Heterarchy: An Idea Finally Ripe for Its Time (review)

Sarahina Borgia

Iva Petkova

Organizing Inovation

February 7th, 2017

The following statements seem to me to be biased. They are not necessarily true:

"Heterarchy increasingly trumps hierarchy as complexity and rate of change increase. A heterarchical network could be used to describe neuron connections or democracy."

Indeed, it depends heavily on the circumstances, whether a heterarchy trumps over a hierarchy or the other way round. One could for instance imagine the task of spreading communication from one person to many other persons. In such a situation a strongly hierarchical system might easily be more efficient than a totally heterarchical one, because the number of possible communication paths is much lower in a hierarchy than in a heterarchy. A good example is the internet: IP-number resolution happens to be hierarchical rather than heterarchical. Peer-to-peer protocols (P2P) on the other hand are very interesting in terms of stability (nobody can ever really shut them down, once they started working), but as speed rates show, they are not very efficient in terms of exchanging data. Thus, many modern P2P-systems indeed use at least to a certain extent a mixture between hierarchical and heterarchical protocols, for instance by upgrading certain nodes to "supernodes".

"Consider the case in which one faction prefers candidate A over B and candidate B over C; a second, equal faction prefers B over C and C over A; and a third faction prefers, you guessed it, C over A and A over B. The choice that eventually gets made will not be a reflection of the real preference of the whole society, but will instead result from "irrational" and arbitrary issues like who voted first and who voted last. And over time and subsequent elections, the decision may cycle from one choice to another with no apparent reason." (Jay Ogilvy) 

Furthermore, modern democratic systems are far away from being heterarchical solely. Again, nearly every society has chosen a mixture between hierarchical and heterarchical elements. The president of the US, for example, has a lot more political power than a common citizen (--> hierarchy), but he has exactly the same amount of votes (namely a single one) in elections as everybody else (--> heterarchy) - (at least in theory... but this is another chapter and does not belong here). As everybody knows, who participates in any kind of "democratic group", a clear disadvantage of heterarchy is the long time it takes to come to a decision. (Which again, on the other hand, might also be an advantage, because everybody could participate in the process of finding the decision. This could, but does not necessarily have to as examples of decision theory show, increase the overall level of satisfaction.)

In common life, it is indeed seldom to encounter purely heterarchical or purely hierarchical systems, because they both have their advantages and disadvantages one over the other.

the concept.

This entry as indicatd as philosophy related isn't heterarchy more of a sociology realted term? Can this be recategorized? Being new to wikipedia I'll wait for someone to comment before I make a change to the categorization. How amusing that someone should be arguing about the hierarchical placement of an article about heterarchy.  I absolutely agree that "A heterarchical network could be used to describe neuron connections or democracy" is rubbish. Neurons have different biological functions. Although the human brain is far from hierarchical, surgeons can cut out some parts with minimal side effects, while cutting away other parts can cause irreversible damage. The same goes for democracy. Certain parts are considered (although temporally) more important than others. Democratic states are more like dynamic (changing every few years) shallow (not many levels, but extremely wide) hierarchies. Obviously each level is in itself a heterarchy, but that can be said about all hierarchies.

I would argue against seeing heterarchical systems as subsytems within hierarchical ones. The exact opposite is far more likely. Time and research will ultimately suggest that all other systems of organization are subsequent to and components of heterarchical organizations.

Also, it is only at the micro scale (and among homogeneous elements) that all elements in the system "share common goals".. at a larger (and perhaps more relevent) scale, the diversity of goals (living organisms) or of constraints or trajectories (inanimate objects, physical systems) is a significant component of the overall actions of the system. Part of the power of heterarchical systems is their capability to fluidly reconcile diverse intentions or "goals".

Furthermore, while heterarchical systems are "horizontal", they are not evenly or equally so, neither are the indivual components within it restricted in their communication to adjacent components. In different systems, under different conditions, an individual component's volume of influence may be quite large, and tends to fade or diminish in potency as opposed to merely being cleanly cut off at a certain point. While it could be argued that every component in a heterarchical system has an equal potential for influencing or being influenced, it can not be simplified to saying "each element shares the same "horizontal" position of power and authority, each having an equal vote"... The truth of the matter is that at any given point in time, there will be elements within the system exercising more or less control than their peers. A simple analogy for this would be a blanket floating on a rolling sea. Though the blanket is "horizontal", it is not flat..

