You Matter More Than You Think: this new book on “quantum social science” says we shouldn’t underestimate how much our actions can change the world
How would we address our most fundamental challenges - climate crisis, consumerism, automation - if we didn’t regard the world we experience as a massive, compacted bloc, largely impervious to our influence or our desire to change it? What if we understood our reality to be much more bound up and reactive to our perceptions and intentions - shifting at levels and in ways that were not entirely predictable?
The commons thinker David Bollier calls this an “onto-shift” - a shift in our “ontology”, our basic idea of what our reality is (see p. 29). The social theorist Karen O’Brien thinks we can get there by integrating quantum physics and social science.
This means a physics that describes “spooky action at a distance”, or the possibility of two realities existing at once (wave and particle), connecting to new theories of human action - ones which would have to accept that the world we operate in has these non-obvious, surprising, and ambiguous dimensions. How can this build up our confidence in making change?
Karen’s new book, You Matter More Than You Think, is the outcome of ten years of thinking around these issues - brought to a head in the age of Extinction Rebellion and the COVID pandemic. (Here’s also a paper which focusses her argument).
Karen is running a webinar on Thursday, June 18, 2020, 8:00 PM - 9:30 PM (all welcome), but here are some extracts from the early parts of Karen’s book below - which is available free for download (after registration) here.
I am interested in the social and human dimensions of climate change. I first and foremost want to understand how we can transform society at the rate, scale, speed, and depth that is called for at this moment in time. Not whether we can do it, but how.
And since we know that not all transformations will lead to fair and just outcomes, I want to understand how we can do so in an equitable and sustainable manner. This matters for all of us. How do we shift the cultures and systems that are currently perpetuating the climate crisis?
This includes a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy; a shift from exploiting humans and resources to caring for people and the planet; and finally, a shift from a divisive “us versus them” attitude to a non- polarizing [I/we] perspective.
The [I/we] perspective is set in brackets because we seem to lack the exact words to communicate the essence of our connection in what is often experienced as a fragmented, polarized society. This coherent space of oneness has been described in philosophy and metaphysics as “pre-space,” “the implicate order,” “ultimate reality,” “unus mundus,” or “Source.”
We can begin to approach transformative change by acknowledging the extent to which the language of reductionism, individualism, andndeterminism has penetrated our social world. As physicist David Bohm writes, “...every language form carries a kind of dominant or prevailing world view, which tends to function in our thinking and in our perception whenever it is used...”
Whatever language we speak, we increasingly find ourselves reduced to individual consumers, with a focus on “I” more than “we,” and with little sense of our collective agency. For many, life seems to be determined by circumstances or “systems” that we cannot influence.
Bohm suggests that it is difficult to see alternative worldviews within the existing structure of our language and meaning-making. For example, slaves were previously legally regarded as “chattel” or the disposable property of their “owners” – a legal language that legitimized a worldview where it was permissible to violently abuse people and deny them legal status and rights.
As another example, many indigenous groups did not have any concept or language of ownership of the land they lived on. This was in contrast to empire-building nations who did have such legal concepts and language.
Some scholars claim this legitimized arguments that such lands did not have any “owner,” and thus could be claimed. In their (world) view, they were “settling” these lands, rather than conquering and expropriating them.
The power of language to define social relationships is reason alone to explore how worldviews and paradigms influence our relationship to each other, to nature, and to the future.
Rather than opening our mind to new ways of seeing and being in the world, we tend to retrofit new ideas into existing frameworks and describe them with familiar language. This may be the usual approach, but we live in a time that compels us to consider alternatives.
Quantum social science represents one possible alternative, and offers an entry point for generating deeper conversations about meaning and mattering in a changing climate. In physics, quantum theory has provided us with a new lens on the world, particularly at the atomic and subatomic scales, through concepts such as entanglement, complementarity, uncertainty, and quantum leaps.
These concepts have already migrated into many other fields, and they have been appropriated to serve a variety of worldviews and agendas. Yet what if the climate crisis actually is an appropriate time to consider how the methods, metaphors and meanings of quantum physics inform social science, and particularly our understanding of social change?
Quantum physics, which refers here to both quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, challenges existing models of reality at the subatomic scale. Electrons can be in two places at once and tunnel between physical barriers? Particles are nonlocally entangled? Time goes backwards?
