This is a printer-friendly version of this month's feature essay. Return to this month's introduction.
NOTE: This essay is a shortened and slightly modified version of a paper delivered at the Political Studies Association annual conference, in Aberdeen, Scotland, in April 2002. The original version of the paper is available online at http://www.psa.ac.uk/cps/2002/whitworth.pdf.
In this month's feature essay we propose that political analysis of cyberspace often fails to place that realm in its proper context. This supplementary essay describes a model of reality which would help in such a task. It explores the idea that the realm of life on Earth can be thought of as global spheres, the biosphere and noösphere. The essay also considers, at a very basic level, how these may be used in the analysis of politics and society. Note that no direct reference is made to ICT in this essay: for that the reader is directed to the feature essay.
Of the Earth's spheres, three are inert and broadly correspond to the three states of matter:
Already it should be apparent that the divisions between these spheres are far from clear. Are clouds part of the atmosphere, or the hydrosphere, for instance? We will return to this question later. (Note that these three spheres are sometimes bracketed together as a single entity, the geosphere.)
The remaining two spheres are not inert, and herein lies a puzzle. Biology seems to be out of step with the other natural sciences of physics and chemistry. These disciplines are governed by entropy: matter's irreversible tendency to lose energy, structure and form, as expressed in the laws of thermodynamics which dominate the physical processes of the universe. It is entropy which means, for instance, that hot food left out on a worktop will gradually cool to room temperature (but no further). More importantly, entropy fuels the fires of the Sun. Yet the energy which is a by-product of this gradual decay is harnessed on Earth to fuel the evolution of the realm of life. At this (astronomically) local scale, there is not decay, but growth, structure and consciousness.
The illusion that life flouts fundamental laws of the universe was strong enough to provoke investigations into the nature of life as a planetary phenomenon. The Austrian geologist Eduard Suess recognised that "life on Earth" could from some perspectives be viewed as a sphere of planetary dimensions, just like the other three spheres mentioned above. He coined the term the biosphere to refer to the realm of life. This idea was then taken forward by the Russian geologist, Vladimir Vernadsky, whose name is now most closely associated with it. [1]
The great soil scientist, Dokuchaev, was another significant influence on Vernadsky's early investigations [2]. Soil is an excellent example of Vernadsky's central idea: life not only transforming matter and energy to shape itself, but through doing so, shaping the planet. Soil is a complex mix of minerals, nutrients and organisms such as earthworms and bacteria (and note again how this is an symbiosis or interaction of at least two of the planetary spheres). Even rocks, such as chalk, and minerals like coal and oil have been formed by prehistoric life. Consider also at the atmosphere. Advances in climatic science have dismissed the old idea that the atmosphere is merely a collection of gases attracted to the Earth by gravity. Rather, "it is more consistent in composition with a mixture of gases contrived for some specific purpose" [3]. (The word "purpose" can imply some godlike guiding hand or ultimate aim of this process. This is a significant criticism - I will return to it below.) Oxygen's appearance in the air is not coincidental, but is the direct result of two billion years of photosynthesis.
Through insights such as these Vernadsky proposed that life is not just a geological force, it is the prime geological force, and its influence becomes more extensive over time. Life exerts pressure on environments; it can colonise and re-colonise barren regions. In the short term this leads to results familiar to any gardener struggling to keep a patio free of weeds. In the long term, entire environments can be changed by the pressure of life through a process of dynamic exchange between life and its environment. Life is not simply at the mercy of the environment, but is actively engaged in shaping that environment as a byproduct of its own self-perpetuation and enhancement.
The level of pressure is a function of a species' biomass (literally, the collective mass of a species) and its speed of dispersal through the biosphere. Bacteria spread through an environment very quickly, elephants very slowly. Vernadsky is not referring simply to movement through an environment, but its colonisation: therefore, what has a "speed" is the transmission of genetic information. Though this over-simplifies a very complex process (and one that is not yet fully understood), the medium for storing and transmitting information within the biosphere is the gene, and the agent of transmission is reproduction (or more specifically heredity). Through mutation and subsequent evolution, life adapts itself to environments and adapts environments to life. Different environments also require the life within them to have different genetic structures in order to succeed. The diversity of environmental "niches" within the biosphere gives rise to genetic diversity. The evolutionist Theodosis Dobzhansky recognised that diversity gave the biosphere the necessary "plasticity" (or flexibility) to adapt to environmental changes [4]. The concept of diversity is very important and we will return to it later.