I think that since there is no accepted general definition of heterarchy, that we (whoever is interested in this subject) work towards developing a consentual general definition to lead off the thread. I'm sure that is what the first paragraph is already trying to do, but I don't agree with that particular definition, as I have pointed out above. And the 2nd and 3rd sentences should be separated from the definition itself. In any case, heterarchical systems are not merely a sociological idea, not philosophical/biological/whatever.. it's a condition of organization in reality that impacts every academic discipline and aspect of the universe. Hence the worthiness of striving for a "general" definition. And while perpetually refining and changing the definition on the article page is itself perhaps the most poetic or appropriate definition, it does less to further the discussion of a topic that is immensely important and significant, yet does not even appear in most dictionaries. So in the interest of discussion, I will post the general definition I have developed over the past few years here, and look forward to discussing and comparing it, side by side, to other general definitions. 

Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma (review)

Sarahina Borgia

Iva Petkova

Organizing Inovation

February 1st, 2017

Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, published in 2006 by Penguin Press, is the author's examination of Americans' overall eating habits. Pollan approaches this subject by looking at food as a naturalist does. He points out that all of our food originates as plants, animals, and fungi.The book is divided into three sections. The first section focuses on industrial farming, the second analyzes organic food, and the third discusses hunting and gathering one's own food. Each section ends with a meal, and Pollan's narrative traces the meal back to its origins.Economist Tyler Cowen argued, "The problems with Pollan's 'self-financed' meal reflect the major shortcoming of the book: He focuses on what is before his eyes but neglects the macro perspective of the economist. He wants to make the costs of various foods transparent, but this is an unattainable ideal, given the interconnections of markets."

Pollan argues that to "give up" human consumption of animals would lead to a "food chain [...] even more dependent than it already is on fossil fuels and chemical fertilizers since food would need to travel even farther and fertility – in the form of manures – would be in short supply". Given that, according to Pollan, other than raising ruminants for human consumption, no viable alternatives exist in such grassy areas, for growing any grains or other plant foods for human consumption. Washington State University, situated in an agricultural area of Washington state, chose this book to be part of its freshman reading program in 2009 but soon canceled the program.

"Life is confusing atop the food chain. For most animals, eating is a simple matter of biological imperative: if you're a koala, you seek out eucalyptus leaves; if you're a prairie vole, you munch on bluegrass and clover. But Homo sapiens, encumbered by a big brain and such inventions as agriculture and industry, faces a bewildering array of choices, from scrambled eggs to Chicken McNuggets, from a bowl of fresh strawberries to the petrochemical complex yellow log of sweet, spongy food product known as the Twinkie. "When you can eat just about anything nature has to offer," Michael Pollan writes in his thoughtful, engrossing new book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma," "deciding what you should eat will inevitably stir anxiety." (New York Times)

If I have any caveats about "The Omnivore's Dilemma," it's Pollan's tendency to be too nice. He doesn't write with the propulsive rage that fueled Eric Schlosser's blockbuster "Fast Food Nation," nor does he take a firm stand on figures like the "Big Organic" pioneer Gene Kahn, an ex-hippie farmer from Washington State who decided that the only way to sustain his company, Cascadian Farm, was to sell it to General Mills. Pollan wryly notes that Kahn drives a late-model Lexus with vanity plates that say ORGANIC, but he calls Kahn "a realist, a businessman with a payroll to meet." Does this mean that Kahn is striking the right balance between mammon and the mission, or does Pollan think he's a hypocrite?

Likewise, I wish Pollan would stick his neck out and be more prescriptive about how we might realistically address our national eating disorder. We can't all go off the grid like Salatin, nor can we just wish away 200 years of industrialization. So what to do? Is the ever-growing organic-food industry already on the right path? Or is more radical action needed? Should the Department of Justice break up giant, soil-exhausting factory farms into small, self-sustaining polycultural organic farms? Perhaps it's greedy to demand more from a book already brimming with ideas, 

but what can I say? I'm an American, and I'm still hungry.