In the last post we explored how rules are a form of boundary. Boundaries allow organisms, organizations and of course, human beings to navigate potentially chaotic environments by providing a barrier which negotiates what to let in from the external world, and what to keep out. The current article links this argument to some notes on boundaries and culture.
Boundaries provide a way of making sense of the environment. To illustrate this, we dew from autopoietic organisms. Autopoietic organisms are organisms which can take care of themselves through exchange with the external environment. This allows the organism to move towards benefit in its external environment and to move away from harm. These are the conditions for basic sense making (Thompson, 2014).
Above, an image of a biological cell (image courtesy of Google images). To illustrate, a cell is an auto poetic organism. It takes care of itself by maintaining it’s boundary through an exchange relationship with the environment. If the boundary is compromised by changes in the external environment, it’s ability to take care of itself is impacted. This can lead to the cell dissolving into the environment as the boundary collapses (Thompson, 2014). Human beings have been observed as being societies of cells working together (Whitehead, 2010). This observation illustrates well the need for collective cohesion as a universal primary, and significantly, what happens at biological and societal level when the cultural agreements which bind collectives together fall apart.
Human beings, as a form of autopoietic organism, have a far more creative relationship with the environment than more basic lifeforms; we are not always at the mercy of the external world, we are able to shape it. We have developed numerous boundaries throughout our history and present, from shelter, to laws, to culture. Culture, fore example, provides us with a set of tacit rules in which to conduct everyday life. Culture provides boundaries as it allows us to frame what is acceptable and could be approached, and what is unacceptable and should be avoided (Vervaeke et al, 2017). In other words, culture provides a sense making structure as it allows us to take care of ourselves more effectively and efficiently.
When rules change unexpectedly and the changes are perceived as unfair, they kick out a key pillar of culture. As a result, sense making becomes destabilized and boundaries collapse. This leaves people unable to engage with the external environment. Quite simply, people operating in these circumstances do not know what to do (Ward et al, 2001)
The potential for unintended consequences in these circumstances is significant. As an example, simply look at the behavior of financial markets post Credit Suisse. Attending to the rules may be seen as a quick fix. After all, rules are the concrete procedural detail which people should follow across a range of situations. Changing the procedures to something which might seem more reasonable could feel like an answer.
However, rules are nested within culture. Sudden and unfair changes in rules contaminate the culture under which the rules sit. The contamination of culture means that trust is potentially lost, and boundaries become more individuated; people start making their own rules to restore sense making. As boundaries become more individuated, the overall picture is more chaotic, it appears as though multiple lone operatives are doing their own thing. There appears to be no semblance of order.
Changing rules may seem like a simple thing on one level, merely lines on a page and screen. However, the simple action of changing rules can undermine the very culture which produced them (McGilchrist, 2019). As people attempt to restore sense making, the potential for individuated sense making can lead to a period of chaos which makes order harder to restore. This is not helped by the inevitable lack of trust which follows. Boundaries need to be recognized as a co-produced artifact with culture, equally, rules need to be recognized as intertwined with culture. It is not possible to change rues without having at least some impact on culture.
Reading
Vervaeke, J., Mastropietro, C. and Miscevic, F., 2017. Zombies in western culture: A twenty-first century crisis (p. 104). Open Book Publishers.
Ward, C.A., Bochner, S. and Furnham, A., 2001. The psychology of culture shock.
Thompson, E., 2010. Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard University Press.
Thompson, E., 2014. Waking, dreaming, being: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy. Columbia University Press.
McGilchrist, I., 2019. The master and his emissary: The divided brain and the making of the western world. Yale University Press.
Whitehead, A.N., 2010. Process and reality. Simon and Schuster.
