Changes in the weather. Cardiac
arrhythmias. Traffic flow patterns.
Urban development and decay.
Epidemics. The behavior of people in
groups. Any idea what holds all of
these ideas together? The answer is
chaos and complexity. Although the
roots of chaos theory go back to
Poincaré, a mul tidisciplinary interest
in chaos, complexity and self-
organizing systems did not take off
until the 1970’s. Now, at the Santa Fe
Institute in New Mexico, and at other
centers around the world, scientists,
economists, urban planners,
sociologists and psychologists are
developing theories, theorems, and
practical applications for these
concepts, all of which focus on the
study of change in natural systems –
including change in individual human
beings, relationships, and groups.
The theories behind the study of
complexity, however, are not that
easy to discuss. One writer in the field
has described the process of defining
chaos theory as similar to trying to
grasp gelatin: “It’s easy to see that
there is some substance there, that
the substance has some specific form,
and that it appears solid. When one
tries to actually pick some up,
however, it quickly becomes a
challenge to manage and is
transformed into a very different
substance than it appeared while
sitting on the plate” (Chamberlain as
quoted in McClure, 1998, p.1).
Many people have a rudimentary idea
about what chaos theory refers to
from media attempts to present the
material. The most well known image is
that of the butterfly effect,
referring to the idea that the flapping
of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil can
affect the course of a tornado in
Texas. Since Edward Lorenz’s original
discovery of this effect via his
meteorological analyses in 1961, other
people have noted the phenomenon in
how a few grains of pollen set offs an
attack of hay fever, a rumor causes
the stock market to fall, and a fast-
spreading grievance ignites a prison
riot (Briggs & Peat, 1999). In chaos
lingo, this has become known as
“sensitive dependence on initial
conditions”, expressing an
understanding that even minute
differences in input can quickly
manifest as an overwhelming
difference in output. Lorenz also
noted that “crisis points”, critical
turning points exist everywhere in
natural systems.
As it turns out, systems considered to
be chaotic aren’t really chaotic at all
– they are just not as predictable as
the cause-and-effect kind of ideas
associated with linear dynamics.
Linear systems work within clear,
definable limits and things “add up” to
form a predictable outcome – add
together certain causes, perform an
equation, and you get a predictable
result. The statistics we use in
psychology and elsewhere, derive from
the study of linear systems. So do the
ideas of what a clock is, and how the
universe is like a clock – including the
people in it. If we can just discover all
the rules for clocks, we will also have
all the rules for people. And if we can
figure out how to control clocks, we
can probably discover not only how to
control the weather but how to
control people as well.
The only problem is that linear systems
exist more in theory than in practice.
Living systems and forces of nature
are nonlinear, regardless of whether
we talk about the weather, planetary
systems, a cell or a therapy group. A
nonlinear system means you cannot
quantify outcome based on additive
equations. As a result, cause and
effect are not necessarily functionally
related. In linear systems, output is
proportional to input. In nonlinear
systems this is not the case – a little
bit of input can produce an enormous
change in output – or not. In linear
systems change can be predicted by
what has happened in the past. In
nonlinear systems, change is
discontinuous, with sudden
unpredictable jumps, more like the
change in a horse’s gait from walking,
to trotting to galloping – sudden
transitions resulting from dramatic
reorganization (McClure, 1998). This
nonlinear idea is extremely
inconvenient for researchers who
depend on changing one variable at a
time, measuring it, and discovering
causality. Up to a point, this
methodology can be helpful, and lead to
significant advances. But when we
need to look at actual situations that
occur in messy and complicated real
life situations, rather than in highly
controlled laboratory settings, we run
into trouble. All kinds of unpredictable
things happen when you get joint
interactions between systems. These
things that happen, although
unpredictable are quite frequently,
not chaotic at all, but well organized.
For an example there is none better
than the function of the exceedingly
complex human brain.
