DRAFT: Cite with care. CLASS STRUCTURE AND PROCESS: Postmodern Understandings of Class Dynamics T. R. Young Visiting Professor Sociology University of Michigan-Flint September 23, 1992 March 9, 1994 March 14, 1994 No. 170 Distributed as part of the Red Feather Institute Transforming Sociology Series. The Red Feather Institute, 8085 Essex, Weidman, Michigan, 48893. ABSTRACT Class Structure is conceptualized in light of findings from the new sciences of complexity, often called Chaos theory. Three such findings are used to help unravel the concept of class structure in advanced industrialized societies; first, the emergence of fractal structures from nonlinear dynamics; second, transformations of fractal structures at bifurcation points; and third, the existence of fractal structures called solitons made possible by nonlinear feedback. Nonlinear class dynamics produce different results depending upon; a) scale of observation, b) region of an outcome basin sampled and c) dynamical phase to which system dynamics take it. This contribution to class analysis revises current post-structuralist critique. It retains the use of class as a concept in the study of social relationships. Social policy can then be made to deal with the many changing causal effects of economic class strata including several forms of crime, elitist political policy, privatized religious behavior as well as the resurgence of racism. Key Terms: Class Structure Process Causality, degrees of Complexity Theory Fractal geometry Nonlinear Dynamics Copies of this are free to graduate students; $5 to employed sociologists. Write T.R. Young email: 34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU. We must once again, from the tree of knowledge, eat. ...von Kleck CLASS STRUCTURE AND PROCESS: Postmodern Understandings of Class Dynamics T. R. Young INTRODUCTION Revelations about nonlinearity in the dynamics and geometries of naturally occurring systems offer quite a new understanding of the concept, 'structure' as it is used to describe patterned behavior in a wide variety of social activity. These revelations are subsumed by the Science of Complexity or, more simply, Chaos theory. Three such findings are used here to offer an understanding why, for example, class analysis varies so widely over time and varies with the political interest of the researcher. Building on findings from the new science, I offer a way of thinking about structure in which the midline between reality and illusion; between actuality and apparition; between noumena and phenomena is reconceptualized. At the same time, the transformations of system dynamics mean that structures may display variable causal efficacy. Class structure may be determinative or limited in causal efficacy depending upon the character of feedback between class status and the dynamics of other structures. Postmodern Critique Postmodern understandings of social and natural structures teach us that human beings have a very large role to play in both reality constitutive processes as well as in reflexive knowledge processes which describe them. The knowledge process, far from being an objective quest for ontologically pre-existing facts independent of human desire, turns out to be a much more interactive process in which human beings decide how to define, how to analyze very complex structures. And, as the knowledge process improves, human beings play an ever increasing role in the process by which reality and the theory which describes it, is designed and instituted. Chaos theory gives insight where and when it is possible to intervene to change the very structures under study (Young, 1992). Thus, knowledge, fact and human agency are re-united in postmodern philosophy of science as was never the case in either pre-modern or modern philosophy of science. Post-Structural Critique In post-structural sensibility, the search a grand theory which brackets all human behavior within one coherent structural system called a 'grand narrative' (Hassan, 1987a) or within a 'master narrative' (Lyotard, 1984) is simply not on. Marxist class analysis, Freudian theory, Islamic or Christian theology as well as Utilitarianism cum Choice theory of modern criminology are seen to be, all variously, an artifact of political desire of an 'author' or 'reader' who hide themselves behind, as Richardson (1988:203) puts it, '...the bramble of the passive voice.' In postmodern terms, all theory on nature or society becomes a 'readerly text' which invites a rewriting at every reading (Rosenau, 1992:35). I want to honor much of the postmodern critique of theory (Seidman, 1991) while, at the same time show a way to retain the concept of class structure and the theory which sets forth its dynamics. Post-structuralists rightly argue that human beings extract, from a large array of data, just those facts which support their favored theory. Post-structuralists are correct in the assertion that structuralists commit epistemological sin by treating their favorite and totalizing theory as God's Will or as a Law of Nature. Post-structuralists are correct when they assert that structural analysts subvert emancipatory human agency when they hide the raw and self-serving politics of human endeavor behind putatively 'objectively' existing and extra-personal forces. Structuralists abort human agency also by pre-empting all possible futures with the one future set by the inexorable Law of that theory at hand. On the other hand, many modernist sociologists believe they can look at a social formation objectively and make truth statements with a high degree of validity, and in the looking see a decline in class status as a causal nexus in advanced industrialized societies (Nisbet, 1959; Clark and Lipset, 1991; Pakulski, 1993). Opposed to this reading of the data are scholars who see class as a powerful dynamic in such societies. Hout, Brooks and Manza (1993), sum up that position nicely. However, if those structures in nature and society do not fit the assumptions of modern science about structure and dynamics and thus vary in their geometry, in their linearity, in their causal (determinative) efficacy and at times not excluding of other causal agents within the same dynamical field, then post- structuralist critique becomes irrelevant. The case made here, based upon this new understanding of nonlinear dynamics and fractal geometries, is that the concept of structure has enduring value, both to science as to those who would like to ground progressive social policy on the theory which reveals these complex structures in nature and society. Complexity theory allows of truth statements upon which to found policy however, those truth statements are very different from those grounded in aristotlean, euclidean, newtonian/leibnizian views of structure and theory. Fractal geometries yeild fractal truth values which displace ideas of absolute truth/falsity. Truth values can change as system dynamics change. Truth values expand and contract as scale of observation enlarges or diminishes. In all this, predictive truth and thus some limited human agency based upon it are possible. The task of postmodern science as well as emancipatory postmodern politics is to do the kind of research which gives us a larger, more modest view of that which is and that which is possible (Young, 1994). We can begin by considering some of the very good grounds for rebuilding concepts of class which cannot be put aside in the larger quest for social justice. NONLINEAR DYNAMICS AND FRACTAL STRUCTURES Helpful to a resolution of the issue whether class structure(s) exist or not; are totalizing or not; are determinative or not, is the concept of the fractal. In the simplest terms possible, a fractal is an estimate of the ratio of order and disorder in the periods and cycles which describe its behavior. Fractal structures have fuzzy edges, open areas and self-similarity in near-by regions (Mandelbrot, 1977). Thus, efforts to draw neat and tidy class lines is not on in complex class dynamics. In the hunt for class strata, class sectors and the attractors produced by class dynamics, the postmodern sociologist using complexity theory would expect to find configurations quite different from the neat and tidy patterns of modern linear, planar and cubic realities presumed by modernity. A fractal class structure may occupy so much of the space available to it that it appears to be non-existent. One cannot 'see' clear and bounded areas in time/space sections in which a system can be unambiguously located. In class analysis, this means that there is no one region in the structures of a society where one and only one set of members of a class can be found. Class Fractals have open regions such that other structures may occupy the same time-space region with, or without, mutual causality. Gender, caste, ethnicity, religion and party affiliation may, or may not, interact with class relations in complex societies. More on this later with the twin concepts of the soliton and nonlinear feedback loops. The concept of structure is further compromised by the fact that, that which is process at one time/space unit may become structure at another. It is not entirely a poetics to say that process converts into structure since the pattern of the dynamics of animal species, of business firms, of people who take their religion seriously become so stable that still other species, firms and religions re-organize their own behavior to accomodate such dependability...and thus consolidate