Double coupling: modeling subjectivity and asymmetric organization in social-ecological systems

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Social-ecological organization is a multidimensional phenomenon that combines material and symbolic processes. However, the coupling between social and ecological subsystem is often conceptualized as purely material, thus reducing the symbolic dimension to its behavioral and actionable expressions. In this paper I conceptualize social-ecological systems as doubly coupled. On the one hand, material expressions of socio-cultural processes affect and are affected by ecological dynamics. On the other hand, coupled social-ecological material dynamics are concurrently coupled with subjective dynamics via coding, decoding, personal experience, and human agency. This second coupling operates across two organizationally heterogeneous dimensions: material and symbolic. Although resilience thinking builds on the recognition of organizational asymmetry between living and nonliving systems, it has overlooked the equivalent asymmetry between ecological and socio-cultural subsystems. Three guiding concepts are proposed to formalize double coupling. The first one, social-ecological asymmetry, expands on past seminal work on ecological self-organization to incorporate reflexivity and subjectivity in social-ecological modeling. Organizational asymmetry is based in the distinction between social rules, which are symbolically produced and changed through human agents' reflexivity and purpose, and biophysical rules, which are determined by functional relations between ecological components. The second guiding concept, conscious power, brings to the fore human agents' distinctive capacity to produce our own subjective identity and the consequences of this capacity for social-ecological organization. The third concept, congruence between subjective and objective dynamics, redefines sustainability as contingent on congruent relations between material and symbolic processes. Social-ecological theories and analyses based on these three guiding concepts would support the integration of current structuralist-functionalist methods, which sufficiently and appropriately characterize ecological organization, with ethnographic and narrative methods exploring human intentionality, reflexivity, and biographical development.

Adaptive pathways and coupled infrastructure: seven centuries of adaptation to water risk and the production of vulnerability in Mexico City

“…The uneven distribution of human agency in coupled infrastructure systems (Davidson 2010, Brown andWestaway 2011) ensures that human efforts to enhance robustness are guaranteed to benefit some groups more than others and reflect particular visions of risk. As human-dominated systems, cities are shaped by the volition, intention, and agency of influential social actors and groups (Davidson 2010, Manuel-Navarrete 2015. Human decision-making dynamics dominate how such systems adapt and respond to environmental stress in ways that can mitigate or produce vulnerability, and influence the manifestation of resilience and robustness in a city (Romero Lankao andQin 2011, Eakin et al 2017).…”

The dynamics of purposeful change: a model

“…We describe an "integrated" or "unit-of-analysis" approach as typified by the combined representation of social and ecological dynamics in a single stability landscape (Sendzimir et al 2007, Rockström 2014, Allen et al 2016. In contrast, we describe "linked" or "linked-but-not-integrated" SES approaches as emphasizing social-ecological interactions while also "explicitly distinguishing" between the dynamics of social and ecological system domains (Manuel-Navarrete 2015). This paper's outline is as follows.…”

Promoting agency for social-ecological transformation: a transformation-lab in the Xochimilco social-ecological system

“…An agent is an individual that embodies a set of socially shared beliefs, values, and norms that justify and motivate its actions. SES dynamics are contingent on human agents' intentions toward the system, which include deliberate efforts to maintain or alter the system's emergent structures and identity (Manuel-Navarrete 2015). Thus, placing human agency at the center of social-ecological transformations highlights the intrinsic involvement of humans in emergent dynamics of SESs and the transformations of such structures.…”