Complexity and Resilience in the Social

and Ecological Sciences Eoin Flaherty

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/complexity-and-resilience-in-the-social-and-ecological
-sciences-eoin-flaherty/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Evidential Pluralism in the Social Sciences Philosophy

and Method in the Social Sciences 1st Edition Shan

https://textbookfull.com/product/evidential-pluralism-in-the-
social-sciences-philosophy-and-method-in-the-social-sciences-1st-
edition-shan/

Complexity Applications in Language and Communication

Sciences Àngels Massip-Bonet

https://textbookfull.com/product/complexity-applications-in-
language-and-communication-sciences-angels-massip-bonet/

Reconfiguring Intervention: Complexity, Resilience and

the 'Local Turn' in Counterinsurgent Warfare 1st
Edition Louise Wiuff Moe

https://textbookfull.com/product/reconfiguring-intervention-
complexity-resilience-and-the-local-turn-in-counterinsurgent-
warfare-1st-edition-louise-wiuff-moe/

Putting Systems and Complexity Sciences Into Practice

Joachim P. Sturmberg

https://textbookfull.com/product/putting-systems-and-complexity-
sciences-into-practice-joachim-p-sturmberg/
Conservation: Integrating Social and Ecological Justice
Helen Kopnina

https://textbookfull.com/product/conservation-integrating-social-
and-ecological-justice-helen-kopnina/

Economics and Sustainability: Social-Ecological

Perspectives Karl Bruckmeier

https://textbookfull.com/product/economics-and-sustainability-
social-ecological-perspectives-karl-bruckmeier/

GIS and the Social Sciences Theory and Applications

Dimitris Ballas

https://textbookfull.com/product/gis-and-the-social-sciences-
theory-and-applications-dimitris-ballas/

The Value of Systems and Complexity Sciences for

Healthcare 1st Edition Joachim P. Sturmberg (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-value-of-systems-and-
complexity-sciences-for-healthcare-1st-edition-joachim-p-
sturmberg-eds/

The Ecological Brain: Unlying the Sciences of Brain,

Body, and Environment 1st Edition Luis H. Favela

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-ecological-brain-unlying-
the-sciences-of-brain-body-and-environment-1st-edition-luis-h-
favela/
Complexity and Resilience in the
Social and Ecological Sciences
Eoin Flaherty
Complexity and Resilience in the Social
and Ecological Sciences
 Eoin Flaherty

Complexity and
Resilience in the
Social and Ecological
Sciences
Eoin Flaherty
Sociology
University College Dublin
Dublin, UK

ISBN 978-1-137-54977-8    ISBN 978-1-137-54978-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54978-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018948181

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance
with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: duncan1890/gettyimages

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Limited
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW, United Kingdom
For Zoe and Ruadhán
 Foreword

When I started to read this book I was hoping for an example of the use
of the complexity frame of reference extended into the field of the
Sociology of Ecology. Those of us engaged with complexity are very much
committed to the expansion of the approach into engagement with both
theoretical formulation and empirical research generating examples of
application. Well I got that certainly, but I got a great deal more. This is
a very substantial work of social theoretical synthesis. The title of Flaherty’s
introduction describes his objective exactly, which is to develop: ‘A new
approach to applied environmental sociology by integrating complexity
informed social science, Marxian ecological theory and resilience-­
based human ecology’. He has done that but he has done something
more. The synthesis he has developed has very wide applications beyond
the specific field of environmental sociology. It represents an important
and innovative contribution in social theory generally considered.
Of course one of the assertions which informs, for want of a better
expression, the intersection of Marxian ecological theory and resilience
based human ecology is the absolute rejection of any form of theorizing
and/or empirical description which separates the social world from its
natural substrate. Indeed to refer to a substrate is probably to introduce a
hierarchy and distinction, a stratification, which is wholly inappropriate
as a general account although as Flaherty points out we sometime can
move forward by heuristic distinction. Be that as it may, we are living
vii
viii Foreword

through a period when there is a general recognition that this

Anthropocene era is imposing demands on the whole system of Planet
Earth, demands in the spheres of both the natural and the social as these
intersect or even we might say coincide, which are engendering a pro-
found crisis in human affairs. The UK’s New Scientist magazine of the
20th January 2018 had a cover headline: THE WRITING ON THE
WALL – the worrying signs that civilisation has started to collapse. In other
words we are in a time of crisis and as that great contributor to socialist
ecology and socialist analysis in general, James O’Connor, pointed out in
his discussion of the meaning of crisis, crisis is a system state which can-
not be sustained over a long period. It is a time of necessary transition. In
other words the system’s state has to undergo a radical transformation
which may include the cessation of the system’s existence. I really like
Flaherty’s use of the notion of ‘capitalocene’ developed by Jason Moore
(p. 100), which puts the form of economic and social relations covered by
the Marxist terms mode of production/relations of production as central
in understanding the relationships among human societies and the
human social order as a whole, with the character of the natural world.
There is so much good stuff in this text that I can only refer to a selec-
tion of what has excited and intrigued me. Let me begin with Flaherty’s
take on mode of production. He has a great deal to say about this, par-
ticularly in relation to a Marxist take on the idea of metabolic rift which
the literature traces back to Marx himself. Although at various periods I
have read pretty widely in Marx’s own work and in Marxism as an intel-
lectual current, this was a new framing for me and I found what Flaherty
had to say has helped me to make sense of a lot of issues associated with
my own current central interest in the transition of industrial to post-­
industrial in the character of Western Welfare Capitalist societies. I was
particularly taken with this passage:

Recent commentators on Marx have suggested that the concept of metabo-

lism constituted the essential basis of his conception of modes of produc-
tion. Such commentators have implied that various modes of production
of historical materialism may also be viewed as differing modes of relating
to nature, engendering differing forms of resource exploitation and move-
ment, and consequently, differing forms of social-ecological metabolism.
 Foreword
   ix

… Metabolism is essentially a characterisation of the sum of a society’s

reproductive activity, and is one which, as with the concept of mode of
production, allows distinction between various forms of human organisa-
tion not only in terms of their articulated combination of relations and
forces of production, but more fundamentally in terms of their relations to
nature. The form of this relation in turn depends on how societies are
embedded within a particular mode of production (p. 100).

Much of my own empirical work has been conducted in old industrial

regions which have had carboniferous capitalism at their core. This
reflects my own family history and the character of the region, the North
East of England, in which I was born and where I have spent the greater
part of my life. As to family history, two of my great grandfathers and one
of my grandfathers were Irish immigrants to the English North East who
were coal miners, in the case of one great grandfather he and his brother
were literally post famine immigrants who came first as navvies to build
the great piers at the mouth of the Tyne, and then moving into the mines.
The North East was one of the first regions of industrial capitalism and
coal was the central resource on which that capitalism was based for so
many years. I spent a lot of time and political effort in defending mining,
first against competition in electricity generation from nuclear power,
and then resisting the destruction of the UK’s deep mining industry by
Conservative governments hell bent on destroying the industrial power
of the National Union of Mineworkers. Miners have traditionally been
the shock troops of the industrial proletariat. It helps greatly in under-
standing the post-industrial transition in coalfields which has such pro-
found social and cultural significance if we deploy the frame of
understanding represented by the passage quoted above. We have to set
that transition not only in relation to exploitation and resistance but also
in relation to how coal mining intersected with the natural world. In the
short term the natural world has been extra-ordinarily resilient or perhaps
it is better to say has rebounded when mining ceased. The Durham coast
now has a living eco system since coal waste dumping into the sea ceased.
Areas of West Durham where mining and waste dumping ceased in the
1970s now look like an idyllic version of the English north country. That
said if the deep mines at the coast were not continually pumped then as
x Foreword

water rose through old workings, sulphur compounds would poison the
regions watercourses which would turn from clear streams into orange
horrors.
The other aspect of this book which I want to turn to is Flaherty’s
exceptionally clear discussion of the relationship between processes of
abstraction in scientific reasoning, and particularly in social investigation,
and the notion of ideal types. Here he achieves an integration through his
turn to critical realism as part of his intellectual armoury. It is not that
what he has to say here is necessarily new but just that he puts things
together which are not always associated, particularly in most contempo-
rary sociological textbooks, and does so with exceptional clarity. That
part of this text alone should be considered as compulsory reading for
core second and third year undergraduate courses in Sociological Theory.
Many philosophers of science could read it and learn something of value.
The realist turn is very strong in contemporary social science, particularly
in applied social science. Flaherty provides those taking this turn with a
social theory-oriented vocabulary and way of thinking with which they
should engage to their considerable intellectual profit.
Wearing my own applied social science hat I recently came across an
interesting article on complexity by Peter Ho, the former head of the
Singapore Civil Service to a conference with the intriguing and highly
relevant title of Disrupted Balance – Societies at risk (2016)1 Ho gives a
neat run through of the essentials of the complexity frame and introduces
the metaphor of the Black Elephant. This is a cross between the elephant
in the room – the issue that everybody knows is present but that they
tacitly ignore, and the black swan – the refutation of the proposition that
all swans are white because all the swans recorded in the Northern hemi-
sphere are white and then Black Swans turn up in Australia. The Black
Elephant is an issue which everybody knows about, but they pretend that
they don’t so when it erupts they say it was an unexpected Black Swan.
Well given the central focus of his interest in social ecology and his argu-
ments about the relationship of the natural and the social, Flaherty has
given us a really powerful intellectual apparatus for shouting the odds

