or evolve on strictly linear paths so that we can predict crises that would need to be avoided or controled (see, for example, Weick, 1979). The essence of chaos theory, therefore, can be traced back to the earlier works on the law of nature’s ecology, as explained over a century and a half ago by Marx and Engels and long before them by earlier philosophers of the East as well as of the West. Examples of chaotic events or changes leading to systems breakdowns in the world are many, and they may be found at macro and micro levels (see also Farazmand, 2001a), on a large scale-leading to catastrophe theory (Thom, 1972; Zeeman, 1977; Follmer, 1974; Brock and Durlauf, 1995), or on a small-scale leading to chaos theory developed initially by Lorenz (1963) and Smale (1963, 1967). While discontinuities occur at both large and small scales, usually the latter tends to drive the former as the system oscillates, ‘‘perhaps stochastically to some degree, near large-scale bifurcation points where catastrophic or other transformations will occur’’ (Ross, 2000, 4). Thus, contemporary scientists have grouped these crises or systems breakdowns into two major types or levels: microcosmic and macrocosmic. Microcosmic level. The microcosmic social realities of crises and discontinuities have worldwide impacts. Examples include financial crises, population crises, global environmental crises, world population explosion pressures, desertification of productive lands, crisis of the widening gap between rich and poor countries, and the possibility of nuclear wars, institutional crises, and a host of other crises. These crises and pressures ‘‘drive the breakdowns of systems that lead to states of social chaos’’ (Loye and Eisler, 1987, 54; Capra, 1982; Sivard, 1983). These so-called ‘‘microcosmic’’ crises or social breakdowns are considered short-term process events, with many more micro-oriented crises and chaotic bifurcations that affect open system organizations and living systems. Their downside trends should not be overlooked or ignored, because human lives are at stake and institutions depend on these short-term events which are in reality the long-term events and trends that can produce long-term paradigm shifts. As Prigogine and Stengers (1984, 14) state, at the bifurcation point, ‘‘. . . a small fluctuation may start an entirely new evolutionary that will drastically change the whole behavior of the macroscopic system.’’ Thus, quantitative changes of short type can be sources or ignition forces for long-term qualitative changes or systems transformation. Here, politics and economics of the change do matter and matter significantly, as change has differential consequences for different socioeconomic classes, hence a political economy question. As Harold Lasswell (1936) once observed, politics is about who gets what and how much. Combine this statement with economics, you learn a great deal about whose class interests are being served by changes. Whether induced or self-evolved, changes can have leaping positive benefits to powerful rich elites and, by extension, the powerful countries of North (industrialized nations), while producing at the same time serious adverse effects for the lower class and

350

A. FARAZMAND

poor people as well as developing nations of the South, as in the case of globalization of capital. Macrocosmic level. The second type of chaos-oriented, chaos-driving, or chaos-driven forces that are long-term-oriented with accelerated paradigmatic shifts, are macrocosmic in character. This problem is ‘‘the great, overriding churning of history and acceleration of evolutionary forces that has led to’’ (Loye and Eisler 1987, 54) expressions such as disintegration, paradigm shifts, and long-wave crises that threaten the whole global planet, a fundamental concern of the future that calls for present decision and social action (Salk, 1983; Meadows et al., 1972; Capra, 1982). These long-wave trends are characterized by mainstream social scientists as the ‘‘age of disintegration’’ (Mumford, 1944), the ‘‘age of discontinuity’’ (Drucker, 1969), a ‘‘crucial epoch’’ (Laszlo, 1983), a ‘‘turning point’’ (Capra, 1982), and the age of ‘‘temporariness’’ (Bennis, 1967). These characterizations have by no means been conceived all too negative; in fact some, including the American legendary management thinker Peter Drucker (1969), have even considered them positive evolutionary developments with smooth changes and transformations. To these proponents, short-term crises and chaotic events of destruction in population, hunger-forced extermination, labor displacement, institutional demise, and environmental degradation are important reasons to study chaotic events. Some even state that there is no cause for worry because in the long run the system will correct itself. They argue that what appears to be chaotic and disorderly in the short term at the microcosmic level, may actually contribute to the long-term order and equilibrium at the macrocosmic level (Drucker, 1969). Examples of this sort of arguments may include Richard Nix’s rationalization in his consideration of dropping an atomic bomb on the heavily populated city of Hanoi to win the war, or the contemporary application of the U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East—the unconditional support for Israel against Palestine— and indeed against the entire Islamic world, which certain American elites consider as an obstacle to their comprehensive quest for establishing a global empire. On the other side of the coin, critical social scientists have voiced serious concerns about the consequences of these short- and long-term paradigmatic or mega-trends that have already produced many catastrophic crises and continue to threaten the entire planet earth, the ecosystem that all need to live and prosper in. To these critics, the overriding interests of the few powerful and super-rich corporate elites have dominated the world system and, through the political, economic, and military exploitation of the vast majority of the world population, are leading the whole world toward a global village of serfdom (Farazmand, 1999), a global ‘‘pillage’’ forcing millions of hard working people as ‘‘disposable objects’’ into a ‘‘race to the bottom’’ (Brecher and Costello, 1994). These ‘‘chaotic and rupturing changes lead us to an age of new slavery’’ (Farazmand, 1999, 2001, 2002a), to a catastrophic breakdown of the whole planet ecosystem, of the ‘‘biosphere’’ (Rifkin, 1991). These critics argue that the global ecosystem is


351

in danger, the world is closer to destruction, and humanity is in serious crisis. This is the debate that has gained powerful currency under the globalization of late capitalism, a process of world integration and rapid accumulation of surplus capital, led by a few globalizing corporate elites who are forcing it upon other nations and their people through both dollar and military interventions (see, for example of this vast literature, Korten, 1995; Korbin, 1996; Offee, 1985; Modelski, 1979; Rifkin, 1996; Sklair, 1995; Parenti, 1995; Gill and Law, 1991; Dugger, 1989; Hankock, 1989; Farazmand 1999, 2001b, 2002a). Whatever the debate, a solution to the above problems offered by chaos theorists is ‘‘the first transdisciplinary understanding of bifurcational and transformational change’’ (Loye and Eisler, 1987, 54) that requires understanding of natural sciences and their contribution to chaos theory. Here key works of such scientists as Abraham and Shaw (1984), Laszlo (1972), Eldredge and Gold (1972), Miller (1978), and more notably Prigogine and Stengers (1984), as well as the Hungarian scientist Csanyi and Kampis (1985), and Maturana and Varela (1980) are considered to form the core of the chaos theory in natural sciences with spillover into social sciences. Little or no reference is made in the literature of any prior works by former Soviet scientists whose contributions to social change and transformation theories emanated from Marx’s dialectical changes and evolutionary transformation in historical developments, most notably through historical and dialectical materialism. Change and how change occurs in the world and in any living systems are central issues in all the works on chaos theory. Key concepts are nonequilibrium, non-linear dynamics, bifurcation or branching out, entropy, cross-analysis, dissipative structures or the formation of order out of chaos through autoanalysis, attractors, autopoiesis, autocatalysis, and self-organizing capacities of living systems including organizations as open systems that make changes from order to chaos and order out of chaos possible. Many of these ideas of chaos theory are found in systems theory familiar to students of public administration. There are, however, differences between chaos theory and regular systems theory. Systems theory is concerned with stability and equilibrium whereas chaos and transformation theories are characterized by chaotic changes that lead to order and vice versa. As we will see below, natural and social systems theories were concerned with system maintenance and would do anything possible, including use of bloody repression and war, to maintain stability and equilibrium. Chaos theory goes beyond this level, and moves into a higher level of scientific analysis of systems existence, change, revolution, and evolution. Chaotic behaviors and changes caused by non-linear dynamics and through systems breakdowns and bifurcations are considered healthy processes and should in fact be encouraged. As noted earlier, an example is Marx’ theory of social ‘‘revolutions’’ (chaotic, catastrophic, nonlinearic, and dynamic) causing breakdowns in the capitalist bourgeoisie system of economy and society (bifurcations through possible dissipating structures) that may lead to a new order, a socialist system of economic and social organization with new forms of

