Talk:Heterarchy

message: 1. The following statements seem to me to be biased. They are not necessarily true:
"Heterarchy increasingly trumps hierarchy as complexity and rate of change increase.
A heterarchical network could be used to describe neuron connections or democracy."
Indeed, it depends heavily on the circumstances, whether a heterarchy trumps over a hierarchy or the other way round. One could for instance imagine the task of spreading communication from one person to many other persons. In such a situation a strongly hierarchical system might easily be more efficient than a totally heterarchical one, because the number of possible communication paths is much lower in a hierarchy than in a heterarchy. A good example is the internet: IP-number resolution happens to be hierarchical rather than heterarchical. Peer-to-peer protocols (P2P) on the other hand are very interesting in terms of stability (nobody can ever really shut them down, once they started working), but as speed rates show, they are not very efficient in terms of exchanging data. Thus, many modern P2P-systems indeed use at least to a certain extent a mixture between hierarchical and heterarchical protocols, for instance by upgrading certain nodes to "supernodes".
Furthermore, modern democratic systems are far away from being heterarchical solely. Again, nearly every society has chosen a mixture between hierarchical and heterarchical elements. The president of the US, for example, has a lot more political power than a common citizen (--> hierarchy), but he has exactly the same amount of votes (namely a single one) in elections as everybody else (--> heterarchy) - (at least in theory... but this is another chapter and does not belong here). As everybody knows, who participates in any kind of "democratic group", a clear disadvantage of heterarchy is the long time it takes to come to a decision. (Which again, on the other hand, might also be an advantage, because everybody could participate in the process of finding the decision. This could, but does not necessarily have to as examples of decision theory show, increase the overall level of satisfaction.)
In common life, it is indeed seldom to encounter purely heterarchical or purely hierarchical systems, because they both have their advantages and disadvantages one over the other.
the concept.
I recommend taking these sentences out of the text.
2. This entry as indicatd as philosophy related isn't heterarchy more of a sociology realted term? Can this be recategorized? Being new to wikipedia I'll wait for someone to comment before I make a change to the categorization.
3. How amusing that someone should be arguing about the hierarchical placement of an article about heterarchy. :) I absolutely agree  with comment #1 in that "A heterarchical network could be used to describe neuron connections or democracy" is rubbish. Neurons have different biological functions. Although the human brain is far from hierarchical, surgeons can cut out some parts with minimal side effects, while cutting away other parts can cause irreversible damage. The same goes for democracy. Certain parts are considered (although temporally) more important than others. Democratic states are more like dynamic (changing every few years) shallow (not many levels, but extremely wide) hierarchies. Obviously each level is in itself a heterarchy, but that can be said about all hierarchies.
4.I would argue against seeing heterarchical systems as subsytems within hierarchical ones.  The exact opposite is far more likely.  Time and research will ultimately suggest that all other systems of organization are subsequent to and components of heterarchical organizations.  
Also, it is only at the micro scale (and among homogeneous elements) that all elements in the system "share common goals"..  at a larger (and perhaps more relevent) scale, the diversity of goals (living organisms) or of constraints or trajectories (inanimate objects, physical systems) is a significant component of the overall actions of the system.  Part of the power of heterarchical systems is their capability to fluidly reconcile diverse intentions or "goals".
Furthermore, while heterarchical systems are "horizontal", they are not evenly or equally so, neither are the indivual components within it restricted in their communication to adjacent components.  In different systems, under different conditions, an individual component's volume of influence may be quite large, and tends to fade or diminish in potency as opposed to merely being cleanly cut off at a certain point.  While it could be argued that every component in a heterarchical system has an equal potential for influencing or being influenced, it can not be simplified to saying "each element shares the same "horizontal" position of power and authority, each having an equal vote"...  The truth of the matter is that at any given point in time, there will be elements within the system exercising more or less control than their peers.  A simple analogy for this would be a blanket floating on a rolling sea.  Though the blanket is "horizontal", it is not flat..
I think that since there is no accepted general definition of heterarchy, that we (whoever is interested in this subject) work towards developing a consentual general definition to lead off the thread.  I'm sure that is what the first paragraph is already trying to do, but I don't agree with that particular definition, as I have pointed out above.  And the 2nd and 3rd sentences should be separated from the definition itself.  In any case, heterarchical systems are not merely a sociological idea, not philosophical/biological/whatever..  it's a condition of organization in reality that impacts every academic discipline and aspect of the universe.  Hence the worthiness of striving for a "general" definition.  And while perpetually refining and changing the definition on the article page is itself perhaps the most poetic or appropriate definition, it does less to further the discussion of a topic that is immensely important and significant, yet does not even appear in most dictionaries.  So in the interest of discussion, I will post the general definition I have developed over the past few years here, and look forward to discussing and comparing it, side by side, to other general definitions. 
--A heterarchical system is one in which multiple, dynamic, and potentially diverse subsystems control the actions of the overall system through simultaneous interaction.
Furthermore, how could it be said that "both a hierarchy and a heterarchy are systems in which multiple dynamic power structures govern the actions of the system"?  The very nature of a hierarchy is to imbue a singular, fixed system with substantially more power than any other, giving the one the power to control and organize any other system or input.  To make that sort of statement is contradictory to any concept of hierarchy, and it considerably confuses any attempt to define/understand heterarchy.
An additional note:  I appreciate all that's been said here... very interesting discussion for consideration in better defining heterarchy.  I'd like to suggest one more thought for consideration... While hierarchies were and are designed to "imbue a singular, fixed, system with more power than any other," the changing nature of an organization's environment (internal and external) can require (for the organization's continued health or survival) that a system become less fixed and that a more heterarchical approach be implemented to some degree or another (at least in certain parts of the organization).  Thus, in spite of the intended purpose of a hierarchy, the desired outcome of providing more power and organizational ability does not always occur.  Organizations or elements of an organization that survive and thrive (whether social or commercial or biological) typically adapt to and/or implement the method or combination, degree, and designated location for the application of methods which those elements or the organization as a whole ascertain will best sustain the organization or its parts based on the environmental aspects that are perceived to have the most lasting or the most impactful effect upon them.  
Luminary2000 19:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: The source of Defintion is NOT Bondarenko but indeed Crumley - the Paper by Bondarenk says the following:
‘... the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the po-tential for being ranked in a number of different ways’ (Crumley 1995: 3)
1995. Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. In Ehrenreich, Crumley, and Levy 1995: 1–5.
Ehrenreich, R. M., Crumley, C. L., and Levy, J. E. (eds.)
1995. Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association Press.
thus Bondarenk cited Crumely and the source should be corrected to refer to Crumley.
s. http://old.uchitel-izd.ru/data/SEH/Vol.4.2/02%20Bondarenko.pdf , http://www.triquete.org/documents/HeterarchyAnalysisComplexSoc.pdf
128.130.180.14 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of Definition - Bondarenko

