The Complexity of Racism: Reflections on the South African Context

A Post-Apartheid Anecdote: Racism; it’s Complex!

As with all good tales related about racism, it is perhaps appropriate to begin with a personal anecdote. From 1999 to 2000, I – like many other young South Africans – took advantage of the “working holiday visa” to travel to the UK, where I lived for a year in Southampton. I loved visiting London, and on one particular trip I met up with a group of South African Indians who were living and working in London on the same ticket. They were friends of a friend, and we went out that night, and enjoyed the sights and sounds of the city.

I entered into a long conversation with one of them, a male, about the struggle against apartheid, the various sacrifices that had been made, how precious our new found freedom was, and how zealously we would need to guard it and contribute to building it, in order that the new South Africa would be a success. We were in agreement on a broad range of issues, and I naturally began to feel comfortable with my new friend.

At the end of the night, as we were on our way back to the apartment that I was bunking over in that night we overhead several white South African males speaking loudly (and drunkenly) in Afrikaans while urinating against a nearby wall. My newfound friend shot a condescending look in their direction and blurted out the following words in his thick Transvaal Indian accent,

“These boers, they’re worser than the Kaffirs!”

The words struck a deep chord in me, as the confusion I experienced at his matter-of-fact statement forced me to confront how multi-layered and complex racism in South Africa was in reality, especially when compared to the remedy we had adopted as a nation in the 1990s i.e. cosmetic change and “rainbow” nation-building.

I had encountered a brown person who displayed racism to both black and white South Africans, while maintaining a strong ‘anti-Apartheid’ stance at the same time. As is typical of most South Africans he probably harboured prejudices towards a range of other groups who make up the South African population, which includes Coloureds (i.e. mixed-race), Jews, Muslims, Greeks, Portuguese, Lebanese, Chinese, and so forth.

It seemed to me, that undoing all these racisms with the simple narratives that nation-building was constructed around may prove ineffective – even futile – against the phenomenon it was trying to expunge from South African society. Racism appeared to manifest in society as a many-headed beast, which took on too many forms to trap and eliminate with a rudimentary set of tools. Something else was required; a strategy that recognised the complexity of the racism as a societal phenomenon.

It is perhaps the right time to contribute to re-thinking and re-imagining ways of understanding and dealing with racism in South African society.  For, many years later, I am again deeply enthralled with South African politics, as race has moved to the forefront of popular and academic South African discourse again. Not since the advent of black consciousness in the 1970s has there been so much interest in discussion in questions of race, racism and privilege in South African society. It feels as though the illusion of the “rainbow nation” is finally disintegrating. Most recently, the comments made by a little known real estate broker – Penny Sparrow – re-ignited stormy social media debates on race that had abated only over the festive period.

Systemic Racism as Complex Duality: Implications for Privilege Theory

But there is much to be said about the nature of the debates, discussions and positions that have been emerging on questions of race, whiteness and privilege theory on social media that emphasize race as a social phenomenon, and generally draws on Global North – predominantly North American and UK – literature to formulate its premises. Many of the arguments that have emerged are contradictory, even paradoxical.

At times they seem as though no suitable or amicable resolution between different standpoints can be reached. However, there is a starting point around which general agreement can be obtained. Most contributors are in general agreement that racism is systemic. In the debates that are positioned in terms of privilege theory in particular, the systemic nature of racism is attributed to structural privilege within society as a system, which awards advantages to white people in particular, from the moment of birth.

Privilege theory emphasizes the role of structuration[1] as a complex process, which reproduces systemic bias (i.e. such as racism), and acknowledges the duality of structure i.e. that actors are as much producers as they are products of societal structuration[2] (Guess, 2006[3]). This is how privilege theory addresses systemic reproduction of racism (and indeed other institutional prejudices in society) i.e. essentially by invoking “reflexivity” as a duality that governs actors and agency within the processes of structuration.

In addition, privilege theory emphasizes “intersectionality”; that the institutional prejudices that are embedded within the structure and agency of society cannot be separated from each other in the analysis of a single prejudice (e.g. such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.). Each actor that resides within the “system” hence negotiates their intersectionality within a complex process of structuration, for example; a black man is both subject to systemic racism, but may also benefit from sexism through patriarchal values, beliefs, norms and behaviours. A black woman may have to deal with both racism, as well as sexism. If she were to be a lesbian, then homophobia may also intersect with the aforementioned prejudices. The anecdote related earlier is also a case in point. Situationality, and context, govern intersectionality, as the processes of structuration are bound by these.

In summary, privilege theory focusses on systemic racism as a phenomenon that perpetuates itself through structuration. It hence de-emphasizes “racism by intent”. As one source states, “To talk about racism by intent is moot and somewhat unproductive” (Guess, 2006).

A complexity based understanding, however, would accept the central tenets of privilege theory, but from my perspective it would necessarily hasten to add a few more layers to this framework, as follows:

Duality: Firstly, in a complexity theory based perspective, duality is understood as that which exists between inseparable metaphysical opposites. That is, it emphasizes the duality (and not dualism) between conceptual binaries such as evil and virtue, life and death, light and dark for example. That is, the duality of metaphysical opposites implies that these cannot be defined except in relation to each other. Dualism, by contrast, would view them as distinct and separate binaries.   

Inter-relations: Secondly, complexity theory is based on systems theory, which places great emphasis on the importance of connections between parts of a system, as well as its connections with other systems. The more open a system is, the more complex its behaviour is likely to be. If one considers agency within such a system, then it is in good agreement with the notion of intersectionality as deployed in privilege theory, but would place more emphasis on interconnections than purely structure (perhaps this is only a semantic difference, but it is still worth pointing out).

