Chapter 3 Remember How to Organize: Heterarchy Across Disciplines Carote L. Crumley University of North Carolina Complexity theory isthe study of dynamic nonlinear systems, tha is systems that age notin equilibrium and do not act in a predictable manner. Its beginnings i the 1940s are closely entwined with World War Il. Complexity theory was developed to address significant problems in the fields of cryptography, cybernetics, and ‘computer design during and after the war. Today complexity forms a coherent subject, with applications in every field of study, finding particular utility when its principles are applied to the biopiysial, dissipative sysiem that is the planet Fath ig now widely recognized that human societies contribute significamly ‘6 ‘arth system dynamics (Table 3.1; Camibel 1993; Steffen, et al. 2004). Fortunately for the social sciences, complexity theory is rooted in Ticks broadly concerned with models of language and communication rather than earth system seience, a8 applications to human activity ere wot particularly difficult, For example, key universal features of complexity theory are integration (holism, the idea that a system carmot be represented by a simple description of its parts but exhibits emergent behaviour), communication (he sbaring of information among clements) and the determinative power of history/initial conditions (erted etiaos or surprise). These features correspond with Key features of social systems: the holistic nature of culture integsation) knowledge sharing through the senses such as language, writing, and education (communication) and the formative pawer of traditions, structures and materials, strategies, and habits of mind (history/nitial conditions). ‘As complexity theory and its attendant vocabulary have become famitiar, new applications have appeared in every social science discipline. Many such applications are quantitative and employ nonlinear dynamics, chaos theory, fractals (Bsene 1998; Kiel and Elliott 1996, 1999), and agent based modelling (Gimbtett 2002; Gumerinan and Gell-Mann 4984; Gumerman and Kohler 1994; Kohler and Gumerman 2000; North and Macal 2005; Soltis, et al. 1995), But complexity ‘heory also lends itself to qualitative modelling, and may also he used at all levels of abstraction ~ mechanisms and metaphors — including historical narratives (Table 32; Bloom 2000; De Landa 2000; Gunderson and Holling 2002; Harvey and Reed 1996; Hemstein 2005; Jamtsch 1982; Kauffman 1993, 1995; Mithen 1996; Schieve36 Nonlinear Models for Archaeology and Anthropology Remember How to Organize: Heterarchy Aeross Disciplines ‘Table 3.1 Characteristies of complexity ‘Complexity and complex systems Natural and manmade, as well as social + Very large, very small, or having both components = Regular or irregular in physical form = More likely to oceur when there are many parts + Energy-conserving or energy-dissipating = Both deterministic and random characteristics ~ Aproportional causes and effects + Linked and synergistic parts = Positive and negative feedback += Seales of complexity are relative mn exchange material, energy, and information with their surroundings = Teed to undergo irreversible processes ~ Dynamic and notin equilibrium = Not well behaved, with frequent sudden changes = Paradoxical - Fast and slow events Regular and irregular forms + Organic and inorganic bodies in cohabitation Historical Modelling |_Naruuives (vertical axis) Teonological | Structural | Ideal Type Modelling Modelling Levels of Modelling Abstraction Source: A.B. Cambel, Applied Chaos Theory: A Paradigm for Complexity (1993-4) Statistic Modelling and Allen 1982; Scot 1991; Wheatley 1994; Wilson 1998). Highfield remarks that ‘complexity is @ watchword for a new way of thinking about the collective ‘behaviour of many basie but interacting units’ (1996:7). ‘While several areas of complexity theory (such as chaos theory and basins of attraction) have enormous potential for exploration, inthis chapter I concentrate on applications of heterarchy, which treats the diversity of relationships among system clements, While the term may be relatively new to contemporary scholars, heterarchy is an idea that has deep antiquity in human societies and is therefore of special interest vo archaeologists and historians. | briefly review pioneering work in heterarchy, then explore its use in archaeology and in other disciplines. {conclude with two examples of how heterarchy can reconfigure thinking about poser relations in historic and comtemporary societies ‘Modeling Strategies for Studying Chaotle Soclal Systems: Arrayed by Decreas Determinist Presuppositions (horizontal axis) and by Levels of System Specificity ‘complexity in the social system power among soc institutions Positioning Heterarchy in Social Theory Hierarchy of Onsotogical ‘Complexity in Social System Procass If Societal evolution via historical modes of production Process I Clas struggle. Conflict over cultural hegemony’ 12, Values I: Hegemonie culture & subcultural bases