Formally, the focus of chaos theory is
on the manner in which simple systems
give rise to very complicated
unpredictable behavior, while
complexity theory focuses on how
systems consisting of many elements
can lead to well-organized and
predictable behavior. Self-
organization is a notion that holds
that new levels of form, organization
and complexity often arise out of the
interchanges between organisms and
their contexts – order “for free”. As
an example, groups of neurons self-
organize into a pattern of firing in
response to changes in experience
(Masterpasqua & Perna, 1997). Taken
together, they represent the “science
of change”. Relational therapists will
note the continuity with general
systems theory. One psychologist in
this new field has stated that general
systems theory focuses on stability
while chaos theory explores how
systems change (McClure, 1998).
Others propose that chaos and
complexity are the basis for a
postmodern self. In contrast to the
modern man who could objectively
discover the machine-like workings of
the universe, a self-contained
individual able to uncover the one
Truth, the post-modern self is an
open system, dependent on context,
always in a state of becoming, actively
integrating new information and
exchanging that information with a
changing environment (Masterpasqua
and Perna, 1998).
When a complex, nonlinear system
becomes stressed or “perturbed”, the
system becomes unstable. The further
the system gets from equilibrium the
more unstable it becomes. Human
beings, and human organizations
experience such a phenomenon as
anxiety, fear, and stress. The system
may make changes to reestablish
equilibrium, but these changes will be
first-order changes – linear, gradual,
segmental, predictable, moderate and
incremental. If these adjustments fail
to work and the system does not
restabilize, the continued
perturbation will propel movement
toward a “bifurcation” – a decision
point, a critical choice, Robert
Frost’s “two paths” diverging in a
wood. There may be many possible
options at each fork in the road and
the consequence is that the future
becomes unpredictable, although not
random. Like entering the vortex of a
tornado, the system experiences this
movement as chaotic and, in human
terms, terrifying while inside the
cone, but from outside, we can see
that the vortex has form and
boundaries. Hence chaos is not really
chaos, exactly. In fact, the
possibilities of movement within the
vortex will be constrained by previous
decisions that have led to this turning
point, and by other aspects of both
internal and external reality, but
within the field of choice within the
cone, anything can happen. As one
psychologist has said, “history
circumscribes the choices” with which
systems are presented (McClure, 1998,
p.20).
At a certain point, the bifurcation
occurs, one fork is chosen, and that
fork leads to “second order change”
which is described as turbulent,
chaotic, nonlinear, sudden, dramatic,
transformative, and unpredictable
(McClure, 1998). “Attractors” lie
ahead along the path within the
vortex of change, drawing the choice
along trajectories, a bit like magnets.
In a chaotic system, the attractors
are called “strange attractors” and
represent the process that unfolds
through the complex interactions
between elements in a system. These
strange attractors, acting like
magnets, constrain the system to lie
within certain ranges. The system
orbits around these strange
attractors but never in exactly the
same way so that although a pattern
can be seen from a distance, close-up
the behavior of the system is
unpredictable for any specific
repetition.
The patterns that strange attractors
give rise to are never repeated
exactly within the system but even so,
there is a form. These forms when
made into visual images on a computer
create beautiful, rhythmic patterns
that look like infinity symbols, sinuous
mandalas, fireworks (Chamberlain,
1998). Like fractals, their geometric
cousins, strange attractors
demonstrate a crystalline, convoluted
ornateness that is associated with
the field of chaos (Moran, 1995).
“Chaos is a science of pattern, not
predictability” (Chamberlain, 1995,
p.268.). A new self-organization is
the result of the transit through this
chaotic, turbulent process, one that
may lead to increased complexity or to
regression/disintegration: to life or
to death. The change of a caterpillar
into a butterfly is an example of
second-order, transformative change.
Since psychotherapy at its core is
about change, even more than it is
about stabilization, it should not come
as a surprise that people interested in
the social sciences and in the study of
psychotherapeutic change should
become fascinated by the metaphors
and the science that are the
underpinnings of chaos/complexity
theory. In our language, “sensitive
dependence on initial conditions” is
chaos code for “childhood”. We know
intimately about the power of applying
stress to a system, while watching
that system – individual, family or
group – attempt to restabilize itself
using tried and true methods, or
defenses, only to become overwhelmed
and enter a period of chaos out of
which may or may not come positive
change and growth. There has long
been a tension in the mental health
field generally, and the psychiatric
field in particular, between those who
favor doing whatever it takes to
stabilize a patient – drugs, restraint,
punishment – and those who see
strategic and creative possibilities
within the chaos, i.e. R. D. Laing,
Joseph Berke, etc. Many
psychotherapists would agree that the
proper role for therapy is to be a safe
container for the chaos of the
patient’s experience, validating the
importance of letting change occur,
despite the disruptions that may
attend the process, alternating
between provoking enough anxiety to
propel the person, family, or group
into the vortex of change while
soothing anxiety that is threatening
to overwhelm the system, forcing it
into regressive solutions.
