how to apply this perspective to groups, and to Joe McGrath and Jennifer Berdahl for sharing my enthusiasm ...... denly noticed or sought out external input that.
Arrow, H. (2005). Chaos, complexity, and catastrophe: The nonlinear dynamics perspective. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.)., The handbook of group research andpractice (pp. 201-2 19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chaos, Complexity, and Catastrophe The Nonlinear Dynamics Perspective
T
he nonlinear dynamics perspective is not indigenous to the small groups field. Instead, scholars who were (for the most part) originally trained in one or more of the other perspectives represented in this handbook have enriched or transformed their thinking about groups by adopting, adapting, grafting, and integrating dynamic systems concepts from catastrophe, chaos, and complexity theories. Scholars have talked about small groups as dynamic systems since the middle of the last cen-
I
tury (e.g., Lewin, 1947a, 1947b),and this perspective has survived in lines of research such as group development. So the compatibility of groups research with a perspective that emphasizes dynamics' and change seems logical (see Meara, 1999; Smith & Gemmill, 1991; Stacey, 2001; Wheelan, 1996, for introductory articles). What I refer to here as the nonlinear dynamics perspective, however, refers to the application of more recent models and methods that emerged and developed in other disciplines.
Author's Note: Thanks to Bob Weiss and Sara Hodges for support and encouragement and to Susan Wheelan for her patience. I am grateful to the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life Sciences and The Santa Fe Institute for educating me in the basics of nonlinear dynamics in the early 1990s when I was first puzzling out how to apply this perspective to groups, and to Joe McGrath and Jennifer Berdahl for sharing my enthusiasm in this quest.
202
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON GROUPS
Catastrophe theory, which models discontinuous change, emerged in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Poston & Stewart, 1978), and a modest trickle of articles applying catastrophe ideas to groups and dyads began in the 1980s (e.g., Guastello, 1988; Tesser, 1980). Chaos theory, which studies how the iterated application of simple deterministic rules generates chaotic behavior, was brought to the attention of the general public in the late 1980s (e.g., Gleick, 1987), and complexity theory, which focuses on the spontaneous emergence of organization and the interface between order and chaos, flowered in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., Lewin, 1992; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984).Articles and books applying chaos and complexity ideas to small groups began to appear with some regularity only in the past decade (e.g., Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000; Guastello, 1995; McClure, 1998; Stacey, 2001,2003). Thus, although work in this perspective resonates with some long-standing ideas in group theory, it is nevertheless in an early stage of development. Nonlinear dynamics constitutes a "second language" for many first-wave scholars, and fluency in this second tongue-which uses terms such as sellf-organization, attractor, and bifurcation to describe dynamic processes and the structures that emerge from them-varies widely. Although some scholars have received systematic training in the concepts and methods of this perspective, many of us are largely selftaught. Hence, the ways in which we have interpreted and applied concepts that developed originally in physics or mathematics or biochemistry or meteorology are quite idiosyncratic. Theory and research that takes a nonlinear dynamics perspective on small groups is hence both diverse and unstable. It ranges from purely metaphorical interpretations of dynamic systems concepts to mathematically challenging applications of techniques unfamiliar to most groups scholars. This chapter presents a snapshot of a dynamic array of work in progress, rather than explicating a settled body of ideas. We are, in the terminology of the field, working far from equilibrium at the edge of chaos, a state in
Despite this fluid state of affairs, some common themes and convictions tie the work together: an emphasis on how processes in groups unfold at multiple levels, an interest in instability and discontinuous change, and an appreciation for the paradox of coherent patterns arising out of group behavior that remains unpredictable in its particulars and always holds the potential for novelty and surprise. My approach in this chapter a be to highlight common themes while also noting the variety of ways in which scholars from a variety of disciplines-including psychology, sociology, political science, and communications-have interpreted or applied them. In the last section, I identify some pitfalls common to this perspective and identify the approaches I believe are most likely to take root and flourish in small groups theory and practice.