of resistance 9, Norms Is Personal Conformity to general hegemonic standards ', Roles I: Inraorganization allocation of roles & resources 5 H 2 j Definitions of heterarchy are remarkably consistent across a variety of disciplines, but the work they do is extraordinarily diverse. The earliest definition is from brain research, where McCulloch (1945; see Figure 3.1) contrasts a hierarchy of (ranked) ‘Table 3.2 Paradigm showing general range of fit between modelling strategies and different levels of ontological‘Table 3.2 (continued) Nonlinear Models for Archaeology and Anthropotogy: Remember How to Organize: Heterarchy cross Disciplines 39 Continuous Line ~ nervous portion of path drome Historical Narratives Afferent B2| peripheral Perisher EE neuron Exchaton)\ “Neuron P Pm A citector iy ] 23 ia ‘ Se / (vertical axis) Levels of Modelling Abstraction \ Broken Line ~ J ‘Nervous, Somatic or Environmental ~ portion of path “oO ™~ Ss een — Figure 3.1 A heterarchy of nervous nets ‘Source: Reprinted from Bulletin of Mathematical Blophysics, vol. 7, W. S. McCulloch, “A heterachy of values determined by the topology of nervous net’, p. 90, 1945. with ‘ermisson from Elsevier. ‘Modeling Strategies for Studying Chaotie Socal Systems: Arrayed by Decreasing Deierminist Presuppoitios (horizontal ais) and by Leves of Sytem Specify ‘alues with a heterarchy of values that defies both ranking and predictability, In anifical intelligence and computer design, Minsky and Papert (1972) refer to the ‘mganization of computer sub-routines that can call one another as heterarchical Mathematician Hofstadter (1979:134) follows Minsky and Papert and defines tetcrarchy as a program in which there is no *highest level’. Sociologist David Stark, who studies enterprise in the former Soviet bloc, defines heterarchy as "an emergent organizational form with distinctive network properties..and multiple ‘organizing principles’ (Stark 2001). Social theorist Kyriakos Kontopoulos, following Wimsatt (1976), defines heterarchy’as ‘a partially ordered level structure {implicating a rampant interactional complexity’ (1993:381). In achacology, | have ‘offered a general purpose definition: the relation of elements to one another wen they are unranked, or when they posse3s the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways, depending on systemic requirements, (Crumley 1979-144, 1987:188). Heterarchy is both a structure and a condition. ‘Together these ‘organization of institional time & space Hierarchy of Ontological ‘Complexity in Social System Source: Adapt fom D. Harvey and M. Reed, Social Science asthe Sud of Complex Systems (1996:307 Fig. 13.1.40 [Nonlinear Models for Archaeology and Anthropology definitions call tention to the potential of the system for organizational diversity fand change. In general, heteraschical celaionships are implicated in the dynamic effect of difference, be it spatial temporal, or cognitive HHeterarehy does not stand alone but is in & dialectical relationship with hierarchy (where elements are ranked) although from a mathematical standpoint fincrseky is the more general calegory and subsumes hierarchy asa special case While hetcrarchy may be modelled mathematically, it need not rely on ‘mathematical or spatial representations for its application and can be wilized as an istract model or in historical narrative. In exhibiting this flexibility it resembles the overarching complexity concept of emergence oF slf-organization, which cso supports a wide range of modelling strategies. (Byme 199846; Mouzclis 1995). They are: (1) How adequate is the model ia felating the micro (individual) evel to the macro (Social) level? 2) How adequate fs the model in relating the conscious agency of social actors to the socal structure iin which they operate? (3) Can it provide an explanation for discontinuous and fundamental changes in the social system as a whole? Heterarchy can be stid to ineel the requirements for a robust social theory (Kontopoulos 1993; Mouzcis 1995). Complexity in Archaeology While both the new complex systems thinking and the systems theory of the mid twentieth century (roughly the 1930s through the 1970s) address the organization of information, the contrast between them should be noted. The earlier paradigm was a comerstone of the New Archaeology during the 1960s and 1970s, offering the tantalizing possibility to many archaeologists that @ predictive science of human behaviour could be framed in the language of mathematics and philosophy (Binford and Binford $968; Flannery 1972; Watson, et al. 1974). Fuelling this interest in North America was the commercial demand for archaeologists after the passage of federal and provincial legislation concerning history, atchacology, and the environment (Ferris 1998; Patterson 1995:108). There were parallel trends in ecology (for an overview see Ellen 1982) and elsewhere in the biological sciences. ‘Archacologists who Were more interested in cultural historical, cultural materialist, and critical theory topies (especially class and gender) were from the voutset uncomfortable with the use of rather mechanistic models to study the human past. Their criticisms eventually drew attention to systems_theory's_unilinear, ‘elionalist, and determinist assumptions, along with the practical ‘models to address system history, change over time, and individual (Stein 1998:), ‘While there is still some work to do in explaining precisely how complexity theory can address the old objections to systems theory, it is already evident that the new approach readily accommodates history, human cognition, and agency Hetcrarchy, while not the only useful concept in the new lexicon, is particulary Remember How to Organize: Heterarchy Across Disciplines 4 suited as a corrective tothe characterization of power relations in systems theory which conflates hierarchy’ with order (Crumley 1987, 1995, 2001, 2003, nd.a nd.b.; Crumley and Marquardt 1987). Archaeologists, already familiar with ‘old’ systems thinking and its eiique. can find refreshing potential in dynamic complex systems research, which offers a means by sbich human history and individual agency can be accommodated in & non-reductionis framework. Developing a Critical Approach to Social Organization Since archacology’s founding a5 a discipline, several vocabularies for discussing the organizational characteristics of society have been employed, although their implicit assumptions were rarely explored, Those which most consistently dominated interpretation assumed @ linear progression from small, early ‘simple’ societies 10 those that were more populous, later in time, and ‘complex’ Nineteenth century applications of this scheme offered sciemific “proof” that hhegemony was the reward for social progress and that the Jot of backward indigenous populations around the world could be improved by the colonial etenprise. ‘Twentieth century American archaeology, in embracing ethnologist Elman Service's (1962) framework of band, tribe, chiefdom and state, echewed the worst of the nineteenth century assumptions but demonstrated litle refiexv continuing to use the simple/complex distinction (Patterson 1995). This was ‘sgecially true in the study of political systems, which were assumed to be more stable the more they tended towa-d tiered hierarchies of power. For many archaeologists and university departments in North America the search for and excavation of complex chiefdoms and. states became the “gold standard’. For them, status in the discipline was almost mystically tied to the ‘anished elites of large polities. Despite considerable ethnographic evidence to the contrary, the archaeological interpretation of state hierarchies as the culmination of ‘ordered progress went unquestioned for several decades. Because the ethnographic record holds organizational schemes of great variety and complexity, his contributed to the mutual scora between North American archaeologists and sociocultural anthropologists. Archaeology in Great Britain, influenced by scography and history more thar. anthropology, and with rather different uses for ethnography. bifurcated into Processualist and Postmodernist camps. Neither of these latter groups was quite as obsessed as were North American archaeologists swith the epistemology of chiefdoms and st Service himself, an ethnographer and ethnologist, drew attention to the importance of coalitions, federations, leagues, unions, and communities in societies of all sizes. Other ethnographers reported immensely vomplex kin and exchange networks (¢., Elkin 1964), North American archacologists, who defined states as elaborate political hierarehies, concentrated instead on how hegemonic power pyramids ate constructed by elites, This is understandable in a practical sense, as large sites ‘ith monumental architecture are easier to find, although they do not2 Nonlinear Modes for Archaeology and Anthropology yield so easily to interpretation. Yet as the September II events demonstrate, power flows in many channels (Samford 2000) and can manifest entirely outside the framework of state hierarchies and beyond their control. In self-organization terminology; tis is termed chaos or surprise (Crumley 2001, 2003, n.db.), and is related to a characteristic of very hierarchical societies: systemic negligence in intelligence gathering and in recognizing and engaging other dimensions of power (Table 33) In the last decade, the dialectical relationship between the linked concepts of hierarchy and heterarchy has been explored by archaeologists in many regions of the world (Crumley and Marquardt 1987; Ehrenreich, et al. 1995; McGuire and Saitta 1996, 1998; Melntosh and MeIntosh 1999; Melntosh, et al. 2000; Rautman 1998; Schoenfeider 2093; Silverman 2002; Stein 1998; Yoffee 2005). While dissatisfaction with the Service model has been a theoretical reason for exploring ther models, the greater incentive has been the model's poor fit with much archaeological evidence. Complex thought and behaviour may be found in every society; past