Elisabeth Adler Kaufmann, Chaos, circa 1970 (Print and water color) (Photography: M. Alhadeff-Jones)
Toward a crisology?
In 1976, André Béjin and Edgar Morin coordinated a special issue of the journal Communications entitled « La notion de crise ». The contributions to this volume offer both a very precise overview of the way in which this term is mobilized in different academic disciplines (philosophy, history, sociology, economics, etc.) and at the same time a broad and in-depth understanding of what is implied by the use of the notion of « crisis » in a transdisciplinary perspective. In this respect, the concluding article, written by Morin (1976) and entitled «Pour une crisologie? » opens up a particularly rich perspective, supported by the sociological, historical and epistemological understanding that characterizes the author's thinking and his contribution to the paradigm of complexity. Frequently cited in subsequent texts on the psychological, organizational and socio-historical aspects of crises (e.g., Barus-Michel, Giust-Desprairies & Ridel, 1996; Roux-Dufort, 2000), this article appears today as an essential text for anyone interested in the notion of crisis in the human sciences.
Based on Morin's contribution, the aim of this article is to identify how a complex approach to crisis phenomena is worthy of interest from a rhythmological perspective. When we evoke the notion of rhythm, it is intuitively through phenomena of repetition that we tend to represent it. It thus appears somewhat counter-intuitive to consider the discontinuous and non-repetitive aspects that characterize the evolution of most organized phenomena (natural or living) that go through episodes of crisis, as expressions of the rhythms that constitute them. In the continuity of an earlier reflection on the relations between complexity theories and rhythmic theories (Alhadeff-Jones, 2018), the following text thus seeks to establish how a complex understanding of crises refers to a rhythmological approach and reversely, it tries to open up avenues to foresee how an intelligence of rhythmic phenomena could participate in a better understanding of the complexity of crisic phenomena.
Three principles for conceiving a theory of crises: systemic, cybernetic and negentropic
Morin's article (1976) is divided into three parts. The first part presents the three principles required, according to the author, to conceive a theory of crises and proposes, in so doing, three levels of analysis. The second part introduces ten components that appear to be central to the concept of crisis. The third part evokes three relationships between crisis phenomena and transformation. The present analysis focuses on the first part of the article. According to Morin, in order to conceive of crisis, it is necessary first of all to go beyond the notions of disturbance, ordeal, and disruption of equilibrium, and to consider society as a system capable of having crises. To do this, it is necessary to « … establish three orders of principles, the first systemic, the second cybernetic, the third negentropic, without which the theory of society is insufficient and the notion of crisis inconceivable » (Morin, 1976, p.149). The following sections define these three levels of analysis, illustrate them using examples drawn from the current pandemic context, and establish links with a rhythmological approach.
Systemic level
As Morin reminds us, the idea of system refers to a whole organized by the interrelation of its constituents. « For there to be a system, there must be the maintenance of difference, that is, the maintenance of forces safeguarding at least something fundamental in the originality of the elements or objects or interrelations, thus the maintenance, counterbalanced, neutralized or virtuality, of forces of exclusion, dissociation, repulsion. » (Morin, 1976, p.150). At this level of analysis, the fundamental aspect lies in the fact that any organized system is based on balances that involve both complementarities and antagonistic forces. Two systemic postulates are thus proposed: (1) the complex unity of the system both creates and represses antagonisms; (2) systemic complementarities are inseparable from antagonisms. And Morin specifies: « These antagonisms remain either virtual, or more or less controlled, or even ... more or less controlling. They erupt when there is a crisis, and they make crisis when they are in eruption. » (p.151).
These two postulates can be illustrated in the current pandemic context. The health crisis thus highlights the complementarities and antagonisms that exist in a fundamental way in any society: in the logics of justification that underpin the actions undertaken within the different spheres of activity of society (domestic, health, education, economy, politics); between generations (young people more or less protected from the virus, elderly people more vulnerable); but also between principles of individual responsibility (free will) and collective responsibility (exercise of social control). Similarly, the health crisis highlights numerous disparities within the population, related for example to access to information, education, care, or financial aid. These disparities also reveal potential or actual antagonisms in the ways people think, feel or behave in the context of the effects of the crisis.