Systemic reproduction/autopoiesis: Thirdly, complexity theory draws heavily on systems theory in envisaging how systemic reproduction occurs. In systems and complexity theory, when a system can reproduce itself (i.e. (2) above) it is referred to as capable of autopoiesis i.e. “self-reproduction”. That is, the system is autopoietic. In this perspective, the relevance of the debate around systemic racism is that it is concerned with how racism is reproduced within society as a whole, and its various systems and institutions.

When the term systemic is used, especially in respect of racism, it usually denotes that the systemic phenomenon occurs almost automatically within the system i.e. automatically or procedurally, relatively thoughtlessly. However, self-reproduction within a system can also be purposive, or deliberate. That is, when it comes to self-reproduction within a system, there is a duality in respect of the purposiveness (i.e. what is deliberate, and what is automatic) that lies behind its reproduction i.e. both processes – deliberate and automatic –  contribute to the reproduction of a system at the same time, and are co-evolving.

Autopoiesis, in systems terminology, is not just a product of reflexivity (i.e. that agents are both producers and are produced by bias contained within the processes of structuration). It is also a produce of purposiveness. This is especially the case when considering human systems (i.e. whether organisations of people, or the hierarchies and bureaucracies of organisations and institutions in society). Hence, to a systems or complexity thinker, it would not make sense to think or speak about one, without considering the other. In this casting, ignoring “racism by intent” (as privilege theory appears to regard it as “moot and somewhat unproductive”) would constitute a ‘half-baked’ analysis of the reproduction of systemic racism.

So while privilege theory acknowledges the complexity of racism as a phenomenon in respect of its contextual and situational multiplicity – i.e. as intersectional and dependent on context (i.e. its relationality or (1) above) – it does explicitly not address one of the central features of complexity, that is; the ability for a phenomenon to exist in a duality (i.e. the phenomenon of racism as simultaneously deliberate and automatic), which, as argued above, is key to its ability to self-reproduce (i.e. or (2) above).  

If we then adopt the perspective that racism may exist in society as a duality – that it may accommodate polar opposite causes in respect of how deliberate racist actions are generated in the everyday spectrum of experiences within the social and institutional fabric of society, and manifest as a complex phenomenon in this respect – as argued above, then a more nuanced appreciation of racism as a phenomenon may be obtained.

Moreover, in addition to regarding racism as duality (as outlined above), it can be further noted that historically it is clear that racism as a phenomenon possesses both social and economic dimensions. This is historically self-evident and requires no in-depth discussion or qualification.

Hence, to summarise the central proposition of this piece; racism can be thought of as a systemic socio-economic phenomenon that manifests as a systemic duality relating to its reproduction as both automatic and deliberate at the same time. To put it another way; racism is conceived of as a product of thoughtlessness (action which is automatic), and racism as a product of deliberate, purposive action (i.e. racism by intent) within the social and economic realms.

These inseparable ‘racisms’ (i.e. both thoughtless racism and purpose-driven racism) act together to invoke racism in both social and economic contexts. This duality can be further cast as follows:

Racism due to thoughtlesssness: Everyday systemic racism, which occurs as banal. It is a product of thoughtlessness and is what largely characterises systemic racism as a social phenomenon. Thoughtlessness, here, is the same as that written about by Hannah Arendt regarding the “banality” of the evil that characterised Adolph Eichmann’s actions in sending hundreds of thousands of Jews (if not millions) to their deaths in Nazi extermination camps. Privilege theory confronts this everyday thoughtlessness, but deals less substantively with the role of exploitation as a structural phenomenon in society (at least in as far as the arguments that have been tendered in the media are concerned)[4].

Racism due to deliberate intent: Systemic racism as deliberate, purposive. This takes on two forms; exploitative racism and hate-based racism, which can be explained in more detail as follows i.e. in terms of:

·         Exploitative racism, which occurs as a superposition of class on race. It is purposive, deliberate (i.e. not banal) – and is what largely characterises systemic racism as an economic phenomenon. Exploitative racism as an economic phenomenon is based on greed and the abuse of power (and/or a perceived necessity?). It also has social dimensions, where social status is attained through attachment to race-based identity. Often, this kind of racism is the last vestige of hope for working class whites to distinguish themselves from the black and brown working classes. As it is identity-based, it overlaps with hate-based racism (see next point). Both forms of exploitative racism no doubt entangle, especially when considering colonial and postcolonial contexts.

·         Hate-based racism, where racism is the extreme condition upon which a persons’ identity is constructed i.e. it characterises systemic racism as an extreme identity phenomenon. They derive their sense of self and belonging to society (at least a group within it) through ‘absolute’ or deep hatred for the races that they persecute. They are, in a real sense, extremists.

The two forms of racism co-exist (i.e. thoughtless and deliberate, respectively), constitute a duality, and cannot be separated neatly for the benefit of either diagnosing racism, or offering prognosis for racism. They are useful, however, for the purposes of understanding how racism manifests in society as a phenomenon. Thoughtless, everyday racism may contain some measure of deliberate racism and vice versa. Indeed, that is how they manifest as social realities. That is why these constitute a duality and not a dualism.

The categories are useful for understanding. That is, they should be considered as a framework constituted of co-evolving variables that prove useful in understanding how racism manifests as an emergent phenomenon[5]. This answers the deeper question here, that is; “what duality generates action in the reproduction of racism in society?”

