The Additional (and Even Bigger) Challenge Posed by Societal Complexity

3. Factors That Make Conflict Intractable

The immense scale of societal-wide conflicts also leads to immense complexity. Long ago, physicist-turned conflict resolver Wendell Jones taught us about the difference between "complicated systems" and "complex adaptive systems." In "complicated systems," Wendell explained, the system elements are known, and the connections between the elements are understood and predictable. That means that the components of the system react to each other and to changing conditions in consistent, predictable ways. System components do not have their own goals, nor do they make independent decisions. He explained such systems in terms of mechanical metaphors — machines that work the same way every time (at least until something breaks).

In "complex systems," many independent actors, each with their own goals and decision making processes, seek to advance their own interests, based on their image of the environment and their own rational and non-rational decision making strategies. The actors, the relationships between the actors, and the behavior of the actors are much less understood and predictable. Wendell explained such systems in terms of organic metaphors — living organisms or entire ecosystems that are continually growing and changing and trying to adapt to the environment around them. Like organisms and ecosystems, complex systems develop through evolution — they are not designed. So, there are no central control points or controlling entities, no firm connections, no firm rules of behavior for the system as a whole. As a result, an action in one part of the system will affect other parts of the system in indeterminate ways.

This makes the behavior of complex systems very difficult to predict. Yet, surprisingly, complex systems can be remarkably stable. People get caught in certain repetitive behavioral patterns (Peter Coleman explains that physicists call them "attractors") that cause them to do the same things over and over again, even when they are hurting themselves. Addiction is one example of such an attractor. We keep on drinking or smoking or using drugs, even though we know it is hurting us. Political hyper-polarization is also an attractor. We are so used to, and take comfort in, knowing that we are the on "good side" or "the right side of history," and "the other" is the "bad side" that we keep on acting in ways that reinforce our polarization, despite the fact that it is preventing us from meeting our fundamental needs or solving our pressing social, environmental, and economic problems.

Most people have a difficult time comprehending or dealing with such complexity, so they tend to vastly over-simplify intractable conflicts. This is particularly true if they are caught up in the conflict themselves. There is a very strong tendency to view such conflicts in simple terms: "us versus them", "good guys versus bad guys," or just "good versus evil." With that view, the obvious way to go about dealing with the conflict is by attempting to decisively defeat the "bad guys" (and disempowering them to the point where they will no longer be able to effectively assert their "evil" positions).

This seldom works, however. The other side is virtually certain to fight back with all of the powers at their disposal --- and, if the power of the two sides is relatively close to equal — this will lead to a continuing series of escalating and ever-more destructive confrontations. If the power of the parties is very unequal, it will lead to the oppression (or worse) of the low-power group(s).

Further, such simple, us-versus-them framing is almost always a gross oversimplification of a very complex set of issues. Differing understandings of "facts," different values, different attitudes, different cultures, different economic concerns, different educational levels, different religions, and different cultures all give people different understandings about what the problem "is," and what should be done to address it. All of these issues come into play as people try to address these conflicts, and then the interactions between the people, between the issues, and between the conflict dynamics cause these conflicts to spiral out of control quickly. Unless one makes a concerted effort to understand and work in and with the complexity of the conflict system, any response is almost certain to fail to achieve the desired outcome.

There's also complexity associated with the ways in which people think. Though we like to think we are rational calculators, we are not. A huge host of cognitive biases (that we all have) cause us to perceive the world inaccurately, process the information we get in biased ways, and come to conclusions that are anything but "rational." Because of this, it's not enough to just come up with a solution that will make sense based on rational cost-benefit calculations. The human brain is considering countless emotional factors as well whenever we try to make a decision.

It is easy to conclude that all is lost, that intractable conflicts and democracy itself are far too complex to understand or deal with, so we will just have to sit back, cross our fingers, and hope everything will work out in the end. If we all do that, most likely things will go very badly. Instead, we need to learn how to understand and work with complexity, and begin to do our small part to make the system behave more according to our wishes. No one, no matter how powerful they are, can do this on their own. But many people together — engaging in a massively parallel effort (be it peacebuilding, problem solving, or something else), can influence complex systems. This is an idea we will be developing further in later sections of this guide.