On Perspectives of the Interdisciplinary Synthesis in Social Sciences at the End of the 20th Century
Table of contents
Share
Metrics
On Perspectives of the Interdisciplinary Synthesis in Social Sciences at the End of the 20th Century
Annotation
PII
S207987840013583-0-1
DOI
10.18254/S207987840013583-0
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Sergey Fyodorov 
Affiliation: Saint Petersburg State University
Address: Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg
Abstract

When in the last two decades of the 20th century new ideas on complexity had started to diffuse in social sciences, the economic thought became a typical area of interdisciplinary research in which the concepts of chaos, nonlinear movement, turbulence, and instability became best to apply. The article looks at how the approach of complexity has been implemented in the Santa Fe interdisciplinary project almost in it’s first ten years between two major workshops on the economy as an evolving complex system. At first it concentrates on general issues of complexity discussed by natural and social scientists in Santa Fe Institute accepting all of them as certain bias for the epistemological breach. Then it turns to the several topics, which problematized the Santa Fe thought in particular and made it unique among the scholars who have adopted the new concepts proposed by complexity science. It also argues that the term of so called “restricted complexity” applied by some epistemologists to characterize a limited score of research topics in Santa Fe is far from being adequate. Although all developments were not equally successful, they did turn out to have enormous resonance in terms of extensive theoretical and practical pertinence and broad areas of application in social sciences even then the complexity approach was challenged by widely spread revision inspired by Niklas Luhmann legacy. Based on a body of work of Brian Arthur and John Holland and their colleagues from Stanford and Massachusetts where complexity has been understood in ways of system behavior, the article presents a complex adaptive system not as the opposite but as a source and confederate of certain order.

Keywords
complexity, complex adaptive system, Santa Fe Institute, social sciences, interdisciplinary synthesis
Received
02.12.2020
Publication date
31.01.2021
Number of characters
36574
Number of purchasers
1
Views
44
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf 100 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should sign in

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article
100 RUB / 1.0 SU
Whole issue
1000 RUB / 10.0 SU
All issues for 2021
5000 RUB / 50.0 SU

References

1. Anderson P., Arrow K., Pines D., eds. The Economy as an Evolving Complex System I. Redwood City, CA, 1988.

2. Arthur B. Complexity and the Economy. Oxford, 2015.

3. Arthur B. On the Evolution of Complexity. Cowan G. et al., eds. Complexity — Metaphors — Models and Reality. Reading (Mass.), 1994. P. 65—81.

4. Barkley R. J. From Catastrophe to Chaos. A General Theory of Economic Discontinuitis. Boston, 1991.

5. Benhabib J. ed. Cycles and Chaos in Economic Equilibrium. New Jersey, 1992.

6. Beruglia Ch., Vaio F. Nonlinearity, Chaos & Complexity. The Dynamics of Natural & Social Systems. Oxford, 2005.

7. Brock W., Hsieh D., Le Baron B. Nonlinear Dynamics, Chaos and Instability: Statistical Theory and Economic Evidence. Cambridge (Mass.), 1991.

8. Buzan B., Little R. International Systems in World History. Oxford, 2000.

9. Byrne D. Complexity, Configurations and Cases, Theory, Culture and Society, 2005. Vol. 22. P. 95-111.

10. Byrne D. Complexity, Configurations and Cases, Theory, Culture and Society, 2005. Vol. 22. P. 95—111.

11. Culliers P. Boundaries, Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems, International Journal of Innovation Management, 2001. Vol. 5. P. 135—147

12. Culliers P. Complexity and Posmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. L.; N. Y.; Routledge, 1998.

13. Edmomds B., Meyer R., eds. Simulating Social Complexity. Heidelberg; N. Y., 2013.

14. Goodwin R. Economic Evolution, Chaotic Dynamics and the Marx-Keynes-Schumpeter System.

15. Grandmount J. On Endogenous Competitive Business Cycles, Econometrica. 1985. Vol. 53. P. 995—1045.

16. Hessing A., Pahl H. The Global System of Finance: Scanning Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann for Theoretical Keystones, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2006. Vol. 65. P. 189—218.

17. Hodgson G., Screpanti E., eds. Rethinking Economics. Aldershot, 1991. P. 138—152.

18. Holland J. Signals and Boundaries. Building Blocks for the Adaptive Systems. Cambridge (Mass.), 2012.

19. Huckfeldt R. Structure, Indeterminacy and Chaos: A Case for Sociological Law, Journal of Theoretical Politics. 1990. Vol. 2. P. 413—433.

20. Kiel L., Elliott E. eds. Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications. Ann Arbor, 1997.

21. Kirman A. The Economy as an Interactive System. Arthur D., Durlauf S., D. Lane D. eds. The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II. Redwood City, CA, 1996. P. 491—533.

22. Krugman P. How the Economy Organizes Itself in Space: A Survey of the New Economic Geography. Arthur D., Durlauf S., D. Lane D. eds. The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II. Redwood City, CA, 1996. P. 239—263.

23. Manski C. Identification of Anonymous Endogenous Interactions. Arthur D., Durlauf S., D. Lane D. eds. The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II. Redwood City, CA, 1996. P. 369—385.

24. McLennan G. Sociology’s Complexity, Sociology, 2003. Vol. 37. P. 547—564.

25. North D. Some Fundamental Puzzles in Economic History: Development. Arthur D., Durlauf S., D. Lane D., eds. The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II Redwood City, CA, 1996. P. 223—239.

26. Padgett J. The Emergence of Simple Ecologies of Skill. Arthur D., Durlauf S., D. Lane D. eds. The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II. Redwood City, CA, 1996. P. 199—223.

27. Palmer R., Arthur B., Holland J., Le Baron B., Tayler P. Artificial Economic Life: A Simple Model of Stockmarket, Physica, 1994. Vol. 75D. P. 264—274.

28. Palmer R., Arthur B., Holland J., Le Baron B., Tayler P. Assets Pricing under Endogenous Expectations in an Artificial Stock Market. Arthur D., Durlauf S., D. Lane D. eds. The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II. Redwood City, CA, 1996. P. 15—44.

29. Provost W. The Role of Complexity in an Integrated Science of Sociology, International Journal of General Systems. 1985. Vol. 11. P. 91—101.

30. Ruelle D. Hazard et Chaos. P., 1991.

31. Seperstein A., Mayer-Kress G. A Non-linear Dynamical Model of the Impact of S. D. I. on the Arms Race, Journal of Conflict Resolutions, 1988. Vol. 35. P. 636—670.

32. Viskovatoff A. Will Complexity Turn Economics into Sociology. Collander D. ed. Complexity and the History of Economic Thought. L.; N. Y., 2000. P. 129—155.

33. Waldrop M. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. N. Y., 1992.

34. World Society Research Group. Albert M., et al., eds. Civilizing World Politics: Society and Community Beyond the State. L., 2000. P. 1—17.

35. Young T. Change and Chaos Theory: Metaphysics of the Postmodern. The Social Sciences Journal. 1991. Vol. 28. P. 289—305.

36. Young T. Chaos Theory and Human Agency. Humanity and Society. 1992. Vol. 16. P. 441—460.

37. Fyodorov S. Logic of L’état Moderne // ISTORIYA. 2020. Vol. 11. Issue 10 (96). URL: https://history.jes.su/s207987840011668-3-1/ DOI: 10.18254/S207987840011668-3