Published in the Santa Fe Institute Complex Systems Summer School Proceedings - August 2004, CSSS04

Panarchy: Complexity and Regime Change in Human Societies

Marko Antonio Rodriguez Brian Weeks University of California, Santa Cruz Clemson University Department of Computer Science Department of Biological Sciences okram@soe.ucsc.edu beweeks@clemson.edu J.H. Blakeslee Australian National University Department of Demography and Sociology j.blakeslee@anu.edu.au

Abstract The political environment can be likened to an ecological system in that over time its structures undergo evolutionary patterns. Though originally described for ecological systems, C. S. Holling's (Gunderson and Holling 2001) notion of the adaptive cycle can be applied to particular political systems in an effort to elucidate facilitating or destabilizing behavioral mechanisms. This paper investigates processes of political change in light of the adaptive cycle and its four phases: exploitation (organization of a political system from remnants of the old system); conservation (maintenance and proliferation of the new system); release (revolution); and reorganization (regime change/a new paradigm). Panarchy considers that this cycle can happen at a wide range of scalesfrom the local and regional to the national and international. Each cycle at its particular scale can have cross-scale effects on other concurrent adaptive cycles. Dominant factors of historic political transitions are described in reference to the cyclic phases; these characteristics are then applied to the analytical model so as to observe how revolution and regime change affect system stability. While focused primarily on democratic models of governance, the consequent transitions between political system types and/or the development of hybrid political structures can also be considered through this methodological approach. Pattern transference: cyclic phenomena in diverse environments The transition from the inchoate to the complex is a consistent theme of analysis in the attempt to better understand the world. The patterns that emerge from a wide range of research areas often appear to overlap and inform one another. Complexity science has given us a language for these metaphors. Patterns can be reduced to mathematical formulae, algorithms and visual models that deal with the building blocks and basic functions that make systems work. By reducing detail, by looking at landscapes and phases, at the interplay of time and spatial distribution, the dynamics of a system can be clarified into components whose behavior can be characterized. Observing system components allows for the identification of cyclic behaviors in systemsrecurrence,

phase transitions and concepts of system dynamics that account for phenomena at multiple levels of development and affect. Better understandings of system function and resilience can consequently provide indicators of stability from a variety of perspectives on any number of scales. Such an approach is necessary when attempting to account for intensely interconnected and interdependent social phenomena, particularly if an effort to quantify and aggregate such behaviors into multi-scale models from highly subjective data is a goal. * Cultural and political systems mimic behaviors observed in ecological systemsfrom apparent disorder elegant, dynamic and highly organized forms arise. As understanding ecological cycles provides a more holistic vision of how the natural environment evolves, so can the identification of cyclic expressions in social systems inspire a more complete knowledge of how social constructs take shape and change. Initial mappings of ecological ideas to politics noted the importance of assessing interconnectedness, an idea obvious to those who observe the flow of history, but one often forgotten by those who attempt to capture historys meanings in discrete form: any substantial change in one sector of the milieu is nearly certain to produce significant, often unsettling, sometimes utterly disruptive consequences in other sectors. (Jervis 1997) Such a concept is essential to effectively crafting and employing the tools designed to promote, sustain or reinvent shifting social and political environments. However, society seems inherently more comfortable with assessing cyclic phenomena in the natural world that it does with integrating their ebb and flow into the black and white formalizations that are often the backbone of socio-political structures. Assessing socio-political evolution within an ecological framework can reduce the dependence on endpoints and answers that plague social research; that can help establish a more dynamic analysis of these phenomena. Of the eventsrevolutions, regimes, policies and collective belief systemswhich have such an integral effect on the way we experience and perceive the world. * As is hoped in many fields of study, such an interdisciplinary approach can perhaps more effectively plot the confounding rhythms of human behaviors. By incorporating some of the basic concepts of complexity sciencesensitive dependence on initial conditions; network theories and indicators of connectivity; adjustments of timeframe, scale and perspectiveit invites non-linear assessments of the highly diverse and often geographically dispersed events we can easily lose focus of in the swift passage of time. In the assessment of social and political systems, and particularly historical analyses of such systems, time presents the most difficult and complex intellectual hurdle of all; is the most wily and corrupting of variables. Time is the fatal handicap to the baroque conception of the world: its mechanical order makes no allowances for growth, change, adaptation, and creative renewal. (Scott in Richards, ed. 1998) By using an adaptive cycle defined for ecological systems, rather than the traditional, time-dependent and hierarchical lens through which such phenomena are generally assessed, it is hoped that more persuasive and applicable arguments for social and political change and continuity can be made.