The biosphere does not complete the list of the Earth's spheres, however. As I will suggest on the next page, genes and heredity are inadequate when considering how humanity acts upon the Earth. Our impact on the biosphere far outweighs our biomass, or physical presence as a species. We are responsible for using or changing nearly 40% of the Earth's production of organic matter, notwithstanding that 90% of our energy needs are met by exploiting remnants of earlier ecosystems (fossil fuels) [5]. The question of how humanity can "punch above its weight" ecologically is the subject of the next section.
Humans are unique amongst animals in being able to act upon the biosphere -- that is, transform matter and energy -- at a distance. When I turn on a light I am transforming the environment of not only the room I am in, but also around the power station supplying the energy. I can even pick up the phone, or use e-mail, and ask someone on the other side of the planet to turn on a light. Though this seems banal, it is in fact of crucial importance, for in a purely biological sense where information is coded and transmitted genetically, this is impossible.
In human society, the agent of transmission is communication. The unit of information is harder to establish, but a possible idea might be Richard Dawkins' memes. As he says, examples of memes are "tunes, ideas, catchphrases, clothes, fashions, ways of building arches or making pots. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool... so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation" [6]. Cultural transmission of this sort has been recorded amongst birds, but it is only in humans that the technique is fully developed. When human systems meet or clash, it is almost exclusively their cultural characteristics which determine the outcome of this interaction, rather than genetics. Even the most mundane communication makes use of memes, as to understand and appreciate the communication of others, we have to refer to relevant elements of the "stock" of human memory, culture and language. Even brand new concepts can be deconstructed by our minds, as this stock -- effectively a record of all prior communication -- stands "behind" any utterance we make, and therefore, the communication of others is always expressed in terms with which we are intuitively familiar. Interacting with another human is not just a matter of hearing the sounds made in speech or viewing actions, but being able to place these signs in some kind of context. (It is true, and important, that interpretations of these signs may differ greatly, and conflict thereby arise: but we still recognise communication as communication, signs as signs. The issue of differing interpretations is, essentially, the basis of postmodernism; this issue is returned to both below and in the feature essay.)
What is the relationship of this stock of information to the biosphere? Does it "reside" anywhere there, and if so where? Consider the following thought experiments. Could one destroy the Mona Lisa? We would probably consider this possible, if security in the Louvre were breached. But could one set out to destroy Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, even in principle? If by some heroic and expensive effort of will, one tracked down every printed copy of the text and, indeed, videos or DVDs of the various film versions and destroyed them all; if one remembered also to delete every WWW copy too; would the play cease to exist? Unlike the Mona Lisa, the concept of "an original" here is irrelevant. Besides, there are doubtless many Shakespearian actors and scholars with considerable portions of the text in their minds. Romeo and Juliet would probably not be too hard to reconstruct, even if all its material manifestations were gone. The only conclusion is that Romeo and Juliet "resides" somewhere other than purely physical reality.
The stock of human culture, memory, language and so on exists in a sphere that is intangible, but nevertheless very real [7]. Just as energy flows through the atmosphere in the form of wind, and genetic information through the biosphere via heredity, so cultural information flows through this fifth sphere. This is the noösphere, the sphere of mind, mental activity and communication. (The word comes from the Greek nous, meaning mind: it should not be pronounced as if the first syllable rhymes with "zoo", but more like "Noah-sphere", with the two Os separate.) As well as being a living planet, Earth is also a thinking planet; human thought and activity could be detected from beyond the Earth. Radio waves, for instance, carry our communication outwards across the galaxy and could in principle be detected from a great distance away [8].
A well-known proponent of the noösphere idea was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in his 1959 work, The Phenomenon of Man. This book has, however, been subject to some vituperative criticism [9] due to its blithe optimism about the imminent fulfilment of humanity's "destiny" - an Omega Point, or spiritual unification within the noösphere that is the teleological "purpose" of evolution. Yet if the noösphere idea can be purged of the trappings of spiritualism, there is much in it that provides a useful model for how humanity constructs the world and then interacts with it. The noösphere therefore has relevance for the study of politics and society. Indeed, it is hard to define concepts such as "society" or "community" without recourse to some intangible but real "place" from where shared values, histories and so on can be drawn.
The rest of this essay explores some of the analytical possibilities which the biosphere/ noösphere model opens up. Valuable insights come through thinking about our use of resources and our construction of environments, by reasserting the interlinkages between the various spheres, and by considering how each is built up from small processes which scale themselves up through repetition over long periods of time.
