{\rtf1\ansi\deff0\deftab720{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss MS Sans Serif;}{\f1\froman\fcharset2 Symbol;}{\f2\froman Times New Roman;}{\f3\froman Times New Roman;}}
{\colortbl\red0\green0\blue0;}
\deflang1033\pard\qc\plain\f2\fs24 THREE WINGED BIRD: CHAOTIC STRANGE ATTRACTORS 
\par AND THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIOPOLITICAL COMPLEXITY
\par 
\par Carole L. Crumley
\par University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par \plain\f2\fs24\b 
\par 
\par "All real living is meeting.  Meeting is not in time and space, but space and time in meeting."\plain\f2\fs24 
\par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Martin Buber
\par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab quoted in Jantsch (1982)
\par 
\par \plain\f2\fs24\b INTRODUCTION\plain\f2\fs24 
\par \tab This paper reviews current thinking about complexity and change, through time and in space.  It makes use of insights drawn from physics, computer engineering and artificial intelligence, anthropology, biology, ecology, business, education, and religion.  The utility of these convergent lines of thought to the study of sociocultural complexity will, I hope, be evident; however, please be warned that these are new ideas for many of you and for me as well; my goal in this paper is to introduce some new research tools that I have myself only begun to explore. 
\par 
\par \plain\f2\fs24\b SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEMS AND THE EDGE OF CHAOS\plain\f2\fs24 
\par \tab Charles Darwin's vision of how change occurs in living organisms is, for the first time since its general acceptance, being seriously challenged.  To be sure, the concept of evolution, despite some tinkering with issues of timing by means of the concept of punctuated equilibrium, still has abundant evidential affirmation.  The challenge is not that evolution does not occur, but that it is not \plain\f2\fs24\b sufficient\plain\f2\fs24  to explain the complexity of the universe. 
\par \tab Researchers at the Santa Fe Institute have, since its founding in 1984, concentrated on understanding complexity; in concert with investigators elsewhere, they have a new candidate idea which they term \plain\f2\fs24\b self-organization\plain\f2\fs24 .  A clear exposition of their findings may be found in Stuart Kauffman's \plain\f2\fs24\b At Home in the Universe\plain\f2\fs24  (1995).
\par \tab Briefly, they argue that the introduction of transmission errors through mutation and the operation of selection do not alone explain the complexity that may be seen in myriad living systems, from fireflies to fiddle music.  They assert that evolution forces us to see a universe in which randomness alone explains the infinitisimal chance that life could be created out of a chemical soup.
\par \tab They argue that a second, more fundamental source of order exists, called self-organization.  This means that there is a synergy that comes from communication, and that two (or more) communicating entities have different properties than each alone or their non-communicating kin.  Groups of communicating organisms, if sufficently diverse, can become self-sustaining, i.e., alive; this is termed \plain\f2\fs24\ul autopoiesis\plain\f2\fs24 .  Thereby they may be transformed into a more complex system, the step-wise evolution of which is termed \plain\f2\fs24\ul anagenesis\plain\f2\fs24  (Jantsch 1982:345, Kaufmann 1995:64).  Autopoiesis is also referred to as receiver-based communication, where all agents report to other agents what is happening to them (Kauffman 1995:267).  The human body is a good example of autopoiesis; the evolution of the human mind is an example of anagenesis (Mithen 1996).
\par    \tab The governing assumption here is holism, the idea that the organism is more than just the sum of its parts.  The self-organization researchers are critical of the past three centuries of positivist scientific endeavor, where the basic assumption is that if the entity (living or not) can be broken down into its constituent parts, its behavior can be understood.  
\par \tab This holism argument is familiar to anthropologists, who take the holistic view that culture is greater than the sum of its parts, and who are critical of disciplines that examine partialness and practice reductionism.  Standing between the holism of anthropology and the reductionism of other social and physical sciences is archaeology, where the condition of the interpretive terrain is always treacherous and evidence is always partial.  Given archaeology's brokering position, it is entirely understandable that archaeologists have worked hard to fit their recalcitrant data into the dainty shoe of Darwinian evolution (Dunnell et al ref here).
