The strategic use of constraints

The majority of the critical problems we face today concern processes where closure and constraint are not functioning well. That is to say, global geochemical cycles and ecosystem dynamics have now been destabilized to such an extent that they will no longer maintain planetary homeostasis as we approach, or are in the midst of breaching, earth system tipping points. So how do we return to a stable and flourishing planet, not just an impoverished equilibrium or, far worse, a "runaway" situation? One approach is through the field of industrial ecology, which is generally the study of how to create a "circular economy". This is where the notion of closure comes in, or as it is called "closing the loop" and eliminating the very concept of waste as an outmoded way of thinking. Another approach is through the field of biosemiotics, where research is honing in on the idea that freedom and constraint stand in a "recursive and generative dialectic". Donald Favareau put this best when he said, "It is the very placing of boundary conditions and constraints that, paradoxically, call forth new strategies, behaviors, interactions and relationships within the semiosphere.” [1] So let's take these two related notions of closure and constraint as our starting point in addressing the ecological crisis unfolding today. I hope to show how constraints are the means for closing the loop. (But before doing so, I want to make obvious what should go without saying: even the best theorizing about environmental issues will be all for naught without engaged and active support. Let's work together, on all these intersecting issues.)

Why the focus on constraints?

Arran Gare wrote "Humans coevolved with other species in Africa, and evolved as relatively insignificant components of African ecosystems. Their numbers were kept in check by predators and diseases. However, when they invaded other ecosystems - Eurasia, Australia, the Americas and New Zealand - they had devastating effects, leading in each case to vast numbers of extinctions. The only real opposition to humans came from other humans. So while humans developed more complex forms of semiosis than had ever previously existed on Earth, and while this facilitated complex forms of cooperation, initially this semiosis in no way served the ecosystems they invaded. Only later, it appears, did humans come to appreciate their environments and through their unique semiosis develop constraints on their interactions with their environments. Subsequent history has been characterized by further advances in semiosis simultaneously augmenting humanity’s destructive potential, but also our capacity for self-constraint." [2] To repeat, further advances in semiosis must augment humanity’s capacity for self-constraint.

So much for the ecological consequences of our new found semiotic abilities. But there have been social/political consequences as well. Peter Corning wrote, “The very factors that contributed to our economic progress as a species also created opportunities for economic exploitation, social inequality, and political conflict (and regression). The egalitarian social contract that had sustained our hominin ancestors for millions of years was undermined, and this resulted in a deep structural defect that has plagued modern human societies down to the present day. ...The traditional reverse dominance hierarchy in humankind has devolved into various forms of exploitative hierarchical systems, for the most part.” (Synergistic Selection, 189, 202)

We engage in 'probabilistic thinking' in order to discern the possible scenarios for flourishing and avoid degenerative dynamics. We form relationships, make interpretations, and guess about possible futures laden with existential significance to beings such as ourselves. What do we do with this "semiotic awareness"? We will need to develop "enabling constraints" to help us reach those few possible future scenarios in which we can flourish for centuries to come. If it's not obvious, there are many ways to fail, the ways to succeed are much fewer. As Gare pointed out, on a geological timescale, only very recently have we humans managed to liberate ourselves from natural constraints that, heretofore, have prevented us from destroying the environment in which we evolved. And in that process, without such externally limiting factors in place, we are still struggling to gain the self-control needed to preserve our home. As anyone with small children can tell you, it is very easy to make a mess of your home. Keeping it clean takes work. Hence the path to address the ecological crisis caused by unconstrained pollution would seem to be clear, at least broadly defined: self-control and constraint.

Terrence Deacon

But don't we live in a society that sees constraint as the enemy of freedom? Do we really need it?

Few people openly advocate for constraints to be applied in their own lives, more often we hear about calls to abridge the rights of "others" in the name of xenophobia, accompanied by claims to our own exceptional status or class. But in this article I want us to see the notion of constraint in a biological, evolutionary, and semiotic context where it takes on a much different meaning. Creating emergent self-regenerative constraints is exactly the sort of thing we must do if we want to flourish. As Jeremy Sherman has pointed out, all organisms must be able to protect, repair, and reproduce themselves, that is to say they work to prevent their degeneration, and to do this they constrain (or channel) work to ensure their persistent fittedness to the environment. This is really a process of elimination where the possibilities for failure are reduced so that the possibilities for success increase. Before constraining possibilities, given the second law of thermodynamics, it is more likely things (including us) will simply fall apart. So we have no choice but to use constraints; part of the challenge is identifying those that promote our interests. Many do not. Today the carbon-polluting economy is constraining our choices. Powerful, carbon-polluting interests have successfully blocked policy reforms, structuring the choices available to us today so as to preserve their short-term profits. This is why part of the solution involves making the policy reforms that will restructure constraints.

Sherman wrote “Some constraints are imposed, for example, an engine cylinder that prevents gas from pushing out in all directions or a canal that prevents water from spilling every which way. But some constraints are emergent, for example you’re threading your way through a crowded plaza, everyone trying to thread around everyone. People sidestep the congestion. Eventually, paths of least resistance emerge by a process of path-elimination, where some paths become less probable making others more probable. This is all from nothing but interaction; there were no imposed constraints, no guide rails or traffic cops to impose the simplification of traffic flows.” Pragmatically, we can look at both imposed and emergent constraints in terms of their effects. We’ll need a better understanding of these if we are going to repair the structural defects plaguing modern human society that writers like Corning and Oreskes have identified.

