1

Complexity and Sustainable Development

Miguel Briceo
Central University of Venezuela
mibricen@reacciun.ve

Abstract

The predominant approach in Science and Technology is exhibiting major
shortcomings, while it is becoming clear that in a significant number of cases, the very
success of compartmentalized scientific approaches has led to the aggravation of the
environmental and development problems they set out to resolve. This increasing
complexity and connectedness means that the components of problems are not nearly as
easy to separate as they once were. Development and environmental problems must
therefore be approached not only as complex problems per se, but also as inseparable and
mutually determined.
Sustainable development is the name given to the quest for such a solution, in which
development is understood to be the genesis and unfolding of qualitative potential not just
the pursuit of quantitative growth and sustainability covers the ecological, economic, and
social dimensions. The new knowledge production model proposed here to face the
challenge of such complexity is that of transdisciplinarity, which shall be made up of
theoretical structures, research methods and practical procedures that cannot be found in the
current disciplinary or interdisciplinary maps.

KEY WORDS: Development, Sustainability, Complexity, Inter/Transdisciplinarity.

Limits posed by disciplinary sciences to sustainability

In what way, if any, does sustainable development pose S&T challenges that differ
from other major challenges of our times, such as globalization, economic competitiveness,
and so on? Two years ago, a group of specialists of the Latin American and Caribbean
region met in Santiago, Chile, in order to find an answer to this question.
In the final report of this Latin American and Caribbean Regional Workshop on
Science and Technology for Sustainable Development held by ECLAC
1
, participants came
to the conclusion that in many instances, it is becoming clear that the predominant approach
in S&T is exhibiting major shortcomings, and that in a significant number of important
cases, the very success of compartmentalized scientific approaches has led to the
aggravation of the environmental and development problems they set out to resolve.
However, they still acknowledged the fact that major advances due to specialization within
a number of disciplines have contributed to improving the quality of life of millions of
human beings.
According to specialists, a number of processes have played a part in this. One of
these is the fundamental uncertainty introduced both by our limited understanding of
human and ecological processes and the intrinsic indeterminism of complex dynamic
systems (including human components, man-made infrastructure and artificial objects, and

1
ECLAC. (2002). Report on the Latin American and Caribbean Regional Workshop on Science and
Technology for Sustainable Development. Santiago, Chile, 5-7 March 2002.
2
natural components) that comprise the subject of sustainable development, and by the
myriad of human purposes and choices.
The current historical context exhibits major differences to the relatively recent past.
On the one hand, the world is moving through a period of extraordinary turbulence and
volatility reflecting the economic, cultural, social and political processes associated with
globalization. In addition the speed and magnitude of global change, the increasing
connectedness of the social and natural systems at the planetary level, and the growing
complexity of societies and of their impacts upon the biosphere, result in a high level of
uncertainty and unpredictability.
On the other hand, current trends are proving to be ecologically and socially
unsustainable. In recent years millions of the regions inhabitants have slid into poverty
and live in deteriorated environmental conditions. In this respect, problems and situations
have become increasingly complex in recent decades. According to the workshops
participants, the main reasons for this include:
Ontological changes: many human-induced changes in the nature of the real world
are proceeding at unprecedented rates and are resulting in growing connectivity
among processes and phenomena at different levels.
Epistemological changes: changes in our understanding of the world related to the
modern scientific awareness of the behavior of complex systems, including
indeterminism, self-organization and emergent properties.
Changes in the nature of decision-making: in many parts of the world, a more
participatory style of decision-making and government, together with the widening
acceptance of additional criteria such as the environment, human rights, gender, and
others, as well as the emergence of new social and economic actors such as non-
governmental organizations and transnational corporations, has increased the
number of dimensions used to define issues, goals and solutions and hence
augmented the complexity of decisions.
In short, increasing complexity and connectedness mean that the components of
problems are not nearly as easy to separate as they once were. Development and
environmental problems must therefore be approached not only as complex problems per
se, but also as inseparable and mutually determined. The above described situation
represents an exceptional challenge to science and technology, particularly to the analytical
compartmentalization of disciplines, which represents the bulk of activities and priorities of
current S&T systems in both north and south.
In the face of the need for a holistic or systemic approach to sustainable
development problems, together with the associated epistemological, methodological,
strategic and institutional implications, the workshops participants proposed to develop a
regional vision taking into account the specific features, problems and opportunities of the
region. Sustainable development is the name given to the quest for such a solution, in
which development is understood to be the genesis and unfolding of qualitative potential
not just the pursuit of quantitative growth and sustainability covers the ecological,
economic, and social dimensions.
For the workshops participants, it is becoming increasingly clear that sustainable
development requires the coordination of measures at the local or micro level (at which
many of the problems are manifested and solutions are put into practice) and the macro
national and international level (policies, agreements, economic instruments which
3
help to create an environment that is conducive to and supportive of micro actions). It is
also clear to them that not all sustainable development problems have a technological
solution; in fact, the deep-rooted ecological and social unsustainability of world
development patterns reflect more the asymmetries of economic, political and military
power that characterize our time, rather than technical or demographic factors.

Methodological challenges that shall be overcome

Sustainable development, its requirements on inter-disciplinarity and the need for an
integrated approach to attain it, pose the need to examine a number of epistemological
issues, which in this case are highly related to management and decision-making processes
aimed at the practical achievement of sustainability. To be able to examine
interdisciplinarity and then transdisciplinarity, we shall first dwell on a number of key
issues such as the unit or units of analysis to be used, the issue of integration, and the
criteria of truth. In this sense, the recognition that human (social, economic, etc.) activities
and the environment are coupled and therefore mutually determined systems (as well as
strongly non-linear, complex and self-organizing) leads to the conclusion that the main unit
of analysis must encompass the total coupled system or socioecological system (defined
at the scale appropriate for the problem considered) and the associated processes.
An integrated approach to research and to the management of these systems for
sustainable development is therefore required. This integration may have several facets
(among disciplines, between science and policies, between understanding and action,
among spatial-temporal scales, among quantitative and qualitative factors, and among
science and other forms of knowledge). In the research sphere, integration implies the
adoption of a systemic approach of complex systems (the scientific study of wholes) and an
inter-disciplinary or even trans-disciplinary research style. For this reason, and within
the framework of the analysis presented here, the specialists that took part in the workshop
considered the following issues to be key challenges:

1. Methodologies relating to supradisciplinary approaches. Sustainable
development can be approached from many different disciplines, but none of these
alone can provide an answer to the main problems of sustainable development.
Moreover, a multidisciplinary team can contribute little if the experts from each
discipline limit themselves to producing a technically correct vision of their own
specialty, and lack the ability or willingness to combine their knowledge with that
of other disciplines. The step from the multidisciplinary to the interdisciplinary (and
then to the trans-disciplinary) level requires the development of team work and
methodologies articulating different sciences (and even different areas of expertise
within the same science), which, in terms of their application to sustainable
development-related disciplines, are still in their infancy and need to be developed.