\par \tab The Santa Fe scholars and their colleagues do not advocate the abandonment of Darwinian evolution as a central paradigm, but rather the \plain\f2\fs24\b addition\plain\f2\fs24  of self-organization.  Together, they argue, selection and self-organization form the structure of the universe; neither alone suffices.  Together, Darwinian evolution and self-organization bring order from chaos: self-organization creates new forms and evolution judges their goodness of fit.  Each new stage of organization has the potential for further evolution (De Greene 1996:276).
\par \tab Related research has explored \plain\f2\fs24\b chaos\plain\f2\fs24 .  Chaos is a condition, and implies the existence of unpredictable or random aspects in dynamic systems.  This is not necessarily undesirable, as it is also a source of creativity; as the American essayist and historian Henry Adams put it, "Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit" (\'c7ambel 1993:15).  Far from exhibiting the absence of order, chaotic systems have structure and operate within demonstrable parameters.  
\par \tab Antecedent conditions always affect system parameters (thresholds) and thus system stability.  System parameters can be known, but they cannot always be predicted.  If we envision order to be predictability, then chaos would be surprise (Kauffman 1995:15).  Systems in equilibrium (such as a ball in the bottom of a bowl) are low-energy; it is the high-energy non-equilibrium but nonetheless ordered systems (such as the human organism or the governance of a complex polity) that we seek to understand.
\par \tab Such systems invariably operate at the edge of chaos, that is to say their behavior is quite unpredictable, but not entirely so.  The key to predictability lies in understanding \plain\f2\fs24\b attractors\plain\f2\fs24 , which are sources of order in large dynamic systems (Kauffman 1995:79).  Attractors are the form, or state, that a cycle of change takes.  
\par \tab For example, consider a pendulum suspended from a height and moving through space and in time.  We can know the rules that govern its movement and have high expectations of its predictability.  This is called a \plain\f2\fs24\b fixed-point attractor\plain\f2\fs24 .  [SHOW OVERHEAD HERE].  A slightly less predictable attractor is called a \plain\f2\fs24\b limit cycle\plain\f2\fs24 , of which predator-prey relationships are an example.  A \plain\f2\fs24\b torus attractor\plain\f2\fs24  is useful in thinking about systems with many degrees of freedom; an example here would be two predator-prey relationships that are connected.  Finally, a \plain\f2\fs24\b strange attractor\plain\f2\fs24  would characterize complex aperiodic systems, like a whirlpool.  Strange attractors are highly irregular but crucial to dissipating dynamic systems and are associated with chaos.  The different attractors are related, in that each demonstrates some set of pattern and regularity, even strange attractors (\'c7ambel 1993:69).  The phase-space in which the attractors operate is called their \plain\f2\fs24\b basin of attraction\plain\f2\fs24 .
\par \tab Evolution and self-organization form a \plain\f2\fs24\b dialectic\plain\f2\fs24 , which \plain\f2\fs24\ul cancels\plain\f2\fs24  the utility of old forms with new, unexpected, conditions [chaos], and drawing on a fund of diversity; \plain\f2\fs24\ul preserves\plain\f2\fs24  some old elements of those forms and discards others [selection]; then \plain\f2\fs24\ul transcends\plain\f2\fs24  the previous form by creating a new, more complex form [the interface between order and chaos].  
\par \tab Such an understanding of human history is profoundly non-linear, while remaining holistic and cumulative.  It appropriately reminds us of the need for balance: the more complex (i.e., densely connected) the system, the more likely it is to be unstable, yet systems at the edge of chaos have order and are flexible and creative.
\par \tab As Goodwin (1994:xiv) has put it, "It is relational order \plain\f2\fs24\ul between\plain\f2\fs24  components that matters more than material composition in living processes, so that emergent qualities predominate over quantities.  This consequence extends to social structure, where relationships, creativity and values are of primary significance."
