Part 2 — (Social) Complexity Basics: A General Definition Problem

A somewhat different interpretation of (social) complexity — a multi-part introductory series

In the first part of this introductory series on some fundamentals of (social) complexity, I briefly described some general challenges in trying to grasp “(social) complexity/complex systems.
In this second part, I go into more detail about the problem of defining complexity.

According to physicist Neil F. Johnson,

even among scientists, there is no unique definition of complexity — and the scientific notion has traditionally been conveyed using particular examples… (Wikipedia, “Complexity”).

Neil F. Johnson is right, but if anyone thinks that unique could mean some kind of essentialist definition (i.e., the ultimate identity, essence, or true nature) of complexity, then this endeavor is doomed from the start.

Why?

As Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction has taught us since the late 1960s, any media form depends on permanent de- and recontextualizations so that the ultimate (= essential) meaning of such a form can’t be determined once and for all.

Or to put it differently, if the meaning of a sign depends on its context and if this context can’t be closed once and for all — otherwise the sign couldn’t be used in different contexts anymore ( = the collapse of any medium!) — then the meaning of a sign is always provisionary and somehow incomplete — in short, radically context-dependent and therefore non-essentialist.

Accordingly, we can only choose a provisionary interpretation among other possible interpretations — or, in this case, a provisionary definition among other possible definitions. But it’s impossible to know what the essence or true nature of complexity (or any other phenomenon) really really is.
Therefore, the more scientific (sub-)disciplines and approaches are involved in trying to define complexity, the more (sometimes even incompatible) interpretations / definitions have to be expected.

And that’s the reason why distinction-based approaches such as social systems theory (Luhmann et al.) opt for replacing the notorious What is xy? question by the question of How, i.e., by means of which distinctions, is xy constructed?
In other words, in order to understand a phenomenon xy, we can study the network of distinctions being used to specify xy.

So, our question regarding complexity could be formulated as follows: Which distinctions are used to specify the concept of complexity?

Possible answers would then be:

• Organized / disorganized
• Decomposable (complicated) / nondecomposable (complex)
• Simple (reduced to entities that are not complicated) / implex (as a reduced level of complexity)
  etc.

As those distinctions often refer to characteristics of complexity, it‘s a good idea to jump right into part 3 of this series where I discuss some important features of complex systems.