2. Methodologies relating to prediction of events and situations. The
interdisciplinary approach, especially in relation to sustainable development, tends
to involve long-term time horizons. There is also a conflict between the time scales
of sustainability and political decision-making, which means that methodologies for
anticipating problems need to be strengthened. In this respect, scenario-building,
4
mathematical modeling and trend studies are examples of methodological
proceedings that should be put to good use.

3. Methodologies relating to monitoring and impact indicators. Given
that human activity has a cumulative effect on natural resources, studies should be
based on the evolution of a range of sustainability indicators. It is therefore
necessary to identify the most crucial sustainable development indicators and
monitor them over the long term.

4. Methodologies for the rigorous processing of qualitative variables.
Many of the variables and processes that are important for sustainable development
are by nature qualitative (e.g. cultural and political factors). In many cases, although
the variables and relations are quantifiable in principle, in practice it is very difficult
to arrive at an estimate of the corresponding values. It is therefore essential to
develop scientific methodologies of qualitative analysis which are logically
rigorous, verifiable and reproducible.

5. Methodologies relating to kinds of knowledge. The Latin American and
Caribbean region is home to a wealth of traditional/local knowledge. Scientific
knowledge and other kinds of knowledge are potentially complementary.
Indigenous and rural knowledge is the result of many centuries and sometimes
millennia of accumulated wisdom on how to use and live alongside natural
resources. For this region it is important to develop methodologies to integrate this
knowledge into conventional scientific/technological systems.

6. Methodologies for establishing priorities, monitoring and
evaluation of innovation. S&T institutions usually have a weak capacity to
communicate with political decision-makers, which must be reinforced. The same
problem can be found in the implementation of innovations at the local level. In
order to improve those relationships it is necessary to identify new methods to
communicate the opportunities and threats scientists identify and technologists
develop. Comprehensible models and simple and realistic indicators are needed for
political decision-makers, community members and for non-experts who can
participate and help in monitoring. The development of methodologies for
Science-Policy and Science-Community dialogues is an important strategy.

7. Research strategies.

a. The design of strategies should be based on prospective studies, assessments
of regional capacity, research agendas driven by the needs of users and
strategies to promote changes in attitudes. In this respect, research strategies
must be comprehensive and must provide the opportunity to implement
models for the analysis of complex systems and the use of modern tools.
b. It is essential to mobilize scientific and technological know-how in order to
identify and achieve alternative forms of integration into the world
economy, using technological innovation as a contribution to sustainable
5
development. Any strategy must take into account the effect of the reduction
of the role of the State on research. There is a need to design options to
secure financing for knowledge generation in order to preserve biological
and cultural wealth and monitor and control the appropriate use of resources.
c. Civil society and its organizations should be engaged in all the phases of
scientific research that affect them or is pertinent, from the conception of the
project and the definition of objectives, rationale and expected outputs, to
the enjoyment of the benefits resulting from the research. This will require a
combination of research and societal learning, including elements of
collective action, innovative public policies and broad social
experimentation.
d. It is essential to work with all social groups to understand how they develop
their know-how and conduct social practices. In this context, mechanisms
should be created to report on the social relevance of scientific and
technological research and to secure the transfer and return of knowledge to
all the actors involved. The generation of knowledge for sustainable
development requires efforts that transcend national borders and institutional
and financial mechanisms that can operate at a supranational level. Sources
of funding that are stable and reliable over time are also crucial for scientific
and technological research activities.

Sustainability principles that shall be shared

The attainment of such interdisciplinarity would require the consideration of a range of
basic shared criteria that shall serve as guidelines in the process that started with
destabilization. The Hannover Principles for Sustainability
2
prepared for the Worlds Fair
EXPO 2000 could serve this purpose. These principles are:

1. Insist on rights of humanity and nature to co-exist in a healthy, supportive, diverse
and sustainable condition.
2. Recognize interdependence. The elements of human design interact with and
depend upon the natural world, with broad and diverse implications at every scale.
Expand design considerations to recognizing even distant effects.
3. Respect relationships between spirit and matter. Consider all aspects of human
settlement including community, dwelling, industry and trade in terms of existing
and evolving connections between spiritual and material consciousness.
4. Accept responsibility for the consequences of design decisions upon human well-
being, the viability of natural systems and their right to co-exist.
5. Create safe objects of long-term value. Do not burden future generations with
requirements for maintenance or vigilant administration of potential danger due to
the careless creation of products, processes or standards.
6. Eliminate the concept of waste. Evaluate and optimize the full life-cycle of products
and processes, to approach the state of natural systems, in which there is no waste.

2
The Hannover Principles. Design for Sustainability. Prepared for EXPO 2000. The Worlds Fair. Hannover,
Germany 1992 William McDonough Architects.

6
7. Rely on natural energy flows. Human designs should, like the living world, derive
their creative forces from perpetual solar income. Incorporate this energy efficiently
and safely for responsible use.
8. Understand the limitations of design. No human creation lasts forever and design
does not solve all problems. Those who create and plan should practice humility in
the face of nature. Treat nature as a model and mentor, not as an inconvenience to
be evaded or controlled.
9. Seek constant improvement by the sharing of knowledge. Encourage direct and
open communication between colleagues, patrons, manufacturers and users to link
long term sustainable considerations with ethical responsibility, and re-establish the
integral relationship between natural processes and human activity.

