Complexity and Indigenous identity

The following is an excerpt from my dissertation The Ontology of Love: A Framework for Re-Indigenizing Community ©2015

There are noticeable parallels between the nature of complex systems and indigenous sociopolitical organization techniques. In Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems, Paul Cilliers boils down his definition of complex systems to ten principles: 1) large numbers of elements; 2) these elements must interact dynamically; 3) there is deep interrelatedness between elements as well as internal memory of functions and distribution of tasks in diverse patterns; 4) interactions between elements are non-linear; 5) interactions tend to be “short range”, in other words, between approximated elements; 6) interactions are recurrent, indicative of the presence of feedback loops; 7) complex systems are engaged with their environment, or are “open”; 8) they operate without equilibrium, or certainty; 9) complex systems have memory that helps shape their future, sensibilities to time; and 10) complexity is the result of the totality of interactions between all preceding principles (3-5). In “Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Alaska Native Ways of Knowing,” Ray Barnhardt and Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley describe the connection between complexity theory and indigenous ways of being and knowing as follows:

With fractal geometry, holographic images and the sciences of chaos and complexity, the Western thought-world has begun to focus more attention on relationships, as its proponents recognize the interconnectedness in all elements of the world around us…Thus, there is a growing appreciation of the complementarity that exists between what were previously considered two disparate and irreconcilable systems of thought… (12)

In “Gaia, complexity, and American Indian Tribes: Common ground for compatible theories,” Peroff has applied complexity theory to develop an understanding of indigenous communities as complex adaptive systems:

Tribes evolve, adapt and maintain their integrity as self-organizing systems. They learn from experience and collectively preserve information in the form of a common body of metaphor (CBM) that is the basis of tribal myth, a common identity or a “Story of the People”… Tribes interact with a place to establish and maintain a niche within and boundary between themselves and the rest of their physical environment… Tribes spontaneously increase in complexity through a process of mutual causation involving positive and negative feedback loops. Over time, recurrent and persistent patterns of human interaction within the tribe, in interaction with elements of tribe’s the environment (niche) may evolve to become new emergent tribal properties and behaviors. (29)

Indigenous complex adaptive systems, adds Peroff, produce “Indianness.” In other words, indigenous complex systems are self-producing and the sum total of activity identifiable as generated by indigenous complex systems seeks to create this holistic result. In his essay “Indian Identity,” Peroff (1997) explains:

Indianness is the key emergent property of an Indian tribe. It is a property of interaction between tribal members, tribal resources, community organizations, tribal land and all of the other “parts” of a tribe. Indianness is not a property of the parts themselves. The essential meaning of Indianness disappears when the parts of a tribe are separated and studied independently. To be meaningfully understood, an Indian tribe must be considered as a whole. (488)

And so the question for me continues to be "Who would I rather learn from?”