Abstract
I would like to thank Herzel for his thoughtful and creative response to my articles. I agree with nearly all of his assertions, and I appreciate his coinage, ‘Me–Us variables’ to refer to the complex interactions between individual and group. I have only a few clarifications and a minor disagreement.
To begin with, I question Herzel’s statement that ‘Internal drives such as thirst exist within the individual, relatively uninfluenced by society’. In humans, internal drives are mediated by social factors and vice-versa. An advertisement for beer can make you thirsty, thus connecting your thirst to the socioeconomic matrix of beer production. In a therapy group, hunger, sex, and other biological functions can influence and even disrupt the group. And anthropologists such as Levi-Strauss have suggested how basic drives are absorbed and transposed into the culture and its myths. Basic drives are indeed complex ‘Me–Us’ variables.
Importantly, I should say that ‘Me–Us’ variables cover a much broader swath than the individual–group linkages related to complexity theory as such. Unfortunately, confusion is created by the varied usages of the word ‘complex’. Complex variables are non-linear, as Herzel states. Complex mathematical functions have special properties, some of which are related to chaos theory. Complex systems have many sub-systems that interact in multiple ways. (Agazarian’s systems-centered theory is entirely about them.) ‘Complexity theory’, the topic of my articles, is, however, specifically about complex systems that include an element of chaos, turbulence, and unpredictability: the ‘edge of chaos’. They are not only non-linear; they also involve the impact of turbulence in the system. Thus, Herzel’s more specific emphasis on trauma is very pertinent to complexity theory, because traumatic events, whether individual or social, are highly disruptive and turbulent.
Finally, Herzel’s ‘Me–Us’ formulation is very timely with respect to recent formulations of the ‘social brain’. The brain is a ‘Me–Us’ organ, as illustrated by mirror neurons that respond equally to activity of the self and another person. Foulkes’ ‘social self’ is consistent with the expanding research on the ‘social brain’. Complexity theory could shed light specifically on how the brain deals with turbulent internal and external events that lead to new, emergent social phenomena. A wonderful example is the impact of Princess Diana on social perceptions in the UK. She upset the apple cart of British gentility and social distance, and now, years later, we see her pervasive influence on royalty: Queen Elizabeth doing a cameo appearance in a James Bond film! We all know of such initially distressing princes and princesses in our groups who ultimately help the group to evolve in a new direction. They are the butterflies whose fluttering wings change the social climate and group culture.