The duality that privilege theory acknowledges is that of structuration, where actors both produce and are produced by racist structures. Their experience is shaped by structuration, and hence they reproduce what they have inherited; it is automatic and procedural, requiring less thought. This acknowledgement of duality is more concerned with the role of structure in the reproduction of racism; behaviour is constrained to a particular trajectory. Actions, in this framing, are more procedural than deliberate.

In contrast, the duality that complexity theory is concerned with is what mechanisms and actions drive self-reproduction, and considers the duality of action. This in turn highlights the gap between thoughtless and deliberate racism, because both are fundamental to autopoiesis. That is, a complexity perspective is would be concerned with incorporating both automatic and deliberate action in the reproduction of racism i.e. understanding and acting upon it.

The distinction is critical, as it is – broadly speaking – the difference between what shapes racism in society (i.e. structure), and who enacts racism in society and how it is enacted (i.e. action). When the focus is on action, it – in addition – shifts the focus towards considering how racism is experienced. And it is mainly experienced as alienation, where the fragmentation of the social realm results in an individuation of experience; experience is unable to manifest as a result of the broader reflections within society. It is relegated to the private realm.

Another key consequence of adopting this perspective is that through exploring the duality of action in respect of racism as a phenomenon, it clearly highlights the role of class as a factor in the reproduction of racism as a social norm. When one is forced to consider deliberate racism (or racism with intent), it is clear that the intention to exploit is a major factor; and that exploitation takes on both economic and social (especially in terms of identity) dimensions. Economic exploitation occurs in terms of who owns the natural resources, the means of production, the financial capital, the assets, etc. …, while social exploitation has more to do with identity and societal status. Together, however, these ascribe the main dimensions of class, especially in terms of hierarchy and differentiation.

By considering the duality through which actions are reproduced that reinforce systemic racism, the consideration of what was lacking in privilege theory i.e. racism by intent, unlocks the ‘missing’ dimension of privilege theory i.e. its engagement with class as a key factor – especially in the post-colonial context. Moreover, it highlights the importance of focussing on the actors, their actions, and what choices they have in respect of actualising adaptation or evolutionary change in society. Systemic constraints are a given, but to actualise a purpose requires something more; an understanding of how actions are generated, and how they are taken[6]. In this framing, we should seek to formulate actions that navigate the central duality of racism as a phenomenon in society, and to respond to the roots of actions that reinforce and reproduce racism in society.

Implications for Racism in South Africa

Confronting Racism and Decolonising Society

Racism is still a key undercurrent in South African society precisely because the “rainbow nation” driven attempt at nation-building embarked upon a programme of cosmetic change that quickly ran its course, but it was maintained as a key prop in the state and governments programme to maintain control over the electorate, as well as key institutions and organisations.  

Racism prevails because our past has not been resolved. That is, it is in many ways still present, and manifests in the interactions between people, as well as between people and institutions. In this way colonial and apartheid era hierarchies have maintained themselves far into the new democracy. People can be both racist and non-racist at the same time, that is; racism emerges in some interactions, spaces, and situations, while it can be absent in others. As it is with identity, prejudice is fluid and intersectional.

Racism manifests as situational, even though it is structural and systemic, so there is perhaps some merit in considering how we can address racism by confronting it in situations; whether these situations involve interactions with black or white people. Some considerations are necessary in this regard. Many people are oblivious to their racism precisely because they aren’t thinking about their views deeply enough, and some may even entirely lack the capacity to understand or acknowledge their own racism. Racism as an identity, is largely fluid, except under extreme conditions, as argued earlier. It can be challenged and overcome but it needs to be confronted when it emerges with a fair degree of understanding when it is thoughtless, and firmness when it is deliberate and exploitative. Moreover, deploying an aggregate macro-level framework on systemic racism in order to take action in individual micro-interactions is a tricky affair. These confrontations therefore require both a sensitivity as well as punitive measures where necessary, as is appropriate to the particular context. 

This brings us to the question of “decolonisation”, which has been used, in its simplest sense, as a remedy for racism, and in its more complex sense, a means of aiding the transformation of the institutional and social fabric of society. It is quite patently impossible to actualise decolonisation as a project of absolute removal (i.e. “deleting”) of racism from society and its institutions. This is because when one considers the complexity of racism (whether latent or manifest, thoughtless or deliberate), it is clear that it cannot be undone; it needs to be overcome instead. It is resident in both centralised and distributed forms within the fabric of society, and strongly informs memory and reproduction from both its centralised and consolidated structures, as well as its decentralised and distributed agents and micro-structures.

It cannot be ‘caught’, so to speak, and eliminated. It is an evolving, adapting phenomenon itself, and as such it requires a different, less reductionist approach. A sensitivity is required; an awareness. Indeed, a growth of consciousness of racism and its various latencies and manifestations that is required to outgrow racism by freeing up myriad small-scale adaptations to occur within society. In this understanding, simply hurling a slogan such as “check your privilege”, is hardly likely to engender the awareness that is required for racism to be self-diagnosed and grappled with at an individual or collective level. It cannot be eradicated through these means, it can only be controlled!

Neither can nation-building narratives serve as anything more than a means of orienting transformation efforts; they cannot serve as effective means for actualising transformation At worst, they places constraints on the modes of transformation e.g. through forgiveness, restitution, retribution, truth for amnesty, peace above conflict, and so forth. The emphasis should be on sowing the ‘seeds’ that enable transformative actions in society, and not on exerting undue control upon it.