1
https://www.csf.gov.sg/docs/default.../2016-12-05-peter-ho---society-at-risk.pdf
 Foreword
   xi

about the Black Elephant of the relationship of contemporary capitalism

and the issues of inequality and even more i­mportant (and this is me say-
ing this which is not usual) potential ecological disaster. My great grand-
father who died in his 90s just four years before I was born was a child in
such a disaster – the Irish Famine. More are on the way.
Author of Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences (1998), and
Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art (2013, with
Gillian Callaghan).

Durham, UK David Byrne

 Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Michael, Maureen, Ciara, Cora, Tom, Kylie, and Ailbhe
for all their love and support over the years. Thanks to Eamonn Slater for
introducing me to this area, and for his (ongoing) supervision.

xiii
 Contents

1 A Brief History of Systemic Thought in the Social and

Natural Sciences   1

2 Complexity Theory: Societies as Complex Systems  29

3 Social-Ecological Resilience: Human Ecology as Theory

of the Middle Range  77

4 Contextualising Complex Systems: Modes of Production

and Social-­Ecological Metabolism 147

5 Conclusion: A Complexity-Informed Approach to the

Study of Social-­Ecological Systems 213

References 231

Index 261

xv
 List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Logistic growth simulation (authors’ version), initial

­population value of six with 100 iterations. (Initial formula
from Common and Stagl 2005: 46) 103
Fig. 3.2 Engineering and ecological resilience ‘cup and ball’ heuristic
(Gunderson 2003: 35) 115

xvii
 Introduction

This book introduces a new approach to applied environmental sociol-

ogy, by integrating complexity-informed social science, Marxian ecologi-
cal theory, and resilience-based human ecology. It argues that sociologists
have largely ignored important developments in ecology, which have
replaced functionalist approaches to systems analysis with new grounded
methodologies emphasising the complexities of natural-social interac-
tion. Similarly, environmental sociologists have failed to capitalise not
only on the analytical promise of this new ecology, but on complemen-
tary developments in complexity theory. These developments have seen
the discarding of unhelpful binaries such as ‘nature-society’ and out-
moded concepts such as ‘structure-function’, which have inhibited an
empirical, systems-based social science. The arguments and frameworks
laid out in this book speak to both disciplines, and the possibility of
trans-disciplinary dialogue. They suggest that complexity and Marxian
theory can enrich human ecology’s understanding of the social, whilst
resilience can sharpen the analytical prowess of environmental sociology.
By incorporating a systemic epistemology from the complexity pro-
gramme, environmental sociology finds a conceptual vocabulary with
which to articulate the fundamental interconnectedness of nature and
society. Through real engagement with resilience-based human ecology, a
solid empirical research programme is offered, one which can grasp the

xix
xx Introduction

porous nature of cases, consider contexts of historical change, and offer

real insight into causal relationships between social institutions and eco-
logical outcomes.
At the core of this book is a belief that systems-based thinking deserves
a central place in mainstream sociology, as much as environmental sociol-
ogy. It is impossible to consider society apart from questions of environ-
ment – material and energy inputs are the precondition of human social
reproduction. This does not mean that human action can be understood
strictly in terms of rational ecological motivation or resource maximisa-
tion, but it does mean that continuing ‘as if nature did not matter’ is
untenable, given the situation we now find ourselves in. Since the turn of
the century, complexity theory has truly come of age. From its origins in
structuralist systems theory, to its implementation in computational
modelling and filtering through the narratives of cultural sociology, its
authors have charted a course for bringing questions of structure, agency,
causation, and empirical analysis together under a common vocabulary.
Allied to this conceptual turn, complementary methodological works
have appeared on the use of research techniques such as cluster analysis,
qualitative comparative analysis, agent-based modelling, and social net-
work analysis. These methods are now seeing greater use in ‘mainstream’
social research, rather than appearing only in niche areas. In short, com-
plexity has sidestepped its risk of lapsing into grand narrative by setting
out clear foundations for doing a new kind of social research, one which
acknowledges the inherent limits to explanation in social analysis, but
which takes up the task of measurement and causal reasoning armed with
a clearer sense of the contingent nature of the social world.
Across the disciplinary divide, human ecology has undergone its own
silent revolution of sorts through the emergence of resilience as a coher-
ent and alternative approach to doing ecological research. This includes
research on classical ‘ecosystems’ as much as human-coupled systems, or
‘social-ecological systems’ as we will later define them. Dissatisfied with
land-use outcome models which simply expressed the linear contribution
of variables to human-coupled ecosystem outcomes, the concept of resil-
ience has evolved into a grounded research paradigm. Discarding assump-
tions of optimal system states and measures such as recovery time,
resilience instead examines the degree of stress a system may experience
 Introduction
   xxi

before experiencing a ‘regime shift’. The experience of destabilisation is

thus unique to each system, however defined, and at whatever level of
aggregation. This profound case-based turn marks a radical break from
approaches of old, and has produced a sustained engagement with theory
on the part of practitioners since the 1970s. Today, it is discussed in dedi-
cated journals, cited frequently in disciplines from cultural anthropology
to ecological economics, and its profile continues to grow.
Why has sociology had relatively little to say about these natural
allies? One obvious answer to this is that both complexity and resil-
ience are still marginal, relative to mainstream social theory and
method. The central tenets of complexity also call for abandonment of
divisions based on method – this is still a strong current in social sci-
ence. Sociology remains split between qualitative and quantitative
practitioners, with sub-­specialities (and even some university depart-
ments) aligned on methodological lines. This is a long-acknowledged
issue in sociology, with roots in the ‘cultural turn’ of the post-war era,
a development which placed greater emphasis on social construction-
ism, and questioned the validity of numerical data and analysis.
Complexity theory also marks a contentious revival, insofar as it draws
both on the theoretical legacy of early twentieth-century systems theo-
rists, and on fields far removed from core sociology such as computa-
tional modelling and mathematics.
The social sciences are very much averse to the very concept of system.
While this is explained in greater detail further on, social theory of the
latter twentieth century is defined by its dismissal of Parsonian structural-­
functionalism. Systems theory of this strain is often associated (correctly)
with a conservative view of society – where individuals are socialised into
roles, norms are internalised, and systems tend toward equilibrium. The
dismissal of social systems theory was also premised on its replacement
with theories emphasising the micro-subjective foundations of social
action, and the centrality of culture. And yet, aversions to systems think-
ing in sociology are curious as sociologists have, across many sub-fields,
been engaged with questions of structure and system for quite some time.
Marxism has long emphasised the ecological basis of human labour and
its consequent social formations, whilst Polanyian political economy
details the embeddedness of governance institutions and markets in
xxii Introduction

s­ocieties. Sociologists have thus often worked implicitly within an ‘eco-

logical’ framework, by paying attention to questions of material embed-
dedness, and historical context.
The problem appears to run both ways however. Complexity has also
had little to say about the relationship between environment and society,
whilst environmental sociology has been equally reluctant to engage with
the analytical promises of complexity and resilience. Part of the issue in
environmental sociology, is that it has been historically defined in opposi-
tion. ‘Nature’ was the subject of the physical sciences, and thus ‘the social’
was everything else. As such, sociology has held a long aversion to consid-
ering questions of environment, giving rise to a dominant ‘human
exemptionalist paradigm’. Under this paradigm, sociology continued its
theorisation and study of everything from institutions, to class, to the
body, absent of questions of nature. When nature returned to social the-
ory, it did so in forms such as Actor Network Theory, a theory of co-­
constructivism, where hybrid natural-social entities generate and sustain
stable, heterogeneous networks of interconnection. By insisting on a col-
lapse of prior distinctions between natural and social entities, it had lim-
ited appeal to applied researchers, proving difficult to operationalise.
Sociology is still debating the extent to which the categories of nature and
society can be articulated and abstracted as such.
This book is a more modest contribution. Its motivation is discussed
further below, but its claims are pointed: that there are mutual affinities
between the forthcoming bodies of theory, which stand to learn from, and
mutually enrich each other. They also offer practical utility for analysts,
engaged with questions of association, causality, and explanation in a nor-
mative sense (I assume the reader holds at minimum to some distinction
between a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ future for human society). In attempting to
bring together complexity-based social science and resilience-based human
ecology, we proceed in two principal ways: (1) by charting their common
origins and evolutionary paths from the early twentieth century to the
present day, and (2) by demonstrating their compatibility as ontologies of
natural-social interconnectedness, and in the process outlining a frame-
work for their use in social research. It aims to address two deficiencies: (1)
the lack of engagement by environmental sociologists with the analytical
 Introduction
   xxiii

promise of complexity and resilience, and complexity’s lack of attention to

questions of ecology, and (2) the treatment and theorisation of the social –
in its broadest historical sense – in applied human ecology.