The two systemic postulates formulated by Morin thus lead to an interest in the complementarities and antagonisms that are constitutive at all times of a system, but which are revealed by the presence of sharp tensions in a crisis situation. From a rhythmological point of view, we can immediately note that the presence of antagonism can constitute a determining criterion for defining the emergence of a rhythmic phenomenon, characterized by a differentiated structure, motif or pattern (Sauvanet, 2000). In the continuation of Bachelard's (1950) thought, which envisions rhythm as the expression of a « pattern of duality » (motif de dualité), we can, from a systemic perspective, conceive of the emergence of a rhythmic phenomenon as being inherent to the appearance of a particular relationship, at once complementary and antagonistic, between the elements of an organized system. In other words, where there is antagonism, there is potentially the emergence of a rhythm, and where there is rhythm, there is potentially antagonism and complementarity.
Cybernetic level
While the systemic level of analysis focuses on the nature of the interrelationships between the elements of a system, the cybernetic level is more specifically concerned with the regulatory processes (positive or negative feedback) that allow the system to be maintained in equilibrium (homeostasis) on the basis of the antagonisms in presence. As Morin (1976, p.151, stressed by Morin) writes: « When we consider systems of cybernetic complexity ... the machine, the cell, the society, that is to say, with regulatory feedbacks, we find that the organization itself elicits and uses antagonistic behaviors and effects from certain constituents. This means that there is also organizational antagonism. » The regulation of a system is therefore based on the antagonistic action of one or more elements on other elements of the system, as soon as these elements vary beyond a zone of tolerance, threatening the stability, the homeostasis, or even the integrity of the system: « Thus antagonism does not only bring about the dislocation of the system, it can also contribute to its stability and regularity. » (Morin, 1976, p.152).
If we take the example of the COVID-19 pandemic, the processes of regulation, through the implementation of negative (inhibition) or positive (reinforcement) feedbacks, are omnipresent in health, social, political, and economic regulatory strategies. The containment strategy is the emblematic example of the implementation of negative feedback at the social level, based on physical isolation, in order to control the spread of the virus within a population and to maintain the stability of the health care system responsible for the treatment of infected persons. On the other hand, the need for social contact felt by the population regularly leads a certain number of people to expose themselves to the virus and, in so doing, to increase the number of contaminations. When we look at the socio-economic effects of the pandemic, feedback mechanisms also play a key role in the evolution of the crisis. Thus, the strengthening of measures to support people who are no longer able to work and the financial aid to households or companies suffering from the effects of the slowdown of activity are based on the principle of positive feedback. The reinforcement of certain financial flows (e.g., distribution of aid), by counterbalancing the antagonistic tendency inherent in the decrease in economic activity, thus aims to maintain a certain economic and social balance.
By emphasizing the regulatory mechanisms of a system, the cybernetic perspective draws attention to the organizational dimension and the regulatory effects of the antagonisms involved. It also leads to an interest in the nature of the fluctuations through which a system maintains its equilibrium. From a rhythmological point of view, these regulatory processes and the fluctuations associated with them manifest the presence of a fundamentally rhythmic activity. Very early on, in the emergence of the pandemic, the recognition of some of its rhythms was expressed in the analogy with « waves » (or more recently with the « yo-yo » effects associated with the constraints implemented). Similarly, this rhythmicity is very clearly expressed in the statistics of the pandemic, which reproduce in a quantitative way the periodic evolution of contaminations. Thus, the presence of retroactive loops (positive or negative feedback) is reflected in the deployment of a rhythmic activity over time. Conversely, the deployment of rhythmic phenomena suggests the presence of regulatory mechanisms.