McClure (1998) has written an entire
book devoted to understanding the
process of group therapy through the
lens of chaos theory. In it he
postulates that the stages of group
therapy map out the process of
chaotic transformation that can occur
in a group if there is effective group
leadership that does not seek to
control and limit the group transit
through the period of conflict and
chaos. He sees groups that become
regressive and even destructive as
those that have been unable to evolve
and develop, to self-organize out of
the chaotic transition in a healthy
way. Brabender (1997) also focuses on
group treatment and explores the
connections between Lewin’s field
theory, Agazarian’s systems-
centered thinking, the group analytic
school originated by Foulkes, and
chaos/complexity concepts.
Several authors have written about
the process of family treatment from
the perspective of chaos theory.
Hudgens (1998) and Chamberlain
(1995) use chaos theory as a model
for the dynamics of dysfunctional
families, viewing the “attractor”
phenomenon in terms of what draws
the family together and then looking
at the therapist as a “strange
attractor” who can pull the individual
family members and the entire family
towards new patterns of
communication and interaction.
But arguably, some of the most
interesting ideas come out of stepping
back and applying chaos/complexity
theory to a larger worldview. The
potential relevance to all areas of
human endeavor are startling, and
carry for many of us enormous hope
that there is something beyond the
fragmented, reductionistic,
exploitative view of human nature
that currently confronts us from
every angle. It forces us to evaluate
many of the underpinnings of our
present mechanistic, scientific
viewpoint. The chaos concepts ask us
to suspend, or at least be willing to
play with the notions that behavior is
predictable, that observation can be
objective, that behavior is replicable,
that output is proportional to input,
that chaos is destructive and even
avoidable, that anything can be
understood in isolation from anything
else (Chamberlain, 1998). In place of a
mechanistic view of the universe, we
are encouraged to see the playful
interdependency of all being, best
represented by the trickster image
that has played such a vital role in all
cultures throughout time,
demonstrating how creativity can
overcome the odds, bend the rules,
think and move “outside the box”. It
is time for such a change. In the 22nd
century movie version of 21st century
history, just as our linear and
reductionistic solutions to the complex
problems of corporate globalization
fail to save the planet from
threatened extinction, the human
species discovers – or rediscovers –
the power of subtle change, of
dynamic, unpredictable, creative self-
organization. We come to recognize
that all life is truly and irrevocably
interconnected and that our salvation
lies in giving up the struggle for
control and turning ourselves over to
loving life in each other and the world
around us.
References
Bohm, D. ((1981). Wholeness and the
Implicate Order . New York: Routledge.
Brabender, V. (1997). Chaos and order
in the psychotherapy group. In
Masterpasqua, F. & Perna, P.A. (Eds.)
(1997). The Psychological Meaning of
Chaos : Translating Theory Into
Practice. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association. (pp.
225-252).
Briggs, J. and Peat, F. D. (1999)
Seven Life Lessons of Chaos: Timeless
Wisdom from the Science of Change.
New York: HarperCollins.
Bütz, M. R. (1997). Chaos and
Complexity : Implications for
Psychological Theory and Practice .
Washington, D.C.: Taylor and Francis.
Chamberlain, L. (1998). Preface. In
Chamberlain, L. L. & Bütz, M. R. (Eds.)
(1998) Clinical Chaos: A Therapist’s
Guide to Nonlinear Dynamics and
Therapeutic Change. New York:
Brunner/Mazel. (pp. xi-xiv)
Chamberlain, L. (1995). Strange
attractors in patterns of family
interaction. In Robertson, R. &
Combs, A. (Eds.). (1995). Chaos Theory
in Psychology and the Life Science.
Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. (pp. 267-273).
Dean, A. (1997). Chaos and
Intoxication: Complexity and
Adaptation in the Structure of Human
Nature. London: Routledge.
Demastes, W. W. (1998). Theatre of
Chaos : Beyond Absurdism, Into Orderly
Disorder. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a
New Science. New York: Penguin.
Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence:
From Chaos to Order . Reading, MA:
Helix Books.
Hudgens, B. (1998). Dynamical family
systems and therapeutic intervention .
In Chamberlain, L. L. & Bütz, M. R.
(Eds.) (1998) Clinical Chaos : A
Therapist’s Guide to Nonlinear
Dynamics and Therapeutic Change. New
York: Brunner/Mazel. (pp. 115-126).
Jantsch, E. (1980). The Self-
Organizing Universe: Scientific and
Human Implications of the Emerging
Paradigm of Evolution . New York:
Pergamon.
Kauffman, S. (1995). At Home in the
Universe: The Search for the Laws of
Self-Organization and Complexity .
New York: Oxford University Press.
Laszlo, E. (1987). Evolution: The
Grand Synthesis. Boston, MA:
Shambala.
Liebovitch, L. S. (1998). Fractals and
Chaos: Simplified for the Life
Sciences. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Masterpasqua, F. & Perna, P.A. (Eds.)
(1997). The Psychological Meaning of
Chaos : Translating Theory Into
Practice. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
McClure, B. A. (1998). Putting a New
Spin on Groups: The Science of Chaos.
Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Moran, M. G. (1998). Chaos theory and
psychoanalysis. In Chamberlain, L. L. &
Bütz, M. R. (Eds.) (1998) Clinical
Chaos : A Therapist’s Guide to
Nonlinear Dynamics and Therapeutic
Change. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
(pp. 29-39).
Prigogine, I. Order Out of Chaos:
Man’s New Dialogue with Nature . New
York: Bantam Books.
Robertson, R. & Combs, A. (Eds.)
(1995). Chaos Theory in Psychology
and the Life Sciences . Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The
Emerging Science at the Edge of Order
and Chaos. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
arrhythmias. Traffic flow patterns.
Urban development and decay.
Epidemics. The behavior of people in
groups. Any idea what holds all of
these ideas together? The answer is
chaos and complexity. Although the
roots of chaos theory go back to
Poincaré, a mul tidisciplinary interest
in chaos, complexity and self-
organizing systems did not take off
until the 1970’s. Now, at the Santa Fe
Institute in New Mexico, and at other
centers around the world, scientists,
economists, urban planners,
sociologists and psychologists are
developing theories, theorems, and
practical applications for these
concepts, all of which focus on the
study of change in natural systems –
including change in individual human
beings, relationships, and groups.
The theories behind the study of
complexity, however, are not that
easy to discuss. One writer in the field
has described the process of defining
chaos theory as similar to trying to
grasp gelatin: “It’s easy to see that
there is some substance there, that
the substance has some specific form,
and that it appears solid. When one
tries to actually pick some up,
however, it quickly becomes a
challenge to manage and is
transformed into a very different
substance than it appeared while
sitting on the plate” (Chamberlain as
quoted in McClure, 1998, p.1).
Many people have a rudimentary idea
about what chaos theory refers to
from media attempts to present the
material. The most well known image is
that of the butterfly effect,
referring to the idea that the flapping
of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil can
affect the course of a tornado in
Texas. Since Edward Lorenz’s original
discovery of this effect via his
meteorological analyses in 1961, other
people have noted the phenomenon in
how a few grains of pollen set offs an
attack of hay fever, a rumor causes
the stock market to fall, and a fast-
spreading grievance ignites a prison
riot (Briggs & Peat, 1999). In chaos
lingo, this has become known as
“sensitive dependence on initial
conditions”, expressing an
understanding that even minute
differences in input can quickly
manifest as an overwhelming
difference in output. Lorenz also
noted that “crisis points”, critical
turning points exist everywhere in
natural systems.
As it turns out, systems considered to
be chaotic aren’t really chaotic at all
– they are just not as predictable as
the cause-and-effect kind of ideas
associated with linear dynamics.