Although we suggested that the existence of a cultural "artifact" such as Romeo and Juliet was strongly dependent on the noösphere, this does not mean that sphere can be considered in isolation from the others. In the first place, we as humans require the resources of all the other spheres of the Earth to stay alive and thereby interact with and continue to reproduce the noösphere. As Samson and Pitt say, "without the biosphere there could be no noösphere, irrespective of how one defines the latter" [10]. We observed above how, despite recognising separate processes within the various spheres, they are impossible to separate out, and the same is true here. In addition, describing Romeo and Juliet as a cultural artifact should lead to the recognition that we often interact with such things through "physical" artifacts. We often record information in artifacts such as books or DVDs, or we otherwise make use of technology to communicate. Technological artifacts can best be seen as an interaction of the noösphere with other spheres of reality. Information is "coded" within them, via the scientific understanding which gives rise to particular artifacts, the industrial processes by which they are made, and the uses to which they are put (which themselves cause changes in the biosphere and the non-living spheres). For more information here, see this month's feature essay.
It is then fair to state that not only humanity, but every organism and non-living process on Earth, is influenced by all five spheres simultaneously. Even if this influence is indirect, it nevertheless exists through such processes as observation, humanity's cultural relationship with its environment, photosynthesis and other such exchanges. What we think of as our environment, and the environment of any other ecosystem or organism, is therefore drawn from a mixture of all five spheres.
If we accept that the spheres interact, we should also postulate that there will be similarities in the structure of each sphere. The most important shared characteristic is that each sphere exists at multiple scales. Each is a literally global phenomenon, yet at the same time this global scale is built from interacting sub-levels, right down to individual "units". The biosphere, for instance, can be seen as being made up of ecosystems and biomes of many scales from continental down through regional and local, until at the lowest end of the scale there are individual organisms and ultimately the genes themselves. Global-scale events influence localities, but the actions of individuals can also influence the global scale. Although this happens on timescales almost inconceivable to human minds, the global biosphere (and certain features of the other spheres) is merely the accumulated record of the activity of every organism that has ever existed, however humble, going about its daily business of self- and species-perpetuation. The same is true of the noösphere. Certain values are often held at a more-or-less global scale; the value that says murder is wrong, for example. Some cultural icons are globally recognised. Other values or icons, however, are more localised, with some having meaning only in terms of very small communities. Yet even the global aspects of the noösphere are continually validated by its individual members -- people -- even if they are not aware of this at the conscious level. Though political leaders or other influential figures may take decisions or act in ways which have substantially greater impact on the biosphere and noösphere than "ordinary people", "[e]ach of us helps write the morality by which we all shall live." [11]
The spheres also share the characteristic of dynamism. Each is in a constant state of change that has been termed chaotic; at the same time, patterns can be viewed in each sphere. One should note that the development of chaos theory came just as much from looking at fluctuations in commodity prices as it did from looking at the climate or animal populations [12]. Despite this constant change, however, there is also a broad stability in the Earth system. Few of these constant micro-adjustments become significant enough to affect even the local scale. Systems usually work to dampen changes via negative feedback before the change becomes serious enough to affect that system's environment. Sometimes, however, micro-changes can accumulate into global events: a literary (noösphere) metaphor for this being "For want of a nail... the kingdom was lost", and the scientific (biosphere) metaphor being the "Butterfly Effect".
Although large-scale change in an environment is a rare event, it can take place; we are talking here of significant "phase changes" such as the shift from a warm climate to an Ice Age, or from capitalism to communism. Such changes can be induced by outside events (meteorite strikes, say) or by nothing more than the actions of the systems themselves - remember that the central point here is that systems are not at the mercy of their environments, but actively shape them. This process is not always beneficial for a given system or species, however; indeed, in that systems are usually perfectly adapted to their environment, any change is likely to have a negative impact. Changes may be rapid and catastrophic, or slow and incremental, but in either case, organisms or systems will only survive them if they can adapt. Adaptability, reaction and control are intertwined: think of a tightrope walker. When we say that a tightrope walker has balance or equilibrium we are not saying she has nothing more than the ability to stand upright on solid ground in unvarying conditions. Instead, her balance is dynamic, a constant process of minute adjustments. She is not at the mercy of the rope but nor does she entirely control it.
