��������������������������
ior . ���������� is the ability of one or more parties to take some modicum of control , or to reinforce a status quo ( Lukes , 2005 ; Stone , 1980 ). ������ �� is the ability to do the opposite as it transitions from the “ incapacity to act to enjoying such a capacity ” ( Stone , 1980 , p . 978 ). iv
The study of urban community systemic power theory is important for many reasons . First , in complex policy systems , the entire policy system is greater than its constituent parts . These parts interact , influencing future outcomes ( Geyer & Rihini , 2012 ). Second , urban systemic community power theory grapples with the problem raised regarding political “ nondecisions ,” similar to Luke ’ s ( 2005 ) third face of power and ruling-class hegemony with an emphasis on indirect influence . For the most part , scholars focus on how a stratified socioeconomic system limits the independence of public officials in decision-making ( Judge , Stoker , & Wolman , 1995 ). Stone ( 1980 ) argues that public officials are compelled to cooperate with holders of resources to realize policy objectives . These resource holders are the owners of urban systemic community power . v
We assert that , while Stone ’ s socioeconomic level has been described and applied to urban politics , the other two aforementioned levels — cultural and psychological — have had little exploration and all three levels lack a connection to the interrelated concepts of ���������� and ���� ����� in community systemic power theory . In this paper , we relate complexity theory vi with the concept of systemic power and power itself . We create a conceptual model of systemic power and its relation to the urban landscape ( see Figure 3 ). Systemic power and complexity theory are intertwined . Complexity theory says that anything that has a large number of seemingly independent individuals can spontaneously order them into an emergent and coherent system .
Using the concept of feedback , we show how power and feedback interplay on three analytical levels . On the lowest level , for example , feedback and power are intertwined . When two individuals discuss , they create a feedback loop . If A asks B a question , B answers back – simple feedback at the individual level . At the cultural level , media is the focus of feedback or rather large populations ; it ’ s a collective feedback . A informs many , or even many informing many , i . e ., trends and movies . Then , at the macro level , paradigm shifts happen . Whether it is a nation or international , it is where change happens in paradigms , episteme , etc . It is the power and feedback loop interaction that are key ingredients in “ spontaneously ” keeping order in balance , or not .
Complexity Theory
Theories of change , adaptation ,
self-organizing , evolution , feedback , and emergence are the main features of complexity theory ���������� ������ ����� ���� ��������� ������ ��������� ������ ���������� ����� . Unlike complexity theory , linear theories are based on linear , rational , and orderly interactions ( Geyer � Rihani , 2012 , p . 12 ). The focus is on empirical measurements and predictability . In this way , everything can be reduced and understood as deterministic ( Geyer � Rihani , 2012 ). Com� plexity theory counters with a model that is based on balancing the extremes of order and disorder . It is “ like a synthesis or bridge between these two and creates a new framework ” ( Geyer � Rihani , 2012 , p . 29 ). vii While complex systems are nonlinear , they still have a deep underlying order , but limited human understanding cannot fully comprehend emerging and complex policy issues and problems ( Kauffman , 1995 ).
20