Linear systems work within clear,
definable limits and things “add up” to
form a predictable outcome – add
together certain causes, perform an
equation, and you get a predictable
result. The statistics we use in
psychology and elsewhere, derive from
the study of linear systems. So do the
ideas of what a clock is, and how the
universe is like a clock – including the
people in it. If we can just discover all
the rules for clocks, we will also have
all the rules for people. And if we can
figure out how to control clocks, we
can probably discover not only how to
control the weather but how to
control people as well.
The only problem is that linear systems
exist more in theory than in practice.
Living systems and forces of nature
are nonlinear, regardless of whether
we talk about the weather, planetary
systems, a cell or a therapy group. A
nonlinear system means you cannot
quantify outcome based on additive
equations. As a result, cause and
effect are not necessarily functionally
related. In linear systems, output is
proportional to input. In nonlinear
systems this is not the case – a little
bit of input can produce an enormous
change in output – or not. In linear
systems change can be predicted by
what has happened in the past. In
nonlinear systems, change is
discontinuous, with sudden
unpredictable jumps, more like the
change in a horse’s gait from walking,
to trotting to galloping – sudden
transitions resulting from dramatic
reorganization (McClure, 1998). This
nonlinear idea is extremely
inconvenient for researchers who
depend on changing one variable at a
time, measuring it, and discovering
causality. Up to a point, this
methodology can be helpful, and lead to
significant advances. But when we
need to look at actual situations that
occur in messy and complicated real
life situations, rather than in highly
controlled laboratory settings, we run
into trouble. All kinds of unpredictable
things happen when you get joint
interactions between systems. These
things that happen, although
unpredictable are quite frequently,
not chaotic at all, but well organized.
For an example there is none better
than the function of the exceedingly
complex human brain.
Formally, the focus of chaos theory is
on the manner in which simple systems
give rise to very complicated
unpredictable behavior, while
complexity theory focuses on how
systems consisting of many elements
can lead to well-organized and
predictable behavior. Self-
organization is a notion that holds
that new levels of form, organization
and complexity often arise out of the
interchanges between organisms and
their contexts – order “for free”. As
an example, groups of neurons self-
organize into a pattern of firing in
response to changes in experience
(Masterpasqua & Perna, 1997). Taken
together, they represent the “science
of change”. Relational therapists will
note the continuity with general
systems theory. One psychologist in
this new field has stated that general
systems theory focuses on stability
while chaos theory explores how
systems change (McClure, 1998).
Others propose that chaos and
complexity are the basis for a
postmodern self. In contrast to the
modern man who could objectively
discover the machine-like workings of
the universe, a self-contained
individual able to uncover the one
Truth, the post-modern self is an
open system, dependent on context,
always in a state of becoming, actively
integrating new information and
exchanging that information with a
changing environment (Masterpasqua
and Perna, 1998).
When a complex, nonlinear system
becomes stressed or “perturbed”, the
system becomes unstable. The further
the system gets from equilibrium the
more unstable it becomes. Human
beings, and human organizations
experience such a phenomenon as
anxiety, fear, and stress. The system
may make changes to reestablish
equilibrium, but these changes will be
first-order changes – linear, gradual,
segmental, predictable, moderate and
incremental. If these adjustments fail
to work and the system does not
restabilize, the continued
perturbation will propel movement
toward a “bifurcation” – a decision
point, a critical choice, Robert
Frost’s “two paths” diverging in a
wood. There may be many possible
options at each fork in the road and
the consequence is that the future
becomes unpredictable, although not
random. Like entering the vortex of a
tornado, the system experiences this
movement as chaotic and, in human
terms, terrifying while inside the
cone, but from outside, we can see
that the vortex has form and
boundaries. Hence chaos is not really
chaos, exactly. In fact, the
possibilities of movement within the
vortex will be constrained by previous
decisions that have led to this turning
point, and by other aspects of both
internal and external reality, but
within the field of choice within the
cone, anything can happen. As one
psychologist has said, “history
circumscribes the choices” with which
systems are presented (McClure, 1998,
p.20).