The programme of cosmetic change, which has not and cannot address how the past manifests in the micro-interactions that characterise everyday life in South Africa, has hence eventually come to ring hollow, precisely because it is a top-down narrative that stifles acknowledgement and meaningful discussion, debate and dialogue . This narrative, effectively takes the power to resolve racist perspectives and actions out of the hands of ordinary people; and creates a false dichotomy between racism and non-racialism, that in reality is far more complex and inter-linked.

Rather, society will need to adapt and evolve its way beyond its racist condition. This is a far more complex challenge than can be addressed through simple prescriptions, or through shaming and recriminations. It requires freeing up the space for transformation in the public realm, and not exerting higher levels of control upon it.

The Control Paradigm versus the Evolutionary Paradigm

More freedom, rather than less, is the prescription that is being proposed here, so that new potentials and possibilities are created in the social fabric – for the purpose of transformation – and not less. Here, leadership can play a critical role, as the aim of leadership in such a context is to keep the space open long enough, and with adequate sensitivity, that the new can emerge in constructive, healing modes that can nurture change, rather than to bluntly enforce it. The leader as facilitator, can play a key role in the process of transformation and change, by providing principled guidance, but also allowing for innovative responses, interventions and disruptions to emerge, and to play a key role in allowing them to take on constructive transformative forms.

Whenever the impulse to exert control – or a set of controls – upon society are advanced, whether for worthy or unworthy causes (and whether “institutional” or “people-power”), it should be viewed with suspicion and considered with great care, for many societal prescriptions, while having virtuous intentions, inevitably turn to hypocrisy when they encounter the complexities of enforcing change in real societies.

When the claim to exert control over individuals and groups is made in society, with the reasoning that it serves the best interests of society, the imperative to demonstrate the virtue of control distracts from where power is being located in society i.e. in whose ‘hands’ power resides. Irrespective of its stated ends, such power often falters, and responds by entering into a state of denial and hypocrisy, and exerts ever greater controls upon society in order to actualise its intended virtues. It becomes a charade, where despite the failures of control, its imagined successes are vaunted and propagandised. Instead of less racism, it reproduces more, as it is driven underground, and festers unchallenged precisely because it is hidden.

The difference between facilitative and control-based leadership cannot be underestimated, especially in respect of dealing with societal transformations. It is tempting to lapse into a mode of reflection where exerting control appears to be a simpler, more linear path towards achieving social change. It is anything but. As history has shown, society needs to be coaxed at times, confronted at others, and nudged towards change through sensitive and insightful leadership. Control has its place, but it should be carefully measured and dealt out. All major transformations in society require time, good leadership and a fair amount of luck. Nothing is guaranteed; you either acknowledge that you are experimenting and learning along the way, or you create a false sense of security around your actions, and claim hollow victories, for the sake of continued possession of power. There are no quick fixes or prescriptions for social ills such as racism, aside from symptomatic treatments.

Race and Class in South Africa

Most importantly, however, the implications of a complexity-based perspective on racism as a phenomenon – one which acknowledges and embraces its duality – brings class back squarely into the debate on race (i.e. by considering exploitative racism as a product of deliberate intent). This is of critical importance in the post-colonial, post-Apartheid South African context, which has the highest inequality in the world, and where class is largely delineated along racial lines. It should come as no surprise that demands for racial equality are coupled with demands for “economic freedom”, restitution and land redistribution.

South Africa’s working classes and underclasses are predominantly black Africans, who have traditionally been excluded from both the social and economic spheres of power in South African society. They are excluded, not just in terms of class mobility; they are also spatially excluded, as neo-Apartheid spatiality has come to dominate the developmental landscape of South Africa. They live in spaces and places where services are often lacking; the law and police enforcement is considerably weaker (indeed, they often work against poor black people); informal systems of trade, service provision and employment characterise daily life; informal justice can take on scary dimensions as mob community killings of errant individuals is committed; and where xenophobic riots result in horrific deaths of foreign African migrants and refugees; and where service delivery protests and unrest characterise the realm of political protest.

Moreover, and consequently, class and racial identity cannot be easily separated in the South African context. In the post-colonial and post-Apartheid context, this relationship is inherited as almost fixed; and despite their actual economic condition most white South Africans are automatically awarded middle class or elite status in daily social interactions. The converse is true for black South Africans, who still negotiate middle class interactions with difficulty. The recent explosion of debates, protests and heated exchanges on social media has opened a Pandora’s Box of unresolved, simmering discontent with the status quo in South Africa. The rainbow nation narrative outlived its usefulness long ago. It was an important mechanism for negotiating the difficult transition to democracy peacefully, and maintain stability, but it has since become a serious and dangerous binding constraint on society’s ability to transform and transition to a wholly new, more desirable state where equality (in terms of race) is actualised in real terms, and can be experienced in the public realm as indisputably normative.

Conclusion

To conclude, a complexity based perspective on the phenomenon of racism, which draws on the duality that is core to the reproduction of racism (as argued in this piece), implies that racism is not a reversible condition i.e. the historical, direct causes of racism cannot be undone. Hence, aspirations to “decolonisation” (as used in popular discourse) cannot proceed simply on the basis of ‘righting’ the wrongs of the past, or through restitution and retribution (e.g. such as erasure of the symbols of history in the public realm). Tackling in racism in society requires that racism is recognised as an adaptive, evolutionary phenomenon in its own right, one that reproduces itself through a complex array of mechanisms and capacities in society. Programs of cosmetic change, in this regard are not full solutions to racism, and may well act against efforts to overcome racism in society.  