Motivation and Core Concepts

Given the apparently eclectic mix of theory included, some notes on con-
text are needed. This work is informed by my own approach to research
in environment and society, my methodological training and orientation,
and my empirical focus. The bodies of theory and sub-disciplines named
above are also considerably diverse, and we should be clear on my inter-
pretation of these before proceeding. I have tried, insofar as possible, to
write this with general appeal. With that in mind, although there is a
progression to the book, there is also value in the individual histories of
ideas contained in each chapter. I do believe, however, that the approach
detailed here is generalisable, and applicable to multiple research areas. It
is primarily a work of theory and concept, and its goal is to argue the
usefulness of the collection of ideas, and their overall coherence as an
integrated approach to the study of systems.
My use of certain concepts originates in my reading of a sub-field.
Sometime the choices are more intentional than accidental however, and
as ideas have ‘operative force’, it is important that their origins and intent
be qualified. The most recurring concept is that of system. There are
many types of system which can be defined according to any boundary
criteria, and at any degree of abstraction. At the most general level, this
book makes frequent references to ‘social’ and ‘ecological’ or natural sys-
tems. Many social scientists take issue with separating the two, and they
are right to do so. Social systems are ecological systems, insofar as society
depends on its environment for its own reproduction. Nonetheless, the
tendency to parse out social from ecological or natural factors is one
which will be seen many times in the discussions ahead. Separation of the
social and ecological occurs through social theories which make little ref-
erence to nature, in analyses which parse out causal social factors from
ecological outcomes, and in scientific studies which ignore how social
systems mediate ecological outcomes.
xxiv Introduction

These are all mis-steps to some degree, and it is important this be

acknowledged. Yet they are sometimes necessary. Later on, we make the
case that mixed-methods should be a central part of systems analysis. This
will necessarily involve parsing out aspects of the world into social and
natural variables, as independent causal factors. This often leads to a
charge of reification, or the assumption that measures of variables alone
give a sufficient grasp of the phenomenon in question. We will argue that
this is necessary for certain kinds of analysis, but that reification is a func-
tion of the analyst, not the method. It is how we place these analyses and
their results in an overall interpretative framework that determines
whether reification has occurred. Hence, the reader will find at quite an
early stage, what seems a crude parsing of natural from social systems, or
a collapsing of the two into each other. This is given progressive attention
throughout the book, where we pay attention to theorising society as an
inherently ecological entity. For the moment, the concept of ‘social-­
ecological’ system is used. There are many iterations of this: socio-­
ecological, human-coupled ecosystem, natural-social, socio-natural etc.
There are places to go to find intricate debates on these distinctions, and
we pay little attention to these here. Social-ecological is used to capture
both the inherent ecological embeddedness, and ecological nature of
social systems, whilst recognising that a degree of analytical parsing of
their components is sometimes necessary to measure and assess. It is used
at a high level of abstraction, and with no specific empirical referent (we
do not assume reference to a territory, community, or country).
The content of the book is, of course, informed by my interests and
experience. I am not a trained ecologist, nor have I done research specifi-
cally on ‘natural’ systems. My background is in sociology, and one aspect
of my work deals with historical human settlement and famine. My train-
ing is in quantitative sociology, and I work primarily with quantitative
methods – time series, panel, and spatial data. My work on famine is
supplemented with documentary and archival work, as I study a specific
form of agricultural system often referred to as a ‘common pool’ resource
system. I deal with several types of data in my everyday work: statistical,
documentary, archival, cartographic, visual, and oral. Much of what fol-
lows arises from several difficulties I encountered in this area, many of
which continue. They stem from a basic difficulty I still encounter, which
 Introduction
   xxv

is putting both aspects of my cases together. In sociology, the social

aspects of these agricultural systems are of interest – what kinds of divi-
sion of labour, cultural norms, systems of governance, inequalities, and
demographics prevail in systems of this type? To an ecologist the ques-
tions are different: was fertility maintained through material import or
rotation? What was the seasonal variation in yield? What kinds of land-­
use, husbandry, and tillage were in place? It should be clear that these
questions are inseparable – choices of cultivation method are bound by
cultural norms, by available technology, or by factors which enable or
inhibit capital investment. Demography is, to some extent, conditional
on carrying capacity of land, which is itself socially determined. The
interconnections are so dense and inherent, that any separation – concep-
tually or analytically – seems impossible. And yet, as the following pages
will show, these separations continue to define boundaries between disci-
plines, and practices within them.
These difficulties can be parsed into questions which inform the argu-
ments of this book:

1. How can social-ecological systems be conceptualised as combined

social-ecological systems? Where can the ontological lines between
nature and society be drawn? How can change within complex sys-
tems be represented or explained?
2. How can information about social-ecological systems be organised
and represented in a way that approximates their ‘actual’ dynamics? Is
such an approximation of reality possible or desirable?
3. Should representations of social-ecological systems conform to an
abstract model of relations, linkages and mechanisms, or should they
be quantified?
4. Can stability or sustainability be assessed in a non-normative manner?
Is it possible, or desirable to specify ‘healthy state’ criteria as normative
assessment guidelines?

Question 1 concerns some basic understandings of what we mean by

social and ecological. The focus of this work is on theorising the social,
and its integration into an overall model (social-ecological). The terms
‘conceptual’ and ‘theoretical’ may appear to be used interchangeably, and
xxvi Introduction

this is intentional. Generally, conceptual refers to working definitions of

abstract entities. These can be highly abstract (such as ‘society’, ‘culture’,
‘institution’, ‘inequality’), or more concrete (‘fertility’, ‘social class’, ‘law’).
In both cases, conceptualisation is a process of defining these terms more
clearly, with a view toward operationalising – putting the definition to
work as a guide for data collection, analysis, and explanation. Theories are
coherent bodies of ideas that explain some aspect of the social or natural
world. They often describe either why an entity appears as it does, or how
such entities change. Again, they can be abstract, or refer to large bodies
of ideas (as with general systems theory, or actor network theory), or
more concrete and middle-range (such as the theory of metabolic rift). In
both cases, they describe the constitution of complex entities (in the for-
mer, why systems appear as they do, and how they cohere over time), and
go further than concepts in explaining movement and change (in the
latter, how resource inequalities arise and persist). Theories and concepts
always work together, and concepts can be viewed as the building blocks
of theory – they are the working definitions that point toward the empiri-
cal referents of more abstract theories.
One key factor underpinning all discussion in this book is that of his-
tory. I assume that history is always a concern – whether an explicit focus
of the researcher or not. All cases have a history – a development path
that has brought them to their state, as observed and captured by our
data. All data are inherently historical – as soon as measures are taken, the
world has changed. We often work within the confines of available data,
and global data are difficult to come by. Some global repositories are
updated regularly, but only supply data at a country level. Network data
and social survey microdata are harder to come by, and rarely is their
design and collection under control of a single analyst. The further back
in time we go, the less coverage, detail, standardisation, and comparabil-
ity we have with our data. This is one reason why plurality of method is
so important. It is also why history is so important. All cases – at national,
sub-national, regional, community, or settlement level – have an histori-
cal context. Their current appearance may belie a complex development
path. Not all cases evolve and change the same way, not all development
is influenced by the same factors, and not all factors produce the same
 Introduction
   xxvii