The Hanover Principles should be seen as a living document committed to the
transformation and growth in the understanding of our interdependence with nature, so that
they may adapt as our knowledge of the world evolves.

Theory resources that shall be applied

Intersubjectivity and hybridity

Bringing together different disciplines is not enough for the practice of
interdisciplinarity. The mere encounter of different knowledges does not automatically
result in an interdisciplinary research study. In general terms, interdisciplinary research
could be defined as the confrontation of different organized or disciplinary knowledges,
which in the field of environment, sustainability and within a certain (empirical) spatial-
temporal framework allow for the design of research strategies that are different to those
that would be applied separately if such interaction had not taken place. The theoretical and
methodological control is attained through the permanent change of the research subjects
(authors and actors), which constitutes the intersubjective control of research.
Although an interdisciplinary research study shall not apply within other contexts or
groupings of different types of knowledge, its methodologies and results are far from just
repeating the dynamics of disciplinary research, both in terms of theoretical-methodological
dimensions, or results and learning processes in the subject-object-subject relations.
When carrying out interdisciplinary work the researcher is not isolated anymore,
taking refuge behind their desk in the solitude of their office dealing with their particular
disciplinary object. The idea is not to eliminate individual production and creation, but to
prevent this process from resulting in a few intersubjective biases. Within an
interdisciplinary framework of research, what is subjective becomes intersubjective and
objective at the same time. There is a constant exchange of subjectivities and multiple
deliberate actions towards the construction of objectivities.
The understanding of interdisciplinary work is a theoretical exercise that demands
reflection on the very process taking place and on its conclusion. It is an important
intellectual resource, whose use has significant implications. It is not easy to identify the
boundaries among the different knowledges. The confrontation of personal experiences at
different levels is, in fact, a reunion of successive actions of approaching, amalgamating,
7
excluding and incorporating information, concepts and opinions that are permanently being
created and recreated throughout the intellectual evolution of an individual.
Therefore, hybridity of knowledges can be found in the intellectual evolution of
both an individual and a social group. In this sense, interdisciplinary construction is
considered a result of hybridity (or dialog of knowledges), but hybridity is not always
necessarily interdisciplinary, since it requires a deliberate, explicit, controllable and
selective intention. We are talking about a construction resulting from a research action
carried out by different researchers working on the basis of their own logics and
disciplinary procedures.
There is a difference between a weak and a strong hybridity of knowledges. The
former would not be explicitly aimed at producing a kind of knowledge that is different
from the disciplinary one. The latter to be found in a context of interdisciplinarity does
not give priority to one type of knowledge over the others, since all knowledges taking part
are oriented towards the research on socio-environmental problems without trying to
individually impose objects or logics during the process of common knowledge
construction.

Complex systems and self-organization

The theoretical discussion on interdisciplinarity demands a profound reflection on
the notions of complex systems and self-organized whole
3
. Interdisciplinarity does not
emerge spontaneously from the different knowledges. When reality is reevaluated, there is
a need to recreate it in a different way, and when classified in a different manner, it is given
another meaning through other analysis categories. These categories imply another
perception and understanding of the world, while they suggest other ways to
appropriate/affect it. Thus, new epistemological referents are essential in interdisciplinary
practices within the society-nature framework.

Complexity

Complexity has turned out to be very difficult to define
4
. The dozens of definitions
that have been offered all fall short in one respect or another, classifying something as
complex which we intuitively would see as simple, or denying an obviously complex
phenomenon the label of complexity. Moreover, these definitions are either only applicable
to a very restricted domain, such as computer algorithms or genomes, or so vague as to be
almost meaningless. Bruce Edmonds
5
, from the Centre for Policy Modelling of the
Manchester Metropolitan University, gives a good review of the different definitions and
their shortcomings, concluding that complexity necessarily depends on the language that is
used to model the system. Still, it seems to be a common, objective core in the different

3
Garca, R. (1994). Interdisciplinariedad y sistemas complejos. Ciencias Sociales y Formacin Ambiental.
Barcelona: Gedisa.
4
Heylighen, F. (1997). The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution. In F.
Heylighen & D. Aerts (Eds.), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Retrieved from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.html
5
Edmonds, B. (1996). What is Complexity? The philosophy of complexity per se with application to some
examples in evolution. In F. Heylighen & D. Aerts (Eds.), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