352

A. FARAZMAND

governance and administration. An example of the contemporary process of accelerated globalization of capital that has caused serious breakdowns in the traditional capitalist system’s social relations between economy and society, organization structure and environment, public and private sectors, management and labor, state and society, and public administration and citizens (see Farazmand, 1999, 2001b, 2002a). Scientific observations by Feignebaum (1980) showed recurrent patterns of order out of chaos in mathematics. Lorenz’s (1984) discovery of how ‘‘chaotic attractors’’ produce a complete breakdown of predictability systems in weather forecasting is an example. Others point to the ideas of such thermodynamic systems concepts as entropy, negentropy, bifurcation or the branching out of phenomena or matter into other forms during chaotic states. Belgian chemist Prigogine’s idea of ‘‘dissipative structures’’ are forms (or formations) of order out of chaos that take place through ‘‘auto-catalysis’’ and non-linear processes of interactions that occur within and among the interdependent components or subsystems of a system, and through the mutual feedback processes or what Prigogine calls ‘‘cross-analysis’’ (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984; Prigogine, 1998), in which ‘‘feedforward’’ also take place. Another discovery by Eldredge and Gould (1972) reveals that chaotic states are born out of ‘‘punctuated equilibrium,’’ a phenomenon that I would also call ‘‘the shaking and cracking state,’’ a point which a stable system is ‘‘shaken and cracked,’’ and resuls in a ‘‘fractured’’ state. This can happen in two ways: One is by design in order to produce chaos and create induced change, and strain out what is not needed or desired and regenerate what is desired. Examples include massive organizational downsizing, sweeping privatization, and dismantling the welfare state. The sweeping global market-oriented reforms, sweeping privatization policies, and the so-called structural adjustment programs forced upon the developing and underdeveloped nations by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which receive their instructions from the U.S. Treasury and State departments, are clear examples of this sort of punctuated equilibrium. They are deliberately designed corporate strategies of induced ‘‘shake-and-crack’’ to achieve the broader policy of globalization goal of capital and establishment of the new ‘‘unipolar-world order’’ as a new world system, a new punctuated equilibrium for establishing a global hegemony. Another way a system may go through transformation is when ‘‘shake-and-crack’’ occurs naturally and as a result of natural evolution in Nature, as noted earlier. Here, there are also two possibilities: One is without any human intervention, and another as a result of human intervention, direct and indirect, in the nature. An example of the latter is environmental pollution, nuclear explosions, and human abuse of the ecological sources in nature, causing global warming and threat to the ‘‘biosphere’’ (Rifkin, 1991). During a ‘‘shake-up and crack’’ situation and a punctuated equilibrium, ‘‘peripheral isolates may eventually’’ transform a system into another one, a new living identity, again either by design or by chance, a phenomenon shared by


353

Sina, Marxist as well as non-Marxist mainstream chaos and transformation theorists. The tragic events of September 11 in the United States is a good example of how small scale chaotic events can lead to large scale chaotic, rather catastrophic consequences with far reaching implications. It was least expected in a seemingly stable and orderly society with an unprecedented power of security and military might as a global power. Another example is the ancient world-state Persian Empire of Achamenids founded by Cyrus the Great in 550 B.C. (the first one-world order of the history), which enjoyed for over 220 years stability and military-economic power, but became vulnerable to a small external shock (small-scale chaos) delivered by a subject Macedonian youngster, Alexander, whose shock wave cued all sorts of internal dialectical forces of destruction. These forces caused a sudden breakdown (catastrophe) in the entire system and resulted in dissipative structures that awaited the Persians and nonPersians alike. Centuries later, the same fate was met by the Hellenic world order and the Roman Empire, as well as by other great powers that followed them. This phenomenon is known by contemporary social scientists as the ‘‘butterfly effect’’ (see Lorenz, 1987; Gleick, 1987) meaning that a small isolate can emerge from a system periphery on the verge of chaos and breakdown and become a major core system of its own. Small changes in a system may produce consequences far beyond expected or planned outcomes. For example, the break-up in the AT&T monopoly led to a whole new set of communication systems, and the small liberalization policy under the former Shah of Iran in the mid-1970s caused a new series of serious challenges and the Revolution of 1978–1979 which toppled the dictatorial regime of the late Shah. Other examples noted earlier explain this phenomenon. It is also Prigogine’s ‘‘dissipative structures’’ as well as ‘‘bifurcation’’ or branching out into new systems as a result of ‘‘shakes and cracks.’’ Then comes the Hungarian biologist Csanyi’s (1980) comprehensively formulated ‘‘new general theory of evolution’’ incorporating the earlier nonequilibrium theory. Both Csanyi’ and Kampis (1985) expanded Progogine’s ‘‘autocatalysis’’ and articulated it with Maturana and Varela’s ‘‘autopoiesis’’ (Casanyi and Kampis, 1985) or self-organizing, selfregulating, and self-correcting systems. Also came was the general systems theory developed by von-Bertalanffy (1968), Boulding (1978), Miller (1978), and Laszlo (1972). The concept of ‘‘self-organization’’ as a key characteristic of living and open dynamical systems becomes a central determining factor in both evolutionary and chaos-nonequilibrium theories (Jantsch, 1980). Fascinated by the notion, as if it were a really new discovery, some social scientists (see, for example, Wheatley, 1999) explain several features of self-organization, such as selfreference, open-interaction and interdependence between organizations and environments, stability over time, and the importance of freedom for selforganizations to develop in nature. According to Jantsch (1980, 40), therefore, ‘‘the natural dynamics of simple dissipative structures teach the optimistic principle of which we tend to despair in the human world: The more freedom in

354

A. FARAZMAND

self-organization, the more order.’’ As we noted earlier, this paradoxical phenomenon is nothing new and was explained eloquently by Engels (1873, 1940) in the Dialectics of Nature. The paradox is an integral part of the dialectical process of nature, of which man is a part, and organizations are human creations to shape and control the nature; by changing the nature, man changes himself. Therefore, self-organizing means two broad things: one is the ability of systems to generate capacity to organize and govern themselves, and by so doing produce inner forces of change that generate energy and other forms of structures and entities capable of self-organization. Self-organization also means self-governance, self-control, and self-regulation, a capacity or quality of dynamism within a system that does not need external imposition of control and governance; its inner forces cause bifurcation and chaos with the capacity of maintaining order and stability (see Farazmand, forthcoming). It is a dynamic process of self-regeneration which, along with negentropy and environmental cues, releases forces of new entities or bifurcative elements that lead to new systems or self-behaved dissipating structures. As explained earlier, this is what Marx and Engels (Engels, 1873, 1940, 206) called a dialectical process of change, development, and evolution, a basic law of nature (see also Foster, 2000; Parsons, 1977). However, Engels distinguished between two types of dialectics, objective and subjective. He wrote: Dialectics, so-called objective (emphasis original) dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflex of the movement in opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by continual conflict of the opposites and their final merging into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature. Attraction and Repulsion (Engels, 1940, 206–207). Another key tenet or property of chaos theory is the dynamics concept of ‘‘attractors,’’ a term often associated with Hans–Walter Lorenz’s (1987) butterfly effect of ‘‘strange attractors.’’ Basically, there are three types of attractors: fixed point, limit cycle, and strange. Fixed point attractors are points of measurement that systems always return to; it is a closed attracting cycle. Limit attractors are limited parameters that define the boundaries of the system within which it (the system) can fluctuate and must stay in. An example is a jungle with maximum and minimum numbers of preys and predators, who keep each other in number within a set population limit, but there is wide fluctuations within the jungle or group. ‘‘Strange’’ attractors are those points around which measurements hover but never achieve. They are strange because it is not clear why the system is attracted to them and why the points define the system instead of being defined, except only for the observation that the system orbits around the points in a nonrepetitive and chaotic way; hence strange attractors (see Gleick, 1988). The study of chaos theory in social sciences produce similar fascination as the urgency to deal with, and solve, global problems becomes imperative. Loye and