\par 
\par \plain\f2\fs24\b MATRICES AND HETERARCHIES\plain\f2\fs24 
\par \tab Research into what is termed matrix organizational structure began in the 1960s and today has widespread influence, especially in the international business community (Janger 1963, Davis and Lawrence 1977, Knight 1977, Hill and White 1979, Janger 1979, Business International Corporation 1981, Cleland 1984, Kerzner and Cleland 1985, Benedetto 1985, Bartlett and Baber 1987, Kramer 1994, Wheatley 1994, Morrill 1995).  
\par \tab Drawing on work in self-organization and chaos, matrix organizations employ non-hierarchical decision making systems that include a multiple command structure, and appropriate support mechanisms, organizational culture, and behavior pattern.  \tab As Japanese companies gained market share in the 1970s, the traditional Japanese \plain\f2\fs24\ul kieretsu\plain\f2\fs24 , which are networks of industrial, transportation, and financial "societies of business," were closely analyzed by the Western business community.  The first American matrix organizations, loosely organized around some of the kieretsu features, emerged in response to the then-novel organizational requirements of the aerospace industry; as global markets became commonplace in the 1990s, these power and resource matrices also became multivalent ones of sca le and value.  
\par \tab Matrix organizations are characterized by shared resources  and power, flexible \plain\f2\fs24\ul ad\plain\f2\fs24  \plain\f2\fs24\ul hoc\plain\f2\fs24  teams that undertake multiple and changing projects, and the cultivation of diverse clients and markets.  Management authority structures (whose knowledge is valued?) and responsibility structures (who makes sure the job is done?) are \plain\f2\fs24\ul disconnected\plain\f2\fs24  from one another, but those responsible are \plain\f2\fs24\ul connected\plain\f2\fs24  with those who, through their work, implement decisions.  Because of their emphasis on communication, matrices cannot be simply installed in the workplace, but need to grow over a period of time (Davis and Lawrence 1977).
\par \tab Particularly valuable to students of complex societies, there has been much "strengths-and-weaknesses" analysis of matrix organizations in the two decades since they have been undertaken.  I am especially interested in this literature because it is a laboratory for examining the dialectical relation between hierarchy and heterarchy (Crumley 1979, 1987, 1995; Crumley and Marquardt 1987).
\par \tab I define \plain\f2\fs24\ul hierarchy\plain\f2\fs24  (the classic organizational pyramid commonly found in business and government) as a structure composed of elements which on the basis of certain factors are subordinate to others and may be ranked (Crumley 1979:44, 1987:158).  In a \plain\f2\fs24\ul control hierarchy\plain\f2\fs24  each higher level exerts control over the next lower level; the US court system and the army are control hierarchies.  By contrast, disturbances at any level in a \plain\f2\fs24\ul scalar hierarchy\plain\f2\fs24  can affect any other scales (Crumley 1995:2).  This is because in control hierarchies authority and responsibility are isomorphic and communication is a commodity to be hoarded.  In scalar hierarchies, for better or worse, elements at all scales are in communication with elements at all other scales.
\par \tab I define \plain\f2\fs24\ul heterarchy\plain\f2\fs24  as the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways, depending on conditions (Crumley 1987a:158).  Power, understood from a heterarchical perspective, is counterpoised and linked to values, which are fluid and respond to changing situations.  This definition of heterarchy and its application to social systems is congruent with McCulloch's (1945) understanding of how the brain works.
\par \tab It was McCulloch, who was a strong influence on the self-organizing systems theorist Kauffman (Kauffman 1995:xx), who first employed heterarchy in a contemporary context.  He examines independent cognitive structures in the brain, the collective organization of which he terms heterarchy.  He demonstrates that the human brain is not organized hierarchically but adjusts to the reranking of values.  
\par \tab For example, someone may highly value human life in general, but be \plain\f2\fs24\ul against\plain\f2\fs24  abortion rights and \plain\f2\fs24\ul for\plain\f2\fs24  the death penalty (or vice versa).  The context of the inquiry and changing (and frequently conflicting) values (Cancian 1965, Bailey 1971, Crumley 1987b) mitigates this logical inconsistency and is related to what Bateson (1972) terms a "double bind."  Priorities are re-ranked relative to conditions and can result in major structural adjustment (Crumley and Marquardt 615-617), to a level of greater or lesser complexity.
