From Chaos to Order: What Nature Can Teach Us About Societal Change
Complexity Theory as a Framework for Understanding Societal Transformation
Epoch Change blog series, No. 4
Dr. Tuomo Kuosa
Tuomo is co-founder and Director of Futures Research at Futures Platform. He holds a PhD from the Turku School of Economics and is an Associate Professor (Docent) of Strategic Foresight at the Finnish National Defence University.
FUTURE PROOF – BLOG BY FUTURES PLATFORM
When I was writing my PhD thesis some 20 years ago, I came to analyse Complexity Theory through the lens of societal and organisational change. I discovered a vast body of research that has, for decades, examined the fundamental laws of nature that govern the life cycles and renewal of biological organisms, chemical reactions, material crystallisation in equilibrium, the emergence of order, entropy, autopoiesis, and even the breakout of chaos.
I came to understand that many of these same principles that govern biological and chemical processes also apply to social organisations—and even on a societal level. Social systems may be more intricate, but they are not detached from the principles of life, growth, and decline. Hence, we can argue that the third major retroaction model of societal change involves the physical laws of nature.
Many (macro)historians, political scientists, sociologists, economists, philosophers, and others have studied the logic of societal change. Their focus, approaches, and methods vary depending on their disciplinary traditions. In the same way, so do their assumptions regarding the key drivers behind change.
In the second instalment of this series, I discussed what is perhaps the most well-known retroaction model behind societal change: the natural shifts in techno-economic platforms (Kondratieff cycles). In the third article, I explored generational turnover, such as Strauss and Howe's generational theory.
This fourth article explores a third retroaction model, Complexity Theory, and how the physical laws of nature can help explain long-term patterns of societal transformation.
In the next article, I’ll compare these different models and offer a summary of how they interact and what they reveal about the future of societal change.
A Third Set of Retroaction Models: Concepts form Complexity Theory
One set of retroaction models that has been more or less missing from earlier theories come from Complexity Theory, which are essentially the physical laws of nature.
For example, Joseph Tainter argued in his book The Collapse of Complex Societies that “industrial and technological progress only comes at the cost of increasing a structural complexity of enormous energy and social costs; and, the most progress (the greater complexity), greater resources to maintain them, which leads to an inexorable collapse.”
Arnold Toynbee similarly observed that "no civilisation has ever perished through the violent impact from outside",—suggesting that civilisations collapse more by internal failure ("suicide") than external attack ("murder"). Strauss and Howe’s generational model includes similar thinking: societies move through four repeating stages (High, Awakening, Unravelling, Crisis), each representing a phase in a natural cycle.
So, while the core idea appears across many thinkers, what unique insights does Complexity Theory bring to the table?
(Tip: Feel free to skip ahead to the final summary section if you’d prefer to avoid the heavier science part in the following chapter.)
Three Concepts from Complexity Studies: Bifurcation, Emergence, and Entropy
In my previous comparative work on complexity studies, I found three key concepts that consistently appear in self-organising systems in various types of organisations, both large and small:
1. Bifurcation (break in order)
2. Emergence (rise of new order)
3. Entropy (increasing disorder)
Together, they describe how open systems undergo three natural renewal cycles to maintain their operational capabilities over time.
Bifurcation is a concept from physics and chemistry that refers to a critical tipping point where a system can no longer follow its current path and must shift into a new state. Once a critical point is reached, a bifurcation offers two equivalent choices of steady state, but the actual path taken is shaped by seemingly minor, random fluctuations. (Nicolis & Prigogine, 1989, 72). As Ball (2004, 133) notes, two identical systems may diverge completely, simply because they happened to take different paths at each junction.
In practice, bifurcation introduces irreversibility into physical and chemical processes—and, by extension, into social change. It's any period where a system cannot continue as it was and must enter a phase of transition.
Emergence refers to a spontaneous self-organisation that creates novel order (Kauffman, 1995). Macroscopic patterns arise from the complex, non-linear interaction of microscopic elements once an open system reaches a critical level of energetic exchange with its environment. The resulting order is unique and unpredictable from prior structures (Nicolis & Prigogine 1989, 51; Mainzer 1996, 4.)
Entropy, defined in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that heat cannot spontaneously pass from a colder to a hotter body, and that all energy transfers have one direction. In practical terms, entropy is the gradual transformation of useful energy and matter into excess heat, waste, obsolete parts, and redundant mass—elements a system must shed to survive. In an isolated system, entropy always increases over time. And as more time passes, shedding this excess becomes increasingly difficult.
