by Nora Bateson
—1905 review of Archdall Reid’s The Principles of Heredity
At the time William wrote this, Gregory was a toddler. It would be 50 more years before systems thinking was to emerge as its own field of study. But William was already interested in the way evolution required context and the curious relationship between the notion of individual parts of a system within an environment. In 1888 in a letter to his sister Anna he wrote:
My brain boils with Evolution. It is becoming a perfect nightmare to me. I believe now it is an axiomatic truth that no variation, however small, can occur in any part without other variation occurring in correlation to it in all other parts; or, rather, that no system, in which a variation of one part had occurred without such correlated variation in all other parts could continue to be a system. This follows from what one knows of the nature of an “individual,” whatever that may be. If then, it is true that no variation could occur if it were not arranged that other variations should occur, in correlation with it, in all parts, all these correlated variations are dictated by the initial correlation acting as an environmental change. Therefore the occurrence of any variation in a system is a proof that all parts have the power of changing with environmental change and must of necessity do so.
—William Bateson, Naturalist
William broke with the scientific community of his time for many reasons. He left Cambridge and began his research in Norwich where he employed a laboratory of strident, brilliant women scientists respectfully referred to now as the Snap Dragons. But, it would be many years before the world was ready for the kind of systemic ideas William was toying with. Perhaps the world still is not ready.
Continuing to Learn
Today the situation seems only to be growing worse as hundreds of thousands of people need to be moved to new homes. The horror of this deepening darkness is that it is so hard to see. It is like an invisible monster that inflicts invisible wounds, which, with time, will surface as commonsense reasons for violence, greed, and exploitation. In time, the hurt transforms into meta-messages that our children will live in. The upsurge of the ultra-right in Europe and the US has heated up controversy around nationalism, immigration, and notions of purity of culture. To read the newspapers and watch the news is to be inundated with arguments that either cut down the support offered to incoming refugees or shame the right-wing anti-immigration groups as inhumane. The by-product of the division is blame and insults from all directions.
The socio-economic patterns we live in are deadly. Some kind of systemic overhaul is needed. But we cannot erase what has come before. There can be no return to an imaginary blank canvas, or status quo ante. Whatever bitterness has brewed between nations, generations, and ethnic groups will weaken their future. I have no doubt that the most desirable real estate in Europe ten years from now will be in the places where the integration of incoming refugee and immigrant groups was treated with the most grace.
I would also suggest that the idea of collapse as a form of rebirth is not without scar tissue that will inform future generations in both toxic and productive ways. Collapse is also a linear narrative, awkwardly but compellingly wrought into global ecological and cultural complexity. From here we can only add to the broth of human history as it is mingled into the history of the planet’s systems. There is no way to fix all that is broken now. Broken families, broken countries, broken cultures, failing ecosystems, volatile economies, lost identity: from the smallest scale to the most global, human interaction is clumsy and destructive. But to see the distortions of our world as the consequences of the way in which systems have learned to interact, is to offer a new entry point. Perhaps this entry point holds both history and possibility within the ever-shifting process of learning.
Lately I have been asked to describe where I see hope for the future. Or, in fact if I see hope. I do. I see hope in the possibility of adding another ingredient to our stew of ideological notions about how we make sense of our world, and altering the flavor of that stew slightly. That may seem inconsequential; it may even seem frivolous, but I contend that the shift we need is not only in our actions, but in the logic in which those actions are forged. In this era of global crisis, we often speak of ‘paradigm shift’ and ‘systems change’ as necessary prerequisites for the survival of the biosphere and humanity. I am not sure that our attempts at either of those concepts will turn out as we might intend. But, there is another possibility. The ingredient that I would like to add to the pot is the notion of life as mutual learning contexts. To change the flavor of our ideological stew by asking ‘how is mutual learning taking place in this context?’ is to re-contextualize that which has come before us and reset the horizon. I see this shift in perception of our systems as a significant altering of the way in which observing takes place, and consequently, the way in which observations are made. It is early in the development of this idea to give it such weight, but it could be that the addition of mutual learning processes to the premises of systems knowledge can avert the potentially dangerous habit of describing complex systems in terms of parts and wholes.
~ ~ ~
First published in 2016 in Humanistyczne wyzwania ekologii umysłu: Gregory Bateson w Polsce. Warsaw: Fundacja na Rzecz Myślenia im. Barbary Skargi
Symmathesy
Part I: Prologue
This chapter overlaps with other material in this book with the intent that it will be (as it has already been) reprinted as a stand-alone piece.
Proposition
I would like to propose a new word for ‘system’ that refers specifically to living systems—that is, to systems which emerge from communications and interactions. The new word, and concept, that I propose is one that highlights the expression and communication of interdependency and, particularly, mutual learning. The existing word, ‘system,’ while useful in many cases, does not suggest the contextual fields of simultaneous learning that are necessary for life. We have learned that, when dealing with living systems, mechanistic parameters cannot hold the many variables of developing interaction. So the inclusion of mutual learning in the terminology is specifically meant to move our description beyond the models of engineering and mechanism that are implicit in much systems theorizing.