and present. The archaeological record indicates that from earliest human societies to the present day, coupled individual creativity and collective flexibility have met with success. Thus biologica) diversity has a correlate in human societies: the toleration of difference in individuals and groups increases societal choice and offersa reserve of alternative knowledge for use in problem solving, just as genetic and biological diversity increase ecosystemic resilience. Similarly, organizational flexibility ~ economic, social and political ~ enables societies and organizations to adjust to changed circumstances. If we begin with the premise that the tension between competition and cooperation exists in all huma societies, it then bbehooves us to explore the ways rules and norms preserve or deny each, and how both interact with history and changing conditions to forge institutions (Chapman 2003). It is this ‘clean(er sate” that makes heterarchy attractive to researchers. Social Complexity From a beterarchial perspective, sources of power are counterpoised and linked to values, which are fluid and respond to changing situations. This definition of heterarchy and its application to social systems is congruent with how the brain ‘works, and was first employed in a contemporary context in the examination of independent cognitive structures. in the brain, whose collective organization McCulloch describes as heterarchical (1945, 1989). He demonstrates that the human brain is not organized hierarchically, but adjusts to the re-ranking of values a circumstances change. McCulloch's heterarcical ‘nervous nets’ source ofthe brain's flexibility, is a fractal (same structure at a different seaie) of the adaptability of fuidty organized, highly communicative groups. For example, an individual may highly valve human life in general, be against abortion rights, but be for the death penalty (oF vice versa). SUV oveners may really value “eacure™ while endangering it. The context of the inquiry and Remember How to Organize: Heterarchy Across Disciplines 4 ‘Table 3.3, Characteristics of authority structures: Hierarchies and hheterarchies Authority Structures 1. Advantages of Hierarchy + Clear decision making chain Respond well to fast-tleveloping crises ~ Rules and responsibilities known to all + Political interactions few and formalized Political maintenance of the system is low Powerful meane of security Defend the organization ‘Suppress internal dissent 2. Disadvantages of Hierarchy ~ Slow movement of information to th Especially true of subversive act : Form {nd elaborate intemal security - Expedient decisions not necessarily popu High popular dissatisfaction «Considerable investment in coercion ~High security costs 3. Advantages of Heterarchy ~ Good quality information - Fair decisions reflect popular consensus ~ Variety of solutions 1 problems presented ~ Contributions of disparate segments valued ‘Women, ethnic groups, ete. Better integrated group Proud and energized workforce 4. Disadvantages of Heterarchy: ~ Consensus is slow - Dialogue requires constant maintenance ~ Cacophonous voices and choices“ Nonlinear Models for Archaeology and Anthropology ‘Table 33 (continued) Authority Structures (cont.) 5. Tradeoffs = Heterarchical organizations Value spontaneity + Achieved status builds individuality Define power as inclusive or counterpoised Value flexibility and group involvement Greater response choive/Slower response time Long-range planning more difficult Hierarchical organizations ‘Value rule-based author Social distinctions elaborated Power defined as control ‘Value exclusivity and the status quo Heavy cost for security 6, Democratic organizations = Characteristics of both hierarchy and heterarchy = More stable than authoritarian organizations Source: €. L. Crumley, Communication, Holism, and the Evolution of Sociopolitical ‘Complexity 2001), changing (and frequently conflicting) values (Bailey 1971; Cancian 1968, 1976) Iitignt this logical inconsistency and fs elated to what Bateson (1972) tems 8 “double bind. Priovties ae re-ranked relative to conditions and ean result in major structural adjustment (Crumley and Marquardt 1987:615-617) Hierarchies and heterarchies of power coexist in all human societies, ineluding states. Societies in which heterarchical values and institutions are dominant are Fichly networked. structures where multiple scales and dimensions are in communication with one another, a condition De Landa (2000) calls a ‘meshwork’ “The power of various factions and individuals fuctuates relative to conditions; one of the most important isthe degree of systemic communication. Societal dilemmas in which values are in conflict are resolved by achieving a-novel-transeendent condition in which competing values are re-ranked at particular scales of ime and space. At each successive level of integration and over time, new ordering principles come into play. Thus, conflict or inutlty leads to suspension of old ‘forms but ensure the preservation