COMPLEXITY & EDUCATION on two complicated terms and their relationships Gert Biesta

1. COMPLEXITY & EDUCATION on two complicated terms and their relationships Gert Biesta University of Luxembourg www.gertbiesta.com (1) Complex is not the same as complicated. a watch or a computer are complicated but operate in deterministic ways ↓ hence, their ‘behaviour’ is predictable a group of human beings or the internet are complex: their ‘behaviour’ is characterised by the phenomenon of emergence ↓ what emerges cannot be predicted from knowledge of the current ‘situation’ [see below: ‘weak emergence’ and ‘strong emergence’] complexity concerns processes that are non-deterministic and non-linear NAFOL Complexity seminar November 2013

2. (2) What ‘is’ complex or operates in a complex way? a system! hence the connections with systems theory, cybernetics, dynamic systems theory, chaos theory, the theory of social systems, auto-poietic systems, and so on ↓ Karl von Bertalanffy (1901-1972): general systems theory (other names: Maturana & Valera, Wiener, Luhmann, Lorenz, Prigogine) a system → (large number of) interacting elements (‘elements in standing relationship’) cybernetics: study of feedback (e.g., thermostat) [key question: Who sets the temperature?] ↓ adaptive systems ↓ auto-poietic systems: self-organisation the emergence of patterns and modes of functioning key distinction: closed systems versus open systems open systems: exchange ‘energy’ (e.g., information) with their environment, while closed systems do not

3. (3) Let’s look at things in a bit more detail . . . EMERGENCE ↓ G.H. Lewes (1875) resultants: chemical products that can be logically derived from their constituents emergents: those that can not be logically derived from their constituents ↓ the philosophy of emergentism about novel properties of complex systems that transcend the properties of the constituent parts → newness that emerges and that cannot be deterministically explained/predicted from what came before (which around the turn of the 19th century didn’t fit with the standard view of the natural sciences – that is, before quantum physics) strictly seen emergence is not about new ‘properties’ of what already exists, but about the emergence of new ‘entities’ WEAK EMERGENCE AND STRONG EMERGENCE weak emergence : unexpected entities whose emergence is nonetheless predictable (with non-linear mathematics): e.g., fractals key point: only one possible ‘outcome’

4. ILYA PRIGOGINE (1917-2003) ON STRONG EMERGENCE (1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry) 1961: Introduction to thermodynamics of irreversible processes 1977: Prigogine & Nicolis: Self-organization in non-equilibrium systems 1984: Prigogine & Stengers: Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature 1997: End of certainty “determinism no longer a viable scientific belief” ↓ his term: a theory of irreversible processes ↓ a different way to distinguish closed from open systems: in closed systems processes are (in principle) reversible, in open systems not [which brings in the question of time] [and connects back to the distinction between resultants and emergents] the traditional view irreversible processes in physical nature tend towards a state of disorder (2nd law of thermodynamics) because statistically there are more possibilities for disorder than for order these processes are deterministic (logically determinable) therefore they are (in principle) reversable (i.e., the steps can be ‘traced back’ – time-symmetrical)

5. Prigogine the ‘standard’ notion of irreversibility only applies to closed systems, whereas open systems change in an irreversible way to a more ordered state ↓ these changes are not deterministic (only one direction/outcome) but probabilistic: and hence rely on chance (or bifurcation – see below) ↓ these processes are truly irreversible 3 additional concepts [1] equilibrium and non-equilibrium state of systems non-equilibrium state of systems: needs ‘feed’ from outside (e.g., tornado; body) equilibrium state of systems: stable (e.g., cold water) when we add heat, the system is being pushed to a non-equilibrium state, and if it is pushed sufficiently far it will respond by organising itself in a different macro-level pattern: it ‘jumps’ to boiling (and stays so as long as heat is added) [2] self-organisation the emergence of different patterns of organisation these patterns are called dissipative structures the emergence of these structures is a characteristic of non-equilibrium this emergence occurs according to known physical laws (which is therefore still weak emergence)

6. [3] bifurcation for a system to be pushed away from equilibrium there are always a number of equally satisfactory options therefore the system must ‘choose’ where to jump to ↓ the principle of bifurcation (‘symmetry breaks,’ as the system can’t go back to before) (and the further the system gets from equilibrium, the more bifurcations will emerge) key claim: the choice made at a bifurcation is not determined by the state of the system at that point in time “nothing in the macroscopic equations justifies the preference for any one solution” hence: “chance can neither be defined nor understood” so we have a system that operates according to known physical laws, but that is nonetheless indeterminate or strongly emergent ↓ it is impossible to predict which ‘choice’ the system will make, not because lack of information, but because it is in principle impossible Prigogine: as most of reality is characterised by dissipative structures (non equilibrium), we have to understand ourselves as being part of an emergent reality rather than a deterministic universe