causal inter- dependence. More of this later in the section on postmodern views on causality. Class Fractals Class status has to do with relationships between two or more sets of actors in the production and distribution of goods and services in a specific economic formation. In its simplest form, a class fractal has two wings or basins of attraction; those actors who own the means of production on the one side and those who sell their labor power. The same process which calls into being binary class relationships calls the owner into being at the same moment as the worker; one cannot exist apart from the other. It is this larger process by which fractals are produced, and changed, which is the proper study of class dynamics. The simplest form of a binary structure is called a butterfly attractor and is seen in Figure 1. In complex societies, the number of basins of attraction can expand to 4, 8, 16 and then cascade to an infinity of basins. In the attractor shown, the class status of a person would be largely 'determined' at birth by the interaction of three or more key parameters. The parameters which shape class standing themselves would change over time. In a given social formation, class status might well be a product of father's occupation, family wealth and race/ethnicity for men and, for women, gender rules as well. In another social formation, father's occupation might fade in causal efficacy while another parameter, say educational credentials, emerges to configure class dynamics. Nonlinear Dynamics Nor would class structures emerge and change in the orderly manner expected of linear systems. In early days of commodity capitalism, the economic fate of any given farmer, artisan or tradesperson would depend upon arbitrarily small changes. A slight shift in climate or in price or in transport cost could hurl large numbers of farmers into wage labor. Of all independent farmers in a bad year, it would be impossible to predict who would survive and buy more land and who be left with only labor power to sell. It is important to note that it is a small change in an ordinary variable which drives large changes in the fate of any given set of farmers, not the introduction of a new variable, of an economic crisis. Indeed, the very concept of nonlinearity encompasses this transition from regular, predictable dynamics to evermore unpredictable dynamics. The body of knowledge which refers to these transformations in dynamical regimes is called bifurcation theory. Bifurcation Theory The interesting thing about the bifurcation map below is that, at each bifurcation of a key parameter, new attractors appear. Class structure would bifurcate as key parameters reach critical points (Feigenbaum, 1978). Where before, we see simplicity, order and clearly defined class antagonisms, in complex societies, class structure could have an very large number of attractors; each of which is deeply connected to others in ways difficult to sort clearly and cleanly. As bifurcations continue to pile up, class structure becomes so complex as to ground the kind of critique made by conservative apologists for capitalism and endorsed by postmodernists who accept the simple and ordered geometries of modernity. The question for class analysis based upon this distinctly postmodern philosophy of science is, What are the key parameters which produce ever greater divisions of labor in each form of capitalism. Class Bifurcations One of the more important features of capitalist systems is that labor costs drive the search for more efficient tools of production. Slavery, feudalism and primitive communalism were driven to increase labor supply; the more slaves, serfs or children, the better the chances of survival. In capitalist firms, factories, mines and mills, the fewer the workers and the better the technology, the better the chance of survival. Better technology and fewer workers means more surplus value; more surplus value means the possibility of ever greater divisions of labor. A factory can hire more and more specialist, supervisors, accountants and such as long as market share holds up. In such a setting, class fractals can be very complex indeed. Marx spoke of four outcome basins for economic actors in early capitalism; bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, proletariat and those surplus to the productive needs of capital. Wright, in 1979, thought that six class sectors were adequate to the concept; in 1985, he increased his class segments to twelve. One would expect such a expansion of class fractals if the conditions above were met. There has been very little research in the social sciences from which we could map the actual dynamics of bifurcation, however we can use a bit of imagination to understand what to expect should such a research effort be made. In brief, a small increase on a key parameter should see an expansion of an outcome basin from one to two then from two to four or more 'attractors.' Such dynamics are very different from those expected in linear dynamics. In fact, surprize and qualitative change are hallmark of bifurcations. Figure 2 shows a generic bifurcation map and the critical points at which transitions from 2n to 4n to 8n and 16n class fractals might occur. There are three points at which significant i.e., nonlinear change occurs. These change points entail qualitative new outcomes for class dynamics...outcomes which can be dramatically different from previous states. That means that, at one setting of a key variable, class stratification may be helpful to the larger welfare of a society but at a slightly higher setting, new and less agreeable effects are observed. The first two dynamic regimes in Figure 2 need not detain us. They describe the well ordered dynamics of simple systems so beloved by modern science and those oriented to precision and prediction. The torus emerges (region 3) with the second bifurcation. A torus can be used to model the behavior of given firms or families over the course of a cycle but in most situations the torus is part of a larger outcome basin and is deeply connected to still other tori to make up 2n, 4n, and more complex outcome basins. By far the most common dynamics found in complex systems are those in which the ratio of order to disorder is such that both flexibility and certitude are possible. Butterfly attractors are found in Region 4 in Figure 2. Butterfly attractors too can be connected to still other butterfly attractors such that 4n, 8n, or 16n outcome basins with sufficient order to permit both planning and innovation. Transformations to regions 3, 4, and 5 comes when key parameter(s) bifurcate producing two (or more) basins of attraction to which a molecule, a person or a firm could move. In order to grasp this idea, think of a molecule of water. Without any transformation of the structure of a water molecule, a slight change in key parameter, temperature, will offer two basins between which it could move. It could be in uniform and undistinguishable motion in a fluid state or it could be part of a much more complex snowflake and it could move easily back and forth between states without any measurable change in its physical structure. The same is true of a wide range of complex systems; molecules, viruses, moth populations, fish populations, economics, psychology and, in this instance, class strata. Deep Chaos Region 5 in Figure 2 denotes a time in which so much pattern is lost to bifurcated attractors that prediction and all the ordinary canons of social research or social control for ordered systems do not obtain. The progression from stability to great instability in outcomes occurs ever more quickly. The region in which one finds 16n attractors is smaller that in 8n regimes and much smaller than in 2n or 4n dynamical regimes. The tumble into deep chaos can occur very quickly after the fourth bifurcation/ Yet the second law of thermodynamics does not hold; even in deep chaos. New forms of order emerge. In terms of class dynamics, new class sectors can form; entirely new social formations can, but may not, appear. And too, even in deep chaos, stability is possible. But only chaos can cope with chaos. Efforts to control labor market in uncertain times; to control supply of oil and other raw materials; to increase control of the economy fail since pattern and predictability are displaced by innovation and qualitative jumps. Indeed, qualitative analysis displaces quantitative in this new science of complexity as bifurcations proliferate. Within the core of an attractors, there is sufficient stability such that causality is dependable, prediction possible and control feasible. In ever more chaotic regimes, causality fades, prediction fails, and control technology is rendered powerless to restrain human behavior. Social policy requires new strategies since only chaos can cope with chaos. Parallel Versions of Class Structure. In complex societies with manifold and overlapping dynamical regimes, data sets from national surveys are so complex that different versions of the same reality are possible. Careful and experienced statisticians can produce valid but very different conclusions depending upon the way in which they analyze data sets. The modern view that structures are ontologically bounded and dynamically stable gives way, in this science of complexity, to the view that the boundaries between such categories would be exceedingly open as dynamical regimes succeed each other. In terms of class analysis, each