Spontaneous Order
From John Marks,
This entry relates spontaneous order in complex systems and two types of rationalities.
URL = http://www.ertnet.demon.co.uk/2kinds.html
"Hayek distinguishes two kinds of rationalism; what he has called constructive rationalism and evolutionary rationalism. And he associates these with two kinds of order: designed or made orders and spontaneous orders. Constructive rationalism derives from Descartes with his twin emphases on logical or mathematical deduction from explicit premises, and on machines as appropriate models for explaining natural phenomena, however complex. According to constructive rationalism, rational actions are those which are determined entirely by known and demonstrable truths, and rational social institutions are those which are deliberately designed to achieve specific, defined purposes.
Constructive rationalism gives rise to designed or made orders, like cars, or silicon chips, buildings or factories, armies or planned economies. All of these have been designed for one or several definite purposes. It is the very success of constructive rationalism in some of these examples - particularly in the less complex situations - that leads to the assumption that all social institutions and all other human productions are, and ought to be, the product of deliberate design.
But such design is neither actual nor feasible. It is not possible for any individual or small group to know all the relevant facts needed to design complex social institutions. To think that this is possible is to suffer from what Hayek calls the synoptic delusion. And many of the social institutions which are indispensable in a modern industrial society have not been consciously designed.
Hence we need to recognise the importance of evolutionary rationalism and of self-generating or spontaneous orders to which the ideas of purpose and design do not apply. Organisms, languages, market economies, societies are orders which were not designed: they evolved. Evolutionary rationalists insist on the distinction between designed and spontaneous orders, especially in understanding man and society.
Man is seen as a rule-following animal as well as a purposive one, and human culture as partly an order of rules which we inherit, and only partly as an order of rules which have been either designed or fully explicated. Many rules and institutions have evolved, and have been strengthened and refined by selection. Man has often been successful because he observed rules, not because he understood why de did so. It is not in any way irrational to follow rules we do not clearly understand. For example, even today we have only a small understanding of the structure of language - yet without language virtually nothing of our culture would exist. So evolutionary rationalists argue that the evolution of social rules and institutions is as important for understanding man and society as is biological evolution for understanding man as a species.
But to recognise this is not to deny the importance of constructive rationalism in limited areas. In almost all real situations, both kinds of rationalism are involved. If we recognise this, we can appreciate more accurately the potential benefits and limitations of conscious design. We shall also, be able, I hope, to distinguish situations where the constructive rationalist model will be most fruitful. A complex self-generating order of individuals, institutions and organisations, which is a modern society, makes continual use of constructive rationalism in limited areas., but in its totality such a society bears little resemblance to a machine. However, if we adopt a constructive rationalist approach and attempt to plan the whole of our society - just as if it were a machine - then we will be moving in a totalitarian direction.
The examples I wish to discuss - the market, science, language, and the structures of liberal societies - all show common features.
1. They all make use of constructive rationalism in limited areas. It is very difficult to think of pure-bred examples of either kind of rationalism.
2. The systems involved are so complex that it is inconceivable that any individual could know all the facts which are relevant to their functioning.
3. Consequently these spontaneous orders have evolved decentralised mechanisms for transmitting information which overcome the limitations of individual knowledge. The development of such mechanisms is a necessary condition for the formation of complex spontaneous orders.
4. A framework of rules is required if the information transmission mechanism of a spontaneous order is to function and the order to survive. These rules are partly explicit and partly tacit, and may in some cases be reinforced by a commonly accepted system of values.
5. By their very nature, spontaneous orders evolve diverse mechanisms for correcting errors or imperfections. These self-correcting mechanisms, which in some ways resemble 'negative feedback loops' in mechanical or electrical systems or homeostatic mechanisms in biological systems, operate at many levels in a spontaneous order, in ways which are scarcely possible in a made order." (http://www.ertnet.demon.co.uk/2kinds.html)