\par \tab In summary, heterarchies are self-organizing systems which exhibit fractal qualities, the elements of which stand in dialectical relation to one another.  In social systems, the power of various elements may fluctuate relative to conditions, one of the most important of which is the degree of systemic communication.
\par 
\par \plain\f2\fs24\b COMMUNICATION AND LEARNING\plain\f2\fs24 
\par \tab McCulloch's understanding about the autonomous nature of information stored in the brain and how parts of the brain communicate revolutionized the neural study of the brain and solved major organizational problems in the fields of artificial intelligence and computer design (Minsky and Papert 1972).  What McCulloch realized was that, in the brain, information stored in bundles as values in one part of the brain may or may not be correlated with information stored elsewhere, depending on the context; in computer terminology, subroutine A can subsume subroutine B and vice versa, depending on the program.
\par \tab A means of understanding systemic parameters called rule-based learning has been successfully employed in the study of global climate, a complex, dissapative system which has both long- and short-term impacts on human society (Gunn and Grzymala-Busse 1994).  The LERS (Learning from Examples based on Rough Sets) program, termed the leave-one-out test, systematically leaves the global average temperature for each of a series of years out of the calculation, regenerates the rules with each year missing, and determines if it can identify the climate of the removed year.  
\par \tab The study identifies three attractors (forms or states that a cycle of change takes) which the global climate system revisits with variable periodicity; perhaps most importantly it explores three principles: trends, canceling roles, and reinforcing roles, which determine the nature of each basin of attraction.  Rule-based learning offers a means by which the history and future of two complex systems, global climate and human societies, can be understood.
\par \tab Educators (Fleener and Pourdavood 1997) note that the development of communication is important for both the emergence of cognition in human history and the coupling of humans within a social domain (1997:10).  They relate autopoiesis--the self-renewing, autonomous, reproductive aspect of self-organization--to two levels of communication, language and social structure.  The history of that dialectical relation is retained in the form of social memory (McIntosh \plain\f2\fs24\ul et\plain\f2\fs24  \plain\f2\fs24\ul al\plain\f2\fs24 . n.d.), which is collectively stored and passed on from generation to generation (Gunn 1994, Crumley n.d.).  This is, of course, an essential definition of culture. 
\par \tab Following Mingers (1995), Fleener and Pourdavood evoke (in my terms) a \plain\f2\fs24\ul scalar\plain\f2\fs24  hierarchy of systems, ranging from the simplest (static, mechanical) to the most complex (language, self-consciousness).  In human societies, the structural coupling of organisms into social systems promotes particular clusters of values.  This is the same argument advanced by Jantsch (1982:349), for all scales must and do make up a holistic world. [SHOW CHART HERE]
\par \tab The control of information in complex polities has been the subject of considerable research (e.g., Johnson 1982), but the focus has been on the flow of information to decision makers, rather than in the degree of connectivity among all elements of the population.  While control over information is always a source of individuated power, the study of self-organizing systems demonstrates the utility of a more inclusive and social definition of communication.
\par 
\par \plain\f2\fs24\b LIMINALITY\plain\f2\fs24 
\par \tab Self-organizing systems are able to perform the most sophisticated computations when operating at the boundary between order and randomness (Langton 1992).  By measures of adaptability and interactivity, human societies are arguably the most complex category of self-organizing system known.  
\par \tab The concept of self-organizing systems suggests that human adaptive success is related to the juxtaposition of ecological and cognitive liminality (Ellen 1982, Turner 1995) with flexible (heterarchical) power relations.  Humans are an ecotonal species, as evidenced by our beginnings on the forest/savannah margin and by our millennial fever to build and connect despite clear risks. 
\par Furthermore, creativity and innovation is often associated with individuals and groups at the margins of social space (Barnett 1953).