Considering racism as duality also ensures that both social and economic dimensions of racism are fully considered in generating leadership and institutional transformation strategies for overcoming racism. This ensures that class, as a critical factor in race relations, is not lost as a co-generative factor in the reproduction and intersectionality of racism. Moreover, it ensures that the folly and futility of exerting control-based paradigms as remedies for racism in society are recognised. Instead, opening up new avenues and possibilities for the evolution of society through creative, visionary, facilitative leadership is required i.e. leadership that is sensitive to the context within which racism arises and the specific dimensions (and/or attributes) racism takes on in that context.  

Lastly, in the South African, there is a need to acknowledge the specific conditions through which racism is produced and reproduced, and the history that has led to the prevalence of racism as a socio-economic condition. Moreover, there is a need to draw on intellectual contributions that are specific to its context, in the formulation of actions to tackle racism. In this respect, drawing on past thinkers such as Steve Biko and Rick Turner, as well as a plethora of contemporary thinkers such as Melissa Steyn, is essential for formulating context-based strategies for leadership and institutional transformation in South African society.  

***Note: This thought piece is not a formal academic paper, and is rather intended to provoke discussion and debate on how racism is diagnosed and addressed in society. It is, in many ways, a thought experiment, which draws on complexity theory based thinking to reconceptualise race as a phenomenon. It could probably benefit from further (and more in-depth) academic thought and analyses, but it is not the intention or motive of the author to generate a fully coherent theory of racism at this stage. Rather, it is an attempt to explore what may be achieved by applying complexity theory to a complex social phenomenon (i.e. racism), and to assess what additional and useful insights and contributions to the discourse may be obtained from that attempt.

---

[1] Where structuration refers to how structure is reproduced by the actions of individual agents (whose expectations in turn shape and are also shaped by structural constraints, norms etc.; see next footnote).

[2] Guess, 2006: “In Giddens, the duality of structure refers to the observation that actors are as much producers as they are also products of society’s structurations.” 

[3] Guess, T.J. (2006). The Social Construction of Whiteness: Racism by Intent, Racism by Consequence, Critical Sociology, Volum 32, Issue 4; online www.brill.nl.

·         [4] For with privilege theory thoughtlessness is treated as a cause, to be addressed in order to relieve the symptoms. This in itself is problematic as thoughtlessness is not as much a direct cause – as much as it hosts the potential to lead to a range of (often unpredictable) consequences.

[5] However, they do not govern its emergence in a strictly causal sense (i.e. as direct, linear causes of racism).

[6] These actions are generated from processes that navigate a central duality in its analysis of racism as a phenomenon, but they are not taken lightly.

New Book: Lazarus in the Multiple: Awakening to the Era of Complexity

Lazarus in the Multiple: Awakening to the Era of Complexity

Surviving the Anthropocene

Published January 29 2016
Zero Books, UK

“Lazarus in the Multiple” presents a new philosophy on how to navigate the complex challenges that society faces in the 21^st Century. It deploys the biblical “Lazarus” as the everyman of modernity, who is caught between past and present, life and death, and sleep and awakening amidst the humdrum and complexity of the “multiple”. The multiple is the great sea of noise[i] that lies both within and without Lazarus, from which social reality is born. In this casting, Lazarus is unable to distinguish the signal from the noise and hence remains trapped within enduring ritual and an unfulfilled existence. He is unable to find expression and take actions to bring about meaningful change within himself or in the world around him.

This book builds on the work of Michel Serres, as well as many other philosophers and theorists to articulate a new way of understanding real-world complexity[ii] and acting upon it. It invokes the metaphors of jazz musicians and fighters, and their particular ability to improvise and adapt to environments of great complexity and adversity. They achieve this through their ability to sense, intuit and seek out moments where rules can be broken in order to produce creative and innovative responses to change. As such, the philosophy put forward in this book has significant implications for leaders, strategists and everyday people who are tasked with navigating the challenges of modernity in an era that is characterised by fast changing and complex socio-cultural, economic, environmental, political and technological phenomena.

Whereas the departure point for traditional approaches to formulating theories of complexity draw on the mechanisms of complex systems, the theoretical approach adopted in this book takes the properties of complex systems as its starting point. This enables a wholly new way of deploying complexity theory in relation to societal challenges, and shifts the focus away from mechanistic, cybernetics oriented frameworks towards a post-humanist conception where sense, awareness and intuition become critical factors for negotiating the complexity of the multiple.

The book’s conceptual framework is deployed in a diverse set of complex societal challenges. These range from identity and the politics of forgiveness, to thoughtlessness and the manifestation of evil in society, to the bipolarity of left-right politics, and to the burning need for a behavioural transition that is required for society to adequately navigate the emerging developmental challenges of the 21^st Century (such as global economic change, climate change and the loss of life supporting ecosystems). Thus, the usefulness of the conceptual framework is demonstrated. South Africa’s particular challenges are discussed in parts of the book, but these analyses are always strongly linked to their global relevance.  Through these discussions, the book identifies the debilitating and empowering potential of the multiple in an increasingly complex world.

However, while this book delivers new knowledge, it is not written the way an academic book on philosophy typically is. Rather, it is written as prose, and makes use of the power of narrative to accommodate contradictions, paradox and duality in understanding and navigating complexity. It is intended for a popular intellectual audience – i.e. a combination of philosophy-oriented creative, esoteric and academic readers – who are concerned with how to navigate the societal challenges of the 21^st Century, and are interested in new ways of thinking about and conceptualising the challenges we face.

Details of Release:

“Lazarus in the Multiple” is a forthcoming publication of Zero Books (John Hunt Publications, UK) and will be released on January 29 2016. It is available in both electronic and print versions and can be (pre)ordered online at: http://www.zero-books.net/books/lazurus-multiple.

