Bottom-Up Process
Individuals have the potential to interact with each other and form a huge system. These individuals can include humans, animals, insects, or places, and they are shown in the readings organizing themselves and building successful systems. In Steven Johnson’s essay, “The Myth of the Ant Queen,” he argues that the queen is not the leader of the ant colony, but the colony instinctively protects her from danger because it is in the colony’s best interest. In “An Elephant Crackup,” by Charles Siebert, the elephants instinctively grouped together in a herd so they could survive from extinction. In Rebecca Solnit’s essay, “The Solitary Stroller and the City,” people organized themselves to make their city successful. The absence of authority may have been a reason why successful systems were created by individuals working together. Someone who has authority is a person who exercises control over others. If one being was in charge, then everyone under him/her would only follow his/her instructions. People would not be able to think of their own plans, but instead they would follow only one plan that was given to them. Without an authority figure in control, individuals would rely on their instincts to guide them. Their instincts would unconsciously respond to their environment and adapt to it, so the individuals can create a successful system. They would instinctively merge their ideas together and a self-organizing system could emerge. The lack of an authority figure allows the opportunity for individuals to instinctively work together to build a successful system.
The success of the animal species depends on their instincts to work together. The system described in Johnson’s essay is the ant colony and it is maintained by the ants working as an organized group. The ants instinctively know that the survival of their colony depends on the queen’s survival. The queen gave birth to all the working ants and it will continue giving birth to new workers so the colony can be maintained. Without the queen, the colony would not exist because there would not be new workers for the colony. The ants already know this and protect the queen so their species can survive. Although, Johnson states that the queen is only the reproducer of the colony and not the leader. According to Johnson, “The harvester ants that carry the queen off to her escape hatch do so not because they’ve been ordered by their leader; they do it because the queen ant is responsible for giving birth…” (309). The queen is necessary for the colony but she does not control the actions of the ants. They instinctively know what is best for the colony and act on their impulses to save the queen. The system the ants were able to create was planned out by the whole ant colony and as the result of keeping their queen safe, their species will continue to survive. This survival concept is also described in Siebert’s essay as he writes, “The last elephant survivors of Queen Elizabeth National Park…never left one another’s side. They kept in a tight bunch, moving as one” (533). The system the elephants want to preserve is their remaining herd. They created a herd because their species was slowly dying. There was safety in numbers and they could protect themselves better if they were not alone. They could also find a mate in the group, which will allow them to reproduce and save their species from extinction. A group of elephants is a good plan for the species to survive, but the plan was not created by someone who has authority over the elephants. It was their instincts that made them stick together for protection. When a creature is frightened, it joins a group to feel safe. There is no explanation of this behavior other then instincts controlling it. Instincts tell individuals to stay away from danger and seek protection. A leader was not necessary for each species to survive. The reliance on instincts was more important than relying on one leader. Instincts can guide individuals to work together and ensure the survival of everyone in the system. The moment the ants were in danger they instinctively grouped together to help the queen, and the elephants instinctively banded together when they knew they were becoming extinct.
People can instinctively work together to create a successful city. Depending on how people interact with each other, the city they are dwelling in will represent the personality that they show. As Johnson states, “The city is complex because it overwhelms, yes, but also because it has a coherent personality, a personality that self-organizes out of millions of individual decisions, a global order built out of local interactions,” (315). Each individual is important in determining how the city will be viewed. Every individual interacts with other individuals in order to make the laws of the city. The city can either be wonderful or disastrous depending on the people and how they interact with others. In order for their system, or city, to work they need to work together and perform the tasks necessary for the survival of the city. Without people running the city, it will be a desolate place. Also, it does not seem possible for one person to run a city. One person who has authority would not be able to handle all of the affairs going on in the city. He/she would not be able to keep track of all the businesses, meetings, and events taking place in the city. The city depends on every citizen’s decision to work together. When people perform their job they are also helping the city and everyone else living inside the city. They are unconsciously interacting with each other to strengthen their system and making it appear successful. The bottom-up theory is created as individuals complete their job to strengthen their city. On the other hand, Solnit says, “In ancient Italian towns the narrow main street at dusk becomes a kind of theatre…The girls and the young men…display their charm to one another with a lively sociability. The more grace they show the better the community likes them,” (579). The Italian cities were beautiful because of the people performing on the streets. The girls and young men were being affectionate to each other and they showed it on the streets. The people interacting inside the city determine how the city will be viewed. Since the quote explains how young couples are expressing their love in the street, that same love is also expressed in the city. A system can only be made based on the individuals working together. If the individuals show emotions, then the city will be seen as a romantic place. In both essays the systems, or cities, are based on the personality of the citizens living in them. The successes of the cities are determined based on the personalities on the people. People working together and making the cities beautiful will allow them to be successes.