At a certain point, the bifurcation
occurs, one fork is chosen, and that
fork leads to “second order change”
which is described as turbulent,
chaotic, nonlinear, sudden, dramatic,
transformative, and unpredictable
(McClure, 1998). “Attractors” lie
ahead along the path within the
vortex of change, drawing the choice
along trajectories, a bit like magnets.
In a chaotic system, the attractors
are called “strange attractors” and
represent the process that unfolds
through the complex interactions
between elements in a system. These
strange attractors, acting like
magnets, constrain the system to lie
within certain ranges. The system
orbits around these strange
attractors but never in exactly the
same way so that although a pattern
can be seen from a distance, close-up
the behavior of the system is
unpredictable for any specific
repetition.
The patterns that strange attractors
give rise to are never repeated
exactly within the system but even so,
there is a form. These forms when
made into visual images on a computer
create beautiful, rhythmic patterns
that look like infinity symbols, sinuous
mandalas, fireworks (Chamberlain,
1998). Like fractals, their geometric
cousins, strange attractors
demonstrate a crystalline, convoluted
ornateness that is associated with
the field of chaos (Moran, 1995).
“Chaos is a science of pattern, not
predictability” (Chamberlain, 1995,
p.268.). A new self-organization is
the result of the transit through this
chaotic, turbulent process, one that
may lead to increased complexity or to
regression/disintegration: to life or
to death. The change of a caterpillar
into a butterfly is an example of
second-order, transformative change.
Since psychotherapy at its core is
about change, even more than it is
about stabilization, it should not come
as a surprise that people interested in
the social sciences and in the study of
psychotherapeutic change should
become fascinated by the metaphors
and the science that are the
underpinnings of chaos/complexity
theory. In our language, “sensitive
dependence on initial conditions” is
chaos code for “childhood”. We know
intimately about the power of applying
stress to a system, while watching
that system – individual, family or
group – attempt to restabilize itself
using tried and true methods, or
defenses, only to become overwhelmed
and enter a period of chaos out of
which may or may not come positive
change and growth. There has long
been a tension in the mental health
field generally, and the psychiatric
field in particular, between those who
favor doing whatever it takes to
stabilize a patient – drugs, restraint,
punishment – and those who see
strategic and creative possibilities
within the chaos, i.e. R. D. Laing,
Joseph Berke, etc. Many
psychotherapists would agree that the
proper role for therapy is to be a safe
container for the chaos of the
patient’s experience, validating the
importance of letting change occur,
despite the disruptions that may
attend the process, alternating
between provoking enough anxiety to
propel the person, family, or group
into the vortex of change while
soothing anxiety that is threatening
to overwhelm the system, forcing it
into regressive solutions.
McClure (1998) has written an entire
book devoted to understanding the
process of group therapy through the
lens of chaos theory. In it he
postulates that the stages of group
therapy map out the process of
chaotic transformation that can occur
in a group if there is effective group
leadership that does not seek to
control and limit the group transit
through the period of conflict and
chaos. He sees groups that become
regressive and even destructive as
those that have been unable to evolve
and develop, to self-organize out of
the chaotic transition in a healthy
way. Brabender (1997) also focuses on
group treatment and explores the
connections between Lewin’s field
theory, Agazarian’s systems-
centered thinking, the group analytic
school originated by Foulkes, and
chaos/complexity concepts.
Several authors have written about
the process of family treatment from
the perspective of chaos theory.
Hudgens (1998) and Chamberlain
(1995) use chaos theory as a model
for the dynamics of dysfunctional
families, viewing the “attractor”
phenomenon in terms of what draws
the family together and then looking
at the therapist as a “strange
attractor” who can pull the individual
family members and the entire family
towards new patterns of
communication and interaction.
