CHAOS THEORY, DECONSTRUCTIONISM, AND POST MODERN THEORY

 Abstract

 At times, postmodern theories are clumped together. Unfortunately,

there are various forms that are not necessarily connected. Such is the case of chaos theory and deconstructionism. The authors discuss the differences.

Introduction

Chaos theory dates back to the mid 70’s, as does Deconstructionism

(Snell, 1978.) They have some commonalities. Both are postmodern, non-linear, and emphasize the impact the micro level has on the macro and vice-versa.

They also are concerned with the basic tools of humanity: words and numbers. However, after these similarities, all else appears to divide the two.

The authors suggest that partial deconstruction is a useful tool and

that chaos theory is an excellent compliment to the meaning model, conflict model and equilibrium model of the social sciences.

We believe that Chaos theory cannot stand-alone and that Deconstructionism in its full extent is not useful or helpful.

Chaos theory

Born in the mid 70’s, Chaos theory is concerned with movement and

randomness. Importantly, through a series of attractors, bifurcations,

iterations, and related, the world continues. It does so in what

appears to be a chaotic movement of events, people, places, and relationships. New phenomena appear to be “wild cards” and come out of nowhere resonates beneath, above, or outside the view of the observer. There appears to be an interconnection between all things. It is quite possible that the movement of a butterfly’s wings could cause a hurricane in another part of the world.

 

Thus, even the most robust social science predictive model is subject

to vulnerability. Chaos theory humbles both the physical and social

sciences. The arts, humanities, theology and related disciplines try to capture or describe this hard to measure elusive trigger. In some ways, this could be the science of the Holy Spirit (Christianity) para (Hinduism) wu (Taoism) such ness (Buddhism) and other major religions (Snell et.al.  2001, Setzer, 1999.) Science calls it “flow.”

 

So what?

 

That is our point. We believe that Chaos theory helps to explain movement and interconnectedness, but it’s fuzzy non-linear quality does not do as well for the observer as the three models discussed above.

Additionally, topological chaos and catastrophic chaos may explain slow and gradual change or rapid change, but we do not want to abandon the social change models that are now standard (cyclical theory, and related.)

 

A practical example for business is if a company finds a “formula” that is legal and is profitable, we do not suggest change, even if the world is constantly changing. However, we would suggest that management find

numerous strategies within the formula to deal with the “butterfly effect” described above.

 

Deconstructionism

 

Again founded in the 70’s, deconstructionism is postmodern, non-linear, has micro/macro concerns, and is troubled by words and numbers. Partial

deconstruction is very helpful. As an example, “race” can be a social construction that may do more harm than help if a person is defined by

"one-drop" methodology. In other words, many Caucasians, Africans, and Asians may have other racial heritage, but are really oriented to their

appearance and experience. When race is deconstructed in this manner, it can be very helpful.

 

Deconstruction maintains that society is a construction by a ruling elite that owns the media and related environs and can use language to promote its own agenda. Since it believes there are no absolute values, one must analyze all language and ask who is being served by the person(s) using it?

 "Marginal" groups such as women, gays, and racial minorities to "unmask" the motives of the dominant culture have thus used deconstruction.

 

Jacque Derrida, the main founder of deconstruction utilizes the creative play of language to break down our notions of any absolute meaning. He shows us that words can only differ from what they say they are saying. Thus, language is false and can never reveal

"truth." But humans are symbolic creatures.

 This “emphatic moment” should leave us free of the prison of language; we then must reassemble reality to carry on our everyday activity. (Setzer, 1999, Pinker, 2003)The very web of existence is woven by words. If we destroy words, our active cerebral cortex will find new words and non-verbal communication to transcend the here and now. (Pinker, 2003.) Words that can enslave us can also free us. While deconstructionist is good at pointing out social injustice, it is weak at upholding positive values to live by.

 If language is at times arbitrary, it is also capable of connecting us to nature, the universe, and other people through art, prayer, and ceremony.  (Setzer, 1999.)

 

Chaos and Deconstructionism

 

Chaos is concerned that our words cannot REALLY capture a moving elusive reality.

However, the theory does not give up on words or numbers. Both symbolic systems are considered primitive tools to describe what moves, what can and cannot be seen. A primitive tool is still a tool.

 

Deconstructionists on the other hand, leave us hanging. There isn’t absolute meaning; therefore, we can only act on the basis of “AS IF.” Language is the way that we construct life as we go along, but it only tells a lie.

 

Deconstructionist needs a new movement to correct itself. Dismantling social constructions and collective definitions that are not true or are rarely valid would be an excellent contribution to the field. It could also join forces with cognitive psychologies, sociology’s symbolic interaction, and general semantics.

 

Other Postmodern Theories

 

There are other new age and postmodern theories and speculations that may appear to be related to Chaos theory. We do not want the association.

 We can visualize that numerous other non-traditional explanations will want to associate itself with Chaos if it becomes more well known and popular.

 We believe that the TIPPING POINT (2000) by Malcolm Gladwell is an excellent example of Chaos theory. However, we can see that Chaos may be attached to an established field such as the Chaos of Chaucer, the Chaos of the family, Chaos management, or any other area. They may be valid or not. We don’t want any part of it.

 

In the past, Marx, Freud, Parsons, and other have had their paradigms and vocabulary applied to numerous areas and for a time would assure the scholar of a publication.

 We believe that it may happen with chaos theory, but do not want to own it. We may even use some of Chaos ourselves, but will do so with caution.

 What others do is their problem or opportunity. We will be happy to remain on the sidelines.

 

Conclusion

 

Chaos theory and deconstructionism have some commonalities. They both are concerned with how words may/may not describe micro elusive changes.

 Both came to college campuses by the 70’s. They both have a following. They differ in that Chaos theory wants to continue to use words and numbers, and deconstructionism wants to free oneself of it. Intellectually, we may have elusive experiences that may cause change in our life and the experience of others.

 Deconstructionism then says that we lie in retelling our experience to others. Well, yes we do. However, if we give up the tools of language, we have a terrible time getting from one place or experience to another.

 Chaos theory indicates that the elusive moment is ALMOST indiscernible, but we will carry on with words and numbers. The quest is not giving up on words, but trying to use words that CLOSEST describe the event.

Inadvertently, Chaos theory may have been described in the past as a peak experience, an unintended consequence, a micro-trigger event or a related term. Now the noise of the extraneous is being included.

 

Other postmodern theories my begin to borrow from Chaos theory because of its novelty and legitimacy. Chaos theory jargon can help another postmodern theory become acceptable, but we do not want to be part of that. Or, we would use the theory with caution.

 

Partial deconstruction is useful, and Chaos theory appears to compliment the established theories of equilibrium (structure-functionalism) symbolic interaction (meaning models) and conflict theory. However, like existentialism so popular and prominent in the 50’s and early 60’s, it needs another paradigm or model to lean on.

 

References:

 

Gladwell, Malcom (2000) The Tipping Point, Boston: Little Brown and Company.

 Pinker, Steve (2002) The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, New York: Viking.

 Setzer, Susan (1999) Whitman, transcendentalism, and the American dream: alliance with nature’s government through language, Modern Science and Vedic Science, Vol. 9. #1.

 Snell, Joel (1978) Halles, Louis J. (1977) Out of Chaos The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, May, Vol.437.

 Snell, J. Cangemi, J. Noble, C. Payne, K. Kowalski, C (1999) The new science: chaos theory, catastrophic theory, and topological theory, Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior,24-29.