\par  \tab A key component of belief systems all over the world is the "sacred space" of the liminal experience, where it is possible through ritually altered states (fasting, prayer, ritual intoxication, etc.) to communicate with beings at higher levels of consciousness.  Most religious teachings counsel empathic communication, both with other humans and with Divinity; to fail to communicate (engage in prayer, penance, ritual activity) is to break faith.
\par 
\par \plain\f2\fs24\b THE STATE OF THE STATE\plain\f2\fs24 
\par \tab What does all this have to do with archaeologists' study of complex societies?  I believe a great deal.  What self-organizing systems and chaos theory give us is no less than a new, nonlinear way to think about human biological and cultural evolution.  Kauffman (1995:90) asserts that "The reason complex systems exist on or near the edge of chaos is because evolution takes them there."  At each successive level of integration, new ordering principles come into play (Jantsch 1982:348).
\par \tab If the interface between order and chaos is the source of systemic creativity (that is, the potential of the system to completely change its parameters and become more richly networked) but runs the constant risk of systemic failure, then the human species and even individual human lives (an application of fractals) are all examples.  
\par \tab While hierarchy undoubtedly dominates power relations in some state societies, coalitions, federations, democracies, and other examples of shared, counterpoised, heterarchical state power abound.  Service (1971) correctly emphasizes the role of associations, organizations that cross-cut kin lines and that, while extant in all societies, most profoundly characterize states.  
\par \tab As sources of societal power diversify, markets expand, and belief systems and ethnicities multiply, communication in rigidly hierarchical form proves unable to contain chaotic systemic behavior.  The resulting revolution, while always joined with democratic (heterarchical) ideals, does not necessarily reform hierarchical state structure (Marx 1964).
\par \tab Like the dialectic between evolution and self-organization, the hierarchy-heterarchy dialectic offers a new way of analyzing dynamic power relations from temporal, spatial, and cognitive perspectives.  The workplace-based study of matrix business organizations offers in microcosm the issues that affect state stability, and the characterization of attractors and basins of attraction reconceptualizes the study of central tendencies in both organic and inorganic systems.
\par \tab Whether we will ever be able to \plain\f2\fs24\ul predict\plain\f2\fs24  (or retrodict) state system behavior or not, it may be possible to better characterize state dynamics.  At the very least, the approach suggested here 
\par offers a fresh way of answering old questions about the origins of both human society and the state.  
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par \plain\f2\fs24\ul Acknowledgements\plain\f2\fs24 
\par \tab Thanks to Rebecca Crist, Julianne Maher, and Jonathan Walz, and especially to Joel Gunn for pushing me over the edge into chaos.
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par \pard\qc\plain\f2\fs24 BIBLIOGRAPHY
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Anderla, Georges, Anthony Dunning, and Simon Forge
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1997\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Chaotics: An Agenda for Business and society in the 21st Century\plain\f2\fs24 .  Westport CT: Praeger.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Bailey, F. G., ed.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1971\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Gifts and Poison: the Politics of Reputation\plain\f2\fs24 .  Oxford: Basil Blackwell.  
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Barnett, Homer
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1953\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: McGraw-Hill.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Bartlett, Robert V. and Walter F. Baber
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1987\tab Matrix Organization Theory and Environmental Impact Analysis: A Fertile Union?  \plain\f2\fs24\ul Natural Resources Journal\plain\f2\fs24  27:605-615.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Bateson, Gregory
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1972\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Steps Toward an Ecology of Mind\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: Ballentine.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Beaumont, Roger
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1994\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul War, Chaos, and History\plain\f2\fs24 .  Westport CT: Praeger.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Benedetto, Richard F.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1985\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Matrix Management: Theory in Practice\plain\f2\fs24 .  Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Boissevain, Jeremy
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1974\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Friends of Friends: Network, Manipulators and Coalitions\plain\f2\fs24 .  Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Business International Corporation
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1981\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul New Directions in Multinational Corporate Organization\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: Business International Corporation.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par \'c7ambel, A. B.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1993\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Applied Chaos Theory: A paradigm for Complexity\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: Academic Press.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Cancian, Frank
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1965\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Economics and Prestige in a Maya Community: the Religious Cargo System in Zincantan\plain\f2\fs24 .  Stanford: Stanford University Press.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Cleland, David I., ed.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1984\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Matrix Management Systems Handbook\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: Van Nostrand.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Crumley, Carole L.
