While our previous mapping of the “Assumption of Causality” highlighted George Lakoff (Direct vs. Systemic Causation), Alicia Juarrero (causality as constraint), James Wilk (Minimalist Intervention), and Peter Senge (feedback loops), the other “silent authors” in this collection are equally fierce in their rejection of the 350-year-old Newtonian paradigm of linear, forceful “billiard-ball” causality.
They expand the Force vs. Constraint dynamic through biology, cybernetics, and thermodynamics, arguing that living and social systems cannot be pushed by direct force; they are guided by boundaries, rules, and structures. Here is how they view this assumption:
1. Relational Biology: Downward Causation and Boundary Conditions
The relational biologists explicitly dismantle the idea that life is driven by linear, upward, “efficient” causes (physical force).
- Howard Pattee (Rate-Independent Constraints): Pattee divides biology into two realms: continuous physical forces (rate-dependent dynamics, like enzymes reacting) and discrete informational rules (rate-independent constraints, like DNA). DNA does not apply physical kinetic “force” to build a protein; instead, it acts as a constraint that strictly limits the physical possibilities, harnessing and directing the raw dynamic forces to achieve a functional end.
- Denis Noble (Biological Relativity): Noble rejects the linear, bottom-up force of the “selfish gene”. He argues for downward causation, where the macro-environment or whole organ exerts causal influence by setting the boundary conditions (constraints). The lower-level molecules provide the physical dynamics, but the higher-level constraints dictate exactly how and when those equations are solved.
- Robert Rosen (Impredicativity): Rosen mathematically proves that traditional physics relies entirely on linear “efficient cause” (A pushes B). He shows that living organisms violate this because they contain “impredicativities”—closed loops of efficient causation where the system internally synthesizes its own catalysts. Thus, life is “closed to efficient causation” and cannot be explained by linear force.
2. Autopoiesis: Perturbation vs. Instruction
Humberto Maturana views the Force vs. Constraint dynamic through the lens of Structural Determinism.
- In classical linear causality, the environment applies a force that “instructs” or directly causes a change in the system.
- Maturana proves this is biologically impossible for living systems. Because organisms are operationally closed, the environment cannot forcefully instruct them; it can only act as a source of perturbations (triggers).
- When perturbed, the system’s response is determined entirely by its own internal structure (its internal constraints). Therefore, you cannot “force” a human or a social system to change; you can only alter the environment and observe how their internal constraints dictate their reaction.
3. Hierarchy Theory: The Environment as a Slow Constraint
Tim Allen explains causality across different scales of complexity. He notes that the primary way an upper-level environment exerts causal control over a lower-level system is not by pushing it, but “by doing nothing”.
- Because the environment operates at a much slower frequency than the fast-moving system within it, the environment acts as a constant, unchanging upper-level constraint.
- For example, the slow-moving climate (environment) doesn’t forcefully push a tree’s daily growth; it simply constrains what is biologically possible for the fast-moving tree (system).
4. Cybernetics: Organization is Constraint
W. Ross Ashby and Stafford Beer view the entire concept of “organization” strictly as a form of constraint.
- Ashby defines organization not as adding parts or forces, but as restricting a system’s variety (its number of possible states). A system is organized because its parts are not independent; the behavior of one part acts as a constraint on another.
- Therefore, to control a complex system, a manager does not apply direct force. Instead, they engage in Variety Engineering—altering the constraints by building attenuators to filter out environmental noise and amplifiers to boost their own control.
5. System Dynamics: The Folly of “Pushing”
Donella Meadows vividly illustrates the danger of assuming linear “force” in social and ecological systems.
- She notes that because systems are governed by balancing feedback loops, applying direct force (the “bigger hammer” syndrome) usually triggers compensating feedback: “The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back”.
- To create real change, Meadows advises against low-leverage “force” interventions (like subsidizing a failing industry). Instead, practitioners must alter the high-leverage constraints: changing the system’s rules, restructuring its information flows, and shifting the underlying paradigm.
6. The Cybernetic Cut: Constraints vs. Controls
David L. Abel offers a unique, highly specific nuance to this conversation by demanding we explicitly separate blind physical constraints from purposeful cybernetic constraints.
- Constraints (Necessity): These are invariant, unbreakable physical laws (like gravity or thermodynamics) that blindly force outcomes without any regard for utility or purpose.
- Controls (Choice): These are formal, arbitrary rules (like genetic translation codes or software syntax) that steer a system toward a pragmatic goal.
- Abel argues that you cannot cross the “Cybernetic Cut” from dead matter to living function using forceful physical constraints; it requires formal Choice Contingency at dynamically inert logic gates to steer the system.