Indigenous Knowledge and Complex Systems Theory

“In order to make sustainable change in complex social systems, it is necessary for people to work together as teams, organizations, and networks of organizations. However, many of the traditional ways organizations (especially in the West) are structured and run are founded on more linear approaches that make it very difficult for these organizations to support non-linear, complex, and systemic efforts. This creates a dual challenge to a systems practitioner – both how to grapple with the complexity “out there” (in the social contexts in which they work) and to grapple with the complexity “in here” (in the complex organizations they work within).”[1]

This quote comes from a paper on institutionalizing systems thinking. This briefing paper is a part of the Dynamic Systems Theory Summer Innovation Lab. (http://conflictinnovationlab.org/) I am grateful for the exposure to complex systems thinking and various techniques to map these complex relationships. The material from the various papers, the work with people who use the theory in conflict resolution in a variety of scales – psychological to what appear to be intractable conflicts like Israel-Palestine.

The techniques are useful for Foresight work, or perhaps it is more appropriate to acknowledge that this will help me improve my Foresight work. We create images of the future that tend to forget that underlying these images are complex systems of possibility.

Indigenous epistemologies, at least the ones I am familiar with, are based in complex systems. Knowledge in these epistemologies is built on relationship, networks, connections.

Systems thinking will also be useful in my dissertation work. The values that I am looking at are articulated in many different social contexts. It is not my goal to come up with a definitive statement about Kanaka Maoli articulation of place-based ethics. Place-based ethics is a complex system and I believe that there are tools within DST that are going to help hold onto the complexity as I dive into specific social contexts.

Complex thinking will also be crucial to the Hawaiian national movement. Recent events demonstrate that the idea of the Hawaiian nation is real in the imagination of so many more Hawaiians. The challenge now is to articulate material realities of the Hawaiian nation. When we talk in dreams it is easy to imagine unity. When we look at material conditions and possibilities we have to understand our relationships as networks that can change. The question moves to how do we build trust and common ground.

Interesting prospect is laid out before us: How do we map our desires for a future free and independent Hawaiian nation?

[1] Rob Ricigliano and Beth Fisher-Yoshida, “Institutionalizing a Systems Practice,” in DST Summer Innovations Laboratory Briefing Paper (Honolulu Hawaiʻi, July 20-25), 1.