A Flow Theory of Behaviour Dynamics
Glen David Rutherford, PhD
Devonport, Tasmania, Australia
This is a conceptual paper setting out a Flow Theory of
Behaviour Dynamics.
The central concept of FLOW draws on the metaphorical idea of “going with the flow” and it is a core image for regulatory and reproductive processes, on the one hand and the transformative processes of self-organization on the other. As such, the idea of flow assists in understanding how patterns form or are carved out in media permitting ‘flow’, for example habitual behaviour and stimulus (situational cue) and response relations formed in the connective neural networks of the brain.
1. A Unifying Model of ‘The Whole Flow of
Movement’ in Human Behaviour Dynamics
The model presented here draws together a variety of theoretical threads to weave a depiction of the dynamism of human behaviour, from a psychological standpoint. In doing so, the model suggests that ‘the whole flow of movement’ in human behaviour may take five primary and interrelated ‘flow forms’, namely:
- Cyclical or wave flows (E, A, F, D, G below)
- Radial flows (radiating from E below, outward through A, B, C, D)
- Rotational flows (circles through A, E, C, F, A and B, G, D, F, B)
- Orbital flows (in 3 dimensional space: E, A, F, D, G, B, F, C, E)
- White noise or stochastic flows (random below)
The key concepts in the model below are CONTROL and SUPPORT, APPROACH and AVOIDANCE and MUTUAL AFFIRMATION and MUTUAL NEGATION.
Control systems may be self or socially oriented. They are involved in generating autonomous behaviour. Control systems are cybernetic in nature and are created and underlain by hierarchical relations, within and without. Externally, control systems are more likely to operate in asymmetrical social relationships.
Support systems may also be self or socially oriented. They are involved in generating behavioural mutuality. Support systems are network-based and are created and underlain by heterarchical relations, within and without. Externally, support systems are more likely to operate in symmetrical (or peer-oriented) relationships.
To use a metaphor for the relations between approach-approach and avoidance-avoidance conflicts as well as for relations between mutual affirmation and mutual negation in action schemes, a person at a beach coordinates action tendencies toward swimming and action tendencies discouraging being ‘out of one’s depth’ so that the person swims a few metres in from the waters edge – and between the flags (i.e. in the zone of “personal comfort” and of “normality” or cultural expectations).
A UNIFYING MODEL OF FLOW BEHAVIOUR DYNAMICS
2. Cyclical Flow
The many and
varied regulatory and reproductive processes in human systems are prototypical
of cyclical or ‘wave’ flows in human behaviour dynamics.
Cyclical Flows in Behaviour Dynamics: Western & Eastern Cultural forms
The following figure presents a conjectured cross-cultural model of cyclical flow in behaviour dynamics. Following Triandis (1988) it is assumed that Western cultures are predominantly individualistic (and Westerners idiographic) and Eastern cultures are predominantly collectivistic (and Easterners allocentric) in nature.
It is proposed in this paper that Western cultures are, at the behavioural level, organised around ‘self-control’ in con-junction with ‘social support’ action tendencies and at the MEDIATE-level organised by ‘self support’ in conjunction with ‘social control’ mindsets and belief systems.
On the other
hand, it is conjectured that Eastern cultural traditions are, at the
behavioural level, organised around ‘self-support’ in conjunction with
‘social-control’ action tendencies and in a MEDIATE-level organised around
‘self-control’ in conjunction with ‘social support’ mindsets and belief
systems.
To clarify terminology, self-control is defined as a situation where the individual is the primary cybernetic source of self determination and reproduction and regulation of structural organization. Social support is defined as a situation where others in the person’s environment are sources of vitality and harmony through affilio-affective networking. Self-support is defined as a situation in which the person’s socio-emotional internal networks are sources of rejuvenation, sustenance and harmonisation. Lastly, social control is defined as a situation in which others in the person’s environment serve as socio-cybernetic sources of determination and reproduction and regulation of structural organisation
It is important to distinguish between behavioural and cognitive or mediate levels because psychological processes function differently at each level. For instance, autonomy at the behavioural level involves self-determination, while at the mediate level it involves progressive internal reproduction of life sustaining mental structures.
In this work culture is construed as ‘confluences of shared meaning’ and the concept of mind is similar to G. Bateson’s (1972, 1979), where mind is viewed as a multi-level (representational or) mapping mechanism that may be referred to as ‘mind-in-the-universe-in-the mind’.
This paper now
builds up from first principles to depict and discuss the interrelated,
cooperative cyclical flows of
[percepts-constructs-relationships-intentions-actions] and [actions-intensions
-relationships-constructs-proprioceptive percepts].