While this is all intriguing, a quantum lens has not yet been taken seriously when it comes to understandings of social change. Many would argue quite strongly that it should not, since quantum physics applies to subatomic, atomic, and molecular scales.
Yet why not? Physicist Christopher Fuchs argues that “What is at stake with quantum theory is the very nature of reality. Should reality be understood as something completely impervious to our interventions, or should it be viewed as something responsive to the very existence of human beings?” Could a quantum lens, with all of its ambiguity and potential for abuse, provide a fresh perspective on social change?
I will explore some ideas from the emerging field of quantum social science, whose starting point is that understandings of our social world cannot be reduced to the laws and mechanisms associated with classical physics.
Of course, many social scientists and humanists would argue that our social reality should not be reduced to any type of physics. Period. Yet to inquire does not mean to commit to any particular understanding, especially since there is no definitive interpretation of quantum physics.
Quantum physics instead invites inquiries into what we consider real, and it draws attention to the relationship between beliefs and meaning, and between mind and matter. It also emphasizes the significance of the metaphors and stories that we tell about ourselves, our world, and our future.
Most of all, it gets us thinking about our agency and potential to act in time to make a difference. To really matter.
A quantum perspective on social change allows us to explore relationships, and to consider the entanglement of individuals and collectives, humans and the environment, and nature and society. It invites us to hold a [both/and] perspective, whether one interprets this in a metaphorical or meaningful sense.
Humans are not separated from systems, and when we are aware of this entangled relationship, we can both respond to the risks we are creating and realize our potential to generate alternatives.
From this perspective, people are the most powerful solution to climate change. This is one of the most important messages relating to the newly proposed geological epoch referred to as the Anthropocene, a term that acknowledges that humans have become a powerful force shaping the future of the planet.
Can we transform the way we think about ourselves, our energy, and our potential to influence systems in an equitable and sustainable manner? More importantly, can we actualize this transformation in a meaningful way? These are some of the questions that will be addressed in this exploration of quantum social change.
Photo by Michael Dziedzic on Unsplash
Mattering
In the midst of what many recognize and experience as a global emergency, more and more people feel compelled to take action. They want to make a difference, and to matter.
This is evident in movements such as 350.org, Extinction Rebellion, the Sunrise Movement, Fridays for Future, and many other forms of activism.
Yet how do we translate an abstract idea about “mattering” into large-scale systems change that is not only rapid and effective, but equitable, ethical, and sustainable?
Mattering means being important or significant. It also refers to a physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit. The English language uses the word matter in many ways: a matter of fact, a serious matter, mind over matter, what’s the matter, get to the root of the matter, it’s a matter of time, and so on.
Current understandings of matter draw heavily on the mechanistic worldview that is associated with the 18th Century Enlightenment, also referred to as the “Age of Reason.” In the Western world, this era was characterized by the philosophical search for truth through knowledge, reason, and experimentation.
Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation, along with the four laws of thermodynamics, contributed to new understandings of how the world worked. Simply put, the world was seen as a machine made up of separate parts that function together.
Matter, defined as a substantial “thing” located in, or moving through space and time, could be described down to the smallest subatomic level. The Enlightenment paradigm also challenged the idea of divine causation expounded by the Church and put humans in control of their destiny, with progress as both a driver and a goal of development.
The machine metaphor of classical physics has contributed to countless scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, including steam engines, trains, automobiles, and aeroplanes. Powered by the energy of fossil fuels, these inventions have accelerated the release of stored carbon into the atmosphere, changing its composition and influencing the global energy balance, which has had consequences for human health and the climate system.
It has also influenced climate change research, which uses mathematical models to understand complex interactions among different parts of the Earth System, including the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere (ice cover).
The models derived from these relationships, along with new insights from complexity science, have made important contributions to understandings of how human activities are influencing the global climate system, as well as how they will be impacted by the consequences.
Yet aside from “human activities” and “human impacts,” people seem to be conceptually excluded from the system. In particular, the potential for humanity to reflect, imagine, collaborate, and consciously co- create equitable transformations has not been adequately integrated in sustainability science.
The Enlightenment worldview underpinning the modern and Western interpretation of progress has brought us many important benefits, including scientific discoveries and technological innovations that have improved the quality of life and life expectancy for many people.
