Social complexity

Part of a series on
Sociology
History Outline Index
Key themes Society Globalization Human behavior Human environmental impact Identity Industrial revolutions 3 / 4 / 5 Social complexity Social construct Social environment Social equality Social equity Social power Social stratification Social structure
Perspectives Conflict theory Critical theory Structural functionalism Positivism Social constructionism Symbolic interactionism
Branches Aging Architecture Art Astrosociology Body Criminology Consciousness Culture Death Demography Deviance Disaster Economic Education Emotion (Jealousy) Environmental Family Feminist Fiscal Food Gender Generations Health Historical Immigration Industrial Internet Jewry Knowledge Language Law Leisure Literature Marxist Mathematic Medical Military Music Peace, war, and social conflict Philosophy Political Public Punishment Race and ethnicity Religion Rural Science (History of science) Social movements Social psychology Sociocybernetics Sociology Space Sport Technology Terrorism Urban Utopian Victimology Visual
Methods Quantitative Qualitative Comparative Computational Ethnographic Conversation analysis Historical Interview Mathematical Network analysis Social experiment Survey
People East Asia 1900s Fei Xiaotong South Asia 1800s G.S Ghurye 1900s Irawati Karve M. N. Srinivas Middle East 1400s Ibn Khaldun Europe 1700s Auguste Comte Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès 1800s Émile Durkheim Harriet Martineau Karl Marx Georg Simmel Herbert Spencer Ferdinand Tönnies Max Weber 1900s Michel Foucault Jürgen Habermas North America 1800s Jane Addams Ernest Burgess W.E.B. Du Bois George Herbert Mead Thorstein Veblen 1900s James Coleman Patricia Hill Collins Erving Goffman Paul Lazarsfeld Charles Wright Mills Robert K. Merton Theda Skocpol Dorothy E. Smith
Lists Bibliography Terminology Journals Organizations People Timeline By country
Society portal

In 1937, the sociologist Talcott Parsons continued the work of the early theoreticians of sociology with his work on action theory;[6] and by 1951, Parson had developed action theory into formal systems theory in The Social System (1951).[7] In the following decades, the synergy between general systems thinking and the development of social system theories is carried forward by Robert K. Merton in discussions of theories of the middle-range and social structure and agency. From the late 1970s until the early 1990s, sociological investigation concerned the properties of systems in which the strong correlation of sub-parts leads to the observation of autopoetic, self-organizing, dynamical, turbulent, and chaotic behaviours that arise from mathematical complexity, such as the work of Niklas Luhmann.[8]

One of the earliest usages of the term "complexity", in the social and behavioral sciences, to refer specifically to a complex system is found in the study of modern organizations and management studies.[9] However, particularly in management studies, the term often has been used in a metaphorical rather than in a qualitative or quantitative theoretical manner.[2] By the mid-1990s, the "complexity turn"[10] in social sciences begins as some of the same tools generally used in complexity science are incorporated into the social sciences. By 1998, the international, electronic periodical, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, had been created. In the last several years, many publications have presented overviews of complexity theory within the field of sociology. Within this body of work, connections also are drawn to yet other theoretical traditions, including constructivist epistemology and the philosophical positions of phenomenology, postmodernism and critical realism.

Illustration of complexity (Penrose tiling fractal)

Methodologically, social complexity is theory-neutral, meaning that it accommodates both local and global approaches to sociological research.[2] The very idea of social complexity arises out of the historical-comparative methods of early sociologists; obviously, this method is important in developing, defining, and refining the theoretical construct of social complexity. As complex social systems have many parts and there are many possible relationships between those parts, appropriate methodologies are typically determined to some degree by the research level of analysis differentiated[11] by the researcher according to the level of description or explanation demanded by the research hypotheses.

At the most localized level of analysis, ethnographic, participant- or non-participant observation, content analysis and other qualitative research methods may be appropriate. More recently, highly sophisticated quantitative research methodologies are being developed and used in sociology at both local and global levels of analysis. Such methods include (but are not limited to) bifurcation diagrams, network analysis, non-linear modeling, and computational models including cellular automata programming, sociocybernetics and other methods of social simulation.

In the first decade of the 21st century, the diversity of areas of application has grown[19] as more sophisticated methods have developed. Social complexity theory is applied in studies of social cooperation and public goods;[20] altruism;[21] education;[22] global civil society [23] collective action and social movements;[24][25] social inequality;[26] workforce and unemployment;[27][28] policy analysis;[29][30] health care systems;[31] and innovation and social change,[32][33] to name a few. A current international scientific research project, the Seshat: Global History Databank, was explicitly designed to analyze changes in social complexity from the Neolithic Revolution until the Industrial Revolution.

As a middle-range theoretical platform, social complexity can be applied to any research in which social interaction or the outcomes of such interactions can be observed, but particularly where they can be measured and expressed as continuous or discrete data points. One common criticism often cited regarding the usefulness of complexity science in sociology is the difficulty of obtaining adequate data.[34] Nonetheless, application of the concept of social complexity and the analysis of such complexity has begun and continues to be an ongoing field of inquiry in sociology. From childhood friendships and teen pregnancy[2] to criminology[35] and counter-terrorism,[36] theories of social complexity are being applied in almost all areas of sociological research.

In the area of communications research and informetrics, the concept of self-organizing systems appears in mid-1990s research related to scientific communications.[37] Scientometrics and bibliometrics are areas of research in which discrete data are available, as are several other areas of social communications research such as sociolinguistics.[2] Social complexity is also a concept used in semiotics.[38]

• Byrne, David (1998). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.
• Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2013). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. Routledge.
• Castellani, Brian and Frederic William Hafferty (2009). Sociology and Complexity Science: A New Area of Inquiry (Series: Understanding Complex Systems XV). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
• Eve, Raymond, Sara Horsfall and Mary E. Lee (1997). Chaos, Complexity and Sociology: Myths, Models, and Theories. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Jenks, Chris and John Smith (2006). Qualitative Complexity: Ecology, Cognitive Processes and the Re-Emergence of Structures in Post-Humanist Social Theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Kiel, L. Douglas (ed.) (2008). Knowledge Management, Organizational Intelligence, Learning and Complexity. UNESCO (EOLSS): Paris, France.
• Kiel, L. Douglas and Euel Elliott (eds.) (1997). Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications. The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI.
• Leydesdorff, Loet (2001). A Sociological Theory of Communication: The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society. Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers.
• Urry, John (2005). "The Complexity Turn." Theory, Culture and Society, 22(5): 1–14.