Edgar Morin et Jesús Ibáñez : sociologie et théories de la complexité

Abstract

L’article prend appui sur les théories dites « de la complexité » et sur les tentatives d’application de celles-ci à la sociologie. Il compare les perspectives théoriques d’Edgar Morin et du sociologue espagnol Jesús Ibáñez, qui se réclament du « paradigme de la complexité », en analysant leurs convergences et divergences, en vue de l’élaboration d’une « sociologie complexe ». A partir d’une approche comparative, l’article propose des pistes et des orientations possibles pour la construction d’une « science sociale complexe » qui intégrerait une ontologie, une épistémologie et une éthique, et qui devrait également s’ouvrir, sans perdre un esprit critique, aux modélisations contemporaines de la complexité au moyen de techniques de recherche telles que la simulation multiagents.The article belongs to the so-called "theories of complexity" and to the attempts to apply them to sociology. It compares the theoretical points of view of Edgar Morin and of the Spanish sociologist Jesús Ibáñez, which belong to the "paradigm of complexity", analyzing their confluences and divergences, seeking the development of a "complex sociology". Starting from a comparative approach, the article suggests some possible keys and orientations to build a "complex social science", which integrates ontology, epistemology, and ethics, seeking also to open, with a critical thinking, to current complexity modellings, such as agent-based modelling and simulation

Epistemological Foundations of Complexity Theory

“…Consequently, there is a relationship or link between the system and the subsystem, which refers to the fact that it is impossible to seek a one hundred percent effective relationship between the actions of organizations and their adaptability to the complex environment, as Habermas (1996) [13] states. Then, a link between the part and the environment is defined based on the principle of correspondence [8,52,53], which makes it possible to assume that there will always be degrees of consistent assimilation or spaces of incongruity in the decisions adopted by the subsystem, regardless of the organization or social subsystem analyzed [7,20,27].…”

“…At this level of analysis of intrasystem complexity, at least two social behaviors are verified at the societal level: those of small groups that achieve less diversity and those of larger open populations [24,36], which achieve new capabilities, assimilating talents and developing attributes that provide them with greater flexibility [51,52]. However, it is about the subsystemic spaces reaching some balance concerning the surrounding supra system [7,58], consuming a type of vital energy they use for maintenance or capturing other energies, which allows them to avoid the anti-reductionism of complexity to the extent that the parts contribute to the global system [8,48].…”

“…Explaining this process, the parts of the system contribute, on the one hand, in the form of particles or subsystems, which are added in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups forming waves that, together with other groups, are capable of transmuting into recurrent sequences giving shape to waves [48,55], which in their respective spaces generate movement, new energies, flows, and critical interrelationships of greater complexity [6,7,14]. All this process leads to new systems capable of intercepting the trends of order with those of chaos that coexists, transcending the absolutism of complete order and the randomness of chaos [51,52].…”

“…The descriptions here seek to define the various application options, on the one hand, of the concept of limit of the meaning of Luhmann (1997) [18], as well as the dynamics of contingent systemic coevolution processes, which occur spontaneously [34,49]. Consequently, they exclude the unilateral imposition of a hierarchical subsystem on another subsystem and that acts through the concept of last resort, that is, within a total system that is evolutionary in itself [7,35,52], where interdependent subsystems coexist capable of creating nests of autonomous subsystems that establish interconnections and interrelationships that give meaning and existence to the global system [10,27,40].…”

Towards a complex-figurational socio-linguistics

“…So do human facts, with their peculiarities and their differences in relation to the dynamics that occur at hierarchically ‘inferior’ levels of organization in the universe (cf. Malaina, 2012).…”