But arguably, some of the most
interesting ideas come out of stepping
back and applying chaos/complexity
theory to a larger worldview. The
potential relevance to all areas of
human endeavor are startling, and
carry for many of us enormous hope
that there is something beyond the
fragmented, reductionistic,
exploitative view of human nature
that currently confronts us from
every angle. It forces us to evaluate
many of the underpinnings of our
present mechanistic, scientific
viewpoint. The chaos concepts ask us
to suspend, or at least be willing to
play with the notions that behavior is
predictable, that observation can be
objective, that behavior is replicable,
that output is proportional to input,
that chaos is destructive and even
avoidable, that anything can be
understood in isolation from anything
else (Chamberlain, 1998). In place of a
mechanistic view of the universe, we
are encouraged to see the playful
interdependency of all being, best
represented by the trickster image
that has played such a vital role in all
cultures throughout time,
demonstrating how creativity can
overcome the odds, bend the rules,
think and move “outside the box”. It
is time for such a change. In the 22nd
century movie version of 21st century
history, just as our linear and
reductionistic solutions to the complex
problems of corporate globalization
fail to save the planet from
threatened extinction, the human
species discovers – or rediscovers –
the power of subtle change, of
dynamic, unpredictable, creative self-
organization. We come to recognize
that all life is truly and irrevocably
interconnected and that our salvation
lies in giving up the struggle for
control and turning ourselves over to
loving life in each other and the world
around us.
References
Bohm, D. ((1981). Wholeness and the
Implicate Order . New York: Routledge.
Brabender, V. (1997). Chaos and order
in the psychotherapy group. In
Masterpasqua, F. & Perna, P.A. (Eds.)
(1997). The Psychological Meaning of
Chaos : Translating Theory Into
Practice. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association. (pp.
225-252).
Briggs, J. and Peat, F. D. (1999)
Seven Life Lessons of Chaos: Timeless
Wisdom from the Science of Change.
New York: HarperCollins.
Bütz, M. R. (1997). Chaos and
Complexity : Implications for
Psychological Theory and Practice .
Washington, D.C.: Taylor and Francis.
Chamberlain, L. (1998). Preface. In
Chamberlain, L. L. & Bütz, M. R. (Eds.)
(1998) Clinical Chaos: A Therapist’s
Guide to Nonlinear Dynamics and
Therapeutic Change. New York:
Brunner/Mazel. (pp. xi-xiv)
Chamberlain, L. (1995). Strange
attractors in patterns of family
interaction. In Robertson, R. &
Combs, A. (Eds.). (1995). Chaos Theory
in Psychology and the Life Science.
Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. (pp. 267-273).
Dean, A. (1997). Chaos and
Intoxication: Complexity and
Adaptation in the Structure of Human
Nature. London: Routledge.
Demastes, W. W. (1998). Theatre of
Chaos : Beyond Absurdism, Into Orderly
Disorder. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a
New Science. New York: Penguin.
Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence:
From Chaos to Order . Reading, MA:
Helix Books.
Hudgens, B. (1998). Dynamical family
systems and therapeutic intervention .
In Chamberlain, L. L. & Bütz, M. R.
(Eds.) (1998) Clinical Chaos : A
Therapist’s Guide to Nonlinear
Dynamics and Therapeutic Change. New
York: Brunner/Mazel. (pp. 115-126).
Jantsch, E. (1980). The Self-
Organizing Universe: Scientific and
Human Implications of the Emerging
Paradigm of Evolution . New York:
Pergamon.
Kauffman, S. (1995). At Home in the
Universe: The Search for the Laws of
Self-Organization and Complexity .
New York: Oxford University Press.
Laszlo, E. (1987). Evolution: The
Grand Synthesis. Boston, MA:
Shambala.
Liebovitch, L. S. (1998). Fractals and
Chaos: Simplified for the Life
Sciences. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Masterpasqua, F. & Perna, P.A. (Eds.)
(1997). The Psychological Meaning of
Chaos : Translating Theory Into
Practice. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
McClure, B. A. (1998). Putting a New
Spin on Groups: The Science of Chaos.
Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Moran, M. G. (1998). Chaos theory and
psychoanalysis. In Chamberlain, L. L. &
Bütz, M. R. (Eds.) (1998) Clinical
Chaos : A Therapist’s Guide to
Nonlinear Dynamics and Therapeutic
Change. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
(pp. 29-39).
Prigogine, I. Order Out of Chaos:
Man’s New Dialogue with Nature . New
York: Bantam Books.
Robertson, R. & Combs, A. (Eds.)
(1995). Chaos Theory in Psychology
and the Life Sciences . Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The
Emerging Science at the Edge of Order
and Chaos. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
posted from Bloggeroid