We have already noted Dobzhansky's suggestion that the adaptability of organisms, ecosystems or the biosphere as a whole is a direct function of genetic diversity. He wrote: "The process of adaptation can be understood only as a continuous series of conflicts between [the system]... and its environment. The environment is in a state of constant flux, and its changes, whether slow or catastrophic, make the genotypes of the past generations no longer fit for survival." [13] Dobzhansky recognised the same processes at work in individual personalities or organisational cultures, and this insight has become incorporated into mainstream theories of business organisation [14]. It is from diversity that systems can draw on either the genetic or cultural variation which they need to adapt to the environmental changes.
How do these ideas influence the study of political philosophy and practice? Indeed, should they do so at all? It is inappropriate to take these insights and suggest that there is some kind of "natural", biological basis for particular political practices. Such a transference of what are, essentially, metaphors onto politics has had dangerous results in the past, up to and including fascism [15]. But what can be sought, and indeed is necessary, is a model of reality which can apply to diverse political theories, and explain them in terms of the interaction of systems.
The environment within which any given system exists is made up of a multitude of other systems, from the global scale down to the local and existing in all spheres simultaneously. Systems therefore interact. When the interactions between systems are biological, this constitutes the evolutionary process of life on Earth, and the creation and evolution of the biosphere. When the interactions involve memes as well as genes, they take place using information and communication, and likewise contribute to the creation, evolution and continuous reproduction of the noösphere. They may also acquire political connotations. The results of these interactions and conflicts are imprinted upon the biosphere and noösphere.
One misapplication of biological metaphors in politics is the concept of "survival of the fittest" (often by those ignorant of the fact that it was not even Darwin's term; it was coined by Herbert Spencer). Here, all interaction is perceived as struggle, with the outcome determined by some kind of "strength" (whether this strength be a function of wealth, race, gender, culture, etcetera). But others have observed that the biosphere is characterised more by collaboration and symbiotic relationships than conflict: indeed it is those species in which collaboration and mutual aid are best developed which are the "fittest" or best suited to long-term survival and development [16]. It is true that "nature" is not some harmony, beneficial for every single organism whether predator or prey; nor is the fact the biosphere long outlived them any comfort to the dinosaurs. At the same time we are forced to note that destructive conflict between individuals or systems is the exception rather than the rule. Even where there is diversity -- indeed because of diversity -- there can be an exchange or collaboration from which both parties derive mutual benefit and from which new possibilities can develop. One should also note that diversity can be a means by which conflict is minimised. If diverse species or systems require different resources to perpetuate themselves, then they are less likely to engage in a struggle over the same resources.
The biosphere and noösphere are vast in scale. They are too large and complex for any one individual or even culture to grasp in their entirety. Even at smaller scales it is not possible to understand every nuance of every minute's activities in an organisation, a family, a micro-climate, or similar. Our failure to do so is not a sign of inadequate methods, but simply of the nature of the reality we inhabit, where micro-scale adjustments are constantly taking place, some of which may turn into noticeable fluctuations but many of which do not. Because of this problem of scale, we habitually select from the vast range of sensory inputs and other forms of information available to us. Nor can we always communicate our insights perfectly; in fact it is very rare that we manage this. It is therefore inevitable that different interpretations will arise. This is the central insight of postmodern views of society. Any "grand narratives" (such as communism, or the Enlightenment) which claim the status of "truth" are to be mistrusted. Slavish adherence to these "truths" is in fact damaging, as this makes it more likely one will repress or even kill those who disagree. Postmodernism suggest that we should therefore embrace diversity and even ephemerality in our relationships and (as a consequence) our politics.
As the feature essay will argue, there is some validity in this view, but it has unfortunate consequences. By ignoring the reality of power -- interpretable now as the ability to impose one's interpretation of the world on others -- postmodernism can end up being acquiescent towards it. Jürgen Habermas has called postmodernism "neo-Conservative" [17] for this reason. Unsophisticated attempts to use postmodernist theory in analyses of humanity's relationship to Nature, or in analysing cyberspace, sometimes go so far as to deny the existence of any kind of underlying "reality" at all. This view (which we will call "vulgar postmodernism") suggests that reality is entirely "socially constructed" by human minds and that there are therefore no grounds for any belief whatsoever, that the interaction of cultures and beliefs is a purely relativistic issue. "Vulgar postmodernism" also habitually detaches "cyberspace" -- or other locations for human interaction -- from the rest of the world, perceiving it as a space where political or even physical "rules" have no dominion. Invariably the conclusion is that what occurs there is entirely what the participants want to happen. Yet any site for human interaction is influenced by the processes of all five spheres of Earthly existence, all of which are records of past activities that cannot but influence the current time.