Author Profile: http://www.zero-books.net/authors/camaren-peter

                                               

Surviving the Anthropocene

---

[i] As articulated in the work of the philosopher Michel Serres: see Serres, M. (1995/1982). Genesis. USA: University of Michigan Press. James, G. & Nielson J. (translators). Originally published in French by Editions Grasset et Fasquelle (1982).

[ii] Complex systems exhibit emergence i.e. surprising, often abrupt changes that cannot be predicted, but arises from extensive, ‘open-ness’, rich interconnectedness and multiplicity. Complex systems are hence highly variable, and are heavily characterised by uncertainty and non-linearity. Moreover, complex systems cannot be understood from one perspective alone because they are multivariate.

The Occupy Protests: Being Leaderless Helps Reshape The Territory

Perhaps the most striking characteristics of the protests that have emerged over the past year and half, whether they have originated from the Arab Spring in the middle east, or in the cities of the developed world, is that they are mostly leaderless, and that their various manifestations have proven to be devoid of a single governing ideology. Instead, they have become forums for participation, where a wide variety of views and ideological orientations can find a voice. As one OWS protester put it, it is not so much an ideological movement as much as it is a space for participation.

In the Arab Spring, a necessary debate has emerged around how to reconcile Islamic governance with democratic principles, and the elections in Tunisia reflect this. There is also an emerging debate on the role of women in Islamic democracy. These are both welcome developments that attest to the power that the Arab Spring has brought to the general discourse on politics and political freedom in the middle east, and the role of society and leaders within it. Islamic extremism has been put under the microscope and questions that were once thought unthinkable have now entered the mainstream. It's not perfect, but it's a beginning.

In developed countries where 'mature' democracies have been in place for the better part of the last forty years, the occupy and anti-austerity protest movements have also re-opened the space for debate around the fundamentals of democracy. In the last 20 years, 'talk left, walk right' political strategies have emerged in the wake of the weakening of the left through the era of neoliberal 'free' market economics. At the same time, conservative ultra-right movements such as the 'tea-party' increasingly appropriate the language of the old left. In short, developed countries have become plagued by bipolar democracies where it has become increasingly meaningless whether a democrat/labour or republican/conservative government is voted into power, because they ultimately end up thinking and acting in the same way.

Whether one chooses right or left, is an increasingly meaningless exercise in this muddled new territory of democracy, and it is obvious that the public responded with a profound apathy during the boom times. Now that the bubbles have burst, their voices are being raised. Those who were once content to sit in the middle and watch either side throw barbs at each other have entered the fray. They are not explicitly ideological, but they all want change. They may not all have the same ideas of how to make changes, but they know what needs changing. Simply put, it is unfairness at work in the heart of democracy. It is the violation of the egalitarian principle that lies at the heart of democracy itself. Inequality has always had strong appeal as a mobilising factor for those on the lower rungs of the divide, and when their ranks grow they become dangerous. It's as simple as that. And it's not perfect, but it is a beginning.  

It is a beginning because these leaderless mass movements have opened up the space for participation, and participation is the first step towards greater dialogue and exchange that can shape a new discourse. The 'leaderlessness' of these movements is precisely what makes them a potent force for change. That is, they are not already wrapped up in ideological clothing that predetermines how the debates and conversations may unfold. Instead, their leaderlessness and lack of monolithic ideological posturing means that the opportunity now exists to host a social dialogue on what core principles are needed to navigate the territory of the new century, and what kind of changes might be necessary to realise these principles.  

Perhaps the most significant demonstration that the protesters have given the world, is that it is still possible to engage governments and institutions through direct protest action. Some may underestimate this, but for the past twenty years there has been a significant public reluctance to engage in direct protest action. This critically important regulating function of democracy gave way to a global wave of apathy, especially in the countries of the developed world. The triumphal march of a victorious capitalism brought with it a sense that capitalism itself was timeless, and the reigns that had previously kept markets in check were loosened, as markets themselves were seen as the 'self-regulating' magic-makers of prosperity. The results of this victory are now plain to see, and the hopes that things would 'self-correct' after the collapse are proving more distant than ever before.

We are now entering an era where new norms will be established. Business as usual may find a few more tricks and turns to keep itself alive, but the foundations of business as usual have been shaken. The longer the recession persists, the more it becomes a rallying cry to the middle and working classes who have been displaced from real power in the oligarchical functions of the neoliberal dream where there are 'one set of rules for us, and another set of rules for them'. The longer they remain leaderless in their protests, and refuse to be coopted into simplistic sets of agreements that hijack their momentum, the momentum will grow, ideas will flourish, and a new discourse and new normative orientations will be birthed.

Perhaps we are at a moment of the same significance as the modernists of the 20th century found themselves at, filled with the promise of a brave new world, yet unsure of exactly what it may end up looking like. Let's hope that this time we are able to avoid falling into the trap of conflict, and that our enhanced ability to share ideas, conduct campaigns and achieve genuine political action in different places of the world can help us overcome the very real challenges we face. Should these leaderless protests become captured by populists who skillfully capture the 'vacuum' instead of celebrating the potential of the 'vacuum', then the risk of fragmentation and conflict will become more significant and perhaps overwhelm the momentum that, although currently loosely bound, may yet still yield a new set of ideas, visions and norms that effect change in ways that are as yet unforeseeable.