effects on future states. The question of history is given considerable

attention in Chap. 4, where we consider the social context of systems
over the long-run of human history. Whether this seems excessively
abstract or not, all social systems reside in larger-scale systems into which
they are densely networked. These do not look the same at all points in
human history. They include capitalist, feudal, and communal systems
(or modes of production as they will be defined), and their understand-
ing is essential to comprehending social systems. The laws which govern
system energetics and fertility must also take root in a social structure.
Humans have agency, the ability to act on their environments and their
resources in different ways, and this is a key factor in assessing sustain-
ability. We approach history as a methodological goal in this book, and
consider several approaches to interpreting patterns of historical develop-
ment and change.
Finally, several disciplinary terms are used. We refer at various points
to environmental sociology, human ecology, systems theory, general sys-
tems theory, and we also refer to complexity and resilience as coherent
programmes of theory and research. These terms are inherently inaccu-
rate, but necessary. Sociologists may draw parallels to the human ecology
of the Chicago school in the early to mid-twentieth century. This body of
work held that human actions was biologically motivated, but ultimately
bound and moderated by social rules, in socially constructed environ-
ments. Biological determinism has been much-criticised in sociology,
and we take no issue with these critiques – this is not the intended use of
the term. ‘Human ecology’ describes a trans-disciplinary approach to
research (ecology, biology, sociology, anthropology, geography, econom-
ics), and it is this which distinguishes it from environmental sociology or
human geography, which align closer to their respective disciplinary
norms and theories. These distinctions are given more rigorous treatment
throughout, and the identity of human ecology as a separate research
programme is articulated in Chap. 3. ‘Systems theory’ is used in its broad-
est sense, to represent both the philosophical practice of systems-­
theorising in the abstract, and a collection of specific research
programmes – such as living systems theory, social entropy theory, or
Parsonian functionalism.
xxviii Introduction

Chapter Outline
Chapter 1 gives a history and critique of mid-twentieth century general,
and social systems theory. The history of systemic thought is familiar to
most students of social science. What is less well integrated into current
sociological theory and practice is the ‘second wave’ of systemic theory or
‘complexity theory’, which succeeded the general systems program. It
beings with a critical re-evaluation of the legacies of ‘classical’ general
systems theorists, and the early multidisciplinary promise of their work.
We then consider the legacy of Talcott Parsons, in order to re-position the
ideological baggage that often accompanies systems theory in sociology.
In doing so, we argue that its mis-appropriation of key concepts such as
equilibrium, and an overreliance on highly abstract models, left it open
to a highly conservative interpretation. Social systems theory emphasises
the role of functional pre-requisites for social stability and reproduction,
allied to a model of social structure (referred to as ‘structural functional-
ism’ in social theory). The chapter concludes that the two tasks can pro-
ductively be separated, and that there is nothing inherently conservative
in specifying structural models as guiding ideal-types.
Once these outstanding issues are addressed, Chap. 2 focuses on an
alternative approach to systems drawing on complexity, emergence, and
critical realism. It suggests, contrary to the static, structuralist models
advanced by the general systems program, that social-ecological systems
are inherently dynamic, metabolic entities engaged in a continual
exchange of matter and energy with their environments to forestall dis-
sipation. The concepts of autopoiesis and dissipative structures are intro-
duced as foundational concepts for thinking about social organisation
and social order. The chapter is necessarily pitched at a high level of
abstraction and focuses on establishing several basic concepts for repre-
senting and assessing systems in general. It shows how a complex view of
systems can serve as a guide for mixed-method investigation, how sys-
tems are inherently multidimensional, how we can think about change as
an inherent property of systems, and how we can approach their mea-
surement in a manner which does not obscure this complexity.
 Introduction
   xxix

Chapter 3 shifts focus to questions of operationalisation and measure-

ment, by identifying several points of compatibility between complexity
theory and resilience-based human ecology. Operationalisation – the
translation of abstract concepts into working definitions and measures –
speaks to complexity-informed social science, which is inherently con-
cerned with questions of analysis, and normative assessment. This chapter
argues that resilience offers a means to bring questions of environment
and ecology more clearly into the complexity programme, and to inform
a systems-based social science approach to environment. Researchers
operating under the rubric of resilience ecology have adapted many heu-
ristics which greatly assist the task of operationalising the abstract theo-
ries of Chaps. 1 and 2. Contrasted with engineering resilience as a measure
of a systems’ return time to ‘base state’ parameter values following distur-
bance, ecological resilience assesses the amount of disturbance a system
may undergo before transition to an alternate state is induced. The prob-
ability of a system crossing this threshold is determined by its adaptive
capacity, as a qualitative measure of the systems’ capability to respond to
feedback. Adaptive capacity is in turn determined by the social and insti-
tutional makeup of the system in question. This approach resolves much
of the restrictive ‘optimal state’ assumptions associated with classical sys-
tems theory. It also offers several useful heuristics to assess system consti-
tution and change, such as the concepts of adaptive cycles, panarchy,
regime and identity. Putting these into dialogue with complexity theory
allows us to approach social-ecological systems as complex, yet non-­
hierarchical, and to evaluate their ability to persist, and reproduce.
Chapter 4 takes forward the question of the social properties of sys-
tems, arguing that a full appreciation of social context – in its broadest
historical sense – is always needed when dealing with ‘human’ variables.
In this chapter, we introduce Marxian historical materialism, and the
concept of ‘mode of production’ as a device to typify social systems as
historical entities with their own internal logics, defining characteristics,
and complex trajectories of development. The concept of mode of ‘pro-
duction’ offers a general, abstract typology of historical forms of social
organisation, according to the way surplus of production is distributed or
appropriated. Having established this general context, we introduce a
strain of Marxian ecological thought which has sought to recover the
xxx Introduction

concept of ‘metabolic rift’ from Marx’s work. This concept deals with the
drivers of resource inequalities resulting from social changes induced dur-
ing the transition to capitalism, which persist to this day in various forms.
Central to this concept are processes of urbanisation, resource intensifica-
tion, regional trade, and the movement of agricultural produce from sites
of production. Building on the general approach to social context estab-
lished by a ‘mode of production’ approach, this review argues that this
more middle-range approach to social-ecological metabolism lends itself
more readily to application. We suggest that it also animates the resilience
approach by theorising the contextual, historical, and social conditions
driving resource inequalities. In his critiques of Malthus, Marx made fre-
quent reference to the necessity of historical contextualisation, rather
than recourse to immutable laws of population which pointed inevitably
toward resource depletion under population growth. This approach
shows instead how these ‘natural’ tendencies are mediated by social con-
texts, to better or worse outcomes. Finally, an integrated conceptual
framework is advanced, bringing together informants from the preceding
chapters to propose a general theoretical and methodological framework.
It proposes that any complete analysis of social-ecological systems must
tend as much to abstract questions of the constitution of society, as to the
specifics of research methods. This approach is based on several related
assumptions, including abandoning divisions between disciplines, and
insisting on plurality of method.
The bodies of theory considered in the coming chapters are diverse, and
in some cases, and their mutual compatibility – at least before reading – is
not obvious. We do not attempt to build an exhaustive, general research
template which can be applied to all cases. However, these bodies of work
represent a route to enhancing environmental research as currently con-
ducted on systems with a clear social component, regardless of discipline.
Despite their abstraction, they have proven useful in my own applied
research – for organising my thoughts on the connections between envi-
ronment and society, and in overcoming unhelpful divisions based on
method, discipline, or tradition. I hope you will find similar in the follow-
ing pages.
 1
A Brief History of Systemic Thought
in the Social and Natural Sciences

1.1 Introduction
Social scientists are not accustomed to thinking in terms of systems.
Although the concept formed part of a theoretical consensus in the mid-­
twentieth century, at least amongst a subset of mainly American social
theorists, the notion has been largely purged from the Anglo-Saxon canon
since the 1970s. There are many reasons for this. In reaction to the alleged
scientism of social systems theory, coupled with the postmodern cultural
turn, systems theory came to be viewed as a conservative relic. It justifiably
came under criticism for its neglect of historical context and specificity, its
inability to handle change, its normative content suggesting that given
social relations represented equilibrium conditions – and consequently, its
implicit endorsement of inequality. And yet the history of systems theory
in the twentieth century is relevant for several reasons. Its ambition mir-
rors post-war optimism in other realms such as public welfare reform, and
its interdisciplinary ambition reveals a remarkable degree of collaboration
between disciplines which have become more separate today.
It also raises important questions for understanding natural-social
interdisciplinarity today – why did the general systems theory programme
not succeed, and why does interdisciplinarity appear further today

© The Author(s) 2019 1

E. Flaherty, Complexity and Resilience in the Social and Ecological Sciences,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54978-5_1
2 E. Flaherty

than it did since the post-war era? The fate of systems theory over the
twentieth century also parallels the fragmentation of sociology into sub-­
specialties over this period, with many based on a clear rejection of sys-
tems principles. Understanding this process is therefore key to appreciating
why cross-discipline communication remains difficult today. This chapter
outlines this history of ideas, focusing mainly on twentieth century social
theory. It suggests that by separating the objectives of structural and con-
ceptual modelling from the identification of functional requisites and
relations for system functioning – as well as misguided applications of the
concept of equilibrium – we can recast the interdisciplinary promise of
systems theory from a new perspective of complexity.