\par 1979\tab Three Locational Models: An Epistemological Assessment for Anthropology and Archaeology.  Michael B. Schiffer (ed.) \plain\f2\fs24\ul Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory\plain\f2\fs24 , pp. 141-173. 
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1987a  A Dialectical Critique of Hierarchy.  \plain\f2\fs24\ul Power Relations and State Formation\plain\f2\fs24 , Thomas C. Patterson and Christine Ward Gailey, eds., pp. 155-168.  Washington: American Anthropological Association.
\par 1987b  Celtic Settlement before the Conquest: The Dialectics of Landscape and Power.  \plain\f2\fs24\ul Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective\plain\f2\fs24 .  San Diego: Academic Press.
\par 1995\tab Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies.  \plain\f2\fs24\ul Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies\plain\f2\fs24 .  Robert M. Ehrenreich, Carole L. Crumley, & Janet E. Levy, eds.  Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association no. 6, pp. 1-5.   Washington: American Anthropological Association.
\par n.d.\tab From Garden to Globe: Linking Time and Space with Meaning and Memory.  ms.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Crumley, Carole L. and William H. Marquardt, eds.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1987\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective\plain\f2\fs24 .  San Diego: Academic Press.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Davis, Stanley M. and Paul R. Lawrence
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1977\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Matrix\plain\f2\fs24 .  Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par De Greene, Kenyon B.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1996\tab Field-Theoretic Framework for the Interpretation of the Evolution, Instability, Structural Change, and Management of Complex Systems.  L. Douglas Kiel and Euel Elliott, eds., \plain\f2\fs24\ul Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications\plain\f2\fs24 .  Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Ellen, Roy
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1982\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Environment, Subsistence, System: The Ecology of Small Scale Social Formations\plain\f2\fs24 .  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Fleener, M. Jayne and Roland G. Pourdavood
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1997\tab Autopoesis and Change: Ontological Considerations and Implications of School Reform.  Under review.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Goldberger, Ary L.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1996\tab Non-linear dynamics for clinicians: chaos theory, fractals, and complexity at the bedside.  \plain\f2\fs24\ul Lancet\plain\f2\fs24  347:1312-14.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Goodwin, Brian
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1994\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul How the Leopard Changed its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity\plain\f2\fs24 .  London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Gunn, Joel D.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1994\tab Global Climate and Regional Biocultural Diversity.  \plain\f2\fs24\ul Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes\plain\f2\fs24 , Carole L. Crumley, ed., pp. 67-97.  Santa Fe: School of American Research.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Gunn, Joel D. and Jerzy W. Grzymala-Busse
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1994\tab Global Temperature Stability by Rule Induction: An Interdisciplinary Bridge.  \plain\f2\fs24\ul Human Ecology\plain\f2\fs24  22(1)59-81.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Haken, Hermann
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1983\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Advanced Synergetics: Instability Hierarchies of Self-Organizing Systems and Devices\plain\f2\fs24 .  Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Harvey, David L. and Michael Reed
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1996\tab Social Science as the Study of Complex Systems.  L. Douglas Kiel and Euel Elliott, eds., \plain\f2\fs24\ul Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications\plain\f2\fs24 .  Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Hill, Raymond E. and Bernard J. White
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1979\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Matrix Organization & Project Management\plain\f2\fs24 .  Michigan Business Papers Number 64.  Ann Arbor: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Michigan.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Janger, Allen R.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1963\tab Anatomy of the Project Organization.  \plain\f2\fs24\ul The Conference Business Management Record\plain\f2\fs24 , November 1963.