Again, true freedom is the ability to bring about fundamental change, so we might regard the 'leaderless vacuum' as a free space in which the birth of the new is possible. Straight-jacketing this space into a re-run of old positions and ideologies will prove to be its undoing. A parody of the ideological conflicts of the 20th century is hardly likely to achieve anything more than it has already, and in truth, these positions have already compromised themselves to each other, and to their own foundations, and have drifted far away from their original foundations.

And we do need the new to flourish, now more than ever. The Euro hangs on a thread, the dollar would be a worthless currency without China's strong backing. The 'free' market has failed because the most predictable of human behaviours, greed and the propensity to desire wealth without work, triumphed over the imaginary virtues of self-interest. We are now in trouble, and we have to work together to dig ourselves out of the mess we're in. An old supervisor, who oversaw me through probably the most difficult career transition I've ever attempted once gave me some advice that has seen me through many do it?" from me, he replied, "I find that the most difficult thing is keeping the space open long enough for something to emerge".

In research, as in life, you often have no idea what you are going to discover or develop when a project begins, all you have is a bunch of ideas and speculations about how to move forward. Yet if you keep the space open long enough, and stay faithful to the spirit of the project, something always emerges that makes it worth the wait. Perhaps the same kind of philosophical openness is required now, and hopefully we will find the strength to move into the unknown so that we can discover something better than what we have now, because more of the same isn't going to make the cut, and is more likely to sink the ship than to keep it afloat. Tossing the blame from one side to the next isn't going to solve anything, and we have to face up to the deep flaws that exist on both sides of the political divide, and soon.     

Obstacles to a Third Way: Ideology Before Analysis!

When ideology precedes analysis, it in effect serves to negates analysis. Analysis then becomes constrained by the boa constrictor of absolutism and ideological canonism, and a hierarchy is imposed upon analysis that locks it into a tautological double-bind or catch-22. To put it simply, if you put the cart before the horse you shouldn't be surprised that you end up in the same place all the time. 

The ‘horse’ of analysis becomes restricted to a few steps forward and a few steps backward. The ‘cart’ of ideology or absolute theoretical hegemony becomes the pivotal axis and tether that governs the direction and extent to which analysis can go. The horse, confused, pulls backward and side to side, finding relief only when it remains in one place. Every direction is fraught with tension, so the only option is to remain directionless. In this way, analysis always returns to the same place, because ideology has conditioned it to be bereft of agency, its inquisitiveness and imagination put asunder for a 'greater' purpose.

Theoretical frameworks, if they are to remain honest - i.e. not necessarily truthful in the sense that they make the claim to absolute truth but honest in their approach to the subject matter under analysis - should be deducted, or even abducted, but never inducted without great care. That is, induction from theoretical frameworks in complex, real world contexts usually constitutes a complex fabrication. It is fabrication because it pretends to derive that which it is actually premised on.

Real world contexts are complex, and their behaviours cannot be inducted from a model, theoretical framework or pure methodology. Scientific induction is only credible in systems that are simple, or at the most complicated. Inducted principles can be derived from systems that are generally simple enough to be tested by hypotheses and repeated. If the system is not dynamically changing its fundamental conditions and constraints on a timescale that negates induction, then induction is possible.

In other words, induction only works for simple, well constrained systems that progress in a linear fashion where change is incremental and predictable. As soon as the system begins to progress in non-linear jumps and bounds, and in different directions, induction becomes less tenuous as a methodological foundation. Social, political and economic systems, being fundamentally social in their conception, are complex, reflexive systems. They are in the domain of the deductive and abductive. Understanding has to follow the unfolding behaviour of the system. By definition, it cannot precede it, except through what can only be termed 'oracular' insight.

And ideology precedes analysis regularly in a global society that constantly looks backwards to its historical foundations to answer questions about how to face the future. Ideology, to be sure, is by and large the starting point of many debates, analyses and opinions that are generated over the question of what socio-political and economic systems are responsible for the global crisis we have entered into. And it is not simply a crisis of economic systems. It is a crisis of how to move forward, and to generate new ideas about how the global polity and socio-economy can be best positioned in relation to each other. As articulated by Zizek, "the field is open" and the marriage between capitalism and democracy has ended, yet we are struggling to find a new way forward.

Our imaginations and our ability to inquisit have indeed become conditioned by ideology. Instead of maintaining a critical perspective on our prevailing ideologies, we lapse into analyses that apriori draw upon the ideological foundations that we prefer. We therefore become 'stuck' in self-reinforcing, circular patterns of analyses that take us nowhere. More often than not, they simply become analyses that search for where to place the blame - as if any of the systems that constitute the current global order can be regarded as entirely blameless in the first place. 

Yet there is more to this kind of analyses. They are analyses that are explicitly oriented around an ideological foundation, and implicitly constructed in reaction to the opposing ideological foundation (i.e. its 'metaphysical' opposite). The analyses therefore ends up being a de-facto debate between polar opposite positions. Indeed, this is the very critique that deconstruction offers of the general methodology by which philosophy itself is constructed. This raises the question of how to embrace analyses that does not fall at either side, but that begins 'in the middle' so to speak. This is not a trivial observation, for arguments that proceed from the poles are the fundamental obstacle to generating what may be regarded as a 'third way'.

In other words, what kind of third way can be 'constructed' or 'formulated' (these terms are unfortunate, so they are used here with reservation) if we do not start from the edges or the poles, but start from the middle instead? Note, I do not mean to start from an ideological middle ground, but from a middle that makes observations of the poles, and remains acutely aware of them and how they influence us. There are two aspects that emerge from observations that are made in the middle that require closer inspection. Firstly, that there are fundamentally irresolvable 'undecideables' i.e. the decisions, phenomena or events that fall between metaphysical opposites, are fundamentally irresolvable, and cannot be avoided in political decision-making (Derrida). Secondly, that the polar opposites, when they approach the extremes of either end, begin to mirror each other, resulting in a different kind of obfuscation, where it becomes difficult to distinguish one polar opposite from another (Zizek).