355

Eisler (1987) report Prigogine and Stengers’ (1984) view that there are three stages of historical development in science of which social science lags behind. First is the ancient Aristotelean physics and early modern thermodynamics; second is the recognition of equilibrium as a state in which fluctuations and oscillations occur, but the system equilibrium remains intact; and third is the notion of extreme change, instability and unpredictability, or chaos ‘‘where true rather than only quasi-illusory systems transformation may occur’’ (Loye and Eisler, 1987, 56). Systems experiencing extreme instability and entropy caused by either internal or external forces progress into the bifurcative points of breakdown with unpredictable outcome possibilities regarding how and how many new dissipative structures may emerge or how many new systems regenerate. This is a key element of the nonequilibrium chaos theory. Here, the eleventh-century scientist and philosopher Sina’s grand ‘‘synthesis’’ theory of transformation is in point (Farazmand, 2002b; Gohlman, 1974; Weinberg, 1964). The analogy is the common saying that ‘‘sometimes things must really break down before they can be fixed.’’ But can chaos and chaotic events be predicted so that preventive or corrective actions are taken in anticipation? The answer seems to be affirmative to some extent for the short and intermediate periods, but negative for the long run (Rosser, 2000).

Transformation and evolution It is this third stage of scientific evolution that social scientists have come to claim great benefits for work on chaos and transformation theories. They are concerned with, and interested in, dealing with the normative question of what kind of evolutionary ideals should the humanity or those who are able to pursue, exercise control over, or make change for desired future systems. This normative question raises serious policy implications for governments and public organizations (Maslow, 1966; Myrdal, 1969; Laszlo, 1984). Other benefits of work on chaos theory are also given as rationalizations for its application. Examples include Loye and Eisler (1987), and those who have applied chaos theory to understanding organizational structure and behavior (Bak, 1997; Dooley and Van de Ven, 1999), or public policy (Allen, 1981, 1982), and globalization and world order designs (Farazmand, 1999, forthcoming; Mayntz, 1997). In social science, the concept transformation is used by some as a preferred term to subsume chaos, ‘‘a process out of order, through which order gives way to chaos and chaos again leads to order’’ Loye and Eisler, 1987, 58). As noted earlier, both chaos and nonequilibrium evolutionary theories are nothing new. Historically its origin dates back to ancient time, to the Chinese Book of Changes (I Ching, 1950, cited in Loye and Eisler, 1987, 59), the Greek philosophers, notably Heraclitus (see Sorokin, 1966) and Epicurus and his ‘‘materialism’’ (Foster, 2000, 232), and the Persian’s ‘‘praxis’’ in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. when the concept of a ‘‘synthesis of civilizations into a universal civilization under

356

A. FARAZMAND

the Persian world order’’ was conceived in 559 B.C. by Cyrus the Great who founded the first ‘‘world-state’’ Persian Empire in history (Frye, 1963; Olmstead, 1948; Ghirshman, 1954; Farazmand, 1998). The concept was followed by Alexander’s quest to Helenize the world and by Romans who tried to enforce their system in the West as far as they could but were checked by the Persians in the East. The same concept is now being pursued by Americans who are trying to accomplish the same large-scale objective through forceful globalization and establishment of a unipolar global corporate-imperialist hegemony with a new world order through military interventions under various pretexts (Dugger 1989; Gill and Law, 1991; Hamilton, 1989; Harvey, 1995; Farazmand, 1994, 1999). The modern origin of chaos and transformation theories begins with Hegel (1830/1975, 1976) and Marx and Engels (1873), whose works focused on historical evolution through dialectical processes of interactions between opposite forces of stability and change (Loye and Eisler, 1987). Others like Durkheim (1951), Weber (1961, 1947), and Pareto (1961) should also be mentioned. All of them grappled with the idea of change and transformation. Out of too much order develops alienation, tendencies or forces of disorder that gain energy and push the threshold of bifurcation points forward toward sudden system breakdown. And in social psychology we see Curt Lewin’s (1951) central concern with change in open-system organizations, including a deliberate change of people’s attitudes and behavior toward a new order. Lewin’s work in the 1940s led to the three stage process of change by design: ‘‘unfreezing’’ of the prevailing state or order to ‘‘break open the shell of complacency and selfrighteousness,’’ followed by the second stage of ‘‘moving to a new level’’ of reshaping or desired changes, and the third stage of ‘‘re-freezing’’ the changed behavior to avoid regression (Lewin, 1951, 228–229). An example of this sort is the current global trends of massive downsizing and sweeping privatization in corporate and government organizations. Other early works on chaos and transformation theories, including Sorokin’s (1941) and the American Riegel and Soviet Rubenstein’s (Riegel, 1979), to name a few, have also focused on nonequilibria-orientations and have offered new insights on evolutionary history and cultures as well as on how to meet the challenges of the chaotic changes affecting existing or emerging orders. The third period of development of chaos and transformation theories has emerged through the contemporary works of both natural and social scientists mentioned earlier. One is Zeeman’s (1977) view of ‘‘catastrophic’’ shifts during the nonequilibrium and nonlinear states of changes when systems breakdown and bifurcation take place. Also, Jantsch’s (1980) The Self-Organizing Universe as an elaborate extension of Prigogine’s idea of self-organizing capacity or negentropic quality of systems that produce new structures during systems breakdowns into new structures or systems is particularly notable. In social as well as natural sciences, extensive research associated with the international Club of Rome Projects have produced significant results with normative policy


357

recommendations for social actions regarding the future of the world and its problems. Also important are, for example, Laszlo’s (1984, 1987) Grand Evolutionary Synthesis Theories or GESTs, Capra’s (1982) synthesis of ‘‘new paradigm’’ idea in Turning Point, and Salk’s (1983) concern with fundamental problems for social nonequilibrium theory in finding possible solutions to the current crises or chaos and to ‘‘choose the most evolutionary advantageous path’’ (Salk, 1983, 3) for human society. ‘‘Survival of the world as we know it is not possible. . . . The world will have to be transformed and evolve for continued survival’’ (Salk, 1983, 106; also cited in Loye and Eisler, 1978, 62). Capra (1982, 16) calls on a necessity for ‘‘a transformation of unprecedented dimensions, a turning point for the planet as a whole’’. Extensive studies of the last two decades have been carried out in such California-based futuristic research institutions as SRI International (Loye and Eisler, 1987) and elsewhere which have focused on dialectical polarities of systems’ change and systems stability, norm-changing and norm-maintaining, leaders and followers, soft- and tough-minded people, and older and younger generations. To Loye and Eisler (1987), these recent studies on the dialectical polarities represent crucial elements of analysis of historical evolution in culture and human development. To them, the relationship between dominator and dominated, oppressor and oppressed, leaders and followers, superiors and subordinates must be changed into a cooperation and partnership-based relationship, if human evolution is to continue. This is what Marx and Engels called complementary or even contradistinctive (contradictorily distinctive with potentiality for cooperative and harmonious oneness, such as material and social, objective and subjective, town and country, male and female, body and soul, and so on); it is a unifying dialectic as opposed to tension-based dialectics, with contradictory or antagonistic forces (note also Engels’ distinction between ‘‘objective’’ and ‘‘subjective’’ dialectics, quoted earlier). Later on Mary Parker Follett (1918, 1940) argued for ‘‘integration’’ and cooperation in managing the modern state and government organizations. While Marx and Engels were less optimistic about peaceful reconciliation of irreconcilable class interests, Folett was overly optimistic about the notion of the possibility of turning the power structure, dominated by the ruling big business bourgeoisie, into an integrated system in which irreconcilable class conflicts and interest groups could mesh harmoniously. According to Marx, there are two types of dialectical materialism which contribute to the transformation and evolutionary process of nature and social and natural systems. One is the internal contradictory, tension-based, or irreconcilable forces in constant struggle, with the new and evolutionary forces breaking away from the prevailing ones. Every system, for example capitalism, carries within itself the forces of change and destruction that contribute to its evolutionary process—Prigogine’s dissipative structures and self-organizing capacities that enable a system to survive through bifurcation, just like new branches of a tree. The second type of dialectics presented by Marx and Engels

