Historical Consensus
Humankind has always sought protection from life’s harsh realities. Initially, people placed their faith in religion. Priests, who were believed to be in close touch with the god worshipped at the time, interceded on behalf of believers to seek blessings and ward off evil. Priests acted as experts. They claimed to know what to do on all occasions, and the community was content to pay for their services and leave them to act.
In modern times, religion gave way to the authority of science. The transition did not happen overnight. Auguste Comte (1798–1857), the French philosopher, identified three stages of human thought: the Theological Era, the Metaphysical Era, and the Scientific Era. Each lasted for centuries, and dissatisfaction with one paradigm eventually led to the adoption of a new one.
The scientific era was primarily concerned with linear science until a few decades ago. The linear paradigm that guided the natural sciences was gradually, and perhaps inevitably, applied to most other fields. Experts, including politicians, social scientists, and economists, have embraced the certainty and predictability promised by the Newtonian linear paradigm. They assumed that all situations could be controlled to general satisfaction. Again, experts appeared confident, and people were content to leave decisions in their hands.
Emerging Consensus
The linear method produced only mixed results when applied to socio-economic issues. Outcomes in these areas were far less impressive than those achieved in the natural sciences. As events often diverged from predictions and promises, the search for a new consensus gained momentum. New evidence suggests that discoveries related to complex systems may offer valuable insights into future possibilities.
A shift toward viewing social, political, and economic phenomena as complex adaptive systems requires more than a change in style. Top-down, command-and-control, reductionist management methods—effective for linear systems such as assembly lines in industrial production—do not fit nonlinear situations. These cases require integrative and holistic approaches.
Several scholars have already adopted this new consensus, based on nonlinear conceptions. Examples include Georgescu-Roegen, Arthur, and Ormerod in economics; Byrne in the social sciences; Jervis in politics; and Stacey in organizational studies. Rihani applied a similar approach to development. The shift in viewpoint evolved only after lengthy consideration and continues to influence research across many fields.