The Adaptive Cycle A map of ecological rhythms, C.S. Hollings adaptive cycle can be seen as a progression from its intellectual predecessors, namely Oswald Spenglers notion of cyclical changes in civilizations and Thomas Kuhns idea of the paradigm shift in science. Spengler (1965) described how civilizations go through phases of developmentan initial development stage leading to growth and organization, then dominance, and finally a decline followed by reorganization. Kuhn (1970) likewise described this phenomenon in terms of scientific revolutions, whereby ideas in science go through a similar process over time. Hollings adaptive cycle is a more concise representation of this phenomenon (Fig. 1) and allows for the inclusion of ideas of cross-scale effects and resilience, resulting in a more complex model. Visually represented, the adaptive cycle contains forward and backward loop cyclesa continuous figure 8 shape reminiscent of the eternal mbius strip. The model contains four discrete phases: 1) the r or exploitation phase whereby a given system rapidly initiates its networks by exploiting remnants of the previous system and builds upon the novelty produced from the collapse of the old system; 2) the K or conservation phase whereby a system grows from initial organization and proliferates its networks; 3) the Omega () or revolt phase whereby a system reaches its peak of maturity here networks can become over-connected and brittle, a state in which nonlinearities such as revolution can occur; and 4) the Alpha () or reorganization phase in which the system slowly regains the organization that was lost in the revolution and then proceeds again through a new cycle, adjusting to changes brought on by the previous revolution. Holling argues that adaptive cycles are constantly taking place at a range of different scales and that these cycles interact and can affect one another. For example, a smallscale adaptive cycle can have an affect on a large-scale cycle, or numerous other cycles; an idea similar to that of the butterfly effect described by Lorentz. However, it is also the case that large scale adaptive cycles can control and affect smaller scale cycles, which to use the previous metaphor shows large-scale weather patterns controlling the butterfly. In a system so described, there is no real hierarchy of interaction or top down controls but instead interaction and influences both from small and large scales. One of the main features of the adaptive cycle is its ability to incorporate novelty once a system has become outmoded. After the outmoded system collapses, it is not totally done away with but reorganized into the new conceptual framework that either lower scale or higher scale adaptive cycles require. In this sense, the adaptive cycle represents not only replicative, but also regenerative behaviorsa quality which makes ideally suited for mapping the patterns and reincarnations of event and action in history. The Adaptive Cycle and Revolution in Mexico The adaptive cycle to can be used to model cultural change and revolution; the Mexican revolution of 1910 provides a good example of this. In the early twentieth century,

Mexico was organized within the boundaries of its colonial history, although more than 80% of the population was of indigenous/Indian descent. Ruled largely by an oligarchy of aristocrats known as the cientificos (they presumed to rule scientifically), in 1910 Mexico was headed by the strong man, Porifirio Diaz. The influence of Diaz and the cientificos was pervasive. In the preceding years, Mexico was largely peaceful and there was little crime. International investment was encouraged and British, German, Spanish, and American industry controlled large segments of the economy. As such, Mexico was well into the r (exploitation) phase of the adaptive cyclehaving exploited much of the organization built by the Spaniards during the colonial era. Diaz led the nation into its K (conservation) phase by facilitating growth in the economy through local and foreign investmentrailroads were built, the nations food supply grew yearly through the hacienda (plantation) system and industry was encouraged. * The year 1910 can be seen as the apex of this growth and the system remained resilient to any challenges to it. Mexico was beginning centennial celebrations of independence from Spanish rule and was changing and developing, economically and socially, at a rapid rate. However, the circumstances that soon brought Mexico into its Omega (revolt) phase of revolution and collapse can be observed in a variety of events. Firstly, education was improving and Mexicans throughout the country were becoming better informed. Communication through the press prevailed as literacy rose and helped small perturbations in the political environment spread more rapidly than they had in the past. Though Diaz had brought peace to the many and prosperity to the few, most Mexicans were still desperately poor and landless. Much of the peasantry toiled on the haciendas for little or no money and the majority of people saw themselves as having little chance of advancing in society. Mexicans were also coming to resent the foreign influence on the economy and began to demand: Mexico for the Mexicans. As the elite, Diaz regime had little desire to adjust to the change in attitude of the populace. Subsequently, the regime lost its resilience and as Mexican society became increasingly connected, the system began to collapse into the Omega (revolt) phase. * The first instance of the collapse came with Francisco Maderos (Diazs opposition candidate for the presidency in 1910) insistence on democratic elections in Mexico. Madero did not get his wish and although he supposedly lost the vote and was exiled from the country, he immediately declared himself president pro-tem. With his exile the populace began to turn against Diaz, with popular figures such as Pancho Villa in North Mexico and Emiliano Zapata in the South arising as leaders. Bands of peasants and revolutionaries began to network, leading to the eventual collapse of the Diaz regime. The revolution proceeded for several years after 1910, but began to reach its Alpha (reorganization) phase around 1916 with democratic elections at last being held and land and voice being ceded to the peasantry. Although elements of the previous regime remained in the new organization, ideas of a landed peasantry and democratic elections were novelty elements in the restructured Mexican society of the post-revolutionary period. * These events broadly exemplify how revolution and regime change can occur within Hollings adaptive cycle. Within this phase of Mexican historythe organization and