358

A. FARAZMAND

is the complementary or unifying dialectical process, producing unity and harmony, like male and female creatures among humans, animals, and birds. The latter type of dialectics is important for survival of nature, global ecosystems, of the ‘‘biosphere,’’ and of humankind. But the former, contradictory dialectics producing bifurcative changes is also both central and rational to the historical evolution of systems, of which Nature takes a central place. Using Gary Snyder’s (1977, 20) distinction between ‘‘ecosystem cultures’’ and ‘‘biosphere cultures,’’ Marxecologists (see, for example, Burkett, 1999; Foster, 2000; Parsons, 1977) clearly and correctly make the argument for protecting the biosphere culture, because of its absolute necessity for survival of the dynamic natural system, of which humanity is a part. In Snyder’s ‘‘ecosystem cultures’’ reproduce themselves within a particular ecosystem; that is, their appropriation from nature is limited to a region, a watershed, a plant zone, and natural territory, which provides the economic basis of support . . . within which they have to make their whole living. A biosphere culture, by contrast, spreads its economic support system out far enough that it can afford to wreck one ecosystem, and keep moving on (Snyder, 1977, 21; quoted in Burkett, 1999, 21). According to Snyder, human history can be conceived of the evolution from to biosphere cultures, with the latter based initially on slavery, then the centralized state, and eventually culminating in ‘‘imperialist civilization with capitalism and institutionalized economic growth’’ (Snyder, 1977, 21) featured by anti-ecological characteristics. As noted earlier, Marx had often used the term ‘‘biosphere’’ to refer to the necessity of the operation of the laws of nature; the objective dialectical process and the subjective reflexivity of the material movements of the evolutionary process of the Nature, of which man is a part, a dialectical yet integrated part. According to Marx and Engels, the role of chance and chaos is important in this evolutionary process, as the self-organizing properties of the natural system safeguards against the regressive elements that co-exist, co-move, and coevolve along with the progressive forces in the natural evolutionary process. Through chance, ‘‘rifts’’ and sudden or unexpected chaotic events take place causing thresholds or points of bifurcation or breakdowns in a system and lead to dissipative structures that may or may not contribute to the evolutionary process, depending on the character and function of the newly born, self-organizing structures or systems. The more environmentally conducive the system interacts with, the stronger the self-organizational quality the systems develop. However, internal and externally caused disturbances, such as constraints, rigidities, repression and alteration, and other pressures can cause the evolutionary process of organization face obstacles that will eventually result in systems breakdowns and dissipative structures, as in the case of revolts, revolutions, and other forms of social change.


359

The evolutionary process of systems going through changes, including chaotic changes, is co-dependent on the environment, on its ecology, the ecosystem of which it is a part. Jantsch’s (1980) concepts of self-organization and evolution, therefore, are nothing new, as he writes: ‘‘evolution is the result of self-transcendence at all levels. . . . It is basically open. It determines its own dynamics and direction . . . by way of this dynamic interconnectedness, evolution also determines its own meaning (Jantsch, 1980, 14). Note the similarity of the statement with that of Engels’ (and Marx’) notion of dialectics of nature and of the co-dependence or co-evolutionary process of change and transformation between nature and man, the ecology of nature and humanity. Therefore, the notion of ‘‘co-evolution’’ is nothing new, as argued by some proponents of chaos theory (Wheatley, 1999, 88). What is new, however, is the new understanding of the long-standing fact that man as a human creature— leaders and managers of organizations, political systems, and economic system designers, etc.—must respect and live with the ecology of nature, of which he is an integral part, and that both are co-evolutionary. Thus, as an implication, leaders and managers of large and small system organizations must learn to adapt, to be creative, and to co-exist with the environment, and by trying to change their environment they must realize that they also change themselves. So, when seeking to expand their freedom in one ecological condition, a particular territorial or geographical ecosystem, they should not try to destroy the freedom and self-organizational capacities of other peoples and systems in another territorial ecosystems. While stability and order are energized on surface in one’s home ecosystem through suppression of order and self-organizational capacity in other ecosystems, the balance and self-transcendence qualities of the nature, of the whole ecology, will be disturbed, and this will eventually come back at some point to disturb order and cause large-scale bifurcational dissipations that can be triggered by small-scale changes in own system (shakes and cracks). This, the modern chaos and transformation theorists are now discovering and are challenged by! Change has always been a constant characteristic of nature, of the evolutionary nature of history, of the living systems, and the universe. Chaotic changes may cause either progression or regression in open and dynamical systems towards evolution, depending on how they occur and what the consequences may be for whom. Thus, to avoid continuous chaos, the self-organizing capacities of the dissipative structures reproduce order with dynamics found in open and complex systems of both nature and human organizations. Can such dissipative structures be always transformed into self-organizing entities, instead of evaporating into an endless chaotic state? Are there short-term and long-term orientations in this process of transformation? How do we know the short-term stability can result in long-term instability and potential breakdown? These and other similar questions beg further research and systematic

360

A. FARAZMAND

studies. However, despite such shortcomings, both chaos and transformation theories have important implications for social science and public organization theories.

Implications of chaos and transformation theories in general At least three different implications can be drawn from the chaos and transformation theories for the current global and world-systems designs. The first interpretation may be offered based on the late approaches of the former Soviet Union as the leaders of the world socialist system first under Brezhnev and most notably under Gorbachev, whose ideas of international ‘‘coexistence,’’ detente, and nuclear arms control policies with the West were purported to be a way to save the planet from total nuclear destruction. While irreconcilable contradictions between socialism and capitalism would no doubt continue, it was nevertheless understood by both superpowers—the United States and USSR—that continuous confrontations would likely result in a catastrophic annihilation of all on the planet earth (Rosenau, 1990). The second interpretation of the chaos and transformation theories implies that the world capitalist system under the United States would need to continue to build new weapon systems, to show the latest technology in warfare to the world, and to pursue strategic designs for control and domination of the world. According to this world-system design, self-perceived forces of chaos can be suppressed or eliminated and the process of global transformation be ideally directed to suit the goals of capitalism and the political world order under its leadership. This world-view perspective rejects the notion of the rise and fall of the empires as argued by scholars like Paul Kennedy (1989). An example of this perspective is provided by certain policy advocacy groups, think tank consulting institutions such as the Heritage Foundation, CATO, and Project for the American Century. This interpretation is not without foundation, as the recent process of globalization of capital has been pursued with extraordinary aggressiveness through violence and the use of military force and interventions around the globe, i.e., the Persian Gulf war of the 1980s, as well as the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the relentless bombing of Yugoslavia which resulted in its dismemberment. All three were as much ideologically and politically motivated as economically rationalized. By extension, the tragic crises of Septemper 11, 2001 in the United States may be another example. Was it possibly a self-designed, grand strategy in pursuit of a long-term grand plan for conquering the entire world and establishing a global hegemonic order imposed on all nations? The U.S. certainly gained considerable international sympathy and moral support, and some legitimacy, for staging a unilateral global war on terrorism, though most nations of the world disagreed with it on this approach and preferred a UN-led war on terrorism. But, instead, the U.S. power elites through