However, one
point to be made here is that the concept of relationships in the model is defined as involving
three types of social relations (mediated by language):
·
Likeness (cognitive
aspect)
·
Liking
(social aspect)
·
Likeability
(cultural aspect)
Two universal organising constructs
It is proposed
that two universal organising “process-structures” are central to cyclical
flows in panhuman behaviour dynamics.
These process-structures are construed as functioning in a parallel
(dual) as well as serial (mutual) manner.
To clarify my terms, I adopt Margaret Wheatley’s (1999) use of process-structure
as a term for the invisible processes/energies that substantively underlie all
manifest structures. Also, I
extrapolate from Ilya Prigogine’s dissipative structure concept (Nicholis and
Prigogine, 1977), so that ‘process’ – structures involve the invisible and
momentary dissipation of tensions and forces via energy flows, which create and/or
progressively consolidate and reproduce these structures.
The two process-structures may be referred to as:
Ø “INTENTION-ALITY”: Teleological, purposive, volitional, intentional behaviour (exemplified by strategic planning and goal-oriented performance)
o For instance, in the domain of interpersonal relationships a person may plan or aim to find a compatible partner by a certain point in time (‘in their life’)
o In psychology to date, Expectancy-value theory (Feather, 1982) and Azjen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behaviour are particularly relevant and pertinent theory-building exercises relating to ‘intentional process-structures’
o Intentionality reproduces and regulates cultural value settings with regard to control, hierarchical systems and relations. Stated more abstractly, intentionality involves the regulation and reproduction of momentary valences (including higher order ‘meanings’ and ‘signification’) and subjective probabilities associated with the universe of differing positions on a given field, cultural context or goal-situation. A basic assumption is that these valences (e.g. related to fears and wishes) and probabilities (of event occurrence versus event non-occurrence) associated with the varying positions are cybernetically re-produced or revised. These valences and subjective probabilities respond primarily to cyclical flow – especially in many kinds of habitual behaviour. They also, with the intervention of reflective consciousness may respond to rotational, radial and orbital flows.
AND
Ø “IN-TENSION-ALITY”: Non-teleological, stochastic, indeterminately determinate or ‘self-organising’ (Janstch, 1980) behaviour, which ‘answers to’ or ‘calls out’ (see discussions of Signifier – Referent relations) a spectrum running from ‘needs’ based in evolutionary biology through to ‘values’ based in implicitly and collectively shared cultures. It is assumed that ‘needs’ function entropically (or require cyclical re/satiation) and ‘values’ function neg-entropically (or are created from or with ‘increases in complexity’ – involving orbital or holistic flows in combination with cyclical, rotational and radial flows)
o For instance, in the domain of interpersonal relationships a person’s needs and values will draw them toward some people and away from others, in response to, or elicited by, factors such as ‘likeness’, ‘liking’ and ‘likeability’ operating in a self-organising way. Moreover, this paper assumes that ‘self-referentiality’ is an important way that both needs and values are used to create organisational complexity or order and structure.
o Expressed colloquially, many of the best friendships and partnerships ‘just happen’ or ‘happen when you least expect them/without even trying to bring them about’.
o Intensionality transforms cultural value settings with regard to support, heterarchical systems and network relations. Stated conceptually, intensionality relates to the totality or global sum of momentary and dissipative-structures in the holonic or orbital flow in a culture. This flow is attendant and responding to (the occupants of) the universe of positions on the given field, cultural context or “present situation”. David Bohm’s (1966) depiction of dialogue as ‘a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us’ to create a new participatory and ‘human-universal’ consciousness and, there through, an emergent personal and social ORDER is very relevant here. A basic assumption herein is that semiosis is fundamental to the transformational process.
o Ideas from the general science fields of chaos theory, dynamical systems, self-organisation and complexity are promising, in this respect
o A useful metaphor for construing how human behaviour is self-organised is ‘a person caught in a rip at a beach’. To survive crises such as these (c.f. a firestorm or a military conflagration) a person or group of people must not fight against the ‘wild’ forces engulfing them. Rather, they must ‘go with them’ until they ‘work themselves out’: both the forces themselves and the person by remaining maximally sentient and ready to seize an adaptive ‘end’ or ‘other’ constructive opportunities as these emerge.