8
concepts of complexity. The original Latin word complexus signifies entwined, twisted
together. This may be interpreted in the following way: in order to have a complex you
need two or more components, which are joined in such a way that it is difficult to separate
them. Similarly, the Oxford Dictionary defines something as complex if it is made of
(usually several) closely connected parts. Here we find the basic duality between parts
which are at the same time distinct and connected. Intuitively then, a system would be more
complex if more parts could be distinguished, and if more connections between them
existed. More parts to be represented means more extensive models, which require more
time to be searched or computed. Since the components of a complex cannot be separated
without destroying it, the method of analysis or decomposition into independent modules
cannot be used to develop or simplify such models. This implies that complex entities will
be difficult to model, that eventual models will be difficult to use for prediction or control,
and that problems will be difficult to solve. This accounts for the connotation of difficult,
which the word complex has received in later periods.
The aspects of distinction and connection determine two dimensions characterizing
complexity. Distinction corresponds to variety, to heterogeneity, to the fact that different
parts of the complex behave differently. Connection corresponds to constraint, to
redundancy, to the fact that different parts are not independent, but that the knowledge of
one part allows the determination of features of the other parts. Distinction leads in the limit
to disorder, chaos or entropy, like in a gas, where the position of any gas molecule is
completely independent of the position of the other molecules. Connection leads to order or
negentropy, like in a perfect crystal, where the position of a molecule is completely
determined by the positions of the neighboring molecules to which it is bound. Complexity
can only exist if both aspects are present: neither perfect disorder (which can be described
statistically through the law of large numbers), nor perfect order (which can be described
by traditional deterministic methods) are complex. It thus can be said to be situated in
between order and disorder, or, using a recently fashionable expression, on the edge of
chaos.
The simplest way to model order is through the concept of symmetry, i.e. invariance
of a pattern under a group of transformations. In symmetric patterns one part of the pattern
is sufficient to reconstruct the whole. For example, in order to reconstruct a mirror-
symmetric pattern, like the human face, you need to know one half and then simply add its
mirror image. The larger the group of symmetry transformations, the smaller the part
needed to reconstruct the whole, and the more redundant or ordered the pattern. For
example, a crystal structure is typically invariant under a discrete group of translations and
rotations. A small assembly of connected molecules will be a sufficient seed, out of
which the positions of all other molecules can be generated by applying the different
transformations. Empty space is maximally symmetric or ordered: it is invariant under any
possible transformation, and any part, however small, can be used to generate any other
part.
It is interesting to note that maximal disorder too is characterized by symmetry, not
of the actual positions of the components, but of the probabilities that a component will be
found at a particular position. For example, a gas is statistically homogeneous: any position
is as likely to contain a gas molecule as any other position. In actuality, the individual
molecules will not be evenly spread. But if we look at averages, e.g. the centers of gravity
of large assemblies of molecules, because of the law of large numbers the actual spread will
9
again be symmetric or homogeneous. Similarly, a random process, like Brownian motion,
can be defined by the fact that all possible transitions or movements are equally probable.
Complexity can then be characterized by lack of symmetry or symmetry breaking,
by the fact that no part or aspect of a complex entity can provide sufficient information to
actually or statistically predict the properties of the others parts. This again connects to the
difficulty of modeling associated with complex systems.
Edmonds notes that the definition of complexity as midpoint between order and
disorder depends on the level of representation: what seems complex in one representation,
may seem ordered or disordered in a representation at a different scale. He gives the
following example: A pattern of cracks in dried mud may seem very complex. When we
zoom out, and look at the mud plain as a whole, though, we may see just a flat,
homogeneous surface. When we zoom in and look at the different clay particles forming
the mud, we see a completely disordered array. The paradox can be elucidated by noting
that scale is just another dimension characterizing space or time, and that invariance under
geometrical transformations, like rotations or translations, can be similarly extended to
scale transformations.
Havel
6
calls a system scale-thin if its distinguishable structure extends only over
one or a few scales. For example, a perfect geometrical form, like a triangle or circle, is
scale-thin: if we zoom out, the circle becomes a dot and disappears from view in the
surrounding empty space; if we zoom in, the circle similarly disappears from view and only
homogeneous space remains. A typical building seen from the outside has distinguishable
structure on 2 or 3 scales: the building as a whole, its components such as windows and
doors, and perhaps the individual bricks or the material used to build it.
A fractal or self-similar shape, on the other hand, has infinite scale extension:
however deeply we zoom in, we will always find the same recurrent structure. A fractal is
invariant under a discrete group of scale transformations, and is as such orderly or
symmetric on the scale dimension. The fractal is somewhat more complex than the triangle,
in the same sense that a crystal is more complex than a single molecule: both consist of a
multiplicity of parts or levels, but these parts are completely similar.
To find real complexity on the scale dimension, we may look at the human body: if
we zoom in we encounter complex structures at least at the levels of complete organism,
organs, tissues, cells, organelles, polymers, monomers, atoms, nucleons, and elementary
particles. Though there may be superficial similarities between the levels, the relations and
dependencies between the different levels are quite heterogeneous, characterized by both
distinction and connection, and by symmetry breaking.
We may conclude that complexity increases when the variety (distinction), and
dependency (connection) of parts or aspects increase, and this in several dimensions. These
include at least the ordinary 3 dimensions of spatial, geometrical structure, the dimension of
spatial scale, and the dimension of temporal or dynamical scale. In order to show that
complexity has increased overall, it suffices to show, that all other things being equal
variety and/or connection have increased in at least one dimension.
Variety and constraint will depend upon what is distinguished by the observer.
What the observer does is picking up those distinctions which are somehow the most

6
Havel, I. (1995). Scale Dimensions in Nature. International Journal of General Systems 23 (2), 303-332.
Retrieved from http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.html

10
important, creating high-level classes of similar phenomena, and neglecting the differences
which exist between the members of those classes
7
. Depending on which distinctions the
observer makes, he or she may see their variety and dependency (and thus the complexity
of the model) to be larger or smaller, and this will also determine whether the complexity is
seen to increase or decrease.
Though we are in principle unable to build a complete model of a complex system,
the introduction of the different dimensions discussed above helps us at least to get a better
grasp of its intrinsic complexity, by reminding us to include at least distinctions on different
scales and in different temporal and spatial domains.

Self-organization

Complex systems normally consist of many joined elements. The simple behavioral
rules governing the relation among the different elements cause a global behavior of the
whole system. These simple rules are responsible for the emergence of something more
complex that reacts contrary to the behavior of the individual elements. Therefore, the local
action and reaction relationships originate an arising global structure that also has an effect
on the local interactions. The local rules to which many elements of the system are
submitted give rise to a more global structure that cannot be exclusively explained through
those rules.
The field of research called synergetics, founded by Hermann Haken
8
, deals with
the processes of self-organization in physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics and
medicine, stating that the self-organization processes or structural formations develop on
the basis of unitary basic rules. The fundamental prerequisites for self-organization are the
following:
1. The system must be open, which ensures a continuous exchange of matter, energy
and information with the environment.
2. The system must operate far from thermodynamic equilibrium, so that matter,
energy and information flows experiment a dynamics.
3. The system must consist of many subsystems, whose dynamics is enriched by
matter, energy and information flows.
4. The subsystems taking part must show non-linear concerted interaction, only
enabling the emergence of non-linearity bifurcations and, thus, of models. If the
exchange of matter, energy and information of the system with the environment
reaches a critical value, spontaneous spatial and temporal structures can emerge by
means of the self-organization of the subsystems at the microscopic and
macroscopic level.

