Policymaking at the Edge of Chaos: Musings on Political Ideology Through the Lens of Complexity
Dr. Christopher Ford • January 20, 2011
A monograph struggling with what lessons one might learn from Complexity Science to help understand politics and ideology. It is also available here, from Hudson Institute.
Paper Presented to the Conference on
“Is Complexity the New Framework for the Study of Global Life?”
Sydney, Australia
(January 19-20, 2011)
Synopsis:
Though there seems little reason why it should not yield insights when applied to the complex adaptive systems of human society, the field of Complexity Theory presents special problems for anyone looking to it for lessons in the field of public policymaking. In particular, complex systems’ nonlinearity and sensitivity to initial conditions seems to have subversive implications for policymaking, inasmuch as the unpredictability that they imply undercuts the very possibility of purposive policymaking. Complexity presents a “policymaker’s paradox,” for even as is suggests that small policy inputs can sometimes have an enormous impact upon systemic outcomes, it also seems to teach that we cannot predict what results our policy choices are likely to have over time. When outcomes are radically resistant to prediction, they are also necessarily resistant to the sort of deliberate control that policymaking traditionally assumes it possible to assert.
After outlining this dilemma, this paper explores one possible, albeit only partial, response: an approach to policymaking that focuses with special emphasis upon shaping the conceptual frameworks that guide and channel human behavior within complex adaptive social systems. Experts continue to debate the degree to which Complexity insights from the hard sciences can translate into the social sciences. A focus upon the ideational constraints upon, and drivers for, unit-level operational behavior in a social system seems warranted, however, because humans’ susceptibility to tying behavior to such frameworks distinguishes them from unit-level elements of the complex systems investigated in other fields (e.g., chemistry, physics, computing, mathematics, or evolutionary biology). Accordingly, this paper suggests the possibility that policy interventions in the realm of ideas may have more potential to create transformative change than many other types of intervention. Such interventions are perhaps also able to produce change that is more “predictable” than Complexity would otherwise tend to suggest, inasmuch as conceptual “memetics” can create characteristic behavioral patterns over time as ideas propagate themselves in conceptual “families” and thus continue to shape actors’ choices in recognizable ways.
The paper explores this notion through the use of a case study: the evolution of the “separate development” ideology of racial apartheid in South Africa from the 1950s to the beginning of the 1990s. Outlining the origins of this system in a deliberate effort of ideological entrepreneurship by ideologists within that country’s then-ruling National Party, the paper then follows the evolution of separate development theory as it struggled with domestic and international contestation, internal contradictions and tensions, and competition from other ideological frameworks until its effective dissolution with the coming of universal franchise within a system of constitutional rights in the early 1990s. This paper uses examples from the history of South African separate development theory to illustrate Complexity Theory’s utility as a lens through which to examine political ideology, and to suggest – in light of the peculiar power ideas seem to have to shape behavior, for good or ill – the potential value of a more self-consciously ideational approach to public policy.
In this article in Volume 1, Issue 3 of the Missouri State Univeristy's online journal Defense & Strategic Studies Online (pp. 1-89), Dr. Christopher Ford, John Schurtz, and Erik Quam offer a detailed analytical account of how cybernetic theories of social control developed by the scientist Qian Xuesen and his disciples were adopted by the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and are today critical to understanding the Party’s domestic governance and foreign relations. You can see the whole issue on DASSO's website here , read the Ford/Schurtz/Quam article here , or use the button below to access a PDF of the article.
Below are the prepared remarks upon which Dr. Ford based some of his contributions on a panel on “Tech for War or Tech for Peace? Science, Innovation, and Emerging Technologies in a New Geopolitical Era” at a conference in Reykjavik, Iceland, on May 22, 2025, sponsored by the Arms Control Negotiation Academy (ACONA) and the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF).
Below is the prepared text upon which Dr. Ford based his opening remarks on May 21, 2025, when moderating the opening panel – entitled “NATO and Allied Perspectives on Multi-Domain Operations: A Common Understanding or Diverging Views?” – at the conference on Multi-Domain Operations sponsored by NATO’s Supreme Allied Command Transformation (ACT) in Ankara, Türkiye. (His remarks consisted only of his personal views, and do not necessarily represent those of anyone else.)
Below is the text upon which Dr. Ford based his remarks on a webinar organized by the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP) on April 28, 2025.
Below is the prepared text upon which Dr. Ford drew in making his informal remarks on April 21, 2025, at the biennial nuclear policy conference held by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. You can find a video of the panel discussion here .
Below is the text upon which Dr. Ford drew in making his informal remarks to a March 13, 2025, workshop as part of the “Future of Arms Control Project” sponsored by the Geneva Graduate Institute’s Centre on Conflict, Development & Peacebuilding (CCDP).
The National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP) published Dr. Ford's paper " Struggling with The Bomb: Competing Discourses in the Nuclear Disarmament Movement" in February 2025, as the second paper in Volume 5 of its Occasional Papers series. You can find Dr. Ford's paper on NIPP's website here , or use the button below to download a PDF.
Dr. Ford and Lord Nigel Biggar published their essay on " Rebutting Sino-Russian Political Discourse and Getting Rights Right" in the Winter 2025 issue of Defense & Strategic Studies Online (DASSO). You can find the DASSO homepage here , read the full second issue of DASSO here , access the Ford/Biggar essay online here , or use the button below to download a PDF of the essay.
Below is the text upon which Dr. Ford based his remarks to a conference at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on February 20, 2025.
Below is the text upon which Dr. Ford based his remarks on February 18, 2025, to a Track 2 dialogue with Russia on Military Risk Reduction in Europe.