It should be noted that throughout this paper the twin concepts of consciousness (including self-consciousness) and sentience are used to denote parts of two dimensions corresponding to intentionality and intensionality, respectively. In particular, in this work these concepts are conceived dimensionally as follows:
· Non-conscious, unreflective, non-reasoned, unplanned yet automatic, habitual behaviour <-> conscious, reasoned, planned, reflective behaviour (this dimension relates to intentional or goal-directed behaviour)
· Pre-verbal/figural, subliminally semiotic, sentient behaviour (c.f. Bohm’s, 1966 idea of a “deeper tacit process” and “sensitivity” for effective dialogue) <-> verbal/lexical, liminally semiotic behaviour (this dimension pertains to intensional, semiotic behaviour)
As well, these two dimensions resemble Capra’s (The Hidden Connections, 2002) stated distinction between higher-order or reflective consciousness and primary consciousness, respectively.
Therefore, this paper argues that ‘intensionality’ – as a new conceptualisation (involving human semiotic relations – as discussed below on signifier – referent relations) - is fundamentally more a pre-verbal and latent mechanism, especially involving sentient awareness. Sentience, as used herein, entails the subliminal as well as liminal “picking up of sign-messages/shared meanings” semiotically and often osmotically in communicative contexts – between knowing systems (“minds”).
It should be stressed that intensionality does not ensure greater order and complexity. Rather, without sufficient self-organisation (as an open systems, ecological metaphysical concept) intensionality may create and re-create a “prison like” situation as in an unhealthy ritual habits or ‘obsessions’.
Hegelian dialectics are an important philosophical basis in this paper. That is, the tensions among elements in a system or a network are held together by oppositions but also through the relations among differing facets in a structural whole or dynamic equilibrium.
Thus, as defined above, these two general types of process-structure indicate that people may, first (in relation to intentionality), be motivated by forming, conducting and evaluating plans, strategies, tactics and operational procedures. As well, at a higher level, people may engage in the meta-regulation of goals, needs, and terminal and instrumental values (Rokeach, 1973). Meta-regulation of goals and other ‘ends’ occurs where what people ‘try for’ and how they proceed or the approaches/’means’ they take are adjusted progressively to ensure:
· goal-attainment,
· development of the goal - for instance by taking it to a ‘higher level’ or in lateral or circular directions via quasi-imitative adaptations, or
· by changing/re-structuring the goal ‘in totality’.
Second (in relation to intensionality), concurrently and perhaps interactively, opportunities and limitations arise, grow, decay, remain ‘temporally constant’ (“in balance” or “in stasis”) and/or change through the self-organisation (‘far-from-equilibrium’ dynamics) of the momentary and present ‘total situation’ (with the ‘total situation’ being conceived as a behavioural Gestalt that is a function of the interaction between a person’s ‘life-space’ and the multi-level, embedded social ecologies within which they are co-evolving).
Indeed, one’s plans and goals can be modified or replaced/superseded by other plans and goals in response to momentary opportunities and constraints arising serendipitously from the present ‘total situation’. Similarly, the self-organisation of the present total situation may respond to and be modified by one’s plans and goal-seeking behaviour.
Moreover, this position paper assumes a co-evolutionary process between intentionality and intensionality. This process entails interrelations among goal-directed behaviours and behaviours arising through self-organising tension-flows. As such, relations are construed as co-operating between:
- social collectives and individuals,
- cultural with genetic inheritance,
- differing individuals and
- parts of an individual.
Two underlying organizing principles
Within each of the above generic universal process-structure (namely, intentionality and intensionality) it is postulated that two organizing principles shape and are shaped by the processes underlying dynamic or process (especially ‘dissipative’) structures. In particular, these principles are:
- Error or variance-minimising (‘error’ inhibiting or restricting), consistency-seeking action tendencies (epitomized by most types of social inhibition/social control – especially the ‘holding back’ of a response until it is ‘called for’ or avoiding ‘uncalled for’ behaviour)
- Error or diversity-amplifying (‘error’ exploring, facilitating or promoting), exploratory, novelty-seeking action tendencies (epitomized by most types of social facilitation/social support – especially the ‘frameworks’, scaffolds and guides, in the form of people as referent others and ideas/emotions as constructs and sources of energy, that canalise human development and make it redolent & fecund or enrich its social plasticity & cultural flexibility
These two principles, together, resemble and mirror Jean Piaget’s (1975/1985) dual, co-operative system of assimilation and accommodation, as the basis of intelligent adaptation/genetic epistemology for the development of human action or operational-schemes.