If such a system with excessive entropy is pushed far from equilibrium and toward a crisis point, it often undergoes a phase transition or a cascade of bifurcations. This enables it to reorganise, shed outdated structures, and create a new order. (Nicolis & Prigogine, 1989, 50-2.)
Turning the three concepts into retroaction models
So, back to macrohistorical analysis.
Here, a bifurcation—which is either the first or last phase of the renewal process—corresponds to revolutions, wars, annus horribilis moments, or other chaotic turmoils that dismantle existing societal structures. Bifurcations may be sudden and dramatic, like a massive avalanche, or they may unfold over a longer period. A large bifurcation is naturally the first phase of a new epoch (or the last phase of the old epoch).
The difference between sudden and contained revolutions can be illustrated with an analogy from physics. As snow piles up on a mountain slope, pressure builds. Small avalanches act as social valves that temporarily release pressure, preventing a massive collapse. But if layers build up without relief, the slope eventually reaches a point where it can no longer maintain its structure. At that point, even a minor trigger can unleash a full-scale avalanche. This collapse may occur gradually through a series of smaller, localised failures, or all at once in a violent, system-wide breakdown.
The second phase of renewal, following bifurcation, is reassembling. Here, the remnants of the old system reorganise into a new order. Much of the old structures and habits cannot find their place in it and become obsolete. The useful elements remain and recombine into new structures. In chemistry terms, this process is called emergence or phase change.
The third phase is rising pressure, which builds as the newly formed system matures. Over time, it accumulates entropy—disorder, inefficiency, and internal friction. In social terms, this may manifest as social fragmentation, mistrust, anxiety, expensive yet outdated structures and services, overproduction of elite and growing demands among people for a strong leader who can fix the problems.
Alongside these internal pressures due to increasing entropy, pressure also grows from external sources: new global challenges, emerging technologies, shifting values that insist on the world to change. As the pressure builds, the zeitgeist—the “spirit of the age”—shifts. Eventually, the momentum for change becomes overwhelming, and a new bifurcation follows.
This begins the next cycle – a new epoch – which will again be followed by reassembling and rising pressure. Sometimes, collapse can be delayed through reforms, elections, central bank actions, or by injecting new energy or capital into the system. But even these strategies have limits. Eventually, systemic change becomes inevitable. As in biological systems, delaying entropy through excess energy use cannot continue forever.
Similarities between Generational Theories and Complexity Theory
Strauss and Howe’s four turnings align closely with the three complexity phases.
The first stage in Strauss and Howe’s Generational Theory is the High, a period marked by strong institutions, social cohesion, collectivism, and a subdued sense of individualism. In Complexity Theory, this corresponds to emergence or reassembling, when a new societal order forms from the broken pieces and ruins of the old. Obsolete structures fall away; useful elements recombine into new systems, organisations, and processes.
The second stage is the Awakening—a “hippie era” characterised by growing spiritual and personal autonomy. During this period, the society is stable enough, and deeper moral or cultural issues come to the fore. Social institutions may be questioned or attacked, impeding public progress. In Complexity Theory, this stage still falls under the same category as the High stage - emergence, though perhaps a different phase of it: first extensive emergence (rapid growth), then intensive emergence (optimization and refinement).
The third stage is the Unravelling, defined by strong individualism and a breakdown in trust toward institutions. In Complexity Theory, this mirrors the phase of rising entropy, when a system becomes increasingly disordered and inefficient. Socially, it manifests as fragmentation, anxiety, and the call for strong leadership to resolve problems that no longer self-correct.
The fourth stage is the Crisis—a period of systemic breakdown and societal destruction, often through war or large-scale upheaval, when institutions collapse. In Complexity Theory, this corresponds to bifurcation: a chaotic reset that disrupts the current order, either suddenly or gradually.
Overall, the structural alignment between Strauss & Howe’s Generational Theory and Complexity Theory is nearly perfect. The only concept that doesn't quite translate across is zeitgeist—or in Strauss and Howe’s terms, generational identity, shaped by shared experiences. This idea may resemble consciousness in biological systems, but has no clear analogue in inanimate self-organizing systems like crystals or snowflakes. Could they communicate in some way—via quantum entanglement, radiation, or wave phenomena? Perhaps—but for now, zeitgeist appears to be unique to frameworks explaining human social change, not natural systems governed by physical laws.
This article is the fourth instalment in Dr. Tuomo Kuosa’s Epoch Change series. You can find the other articles in this series listed below:
The Shift in Technological Platforms and Business Ecosystems Over Time
From Chaos to Order: What Nature Can Teach Us About Societal Change