data set would have some regions in which class attractors are found separated by regions with very little structure. The ability to find such structures of, say, political opinion depend the parameters selected to encode class standing. Some idea of how easy it is to come up with conflicting findings about class dynamics in complex societies can be seen in in the workd of William Johnson and Michael Ornstein, (1980). They compared several different approaches to the scanning for class dynamics in complex data sets. Those who used conventional measures of class standing (education, income, occupation, self- identification and such) were not able to locate such basins of attraction in national survey data. Those using other parameters (the ownership and control of production facilities, control over new capital investment, and control of the labour process itself), three researchers (Carchedi, Poulantzas and Wright) were able to find hidden attractors while those using conventional measures above, were not. Table 1 shows the differing results of searching comparable data sets. TABLE 4 MULTIPLE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS OF NINE ITEMS Wright's class .24 .20 .20 .17 .23 .19 .21 .19.22.18.17.15.25.10.20.17 Occupational status .14 .05 .12 .09 .18 .05 .14 .06.11.10.09.07.26.06.12.09 Education .21 .21 .12 .09 .21 .12 .16 .14.17.15.09.07.30.25.13.07 Income .16 .09 .17 .11 .09 .04 .'L2 .06.21.16.11.07.23.15.20.16 Poulantzas's class .24 .19 .18 .16 .21 .16 .19 .16.19.14.16.14.18.10.12.10 Occupational status .14 .07 .12 .08 .18 .06 .14 .06.11.10.09.07.26.07.12.03 Education .21 .20 .12 .09 .21 .16 .16 .13.17.15.09.06.30.25.13.06 Income .16 .09 .17 .13 .09 .05 .12 .06.21.18.1107.23.15.20.18 Carchedi's class .26 .23 .19 .16 .19 .17 .22 .201 22.18.17-.16.22.12.20.15 Occupational status .14 .07 .12 .07 .18 .07 .14 .05:11.10.09.0626.04.12.03 Education .21 .20 .12 .09 .21 .17 .16 .13.17.15.09.06.30.24.13.09 Income .16 .09 .17 .11 ' .09 .05 .12 .05.21.16.11.07.23.14.20.16 Occupation .21 .15 .18 .16 .24 .20 .18 .16.15.10.12.10.26.09.16.14 Occupational status .14 .07 .12 .09 .18 .05 .14 .07.11.10.09.05.26.03.12.10 Education .21 .18 .12 .07 .21 .14 .16 .11.17.14.09.06.30.24.13.08 Income .16 .10 .17 .14 .09 .05 .12 .06.21.19.11.09.23.15.20.18 Researching Chaotic Class Dynamics It is the complex class patterns produced by nonlinear dynamics which are the object of the search of data for those who would practice this new science of complexity. One collects a large set of data in time series format, puts it through a Chaos Data Analyzer, looks for these hidden attractors in that data set and then manipulates the data set to find which parameters drive this behavior. It sounds simple and in outline, is simple. But much is to be done before this simple research design can be put in place. With such a research capacity in place there is much to be gained; a society can begin to understand the larger social factors which, at one setting, are beneficial to a society but which, at a larger setting, can drive one of the many forms of class warfare. Reifications; False and True Figure 3 shows how process transforms into structure. The ordinary cycles of business become entrenched in other aspects of social life and 'lock-in' class dynamics. At some point, twinned behavior of owners and workers 'lock-in.' That happens when secondary adjustments are made by owners, workers, supplies and adjunct service agencies such that both owners and workers have difficulty in changing to new patterns of production and/or distribution. The scale of observation thus affects the truth value of claims for structural analysis. For those who look at everyday behavior, they rightly see only process. Yet at some point, such processes come to have enough pattern that other persons, businesses and whole societies adjust their own behavior in anticipation of self- similar iterations of such tori. Causal efficacy is thus variable and dependent upon the reifications others make and act as if structure-as-attractor were valid. The purist of pure empiricists would call this naming of process a false reification; a conceptual act which falsely treats a process as if it were an ontos--a thing in and of itself. There are doubtlessly false reifications. These false reifications are not the subject matter at hand. What is the subject matter are those fractal sets which have enough pattern for other creatures to model and to respond. In topological mathematics, the larger the value of a fractal, the more fully it occupies the region available to it and the more sharply delineated are its boundaries. Point, limit and tori attractors offer fairly clear boundaries such that the concept of structure seems appropriate. We would have little trouble treating the portrait of a point attractor as an unity rightly reified but we would have a great deal of trouble making and sustaining a claim that a butterfly attractor had unity. We can see space within and between any two iterations of any given cycle of behavior. We are tempted to deny thingness to such shapes since they do not have clear and definite boundaries. However, the purist of pure empiricists would have no trouble counting a tree or a bird or a human as a thing yet, if one were to change scale of observation, the thingness of the tree or bird would be lost to sensibility and thus to facticity. As one changes scale of observation from organic to molecular to atomic to quantum scales, things lose their boundaries and exist only as process. An electron is the process that energy waves makes when they intersect; an atom is the process that electrons and other particles make when they go about their separate business. A molecule is a process of atoms always changing, always vibrating, always in semi-stable exchange of parts. A tissue is even more a process as electrons, atoms, molecules and cells come and go; in the course of a month or so, the entire set of atoms which make up a tissue may be exchanged for another entirely different set yet the tissue remains as an empirical fact. Absent sharp boundaries, any slippage in causal efficacy has to be explained, in the modern science paradigm, by intervening variables not yet conceptualized, measured and correlated to the dynamics of a system. Chaos theory does not require recourse to missing variables; nonlinearity is a feature of the whole system. There are no missing variables to seek since causality is not linear. When one accepts that process converts into ontos as one changes scale, one concedes that there is a great deal of latitude in selecting out of an infinitude of unit acts at the human level of perception, packaging them in given sets, giving each set a name and treating it as a structural feature of a society. Those in the postmodern camp appreciate the subjectivity in such selection and assign to the human hand and human wit, great responsibility for all the conceptual categories used by science or poet. This stands against a Husserlian view of such concepts (Husserl, 1913). In brief, Chaos theory, with its concept of the fractal and its emphasis upon scale, region and dynamical phase of observation offers an entirely new vision of the structure of natural and social systems and thus of phenomenology. In that theoretical paradigm, distinctly postmodern, iterations of a system over time take on a fractal facticity. That facticity begins to affect other systems in the same time-space region. Moments of qualitative change, entirely foreign to modernist visions of system dynamics, entail the generation of new outcome basins within an outcome field for similarly situated systems (Young, 1991a). Causality thus fades, blooms, fails and transposes within the scope of nonlinear dynamics. Class Process as Class Structure Class as process has no separate embodiment apart from the actions of those who live out the norms. In order to treat a process as if it were a concrete thing having its own ontology; its own 'thingness,' it is necessary to abstract, out a billions of differing unit acts of situated people, some sub-set of self-similar unit acts and to treat each pattern as if it had distinct form of its own and then to give it a name. The name we give patterns created by process is structure. Structure thus is an abstraction of a pattern arising from all the single separate acts which are the immediate data of experience. The larger structure of class is unseen, unheard, ungraspable to human sense of particular men and women, but may in fact, shape and preshape the fate of people in daily life. Built into the normative structure of religion, business, school, government and family, class dynamics can be seen only by looking at process and inferring structure. Causal Complexity As a system changes from one pattern of behavior to another, the configuration of that pattern changes dramatically. Incompatible findings about class dynamics (say those of Pakulski on the one side and those of Hout, et.al. on the other) are possible. It is entirely possible that Pakulski (1993) has sampled a passing dynamical phase in which a key parameter has changed enough to force a re-organization of class fractals while Hout and his colleagues are sampling a different run of events which testify to the continuing efficacy of class status as a significant part of social life. Pakulski has mentioned several parameters which might be operative in changing from one dynamical state to another (1993:284). Hout and his associates (1993) may well