1.2  he ‘First Wave’ of General Systems

T
Theory
According to Graeme Snooks, ‘…the holy grail of systems theory is the
development of a general dynamic theory that can explain and predict the
emergence of order and complexity in a universe of increasing entropy’
(2008: 12). Skyttner describes general systems theory as operating on an
abstract level ‘…with general properties of systems, regardless of physical
form or domain of application…as an epistemology [which] structures
not only our thinking about reality but also our thinking about thinking
itself ’ (Skyttner 2005: 40). Systems theory in its most general sense is
therefore a multifaceted enterprise – a theory of structure (the essential
concrete elements of a social or physical system), function (the inter-­
relation between these elements), and epistemology (a model of how
knowledge of the system is best acquired through analysis). This includes
more recognisable works such as Kenneth Boulding’s Hierarchy of Systems
Complexity (pub. 1956), James Grier Miller’s General Living Systems
Theory (pub. 1978), and later works such as James Lovelock’s Gaia
Hypothesis (pub. 1979), Kenneth Bailey’s Social Entropy Theory (Bailey
2006, 2008), and Immanuel Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory
(Wallerstein 1974, 2006). Our brief history begins with what may be
referred to as the ‘first wave’ – in some respects the most ambitious – born
of collaboration between scientists of several different backgrounds.
 A Brief History of Systemic Thought in the Social and Natural… 3

Thomas Kuhn (1962) suggested that the history of scientific practice is

that of a succession of revolutionary paradigms, in which new modes of
thought replace old, incompatible forms. A ‘normal science’ of consensus
amongst practitioners is defined by Kuhn as one which ‘…like an
accepted judicial decision in the common law, is an object for further
articulation and specification under new or more stringent conditions’
(1962: 23). Kuhn’s view of paradigm succession is one of ‘consensuses
followed by “crisis”’, through which practitioners divide allegiances
between the new and the old. The success of the new paradigm is depen-
dent on the explanatory capabilities of the new, giving rise to a period of
‘normal science’. These dominant ‘normal science’ paradigms are irrecon-
cilable with the views of their predecessors (1962: 103).1 The history of
systems-based thinking does not quite fit this neat model of succession,
although some have suggested that a growing multidisciplinary emphasis
on systems and complexity theory may slowly be creating a new ‘Kuhnian’
paradigm (Urry 2005; Castellani and Hafferty 2009: 119). The lure of a
coherent research programme underpinned by an encompassing theory,
is evident within the works of early general systems theorists, and its resil-
ience in various forms across the twentieth century attests to its lingering
appeal, if not it’s practical utility.
Writing in 1956, in response to Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s General
System Theory: A New Approach to Unity of Science, (1951) Kenneth
Boulding described general systems theory as a ‘…skeleton of science…
on which to hang the flesh and blood of particular disciplines’ (1956:
208). The ‘skeleton’ of systems theory to which Boulding referred was
generating some interest across numerous disciplines as a potential
‘gestalt’ communicative device. Boulding suggested that by adopting a
systems-based way of thinking, practitioners from economics to physics
to sociology, could appreciate the mutual affinity of their subject matter
and better contribute to each other’s work. Seven years previous in 1949,

1
The relative youth of sociology in comparison to that of the ‘mature’ physical sciences may account
for the current ambiguity of its epistemology and subject matter – although the postmodern turn
offers little evidence of a trajectory corresponding to that of Kuhn (Eliot and Kiel 2004; Harvey
and Reed 2004). Conversely, others have suggested that it is possible for disciplines to experience
periods of ‘non-paradigm, multi-paradigm, or dual paradigm activity’ (see Johnston and Sidaway
2004: 12).
4 E. Flaherty

a meeting of researchers under the broad rubric of the behavioural sci-

ences convened at the University of Michigan to discuss the possibility of
formalizing an empirically testable general theory of social and natural
systems (Miller 1955).2
The idea of constructing such a collaborative model had already been
mooted by von Bertalanffy in 1937 during a seminar delivered at the
University of Chicago. Here, he articulated a view of general systems
theory as a corrective to reductionist scientific methodology and mecha-
nist reasoning, which had, in his opinion, remained in place since the
industrial revolution (Hammond 2003: 104). Three years after Miller’s
initial meetings in 1949, the group, now comprised of representatives
from history, anthropology, economics, political science, sociology, psy-
chology, medicine, physiology, and mathematical biology, had managed
to sketch a remarkably comprehensive working programme of general
systems principles (Miller 1955). Attesting to their organizational stabil-
ity, if not their programmatic agreement, Kenneth Bailey delivered his
presidential address to the 48th International Society for the Systems Sciences
Annual Conference in 2005, remarking on the continuing remit of Miller’s
precursor group to ‘…encourage the development of theoretical systems
which are applicable to more than one of the traditional departments of
knowledge’ (Bailey 2005: 365).
Although Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory is typically
identified as the first comprehensive work in the field (Castellani and
Hafferty 2009), it is James Grier Miller’s Living Systems Theory that has
served as a point of departure for much subsequent debate. Von

2
A comprehensive, but disjointed history of this group, variously operating as the Committee on the
Behavioral Sciences, the ‘Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences’ (under the auspices of
the Ford Foundation (est. 1936), and the International Society for the Systems Sciences is offered in
Debora Hammond’s (2003) The Science of Synthesis: Exploring the Social Implications of General
Systems Theory. The political implications of post-war research funding, and the humanistic con-
notations of holistic conceptualisation are also addressed. The term General Systems Theory is cred-
ited to Ludwig Von Bertalanffy (1901–1972), whereas Living Systems Theory is credited to James
Grier Miller’s (b1916) publication of the same name (1978). These terms are used interchangeably,
as both approaches inform and complement each other, and the authors share common origins in
the above groups – the term ‘systems theory’ is therefore an umbrella term for work within these
traditions. The intricacies of these earlier debates and divergences are beyond the scope of this pres-
ent discussion, and the reader is directed to Hammond (2003) and Skyttner (2005) for a compre-
hensive history.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 “We know a great deal about a good many things,” said Mrs.
Maplebury.
“What is it, Bradbury?” said Mrs. Fisher.
“I’m afraid I shall have to leave you for a couple of days. Great
nuisance, but there it is. But, of course, I must be there.”
“Where?”
“Ah, where?” said Mrs. Maplebury.
“At Sing-Sing. I see in the paper that to-morrow and the day after
they are inaugurating the new Osborne Stadium. All the men of my
class will be attending, and I must go, too.”
“Must you really?”
“I certainly must. Not to do so would be to show a lack of college
spirit. The boys are playing Yale, and there is to be a big dinner
afterwards. I shouldn’t wonder if I had to make a speech. But don’t
worry, honey,” he said, kissing his wife affectionately. “I shall be back
before you know I’ve gone.” He turned sharply to Mrs. Maplebury. “I
beg your pardon?” he said, stiffly.
“I did not speak.”
“I thought you did.”
“I merely inhaled. I simply drew in air through my nostrils. If I am
not at liberty to draw in air through my nostrils in your house, pray
inform me.”
“I would prefer that you didn’t,” said Bradbury, between set teeth.
“Then I would suffocate.”
“Yes,” said Bradbury Fisher.