At the same time one should not fall back too far the other way, into beliefs that nothing new can emerge, or (more subtly but just as problematically) that power relations are so strong that any attempt to challenge the status quo is doomed to failure. This can encourage a fatalistic predeterminism (where every possibility is determined in advance by prior conditions, and "free will" is a mythical impossibility). The biosphere/noösphere model can help dismantle those ideas as well, through little more than an understanding of evolution and change. Whenever there is interaction or collaboration, new possibilities open up, whether this be the possibility of new steps forward in genetic evolution, or -- at a speed that is orders of magnitude faster -- in the evolution of ideas, values and human culture [18]. Interactions within the noösphere, for instance, are not characterised only by conflict, but nor are they characterised by "mystical" levels of understanding or consensus which could be reachable if only everyone involved would just keep talking for long enough. Rather, it is in the spaces which lie between different interpretations of a situation (or a text, or an environment, or anything else) that change takes place and new ideas emerge. This is the reason why Dobzhansky saw that adaptability flowed directly from diversity; the new possibilities required by any widespread change were more likely to emerge the more inputs there were into the (conscious or unconscious) attempt to adapt. [19]
In conclusion, the five-sphere model of reality described here is a firmly holistic view of reality. Holism, simply because of the great scale of the concepts being considered, is never an easy epistemology (way of thinking) to sustain. Humans habitually localise their concerns; but what should not be done is consider this process of localisation as meaning either that there is no underlying reality beneath the different interpretations, or that these different interpretations inevitably lead to destructive conflict. New possibilities emerge, yet these new systems are always in turn based on what has gone before. These are the insights which can be applied to the study of cyberspace -- or any other aspect of Earthly existence.
1. Vernadsky, Vladimir I. (1998 [Russian original in 1926]). The Biosphere. Translated by D. B. Langmuir, revised and annotated by M. A. S. McMenamin. New York: Copernicus.
2. see Bailes, Kendall E. (1990). Science and Russian Culture in an Age of Revolutions: V. I. Vernadsky and His Scientific School 1863-1945. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 19-20.
3. Lovelock, James E. (1972). Gaia as seen through the atmosphere. Letter to the editors, Atmospheric Environment, pp. 579-80.
4. Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1956). The Biological Basis of Human Freedom. New York: Columbia University Press.
5. Diamond, J. M. (1987). Human use of world resources. Nature 328, pp. 479-80.
6. Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 192.
7. Samson, Paul R. and David Pitt, eds. (1999). The Biosphere and Noösphere Reader: Global environment, society and change, London, Routledge, p. 9.
8. See Carl Sagan's novel, Contact (1986, Century Hutchinson) or Robert Zemeckis' film adaptation.
9. Notably by Medawar, Peter (1961), The phenomenon of Man, Mind 70, pp. 99-106.
10. Samson and Pitt, op. cit., p. 18.
11. Zohar, Danah (1990). The Quantum Self, London, Flamingo, p. 178. For the different "levels", or scales, of both biosphere and noösphere see E. P. Odum (1993), Ecology and our Endangered Life-Support Systems, Sunderland, Mass., Sinauer, p. 26.
12. The best layperson's introduction to these ideas is Gleick, James (1988), Chaos: Making a New Science, New York, Sphere.
13. Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1937). Genetics and the Origins of Species. New York, Columbia University Press, pp. 126-7.
14. For a review see Morgan, Gareth (1997), Images of Organization, 2nd. ed., London, Sage, chapter 3.
15. Biehl, Janet and Peter Staudenmaier (1995): Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience, Edinburgh, AK Press.
16. For instance, Kropotkin, Peter (1972), Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, London, Penguin.
17. Habermas, Jürgen (1991): New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians' Debate, Cambridge Mass., Polity Press. For an excellent summary of postmodernism's impact on academic life, and via this, the acquiescence of universities in their own corporatisation, see Miyoshi, Masao (2002), "The University in the 'Global' Economy" in K. Robins and F. Webster, eds., The virtual university?, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
18. For this process applied to the analysis of text, see the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, e.g. (1994), The Bakhtin Reader: Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, Voloshinov, ed. Pam Morris, London, Edward Arnold.
19. See also Bailes, op. cit., p. x.