be looking at a much larger pattern from which they extract quite different, and quite valid conclusions. The immiseration thesis of Marx is a case in point. Marx held that, as capitalism proceeds to commodify production and concentrate the means of production, workers as a class would find themselves in progressively more difficult straits. If one looks only at American and European workers between 1945 and 1980, the immiseration thesis looks untenable. Yet as more and more nations were drawn into a globalized economy and more and more of their production commodified, the working class expanded to include more than American or European workers. If one counts the fate of former peasants in the urban ghettos of Africa, Asia, South America and the MidEast in the weighing of the immiseration thesis, then it looks much more tenable. Both Nisbet, Clark and Lipset as well as Pakulski select the class patterns in North America and Europe to support their case while Clark, Lipset and Rempel (1993) and his associates use data from the USA, Australia, Canada, Japan and France. Class structure seems to be disappearing or at least more fragmented if one reads only the data selected in one part of a connected outcome field. Reading the larger field, one could, reasonably, offer a different and very different conclusion. Class v. Gender Analysis If we are to apply the ideas of Chaos theory to such social situations, it is necessary to account for the continuing presence of two separate structures of inequality. For example, both patriarchy and capitalism are found in varying degrees of 'structuredness' in many societies. Modern science requires a mechanical relationship between them. Not so this new science. Both class fractals and gender fractals can exist side by side with little causal effect or can be connected such that an increase in one involves a decrease in the other. It is immediately clear to any manager or owner that profit is served by anything which will lower wages. Given patriarchy, it is sensible to hire women on two counts; first patriarchy justifies lower wages and secondly, anything which expands the labor forces reduces the social power of organized labor. A surplus labor force can be used to drive down wages and to defeat organized labor actions. Women, children, migrants or machines can be used against efforts on the part of workers to organize and demand higher wages, safer working conditions, retirement plans or vacation benefits. In these days, foreign labor markets are used to force unions to give back benefits won when labor was scarce. Yet patriarchy is, in many respects, inimical to profit. Any system of preference in which men and only men can buy, sell, use or own a produce restricts the market. A firm can sell twice as many cigarettes, cars or homes if women can be brought into the market place. Marriage itself is an unnecessary constraint on the market. If men and women stay single and, at the same time, leave their family of origin, they will need twice as many dwellings, refrigerators, stoves, televisions, cars and other household goods. The question becomes, how can patriarchy survive inside a capitalist system since the instructions set by the profit motive are qualitatively different from those set by the structure of male preference. From Chaos theory comes the idea of the soliton in which one structure maintains its integrity within or while passing through another different structure. Solitons and Social Structure The fractal nature of system boundaries makes it possible for more than one social structure to occupy the same time-space continua. Thus in a supermarket, a factory, an insurance office or a classroom, differing structures, given open and semi-stable boundaries, may be found. If one thinks of class, racism, patriarchy, and bureaucracy along with religion and ethnicity each as separate solitons occupying the same social space, then the picture one has of causality is one in which one or more such solitons could maintain integrity even though logically incompatible and dynamically incoherent. Those in the postmodern camp who oppose 'totalizing theories' such as the work of Comte, Spencer, Marx, Parsons or Homans will find much of interest in the concept of the soliton. Those who write of the multiplicity of factors which give structure, pattern and causality to human behavior such as Weber, are given support by the fractal geometry of nonlinear regimes. More concretely, there may be several social structures which co- exist side by side in the complex dynamics of work, school, church and play. For our purposes, class struggle, patriarchy, ethnicity, protestantism, capitalism, and bureaucratic state welfare may occupy the same time-space continua. It is not a matter of choosing as between them to generate a coherent and parsimonious theory of human behavior but accepting that all these and more can exist together in a behavioral framework such as a school, a factory, a church or an entire society. If one uses the concept of the soliton to sort out the causal dynamics of complex societies, one need not participate in an argument between a marxist and a weberian over which 'structure' is determinative...it is entirely possible, given each as a fractal for each to be a product of sentient human beings and, in turn, affect the behavior of other sentient human beings as a structure. If one use the concept of the fractal, one can accept that there may well be varying causal efficacy of one's favorite structure (class, race, gender, bureau or religion] depending upon the nature of the feedback loops between them. Indeed a particular kind of a fractal, the soliton permits a given structure to pass through another structure with little or no reciprocal causal efficacy. Nonlinear Feedback Status bound social identities may exist coterminously with occupational identities, religious identities and/or ethnic identities. The integrity of such social forms depends upon the nature of the feedback loops between them. If the feedback loops are negative, one social form will tend to displace a second form; thus gendered social identities and the normative behavior required by them can be smothered by an occupational identities if the feedback between the gender identity and the occupational identity is negative and linear. In a particular case, a male employee of a bureaucracy may be required to set aside the normative structure of his gender when working with females. If the administrative structure of the bureau does, in fact, apply the rules with rigorous rationality, any effort on the part of the male to exercise authority by virtue of his status as a male will be damped. In prisons, schools, marketplace, and government agencies, given a goal; given a set of rationally coherent rules with which to achieve those goals and given the rational implementation of those rules in every case which comes before a bureaucratic employee, status based social identities cannot, will not be permitted to intrude into the dynamical field at hand. Teachers may not act upon their gender identity with students; police may not act upon their kinship identity with offenders; cashiers may not act upon their religious identities with respect to the commodities sold. All this, if and only if interaction is, in fact, rational. On the other hand, religious, gender or kinship identities, if allowed to fill the space available to them, can and would affect the integrity of the social form we call a bureaucracy. An enterprize would become bankrupt if employees shared out the resources of the firm with their relatives as required by the normative structure of family. Given the goal of retribution and status degradation, a prison would lose its character of a punitive and shameful place in which to be were guards, wardens, and counsellors insist upon using a religious social identity upon which to ground daily interaction. Religious and kin presenting identities can be isolated by a rigorous and excluded from a causal matrix by the human act of defining them as of no causal efficacy. Thus causality, as well as structure, is mediated by human action. Conclusion The new science of complexity can offer insight on the polemics over the concept of class structure in a way that satisfies postmodern insistence that human beings do much of the work of reality making attributed to god and nature while, at the same time, doing much of the knowledge work which explains and describes how 'reality' works. Such interactive work does in fact produce a kind of reality that has facticity about it but that reality is neither solid nor untouched by human hands. The operative question for social policy centers around the degree to which human beings can enter into the reality construction (and reconstruction) process and, in the doing, build social forms more congenial to the human project. Indeed the very nature of the human project is brought to the political table by postmodernists who doubt much that it is possible to speak of 'the human project.' That question is the topic of still other papers in the series but the short answer appears to be that, given nonlinear feedback loops between differing social life worlds, the integrity of widely disparate social formation can be maintained. In this view, social evolution does not lead to ever more highly sub-divided, well ordered and integrated social forms will converge and produce one unified global village. Rather, we will see connection at varying scales of social organization as well as disconnection in the very next instant of time/space. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Communism can live in the same time/space continuum in postmodern social dynamics in ways not possible in the tightly connected, neatly packaged, well behaved concepts in modern science. Structure is messy and will continue to be messy. All the King's horses and all the King's men cannot bring order to nonlinear social dynamics and the fractal structures which emerge from them. REFERENCES Clark, Terry Nichols, Seymour Martin Lipset and Michael Rempel. The Declining Political Significance of Social Class. International Sociology. 3:293-316. September. Clark, Terry Nichols and Seymour Martin Lipset. 1993 Are Social Classes Dying? International Sociology. 4:397-410. December. Davis, Paul, 1988 The Cosmic Blueprint. New York: Simon and Schuster (Touchstone books). Feigenbaum, Mitchell 1978 Quantitative Universality for a Class of Nonlinear transformations, in the Journal of Statistical Physics, 19:25-52. Cited in Gleick, p. 157. Glance, Natalie and B. A. Huberman. 1994 The Dynamics of Social Dilemmas. Scientific American. March. Gleick, James 1987 Chaos: Making a New Science N.Y.: Penguin Books. Hassan, Ihab. 1985. "The Culture of Post-modernism." Theory, Culture and Society 2 (3):119-31. Hout, Mike, Clem Brooks and Jeff Manza. 1993 The Persistence of Classes in Post-Industrial Societies. International Sociology. 3:259-277. September. Johnson, William and Michael Ornstein. 1980 Measuring Social Class: A Comparison of Marxist and Conventional Approaches. Red Feather: the Red Feather Institute. (Now in Weidman, Michigan) Husserl, Edmund. 1913. Ideas Towards a Pure Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy. Tr. W.R.Boyce Gibson. New York: Macmillan, 1931. Reprint New York: Collier, 1962. Lyotard, J-F. 1984 The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Tr. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massouri. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. Richardson, Laurel. 1988. "The Collective Story: Postmodernism and the Writing of Sociology." Sociological Focus 21 (3): 199-207. Nisbet, Robert A. 1959. The Decline and Fall of Social Class. Pacific Sociological Review. Pp. 11-17. Pakulski, Jan. 1993 The Dying of Class or Marxist Class theory? International Sociology. 3:279-292. September. Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers 1984 Order out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books. Rosenau, Pauline. 1992 Post-modernism and the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Seidman, Steven 1990 "Against Theory as Foundational Discourse," in Perspectives: The Theory Section Newsletter of the American Sociological Society, V. 13, No.2. Waldorp, M. Mitchell 1992 Complexity: the Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York: Touchstone Books; Simon & Schuster. Wright, Erik Olin. 1985. Classes. London: Verso. Wright, Erik Olin. 1978. Class, Crises and the State. London: New Left Books. Young, T. R. 1992 . Chaos Theory and Human Agency. In Humanity and Society. November. 16:4. Pp. 441-460. Young, T. R. 1994 Thick Descriptions of Thin Realities. A paper prepared for the Carl Couch Festschrift, forthcoming. THE GREAT FLYING CHAOS LEARNING CIRCUS: A Strangely Attractive Way to Teach large Sociology Classes by Anna Zajicek T. R. Young Tim Wolfe Jennifer Sult Andrew Philaretou and Ruan Hoe VIRGINIA POLYTECH BLACKSBURG, VA., 24061-0137 And Gladly wold he lerne, and gladly teche. The Clerk's Tale, Chaucer THE GREAT FLYING CHAOS LEARNING CIRCUS: An Experiment in Postmodern Pedagogy INTRODUCTION: The format for teaching large sociology classes is much the same as it has been for the past 800 years of the history of formal education. A learned scholar teaches a set of acolytes of the inner mysteries of a discipline and the professional norms of an academic. Those inner mysteries are presented as revealed truth whose validity is not to be questioned but to be absorbed into the fabric of one's professional life. Postmodern sensibility raises serious questions about the social location of the knowledge process and the truth value of a course content. In the Fall of 1992, the Sociology Department at Virginia Polytechnic and State University, hereafter call Virginia Tech, invited one of us to teach an Intro section with 560 places. After some negotiation, an agreement was reached which included a syllabus for quite a new format which incorporated not only the spirit of the postmodern but also the structure of those nonlinear dynamics commonly known as Chaos theory. This article presents both the postmodern pedagogical theory which informs the syllabus: what we hope to accomplish as well as how we try to accomplish it. Postmodern Sensibility: Since the time of Newton at least, the knowledge process has taken as its mission the discovery of universal truth encoded in mathematics and packaged in formal theory. It has adopted, as method, the quantification of sense data and the use of those data to test hypotheses with the aim of closing in upon a stable set of principles which can guide action in the world. Faith in progress guided by formal theory and logical positivism thus marks modernist sensibility. With such a knowledge process it is thought possible to reorder the world of natural and social systems such that the problems of survival and human dignity might be solved in this world. Postmodern sensibility questions most of the assumptions of modern science and the philosophy of knowledge which befriends it. Instead of absolute knowledge, there is only a sort of poetic approximation to the incredible complexity of nature and society; instead of formal axiomatic theory, a political agenda for which both history and science serve. Selya Benhabib (1991:139), citing feminist scholarship, puts it thus: ...For postmodernists this quest for the Real conceals most Western philosophers' desire, which is to master the world once and for all by enclosing it within an illusory but absolute system they believe represents or corresponds to a unitary Being beyond history, particularity and change... For some the Being is God; for some, Being is Absolute Spirit; for some Being is the linear dynamics which produce the elegant and precise behavior generated by the four forces in the cosmos. For the postmodernist, that Being is Patriarchy cum Racism cum Class privilege cum Bureaucratic rationality all disguised as Natural Law and or functional necessity and encoded in a linguistic form which encodes politics as theory. In a postmodern philosophy of knowledge, actual human beings or collections of human beings are the architect of truth rather than the impartial discoverer of it. In art, social science, music, prose, poetry, or architecture, the practice of imposing absolutistic standards with which to evaluate all human or natural events is seen to be a political act which gives preference to the work of Dead White Males: British, German, Roman or Greek writers, poets, philosophers and generals. It is not that what Shakespeare or Chaucer did is inferior but rather that what other poets, other artists and other authors did with topics strange to the ear of a European, is also, on its own terms, of value even if it doesn't fit within the canons of ethics, epistemology or aesthetics oriented to objective ranking and grading. Chaos theory instructs us that the more formal systems of deductive inference may be useful and fitting for a few simple systems in nature and society, but that most actually existing systems are far to complex and far to unpredictable and far too much a product of acting human beings to be beyond history. The new science of Chaos offers a particularly compelling endorsement of postmodernity views of particularity and otherness. In Chaos theory, there are not one but an infinite number of dynamical states to which any natural or social system might move. Simple systems may exhibit the endless and precise dynamics which appeal to those who prefer order over uncertainty but most real systems may display two, four, six, nine equally natural outcome states--or in deep chaos, an infinite number of endstates. Given the quite ordinary plurality of quite ordinary endstates that a population of children, a population of fish, fowl or a number of similarly situated firms may take, the idea of the normal and of deviancy is subverted. Chaotic dynamics joins with postmodern sensibility to ground a co-existence of alternative learning styles and teaching modalities and which honor a variety of understandings without showing preference for one over the other yet demanding a certain competency in language and understanding. This is the essence of postmodern pedagogy offered here. This twinned grounding of a postmodern philosophy of education is embodied in the syllabus of our version of the Introductory Course at Virginia Tech. Chaotic Regimes: Advantages As long as one avoids deep chaos, chaotic regimes have several advantages over linear regimes which should be considered when framing a syllabus. Rather than order per se, a postmodern pedagogy considers the most advantageous ratio between order and disorder. The case for a careful mixture of order and disorder is compelling. 1. 2, 4, or 8n learning attractors offer students a far wider range of learning modes than does a 1n format. Accepting that some students do best on written and some do best on more visual or action modalities of learning, a learning system with a varied point menu enhances overall learning. 