Overview Machine, Organism, Network, . Process: How to Define a Group? Kant, credited as the first to use the term sellf-organization, characterized the difference between a machine (or mechanism) and an organism as follows. In a machine, the idea of a functional whole precedes the creation of parts, which are designed and fit together to make a whole. In an organism, the whole emerges as the parts arise together (and by means of one another) in interaction. They unfold and "selforganize" (Kant, 179011987, summarized in Stacey, 2003, pp. 264-265). This organismic idea of a self-organizing whole has been adopted in characterizing both small groups and larger organizations (e.g., Arrow et al., 2000; Contractor & Seibold, 1993; Goldstein, 1994; Guastello & Philippe, 1997; McClure, 1998; Stacey, 1996). Arrow and colleagues (2000) define groups as "self-organizing systems in which global patterns emerge from local action and structure subsequent local action" (p. 38). The cross-level
The Nonlinear Dynamics Perspective
(re both Some le work groups stability eciation :out of le in its or novlter will noting a varisociol-have Zion, I pective : most ps the;,
term rence d an idea )n of nake es as one 'selfrl in idea d in lrga)r & 3
&
'96). s as erns bseeve1
nrcular causality embedded in this definition is an idea imported from systems theory. Theorists who emphasize the multilevel conception of groups refer to at least three levelsmembers, groups, and embedding context-and acknowledge that other levels (such as dyads and subgroups within groups or competing groups in the embedding context) contribute as well to the unfolding group dynamics (Arrow etal., 2000; McPherson & Rotolo, 1996; von Cranach, 1996). In some work, the idea of a self-organizing whole is combined with a network conception of groups as a dynamic set of connections among members (e.g., Zeggelink, 1995) and other components of the group such as tasks, tools, or information (Arrow et al., 2000; Carley, 1991; Stacey, 1996). The intragroup network is an organized cluster embedded within a larger network of connections that extends beyond the group boundaries. All work in this perspective views the patterning of interaction as central to the definition of a group. Stacey (2003) has lately taken this to an extreme, defining groups as complex responsive processes and rejecting the systems concept of an organized whole. This departs from his earlier work, in which Stacey (1996, p. 169) defines a group as a nonlinear feedback network. Von Cranach (1996) also takes the position that groups only exist by virtue of acting but retains the systems idea of a self-organizing whole. The nonlinear dynamics perspective both builds on and departs from general systems theory (GST). Like GST, it focuses on the interaction between individuals rather than on the attributes of individuals. Unlike GST, which emphasizes the movement of systems toward a single stable equilibrium, the nonlinear perspective treats the group as a system that is both open (resources flow into and out of the group) and far from equilibrium-in other words, it requires the constant input and transformation of energy to maintain itself as a system. If the input of energy ceases, the system dissolves. Integrating these elements, a core definition of a group from the nonlinear dynamics perspective might take the following form:
203
A group is a self-organizing, open system of dynamic connections among interacting members, embedded within and interacting with its context. This suggests that in studying groups, we should focus on the nature of connections and interactions among members both within and across group boundaries to gain insight into processes, structures, and other outcomes of interest.
