Autonomous Design and the Politics of Relationality and the Communal p.170

Before I move on to link this to social movements and design, however, it is prudent to address the question of why we talk about “systems.” Poststructuralists might find questionable the use of this concept, which, like those of structure, identity, and essence, has been heavily criticized and deconstructed for its connections to organicity, totality, and lawlike behavior, without even mentioning the military-industrial applications of systems analysis. This criticism is important, yet here again we find an example of poststructuralism deconstructing too much and not reconstructing enough; ==networks and assemblages have, of course, been important reconstructive agendas== (e.g., Latour 2007; de Landa 2006), but I think it is fair to say that the question of wholes, form, and coherence remains unsolved in social theory. Complexity theory offers useful clues in this regard. As Mark Taylor put it in discussing precisely this issue, “after considering the logic of networking, it should be clear that systems and structures—be they biological, social, or cultural—are more diverse and complex than deconstructive critics realize. Emergent self-organizing systems do act as a whole, yet do not totalize… . Far from repressing differences [as deconstructivists fear], global [i.e., systemic] activity increases the diversity upon which creativity and productive life depends” (2001, 155).4 Meri note: cf. quote about BwO in Unthought