2. When a causal field has some fraction of its basin occupied by two or more attractors and some fraction in which great disorder is found, educational syllabi which presume one and only one outcome field lose efficacy; indeed, causality, prediction, and control become casualties to new dynamics. For example, if conditions external to the classroom change for any given student, that student may move to a new region in the learning circle. Changes in job, finance, home life or health may bring uncertainty into the life of some number of students; only chaos can cope with chaos. Linearity simply amplifies disorder. 3. In a stable environment, a large system will work well if it is well administered. Given uncertainty in the larger environment, small systems are preferred since they can be more sensitive to local conditions. Chaotic regimes thus offer two advantages to students; the first set forth in point 2, above and the second found in the student's experience in the classroom in coping with and finding order for her or his life in a larger, more disordered universe. Accepting that there is some learning taking place at more a behavioral than a verbal level, success in digging out order in a chaotic situation is a decided asset to the student. 4. If we want to retain the advantages of diversity in a society, then one must permit diversity in the socialization process. Monolithic models of truth, interpretation and understanding are hostile to the variety that handles variety in most domains of life. 5. Chaos theory teaches us that, out of chaos comes creativity. Disorder does not bring more disorder but rather brings new and surprising forms of order. Indeed the emergence of such new learning forms is a major goal of the syllabus. The essence of a semi-stable chaotic attractor is that is produced by keeping one part of a complex causal field stable and allowing another part to vary at random. This mix of order and disorder, in the graphic art of chaos, produces some of the most complex and elegant geometric displays ever seen. Central to the Spirit of the postmodern and central to the nonlinear dynamics of Chaotic regimes is the concept of the Other. Postmodernism honors otherness in gender, race/ethnicity, politics, art, science, medicine and religion. Chaos theory declines to give preference to order over disorder, linearity over nonlinearity, 1n outcomes states over 2,3,4,8....n outcome states. In both paradigms, deviancy and normalcy are distinctly human categories rather than either normal or mathematical concepts. Accommodating Otherness: In language, in work, in religion as in the classroom, otherness is necessary. Each word we use defines a basin of meaning which has variable boundary and, in geometrical terms, occupies the same semiotic space as do other, sometime quite different words. In office, factory, bureau or shop, linear implementation of policy is inefficient. In everyday life, implementation of policy defines an outcome basin which has structure but that structure is unstable; sometimes wisdom requires that the reverse of policy be used to decide cases which come before a clerk, a manager or a foreman. In religion, the Drama of the Holy requires that, once in a while we treat that which is sacred as profane and that which is profane as sacred. In the classroom, otherness in gender relations, in historical interpretation, in criminology as in grading requires a wisdom and a judgment which transcends duality in truth values, in moral values or in scoring tactics. Some, themselves oriented to linearity, see this tolerance for otherness to be warrant for anarchy or license for disorder. It is well to point out and to emphasize that this new science of complexity deals with the mixture of order and disorder; it does not endorse the first since it is not found in nature nor does it advocate the latter since, without sufficient order, disorder loses whatever advantages it brings to the human estate. THE GREAT FLYING CHAOS LEARNING CIRCUS: Introduction to the course begins with a greeting: Welcome to the Land of ChaOz. For this one time only course, you will live in the same kind of ChaOz in which Chaoticians live. In the Land of ChaOz, You have your choice of several strange ways of learning. There are two very stable learning attractors and two which are quite nonlinear. And there is one which is much more Chaotic. Each learning attractor has a special mentor/tutor/teaching guide to help generate quality points. The Attractors: There are four stable/semi-stable attractors in really existing natural and social dynamics. The first two are not found in any social system but may occur in very simple natural systems but for, the psychological security of the students, we presented the first two as if they were a natural social orientation. Students were given a brief description of these four attractors and asked to look them over and decide which best fits each their own learning style. Each person was asked to set a game plan with mentor by which to accumulate Quality Grade Points. and reference was made to the point menu below. A. Point Attractors: Those who choose to work and learn in this region of phase-space are the elite of the class. The seats in front of the classroom are reserved for them. Typically, they graduated in the top 5% of their high school class; their score on the quantitative portion of the college entrance exam was in the 90th percentile. They take learning and the opportunity to go to university very seriously. Typically, they will wind up as senior scientists, chief executive officers of engineering firms or auditors of multinational firms since they work while others play. The demands for these students are very high but the rewards are very great. They will get an 'A' in the class but they will have earned it. They will obtain most of their quality points by performance on the written tests rather than by outside assignments. For Point Attractors, social norms take on all the weight of mors. In terms of theoretical perspective, they will tend to take a structural- functionalist view of society. Only the most serious event will deter these dedicated students from their appointed rounds. In deference to their preference for structure, their mentor will expect them to sit in the same seat and be there at least two minutes before class begins. One is expected to remain in one's seat until the class is officially ended. B. The Torus Attractor: Torustians are also VERY serious about college and about learning as much as they can. They will have graduated in the top 10% of their class and it is very likely that they will earn an 'A' for the course; a few will settle for a 'B' but through no fault of their own. As a rough guess, they will need about 50 seats in the classroom. There will be very few 'Cs' in this learning attractor (most of the 'C's will go to the Feigenbaum Bunch, below). Torustians tend to take social norms as mors rather than folkways; so conformity to this learning mode is strict but not rigorous. It is reasonable that one may have one or two justifiable absences however the Honor Code requires that one move to the Butterfly Attractor if one has other priorities which take one away from her/his obligations to the course. One will have a TAM; Torustian Attractor Mentor, as their Generalized Other. C. The Butterfly Attractor: This is the first bifurcation and has two wings; the Right Wing and the Left Wing. Those who chose to sit in this region of phase space are very verbal, creative and like to take part in class discussion. There will be a lot of color in this section of the room. One selects either the RAM or the LAM as one's Significant Other depending upon one's political views. This attractor defines a transition from modernist philosophy of pedagogy centered on truth, precision, memory, and objectivity to one centered on interpretation, opinion, judgment and desire. Diversity of political orientations are instituted in this bifurcated attractor with a right and left wing together with some psychological space between for those who prefer not to make such a firm commitment at this time in there life cycle. Descriptions of the two wings were set to help students find the most natural place in which to act on their politics. A postmodern scholar will note that political understandings of truth and desire are presumed by the dynamics of this attractor rather than monolithic models of either. C1 The Right Wing: One hundred or so seats on the Right Side of this learning attractor are available for those who are very conservative in terms of their politics, economics and life style in general. Typically, they are very good people who take life seriously and live their religion in the fullness of their morality. They are the salt of the earth and the solid core of any society. Typically, members of this attractor will end up in a very stable life with a solid economic foundation. Their chief contribution to class discussion is to assert their own views of social life. They will be outraged at the essays and articles in the Reader by Berberoglu. They can earn quality points with field assignments discrediting the Berberoglu readings. They also will open up each class with a five minute mini-debate with someone from the Left Wing on a timely topic of mutual interest. They will be self organizing and will share this opportunity for credit out