Complexity as a dimension has been studied by sociologists through analyzing how people and societies cope with a world characterized by diversity and uncertainty. Berger and Luckmann (1966) describe how people naturalize and organize reality through social constructions, which creates a sense of stability in an otherwise complex world. Beck (1992) links the increasing complexity of modernity to the emergence of new risks, where traditional ways of dealing with uncertainty are no longer sufficient. He argues that we live in a risk society where technological and global phenomena contribute to a high degree of unpredictability. From a network theory perspective, Duncan Watts has studied emergent phenomena, in which complexity is not only a product of individual parts but also of their relationships (2006).
Simplexity: a balance between simplicity and complexity, as a way to cope with living in a complex system with genuine uncertainty, which, for example, may require relying on various heuristics as a guide. Simplified complexity, or simplexity (Kluger, 2008), is a balance between minimalism and complexity. The aim is to support the creation of a good life through an appropriate balance of complexity and simplicity. Simplexity often involves managing complexity by removing what is unimportant. Simplexity is achieved “by subtraction,” through the removal of certain aspects of life. Complexity is met with simplicity (Taleb, 2010). Simplexity is one of the most important balances in ABT, for it is through reflexivity that a plan of action can be mapped out to navigate a complex world. It is here that one can gather heuristics, distilled lessons, habits, rituals, and practices that provide a way to manage complexity (Flyvbjerg, 2001).
Imbalances
Below are various imbalances in this dimension.
Oversimplification occurs when one simplifies life too much, making it overly routine. It can also arise when the simplicity one has created in life stems from denying or shielding oneself from the complexity that surrounds one. One’s life can become less complex if one stops caring about the world outside one’s intimate sphere. However, this is usually short, lived, as remaining within the sphere of intimacy creates problems there, such as becoming bored with one another or feeling a sense of “infra, politics” and “infra, meaninglessness.”
Overcomplexity (Beck, 1992) is an imbalance in which complexity has grown beyond what is necessary to support the creation of a good life. Beck uses the term “overcomplexity” (Beck, 1992, 170), and Bauman uses “artificial complexity” (Bauman, 2002, 138). As a society, we tend to become more complicated because there are benefits to increasing complexity through, for example, specialization. However, this requires society to create institutions and organizations capable of managing the reproduction of that complexity, such as a functioning education system. Generally, a contemporary trend is that complexity leads to more complexity because of the belief that complexity can only be solved with more complexity (Taleb, 2012).
Taking on artificial complexity is a way to create the challenges we seek in our lives, but we do so in areas that hold no value for others. For example, this might involve pursuing a hobby that offers enormously complex challenges, such as very difficult video games or board games. A great deal of thought and energy goes into something that has no value beyond that hedonistic pleasure. People who enjoy challenges respond well to this and can rationalize away the meaninglessness of the challenge they’ve taken on. Baudrillard has argued that we take on challenges, such as running a marathon, that are meaningless:
“The marathon is a form of demonstrative suicide, suicide as advertising: it is running to show you are capable of squeezing every last drop of energy out of yourself, to prove it… to prove what? That you are capable of finishing. Graffiti carry the same message. They simply say: I’m so, and, so and I exist!”
Ted Kascinsky called these “surrogate activities”, things we fill our lives with to create challenges when we lack a sense of self, empowerment. Artificial complexity also exists in filling one’s free time with various activities that create a sense of time intensification and stress (Wajcman, 2015). Artificial complexity can also be brought into the private sphere, where we exaggerate the challenges of private life because we lack a larger, competing problem that could put these smaller challenges into perspective. One example is immersing ourselves in the complexity of various relationships in reality TV shows. The complexity of these dramas provides us with material to fill conversations with our friends, which can mask a sense of emptiness. Another example is the constant communication that takes place in organizations via email and programs like Slack and Microsoft Teams, which disrupts people’s rhythm, reduces their emotional energy, and prevents them from achieving deep focus and emotional engagement with the task at hand (Newport, 2016, Wajcman, 2015).
A life or an individual may be caught up in excessive complexity, a complexity involving so many different interacting factors that it is barely manageable, if at all. This excessive complexity can arise from an attempt to live eudaimonically but taking on too many challenges at once. This differs from a life that is unnecessarily complicated, where complexities arise but do not lead one to strive for greater focus in the civic struggle; rather, the complexity is trapped in a spider’s web within the private struggle. Complexity can arise as a result of other imbalances: not taking risks, not engaging in civic struggle, seeking too much in hedonistic activities, etc.