Semiosis: Signifier – Referent relations
In this paper , semiosis is proposed to operate through signifier – referent relations and these relations are construed as central to the functioning of the process-structure of intensionality. By way of definition:
· A signifier (that which ‘speaks to/calls out’) as BOTH:
o The system or sentient set (person) signifying (communicating) using ‘significant’ or meaningful gestures [signs and symbols], including vocal ‘gestures’ (speech), AND
o The significant gesture (emblem, sign or symbol) carrying significance or shared meaning
· A referent (that which ‘answers or responds to’) as BOTH:
o The consentient set (“audience”/”other” or socio-cultural context) for whom the signifier frames and addresses acts of signification (communication), AND
o The concept/s (information ‘bytes’) and/or ‘valences/value/s’ carried in or referred to in the act of signification.
Further, it is assumed that signifier – referent relations carry or transact INFORMATION and VALUE as the elemental ‘twin matter’ and ‘twin energetics’ giving form and function to intentional and intensional process-structures.
Socio-Cybernetics: Extending Norbert Weiner’s Cybernetic, control systems paradigm to incorporate support systems and networks
As noted above, intentionality relates to Weiner’s (1948) cybernetics, the science of CONTROL and COMMUNICATION. In essence, this paradigm involves hierarchical, control systems based on the feeding-back of information to regulate and re/de-regulate ‘internal value-settings’.
This paper proposes an extension to this paradigm so that intensional processes are integrated in a new synthesis. Therefore, this synthesis incorporates heterarchical, support-networks based on affilio-affective relations/relationships. These relationships ‘carry’ (via signs) indications and expressions regarding valences/values constitutive of a given cultural context/ecology. Such valences/values are conceived as being formed (and to form) in the flow of cultural exchanges. For instance, circular or lateral social inhibition and facilitation are behavioural processes creating valence-value flows in cultures. It is the view here that these flows are fundamentally cyclical but may be secondarily rotational and radial and, finally, orbital.
A new synthesis, here termed ‘socio-cybernetics’, is conceived as a scientific paradigm of CONTROL and COMMUNICATION operating together with, and apart from, CARE and CONCERN. Care and concern are construed as the bases of, and as being based in, fundamental human communal sociality and ‘lived’ temporality.
Care is viewed here as an ‘indicative’ reality realized overtly in the ‘heartfelt things people do for, and with, one another’. Concern is regarded as an ‘expressive’ reality experienced transactionally and particularly through empathy = where empathy is defined as an autonomous/non-contagious ‘sharing in/understanding of’ the affilio-affective/socio-emotional experience of another person or persons. Empathy occurs especially with those whom we relate interpersonally but empathy can also be experienced ‘indirectly’ - e.g. when watching character portrayals in a film and ‘vicariously’ – e.g. when observing familiar or unfamiliar people in differing social-behavioural situations.
Material bases and energetics in socio-cybernetics
‘Information’ and ‘values’ are seen as the contential ‘material’ in human behavioural (especially cognitive or ‘intellectual’) organization and dynamics. As well, information and values are construed as the ‘invisible functional’ energetics underlying cyclical, radial, rotational and orbital flows in human behavioural dynamics i.e. as the ‘energy’ exchanged in & for the conscious and sentient functioning of person-systems in their environment/s.
With respect to information we may say that it is:
- Created/generated
- Processed
- Exchanged
- Transformed into knowledge
In respect of valences-values we may say they are:
- Evoked
- Directed
- Set and re-set
- Dissipated or transformed
This paper assumes three primary cybernetic channels or conduits OF MIND (consciousness and sentience) and mechanisms of informative/intelligent transactions or exchanges among human systems and their environments (across physical, biological, psychological, social and cultural levels/domains). These are:
- The ‘EYE’ (perception)
- The ’HAND’ (thought)
- The ’WORD’ (language)
Interrelations among perception (or knowing), thought as ‘action schemes’ and language as semiosis are assumed to underlie the development of information and values in human behaviour dynamics.
Eye’, ‘hand’ and ‘word’ are concepts and terms have been adopted & adapted from George Herbert Mead (e.g. Mead, 1934). It is opined here that perception, thought and language are/have been ‘rolled-out’ in that evolutionary and developmental ‘order’ for phyla-, onto-and socio-genetic ‘order’: eye –> hand -> word.
The ‘EYE’/perception entails ‘sensing – perceiving/patterning’ or ‘knowing’ the proximal to distal environment/s. This occurs through ‘contact’ senses (tactile – touch and taste - senses), ‘distance’ senses (vision, audition, olfaction) and ‘motoric/kinaesthetic senses’ (via human action – walking, running, throwing, catching, talking etc). Independently and in interaction the senses provide the information and valences-values to create and sustain perception and thought/‘the intellect’. In turn, precepts and cognitive constructs underlie the pre-verbal, sentient, non-verbal and verbal gestural relationships that are the bases of human language or semiotic signification.