fairly. Their mentor, the RAM, will be more of a facilitator than organizer. C2 The Left Wing: Since VPI and most of Virginia is conservative, we expect that the Left Wing of this attractor will need fewer than 100 seats. Left wing students are very creative, have good language competency, are artistic and like to play a lot. They ran the extra-curricula life of their high school. Typically these students will be very interested in social justice; will devour the Berberoglu Reader and will be indignant at the things they learn therein. They could have been in the top 5% of their graduating class but they were too busy getting out the school paper, playing minor sports (they play for the fun of it and don't get too competitive). Typically they will end up in politics or own their own small business which will be people oriented. Some will be teachers; some poets, some will be social workers, psychiatrists or liberal arts professors or community activists. They too, are religious but are more likely to be Unitarians and, like the man from La Mancha, work for lost causes. They don't spend a lot of time with godtalk but are good and decent people anyhow. They will find conflict analysis sensible. They see Race, Class, and Gender as structures of domination rather than functionally essential. The Left Wing too will be self-organizing. They will caucus to elect recallable leaders who will liaise with the Right Wing for the opening debates. They will be able to earn quality points from field assignments, debates, secret assignments from the GTA and other self-developed assignments. There is no attendance policy for them because they are too undisciplined (some say creative) to abide by one. They can design their own mix of grading options in consultation with their mentor; they may stop attending class any time they think they have earned enough quality points for the grade they can live with. However most will carry on since they are really interested in how society is possible. Chaotic dynamics have a lot of order in most dynamical regimes. Some second order uncertainty enters in the Butterfly attractor since, while a given person, system or population is very likely to end up in one or two of the outcome basins called attractors, there is space in between for much less certainty. Liberals, in classic political theory are quite positive about freedom and the intervention of authority in social life but, for this class and in American usage, liberalism seems apt to describe such modalities of knowledge, understanding and certainty. C3 The Liberal Middle About 100 seats will be reserved in the middle of the class room (behind the Torustians) and between the two wings of the butterfly attractor. Boundaries between the liberals and the RAMs or LAMs are fractal. Students may sit on either side depending on their position on each of the daily five minute confrontations. They may join with the Right Wing on abortion and join with the Left Wing on, say the Death Penalty. These people are as yet undecided about politics, religion or economics; they have an open enquiring mind and have not made a personal commitment to any one or anything as yet. They think there may be a God but aren't at all sure. They tend to like Humanist and Feminist sociology rather then the more formal theories of either Marx or Parsons. Often these are the people who will use their wit and good sense to get things done when others are so wrapped up in principle and dogma that they are unable to work out an arrangement. Their color code includes very light colors; beige, pink, white, cream, tans, ceruse, robin's egg blue and such. Their preceptor will not have much to do since they are so undecided that they can't get motivated to do action research, debate or propose new grading protocols. But they will have one, anyhow...the Mid-America Attractor Mentor--or MA'AM. D. The Feigenbaum Bunch The last three rows or so in the class room are reserved for those who live in deep chaos. These seats are for FUN LOVING PEOPLE who spend more time with their hair than their minds; they include hustlers, miscreants, beats, ne'er-do-wells, party animals and jocks who don't no How to spel vary well. Some wear ear-rings in various parts of their anatomy; some wear crew cuts and letter jackets. They can be very charming and witty. They come close to being caught out but manage to talk their way out of it. There is no honor code, no dress policy, no attendance policy nor will they have a mentor specially assigned; if they want to con anyone, they will have to try it with the prof who has great experience and can detect con artists within milliseconds. If they attend and learn anything that lasts longer than the final, fine. If not, well....its a big world. The Feigenbaum Bunch will know the norms and mors of American society but they use them to their own advantage. They are not much interested in any of the three main perspectives in sociology since they are in the course only because it is required for a degree and a degree is required to get their foot in the door; after that, charm and wit will win the way. If they had a mentor, s/he would be a Simply Charming Attractor Mentor or SCAM. A few in the Feigenbaum Bunch will be people who have to juggle work, family responsibilities and/or course overload. In many respects they got themselves in such a fix but, on balance, they mean well and are embarrassed to cut corners. Once in a while, one of the Feigenbaum Bunch, as did Feigenbaum himself, will turn out to be a certified genius and surprise everyone especially their parents; but typically, they will end up as real estate brokers, used car salespersons or sociology professors. There will be two or three secret agents placed in the Feigenbaum Bunch to egg them on to even more chaos. EVALUATION: There are many innovative features to the grading system used in the course. The most interesting is the use of market criteria to encourage the students to: 1. Create their own learning protocol 2. Make wise use of their class and study time and 3. Permit an infinite combination of learning devices with which to match desire. The market system is adapted from market socialism in which people are given sufficient resources to create their own social life world but supply is kept in such supply that one must budget the expenditure of both time, timing and points. Students are given 450 points to spend. 400 quality points are required for an 'A+;' while 376 points are required for an 'A-;' This means that a student garnering 83.2% of 450 points required still may take home an 'A' to show whomever cares to look. Other grades can be earned as follows: 375 quality points are required for a 'B+; 351 to 374 points = B- or 78% to 83.1% of 450 pts. 350 quality points are required for a 'C+' 326 to 349 = C- or 73% of 450 pts. 300 quality points are required to pass the course. 301 to 324 = D or 66-72% of 450 pts. 300 = D- Some elbow space was built into the overall grading plan in order to compensate for learning a new system and to compensate for the errors we were bound to make in creating such format. As one can see from the system above, grading in nonlinear; it is easier to get an 'A' than in other courses but harder to get a 'D.' There was also space built into the field assignments to allow for the small injustices which ensue from creativity and uncertainty; for example, in the movie labs, a lot of new material was presented to the students in a very short time and they were given a work sheet which cost them 25 points, to fill out which, as it turned out contained just plain errors and more ambiguity than usual to multiple choice questions. We included free 5 points for showing up and to compensate for both the speed with which we go over material and the haste with which the work sheets were prepared. Thus, for 25 of their points, students automatically received 5 quality points and the opportunity to earn up to 20 more for the use of basic sociological concepts in sorting out the scenes, actors and dynamics of a movie. QUALITY POINT MENU: Any one stop attending and taking tests when they accumulate enough quality points to earn the grade they are content with from the menu below. One may skip the final if one does well enough on the other menu items. The possibility that one might not take the final is a powerful motive for selecting alternative ways to encompass the material in the course. Each menu item offers a differing learning/grading modality. Together with the learning attractors above, the quality point menu defines the attractor states to which any given student might move. There are five learning circles (six if one counts the Feigenbaum Bunch) and ten menu items set by the syllabus. From the point of view of the professor, there are about six uncertainties for which to plan. From the point of view of the mentors, there are three contingencies to which they must devote time and attention; the field assignments, special projects and mini-debates since the exams are handled by the teaching associate and the movie/crime labs are organized by the professor and machine graded. Typically a mentor would have 100 students to mentor; each having 450 points to spend. Each mentor would thus have to help students plan to spend 45,000 points. Most students would take two tests at 150 points each thus spending 30,000 points on the two together. That would leave each mentor with a market for about 15,000 points. The movie labs cost the students 