A deep dive into the 1943 paper by Rosenblueth, Wiener, and Bigelow, its historical context, and its continuing contributions to philosophy of science, diverse intelligences and more.
Alex Williams’ recent work that aims to update the Gramscian (thus Marxian) theory of hegemony based on cybernetics, second order cybernetics and social complexity science, indicates the right direction yet it misses the most fundamental ingredient for such a vital project. Thais is Bogdanov’s general science of organization which was precursor to both Gramsci’s theory and the systems-complexity paradigm. Theory of hegemony is in its essence is a theory of organization.
First book to integrate complexity theory with the theorisation and practice of hegemony Deploys new theoretical resources to rethink the persistence of neoliberalism since 2008 Provides a detailed and original reading of Gramsci, synthesising recent scholarship to demonstrate the absolute modernity of his core ideas
How can we understand power in a world of ever-growing complexity? This book proposes that we can do so by rethinking the theory and practice of political hegemony through the resources of complexity theory. Taking Gramsci’s understanding of hegemony as its starting point, the book argues that the intricacies of contemporary power can be mapped by applying concepts drawn from complexity theory, such as emergence, self-organisation, metastability, and generative entrenchment. It develops an original account of social complexity, drawing upon critical realist sociology, analytic philosophy of science, Marxist and continental philosophies, and neoliberal and anarchist thought. It then draws out the elements of Gramscian hegemony that already align with complexity concepts, such as the balance of forces, common sense, and the historic bloc. On this basis, the book sets out the different dimensions of complex hegemonic power before using this theory to interpret the nature of the power of neoliberalism since 2008.
Both the commonsensical and leading theoretical accounts of entrepreneurship, democracy, and solidarity fail to describe adequately entrepreneurial, democratic, and solidarity-building practices. These accounts are inadequate because they assume a faulty description of human being. In this article we develop an interpretation of entrepreneurship, democratic action, and solidarity-building that relies on understanding human beings as neither primarily thinking nor desiring but as skillful beings. Western human beings are at their best when they are engaged in producing large-scale cultural or historical changes in the way people and things are dealt with. The three domains of human activity where these historical changes are most clearly accomplished are entrepreneurship, democratic action, and solidarity. Section I, guided by a roughly Kuhnian notion of holding on to an anomaly until it re-gestalts the way we see things, offers a general interpretation of how skillful human beings open up new worlds by changing their shared background practices in three ways: reconfiguring, which makes a marginal practice central; crossappropriation, in which one domain of practices takes over useful practices from another domain; and articulating, whereby dispersed or confused practices are brought into clearer focus. An entrepreneur creates a product which reconfigures the practices. This interpretation of entrepreneurial skills is contrasted with current accounts that overlook ehtrepreneurship to concentrate on instrumental or theoretical models of business activities. Section II claims that the most exemplary kind of political action in a liberal democracy is that of political action groups. Such groups produce a change in a nation’s background practices through a kind of speaking that leads to massive cross-appropriation. We describe Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and suggest that it both satisfies the requirements for genuine democratic action that we have established in our examination of other views and lacks their disadvantages. We conclude that the relatively detached action suggested by current theories of liberal democracy fail to do justice to democratic practice. The final section argues that those who claim that a single highest value or procedure provides a source of solidarity that satisfies all the competing interests in a multi-cultural nation always arrive at a solidarity that is too thin to provide for the serious sort of commitments that one would be willing to die for. We propose that solidarity in multi-cultural states implies commitment to a set of thick values, and that when one realizes that these thick values construct one’s identity one is willing to die for them. While political action concerns itself with ordering values, solidarity involves the cultivation of them in such a way that no ordering of them matters. But solidarity is not to be understood as a subjective feeling. It is rather the experience of a group identity, a ‘we’, that sees things and deals with things in terms of shared concerns. This ‘we’ comes to recognize itself when the actions it engages in transform it. The paradigmatic action that transforms such a ‘we’ occurs when a culture figure articulates some forgotten concern or value. As in the cases of entrepreneurship and democratic action, a culture figure cultivates solidarity by changing the background practices in a historical manner. It is concluded that traditional theoretical accounts, by overlooking the primacy of involved skillful activities and the importance of background change, fail to capture the source, the function, and the point of entrepreneurship, liberal democracy, and solidarity.
1/thread Almost 20 years ago, I started thinking about the ergodicity problem in the context of economics. That turned out to be surprisingly fruitful, and now there’s a book about it.
1/thread🧵 Almost 20 years ago, I started thinking about the ergodicity problem in the context of economics. That turned out to be surprisingly fruitful, and now there's a book about it. pic.twitter.com/gNLRpqNbiI
In this episode we sit down with professor Neil Theise, the author of Notes on Complexity, to get an introduction to the science of how complex systems behave – from cells to human beings, to ecosystems, the known universe, and beyond – and we explore if Ian Malcolm was right when he told us in Jurassic Park that “Life, um, finds a way.”
YANSS 312 – An introduction to complexity science, chaos theory, and how life, um, finds a wayIn this episode we sit down with professor Neil Theise, the author of Notes on Complexity, to get an introduction to the science of how complex systems behave – from cells to human beings, to ecosystems, the known universe, and beyond – and we explore if Ian Malcolm was right when he told us in Jurassic Park that “Life, um, finds a way.”
08 May 2025, by Barbara Orlando, translated by Tomaso Eridani
How network science can help us understand who will be the next Pope. The study by Soda, Iorio, and Rizzo reveals how status, information and alliances influence the papal election.
Research Papal election In the Network of the Conclave Open share 08 May 2025, by Barbara Orlando, translated by Tomaso Eridani How network science can help us understand who will be the next Pope. The study by Soda, Iorio, and Rizzo reveals how status, information and alliances influence the papal election.
Join us for a Special Interest Group: Change in organisations is inevitable, especially in challenging economic and technological times. Enabling the entire workforce to engage in change initiatives not only facilitates buy in, but also ensures that their specific knowledge and insights create and embed organisational transformation which will enhance long term viability.
Dr Ann Mulhaney – Associate Professor for Change Management at the Centre for Sustainable Innovation, University of Salford will be presenting/speaking on this informative subject.
Change in organisations is inevitable, especially in challenging economic and technological times. Enabling the entire workforce to engage in change initiatives not only facilitates buy in, but also ensures that their specific knowledge and insights create and embed organisational transformation which will enhance long term viability.
There is a plethora of change management literature, with numerous models and theories of change, but few explain how to create and embed the conditions for change that enable stakeholder engagement, coordination of initiatives and sustainability of both the change and the management of change within organisations. Managerial cybernetics is the science of effective organisation, but little work had been undertaken to utilise managerial cybernetics in the design of change intervention which both engages those affected and embraces creativity techniques as part of the change framework.
Using action research, this presentation describes a framework for cybernetic participatory intervention that engages stakeholders both in the evolving design and the implementation of change. The framework was developed, refined and applied in a series of situations with increasing levels of complexity involving multiple change initiatives, multi companies and cross industry programmes. The framework embeds creativity tools to both engage stakeholders and enhance understanding of the situational context, allowing for new and enhanced opportunities for change to emerge.
When
26/09/2025 12:30 – 14:00 GMT Daylight Time
Where
Centre for Systems Studies University of Hull Cottingham Road Hybrid HU6 7RX
Systems Thinking – Creating the conditions for change: a participatory cybernetic framework
Almost 20 years ago, I started thinking about the ergodicity problem in the context of economics. That turned out to be surprisingly fruitful, and now there’s a book about it.
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.