exploitation (Diaz regime), its growth and proliferation, collapse (the revolution), and finally a re-organization into a new and different societythe adaptive cycle can be seen to run its course, though the scale could be changed to represent much greater swathes of time. It is in this way that the cycle of change adapts to evolutions occurring at both large and small scales. This turn of events can be seen in almost any social revolution and adds credence to Spenglers initial observations of how societal change occurs. The American, Russian, and French revolutions, although proceeding under a variety of different circumstances, had remarkably different outcomes. Like the Mexican revolution, the events leading up to and resulting from such societal transitions can be mapped along the general outline of the adaptive cycle model. * Panarchy can be seen throughout the Mexican revolution in terms of the multiple scales of interactive cycles. Large scale cycles that occur at relatively slow rates, such as the building of a power structure in a society (i.e. Diaz), can be seen as interacting with small scale cycles that happen at relatively fast rates. The Diaz regime took many years to build into a powerful and successful force in Mexican society, while small cycles such as the growth of a foreign business followed by worker strikes interact to produce a complex web of positive and negative feedback that influence each other to various degrees. The large scale cycle has influence on small scale cycles e.g. the Diaz regime influenced foreign business, but the large scale does not necessarily stay in control of the small scale as in a traditional hierarchical model. Instead the small scale cycle of business expansion and its subsequent collapse as a viable political force can control decisions and opportunitiesas it did within the larger scale of the Diaz regime. It is this lack of hierarchical control that leads to much complexity and unpredictability in how a system will behave over time. Historical data provides an excellent opportunity for such applications, as points of event can be set and finite expansion assessed relative to information assumed to be in the system. While this does not assume an end or beginning point, by setting them artificially (i.e. a date or turn of events) one can monitor change and determine differences in possible outcome due to differing information. Panarchy and the fall of Rome The term panarchy has been applied as a way of looking at how the various scales of a system can interact to influence the phase cycles of one another. This section provides insight into a form of panarchy that doesnt scale through the depth of a system, but via its breadth and looks at panarchy from the vantage point of the parallel interaction of different domains within a political system. When looking at a society, there exist various sub-systems supporting one another which provide the infrastructure needed to insure overall system stability. Previously, this form was crudely described as the individuals going about their daily deeds to the scale of the society accomplishing largescale behavioral feats. This form of scaled interaction will be coined scaled or depth panarchy. A second form can be analyzed in which different high-level interdependent sectors of a society can be seen as going through their own independent adaptive cycles. This form of parallel interaction will be dubbed domain or breadth panarchy. Breadth panarchy will be further explored within the context of the Roman Empire and attempts to provide a model with which to describe the collapse of Rome in the year 476 C.E.