The ‘HAND’/thought entails action-based ‘manipulation’ [‘manu’] made possible by the uniquely human capacity to ‘grasp/hold’. It especially involves the ability to create and utilise ‘tools/technologies’ to permit environmental mastery, agency, efficacy, and generally ‘behavioural control’ (c.f. Azjen, 1991 and Bandura, 1982)
The ‘WORD’/semiosis entails ‘communicating’ with the environment via relationships. This consists of semiotic or ‘sign’-based relations whereby, in particular, the system/sentient set and social environment/consentient set ‘speak to/call out’ and ‘answer to’ one another pre/non-verbally and verbally in a significant and symbolic fashion. In so doing, ‘systems of meaning/significance’, ‘attitudes-stances/action-tendencies’ and time-space bounded realities are created and maintained. In particular this occurs through narrative/story-telling ‘tenses’ AND ‘social perspectives’ – i.e. past, present, future tenses & 1st, 2nd and 3rd person perspectives.
This paper contends that mediate relations exist among EYE, HAND and WORD. These may be presented as follows
- HAND – EYE behavioural co-ordination with ‘WORD’ – inner speech-based (semiotic/lexical) mediation c.f. Lev Vygotsky
- EYE – WORD behavioural co-construction with ‘HAND’ – mathematical/operational logic-based mediation c.f. Jean Piaget
- WORD – HAND behavioural co-operation with ‘EYE’ – insightful or figural logic-based and imaginal-ludic or ‘playful’ representational mediation c.f. Werner
Following Henri Wallon (1969), it is here assumed that language has co-evolved within neotenic (especially parent-child) relationships among homosapiens. This enabled (self-) conscious and heart-felt ‘persons’ to express and to continuously evolve role relationships and relationship supporting and creating ‘social’ emotions. Such affilio-affective expression conjunctively facilitates self-consciousness, morality/ethics/values and empathy or socio-emotional consideration. At the same time, as a result of such valence/value-laden indications and expressions of ‘sentient’ as well as self-conscious care and concern (‘heart-relationships’), behavioural-vectorial flow dynamics are created. These dynamics shape and are shaped by ‘the rivers of human culture’ (see the table/matrix below on ‘social behaviourism’ for the dimensions of these cultural vector-flow dynamics. Again, these flows are assumed to be primarily cyclical, secondarily rotational and radial and, lastly, orbital).
Hence the ‘socio’ in socio-cybernetics relates to ‘eye’, ‘hand’ and ‘word’ as, independent and inter-related, mechanisms or channels for expressing or indicating care & concern. This paper assumes that it is through these mechanisms or channels that intensionality is fundamentally infused into human behaviour dynamics
Specifically, the ‘EYE’ consists of contact and distance intents and ‘tenses’. That is, in involves touch, listening and looking that radiates with or exudes care and/or concern.
The ‘HAND’ consists of sentient and self-conscious actions of care and/or concern, e.g. to hold, cradle someone or, generically, engage in affectionate/pro-social actions.
The ‘WORD’: to speak (signify) with care and/or concern, especially HOW one says what one says rather than WHAT one says to another – the ‘prosody’ of speech.
In understanding these epi-genetic and ‘socio-genetic’ phenomena it is critical to perceive/think and talk about affilio-affective relations/relationships, of care & concern, as either:
- Self-related/involving realities/experiences (e.g. self-affirming, ‘self-referential’, ‘self-organising’), versus
- Non-self-related/involving (including self-transcendent) realities/experiences.
For instance, caring and being concerned about ‘good causes’ may be self-involving (e.g. self-affirming) and/or non-self-involving (e.g. self-transcendent). These phenomena pertain both to one’s own ‘self’ and another’s or others’ self/selves.
In sum, this paper presents socio-cybernetics as a framework to understand the FLOWS and related channels & media (of EYE, HAND and WORD) in the creation and consolidation of INFORMATION and VALUE as the matter and energy constituting, and constituted by, human behaviour dynamics.
A model of information and values processing and exchange
At this point, the writer wishes to outline models of INTENTIONAL and INTENSIONAL information and values processing, exchange and transformation in human systems and networks (from which testable hypotheses, for instance in the field of cognitive science, can be generated).
These behavioural models indicate key psychological processes (and flows) hypothesised to be involved in the emergence/creation and reproduction of information-knowledge and valence-values systems and networks.
Importantly, the models take up the proposed model components in Cyclical Flows depicted above in relation to intentionality and intensionality in Western and Eastern cultures.