of useful elements to provide creative. new Solutions to challenges (iranscendence of older forms). tis in these novel forms that societies retain near-term flexibility, although there is of course no guarantee Remember How to Organize: Heterarchy Across Disciplines 4s that the new form is more stable than the old or that tensions will not re-appear in ‘another guise (surprise). For example, revitalization movements such as the Ghost Dance, early Christianity or the ‘born again’ phenomenon in fundamentalist Christianity seck transcendence through individual and collective rededication based both on new information and the retention of selected old values; these responses require a re-ranking or replacement of values, or mazeway reformulation (Wallace 1970). In sum, the concept of heterarchy indicates an aporoach to ‘demtitying ranked and unranked values, behaviours, and organizations as they shift in time, space, and cognitive frame. As in ecology, seseurchers must remain aware of intensity periodicity, and duration of relations; in human societies this might be thought of as the range of powers an individual or group has, and the regularity and duration of service in the managerial role. Heterarchical Models at Multiple Scales 1 now tum to uses outside archaeology which enrich and extend the use of heterarchy. They are drawn from clinical and social psychology, socio.ogy, and anthropology, and from leadership studies in management In a groundbreaking dissertation, Lo (2005) has explored heterarchy at several key scales: interpsychic processes and relationships between individuals and within communities, corporations, and polities. She treats heterarchy as a flexible met ‘model of order and demonstrates how the model's application could shift power relations if an appropriate means of revealing it (which she terms a “fulerum’) can be identified. Drawing on McCulloch's brain research on values, she argues that both the construction of self and the patient-therapist dyad could be strengthened by the application of heterarchical principles that are power-neutral o: power- sharing, In clinical setings, for example, therapist and patent could work together {toward patient well-being (in a relationship rather like that of lawyer-client) rather than the therapist exhibiting controlling behaviours (therapist sits, patient lies down). Lo’s work focuses on taken-for-granted practices of domination and submission and of agency and passivity. In communities, for example, she argues that home hospice help for terminally ill patients retrieves power from hospitals where care is impersonal, as well as restoring dignity for patients and their relatives. In the workplace, Lo examines the underlying system of inequality and how her ‘fulerum’ could be applied to improve both productivity and workplace satisfaction Research in institutional, organizational, and corporate settings has particular value for archaeologists. Gronn (2004) examines the history of leadership studies in the social sciences, noting that the ‘focused leadership’ model, although seriously flawed, has long dominated the field (Rost 1993). Other approaches were tried in the 1970s, but forthe most part researchers consistently chose the solo ot stand-alone leader as their unit of analysis, elaborating on the leader-follower ‘model but failing to examine other forms of leadership. By the 1990s, there was46 [Nonlinear Models for Archaeology and Anthropology ‘much dissatisfaction with the dualistic nature of the model, and concern that a focus on charisma returns to old ‘heroic’ models. “Anti-leadership” researchers argued that other factors Were more important (group values, the mature of the wvork) and refocused research on the investigation of distributed decision-making, distributed cognition, and shared or dispersed leadership. Gronn quotes Yuk (1999:292-293), a critic of the ‘heroic leader” paradigm, who asserts that distributed leadership ‘does not require an individual who ean perform all ofthe essential leadership functions, ‘ora sct of people who can collectively perform them. Some leadership functions (© making important decisions) may’ be shared by several members of a group, some Teadership fonctions may be allocated 10 individual members, and a particular leadership Fonction may be performed by different people at diferent times. The Teadership actions of any individual leader are much less important than the collective leadership provided by members ofthe organization. ‘This quote should remind archaeologists of Brumfiel’s concern about the plethora of uses for heterarchical thinking (1995:125). As Rautman notes, the ‘Concept of heterarchy ‘cannot be thought of as yet another category or endpoint on continuum’ (such as egalitarian/hierarchieal) but “forces us to specify more Clearly the context and temporal duration of the relationships we are describing” (1998:328), Rauiman urges researchers not to be discouraged by the variety of ‘applications, but to seize upon the rich fabric