The former observation is made by Derrida, in his careful identification of the 'undecideable' in political decision-making, where he concludes that any political decision that forgoes the 'ordeal of the undecideable' is not in reality a political decision but rather, becomes the mere 'unfolding of a calculable process'. That is, there will be fundamentally irresolvable, 'undecideable' factors that occupy the territory of the middle, otherwise referred to as the 'logic of the included middle' by Plato (Max-Neef, 2005). These irresolvables define where metaphysical opposites differ from each other, and resolving these undecideables requires more than theory. It requires learning,  participation, integration and negotiation i.e. strategies that engage directly with the contextual specificities that bring about undecideability, and which can possibly lead to the resolution of these undecideables under certain context-specific conditions. In this way, undecideables may end up being resolved in context (though not always), yet remain unresolvable at the broader theoretical level that is removed from the specificities of context.

The latter observation is made by Zizek, when he identifies how the right-wing conservative tea-party movement resurrects the rhetoric of the labour movements that existed 50 years ago in their conception of the tea-party identity as fighting for the rights of the ordinary worker against the irresponsibility of big government and big capital. The same is true of 'left wing' eco-movements that upon closer examination are mainly biocentric in their values, beliefs and norms. This biocentrism itself hails from the historical support for conservation biology efforts that saw predominantly indigenous peoples being herded off their own lands and into reservations, so that the 'pristine' natural environment could be maintained, devoid of human influence (hence biocentric). That is, eco-movements whose foundations are in fact profoundly anti-social, have staked a specious claim over the socialist territory of the left. Only in Latin America and India, have eco-movements become profoundly social in their approach, warranting a clear membership of the left.

Perhaps another dimension of analysis can be added to this; primarily that as those at the extremes of the poles increasingly embrace their ideologies with what can only be described as a messianic zeal, they begin to resemble a church or a cult (i.e. an institutionalised set of beliefs that are taken on faith), where the only distinguishing factor between a church and a cult is the size of the following. Where ideology becomes the unshakeable foundation from which analyses are made - instead of being regarded as a hypothetical framework - then it follows that the values, beliefs and norms that govern the analyses or debates are also unshakeable (if deftly hidden) preconditions that impose a hierarchy upon the analytical framework, which ceases to be interpretive or reflexive at this point. This unquestioning 'lock-in' to foundational values, beliefs and norms is not irrelevant. It is the main obstacle to going beyond a bipolar theoretical debate because dogma is followed by  rhetoric at best and sophism at worst.  Moreover, behaviours are founded upon values, beliefs and norms, so real-world changes in behaviour are obstructed at the same time i.e. the foundation for action is also subverted, or at the very least obscured.

The consequences of ideological fundamentalism are that we are unable to effectively bring about the necessary change changes in the way we think, that may ultimately result in changes in actions and behaviours that govern the global political, socio-economic and ecological 'condition'. And this 'condition', as a result, remains unchanged. To put it forcefully, the pro-free market and anti-free market ideologues have created their own respective sacred grounds that are too hallowed to question, and become external to analysis by being implicit in their interrogative frameworks. 

In a very genuine sense, debates of this ilk resemble a debate between parrots; more often than not they can only talk past one another as their 'vocabularies' are largely pre-fixed, and no real meaning is engendered in the interchange. They celebrate the undecideables between them as signifiers of their ideological purity. Yet at the same time these debates resemble a debate between sophists or conmen, as they appropriate the arguments and critiques of each other where it 'fits in' to their ideological frameworks, and speciously lay claim to them as their own. The latter, indicates that a postmodern relativism is speciously employed to subvert the claim that each hold to their own precious beliefs. That is, not only do they differ violently, they also attempt to appropriate the ideological territory of their opponents at the same time. It is truly a war, in which any and all tactics are considered fair.

And predictably, they despise any and all that occupy the middle. Indeed, in this they are not far away from the Christian God, who proclaims that only those that are passionate for God can be accommodated within the halls of the Church. The 'lukewarm' will be spat out. Those in the middle are not just spat out, they are spat on, literally and verbally. Yet it is not on the basis of analyses that they are spat upon. It is on the basis of concretized values, beliefs and norms that are taken for granted as foundational. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, as the failure of both positions have demonstrated towards the end of the previous century. It is true that absolute objectivity is also an impossibility, but where the values, beliefs and norms that are subjectively held become implicit and unacknowledged - i.e. no awareness of them exists except in their virtue as absolute and non-negotiable preconditions - they become constrictive to the generation of any honest debate or analysis. They are therefore oblivious to their own strategic orientation, because it takes the foundations from which it proceeds as self-evident.

That is, the dishonesty is a kind of ignorance that prevails to the ultimate end, discrediting all and sundry around it that doesn't make the effort to fit itself into a particular framework or position. It is a narrow-mindedness that is holding us back in our quest for a new way that will rescue us from the conditions of polycrisis and global hegemony. Ideas and new frameworks that fall outside of the mainstream poles are largely ignored or despised as compromises and cast aside. Perhaps it is the hegemony on analyses and ideas that is proving the most difficult to break, while the hegemonies of power and wealth have found themselves floundering in the winds of change that the beginning of the 21st Century has brought with it.