Negentropic level
If entropy refers to the natural tendency of an organized system to evolve irreversibly towards dispersion and disorder, the negentropic level of analysis refers in Morin's thinking to the conditions required for a system to be able to reorganize itself permanently, and even to develop its complexity over time. In this perspective, the antagonisms present within a system allow for the regulation of its processes (cybernetic principle), while at the same time carrying within them the risk of its disintegration, or even its « death », insofar as the more they unfold, the more they contribute to the dispersion of the system's elements. Morin thus reminds us that any organization maintains itself either by remaining immobile (a fixed and static system), or by mobilizing energy that makes it possible to compensate for and control the forces of opposition and dissociation (antagonisms) that cause the system to tend towards dispersion. In this respect, the increase in entropy (disorder) within a dynamic system corresponds to an energetic or organizational degradation that has the effect of releasing antagonisms, which lead to disintegration and dispersion (Morin, 1976, p.152). By going beyond an analysis in terms of complementarity-antagonism, or regulation mechanisms (inhibition-reinforcement), negentropic analysis questions the modalities of transformation and evolution of an organized system, as well as the resources available to enable it to maintain itself, and to inscribe itself in a history that also takes into consideration the possible « death » of the system.
With regard to the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic, a negentropic reading questions the irreversibility of the processes engaged to cope with the virus and its morbid effects on the health of individuals and communities. The deadly effects of the virus are the most flagrant example of the destructive potential of this crisis (on the victims and their entourage). More broadly, another illustration is the fatigue that has accumulated since the beginning of the crisis. It is obviously found among health professionals who are on the front lines of the fight.It is also found in all the professions exposed to the tensions caused by the uncertainty and the deleterious effects of the pandemic (teachers, therapists, social workers), but also in the economic sector, because of the stress induced by the unpredictability that remains. Fatigue thus appears to be one of the phenomena that reflects the result of all the regulatory efforts made. This fatigue refers to the risk of exhaustion of the vital forces that maintain society (households, hospitals, schools, businesses, political bodies, etc.). It gives rise to legitimate fears insofar as the exhaustion of social capacities to regulate the crisis, refers to the release of forces with potentially destructive effects with regard to the functioning of democracy (fragmentation and radicalization of positions, attacks on democratic dialogue, questioning the legitimacy of scientific discourse, challenges to the legitimacy of political powers, etc.). At the same time, a negentropic reading leads to an interest in the creativity implemented within society to renew itself. Here, the example of the technological and scientific advances implemented is revealing of the capacity for innovation and the progress that it allows us to envisage in order to face, at present and in the future, threats of the same type.
If a cybernetic interpretation of the crisis reduces its evolution to the periodicity of the retroactive loops implemented to regulate the disorders introduced by the emergence of a disorganizing event (the appearance and diffusion of a virus), a negentropic interpretation approaches it from the point of view of the processes of (re)organization and the irreversibility of the history in which it is inscribed. From a rhythmological point of view, we could thus formulate the idea according to which the necessity for any system to have to reorganize itself permanently, leads to go beyond a reading emphasizing the periodicity of rhythmic regulating processes. It refers more to the generative (or degenerative) dimension of these phenomena. Thus, the presence of rhythmic phenomena can be associated either with the emergence of new attributes that contribute irreversibly to the potential renewal of the system, or with the disappearance of certain processes that were previously involved in maintaining the integrity of the system. The first case refers to the « syncope » effect referred to by Sauvanet (2000) to account for the way in which a discontinuity can contribute to renewing the « movement » of a rhythm. In the second case, one observes rather the disappearance of what produces the rhythm, because of the dispersion of its constitutive elements. Thus, the need for an organization to recreate itself refers to a double rhythmic movement, characterized (1) by the possibility of seeing original patterns of activity emerge involving a potentially higher degree of complexity (expressions of a creative, generative capacity, specific to the system, manifested for example by new partnerships, new alliances); and (2) by the possibility of seeing some of the components of the system disappear, or the relationships they maintained, through a regressive movement of compartmentalization, fragmentation, or dispersion, produced by the release of antagonistic forces that would no longer be under control (expressions of potentially disorganizing, even destructive forces). From a rhythmological point of view, the processes of (re)organization of a system are ultimately manifested by the reconfiguration of the interrelations and processes of regulation that animate it (e.g., social, economic, political, intellectual transactions) within new assemblages, new forms, which remain in perpetual fluctuation, translating « ways of flowing » (Michon, 2005) and a « movement » (Sauvanet, 2000) that are always idiosyncratic and fundamentally historical and that characterize the evolution of rhythmic phenomena.