However, over the past 150 years, this worldview has been challenged on many grounds. Researchers in the social sciences, humanities, philosophy, theology, and even the natural sciences have questioned the core assumptions of this worldview, including the idea that matter is lifeless and dead, that consciousness is an illusion, and that individuals are separate and distinct from each other and nature.
A focus on the purely functional connections between the different parts of the “machinery” that drive our systems ignores deeper questions of meaning, purpose, and what really “matters.”
It has also led to the pursuit of progress, innovation, and growth for their own sake, rather than for the well-being of people and the planet. This is not to deny the importance of this worldview, but to recognize its limitations and consider how it may need to change to support a sustainable and thriving world.
Many religions and cultural traditions have long recognized both particularity and universality, i.e., a dynamic [both/and] relationship between parts and wholes.
For example, African Ubuntu philosophy is based on the understanding that “I am because we are,” and many cultures view landscapes as relational and alive.10 Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Taoism describe the holistic nature of the universe.
Holism refers to the philosophical idea of an interconnectedness that can only be explained with reference to the whole, rather than to its parts. From a holistic perspective, mind and body, humans and nature, and other conceptual distinctions are not separate.
Building on such alternative perspectives, a school of thought within academia referred to as “new materialism” considers matter in a relational, emergent sense, recognizing that it can be influenced both by inertia and powerful vested interests.
For example political theorist Jane Bennett talks about matter as vibrant and alive, something that opens up for unexpected possibilities that are emergent rather than linear and deterministic.
From the perspective of new materialism, matter has agency. Yet as feminist theorist and physicist Karen Barad emphasizes, this agency is not an attribute that someone or something has, but an enactment of doing or being.
The idea that humans and non-humans are vibrant with consciousness and agency has contributed to what has been referred to as an “Enlivenment” worldview. In contrast to the Enlightenment worldview, this perspective stresses the importance of incorporating lived experience and embodied meaning into our understanding of the biosphere
In this way, a recognition that the biosphere is connected, vibrant, and alive can potentially transform the way we relate to nature, and to each other.
As Andreas Weber writes, an Enlivenment worldview does not seek to replace the science of the Enlightenment, but rather to expand it by challenging some of its core assumptions.
Download Karen’s book here. We also must note that Karen draws some inspiration from the Alternative UK:
In The Politics of Waking Up, Indra Adnan describes a fractal politics that is defined by the pattern of relationships at the heart of complex systems. She points to community institutions as a particularly powerful and influential fractal, recognizing that it is the quality of our relationships that creates new patterns and possibilities. This includes relationships with biodiversity and other sentient and non-sentient beings… (p. 77)
It is possible to consciously and purposively generate social fractals based on values that are consistent with a thriving world. Monica Sharma describes a fractal approach to paradigm shifts at scale, recognizing that each idea, initiative, or endeavor can be designed with the same characteristics desired for the whole.
Indra Adnan writes that “What we believe is possible is tested by our investment in those possibilities.” By basing our actions and intra-actions on the values and changes we wish to see replicated in the world, we can generate self-similar patterns that apply to everyone, and to all situations, whether at home, at work, in a community or organization, or through political parties and social activism. These fractal patterns, in turn, can generate results at all scales… (p.79)
Mark McCaffrey and Avit Bhowmik’s “Powers of Ten” framework (see below) examines the relative population concentration of scales ranging from the individual (100) to families (101), personal networks (102), villages (103), communities (104), metacommunities (105), urban areas (106) and so on, all the way up to the global scale (1010). It explores the related targets and indicators for successful engagement at each level, as well as possible interventions and barriers.
McCaffrey suggests that there is a “sweet spot” in the middle where local and global converge, and where action can have the greatest impact. This sweet spot lies in the range of communities (104) and urban areas or regions (106), or in the range of ten thousand to one hundred thousand people.
Importantly, this range corresponds with the scale that Indra Adnan suggests is the most effective for the practice of “fractal politics.” Yet from the perspective of quantum fractals, every person (100) who takes actions based on universal values such as equity, dignity, compassion, and integrity affects all scales. This entangled [I/we] space represents a powerful “sweet spot” for social change (see graphic below):