What Kinds of Groups? The nonlinear dynamics perspective applies to any set of people who are engaged in interaction. Although theorists who fit in this perspective clearly differ on whether a group continues to "exist" in some sense, even when its members are not interacting, all would likely agree that social groups defined by categories-such as Polish Americans or lawyers-would not qualify as groups in the nonlinear dynamics sense. The range of collectives to which the perspective applies is otherwise extremely broad. It covers the full temporal range, from ephemeral groups of people in conversation (e.g., Newtson, 1994) to very long term groups such as families (e.g., Pincus, 2001) and to groups that range in size from dyads (e.g., Tesser, 1980) to large organizations (e.g.,Goldstein, 1994).It applies to electronic groups (e.g., Arrow, 1997; Contractor & Seibold, 1993), which lack access to many nonverbal channels available face-to-face, to co-located groups whose members coordinate their actions without talking to one another (e.g., Guastello & Guastello, 1998), and also to the behavior of individuals interacting with simulated group members in an experimental setting (e.g., Tesser & Achee, 1994). As long as individuals are connected and communicating in some way and information is flowing across this connected network, the nonlinear dynamics perspective applies. The breadth of application across a variety of kinds of groups and settings is not surprising for a perspective that has been usefully applied to understand the
204
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON GROUPS
collective behavior of aggregates as different as slime molds (Keller & Segel, 1970), ant colonies (Cole, 1991), and flocks of birds (Reynolds, 1987). This breadth is something that the nonlinear dynamics perspective has in common with evolutionary psychology as a perspective on human behavior. Both presume that scholars can usefully study and understand human behavior and interaction in many of the same ways that scholars have studied behavior and interaction in other species.
How and Why Do Groups Form? The nonlinear dynamics perspective provides several ways to think about the group formation process. It is stronger on the "how" question than. on the "why" question. The general answer to the how question is that groups form as people interact, adjust their behavior in response to one another, and become coordinated in a new collective in which they play a role as members (Arrow et al., 2000). At the most basic level of nonverbal behavior, interpersonal coordination appears to emerge spontaneously,via shadowing, for example, in which people mimic the gestures of conversational partners (crossing legs, for example) after a short time lag (Newtson, 1994). The coordination of attitudes, which facilitates collective action, also emerges as an outcome of social influence processes experienced in group interaction (LatanC & L'Herrou, 1996). A typology of group formation proposed by Arrow and colleagues differentiatesfour prototypical group formation routes based on the relative importance of forces internal and external to the group and of planning versus emergent process. In concocted groups, agents external to the group deliberately assign people to groups and typically designate the group's purpose as well. Many work groups and therapy groups, and the vast majority of groups in social psychology experiments, f d into this quadrant. In such groups, the processes of adjustment and coordination occur once members begin interacting. (Of course, external agents may also select
people for the group based on expectations of complementarity among members.) In circumstantialgroups, events throw people together and give them a reason to interact, but this outcome is not planned or intended. An example would be people sharing a lifeboat after a cruise ship sinksm Circumstantial groups often include members who would otherwise be highly unlikeIy to find themselves undertaking the challenges of collective action together. In founded groups, people collect around (or are collected by) a founder or founders who have a purpose in mind for the group-such as making music or money or promoting a new ideology. In -these groups, self-selection will ensure that members are coordinated and aligned with the founder in some way, but they may not be coordinated with one another. In self-organizedgroups, a new collective arises out of interaction among a subset of people in a larger social setting. These people are not actively trying to form a group-it just happens. Many friendship groups arise in this manner, and such groups are likely to show high levels of intermember coordination from the start because the selection process is operating among all member pairs-not just between members and founders-and because interpersonal interaction prior to group formation is also tuning the coordination among members. Applying the term self-organized only to the latter category is somewhat misleading because some degree of self-organization is required for any set of people to become a functional collective. However, groups that fall into this quadrant (with internal, emergent group formation processes predominating) provide the clearest analogue to group formation across a broad range of species whose members interact. Birds or fish are not assigned to a flock or school, nor individually recruited to join a new collective by a founder bird or fish. Instead, birds and fish spontaneously display flocking or schooling behavior whenever a collection of them are moving together in close proximity. Computer simulations, in which individual agents follow preset rules for interaction,
The Nonlinear Dynamics Perspective
,
:tations of :n circum.. :ether and Outcome would be hip sinks. members Y to find )f collec-
; a new
In will !d and ut they her. In ses out e in a e not )pens. inner, levels start ating ween rper)n is 'rs. the iuse for lec'ant ion -est
-1
.!$ m'c
..