message: "Heterarchy" verges on being a WP:neologism. Also the article emphasises one individual while ignoring Warren St. McCulloch, alleged to have originated the term in this article [http://www.vordenker.de/heterarchy/het_intro_en.htm Heterarchy and Hierarchy -
Two Complementary Categories of Description Introduction by Eberhard von Goldammer]. A search also found other uses of equal or even greater merit. I don't feel like researching and updating this article, but I don't like seeing an article linked from panarchy that obviously is questionable. I think it's ripe for a discussion of deletion unless someone cleans it up. Carol Moore 15:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Poor quality is not a reason for deletion. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV of this article - Ripe for deletion?

message: Could somebody edit the introduction to make it a bit more informative. I nearly majored in anthropology (some while ago now!), but I have only a faint idea what might be meant by "replete with overlap, multiplicity, mixed ascendancy, and/or divergent-but-coexistent patterns of relation." And that's in the first sentence!
The Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests that a lead section should be able to stand alone "as a concise version of the article," that its accessibility "is even more important ... than for the rest of the article,"  and in particular, that "specialized terminology ... should be avoided." The present version meets none of these criteria.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More helpful intro? 

message: Hey, Yperson, The first few sentences were finally unconfusing enough that I dared to edit them for clarity. On another point, are you responsible for the biology example in (now) paragraph 2, the one discussing "the Taxonomic Hierarchy" [sic]? If so, what is meant by "ranks beings according to their ascendant/descendant linear relation to one another"? That reads more like genealogy than taxonomy.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... looked at abstractly, they are both partial orders, but connotationally they are quite distinct. Taxonomy is typically understood to refer to things like phylogenetics, the whole Linnaean thing, which does indeed trade in superclasses and subclasses (e.g., kingdoms, orders, genera, species). In contrast, genealogy deals with relationships of individuals. The two partial orders are subset-of (among sets of organisms) and descendant-of (among organisms).—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some progress 

message: I'm concerned that this article needs a lot of help before the general reader can find it useful, let alone clear. Another editor seems to disagree, or anyway fears that tagging it as unclear will scare readers away or something. I'm trying to avoid a revert war.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Is this article unclear?