361

the Bush presidency declared an endless global war on unilaterally defined terrorism, invaded Afghanistan and gave itself a mandate to invade other nations with legitimate sovereign governments that it perceives unacceptable or a potential to its global interests. Is this a quest to establish a new global empire? The future will tell, and the post-WWII trends of American international actions may present some supportive evidence to this argument. If true, then the world may already have entered a new stage of globalization, globalization by violence and military conquest, surprising all those who believed the age of colonialism was over and the world would be without war and military occupation after the Cold War. The third interpretation of the chaos and transformation theories is the current global trend of what I call ‘‘system shake up,’’ which is to induce by design the dynamics of chaotic changes to maintain and enhance the system of late capitalism. Designed forces of chaos include, for example, corporate— and by extension government—downsizing, organizational restructuring through mergers, massive privatization, elimination of job security and other employee rights and benefits, as well as intensification of many institutional crises and periodic wars in various parts of the world that are created by the globalizing transworld corporate elites. These globalizing elites are backed and promoted by the globalizing military and political powers, such as the United States, with aims for global dominance and hegemony (Dugger, 1989) and for protection and promotion of ‘‘America’s global interests’’ (Hamilton, 1989). Chaotic workplace organizations of the capitalist system create pressures of bifurcations and dissipative structures that are hoped, by corporate designers, to produce select, self-organizing forces for desired system changes. These induced organizational changes are, it may be argued, for prevention of system collapse out of the endemic crisis of ‘‘disorganized capitalism’’ (Offee, 1985) and of the ‘‘legitimacy crisis’’ (Habermas, 1975, 1984). They are also for revitalization of the system from stagnation in pursuit of higher levels of surplus value accumulation of global capital, as well as for the achievement of the new world order dominated by the hegemonic global corporate power elites (Farazmand, 1999, forthcoming; Korten, 1995). A short period of five to ten years of adverse effects from induced chaotic changes, such as massive labor displacement and unemployment due to privatization and downsizing, as well as other social costs produced by market chaos, for example, is considered an insignificant side effect and yet a healthy manifestation at the microcosmic level for the ‘‘smooth’’ transformation of capitalism in the long run at the macrocosmic level (Drucker, 1969). To chaos theorists, the opposite is also true; that is, systems may appear stable and organized in the short run but are unstable and chaotic in the long run. According to Prigogine, while a system ‘‘appears as irregular or chaotic on the macrocosmic scale, it is, on the contrary, highly organized on the microcosmic scale’’ (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984, 141).

362

A. FARAZMAND

Implications for organization theory Chaos and transformation theories have several implications for organization theory. 1. Chaos theory implies that organizations as open systems are capable of producing within themselves, and through their internal constitutive components, forces of dissipative structures most of which have self-organizing capacities that lead to new organizational entities and order. This is what the Marx-Engels’ dialectical nature demonstrated over a century ago, as well as others’ works mentioned earlier. Like other living systems (Miller, 1978), open organizations possess self-corrective mechanisms or negentropies that fight forces of decay and stagnation and revitalize the system. This is the dynamics of all open, living systems. 2. Historically speaking, organization theory has evolved from the classical closed systems represented by the early twentieth-century bureaucracy and structural/functional/formal designs characterized by stability, order, and avoidance of change to the newest forms of organizational evolution characterized by instability, chaotic changes, system breakdowns with bifurcations into new orders, and negative feedbacks as well as nonequilibrium features as positive ingredients producing dynamism in the organizational system. 3. The systems theory of the 1960s and was an evolutionary improvement over the previous periods. It recognized the importance of change, environmental interaction, feedback, entropy-negentropy, and equilibrium or stability, as well as the need for understanding organizations within the broader socio-political system environment in which they operate. Both chaos and systems theories have in common the elements of environmental interaction, negentropy, and subsystem–system relationships. But chaos and transformation theories depart from the systems theory in that the former thrive on nonequilibrium, quantum dynamics, and chaotic events or changes with instability and negative feedbacks being positive signs of system change and evolution toward higher levels of organic state. While systems theory suppressed forces of chaotic changes disturbing system equilibria, chaos and transformation theory foster such ‘‘dissipative structures’’ in hope of revitalizing the system from entropic decline or decay. Therefore, organizations and their leadership must induce periodic changes of a chaotic nature to ‘‘shake up and crack’’ the stable system for renewal and revitalization. 4. Chaos and transformation theories imply the ‘‘learning organizational’’ concept necessary for change, adaptation, and adjustments to respond to the external environmental changes and paradigmatic shifts or trends. Organizations that learn, adjust, and adapt to the external pressures causing systems breakdown and bifurcations can survive and evolve, and their evolution comes through internal learning and transformation. Learning takes


363

place through changes in structure, process, and values of the organizational system, and this learning needs to be institutionalized; hence the relevance of institutional theory and organizational psychology, learning to learn (Argyris and Schon, 1996; Schein, 1992; Senge, 1990). 5. Like many dialectical processes of change and evolution, organizational changes and behavior, and their management are not always caused by causal and linear-based forces alone. Nonlinear relationships, chance, and randomness may characterize much of modern organizational systems, and many organizational problems must be managed or solved by nonlinear thinking (Kaufman, 1985). This is what Karl Weick (1979) called ‘‘natural selection’’ toward evolution, with the fittest to survive and those selected out to die. 6. Chaos theory may explain the current chaotic changes and trends so pervasive in the management of public, private, and nonprofit organizations worldwide. Such organizational reform or change realities as massive downsizing, sweeping privatization, environmental deregulation, and expansion of the corporate-based, private sector worldwide are seen healthy phenomena that tend to energize and revitalize organizations and their management systems (Quinn, 1980; Morgan, 1995). 7. Chaos theory can help predict possible future patterns of order out of chaotic behavioral patterns of the present and the past. Such potential improvements are already explained by mathematical modeling, weather forecasting, and prediction of climatic changes in the atmosphere. It can also potentially help in diagnosing organizational entropies by providing the benefits of an early warning system and the need for timely interventions for systems correction and revitalization. This requires willingness to learn, leading organizational culture based on the concept of learning to learn, and think unthinkable and do things that may appear unreasonable (Handy, 1997, 1998). As Schein (1985, p. 372) argues, ‘‘in a world of turbulent change, organizations have to learn faster, which calls for a learning culture that functions as ‘a perpetual learning system’.’’ And organizational leadership plays a key strategic role in creating, sustaining, and managing such culture of learning in modern organizations, which then feeds back to shape the leader’s own assumptions’’ (p. 372). The transformation of personal assumptions into learning assumptions would make organizational leaders able to adapt faster to the turbulent organizational environment and to lead organizations through learning and managing in times of chaotic changes. Chaos and transformation theories then help keep organizations healthy, alert, and adaptive on a constant basis, with the anticipation that chaotic changes and challenges can occur any time and anywhere in the system. And it is an anticipatory management system based on perpetual learning principle that makes complex organizations manageable and dynamic.

364

A. FARAZMAND

Limits of chaos theory: A critical appraisal Despite many perceived benefits of chaos theory, it has many limitations. In fact, chaos theory can be considered, to a great extent, a dangerous theory that should be avoided or confronted with creative alternatives. 1. The theory tends to promote deliberate chaos and destruction in social as well as natural processes; it attempts to tamper with the dialectics of nature by interfering in the natural evolutionary processes. Implications of this sort are far beyond the low-level intellectual discussions and can be frightening. Its potential to destroy, clone, and reshape by a few powerful elites equipped with advanced technology at the global level can cause devastating negative effects on the future of the planet, the global ecosystem, the entire ‘‘biosphere,’’ and all humankind. However, its purported advantage of guiding human beings to determine human destiny should also be noted. 2. As an extension of the first, chaos theory can be a powerful tool of manipulation and control in the hands of few powerful elites for economic, social, political, and military reasons. 3. Unpredictability of outcomes of chaotic states or systems pose further dangerous, and potentially fatal, threats to individuals, groups, cultures, and peoples around the globe. Unpredictability and chaotic changes also tend to produce unanticipated secondary or multiple consequences or outcomes that may defy any systems designer’s calculated or perceived ideal or desired states. 4. Designed orders can be repressive to millions while beneficial to a few whose economic and sociopolitical interests derive from, and drive, chaotic conditions. An example is the current massive marketization, downsizing, privatization, and corporatization trends pursued by globalizing capitalist elites (Parry, 1969). While the few gain in profit massively, the vast majority of human populations around the world suffer from joblessness, income insecurity, job insecurity, poor health, both mental and physical, hunger, poverty, homelessness, and other crises that have been characteristics of modern capitalist societies, West as well as East. These problems will likely worsen to the levels of crisis in the age of accelerated globalization of corporate capitalism, in which defacto slavery is flourishing worldwide to promote the absolute rate of profit and surplus accumulation of capital. And where there is mass poverty, democracy dies and exploitation and injustice prevail (Oyen et al., 2002; Berger–Schlosser and Kersting, 2003). 5. Ethical problems emerge with the chaos theory: Who gives the right to the few power elites to decide the future of billions of people and to alter the global system? Why should the future generations’ right to self-determination be taken away or violated by the current few powerful elites in both government and corporate organizational systems? Why should chaos designers, dictators, and directors decide on the fate of billions of


6.