This change in language that I am proposing should spark a significant shift in our work, in the sciences, applied professions, communication, and arts that address or depend upon our understanding of life and evolution. The discourse with which we discuss and study the living world should be representative of the living world, and should cautiously avoid connotations that imply or are derived from engineering.
The notion of systems as an arrangement of parts and wholes has become a distraction from the new systemic vision, which I have described in this book and which sees life as relational, mutual learning contexts. As studies, ranging from cognitive science to epigenetics, social science, ecology and evolutionary theory, are increasingly showing, evolution emerges in interrelationality, not in arrangement. So we must differentiate between living systems and other systems.
Biology, culture, and society are dependent at all levels upon the vitality of interaction they produce internally and externally. A body, a family, a forest, or a city can each be described as a buzzing hive of communication between and within its living, interacting ‘parts.’ Together the organs of your body allow you to make sense of the world around you. A jungle can be understood best as a conversation among its flora and fauna, including the insects, the fungi of decay, and contact with humanity. Interaction is what creates and vitalizes the integrity of the living world. Over time, the survival of the organisms in their environments requires that there be learning, and learning to learn, together. Gregory Bateson said, “The evolution is in the context.” So why don’t we have a word for those bodies, families, forests, and other buzzing hives of communication—and for the mutual learning that takes place within those living contexts?
With this in mind, I have combined the Greek words syn/sym (together)
and mathesi, (to learn), to create symmathesy (learning together). A working definition of symmathesy might look like this:
Symmathesy (noun): (Pronounced: sym-math-a-see)
1. an entity formed over time by contextual mutual learning through interaction. For example, an ecosystem at any scale, like a body, family, or forest is a symmathesy.
2. the process of contextual mutual learning through interaction.
Symmathesize (verb, intrans.):
to generate contextual mutual learning through the process of interaction between multiple variables in a living entity.
Defining life in terms of ‘parts and wholes’ quickly slips into thinking in terms of arrangement and mechanistic function. The advantage is that it provides separate subject boxes for us to study and arrange our studies within. It has leveraged our thinking into all that we know as science and technology. The downside is that the idea of things being arranged into ‘parts and wholes’ blinds us to the developing interactions that take place in life. The ‘parts,’ like members of a family, organs in a body, or species in a jungle, exist inside—and are integral to—larger evolutionary processes.
If symmathesy describes the ‘whole’ (and the process of inter-learning that happens constantly in the ‘whole’), then it’s clear that we also need a better word for the ‘parts.’ For this I have borrowed the Latin word vita (life), plural: vitae. A working definition might look like this:
Vita (noun; plural: vitae): (Pronounced: veet-a and veet-eye)
Any aspect of a living entity that, through interfaces of learning, forms a larger living entity or symmathesy. For example, the ‘members’ of a family, organs in the body, or flora and fauna in a forest.
In my work I have found that the confusion about when something is a part and when it is a whole is not useful to our studies as we begin to seek information across contexts. Transcontextual analysis of complex systems requires flexibility to accommodate multiple descriptions of each variable in that system. The ability to perceive paradox, and avoid the impulse to choose a path down one side or the other, is essential for our future interactions with complex systems.
These living vitae do not ‘work’ in the way that an engine works, not even a very complicated engine. The difference is the compensatory relationality and communication in which the vitae are engaged. Through complex cybernetic entanglements of interaction, living entities become vessels of communication. Instead of ‘parts’ and ‘wholes,’ let us think of vitae whose boundaries in a symmathesy act as interfaces of learning.
Interdependency is vital to the health of any system. But, the interdependency does not sit still. All of biological evolution, and the development of culture and society, seem to be a testament to the characteristics of contextual, multilayered shiftings through time. Nothing stays the same, clearly. I am suggesting that change, then, is a kind of learning. If a living entity transforms some of its contextual interrelationships, even slightly, that shift requires a calibration within which change is revealed. The same kind of tree in the same forest does not necessarily grow to be the same shape. One may have higher winds to contend with, another may grow with a thicker density of flora around it. The trees in these contrasting contexts live into their contexts by receiving the many forms of relational information they are surrounded by and part of, and responding to them. Thus they grow to be different shapes, to metabolize at different levels, and so on.
Our conceptual understanding of the living world can be elevated with a new terminology that better describes the processes we are referring to within it. This new terminology is a step toward a clearer understanding of the way we describe the difference between what we can ‘control,’ i.e. in material terms, and that which requires another approach, i.e. interacting with the complexity of evolving, living systems.
What is the difference between learning and life? None.
When is something living not learning? Never.