* The Roman Empire endured many tumultuous transitions over its long history, spanning a vast geographical landscape. Over these years and across these territories, the civilization enjoyed an increase in wealth, mainly as a function of the taxation of a large population which was further boosted by the use of slave labor. In order to support the high level of taxation, a large bureaucracy was formed to insure that the city-states and regional outposts of Rome provided their due severance. As a means of ensuring that taxation went according to the desires of the politicians, Romes labyrinthine bureaucracy was appointed a military. This marks the first phase of the panarchic entanglement of the bureaucracy of the Rome and its army. Where Rome had a military that was within the conservation phase of its adaptive cycle, its incorporation into an exploitative bureaucracy brought a stress. The military became too broadly distributed and was overworked. Dissent stirred, as the entanglement of two opposing phase cycles brought the Roman military and society in general closer towards its revolution phase. Soldiers were aware of the amount of money moving from civilians to the political heads of state; this awareness began to lay the foundation of an army prime for a reorganization based on a desire for wealth. * Rome experienced many phases of leadership over its long rulefrom assassinated emperors to purchased dictatorships. By 170 C.E., through far-reaching military campaigns, Marcus Aurelius had built an army of uneducated country men that had little to no respect for the empire that supported them. Controlling this army was a matter of pay rather than of pride. Marcus Aureliuss expansion of empire came to a close in 190 C.E., when he was assassinated by his military; the throne of Rome was sold in bribe to Pertinax. Romes military had become an intricate function of the political behavior of the state. With the assassination of Marcus Aurelius, the traditional hierarchies of the political arena collapsed and reemerged into a new form of exploitation coupled tightly to the economically driven military. Broadly entangled with the exploiting domains of economy and politics, the Roman military began its revolution phase. The inclusion of religion into this web of interdependent societal domains would ensure a complete reorganization of the system. Bringing the entire Roman Empire full circle to its nascent reorganization phase, arguably the weakest point in any adaptive cycle, it fell prey to the exploitation of a new civilization. * By 324 C.E. Constantine had ascended to the throne of Rome and in so doing gave allegiance to the Christian ethic. Constantine had moved the capitol of the Empire from Rome to the newly coined Constantinople, previously known as Byzantium. However, Roman society was changingwealthy heads of state no longer enjoyed the blood lusting games that entertained them; the new religion was at odds with the vast wealth and sybaritic lifestyles of the elite. All domainsmilitary, economic, political and religiousbegan experiencing a revolution phase. In 410 C.E. the city of Rome fell to the Goths, collapsing Rome at her historical and philosophical (if not actual, as the new Constantinople remained the capital) center. As the military was further thinned across the empire, as Rome sought to stabilize itself, barbarians were able to make successful plundersfurthering reducing territory and thus, taxable citizens. As the economy fell to a bureaucracy unable to control its citizens, the empire was in a state of economic ruin.

With the reduced economy and weakened military, the throne crumbled, until the final fall of the Empire in 476 C.E. As described by the term breadth panarchy, the military, political, economic and religious spheres of the state grew heavily dependent on one another as a means of maintaining their respective stability. Nearing the end of the Roman era, these domains had become so tightly coupled that the fate of one had devastating effects on the stability of the others such that, Rome, having become so over organized, lead to the exploitation of the remains of this civilization by other powers of the time. Conclusions Hollings model of the adaptive cycle is a useful tool with which to examine social and political systems. In its application to social systems as well as ecological ones it provides a basis for understanding the pattern of historical event more organically and provides a mapping system for the comparison of one series of occurrences and changes to another. The forces of exploitation, conservation, revolt, and reorganization are features that readily apply to revolutionary events that have happened in the past and are happening today within political systems. These revolutions not only occur in the context of large-scale events but also of small scale events. Traditional views of hierarchical control of complex systems do not fit in this schema as small-scale events can have an influence and even control large-scale phenomenon. The change in Mexico after 1910 demonstrates this paradigm in terms of both the large scale and small-scale cycles interacting to produce a more stable and democratic regime that has lasted in Mexico until today. Likewise, the fall of the Roman Empire can be shown to represent how this model can elucidate, not only the hierarchical structure of a system, but also the crossdomain effects of a heterarchically structured system. In short, the application of the adaptive cycle model provides historians and social and political scientists with a means to control time effects (by setting boundaries) and a tool for comparative analysis between seemingly different systems. While no determining universal laws in and of itself, ecological models can provide social research with a new and broader means of expression and perhaps lead up to more complete and conclusive understandings of past and present events.

References Brenner, A. and G. R. Leighton. 1971. The Wind that Swept Mexico. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Gibbon, Edward. 1932 [c. 1778]. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1 and 2. New York: Modern Library. Gunderson, L., and C. S. Holling. 2001. Panarchy; understanding transformations in systems of humans and nature. Washington, D.C., USA : Island Press. Jervis, Robert. 1997. System Effects. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Richards, Diana, ed. 2000. Political Complexity: Non Linear Models of Politics. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Spengler, Oswald. 1965. The Decline of the West. New York: The Modern Library. [Originally published as Der Untergang des Abendlandes: Umrisse einer Morphologie der Weltgeschichte. Vol. 1, 1918; vol. 2, 1922. Abridged ed. by Helmut Werner, 1959. English abridged ed. by Arthur Helps from the trans. by Charles Francis Atkinson]

Figure 1: The Adaptive Cycle The Adaptive cycle as it proceeds through the four phases: exploitation (organization into a new political/social system), conservation (maintenance and proliferation of the new system), release (revolution) and reorganization (regime change/a new paradigm). The system reaches its highest potential and connectedness at the end of the conservation phase.