Fractal Crises – A New Path for Crisis Theory and Management

Abstract

This paper is a modest contribution to the vast exploration to be embarked upon as our maps appear increasingly outdated. We will first explore some outmoded ‘taken for granted’ assumptions and visions: this section aims to clarify why the crisis management world has profoundly changed and how the current understanding of crises and theoretical frameworks is becoming increasingly less adequate. Then, we will try to meet the second challenge of this special issue, by suggesting innovative approaches that will contribute to elaborate the building blocks of a theory of crisis management. We will propose a new theoretical framework, through the use of a fractal approach, following the footsteps of Benoit Mandelbrot, in order to rethink and capture the essence of the new theatre of operations that must be dealt with. Throughout, we will show how this original framework could be put into practice and what its limitations and perspectives are.

The NFL as a Mega-Crisis: Applications of Fractal Theory

“…These leaps then breed a "liquefaction" or dislocation of usual response mechanisms in which crisis events jump over traditional containments/boundaries and become challenging to map and manage. Topper & Lagadec [2] advance the use of Fractal Crisis Theory in managing crises of this magnitude.…”

Hacia una reconstrucción de los conflictos de la memoria. El caso del Museo de la Memoria y los Derechos Humanos en Chile

“…En este caso, no se trata de una tradición política específica fracasada, sino del fracaso de la política como horizonte cognitivo de regulación de desarrollos técnicos (Perrow 1984), desastres naturales (Topper & Lagadec 2013) y de problemas transnacionales como el terrorismo (Perrow 2007) -problemas que, por su alta complejidad, se transforman en fuente de peligro, no solo para comunidades locales, sino que se expanden como riesgos globales (Beck 2010). El foco se traslada a la política bajo la fórmula de la identificación de vulnerabilidades y a la descentralización de las capacidades de reacción.…”

On the reflexivity of crises

“…Given their complexity, crises can be neither reconstructed nor anticipated in full. Instead, they are inherently ill-structured; once they break out, they exceed their frames of reference and are driven by strange attractors (Topper and Lagadec, 2013;Liska, Petrun, Sellnow, and Seeger, 2012). To be sure, archetypical distinctions such as natural, technological, and social crises, or local, regional, and global crises, may be methodologically useful.…”

“…Further, systems theory is interested in the simultaneity of problems arising in different contexts and leading to inconsistencies, incompatibilities, and collapses (Stäheli, 2000;Wagner, 2013). To deal with these problems, modern crisis theories stress the methodological importance of transitions (Dodds and Watts, 2005), circulation of communications (Habermas, 1988), off-scale dynamics (Topper and Lagadec, 2013), identification of overflows (Callon, 1998), de-differentiations (Author 2), sand-pile effects (Markovic and Gros, 2014). This focus on operations and dynamics is certainly a more adequate approach than the elaboration of a priori classifications.…”