Individuals and places can become successful without an authority figure. In Johnson’s essay, he writes, “Urban critics…have known that cities have lives of their own, with neighborhoods clustering into place without any Robert Moses figure dictating the plan from above” (314). The neighborhoods were left on their own without an authority power to control them, and as a result they were able place themselves in order. Without a leader, these cities were not oppressed to the rules of the government, or other authority power. They were able to develop on their own without restrictions. The cities were able to emerge as self-organizing systems. Incidentally, Charles Dickens’s childhood can also be compared to the cities described in the paragraph. In Solnit’s story, “…Dickens himself was…a desolate child abandoned to the city…Dickens is among the first to indicate all the other things urban walking can be: his novels are full of detective and police inspectors,” (583). Charles Dickens was abandoned and forced to live on the streets. He received no help and was working in a factory at a young age. His experiences from living in the streets allowed him to create detective stories. Without the guidance of an authority figure he was not restricted to his home like other children at his age. He was able to explore the streets and experience adventure during his walk in the city, which allowed him to incorporate his experiences into his books. An authority figure in both situations described was not needed for the cities and Dickens to be successes.
Individuals can be given opportunities to make contributions to a system with the lack of an authority power to control them. In Johnson’s reading, the law considered Alan Turing a disgrace, even though he could have made great contributions to the world. Turing had a brilliant mind during his time because one of his contributions was helping to create the physical design of the modern digital computer. Unfortunately, he died young because of the law that was placed in Britain. According to Johnson, “Homosexuality was a criminal offense according to British law, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment, and so police promptly charged both Turing and Murray with ‘gross indecency,’”(317). Turing died by suicide after he was forced to take humiliating estrogen treatment. If there was no law against homosexuality then he could have lived longer. There is no telling what he could have contributed to our planet. Johnson says, “It’s not hard to imagine his mind greatly enhancing our subsequent understanding of emergent behavior,” (316). His paper on morphogenesis was supposed to explain how complex patterns could come into being by following simple rules. The absence of the law would have allowed Turing to continue his research and help our society with new technology. Comparatively, matriarchs and elder bulls in the elephant species would make great contributions because they can take care of young elephants. Unfortunately, the intrusion of humans, who believe they can control elephants, harmed the elephant population. According to Siebert, “The number of older matriarchs and female caregivers had drastically fallen, as had the number of elder bulls, who play a significant role in keeping younger males in line,” (530). Some humans believe they have authority over the elephants and kill them. With no parents, the younger elephants will have no guidance and will have to fend for themselves. If there were no poachers killing the elephants, then the parents would be able to take care of their offspring, which will help preserve the elephant generation for the future. If given the opportunity, the younger elephants will be less likely to behave aggressively with their parents and they would grow up as experienced elephants that will have their own offspring. In these two readings, the absence of an authority power would have been beneficial for the characters. If the British law did not exist then Turing would have made progress in our society, and if poachers did not kill the elephants then there would have been less rogue elephants suffering from losing their parents.
When given the opportunity, individuals are able to create successes. Individuals must be able think for themselves without anyone controlling them. It takes everyone from that system to control everything and not someone who has authority over every single person. They must also depend on their instincts to help them setup their system. The key to a successful emergence f a self-organizing system is every single individual working together and doing their share to help the growth of their system.