The concept I outline in the following pages is my attempt to provide what I hope will be a useful fusion of ideas. I invite you to recognize its combined sources in systems theory (including complexity theory and developmental systems theory), as well as the theory of Mind, presented by Gregory Bateson in his book Mind and Nature. While both of these bodies of work have provided the roots of our work today in the International Bateson Institute, I have found that within those vocabularies I habitually need to clarify the terms, so as to incorporate the transcontextual and ever-changing variables of life. This has become a task that invariably accompanies studies of complexity. The explanation needed to differentiate the characteristics of a living system from a mechanical system seems to necessitate a repeated listing of the processes of interrelationship that currently must be tagged onto every discussion. Equally distracting is the explanation needed to differentiate between Gregory Bateson’s ideas of Mind as life, from a related contemporary idea which it is connected to, but not reducible to, namely ‘neurocognition.’ While for me Mind is much closer to being a usable concept, the tendency in our culture to confuse ‘mind’ with ‘brain’ creates a rabbit warren of misunderstandings around the notion of immanent Mind for many people. This tension between the concepts Gregory Bateson developed and called Mind, and systems theory, has provided a base from which I have begun to play with the idea of mutual learning as the basis of life.
Mutual Learning Contexts
It is difficult if not impossible to find a subject to study in the living world that is definable within a single context. The International Bateson Institute was founded in 2014 with the mission of developing a process of inquiry that would begin to take into account the many contexts within which any particular field of study exists within. Transcontextual research offers multiple descriptions of the way in which a ‘subject’ is nested in many contexts. This information provides descriptions of interactions that seem to erase the boundaries of what we might have previously considered to be parts and wholes. As we have seen, medicine is entwined in culture, food, environmental conditions, education, economic stability, and more. Economy is formed through culture, transportation, resources, media, education, etc. Research conducted without the study of multiple contexts treats the subject as though it were isolated from the symmathesies it exists within, and therefore a great deal of data is not visible.
Inquiry that stretches multiple contexts has begun to reveal that the interaction between vitae provides more information and a more integrative set of possibilities for interaction with the complexity of a given set of ‘subjects.’ Any symmathesy, such as a person, a family, a forest, a nation, or an institution, can be viewed or studied in the hope of revealing the way in which it has learned to form itself within the contexts it interfaces with. Like a great living puzzle whose pieces morph into compensatory responsive shapes, living systems require that we develop a language to hold the conceptual multiplicity of perspectives. As students of life, we have to be able to consider the variables at a higher order. Transcontextual research reveals new interactions and provides a wider angle lens with which to explore many fields of inquiry.
Immediately we see that there are questions that need to be addressed in order to flesh out the concept of symmathesy: Is a living entity a thing, or is it a part of a greater relational process? Can a living entity be both? To incorporate a comprehensive base in our syntax of this theory, I believe we will need to stretch even our understanding of grammar.
The development of the conceptual arena for symmathesy and symmathesies will continue over time and with multiple scholars, artists, and professionals. But a few considerations need to be addressed as they fold into the definition of what a symmathesy is and what the process of symmathesy entails. As a word, ‘symmathesy’ is part of a family of terms that describe the relational characteristics of the living world. Other terms in this family include symmetry, symbiosis, sympoiesis, and system. Each of these terms includes a prefix indicating ‘together’—sym or syn—followed by a focus on order, g
rowth, pattern, and so on. Symmathesy is a newcomer to this family of concepts and draws attention to mutual learning.
The tendency to think in terms of functioning parts and wholes is misleading for our future inquiry of living, co-evolving systems.Metabolism, immunity, cognition, culture, and ecology are all examples of living interactions. Within these examples, perception, communication, and learning are observable as open-ended interchanges in and between a tangle of varying perspectives. The new vocabulary I am proposing is an attempt to address the increasing mix-ups in our inquiry into living ‘systems’ as they are differentiated from mechanical ones.
The primary limit of the word ‘system’ is its invocation of ‘arrangement’ (inherent in the Greek prefix ‘sys’). This, as we have just seen, relates to the way in which we have culturally been trained to explain and study our world in terms of parts and wholes and the way they ‘work’ together. The connotations of this systemic functional arrangement are mechanistic; which does not lend itself to an understanding of the messy contextual and mutual learning/evolution of the living world.
This is especially true in regard to the single-plane, contextual boundaries within which most interrelationality is seen. No living thing exists in just one context. Therefore, the illustrations and deductions formed from observations that are derived from a singular contextual perspective lack dimension. Multiple contextual viability has to this point not been taken into account within theoretical models of living systems. Transcontextual research and understanding is only just beginning to address the multiple contextual existences of living systems. To better understand the errors generated by explanation in terms of parts and wholes, the transcontextual descriptions render several versions of would-be parts and wholes in play in multiple contextual frames. Life does not separate those frames; rather, it depends upon their melting together.