\par 1979\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Matrix Organization of Complex Businesses\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: The Conference Board.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Jantsch, Erich
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1982\tab From Self-Reference to Self-Transcendance: The Evolution of Self-Organization Dynamics.  William C. Schieve and Peter M. Allen, eds., \plain\f2\fs24\ul Self-Organization and Dissipative Structures: Applications in the Physical and Social Sciences\plain\f2\fs24 .  Austin: University of Texas Press.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Johnson, Gregory A.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1982\tab Organizational structure and scalar stress.  Colin Renfrew, Michael J. Rowlands and Barbara J. Seagraves, eds. \plain\f2\fs24\ul Theory and Explanation in Archaeology\plain\f2\fs24 , pp. 389-422.  New York: Academic Press.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Kauffman, Stuart A.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1993\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: Oxford University Press.
\par 1995\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul At Home in the Universe\plain\f2\fs24 .
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Kerzner, Harold and David I. Cleland
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1985\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Project/Matrix Management Policy and Strategy: Cases and Situations\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: Van Nostrand.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Kiel, L. Douglas and Euel Elliott, eds.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1996\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications\plain\f2\fs24 .  Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Knight, Kenneth, ed.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1977\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Matrix Management\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: PBI.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Kramer, Robert J.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1994\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul organizing for Global Competitiveness: the Matrix Design\plain\f2\fs24 .  Report Number 1088-94-RR.  New York: the Conference Board.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Langton, C. G., ed.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1992\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Artificial Live II: Proceedings of the Workshop on Artificial Life\plain\f2\fs24 .  Santa Fe, NM.  Redwood City: Addison-Wesley.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Marx, Karl
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1964\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: International Publishers.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par McCulloch, Warren S.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1945\tab A heterarchy of values determined by the topology of nervous nets.  \plain\f2\fs24\ul Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics\plain\f2\fs24  7:89-93.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par McIntosh, Roderick J., Susan K. McIntosh, and Joseph Tainter, eds.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 n.d.\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Archaeology and Social Memory\plain\f2\fs24 .  in preparation, Series in Historical Ecology, William Balee and Carole Crumley, eds., Columbia University Press.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Mingers, J.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1995\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: Plenum.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Minsky, M. and S. Papert
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1972\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Artificial Intelligence Progress Report\plain\f2\fs24  (AI Memo 252).  Cambridge, MA: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Mithen, Steven
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1996\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul The Prehistory of the Mind: The cognitive origins of art, religion and science\plain\f2\fs24 .  London: Thames and Hudson.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Morrill, Calvin
\par 1995\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul The Executive Way: Conflict Management in Corporations\plain\f2\fs24 .  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
\par 
\par Rohani, Pejman and David J. D. Earn
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1997\tab Chaos in a cup of flour.  \plain\f2\fs24\ul Tree\plain\f2\fs24  12(5):171.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Ruxton, Graeme D.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1995\tab Temporal scales and the occurrence of chaos in coupled populations.  \plain\f2\fs24\ul Tree\plain\f2\fs24  10(4):141-142.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Saridis, George N.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1977\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Self-Organizing Control of Stochastic Systems\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Schieve, William C. and Peter M. Allen, eds.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1982\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Self-Organization and Dissipative Structures: Applications in the Physical and Social Sciences\plain\f2\fs24 .  Austin: University of Texas Press.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Scott, George P., ed.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\tx1440\plain\f2\fs24 1991\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Time, Rhythms, and Chaos in the New dialogue with Nature\plain\f2\fs24 .  Ames: University of Iowa Press.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Service, Elman R.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1971\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Profiles in Ethnology\plain\f2\fs24 .  New York: Harper and Row.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Stone, Lewi and Smadar Ezrati
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1996\tab Chaos, cycles and spatiotemporal dynamics in plant ecology.  \plain\f2\fs24\ul Journal of Ecology\plain\f2\fs24  84:279-291.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Turner, Victor
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1995\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure\plain\f2\fs24 .  Hawthorne NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
\par \pard\plain\f2\fs24 
\par Wheatley, Margaret J.
\par \pard\li1440\fi-720\plain\f2\fs24 1994\tab \plain\f2\fs24\ul Leadership and the New Science: Learning about Organization from an Orderly Universe\plain\f2\fs24 .  San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler Publishers Inc.\plain\f3\fs20 
\par }