Crisis and complexity: Contributions to the development of a rhythmic intelligence
The three principles proposed by Morin (1976) to conceive a theory of crises refer to three distinct logics allowing to consider, a complexivist theory of rhythms (Alhadeff-Jones, 2018) and more specifically a rhythmological approach to crises.
The systemic principle leads to an examination of the antagonisms and complementarities that make up a system. From this perspective, a rhythmic intelligence should focus first on the phenomena of antagonism and use them as a starting point for an analysis aimed at identifying rhythmic phenomena. Where there is antagonism, there is potentially the emergence of a rhythm, and where there is rhythm, there is potentially antagonism and complementarity. Rhythmic intelligence thus refers to a dialogical approach (Morin, 2008) that takes into consideration tensions, oppositions, contradictions, and paradoxes as signs of a rhythmic configuration within a given system. This first perspective also contributes to emphasizing the structural dimension of rhythmic phenomena by focusing on the configurations (structure, motifs, arrangement, pattern) (Sauvanet, 2000) that organize them.
The cybernetic principle leads to an examination of the way in which an organized system uses antagonisms to regulate its activity through feedback mechanisms (reinforcement, inhibition). From this point of view, a rhythmic intelligence should focus on regulatory phenomena and use them to characterize the nature of the rhythmic phenomena considered. Thus, where there are retroactive loops (feedback), there is potentially active rhythm, and where there is active rhythm, there is potentially a regulatory process. Rhythmic intelligence thus refers to an understanding of the retroactive and homeostatic properties of the systems considered, as the result of active rhythms. It also makes it possible to highlight the regulatory properties specific to each system, according to the feedbacks that participate in their equilibrium. This second perspective also contributes to emphasizing the periodic dimension of rhythms (Sauvanet, 2000), by focusing in particular on the cycles, periods, frequencies, or tempi that characterize the repetition of certain organized activities.
Finally, the negentropic principle places the emphasis on the processes through which antagonisms participate in the regeneration or dispersion of an organized system. In this perspective, the exercise of a rhythmic intelligence focuses on the phenomena of variation, mutation, (re)organization, and even transformation, in order to highlight the productive and creative, or dissipative and destructive, functions associated with rhythmic phenomena. Thus, where there is recursive loops and reorganization, there is potentially a rhythm that produces complexity, or dispersion, and vice versa. Rhythmic intelligence is concerned here with the recursive and autopoietic (self-producing) properties of a system, as manifestations of the rhythmic phenomena that participate in its (re)organization. It can allow us to identify the creative and generative properties, as well as the destructive and dissipative ones, which are proper to the system, according to the nature of the rhythms which animate it. This last approach also contributes to emphasize the discontinuous and irreversible dimension of the movement inherent to rhythmic phenomena (Sauvanet, 2000) as well as the fluidity of the forms that characterize them (Michon, 2005), their idiosyncrasy and their historicity.
References
Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2018). Rythmes et paradigme de la complexité: Perspectives moriniennes. In J.-J. Wunenburger, & J. Lamy (Eds.), Rythmanalyse(s) Théories et pratiques du rythme. Ontologie, définitions, variations. Lyon: Jacques André Editeur.
Bachelard, G. (1950). La dialectique de la durée. Paris: PUF.
Barus-Michel, J., Giust-Desprairies, F., & Ridel, L. (1996). Crises. Approche psychosociale clinique. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer.
Michon, P. (2005). Rythmes, pouvoir, mondialisation. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France.
Morin, E. (1976). Pour une crisologie. Communications, 25(1), 149-163.
Morin, E. (2008). On Complexity (S. M. Kelly, Trans.). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Sauvanet, P. (2000). Le rythme et la raison (2 vol.) Paris : Kimé.
Roux-Dufort, C. (2000). La gestion de crise. Un enjeu stratégique pour les organisations. Paris: DeBoeck.
To cite this article: Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2021, March 22). Crisis and complexity: Contributions to the development of a rhythmic intelligence. Rhythmic Intelligence. http://www.rhythmicintelligence.org/blog/2021/3/22crisis-and-complexity-three-principles