7.

8.

9.

365

populations around the globe? How do we know that designed chaotic events or processes do not lead to global annihilation and destruction? Who will be responsible for the grand failures and possible catastrophies? Dissipating structures may either dissipate forever or cause unexpected consequences or outcomes beyond anyone’s control. Besides, if chaotic events or processes will eventually lead to order, or order to chaos, how do we know that injecting chaotic forces into prevailing stable system will lead to eventual order, especially desired order? Could it cause massive dissipating evaporation? What do we replace it with? Further, whose order is the desired order? An order for some may be the most repressive and chaos-generating force for the vast majority of people who go through chaos, lose everything they had, and become potential forces of chaos for others-causing further social chaos. It is easy to speak of chaos; it is a hardship to go through one. It is intellectual arrogance to assume we know everything and can alter the natural systems by design. Market chaos is too costly to the millions of people worldwide suffering from malnutrition, homelessness, joblessness, and health crises, and it requires order which can be very repressive; it produces its own antithesis of system destruction within itself. It cannot avoid or negate its own negations. Chaos may lead to order, an order that is often manipulated by the power elites who then require conformity, harmony, obedience, and cooperation for promoting corporate capitalism and its ultimate goal of rapid surplus value accumulation. Chaos theory may explain its own limit, that is its gradual transformation of capitalist system into socialism. Can it be controlled by the designers? Who knows? The transformation theory as espoused by the theorists suggests a desired globally designed system dominated and led by the global capital and its political-military system of the United States and other western countries. This may backfire as dissipating structures and self-organizing forces will likely rise through the dialectical process of cross-catalysis and crossanalysis (to use Prigogine’s terms). Nation-states, peoples, and cultures will likely resist hegemonic global order dictated by the Western powers and might produce new structures capable of breaking the order into global chaos, which then will have to be put back into order by the global power elites through military force and repression. The September 11, 2001 disaster and the subsequent unilaterally declared global war on terrorism by the U.S. is a clear example of tragic cycles of events, a cycle that does not and will not cease to loop as long as the global designers continue to impose their global hegemony and repressive rule over weaker nations and peoples who aspire self-determination in the world. Under this changing global environment filled with widening inequality, injustice, coercion, repression, and exploitation, organizational elites will have to play a key role in maintaining the new global system of order and manage the induced chaotic changes that are necessary for system

366

A. FARAZMAND

transformation into a stronger and more powerful one. Contemporary chaos theorists avoid the issue of power and power structures led by the few elites, who are constantly trying to alter the natural and human systems to make history. Organizations play a fundamental role in the transpositioning, exposure, and promotion of chaos. Organizations themselves go through chaos and chaotic stages of life cycle, but do they not return into a sort of chaos sooner or later? This itself presents another limitation of the chaos theory. 10. Finally, another limitation of chaos theory is its potential application to the stretch, as some overly optimists seem to desire: By rejecting ‘‘continuity’’ and historical evolutionary process, the new version of chaos theory contradicts itself, its own very ‘‘process’’ from pre-bifurcation stage to a dissipating structure stage, to a self-organizing stage. This a-historical view is also a-process, and therefore, both logically and scientifically a questionable if not impossible proposition; it tends to reject its own being, its own evolutionary dynamics. This is an important fact that is overlooked by enthusiasts and needs to be considered seriously by chaos theorists in future research (Farazmand, 2002b).

Conclusion Chaos and transformation theories are emerging as important new developments in the progress toward advancement of knowledge in social science in general and in organization theory in particular. The lack of systematic study and analysis of chaos and transformation theories in organization theory and public management is striking. It is this neglect in scholarship that has the focus of this article presentation. Through an analysis of the sources, theoretical underpinnings, and implications of chaos and transformation theories, the presentation in this article has demonstrated how important it is for us in social science in general, and in public organization theory and management, in particular, to study these new developments. Following this line of research is even more important as we move deeper into the age globalization of capital in which we need more intelligent and more dynamic and learning organizations with more sharpened skills of capacity building in governance and management for governments and complex systems around the globe. The article has outlined some of the limitations as well as contributions of the chaos theory and transformation theories, with the hope of other studies to follow the suit. As a conclusion, a key argument of this presentation has been that chaos and transformation are not really new ideas, that they have been around for a long time, and that the notion of the so-called ‘‘new science’’ may have been exaggerated. However, it is also admitted that, despite these problems and other limitations of chaos theory outlined in this paper, there are some new


367

conceptualizations coupled with new discoveries that are new developments and make the notions of chaos and transformation worth studying because they have significant implications for social sciences, including organization theory and public management. Therefore, by analyzing these new concepts and their implications, it is hoped that this article has made a modest contribution to organization theory and public management. We learn through chaos and transformation theories that events can happen out of order and linear paths, and chaotic events or crises challenge modern organizations to the point of potential collapse if they don’t learn to adapt to the rapidly changing environment which surrounds them. Learning to learn and willing to change the basic assumptions of self and organizational culture is a big step toward such adaptation and organizational leadership, with the next step being prepared with anticipatory assumptions and skills to cope with chaotic changes and transform them into organizational and managerial assets. In short, my argument has been clear: Randomness, chaos, and nonlinear dynamics are important characteristic properties of living systems, of historical process of change and continuity, and of evolution, but certainly not the other way around; not the rule of evolution. In world systems design, and in organization design, change, development, chaos and non-linear dynamics play a key role in the evolutionary processes of which humankind is a part, and of organizations that man has created to change his environment, but they do not play the absolute key role. The key role is played by the self-evolving process of continuity accelerated or decelerated by human intervention in changing the nature, as well as chaotic and accidental events. Organizations play a key role in this historical process of change and continuity, and that’s why we need to study this emergent theory seriously. In light of the major limitations outlined in this article, any attempts at oversimplification of the chaos theory and its applications to public policy and management would be both misguided and dangerous, and should be avoided.

Acknowledgment The author is grateful to the anonymous referees whose feedbacks, comments, and suggestions were very helpful in revising this manuscript.

References Abraham, R., and C. Shaw. (1984). Dynamics: The Geometry of Behavior, Parts I and II. Santa Cruz, CA: Aerial Press. Allen, P. (1981). ‘‘Self-Organization in Human Systems.’’ Essays in Society Systems Dynamics and Transportation Management. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of Trans.