The physical condition needed for self-organization is that an open system operates
far from equilibrium with hypercritical entropy export (Kolmogorov). This way, self-
organization shall be understood as an irreversible process of spontaneous generation of

7
Heylighen, F. (1990). Relational Closure: a mathematical concept for distinction-making and complexity
analysis. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Cybernetics and Systems '90: World Science Publishers (pp. 335-342). Retrieved
from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.html
8
Haken, H. (1990). Synergetik: eine Einfhrung; Nichtgleichgewichts-Phasenbergnge und
Selbstorganisation in Physik, Chemie und Biologie. 3rd rev. and enl. ed. Berlin: Springer.
11
ordered structures that are driven far from an equilibrium induced from outside (from the
environment), but not certainly generated by and based on inner laws. By means of
cooperative actions of the subsystems, this irreversible process gives rise to more complex
structures of the whole system.
Self-organized systems are characterized by the following physical processes and
principles:
a. Master-slave principle. This principle was first formulated by Hermann Haken
and is also known as slaving principle. In systems close to their instability points
(bifurcation points), where the system can change its behavior qualitatively, there
are just a few collective variables (order parameters) prescribing the self-organized
macroscopic pattern of an open system, which is governed by the remaining degrees
of freedom. Finally, a few variables considerably determine the dynamics of the
system and enslave the influence of the remaining variables. This reduction of the
degrees of freedom to the critical point (bifurcation point) is the core principle of
Hakens synergetics.
b. The systems show a tendency to preserve themselves and to maintain stability. The
systems self-reference manifests in its behavior of self-preservation (resilience).
Little inner or outer disturbances generally affect the order maintenance of a system,
but in normal conditions, this does not occur in self-organized systems, since they
constantly stabilize themselves.
c. The systems tend to regenerate (feedback), giving rise to feedback loops that allow
for the preservation of the systems stability. The negative feedback loops provide
for an inner systemic maintenance and the regulation of the systems parameters
pushing it towards stability achievement.
d. There is a tendency to criticality: self-organized systems composed of many
interacting elements, naturally evolve to a critical state
9
that is maintained (a state in
which quality changes, symmetry breakings and phase transitions of the systems are
possible). This dynamics becomes evident by observing a slowly accumulating pile
of sand that periodically collapses in an avalanche a behavior that has been
referred to as on the edge of chaos. The critical state of a system is, therefore, an
attractor of the system that can have a fractal structure. Besides, a geometrical
description of the fractal is possible. Fractal structures are spatial and temporal
manifestations of self-organized criticality, as well as instantaneous representation
of self-organized critical processes.

Towards the production of interdisciplinary knowledge

According to Dimas Floriani
10
we shall start from the principle that there is no ideal
situation for interdisciplinarity, i.e. that the different experiences carried out so far are
limited and non definitive. Another main question to be discussed is whether there is a need

9
Bak P. & Chen K. (1991). Self-organized Criticality. Scientific American, 264, 46-53.
10
Floriani, D. (1999). Interdisciplinariedad: Teora y Prctica en la Investigacin y la Enseanza Ambiental.
Retrieved from http://www.casla.com.br/artigos/art4.htm. Presented at the Latin American and Caribbean
Workshop on Environmental Education, held in Santiago de Cali, Colombia, in November 1999, in which the
central topic was Interdisciplinarity: theory and practice in environmental education and research.
12
to collectively construct interdisciplinary work. The practice of interdisciplinarity poses
two main questions:
1. How can the participation of researchers from different disciplines be coordinated
to a research practice of interdisciplinary nature?
2. How can those different disciplinary knowledges be organized as a coordinated
agreed action that allows for a contribution of each of them?
Obviously, we are talking about a collective work made up of personal and institutional
knowledges and efforts. Thus, tensions shall occur at different levels: personal, related to
the individual idiosyncrasies, interests and capabilities, power strategies (leadership),
awareness of the nature of interdisciplinary work, democratic and cooperative spirit, etc.;
institutional: a) at the macro level resistant/enabling attitude towards the incorporation of
new academic practices, approaches and ideas regarding groups and corporations, new
interactions, financing and legislation system related to sectors, departments, courses,
faculties, budget allocation for research, etc.; b) at the micro level (of the
interdisciplinary unit) number of disciplines coming together for research; balance or
imbalance among live, nature and society sciences; leadership strategies in research
(awareness of process leadership and legitimization of its direction); individualized or
shared leadership system (coordination); charismatic or acknowledged leadership; relation
between academic education and research (postgraduate education). All these aspects are
crucial for the determination of the direction, in which the experience is moving, as well as
its problems and the significance of the tensions occurring throughout the research process.
There is an initial stage of destabilization, in which each type of knowledge feels
powerless in the face of the complexity of the problems dealt with; the most important
thing is to keep a rational attitude and to understand that this is a moment of deliberate
destruction of the disciplines secure environment. Balance restoration (a new stability)
will follow this first stage when each discipline feels compelled to make a contribution with
its own means and methods in terms of the basic information they can provide (geography,
economics, sociology, demography, anthropology, geology, biology, agronomy, statistics,
etc.).
However, from a qualitative perspective, the most important feature of such a moment
(destabilization) is that a new effect will be generated, which is absent within the
framework of disciplinary work. This effect is that of enriching the point of view of one
discipline with the points of view of the other disciplines. The latter will be already
endowed with new strategies and will thus be able to bring about new perceptions for their
own logics and for those of the other disciplines.
Each professional is the bearer of their specific knowledge. In the following stage, it is
expected that each disciplinary perception and contribution can be enriched by other
approaches, perceptions and ideas that derive from such collective construction on a
common research problem. Within a disciplinary framework, the possibilities of gaining
new perceptions are very scarce, since these are usually determined by the disciplines own
logical approach. Besides, interdisciplinary practice within the field of environment and
social development takes place in the space where the dynamics of the society-system and
those of the nature-system interact. It is not only an empirical physical space, but also an
intellectually constructed space.
Data collection and their progressive construction within the common research space
enable the emergence of the research study problems. Without data problematizing there is
no good research problem. The confrontation of the different socio-environmental data,
13
their behavior in space and time and the functions and dysfunctions (conflicts) of the
observed dynamics (bio-demographic and social dynamics, material practices, bio-energetic
dynamics of ecosystems, public policies, etc.) permit to arrange them in a cross-products
matrix. Although this is still a stage for the recognition/reconstruction of reality by the
various disciplines, elaborate data are in fact the inputs for the following stage that of the
construction of a common problematic situation that will be subject of research.
The basic stages of interdisciplinary work construction shall be summarized as follows:
1) data and information collection; 2) preliminary discussions; 3) identification of the main
socio-environmental conflicts; 4) selection of research priorities; 5) explicit announcement
of cross-discipline themes; 6) common agreement on the methodologies; 7) hypothesizing;
8) application of research tools; 9) data validation; 10) presentation of final results.
Interdisciplinarity shall not be taken for granted. Neither is it something we can simply
decree. It is a constituent of the interdisciplinary process resulting from the association of
disciplines. Interdisciplinary action takes place in parts of the boundaries where reality
representation occurs, and it expands by means of the combined action of the different
disciplines concerned. The boundary is not an impassable limit, but it is a limit that allows
for differentiation and reunion of the distinct domains as each discipline perceives the
specificities of reality in their own way to create a comprehensive synthesis of the
multiplicity of the real.