7. (4) Where does this take us? And what does it imply? this is a snapshot of complexity theory, that raises fundamental questions about the behaviour of systems (both physical and social systems) ↓ a methodology: a way to understand and describe the functioning of systems with some helpful conceptual distinctions, such as between open and closed systems and between non-equilibrium and equilibrium states of systems but perhaps also an ontology: claims about ‘reality’ → the question of causality and determinism with epistemological consequences as well → is knowledge about causality possible, meaningful, desirable, etcetera; and even: what does it mean to known? – see the work on representation philosophically it raises important questions about time is time that within which processes happen or is the happening of processes what time is is time reversible or irreversible symmetry or asymmetry

8. it opens up the (philosophical) discussion about causality ↓ Aristotle’s theory of causation 4 causes the causa materialis (the stuff) the causa formalis (the forming principle) the causa finalis (the aim) the causa efficiens (the push) is causality a question of push or inner drive are causes external and pushing? or internal and pulling? Aristotle: a biological-organic worldview interested in living processes Newton: a materialistic worldview interested in dead processes (the movement of matter) complexity: an organic-emergent worldview interested in systems, interactions, (strong) emergence also the question of newness

9. (5) And how might any of this be relevant for education? one ‘application,’ which I find problematic and too ‘quick’ ↓ we should push classrooms and learners towards non-equilibrium, so that all kind of creative new things emerge some questions Why is what is new automatically good? [facism also celebrates newness] [global capitalism needs constant change] Why is creativity automatically desirable? [when is it good/desirable and for what, and when not?] And what has this to do with education? (this seems to be more about learning)

10. intermezzo why education and learning are (very) different things ↓ the point of education is not that students learn . . . . . . but that they learn something, for particular purposes, from someone the language of learning makes it difficult to capture the three constitutive dimensions of all educational processes and practices: content, purpose and relationships ↓ of which the question of purpose is the most fundamental (as it provides the criterion for judgements about content and relationships) and in education the purpose is multi-dimensional three interacting/partly-overlapping domains of educational purpose qualification: transmission and acquisition of knowledge, skills, dispositions socialisation: engagement with/adoption of tradition subjectification: being a subject of action and responsibility

11. a more interesting issue: challenging causal thinking in education e.g., the assumption that teaching is an intervention that produces effects e.g., school effectiveness research e.g., making teachers’ salaries dependent on student learning outcomes e.g., the discussion about evidence-based education and ‘what works’ How is complexity helpful here? causality only occurs in closed systems education is an open system that, moreover, is semiotic and recursive semiotic: operates on interpretation not push and pull recursive: feeds back into itself (the elements can think and act on their thoughts) Does this mean that education cannot work? it helps to show how open, semiotic recursive systems can be made to work → through complexity reduction: reduction of openness, semiosis and recursivity ↓ Which is how we make education work (e.g., school buildings, curricula, assessment), but there is a point where the system flips and becomes uneducational. ↓ when students turn into objects

12. IN CONCLUSION complexity is a wide and complicated field with many different ideas ↓ not easy to navigate it raises some very fundamental questions about modern (natural) science, and given the ongoing dominance of ‘science’ this is a helpful ‘opening’ ↓ but we must be careful not to jump to conclusions too quickly, as there is always the risk to make the unwarranted jump from is to ought (and this is particularly important in the field of education) it provides a holistic-organic outlook on systems and their processes and overcomes a too quick separation of the physical and the social ↓ so perhaps to use first of all as a methodology or analytical device: a way to see things differently and see different things, and hence ask different questions and act in different ways FOR DISCUSSION: WHAT MIGHT YOU DO WITH ALL THIS?

13. FOR DISCUSSION: WHAT MIGHT YOU DO WITH ALL THIS? some further reading Osberg, D.C. & Biesta, G.J.J. (Eds)(2010). Complexity theory and the politics of education. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense. Osberg, D.C. & Biesta, G. (2010). The end/s of education. Complexity and the conundrum of the inclusive educational curriculum. International Journal of Inclusive Education 14(6), 593-607. Biesta, G.J.J. (2010). Five theses on complexity reduction and its politics. In D.C. Osberg & G.J.J. Biesta (Eds). Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. 5-13). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Osberg, D.C., Biesta, G.J.J. & Cilliers, P. (2008). From representation to emergence: Complexity’s challenge to the epistemology of schooling. Educational Philosophy and Theory 40(1):  213-227. Osberg, D.C., Biesta, G.J.J. & Cilliers, P. (2008). From representation to emergence: Complexity’s challenge to the epistemology of schooling. In M. Mason (ed). Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education (pp. 204-217). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Biesta, G.J.J. & Osberg, D.C. (2007). Beyond Re/Presentation: A Case for Updating the Epistemology of Schooling. Interchange 38(1), 15-29. Osberg, D.C. & Biesta, G.J.J. (2007). Beyond Presence: Epistemological and pedagogical implications of ‘strong’ emergence. Interchange 38(1), 31-51. Osberg, D. & Biesta, G. (2007). Rethinking Schooling Through the “Logic” of Emergence: Some thoughts on planned enculturation and educational responsibility. In R. Geyer & J. Bogg (eds). Complexity, Science and Society (pp.35-38). Oxford, New York: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd. 

14. thank you gert.biesta@uni.lu www.gertbiesta.com www.twitter.com/gbiesta