In the Balance

How are we to position ourselves in respect of change? How much should we strive to maintain the status quo, and to what extent should we struggle to push for the new? Change is inevitable, and yet there must be something working at balance in our societies, for the rate of change, whilst visible at the scale of a single lifetime, is nonetheless indolent in its expression. Why should this be so?

I first began thinking in terms of homeostatic models at a social level in the context of language. The meaning of words change over time - what has been termed language drift. But at a grass roots level, what one can observe are those people who fight to maintain the old forms (such as maintaining 'moot' as meaning 'debatable', not 'impossible to debate', and maintaining 'factoid' as 'an unverified or inaccurate piece of information', not 'a small fact), and people who adopt the new forms. If you fish around in your life, you may well find examples of both - at the very least, your English (or other language) teacher is likely to have been a force for maintaining traditional forms over neologisms.

I have taken to considering those who resist the rate of change as brakes, and those who work to bring a faster rate of change as accelerators. I have discussed this model at such length with one of my friends, that I no longer know with any certainty who coined it, but nonetheless, I find it a useful way of looking at changes in societies. In terms of homeostasis, a brake generates negative feedback, and an accelerator generates positive feedback; between the two, a balance of progress is maintained which (I believe) is slightly in favour of change, such that over time, societies do gradually change and evolve, but not at a rate of change so rapid as to be asymptotic - except when the pressures within a social system exceeds its limits, and then revolutions and other catastrophic reformations result.

One of the many things that this has helped me to come to terms with is the Catholic church. As a person who is pro-religion (and also pro-science), I have wanted for many years now to reach a comfortable space with all major religions, but Catholicism was difficult for me, because it's anti-birth control provisions are acting as an accelerator on the population explosion, and it's anti-gay, anti-female leanings are similarly out of step with my own beliefs. Indeed, the Catholic church is quite often seen as being a century behind the rest of the century - at the end of the twentieth century, their prevailing belief system (controlled and encapsulated in the current Catholic Pope) was rather similar to the prevailing social beliefs at the start of the twentieth century.

However, I have been able to reconcile with Catholicism by seeing it as a brake on the rate of social change. It is not desirable for change to occur too rapidly, and the twentieth century perhaps more than any other has been an engine of technical advancement (although whether this was a sudden step forward - like the discovery of how to work iron - or part of a continuous process is open to debate). The Catholic church, by acting as a brake on the rate of social change serves as a 'social anchor'. I can respect this. By 2100, we will perhaps have a Catholic Pope reflecting late twentieth century values - such as birth control and sexual equality. By granting the Catholic Pope of each era absolute capacity to determine the rules, it is actually more flexible than a religion that uses a religious text as its basis - it just happens to represent a very slow rate of change.

In a wholly different context, I have been very surprised with the vehemence with which my colleague, Ernest, has positioned himself against blogs - but then, perhaps I have been too blinded by the many benefits of a system that produces a global network of common materials and an information economy. I always endeavour to see the positive (because the alternative is too depressing!), and thus even the detritus at the base of the blogging world seems to me to be of potential value to sociologists and other researchers who could never have such a wealth of self-reports at any time previous. But in taking these roles, I am becoming the accelerator, and Ernest the brake. Blogs will endure, because they have found a successful niche and serve multiple functions to numerous to elucidate. But perhaps the rate of change has been too rapid, and we are in need of some brakes to provide balance.

We choose our battles - choose where we will act as a brake and where as an accelerator. I try to act as a brake on the rate of change of environment, on the supplanting of traditional game and art forms with global commercial forms, and on the abandoning of religious frameworks as a social bedrock; I try to act as an accelerator in the rate of change of social tolerance, the trend towards negative population growth, and in the focus on the game design process on player needs. These are the roles that I inevitably find myself in. Other people will find other roles.

Mike Moorcock's metaphor of the Cosmic Balance - which in his Eternal Champion cosmology mediates between the stifling orthodoxy of Law (representing civilization and justice, but also inflexibility, and stagnant sterility) and the unruly disorder of Chaos (representing entropy and turmoil, but also change and progress) is a modern metaphor for the homeostatic struggle. Highly politically motivated, Moorcock's Law also represents the best and worst of right-wing political ideology, while his Chaos represents the strengths and failings of left-wing political ideology, thus grounding this fantasy iconography in modern political thought. Almost all of his stories are set against the backdrop of this struggle projected at some scale or another, with the exception of more literary fiction such as the acclaimed Mother London or The Brothel in Rossenstrasse. His novels are narratives about the struggle to maintain balance. Indeed, Moorcock's most recent heroines and heroes have made it explicit that they must fight first for one side, then for the other - forever fighting to preserve the balance.

