Complexity theory for complexity reduction? Revisiting the ontological and epistemological basis of complexity science with Critical Realism

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Yi Yang
{"title":"Complexity theory for complexity reduction? Revisiting the ontological and epistemological basis of complexity science with Critical Realism","authors":"Yi Yang","doi":"10.1111/jtsb.12412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Complexity theory (CT) identifies our social system as a contingent and emergent product of non‐linear interactions between existing patterns and events. However, CT scholars carrying out various empirical applications have often adopted constructivist positions that disallow the separate existence of social systems and agency, thereby preventing effective analysis of their interactions. Instead, with the help of Critical Realism (CR), we offer a realist complexity approach that sees complexity in terms of the distinction between the domains of the Real, the Actual, and the Empirical, when existing studies of CT still work with a flat ontology that collapses the three domains into one (the Empirical domain). Our non‐conflationary CR‐CT approach thus argues that a satisfactory explanation of social complexity cannot be at the level of agential experience (the Empirical domain) or at the level of human and systematic events (the Actual domain) but needs to identify causal mechanisms (in the Real domain) of such events. It then combines this depth ontology (that distinguishes the three reality domains) with epistemological relativism (that underscores the contingent character of knowledge claims) to argue that though our knowledge and complexity reduction techniques are socially constructed, it hardly follows that the ontological dimension of reality (spreading across the three domains) is always affected by our complexity reduction efforts at the epistemological dimension in the Empirical domain.","PeriodicalId":47646,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12412","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Complexity theory (CT) identifies our social system as a contingent and emergent product of non‐linear interactions between existing patterns and events. However, CT scholars carrying out various empirical applications have often adopted constructivist positions that disallow the separate existence of social systems and agency, thereby preventing effective analysis of their interactions. Instead, with the help of Critical Realism (CR), we offer a realist complexity approach that sees complexity in terms of the distinction between the domains of the Real, the Actual, and the Empirical, when existing studies of CT still work with a flat ontology that collapses the three domains into one (the Empirical domain). Our non‐conflationary CR‐CT approach thus argues that a satisfactory explanation of social complexity cannot be at the level of agential experience (the Empirical domain) or at the level of human and systematic events (the Actual domain) but needs to identify causal mechanisms (in the Real domain) of such events. It then combines this depth ontology (that distinguishes the three reality domains) with epistemological relativism (that underscores the contingent character of knowledge claims) to argue that though our knowledge and complexity reduction techniques are socially constructed, it hardly follows that the ontological dimension of reality (spreading across the three domains) is always affected by our complexity reduction efforts at the epistemological dimension in the Empirical domain.
用复杂性理论降低复杂性?用批判现实主义重新审视复杂性科学的本体论和认识论基础
复杂性理论(CT)认为,我们的社会系统是现有模式和事件之间非线性互动的偶然和新兴产物。然而,进行各种实证应用的复杂性理论学者往往采取建构主义立场,不承认社会系统和机构的独立存在,从而无法对它们之间的相互作用进行有效分析。相反,在批判现实主义(CR)的帮助下,我们提供了一种现实主义的复杂性研究方法,从 "真实"(Real)、"实际"(Actual)和 "经验"(Empirical)三个领域的区别来看待复杂性,而现有的 CT 研究仍在使用平面本体论,将三个领域合而为一(经验领域)。因此,我们的非冲突性 CR-CT 方法认为,要对社会复杂性做出令人满意的解释,不能停留在行为经验层面(经验领域),也不能停留在人类和系统事件层面(实际领域),而是需要确定这些事件的因果机制(在现实领域)。然后,它将这种深度本体论(区分三个现实领域)与认识论相对主义(强调知识主张的偶然性)结合起来,论证虽然我们的知识和降低复杂性的技术是社会建构的,但这并不意味着现实的本体论维度(遍及三个领域)总是受到我们在经验领域认识论维度降低复杂性的努力的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour publishes original theoretical and methodological articles that examine the links between social structures and human agency embedded in behavioural practices. The Journal is truly unique in focusing first and foremost on social behaviour, over and above any disciplinary or local framing of such behaviour. In so doing, it embraces a range of theoretical orientations and, by requiring authors to write for a wide audience, the Journal is distinctively interdisciplinary and accessible to readers world-wide in the fields of psychology, sociology and philosophy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信