Transdisciplinarity: a strategy for sustainability attainment

The need for transdisciplinarity arises from developments in knowledge and culture
that are characterized by the above-described complexity, hybridity, non-linearity, and
heterogeneity. Based in its new role, social epistemology attempts to reconcile normative
philosophy with an empirical sociology of knowledge. Transdisciplinarity has been defined
as a common system of axioms for a set of disciplines. Many theorists are credited with
coining the term, including Jean Piaget and Andre Lichnerowicz
11
. More recently, a new
definition has appeared. Gibbons, et al.
12
identify a fundamental change in the ways that
scientific, social, and cultural knowledge are being produced. The elemental traits are
complexity, hybridity, non-linearity, reflexivity, heterogeneity, and transdisciplinarity. The
new mode of production is transdisciplinary in that it contributes with theoretical
structures, research methods, and modes of practice that are not located on current
disciplinary or interdisciplinary maps. One of its effects is to replace or reform established
institutions, practices, and policies. Problem contexts are transient and problem solvers
mobile. Emerging out of wider societal and cognitive pressures, knowledge is dynamic. It is
stimulated by continuous linking and relinking of influences across a dense communication
network with feedback loops. As a result, new configurations are continuously generated.

11
Klein, J. T. (1998). Social Epistemology of Transdisciplinarity. Bulletin Interactif du Centre International
de Recherches et tudes transdisciplinaires, 12 - February. Retrieved from http://perso.club-
internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htm.
12
Gibbons, M. et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in
Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
14
According to Edgar Morin, cognitive strategies tend to simplify knowledge and to
make it more complex in a complementary and contradictory manner
13
. On the one hand,
simplification: a) chooses what appears to be interesting for knowledge and eliminates
everything that is not considered its objective, b) takes into account what is stable and
certain, avoiding what is uncertain and ambiguous, c) produces knowledge that can be
easily used by and for action. On the other hand, complexification also aimed at
achieving effective action: a) tries to take into consideration the largest amount of data
and concrete information, and b) tries to identify and take into account what is varied,
variable, ambiguous, fortuitous, and uncertain.
The vital mission of knowledge involves therefore two complementary and at the
same time contradictory exigencies: simplifying and complexifying. Cognitive strategies
shall combine, vary and choose either simplification or complexification. In this sense,
Morin says that we shall assume our responsibility for the promotion and development of
diversity, and that we shall pursue to construct an epistemology that is rooted in the idea
that preserving variety is crucial for the survival of all living systems biological, but also
social ones. This type of epistemology shall also acknowledge the fact that homogeneity in
the biological world means rigidity and death, and that variation is a gift, that it means
richness and development, while monotony is equal to impoverishment.
Human intervention in the dynamics of complex systems can bring about
unexpected reactions of the affected system. Besides, human attempts to manage natural
systems have occasionally failed, because some practices that are positive for one part of
the system sometimes are not appropriate for the whole system
14
.
Taking into consideration that sustainability and sustainable development are
concepts that are strongly related to the ability of systems to absorb perturbations, evolve
and coevolve with other systems with which they interact, sustainability related policies
as they pursue profound transformation of social organization and economic activity
should go beyond multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches and get to work on the
basis of a transdisciplinary vision, through which problems and questions can be tackled
and addressed as a whole and within changing environments. Apart from including general
principles of protection, investment and cooperation, sustainability and sustainable
development should also involve permanent scientific research on the new technical and
institutional alternatives to protect resources from the action of destructive forces, as well
as investment in the possibilities of future resources and try to serve different interests. This
way, innovation becomes a crucial mechanism to better adjust the practices related to the
use of resources to the heterogeneous ecological and socioeconomic conditions, and to
adapt to changes
15
. Within this framework, if sustainability is understood as an integrating
and unifying principle based on the systems resilience
16
, political responses shall be

13
Morin, E. (2002). El Mtodo: El conocimiento del conocimiento. Madrid: Ediciones Ctedra. In A.
Elizalde, Universidad, Ciencia y Tecnologa para la Sustentabilidad. Universidad Mayor de San Simn,
Retrieved from http://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.doc.
14
Jimnez, L. (2002). La Sostenibilidad como Proceso de Equilibrio Dinmico y Adaptacin al Cambio.
Revista Desarrollo Sustentable, 800, June-July. Madrid: Facultad de Ciencias Econmicas e Instituto de
Ciencias Ambientales. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
15
Sikor, T. & Norgaard, R. (1999). Principles for Sustainability: Protection, Investment, Co-operation, and
Innovation. In J. Khn et al. (Ed.), Sustainability in Question, Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Publishing.
16
Maintenance of productivity and equity levels in the face of inner and outer perturbations.

15
framed within the context of the uncertainty inherent to the self-regulating dynamics of the
systems. The implementation of sustainability schemes not only requires the maintenance
of the ecosystems capabilities, but it is also necessary to promote the ability of human
systems to create social, economic and institutional maintenance mechanisms that are able
to strengthen their self-organizing resilience and their adaptation capacity.
There is an ever-growing need for a new vision oriented by preventive and
adaptation-based approaches, which allows for a better management of changing complex
systems. Professor Lovelock
17
even points out the inability of the human race to intervene
in environmental systems, which results from the lack of understanding and knowledge
regarding the reactions that can derive from such intervention. He stresses the inability of
the human race to manage organized complexity, while suggesting that the human race
shall be ascribed a modest role in the history of evolution. If we are to make more
sustainable the systems that are considered to be complex and adaptable (among which we
could include natural and human systems that interact systemically), we need to understand
the problems and restrictions of their evolutionary dynamics.
In such dynamics, however, it is important to consider that under certain conditions,
when systems are undergoing exaggerated tension, transformation processes are not
gradual, but bifurcation
18
points and abrupt changes emerge. As Ehrlich
19
points out, the
acceleration of cultural evolution is a factor that is typical of the human race that is
different from natural change, because people are able to plan and alter human
development. It is a key factor shaping our destiny in a more considerable way than
biological evolution itself.