368

A. FARAZMAND

Allen, P. (1982). ‘‘Self-Organization in the Urban System.’’ In Peter Allen (ed.), Self-Organization and Dissipative Structures: Applications in the Physical and Social Sciences. Austin: University of Austin Press. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, Learning, and Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., and D. Schon. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bennis, J. (1967). The Temporary Society. NY: Harper & Row. Bennis, J. (1989). Bureaucracy and Leadership. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Berg-Schlosser, Dirk, and Kersting, Norbert (eds.) (2003). Poverty and Democracy. New York: ZED books. Boulding, K. (1978). Ecodynamics: A New Theory of Societal Evolution. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Brock, William. (1993). ‘‘Pathways to Randomness in the Economy: Emergent nonlinearity and Chaos in Economics and Finance.’’ Estudios Economics 8, 3–55. Bue, Martha, and Deborah Cassidy. (2001). ‘‘The Complex and Dynamic Nature of Quality in early Care and Educational Programs: A Case for Chaos.’’ Journal of Research in Childhood Education 15(2), 209–219. Burns, James MacGregor. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burns, J.M., and J.A. Ogilvy. (1984). Leadership and Values. Menlo Park, CA: SRI Int’l. Capra, F. (1982). The Turning Point. NY: Simon & Schuster. Clevaland, Harland. (1988). ‘‘Theses of a New Reformation: The Social Fallout of Science 300 Years After Newton.’’ Public Administration Review 48 (May/June), 685. Csanyi, V. (1980). ‘‘General Theory of Evolution.’’ Acta. Biological Academy of Science of Hungary 31, 409–434. Csanyi, V., and G. Kampis. (1985). ‘‘Autogenesis: Evolution of Replicative Systems.’’ J. Theor. Biol. 114, 303–321. Ching, I. (1950). The Chinese Book of Changes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Daft, Richard. (1995). Organization Theory and Design, 5th Edition. NY: West Publishing Co. Drucker, P. (1969). The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society. NY: Harper & Row. Dugger, Williams. (1989). Corporate Hegemony. NY: Greenwood Press. Durkheim, Emile. (1893/1949). The Division of Labor in Society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Durkheim, Emile. (1901/1950, 1964). The Rules of Sociological Method. Glencoe, IL: Free Press (Original work published 1901). Eisler, R. (1987). The Chalice and The Blade: Our History, Our Future. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row. Eldredge, N., and S. Gould. (1972). ‘‘Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism.’’ In Freeman Schoff (ed.), Models on Paleobiology. San Francisco, CA: Cooper. Engels, F. (1873). Dialectics of Nature. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Engels, F. (1940). Dialectics of Nature. New York: International Publishers. Preface and Notes by B. S. Haldane, F.R.S. Farazmand, Ali. (1989). The State, Bureaucracy, and Revolution in Modern Iran: Agrarian Reform and Regime Politics. New York: Praeger. Farazmand, Ali. (1994). ‘‘Organizational Theory: An Overview and Appraisal.’’ In Ali Farazmand (ed.), Modern Organizations Administrative Theory in Contemporary Society. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 3–57. Farazmand, Ali. (1997). ‘‘Bureaucracy is Alive and Well: The Order that Supports Market Chaos.’’ Public Administration Times 20(11), 5. Farazmand, Ali. (1998). ‘‘Contributions of the Ancient Civilizations to Modern Public Administration: A Symposium.’’ International Journal of Public Administration 21(1), 1–6. Farazmand, Ali. (1999). ‘‘Globalization and Public Administration.’’ Public Administration Review 59(6), 509–522. Farazmand, Ali. (2001a). ‘‘Crisis and Emergency Management: An Introduction.’’ In Ali Farazmand (ed.), Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1–9.


369

Farazmand, Ali. (2001b). ‘‘Globalization, the State, and Public Administration: A Theoretical Analysis with Implications for Developmental States.’’ Public Organization Review: A Global Journal 1(4), 437–464. Farazmand, Ali. (2002a). ‘‘Globalization, Privatization, and the Future of Modern Governance: A Critical Assessment.’’ Public Finance and Management 2(1), 125–153. Farazmand, Ali. (2002b). ‘‘Emergent Theories of Organization: Institutional Theory, Chaos and Transformation Theories.’’ In Ali Farazmand (ed.), Modern Organizations: Theory and Behavior. Westport, CT: Praeger. Farazmand, Ali. (Forthcoming). The American Administrative State: Institutionalization and Globalization, Praeger. Farazmand, Ali. (Forthcoming). Globalization, Governance, and Administration: A Theoretical Analysis. Feigenbaum, M. (1980). ‘‘Universal Behavior in Nonlinear Systems.’’ Los Alamos Science 1:4. 1:4. Ferris, James, and Elizabeth Graddy. (1998). ‘‘A Contractual Framework for New Public Management Theory.’’ International Public Management Journal 1(20), 225–240. Follett, Mary Parker. (1918). The New State: Group Organization the Solution of Popular Government. NY: Longmans, Green. Follett, Mary Parker. (1940). Dynamic Administration, Henry Metcalf and L. urwick (eds.). New York: Harper & Brothers. Foster, John Bellamy. (2000). Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New York: Monthly Review Press. Frye, R. (1963). The Heritage of Persia. NY: The World Publishing Company. Fukuyama, Francis. (1992). The End of History and of the Last Man. NY: Free Press. Gemmill, Gary, and Charles, Smith. (1985). ‘‘A Dissipative Structure Model of Organization Transformation.’’ Human Relations 38 (August), 751–766. Ghirshman, R. (1954). Iran: From The Earliest Times To The Islamic Conquest. NY: Penguin Books. Gill, S., and David, Law. (1991). The Global Political Economy. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Gleick, James. (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Knopf. Gohlman, William. (1974). The Life of Ibn Sina: A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Habermas, Jurgen. (1975). The Legitimacy Crisis, Translated by T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon. Habermas, Jurgen. (1984). ‘‘What Does A Crisis Mean Today? Legitimation Problems in Late Capitalism.’’ Social Research 51, 39–640. Haken, Hermann. (1977, 1983). ‘‘Synergetics’’: Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions and Social Measurement, 3rd Edition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Hall, Richard. (1991). Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hamilton, Edward. (1989). America’s Global Interests: A New Agenda. NY: Norton. Handy, C. (1997). Age of Unreason. NY: Harvard Business School Press. Handy, C. (1998). Beyond Certainty: The Changing Worlds of Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard School Press. Handy, C. (1999). The Hungry Spirit: Beyond Capitalism: The Quest for Purpose in the Modern World. New York: Broadway. Hankock, G. (1989). Lords of Poverty. NY: Atlantic Monthly Press. Hegel, Georg. (1830, 1975). Hegel’s ‘‘Logic,’’ Being Part of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences. Translated by William Wallace. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hegel, Georg. (1975). Philosophy of The Right. Translated by T.M. Knox. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ilyenkov, E.V. (1977). Dialectical Logic. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Jantsch, E. (1980). The Self-Organizing Universe. NY: Pergamon. Kaneko, Kunihiku. (1995). ‘‘Chaos as a Source of Complexity and Diversity in Evolution.’’ In Christopher Langton (eds.), Artificial Life: an Overview. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 163–177.