of time, space, and domains as a practical guide to research. Heterarchical Organizing: The State and Beyond Distinction has consequences. ‘A’ presumes ‘not A’, ‘self presumes “other” and hierarchical organization presumes resistance. In populous societies, this dynamic tension is expressed through the struggle between values that promote consolidation of power in elite hands and democratic, egalitarian, community based values, which may be expressed in many forms (Scott 1987). "As Scott (1998) has demonstrated in his analysis of *high modernist’ goals of the ‘state, bureaucracies have litle appreciation for local knowledge and consistently undermine individuals’ capacities for self-governance, |The ‘administrative perspective is to see formal order as a precondition of efficiency. hence visible regularities are highly valued; nonetheless the population can make fs resistance felt through less obvious means: through individual collaboration (increased networking) and functioning, representative institutions. ‘On the basis of his extensive research, Gerlach (2001) argues that social movements are integrated through heterarchic social linkages among participants fas well as the understandings, identities and opponents the participants share. The ‘Characteristics of such organizations are that they are segmentary (composed of changing, diverse groups), polycentric (multiple, competing leaders and centers of Remember How to Organize: Heterarchy Aeross Diseiplines a influence), and networked (integrated network with multiple linkages) and has ‘coined the acronym SPIN (2001:289).. ‘What are such organizations, then, but a democratic challenge to hegemony? ‘State control necessitates the simplification and schematization of information 30 that it is applicable in many places, but in doing so the quality of information is ‘compromised, and relevant (even critical) distinctions are ignored (Scott 199881) This may well have been an important factor in the collapse of Classic Maya power. While the Maya political system was organized vertically, the economy fppears to have been shaped by environmental constrains and characterized by fluidly: networked interregional exchange. As water resources, forests, and soil fertility diminished, corporate groups creatively managed food production. Despite the success of such community structures in the countryside, the huge centres of population were apparently ignorant of the corporate role in the conservation of fnvironmental resources. Ultimately, an uninformed attempt at hierarchical management of resources, combined with the insensitivity of urban elites to the fragility of the environment and to the importance of the rural corporate infrastructure, may have crashed the system (Crumley 2003; Scarborough, et a. 2003). [Ancient and Ever-New Forms of Organization With or without power elites, the organizational principle that is glossed by the nclusive term heterarchy is a fundamental characteristic of complex systems, From an evolutionary standpoint, the first life forms exhibit collective emergent behaviour, and even dominance hierarchies among our primate relatives are subject to subversion Johnson 2001). Although itis possible that the archaeology of small thuman groups has simply not yielded evidence of vertical power relations, most research suggests that cooperative behaviour was more important to group survival and that the collectivity necessarily suppressed dreams of individual power. In regard to states, Stein remarks that “The dynamies of conflict between the centralized elites and other social sectors not conly define the structure ofthe polity, but also help explain when and why evolutionary ‘ange takes place. To understand these processes, we need to explore the dynamic, ‘uid nature of power relationships and the longer-term transformations... ly focusing fon} conditions. under which power relationships... undergo major structural transformations. (1998.26) Archaeologists can profit from contemporary studies of both constrained situations (such as the workplace) and broader arenas where disaffected agents arc freer to creatively organize, Workplace and organization-based studies reveal the deep hold hierarchy has on contemporary imagination, but they also point the way toward educational reform (Clarke 1972:51T;; Gronn 2004; Lo 2005:1511). ‘Organizational activities that reach beyond the framework of the office,/ Nonlinear Models for Archacology and Anthropology corporation, or nation-state are interesting for other reasons. After the events of September 11, 2001 in the United States, the shadowy organization of Al-Qaeda became front-page news. Neither centralized and bureaucratic nor amorphous, this excellent example of Gerlach’s SPIN organizations caught the American defence community by surprise, in lage part because the intelligence sector knew litle about such organizations or the Middle Fast. The US mounted a traditional Cold Wer response and attacked nation-states (Afghanistan, Iraq), sought “leaders (Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein), belatedly addressed intelligence issues (9/11 Commission Report 2004), and has vet to recognize in Al-Queda a new kind of adversary (Arquilla and Ronfeldt 2001; Griffin 2004). Of central importance for the success of Al-Qaeda has been the Internet, freeing its activists from temporal and spatial constraints and intensifying the exchange of information. This is also true of the Zapatista “social netwar’ the world’s first “postmoder” movement (Arqulla and Ronfeldt 2001:189). ‘Although I agree in large measure with Ronfeldt (1996) who, like Jantsch (1982) sees this trend in evolutionary terms (Figure 3.2) | would argue that highly networked SPIN organizations have always been able to elude hierarchical institutions and operate beyond and within their boundaries. Excellent examples are the revitalization and millenarian movements mentioned above, as well as very major religion. Somehow the values that underlie them have been transmited, even without the Internet. ‘One of the old forms has been anarchy. Far from meaning no order, it specifies an order and set of values that are explicitly local, consensual, without leadersfollowers, and not hierarchical, Bose (1967) traces anarchist thought back thousands of years tothe frst kingdoms and states, finding anarchist ideas in the work of the Chinese philosopher Laotse, Greek cynics, and Roman sloics. Were one to addin the numerous utopian thinkers, the lst would be long. While scarcely characterizing all resistance movements everywhere (because many who resist wish to seize power rather than neutralize it), anarchism does offer a consistent and coherent philosophical argument against the various forms of organizational hierarchy. It is hardly suprising, then, to find that globalization has revitalized anarchist thought while chaos theory and the Intemet have facilitated anarchist practice (Table 34; Crimethinc. Workers’ Collective 2001; Graeber 2004; Ludlow 2001; Post 2001; Purkis and Bowen 2004:14), Conclusions Because itis a fundamental organizational principle-of complex systems, T argue that there is no need to confine the heterarchy concept to a narrow range of applications. At any stage of its application, debate is healthy. Eventually disparate researchers will become aware of one another and applications of heterarchy’ will become more consistent and ‘basins of attraction’ will emerge. Remember How to Organize: Heterarchy Across Disciplines 49 Hierarchical Kinship-based _‘nstitution()) Claniribe (7) MultiOrg. Competitive Network (N) Market (I) B ne “% (edvocacy groups) ir (army, church) fetenen) (extended family) a — History 3000 BC 72600 AD Figure 3.2 Basic forms underlying the organization of all societies Source: After Ronfeldt (1996:3 Figure 1). ‘As Chapman reminds us, archaeology must refite a history of our species that finds dualties everywhere ~ simple/complex, equal/unequal, civilized/uncivilized — and naturalizes inequality (2003). Insead, we must embark on a more difficult task that asks more of both the archaeological record and of our interpretive frameworks. Do networks leave material evidence? Rhea Rogers (1995) argues that they do, and that we have already finished the hard work of excavating and analyzing, leaving only the need for afresh imerpretation. By treating every artifact category, material, technology, feature aud physical location as a separate body of evidence, she found that spatially and culturally delineated ‘tribes’ of the Carolina Piedmont are better understood as protean, interactive, overlapping networks that were unbounded in terms of beth personnel and space, Does resistance fo hierarchies Jeave material evidence? Perhaps widespread evidence for the collapse of political organizations and the continuity of their populations poiat to resistors’ successes (Diamond 2004; Scarborough, etal. 2003; Tainter 1988). Do social movements leave material evidence? Perhaps that can explain the disjuncture between Middle Woodland societies, widespread in eastern ‘North America, and the more limited distribution of Hopewell s ly upon the archaeological record alone? Definitely not! wealth of ethnohistoric and ethnographic data. Now, thanks to the inclusive framework of complexity theory, we have examples ‘and models from every discipline upon which to draw, Let's get to work.so Nonlinear Models for Archaeology and Anthropology ‘Table 3.4 Ellickson’s Five Controllers that provide substantive rules governing behaviour Ellickson’s Five Controllers f Controller ‘Substantive Rules ‘Sanctions The actor Personal ethics Self-sanction Second pay contol (Lethe | Contractual provsions | Vague seep person acted on) Nonhlrarhiealy organized social Social norms ‘Social sanctions forces Hierarchically organized , , crams ag | Organization les | Oranizaton sanctions organizations ‘State enforcement, coercive Goverments Law rea Source: D. G. Post, Anarchy, State amd the Imernet: An Essay on Lawmaking in Cyberspace (2001:199)