25 points each. The students can take 4 such labs; if so, then they would have spent another 10,000 points in such a market. As a practical matter, they don't since the movie labs are offered only at 5-7 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon in a room holding but 135 persons. Some students work; some have other labs at that time and some don't plan their course work carefully. All this means that mentors have to request and grade field assignments in sufficient number to permit their students to spend their points. The professor drafted a field assignment for each chapter; the mentor adapted the assignment with the professor for her/his students and hands them out to students. As things settled down into a routine, the movie labs were offered every other week and the field assignments handed out on alternate weeks. This meant that points other than tests were on a two period cycle; first one, then the other for the students to select. I. EXAMS. These exams are largely objective (for quick and easy grading). Those who do better on essay and interpretive testing will want to opt for the field assignments and lab exercises below. A. Exam 1. fifth week: 150 points possible B. Exam 2 tenth week: 150 points possible C. Final: cumulative: 100 points possible 2. FIELD ASSIGNMENTS: 25 points each. These assignments are action research assignments. These are based upon the essays on the Berberoglu Reader. There is a separate guide sheet for these field assignments. Mentors signed and stated the due date on it. There was a limit of FOUR for any one person. 3. LAB MEETINGS There were eight or nine lab meetings at which a movie on video will be analyzed by the professor. One is to use concepts from the associated chapter with which to explicate the movie shown. Students attended the lab, listened to a review of basic concepts, asked questions, took note, and filled out a work sheet for the movie. 25 quality points possible for each movie; there was a limit of FOUR. Movies to be analyzed included: My Fair Lady, The Dead Poets Society, Beverly Hills Cops, Other People's Money and the Wizard of Oz. 4. SPECIAL PROJECTS were given out from time to time coordinated with events on campus. An address by Howard Zinn at Radford University offered one such project. An address by a theology professor, Jacqueline Carr-Hamilton on the Presidential Campaign offered a second. Sue Rosser spoke about women in science for a their In brief, you will be asked to use five concepts from the remaining part of the text with which to interpret the event. 25 quality points were possible. One could do up any four of these. GTAs offered guide sheets. 5. MINI-DEBATES 5 minute debates were offered which included a statement and rebuttal between the Right Wing and Left Wing spokespersons. These were coordinated by the RAM and LAM and scheduled when ready. The debates take up ideas from the Berberoglu Reader; each side has two minutes to state their point of view and 30 seconds for rebuttal. The Teaching Associate will award up to 15 Quality Points for each person. 6. QUESTIONS Each day, the three best questions poised in class (as selected by the Teaching Associate) were awarded 5 quality points. The questions must be based on the chapter under discussion. 7. Jokes. These must be suitable for the situation and based upon the topics covered so far. 5 quality points if a joke is used. 8. Secret Assignments. 10 quality points each. See your special agent in charge of dirty tricks. Watch out for the October surprise. 9. Personal Creativity. You may submit two personal assignments for up to 10 quality points each. Creativity is of the essence for work. Cartoons, brochures, editorial pieces in the school paper, even three dimensional models of the ideas in the various chapters qualify as extra credit work. Songs, poetry and two page essays are also acceptable. 10. Magic Words. There will be a magic word from each Chapter, which if used in a question from those in the butterfly attractor, will earn a instant 10 quality points. The magic word for the first Chapter has between 9 and 12 letters. We will celebrate the magic word when it appears for the first time in a question. 11. There were three ongoing vignettes produced and directed by students at 15 quality points per production with a limit of four. Each director could 'hire' and 'pay' up to five actors in any given soap. The three soaps included: a. Captain Science. Remember he is smarter than you are; he's got a doctor's degree....in SOCIOLOGY! One episode of Captain Science involved cultural conflict; a tourist in a foreign restaurant made a gesture of appreciation for service and food which was offensive in that culture. Captain Science saved the day by explaining the varying use of symbols to create social realities in differing societies. In a second episode, Lust for Theory, Captain Science was a woman, dressed in a conservative suit, who explained to a group of women why they could not find any theory which explained their lived experience. Captain Science introduced them to feminist theory and satisfied their....Lust for Theory! b. Life with Bev and Jack. In the first episode of fun with Bev and Jack, Bev meets Jack and brings him home to meet her parents. Jack is unacceptable to the upper middle class parents (Dad is governor and mom is ??) c. Fun with Dick and Jane. [Jennifer will polish and finish this section. GAME PLAN FOR QUALITY POINTS: [who will take this section?? coordinate with Anna] Your mentor will check your game plan anytime the first week and keep a copy. S/he will accept your game plan when you have taken the first test or acquired 50 points from optional QPPs. You are expected to keep to the game plan you set unless you file a new one with your mentor. NAME_____________________________ Major_____________ Learning Attractor Preference:_____________________________________ REMEMBER: The overall limit in your game plan is 450 points; you may not try for any combination totally more than 450 quality points. I plan to earn Quality Points as follows: [Every one with fewer than 50 quality points must take the first exam]. A. I plan to take all three tests. I plan to take the first and second exam. I plan to take only the final. total ___ B. I plan to try ___ field assignments at up to 25 points each. [Limit of 4] Total ___ C. I plan to attend ___ movie labs. [Limit of FOUR] Total ___ D. Add here the other points you earn from jokes: ____ questions: ____ mini-debates: ____ secret assignments: ____ Other, please list: ____ You have the right to revise your game plan after each test. See your mentor when you are ready to do so. Your mentor will monitor your progress. You must try for at least 50 quality points prior to the first exam if you plan to be excused from it. ________________________Approved ________Date ******************** REFERENCES Ashby, H. R. 1968 "Variety, constraint, and the law of requisite variety." in Buckley, Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist. Chicago: Aldine. Benhabib, Selya. 1991. Feminism and Postmodernism: An Uneasy Alliance, in Praxis International. 11:2. July. Briggs, John and F. David Peat. 1989 Turbulent Mirror: An Illustrated Guide to Chaos Theory and the Science of Wholeness. New York: Harper and Row. Feigenbaum, Mitchell 1978. Quantitative Universality for a Class of Nonlinear transformations, in the Journal of Statistical Physics, 19:25-52. Cited in Gleick, p. 157. Glass, Leon and Michael C. Mackey, 1988. From Clocks to Chaos: The Rhythms of Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Gleick, James, 1988. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Guastello, Stephen J. Population Dynamics and Workforce Productivity. American Psychological Society. 21 June, 1992, San Diego; The Second Annual Chaos Network Conference, Santa Cruz. Hbler, A. Modelling and Control of Complex Systems: Paradigms and Applications. A paper presented at the 2nd Annual Chaos Network Conference: Santa Clara. June, 1992. Scheduled to appear in Modeling Complex Phenomena. L. Lam, ed. New York: Springer. Kenworthy, Lane 1990 What kind of Economic System? A Leftist Guide, in Socialist Review, V.20, No.2: 102-124. MacKay, Donald M. 1968 "Towards an information-flow model of human behavior' In Walter Buckley, ed., Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist. Chicago: Aldine. Lukes, Timothy, 1989 Screens of Power: Ideology, Domination,and Resistance in Informational Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mandelbrot, Benoit 1977 (rev. 1983) The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: Freeman. Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers 1984 Order out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books. Roemer, John 1990 Market Socialism. A paper presented at the Conference of Radical Scholars and Activists in Chicago, August. Rosenau, Pauline. 1992 Post-modernism and the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Young, T. R. 1969 "Social Stratification and Modern Systems Theory, General Systems Yearbook, Vol. XIV, 1969. Reprinted in Archives Europeenes Sociologique X, 1969, 323-329 Young, T. R., 1977 "Radical Dimensions in Modern Systems Theory: A General Theory of Social Order and a Special Theory of Social Change," Western Sociological Review 8:2 Young, T. R. 1991a Chaos theory and Symbolic Interaction. The Journal of Symbolic Interaction, 14:3, Fall. Young, T. R. 1991c Change and Chaos Theory. The Social Science Journal. 28(3). Fall.