370

A. FARAZMAND

Katz, D., and R. Kahan. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organization, 2nd Edition. NY: John Wiley. Katzner, Donald. (1999). ‘‘Hysteresis and the Modeling of Economic Phenomena.’’ Review of Political Economy 11, 171–181. Kaufman, Herbert. (1985). Time, Chance, and Organizations: Natural Selection in a Perilous Environment. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Kauffman, Stuart. (1993). The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kelsey, David. (1988). ‘‘The Economics of Chaos or the Chaos of Economics.’’ Oxford Economic Papers 40, 1–31. Kennedy, Paul. (1989). The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict. New York: Vintage Books. Kiel, L. Douglas. (1989). ‘‘Nonequilibrium Theory and Its Implications for Public Administration.’’ Public Administration Review. November/December, 544–551. Kiel, Douglas, and Euel Elliott (eds.) (1996). Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Korbin, S. (1996). ‘‘Back To The Future: Neomedievalism and The Postmodern Digital World Economy.’’ Journal of International Affairs 51(2), 367–409. Korten, D. (1995). When Corporations Rule The World. Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Lasswell, Harold. (1936). Who Gets What, When, How? NY: Whittlesey House. Laszlo, E. (1972). Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought. NY: Gordon and Breach. Laszlo, E. (1977). Goals for Mankind: A Report To The Club of Rome. NY: Dutton. Laszlo, E. (1987). Evolution: The Grand Synthesis. Boston, MA: Shambhala New Sci. Libr. Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. NY: Harper & Row. Lorenz, E. (1963). ‘‘Deterministic Non-Periodic Flow.’’ J. of Atmospheric Science 20, 130, 141. Lorenz, E. (1984). ‘‘Irregularity: A Fundamental Property of The Atmosphere.’’ Tellus 36A, 98– 110. Lorenz, E. (1993). The Essence of Chaos. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Lorenze, Hans’Walter. (1978). ‘‘Strange Attractors in a Multisecotr Business Cycle Model.’’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 8, 397–411. Loye, D. (1977). The Leadership Passion: A Psychology of Ideology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Loye, D. (1978). The Knowable Future: A Psychology of Forecasting and Prophecy. NY: WileyInterscience. Loye, D. (1980). ‘‘The Brain, the Mind, and the Future.’’ Technological Forecasting and Social Change 23, 267–280. Loye, D., and Riane Eisler. (1983). ‘‘The Failure of Liberalism: A Reassessment of Ideology from a New Feminine-Masculine Perspective.’’ Political Psychology 4(2), 375–391. Loye, D., and Riane Eisler. (1987). ‘‘Chaos and Transformation: Implications of Non-Equilibrium Theory for Social Science and Society.’’ Behavioral Science 32, 53–65. Marx, Karl. (1967). Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society. Edited and Translated by Lloyd Easton and Kurt Guddat. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Marx, Karl. (1984). ‘‘The Spirit of Bureaucracy and Beyond Bureaucracy: The Paris. Commune.’’ In Frank Fisher and Carmen Siranni (eds.), Critical Studies in Organization and Bureaucracy. pp. 40–41. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Maslow, A. (1966). The Psychology of Science. Chicago, IL: Regnery. Maturana, H., and F. Varela. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Boston, MA: Reidel. Mayntz, Renate. (1997). ‘‘Chaos in Society: Reflections on the Impact of Chaos Theory on Sociology.’’ In Celso Grebogi and James Yorke (eds.), The Impact of Chaos on Science and Society. New York: United Nations Publications. Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W.W. Behrens. (1972). The Limits of Growth. NY: Universe.


371

Mesarovic, M., and E. Pestel. (1974). Mankind At The Turning Point: The Second Report To The Club of Rome. NY: Dutton. Miller, G. (1978). Living Systems. NY: McGraw-Hill. Modelski, G. (ed.) (1979). Transnational Corporations and World Order. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Company. Morgan, Gareth. (1995). Riding the Waves of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mumford, L. (1944). The Condition of Man. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Murphy, P. (1996). ‘‘Chaos Theory as a Model for Managing Issues and Crises.’’ Public Relations Review 22(2), 95–113. Myrdal, G. (1969). Objectivity in Social Research. NY: Pantheon. Nicholis, Gregire, and Illya Prigogine. (1977). Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems: From Dissipative Structures to Order Through Fluctuations. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Nonaka, Ikujiro. (1988). ‘‘Creating Organizational Order Out of Chaos: Self-Renewal in Japanese Firms.’’ California Management Review 30 (Spring), 57–73. Offee, C. (1985). Disorganized Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Olmstead, A.T. (1948). The History of The Persian Empire: The Achaemenid Period. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Oyen, Else et al. (eds.) (2002). Best Practices in Poverty Reduction. New York: ZED Books. Parry, G. (1969). Political Elites. New York: Praeger. Pareto, V. (1961). ‘‘The Circulation of The Elites.’’ In T. Parsons, E. Shils, K. Naegele, and J. Pitts (eds.), Theories of Society. NY: The Free Press. Parenti, Michael. (1995). Democracy for the Few, 5th Edition. NY: St Martin’s Press. Parsons, Howard. (1977). Marx and Engels on Ecology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Parsons, Talcott. (1937). The Structure of Social Action. NY: McGraw-Hill. Parsons, Talcott. (1951). The Social System. NY: Free Press. Parsons, Talcott. (1968). The Structure of Social Action. NY: The Free Press. Perelman, Michael. (1987). Marx’s Crisis Theory: Scarcity, Labor, and Finance. New York: Praeger. Perrow, C. (1979, 1986). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, 2nd Edition. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Platon, T. (1968). The Structure of Social Action. NY: Free Press. Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Priesmeyer, H.R. (1992). Organizations at Chaos: Defining The Methods of Nonlinear Management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Prigogine, Ilya. (1998). The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos, and the New Law of Nature. New York: The Free Press. Prigogine, I., and I. Stengers. (1984). Order Out of Chaos. NY: Bantam. Puu, Tonu. (1997). Nonlinear Economic Dynamics, 4th Edition. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Quinn, James B. (1980). Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Rassmussen, Dan R., and Erik Mosekide. (1988). ‘‘Bifurcations and Chaos in a Generic Management Model.’’ European J. of Operational Research 35 (April), 80–88. Reigel, K. (1979). Foundations of Dialectical Psychology. NY: Academic Press. Rifkin, J. (1991). Biosphere Politics. New York: Harper Collins. Rifkin, J. (1996). The End of Work. NY: G.P. Putnarn’s Sons. Rosenau, James. (1990). Turbulence in World Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosser, Barkley, Jr. (2000). From Catastrophe to Chaos: A General Theory of Economic Discontinuities, 2nd Edition. Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sabine, G. (1961). A History of Political Theory, 3rd Edition. NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Salk, J. (1983). The Anatomy of Reality. NY: Columbia University Press. Schein, Edgar. (1985, 2nd edition, 1995). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Schon, Donald. (1971). Beyond The Stable State. NY: Norton.

372

A. FARAZMAND

Schweitzer, Frank (ed.) (1997). Self-Organization of Complex Structures: From Individual to Collective Dynamics. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach. Senge, Peter. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Sivard, R. (1983). World Military and Social Expenditure. Washington, D.C.: World Priorities. Sklair, L. (1995). Sociology of The Global System. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Smale, Steve. (1967). ‘‘Differentiable Dynamical Systems.’’ Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 73, 747–817. Smale, Steve. (1974). ‘‘Global Dynamics and Economics IIA.’’ J. of Mathematical Economics 1, 1–14. Snyder, Gary. (1977). The Old Ways. Sanfrancisco: City Lights Book. Solow, Robert. (1976). ‘‘Is the End of the World at Hand?’’ In Richard Gill (ed.), Great Debates in Economics. Vol. 1, 172–80. Pacific Islands, CA: Goodyear. Sorokin, P. (1941). The Crisis of Our Age. NY: Dutton. Sorokin, P. (1966). Sociological Theories of Today. NY: Harper & Row. Spengler, O. (1932). The Decline of The West. NY: Knopf. Thom, Rene. (1972). Structural Stability and Morphogenesis. Reading, MA: Benjamin. Toynbee, A. (1947). A Study of History. NY: Oxford University Press. von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. (1968). General Systems Theory Revolution. NY: George Braziller. Weber, Max. (1924/1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated and Edited by A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons. NY: Oxford University Press. Weber, Max. (1968). Economy and Society: An Interpretive Sociology. Vol. 3. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (eds.). NY: Bedminister (Original work published in 1924). Weick, Karl. (1977). ‘‘Organization Design: Organizations as Self-designing Systems.’’ Organizational Dynamics 6 (Autumn), 31–46. Weick, Karl. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd Edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Weick, Karl. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and The New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World, 2nd Edition. Berrett-Koehler. Weinberg, Julius. (1964). A Short History of Medieval Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: PUP. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. NY: Wiley. Zeeman, C. (1977). Catastrophic Theory. Reading, MA: Madison-Wesley.