Joseph Campbell once wrote that the world remains largely the same over the centuries - a point which I have spent some time debating internally.  (I cannot find the quote, so please do not take my summary as wholly accurate). Largely, he was characterising a theme in religious mythology - that the essential conflicts of humanity and the world are eternal and unchanging. Human nature cannot be changed (on a time scale meaningful to an individual or a culture) and therefore it must be accepted. My problem has been that I tend to agree - there is, for instance, little difference between Rome two thousand years ago and the USA now, in terms of the abstracts and the human behaviour driving the situations, but I also feel I must choose things worth fighting for and join the fray. But this, perhaps, is also how it has always been - that we must find our bearings from where we find ourselves, and act to support and oppose what seems worthwhile from our tiny place in history.

What is perhaps important, therefore, is that those of us with the will and the capacity to fight the abstract battles choose them carefully. What is worth opposing? What is worth assisting? Where should we act as brakes, and where as accelerators? Perhaps also we should accept that those fighting against us are not our enemies, but our partners in a vast and continuous social homeostat that has mediated and guided the progression of our global societies for as long as we have had languages to act as the foundation for our beliefs.

The opening image is 'Balance' by Anders Sandberg. As ever, no copyright infringement is implied or intended, and I will take it down if asked.

Comments

[Patrick]

I'm definetly an accelerator, I've been in roughly 15 car accidents in only a few years of driving, and totaled 2 vehicles.

I'll probably learn to brake more as I get older, particularly on Singularity-related issues, to which I'm evidently the only game designer who thinks hard take-off is a significant possiblity. It a Singularity is possible, it will happen sooner or later, but I'l like to do what I can to ensure a soft take-off.

Of course, I was raised Catholic, so my inclination is to tie the brick to the pedal.

[Jack Monahan]

So where's the steering wheel?

Thanks for another stimulating post, Chris. I commend you for your efforts, particularly in attempting to reconcile Catholicism in some way with your view of world religions and the like. Catholicism is misunderstood in a variety of ways, even by some of those who profess to espouse its tenets, unfortunately.
But before launching into the realm of apologetics (yes, I am a practicing Roman Catholic), suffice it to say that I think you've already grasped one of the key strengths of the institution, in a non-religious sense: the Church as anchor-point.
Just as you remark later in the post, in abstract there's little to distinguish the Rome of old and the US of today; human nature is unchanging, so why should an institution bound up with issues deeply seated in human nature change with the times?
The social mores related to the issues you bring up (birth control, gay marriage etc.) are so comparatively recent in the overall timeline of the institution, that it would frankly be irresponsible to make changes so quickly if indeed changes were deemed as necessary.

But enough about Catholicism being at odds with modern sensibilities, that's a whole other monster we can wrestle with later if the Spirit moves you.
What I wanted to remark on is how your model of accelerators and brakes suggests that change is inevitable (which is true) but also that the flow of that change is universal, which is questionable. What of all the dead ends and cul de sacs of modern "progress"? Your analogy is missing a steering wheel. :)

I recently finished reading a book which is one of the finest philosophical texts I have ever encountered, which argues quite persuasively about the issues of modernity in a clear and concise manner. The book is called "The Ethics of Authenticity", by a Canadian philosopher named Charles Taylor. Of everyone I know, Chris I think you particularly would really enjoy reading this book.
Taylor enframes the issue similarly, the "knockers" (brakes) and "boosters" (accelerators) of modernity, and says that neither a wholesale denial nor wholesale endorsement of our modern sense of individualism is called for. Rather, we all should strive for the ideals espoused by the ethics of authenticity (being "true to yourself") and enjoin rigorous dialogue and debate.
There will be no perfect society, no one solution that will make everyone happy: in our society, for us to achieve that homeostasis is to never give in to apathy nor absolutism, but continue to strive for what is best for everyone.

And now that I've butchered the man's brilliance, please consider checking out the book itself:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674268636/qid=1144535689/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_3_10/203-6076163-7158359

Even used copies are a little pricey, but if you've got the time to read it, I will honestly paypal you the money for the book if you're interested in reading it. That's how strongly I feel about the book. I also think it's an ideal text for you personally, for further consideration of these questions of balance and change.

[Chris]

You're right, of course - the model I describe ignores issues of guidance. I guess if I search deeply I suspect that guidance is an emergent property of the system. Perhaps the reason I am trying to gently push my perspective into the outside world, (rather than sitting on my viewpoint), is my belief that I might have potential to contribute positively to a steering effect. Perhaps this is arrogance. Perhaps it doesn't matter. :)

I'm gearing up for a run on ethics sometime very soon - although I have a gargantuan reading list right now (just Eternal Golden Braid, which Patrick recommended, is daunting by itself!)

I've added the book you mention to my order list at Amazon to pick up in the next batch. Thanks for the tip!

[Patrick]

If you're serious about reading GEB in its entirely, you're probably not going to get Fireball ready for the Manifesto launch ;)

GEB is a great book to read as a student, as it encapuslates a powerful core of both science and humanities education, but I imagine much of it will be familiar to you, and its holistic whimsy is probably too much of an investment for someone with your schedule. Sort of like Oblivion for intellectual readers.