Conclusions

Beyond the Leonardo World

Wherever we go in our world, we discover a deep-rooted, long-standing reason
founded on scientific and technical faculty, a reason that manages, builds, administrates and
destroys. Mittelstrass
20
calls this world the Leonardo World, after the great Renaissance
engineer, artist, philosopher and scientist, Leonardo da Vinci. It is a world in which man is
constantly confronted with his own works, a world which is increasingly becoming an
artifact, as fragile as nature but ever less nature itself. The Leonardo World is growing and
its motor is science and technology. Behind the widespread formula of technological
change stands an indisputable reality, the reality of a Leonardo World.
Jrgen Mittelstrass means transdisciplinary exchange in the sense of real
interdisciplinary research, since it affects the disciplines and subject-areas as well as their
historical boundaries. Interdisciplinary exchange in its correct sense neither moves in and
out between disciplines, nor floats above them. Instead, it abolishes the boundaries between
subject-areas and disciplines where these have lost their historical memory; thus, in truth, it
represents transdisciplinary exchange, but transdisciplinary exchange in the sense of real

17
Lovelock, J. (1992). GAIA: Una ciencia para curar el planeta. Barcelona: Integral, Oasis.
18
Laszlo, E. (1990). La gran bifurcacin. Barcelona: Gedisa.
19
Ehrlich, P. (2000). Human Nature. Washington DC: Island Press.
20
Mittelstrass, J. (1995). Transdisciplinarity. Panorama, 5, 45-53. Retrieved from
http://www.snf.ch/SPP_Umwelt/Transdisciplinariedad.htm
16
interdisciplinary research, which detaches itself from its disciplinary boundaries, defining
and solving its problems without recourse to specific disciplines. This, by the way, is what
important research has always done.
For Mittelstrass, it is clear that the path from discipline-based study to
transdisciplinary exchange leads neither to a unified theory of science nor to an inter-
discipline encompassing separate disciplines. The discipline-based system remains the
organizational form of the sciences, even if nature itself sets no frontiers between physics,
chemistry or biology; transdisciplinary exchange is a research imperative, not least because
of the problems developing for the world in which we live. However, the very fact that we
are confronted with the development of problems, in other words with their changing
constellations, signifies that, from an institutional point of view, transdisciplinary exchange
should not become anchored as a new inter-discipline. Not only should research be
organized on transdisciplinary lines and address the specific problems posed by a specific
case, but the real world should also enlist the sciences on a transdisciplinary basis to
approach the specific constellation of the problem at hand.
But speaking now in terms of both the theory and organization of science, that
transdisciplinary exchange is first and foremost a principle of research, and only in second
place a theoretical principle. As a principle of research, transdisciplinary exchange
connects the discipline-based sciences with their scientific future and with a real world
whose inner, rational form itself is a scientific one, a Leonardo World determined by
scientific progress. In this sense, the transdisciplinary future of science is also the future of
the world in which we live.

The Shift from unity to complexity

Complexity is a thematic of transdisciplinarity for several reasons. Modern societies
are increasingly ruled by unwanted side effects of their differentiated subsystems, such as
the economy, politics, law, media, and science
21
. These systems have developed their own
running modes or codes, to use Niklas Luhmanns term, that enable them to be highly
productive. Yet, differentiation produces imminent side effects in other fields that cannot be
handled within the codes of the system. Indicative of this development, the problems of
society are increasingly complex and interdependent. They are not isolated to particular
sectors or disciplines, and they are not predictable. They are emergent phenomena with
non-linear dynamics. Effects have positive and negative feedback to causes, uncertainties
will continue to arise, and unexpected results will occur. Reality, therefore, is a nexus of
interrelated phenomena that are not reducible to a single dimension.
Complexity is also a thematic of epistemological conceptualization of
transdisciplinarity as a form of post-normal science. Transdisciplinarity is also implicated
in a larger development the changing character of knowledge. Even in a single field,
there is a complex matrix of disciplines and fields. Work on sustainability, for instance, was
previously restricted to specialized, environmentally-oriented subdisciplines at the margins
of existing disciplines. The inclusion of stakeholders (those concerned and interested in

21
Klein, J. T. (2003). Unity of Knowledge and Transdisciplinarity: Contexts of Definition, Theory and the
New Discourse of Problem Solving. Detroit, Michigan: Interdisciplinary Studies Program, Wayne State
University. Retrieved from http://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htm

17
projects) not traditionally involved in research has been a further catalyst for change. The
strong problem-orientation also links transdisciplinarity and sustainability with action
research as a means for the study of complexity.

A broader and future view of transdisciplinarity

At the International Transdisciplinary Conference held in Zurich, February 27 -
March 1, 2000, a group
22
decided to call the attention of the participants at the Conference,
and other audiences, to their firm belief in the need to place the human being, in his
different levels, at the centre of concerns of Transdisciplinarity in science and society. As
explained by the authors, their Statement on a broader view of transdisciplinarity was made
by them as an essential enhancement of the conclusions of the Conference. To conclude, we
shall point out the key points that coincide with our analysis, which would allow for a
prospective approach of the topic handled:

1. We believe that the transdisciplinary vision offers an active, open concept of nature
and the human being, which, while not exhaustive, can be used more effectively to
help achieve the goal of human survival and justice than can any definition or
reduction to a formal structure. This vision transcends the individual fields of the
exact sciences, the humanities and social sciences and encourages them to become
reconciled with one another and with art, literature, poetry and spiritual experience
and to validate their respective insights.
2. Transdisciplinary epistemology, attitude and practice imply the recognition of the
methodological utility of the concepts of the three pillars of transdisciplinarity
complexity, the logic of the included middle, and levels of Reality (fractality)
all of which emerge from the data of modern (quantum physics) science, from the
dialogue with other cultures and from the cognitive corpus of all the great
knowledge traditions of the present and of the past. Therefore, transdisciplinary
epistemology, attitude and practice require a spirit of rigor, openness and tolerance
of other points of view, and a commitment to transdisciplinary resolution of
differences. To solve problems efficiently, it is necessary to adopt transdisciplinary
understanding of complexity and its descriptions as in systems theory and 2nd order
cybernetics. Such a methodology is essential to help ensure real changes in society
including new social, economic and organizational forms and make possible critical
advances in problem solving.
3. A transdisciplinary approach is required to resolve the contradictory truths of the
triad Democracy - Science - Market Economy, at the level of social reality.
However, at a higher intellectual level of reality, the triad Metaphysics -
Epistemology - Poetry are co-participants in the dynamic development of new
knowledge of space, time, causality, truth and contradiction, and provide needed
insights into the relation between the real and the imaginary. A complete

22
Joseph E. Brenner, Ph.D., Les Diablerets, Switzerland; Paulius Kulikauskas, Byfornyelse Danmark,
Denmark and Lithuania; Maria F. de Mello, Researcher at CETRANS Transdisciplinariedad Educational
Center) - Escola do Futuro, University of So Paulo, Brazil; K.V. Raju, from Anand, India; Amrico
Sommerman, publisher, coordinator of CETRANS - Escola do Futuro - University of So Paulo, Brazil; Dr.
Nils-Gran Sundin, docent, Collegium Europaeum, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from the Internet,
Byfornyelse Denmark, Copenhagen (2000) http://www.transdisciplinariedad.net/statemnt.htm
18
transdisciplinary approach to problem solving therefore requires integration of the
insights of both levels.
4. Sustainability of each human being and of development of their society is a central
concern. The principles, logic and methodology of transdisciplinarity shall provide a
framework for understanding the ontological and ethical basis of sustainability, in:
a. an understanding of it as part of the dynamics of nature;
b. a vision of the complex interdependence of individuals, institutions and
communities implying their increased commitment to sustainable mutual
benefit to the individual and society;
c. a model for a humane form of globalization, going beyond a society of
knowledge for profit to one which reveals and uses knowledge in a context
of mutual respect, trust and responsibility for action.

References

Bak P. & Chen K. (1991). Self-organized Criticality. Scientific American, 264, 46-53.

ECLAC. (5-7 March 2002). Report on the Latin American and Caribbean Regional Workshop on Science and
Technology for Sustainable Development. Santiago, Chile.

Edmonds, B. (1996). What is Complexity? The philosophy of complexity per se with application to some
examples in evolution. In F. Heylighen & D. Aerts (Eds.), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Ehrlich, P. (2000). Human Nature. Washington DC: Island Press.

Floriani, D. (1999). Interdisciplinariedad: Teora y Prctica en la Investigacin y la Enseanza Ambiental.
Retrieved from http://www.casla.com.br/artigos/art4.htm. Presented at the Latin American and Caribbean
Workshop on Environmental Education, held in Santiago de Cali, Colombia, in November 1999, in which the
central topic was Interdisciplinarity: theory and practice in environmental education and research.

Garca, R. (1994). Interdisciplinariedad y sistemas complejos. Ciencias Sociales y Formacin Ambiental.
Barcelona: Gedisa.

Gibbons, M. et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in
Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.

Haken, H. (1990). Synergetik: eine Einfhrung; Nichtgleichgewichts-Phasenbergnge und
Selbstorganisation in Physik, Chemie und Biologie. 3rd rev. and enl. ed. Berlin: Springer.

Havel, I. (1995). Scale Dimensions in Nature. International Journal of General Systems 23 (2), 303-332.
Retrieved from http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~havel/work/scales-1.html

Heylighen, F. (1990). Relational Closure: a mathematical concept for distinction-making and complexity
analysis. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Cybernetics and Systems '90: World Science Publishers (pp. 335-342). Retrieved
from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/RelClosure.html

Heylighen, F. (1997). The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution. In F. Heylighen
& D. Aerts (Eds.), The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Retrieved from
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ComplexityGrowth.html

Jimnez, L. (2002). La Sostenibilidad como Proceso de Equilibrio Dinmico y Adaptacin al Cambio. Revista
Desarrollo Sustentable, 800, June-July. Madrid: Facultad de Ciencias Econmicas e Instituto de Ciencias
Ambientales. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
19

Klein, J. T. (1998). Social Epistemology of Transdisciplinarity. Bulletin Interactif du Centre International de
Recherches et tudes transdisciplinaires, 12 - February. Retrieved from http://perso.club-
internet.fr/nicol/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c2.htm.

Klein, J. T. (2003). Unity of Knowledge and Transdisciplinarity: Contexts of Definition, Theory and the New
Discourse of Problem Solving. Detroit, Michigan: Interdisciplinary Studies Program, Wayne State University.
Retrieved from http://www.mines.edu/newdirections/essay2.htm

Laszlo, E. (1990). La gran bifurcacin. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Lovelock, J. (1992). GAIA: Una ciencia para curar el planeta. Barcelona: Integral, Oasis.

Mittelstrass, J. (1995). Transdisciplinarity. Panorama, 5, 45-53. Retrieved from
http://www.snf.ch/SPP_Umwelt/Transdisciplinariedad.htm

Morin, E. (2002). El Mtodo: El conocimiento del conocimiento. Madrid: Ediciones Ctedra. In A. Elizalde,
Universidad, Ciencia y Tecnologa para la Sustentabilidad. Universidad Mayor de San Simn, Retrieved
from http://www.ubolivariana.cl/centro/universidad,ciencia%20ytecnologia.doc.

Sikor, T. & Norgaard, R. (1999). Principles for Sustainability: Protection, Investment, Co-operation, and
Innovation. In J. Khn et al. (Ed.), Sustainability in Question, Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Publishing.

The Hannover Principles. Design for Sustainability. Prepared for EXPO 2000. The Worlds Fair. Hannover,
Germany 1992 William McDonough Architects.