Of all the tainted millionaires who, after years of plundering the

widow and the orphan, have devoted the evening of their life to the
game of golf, few can ever have been so boisterously exhilarated as
was Bradbury Fisher when, two nights later, he returned to his home.
His dreams had all come true. He had won his way to the foot of the
rain-bow. In other words, he was the possessor of a small pewter
cup, value three dollars, which he had won by beating a feeble old
gentleman with one eye in the final match of the competition for the
sixth sixteen at the Squashy Hollow Golf Club Invitation Tournament.
He entered the house, radiant.
“Tra-la!” sang Bradbury Fisher. “Tra-la!”
“I beg your pardon, sir?” said Vosper, who had encountered him in
the hall.
“Eh? Oh, nothing. Just tra-la.”
“Very good, sir.”
Bradbury Fisher looked at Vosper. For the first time it seemed to
sweep over him like a wave that Vosper was an uncommonly good
fellow. The past was forgotten, and he beamed upon Vosper like the
rising sun.
“Vosper,” he said, “what wages are you getting?”
“I regret to say, sir,” replied the butler, “that, at the moment, the
precise amount of the salary of which I am in receipt has slipped my
mind. I could refresh my memory by consulting my books, if you so
desire it, sir.”
“Never mind. Whatever it is, it’s doubled.”
“I am obliged, sir. You will, no doubt, send me a written memo, to
that effect?”
“Twenty, if you like.”
“One will be ample, sir.”
Bradbury curveted past him through the baronial hall and into the
Crystal Boudoir. His wife was there alone.
“Mother has gone to bed,” she said. “She has a bad headache.”
 “You don’t say!” said Bradbury. It was as if everything was
conspiring to make this a day of days. “Well, it’s great to be back in
the old home.”
“Did you have a good time?”
“Capital.”
“You saw all your old friends?”
“Every one of them.”
“Did you make a speech at the dinner?”
“Did I! They rolled out of their seats and the waiters swept them up
with dusters.”
“A very big dinner, I suppose?”
“Enormous.”
“How was the football game?”
“Best I’ve ever seen. We won. Number 432,986 made a hundred-
and-ten-yard run for a touch-down in the last five minutes.”
“Really?”
“And that takes a bit of doing, with a ball and chain round your
ankle, believe me!”
“Bradbury,” said Mrs. Fisher, “where have you been these last two
days?”
Bradbury’s heart missed a beat. His wife was looking exactly like
her mother. It was the first time he had ever been able to believe that
she could be Mrs. Maplebury’s daughter.
“Been? Why, I’m telling you.”
“Bradbury,” said Mrs. Fisher, “just one word. Have you seen the
paper this morning?”
“Why, no. What with all the excitement of meeting the boys and
this and that—”
 “Then you have not seen that the inauguration of the new Stadium
at Sing-Sing was postponed on account of an outbreak of mumps in
the prison?”
Bradbury gulped.
“There was no dinner, no football game, no gathering of Old Grads
—nothing! So—where have you been, Bradbury?”
Bradbury gulped again.
“You’re sure you haven’t got this wrong?” he said at length.
“Quite.”
“I mean, sure it wasn’t some other place?”
“Quite.”
“Sing-Sing? You got the name correctly?”
“Quite. Where, Bradbury, have you been these last two days?”
“Well—er—”
Mrs. Fisher coughed dryly.
“I merely ask out of curiosity. The facts will, of course, come out in
court.”
“In court!”
“Naturally I propose to place this affair in the hands of my lawyer
immediately.”
Bradbury started convulsively.
“You mustn’t!”
“I certainly shall.”
A shudder shook Bradbury from head to foot. He felt worse than
he had done when his opponent in the final had laid him a stymie on
the last green, thereby squaring the match and taking it to the
nineteenth hole.
“I will tell you all,” he muttered.
 “Well?”
“Well—it was like this.”
“Yes?”
“Er—like this. In fact, this way.”
“Proceed.”
Bradbury clenched his hands; and, as far as that could be
managed, avoided her eye.
“I’ve been playing golf,” he said in a low, toneless voice.
“Playing golf?”
“Yes.” Bradbury hesitated. “I don’t mean it in an offensive spirit,
and no doubt most men would have enjoyed themselves thoroughly,
but I—well, I am curiously constituted, angel, and the fact is I simply
couldn’t stand playing with you any longer. The fault, I am sure, was
mine, but—well, there it is. If I had played another round with you,
my darling, I think that I should have begun running about in circles,
biting my best friends. So I thought it all over, and, not wanting to
hurt your feelings by telling you the truth, I stooped to what I might
call a ruse. I said I was going to the office; and, instead of going to
the office, I went off to Squashy Hollow and played there.”
Mrs. Fisher uttered a cry.
“You were there to-day and yesterday?”
In spite of his trying situation, the yeasty exhilaration which had
been upon him when he entered the room returned to Bradbury.
“Was I!” he cried. “You bet your Russian boots I was! Only winning
a cup, that’s all!”
“You won a cup?”
“You bet your diamond tiara I won a cup. Say, listen,” said
Bradbury, diving for a priceless Boule table and wrenching a leg off
it. “Do you know what happened in the semi-final?” He clasped his
fingers over the table-leg in the overlapping grip. “I’m here, see,
about fifteen feet off the green. The other fellow lying dead, and I’m
playing the like. Best I could hope for was a half, you’ll say, eh? Well,
listen. I just walked up to that little white ball, and I gave it a little flick,
and, believe me or believe me not, that little white ball never stopped
running till it plunked into the hole.”
He stopped. He perceived that he had been introducing into the
debate extraneous and irrelevant matter.
“Honey,” he said, fervently, “you musn’t get mad about this.
Maybe, if we try again, it will be all right. Give me another chance.
Let me come out and play a round to-morrow. I think perhaps your
style of play is a thing that wants getting used to. After all, I didn’t like
olives the first time I tried them. Or whisky. Or caviare, for that
matter. Probably if—”
Mrs. Fisher shook her head.
“I shall never play again.”
“Oh, but, listen—”
She looked at him fondly, her eyes dim with happy tears.
“I should have known you better, Bradbury. I suspected you. How
foolish I was.”
“There, there,” said Bradbury.
“It was mother’s fault. She put ideas into my head.”
There was much that Bradbury would have liked to say about her
mother, but he felt that this was not the time.
“And you really forgive me for sneaking off and playing at Squashy
Hollow?”
“Of course.”
“Then why not a little round to-morrow?”
“No, Bradbury, I shall never play again. Vosper says I mustn’t.”
“What!”
“He saw me one morning on the links, and he came to me and told
me—quite nicely and respectfully—that it must not occur again. He
said with the utmost deference that I was making a spectacle of
myself and that this nuisance must now cease. So I gave it up. But
it’s all right. Vosper thinks that gentle massage will cure my
wheezing, so I’m having it every day, and really I do think there’s an
improvement already.”
“Where is Vosper?” said Bradbury, hoarsely.
“You aren’t going to be rude to him, Bradbury? He is so sensitive.”
But Bradbury Fisher had left the room.

“You rang, sir?” said Vosper, entering the Byzantine smoking-room

some few minutes later.
“Yes,” said Bradbury. “Vosper, I am a plain, rugged man and I do
not know all that there is to be known about these things. So do not
be offended if I ask you a question.”
“Not at all, sir.”
“Tell me, Vosper, did the Duke ever shake hands with you?”
“Once only, sir—mistaking me in a dimly-lit hall for a visiting
archbishop.”
“Would it be all right for me to shake hands with you now?”
“If you wish it, sir, certainly.”
“I want to thank you, Vosper. Mrs. Fisher tells me that you have
stopped her playing golf. I think that you have saved my reason,
Vosper.”
“That is extremely gratifying, sir.”
“Your salary is trebled.”
“Thank you very much, sir. And, while we are talking, sir, if I might
—. There is one other little matter I wished to speak of, sir.”
“Shoot, Vosper.”
 “It concerns Mrs. Maplebury, sir.”
“What about her?”
“If I might say so, sir, she would scarcely have done for the Duke.”
A sudden wild thrill shot through Bradbury.
“You mean—?” he stammered.
“I mean, sir, that Mrs. Maplebury must go. I make no criticism of
Mrs. Maplebury, you will understand, sir. I merely say that she would
decidedly not have done for the Duke.”
Bradbury drew in his breath sharply.
“Vosper,” he said, “the more I hear of that Duke of yours, the more
I seem to like him. You really think he would have drawn the line at
Mrs. Maplebury?”
“Very firmly, sir.”
“Splendid fellow! Splendid fellow! She shall go to-morrow, Vosper.”
“Thank you very much, sir.”
“And, Vosper.”
“Sir?”
“Your salary. It is quadrupled.”
“I am greatly obliged, sir.”
“Tra-la, Vosper!”
“Tra-la, sir. Will that be all?”
“That will be all. Tra-la!”
“Tra-la, sir,” said the butler.
 CHAPTER IV
CHESTER FORGETS HIMSELF