Victoria Alexander has been writing and speaking on the subject of what kind of social and political thinking a biosemiotic perspective tends to lend itself to. As she described "creative and intelligent behavior emerges in complex systems when individuals have semiotic freedom and enabling constraints. Government/culture should provide the enabling constraints (language, tradition, borders, laws, courts, currency, public buildings, hospitals, schools, mass transportation, energy and communication networks) but the people making use of those constraints should have the semiotic freedom (i.e., the ability to interpret rules and even misinterpret rules) to make their own decisions, set their own goals, and enjoy/suffer the consequences.” Or as Kobus Marais said, "culture is as incomplete as nature... the imposition of constraints might well offer new analytic tools to describe the emergence of cultural and/or social phenomena."

Are there any real examples of this?

There are many examples of how constraints structure people and society, with potentially beneficial or harmful consequences. As organisms, our bodies are a perfect example, and as Alexander pointed out, agriculture would be much less manageable without enclosures, not to mention nearly every piece of modern machinery (such as the engine cylinder Sherman used in his example). I've mentioned some of the harmful effects that legal constraints can have when used as a tool of powerful interests. Staying with the topic of addressing the ecological crisis, as climate action planning to limit anthropogenic drivers of climate change becomes an implicit part of governance at all levels, integrating efforts from local to global, understanding how constraints can be leveraged to "call forth new strategies, behaviors, interactions and relationships" is more important now than ever. Such plans must promote new ways (methods, information, resources) to operate within these limitations. When we look at various roles (developer, manager, planner, etc.) and policy options (for energy, efficiency, recycling, transportation, food, waste, public engagement) identifying where and how our attention is placed, why it is placed there, how it might be redirected, and how the signs and signals that operate within our daily lives can provide the information we need to advance, and enhance progress toward, sustainable goals. Will augmented reality and digital communities, that restructure semiotic information and improve its accessibility, provide enabling constraints for exchanging goods and services and planning the production, distribution, consumption, and recycling of our natural resources? Will we use smart electric grids, whether micro or macro, to economize energy use and optimize performance by constraining the flow of energy within the grid itself to where it is needed and externally by harnessing ambient sources of energy in the environment? All that and more will be up to us to decide as we determine the operative constraints in a regenerative society.

"A Recursive Vision: Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson"
By Peter Harries-Jones

Where can I learn more?

The insights contained in the presentations given by Victoria Alexander, Jeremy Sherman, and many others at the 2018 Biosemiotics Gathering are numerous (see videos and abstracts). I look forward to seeing them again in July for the 2019 Biosemiotics Gathering. For more information about biological constraints, Terrence Deacon's "Incomplete Nature" is a great resource as is Jeremy Sherman's concise distillation of that book in "Neither Ghost Nor Machine". Precursors of this research can be seen in Gregory Bateson, who wrote, "the course of events is said to be subject to restraints, and it is assumed that, apart from such restraints, the pathways of change would be governed only by equality of probability". For Ernst von Glasersfeld, life itself is "the art of creating equilibrium in a world of constraints and possibilities." Warren McCulloch also made these ideas central to his investigations. Relatedly, according to Glenn McLaren, process philosophy (or metaphysics) is basically the idea that all the universe is fundamentally active, so if you want to bring about order this activity has to be constrained. As a result, philosophers like McLaren (and Arran Gare) approach biosemiotics from a process philosophy perspective. Here each process presupposes every other for its own occurrence; each process is ‘functional for’ the occurrence of the system. In his recent book "The Philosophical Foundations of Ecological Civilization: A manifesto for the future" Arran Gare describes how all life participates in meaning-making, in constraint and possibility, and shows how this can inform our social institutions, and our relationships among ourselves and with the planet. This work places current events in context as well as provides future plans with some perspective, drawing the lines between our relationship to the earth, to the very processes and meanings displayed in nature, and to the ways in which we live and work in our daily lives.

Paradoxical Conclusion

We return to two enduring paradoxes. The first is that what can create can also destroy (1), and the second is that the enjoyment of freedom requires restraint (2 - 4). Not recognizing the first has been a curse on nature, not understanding the second has been a curse on society. 

1. “We end, I think, at what might be called the standard paradox of the twentieth century: our tools are better than we are, and grow better faster than we do. They suffice to crack the atom, to command the tides. But they do not suffice for the oldest task in human history: to live on a piece of land without spoiling it.” (Aldo Leopold) 
2. "It is the very placing of boundary conditions and constraints that, paradoxically, call forth new strategies, behaviors, interactions and relationships within the semiosphere.” (Donald Favareau)
3. "No growth without assistant. No action without reaction. No desire without restraint. Now give yourself up and find yourself again. There is a lesson for you." - Li Mu Bai (In Wang Dulu's "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon")
4. 無為而無不為 or 无为而无不为 (Chinese: wúwéi ér wúbù wéi) meaning: "No action is undertaken, and yet nothing is left undone." Tao Te Ching, chapter 37 and 48. This is often included in the paradox wéiwúwéi, "action without action" or "no action without nonaction".