As concerns for individual rights increase (as a result of some societal crisis, such as a pandemic or economic collapse) so do concerns regarding collective responsibility tend to increase. Gregory Bateson (1972) providing this accelerating process with a quite formidable title: complimentary schizmogenesis and shows how it plays out in many societies. Members of a society find that their autonomy and individual benefits are being threatened, so they demand judicial reforms or even take up arms to defend their rights. Other members of this society either enforce existing laws that protect those lacking power (economic or political) or demand new, more protective legislation or increased funding for programs protecting the under-served. They might even go to war (or at least lead the protests) against the graven individualists. One day we look out at our world, and nothing appears to be amiss. The next day we find that our world has changed forever and that the warring factions are weaponizing for their attack on one another. Freedom of any type is in deep jeopardy.
The second insight concerns delay. System dynamic theorists suggest that delays in any complex system often have a greater impact on the way this system operates than does any of its other properties (such as the nature and size of entities operating inside the system). Delays can occur in the movement of entities inside a system, as well as movement of information about these entities. The mobilization of opposing parties is quick and dramatic because the underlying concerns have been festering for quite a while. Things are festering. The wounds are covered over rather than healed. When everything does break open, the delayed and stored up energy comes immediately and forcibly to the fore. All “hell” breaks loose. The Delay Effect might be just as important as the Nuclear Effect—and will often complement this effect—when it comes to a major societal dilemma such as the balance between rights and responsibilities.
The results generated by system-based analyses are often counter-intuitive—that is to say, the models often come up with outcomes that are quite different from what was anticipated. We are doing what is intuitively and humanely “the right thing”. We are advocating for those who are under-served in our society. However, the outcomes of our caring actions end up being of little value. Those who are under-served grow dependent on the government or even resent the “patronizing” and often repressive control being exerted by government on their life. We might instead help to pass laws that open up free enterprise and motivate individual initiatives only to find that the “big guys” have used these entrepreneurial openings to squish any new ventures.