The afternoon was warm and heavy. Butterflies loafed languidly in

the sunshine, birds panted in the shady recesses of the trees.
The Oldest Member, snug in his favourite chair, had long since
succumbed to the drowsy influence of the weather. His eyes were
closed, his chin sunk upon his breast. The pipe which he had been
smoking lay beside him on the turf, and ever and anon there
proceeded from him a muffled snore.
Suddenly the stillness was broken. There was a sharp, cracking
sound as of splitting wood. The Oldest Member sat up, blinking. As
soon as his eyes had become accustomed to the glare, he perceived
that a foursome had holed out on the ninth and was disintegrating.
Two of the players were moving with quick, purposeful steps in the
direction of the side door which gave entrance to the bar; a third was
making for the road that led to the village, bearing himself as one in
profound dejection; the fourth came on to the terrace.
“Finished?” said the Oldest Member.
The other stopped, wiping a heated brow. He lowered himself into
the adjoining chair and stretched his legs out.
“Yes. We started at the tenth. Golly, I’m tired. No joke playing in
this weather.”
“How did you come out?”
“We won on the last green. Jimmy Fothergill and I were playing
the vicar and Rupert Blake.”
“What was that sharp, cracking sound I heard?” asked the Oldest
Member.
 “That was the vicar smashing his putter. Poor old chap, he had
rotten luck all the way round, and it didn’t seem to make it any better
for him that he wasn’t able to relieve his feelings in the ordinary way.”
“I suspected some such thing,” said the Oldest Member, “from the
look of his back as he was leaving the green. His walk was the walk
of an overwrought soul.”
His companion did not reply. He was breathing deeply and
regularly.
“It is a moot question,” proceeded the Oldest Member, thoughtfully,
“whether the clergy, considering their peculiar position, should not be
more liberally handicapped at golf than the laymen with whom they
compete. I have made a close study of the game since the days of
the feather ball, and I am firmly convinced that to refrain entirely from
oaths during a round is almost equivalent to giving away three
bisques. There are certain occasions when an oath seems to be so
imperatively demanded that the strain of keeping it in must inevitably
affect the ganglions or nerve-centres in such a manner as to
diminish the steadiness of the swing.”
The man beside him slipped lower down in his chair. His mouth
had opened slightly.
“I am reminded in this connection,” said the Oldest Member, “of
the story of young Chester Meredith, a friend of mine whom you
have not, I think, met. He moved from this neighbourhood shortly
before you came. There was a case where a man’s whole happiness
was very nearly wrecked purely because he tried to curb his instincts
and thwart nature in this very respect. Perhaps you would care to
hear the story?”
A snore proceeded from the next chair.
“Very well, then,” said the Oldest Member, “I will relate it.”
 Chester Meredith (said the Oldest Member) was one of the nicest
young fellows of my acquaintance. We had been friends ever since
he had come to live here as a small boy, and I had watched him with
a fatherly eye through all the more important crises of a young man’s
life. It was I who taught him to drive, and when he had all that trouble
in his twenty-first year with shanking his short approaches, it was to
me that he came for sympathy and advice. It was an odd
coincidence, therefore, that I should have been present when he fell
in love.
I was smoking my evening cigar out here and watching the last
couples finishing their rounds, when Chester came out of the club-
house and sat by me. I could see that the boy was perturbed about
something, and wondered why, for I knew that he had won his
match.
“What,” I inquired, “is on your mind?”
“Oh, nothing,” said Chester. “I was only thinking that there are
some human misfits who ought not be allowed on any decent links.”
“You mean—?”
“The Wrecking Crew,” said Chester, bitterly. “They held us up all
the way round, confound them. Wouldn’t let us through. What can
you do with people who don’t know enough of the etiquette of the
game to understand that a single has right of way over a four-ball
foursome? We had to loaf about for hours on end while they
scratched at the turf like a lot of crimson hens. Eventually all four of
them lost their balls simultaneously at the eleventh and we managed
to get by. I hope they choke.”
I was not altogether surprised at his warmth. The Wrecking Crew
consisted of four retired business men who had taken up the noble
game late in life because their doctors had ordered them air and
exercise. Every club, I suppose, has a cross of this kind to bear, and
it was not often that our members rebelled; but there was
undoubtedly something particularly irritating in the methods of the
Wrecking Crew. They tried so hard that it seemed almost
inconceivable that they should be so slow.
 “They are all respectable men,” I said, “and were, I believe, highly
thought of in their respective businesses. But on the links I admit that
they are a trial.”
“They are the direct lineal descendants of the Gadarene swine,”
said Chester firmly. “Every time they come out I expect to see them
rush down the hill from the first tee and hurl themselves into the lake
at the second. Of all the—”
“Hush!” I said.
Out of the corner of my eye I had seen a girl approaching, and I
was afraid lest Chester in his annoyance might use strong language.
For he was one of those golfers who are apt to express themselves
in moments of emotion with a good deal of generous warmth.
“Eh?” said Chester.
I jerked my head, and he looked round. And, as he did so, there
came into his face an expression which I had seen there only once
before, on the occasion when he won the President’s Cup on the last
green by holing a thirty-yard chip with his mashie. It was a look of
ecstasy and awe. His mouth was open, his eyebrows raised, and he
was breathing heavily through his nose.
“Golly!” I heard him mutter.
The girl passed by. I could not blame Chester for staring at her.
She was a beautiful young thing, with a lissom figure and a perfect
face. Her hair was a deep chestnut, her eyes blue, her nose small
and laid back with about as much loft as a light iron. She
disappeared, and Chester, after nearly dislocating his neck trying to
see her round the corner of the club-house, emitted a deep,
explosive sigh.
“Who is she?” he whispered.
I could tell him that. In one way and another I get to know most
things around this locality.
“She is a Miss Blakeney. Felicia Blakeney. She has come to stay
for a month with the Waterfields. I understand she was at school with
Jane Waterfield. She is twenty-three, has a dog named Joseph,
dances well, and dislikes parsnips. Her father is a distinguished
writer on sociological subjects; her mother is Wilmot Royce, the well-
known novelist, whose last work, Sewers of the Soul, was, you may
recall, jerked before a tribunal by the Purity League. She has a
brother, Crispin Blakeney, an eminent young reviewer and essayist,
who is now in India studying local conditions with a view to a series
of lectures. She only arrived here yesterday, so this is all I have been
able to find out about her as yet.”
Chester’s mouth was still open when I began speaking. By the
time I had finished it was open still wider. The ecstatic look in his
eyes had changed to one of dull despair.
“My God!” he muttered. “If her family is like that, what chance is
there for a rough-neck like me?”
“You admire her?”
“She is the alligator’s Adam’s apple,” said Chester, simply.
I patted his shoulder.
“Have courage, my boy,” I said. “Always remember that the love of
a good man, to whom the pro can give only a couple of strokes in
eighteen holes is not to be despised.”
“Yes, that’s all very well. But this girl is probably one solid mass of
brain. She will look on me as an uneducated wart-hog.”
“Well, I will introduce you, and we will see. She looked a nice girl.”
“You’re a great describer, aren’t you?” said Chester. “A wonderful
flow of language you’ve got, I don’t think! Nice girl! Why, she’s the
only girl in the world. She’s a pearl among women. She’s the most
marvellous, astounding, beautiful, heavenly thing that ever drew
perfumed breath.” He paused, as if his train of thought had been
interrupted by an idea. “Did you say that her brother’s name was
Crispin?”
“I did. Why?”
Chester gave vent to a few manly oaths.
“Doesn’t that just show you how things go in this rotten world?”
 “What do you mean?”
“I was at school with him.”
“Surely that should form a solid basis for friendship?”
“Should it? Should it, by gad? Well, let me tell you that I probably
kicked that blighted worm Crispin Blakeney a matter of seven
hundred and forty-six times in the few years I knew him. He was the
world’s worst. He could have walked straight into the Wrecking Crew
and no questions asked. Wouldn’t it jar you? I have the luck to know
her brother, and it turns out that we couldn’t stand the sight of each
other.”
“Well, there is no need to tell her that.”
“Do you mean—?” He gazed at me wildly. “Do you mean that I
might pretend we were pals?”
“Why not? Seeing that he is in India, he can hardly contradict you.”
“My gosh!” He mused for a moment. I could see that the idea was
beginning to sink in. It was always thus with Chester. You had to give
him time. “By Jove, it mightn’t be a bad scheme at that. I mean, it
would start me off with a rush, like being one up on bogey in the first
two. And there’s nothing like a good start. By gad, I’ll do it.”
“I should.”
“Reminiscences of the dear old days when we were lads together,
and all that sort of thing.”
“Precisely.”
“It isn’t going to be easy, mind you,” said Chester, meditatively. “I’ll
do it because I love her, but nothing else in this world would make
me say a civil word about the blister. Well, then, that’s settled. Get on
with the introduction stuff, will you? I’m in a hurry.”
One of the privileges of age is that it enables a man to thrust his
society on a beautiful girl without causing her to draw herself up and
say “Sir!” It was not difficult for me to make the acquaintance of Miss
Blakeney, and, this done, my first act was to unleash Chester on her.
 “Chester,” I said, summoning him as he loafed with an overdone
carelessness on the horizon, one leg almost inextricably entwined
about the other, “I want you to meet Miss Blakeney. Miss Blakeney,
this is my young friend Chester Meredith. He was at school with your
brother Crispin. You were great friends, were you not?”
“Bosom,” said Chester, after a pause.
“Oh, really?” said the girl. There was a pause. “He is in India now.”
“Yes,” said Chester.
There was another pause.
“Great chap,” said Chester, gruffly.
“Crispin is very popular,” said the girl, “with some people.”
“Always been my best pal,” said Chester.
“Yes?”
I was not altogether satisfied with the way matters were
developing. The girl seemed cold and unfriendly, and I was afraid
that this was due to Chester’s repellent manner. Shyness, especially
when complicated by love at first sight, is apt to have strange effects
on a man, and the way it had taken Chester was to make him
abnormally stiff and dignified. One of the most charming things about
him, as a rule, was his delightful boyish smile. Shyness had caused
him to iron this out of his countenance till no trace of it remained. Not
only did he not smile, he looked like a man who never had smiled
and never would. His mouth was a thin, rigid line. His back was stiff
with what appeared to be contemptuous aversion. He looked down
his nose at Miss Blakeney as if she were less than the dust beneath
his chariot-wheels.
I thought the best thing to do was to leave them alone together to
get acquainted. Perhaps, I thought, it was my presence that was
cramping Chester’s style. I excused myself and receded.
 It was some days before I saw Chester again. He came round to
my cottage one night after dinner and sank into a chair, where he
remained silent for several minutes.
“Well?” I said at last.
“Eh?” said Chester, starting violently.
“Have you been seeing anything of Miss Blakeney lately?”
“You bet I have.”
“And how do you feel about her on further acquaintance?”
“Eh?” said Chester, absently.
“Do you still love her?”
Chester came out of his trance.
“Love her?” he cried, his voice vibrating with emotion. “Of course I
love her. Who wouldn’t love her? I’d be a silly chump not loving her.
Do you know,” the boy went on, a look in his eyes like that of some
young knight seeing the Holy Grail in a vision, “do you know, she is
the only woman I ever met who didn’t overswing. Just a nice, crisp,
snappy, half-slosh, with a good full follow-through. And another thing.
You’ll hardly believe me, but she waggles almost as little as George
Duncan. You know how women waggle as a rule, fiddling about for a
minute and a half like kittens playing with a ball of wool. Well, she
just makes one firm pass with the club and then bing! There is none
like her, none.”
“Then you have been playing golf with her?”
“Nearly every day.”
“How is your game?”
“Rather spotty. I seem to be mistiming them.”
I was concerned.
“I do hope, my dear boy,” I said, earnestly, “that you are taking
care to control your feelings when out on the links with Miss
Blakeney. You know what you are like. I trust you have not been
using the sort of language you generally employ on occasions when
you are not timing them right?”
“Me?” said Chester, horrified. “Who, me? You don’t imagine for a
moment that I would dream of saying a thing that would bring a blush
to her dear cheek, do you? Why, a bishop could have gone round
with me and learned nothing new.”
I was relieved.
“How do you find you manage the dialogue these days?” I asked.
“When I introduced you, you behaved—you will forgive an old friend
for criticising—you behaved a little like a stuffed frog with laryngitis.
Have things got easier in that respect?”
“Oh yes. I’m quite the prattler now. I talk about her brother mostly. I
put in the greater part of my time boosting the tick. It seems to be
coming easier. Will-power, I suppose. And then, of course, I talk a
good deal about her mother’s novels.”
“Have you read them?”
“Every damned one of them—for her sake. And if there’s a greater
proof of love than that, show me! My gosh, what muck that woman
writes! That reminds me, I’ve got to send to the bookshop for her
latest—out yesterday. It’s called The Stench of Life. A sequel, I
understand, to Grey Mildew.”
“Brave lad,” I said, pressing his hand. “Brave, devoted lad!”
“Oh, I’d do more than that for her.” He smoked for a while in
silence. “By the way, I’m going to propose to her to-morrow.”
“Already?”
“Can’t put it off a minute longer. It’s been as much as I could
manage, bottling it up till now. Where do you think would be the best
place? I mean, it’s not the sort of thing you can do while you’re
walking down the street or having a cup of tea. I thought of asking
her to have a round with me and taking a stab at it on the links.”
“You could not do better. The links—Nature’s cathedral.”
“Right-o, then! I’ll let you know how I come out.”
 “I wish you luck, my boy,” I said.

And what of Felicia, meanwhile? She was, alas, far from returning
the devotion which scorched Chester’s vital organs. He seemed to
her precisely the sort of man she most disliked. From childhood up
Felicia Blakeney had lived in an atmosphere of highbrowism, and the
type of husband she had always seen in her daydreams was the
man who was simple and straightforward and earthy and did not
know whether Artbashiekeff was a suburb of Moscow or a new kind
of Russian drink. A man like Chester, who on his own statement
would rather read one of her mother’s novels than eat, revolted her.
And his warm affection for her brother Crispin set the seal on her
distaste.
Felicia was a dutiful child, and she loved her parents. It took a bit
of doing, but she did it. But at her brother Crispin she drew the line.
He wouldn’t do, and his friends were worse than he was. They were
high-voiced, supercilious, pince-nezed young men who talked
patronisingly of Life and Art, and Chester’s unblushing confession
that he was one of them had put him ten down and nine to play right
away.
You may wonder why the boy’s undeniable skill on the links had no
power to soften the girl. The unfortunate fact was that all the good
effects of his prowess were neutralised by his behaviour while
playing. All her life she had treated golf with a proper reverence and
awe, and in Chester’s attitude towards the game she seemed to
detect a horrible shallowness. The fact is, Chester, in his efforts to
keep himself from using strong language, had found a sort of relief in
a girlish giggle, and it made her shudder every time she heard it.
His deportment, therefore, in the space of time leading up to the
proposal could not have been more injurious to his cause. They
started out quite happily, Chester doing a nice two-hundred-yarder
off the first tee, which for a moment awoke the girl’s respect. But at
the fourth, after a lovely brassie-shot, he found his ball deeply
embedded in the print of a woman’s high heel. It was just one of
those rubs of the green which normally would have caused him to
ease his bosom with a flood of sturdy protest, but now he was on his
guard.
“Tee-hee!” simpered Chester, reaching for his niblick. “Too bad, too
bad!” and the girl shuddered to the depths of her soul.
Having holed out, he proceeded to enliven the walk to the next tee
with a few remarks on her mother’s literary style, and it was while
they were walking after their drives that he proposed.
His proposal, considering the circumstances, could hardly have
been less happily worded. Little knowing that he was rushing upon
his doom, Chester stressed the Crispin note. He gave Felicia the
impression that he was suggesting this marriage more for Crispin’s
sake than anything else. He conveyed the idea that he thought how
nice it would be for brother Crispin to have his old chum in the family.
He drew a picture of their little home, with Crispin for ever popping in
and out like a rabbit. It is not to be wondered at that, when at length
he had finished and she had time to speak, the horrified girl turned
him down with a thud.
It is at moments such as these that a man reaps the reward of a
good upbringing.
In similar circumstances those who have not had the benefit of a
sound training in golf are too apt to go wrong. Goaded by the sudden
anguish, they take to drink, plunge into dissipation, and write vers
libre. Chester was mercifully saved from this. I saw him the day after
he had been handed the mitten, and was struck by the look of grim
determination in his face. Deeply wounded though he was, I could
see that he was the master of his fate and the captain of his soul.
“I am sorry, my boy,” I said, sympathetically, when he had told me
the painful news.
“It can’t be helped,” he replied, bravely.
“Her decision was final?”
“Quite.”
 “You do not contemplate having another pop at her?”
“No good. I know when I’m licked.”
I patted him on the shoulder and said the only thing it seemed
possible to say.
“After all, there is always golf.”
He nodded.
“Yes. My game needs a lot of tuning up. Now is the time to do it.
From now on I go at this pastime seriously. I make it my life-work.
Who knows?” he murmured, with a sudden gleam in his eyes. “The
Amateur Championship—”
“The Open!” I cried, falling gladly into his mood.
“The American Amateur,” said Chester, flushing.
“The American Open,” I chorused.
“No one has ever copped all four.”
“No one.”
“Watch me!” said Chester Meredith, simply.

It was about two weeks after this that I happened to look in on

Chester at his house one morning. I found him about to start for the
links. As he had foreshadowed in the conversation which I have just
related, he now spent most of the daylight hours on the course. In
these two weeks he had gone about his task of achieving perfection
with a furious energy which made him the talk of the club. Always
one of the best players in the place, he had developed an
astounding brilliance. Men who had played him level were now
obliged to receive two and even three strokes. The pro. himself
conceding one, had only succeeded in halving their match. The
struggle for the President’s Cup came round once more, and
Chester won it for the second time with ridiculous ease.