Part I
Complex is a prevalent word used to describe many issues in society, particularly global and controversial ones. Things, we are often told are complex, solutions are not easy because of this and that reason, we need to know the history behind matters the many factors and so on. But are things as complex as they are made out to be, or do we make simple things complex? A child could boil down most difficult ethical issues into some simple rules. Do not kill, or do not harm others. Or do not harm others unless they harm you, of course now we enter the debate on proportionality of violence. How much violence is allowed when violence is inflicted on society? But are these issues complex in the sense that, working through this complexity, we can reach some calculation, some rational understanding, a formula that tells us how much violence we are allowed to inflict back when we are attacked? This is fiction. This complexity in fact is an exercise in justification. Complexity in this instance serves to obfuscate the decisions that have already been made. We can hide bombs behind a smokescreen of complexity.
Marking things complex hides an honest approach to many problems. Yes, matters can and are complex but perhaps they can be so simple that it is almost insulting. We can feed the hungry and house the homeless, this is true, there are resources available, especially in the wealthier countries. That we do not do so has nothing to do with complexity of the issues (there are drugs, violence, racism of course but these are external factors), but it has everything to do with the allocation of resources and the desire of those in power (and perhaps those who permit those to be in power, either through voting or otherwise) to, in effect, do nothing. To make societal matters complex is, in many cases, to mask cruelty. The honest answer would be to say that we do not wish to provide the weary with things as we fear our own status as a politician, or we feel it is their responsibility, and that we do not care for the weak and vulnerable.
Before delving further, a general definition of complexity, or what constitutes a complex matter, is needed. A complex thing is often made of many parts. A simple thing of few. A process can be complex when it requires many steps, or steps that require a high degree of precision and special training or tools. This is complexity in terms of nature. A tree is complex as it is made of many parts and host to many other lifeforms and connects to many other things. A single plant is less complex compared to the tree. The plank is less complex than the table. Now of course any object holds within it unlimited complexity as we can dive ever deeper into its being, or as we can connect it to every other thing. But let us set aside monism for now and take matters at face value without considering the specialised sciences. Taking things as they are in common understanding.
Taking a step back from single objects (in as far as they are singular) we can see how a forest is more complex than a tree being comprised of many things and holding within it the complexity of those things. Nevertheless, we view the tree in the forest as different and we can seriously question if the tree as single object and the tree as component of a forest or other collectivity are the same thing. On a similar plane, a human individual is complex but a human within a city is a different matter altogether, prone to abstraction and reduction and altogether simple compared to any one individual. Still, we are concerned with societal problems rather than objects (bodies). What about the social problems with which I started this essay.
Let me take various common problem scenarios in society and look at their complexity. A spill on the kitchen floor is a simple problem there is a spill, the manner of its arrival is unimportant, and I can clean it. The spill might become more complex if it comes into contact with materials other than the floor, but even then, the solution is simple becoming only more complex with a few added steps, for example the use of solvents and such. Could I draw a parallel to the complexity of a societal problem as being contingent on the number of steps necessary for it to be solved? If this is taken as the definition of complexity then the compound factor of steps must be considered. Not every step is equal to another. Equipment requirements or expertise necessary can make only a one step procedure become complex. Which means that we might need to let go of the complexity of a thing being, in part, determined from the number of steps required. Something with a single step can be complex, and something with many steps can be simple. Playing a difficult music piece can be complex but the action itself is simple, pressing some buttons on the piano while putting together IKEA furniture has many steps but most should be able to do it. Leaving the house has many steps, wearing clothes, tying shoes, but for most it is not a complex matter.
Perhaps contingency matters more, meaning that the step or steps should be connected to other steps. But if we take contingency into account then most things are complex, and perhaps most things are in fact complex. Going to the toilet, what I would say is a simple action, is in fact a complex one as plumbing enters the frame, the diposal of waste which introduces logistics, the electricity of the light bulb of the toilet, the building standards, the lack of leaks, not to mention the clothes we take off, the manufacturing of the zipper I undo, comprised of metals from an arduous (complex?) supply chain and so on. But perhaps this is a sophist exercise as we can stretch any matter into boundless complexity. Let me focus on the matter at hand and ignore for now any contingency at play that threatens any one activity or problem to expand and include the universe at large.
I will focus on two problems, one taken to be by most to be simple and one taken, by most, to be complex. I take the simple problem to be sunshine shining in the eyes when reading outside, in a garden, and the second problem the problem of poverty in a rich country.
Solving the problem of sunlight is simple. One must block the sun’s beams to cover the eyes, allowing for some possible movement so let us assume that this reader needs to block an area the size of their head. Now there are untold number of ways of doing this varying in practicability and possibility, from wearing a hat to moving under a tree, getting a parasol or some headdress, to building a veranda, to planting more trees in the garden to never have this problem, to moving somewhere else, sitting in the front garden instead, blocking the sun with some space construction, and so on. The problem then lies not in the problem but in the manner of solution and its feasibility.
Does this mean that problem are simple but that solutions are complex? That there are too many solutions, in fact, that both the simple and complex problem have an incredible number of solutions, but that pragmatic solutions are to be favoured in the simple case, and that this logic might even extent to the complex case. But whereas the divide between problem and solution is brief in simple problems it is long in complex problems. And this is where we find a primary feature of complex problems: the distance between problem and its solution.
What consequences does this notion of complexity has? Well, for example that matters such as proficiency become a complex problem. Becoming proficient in an instrument is a simple matter if we outline the steps. Daily practice and (generally) some form of instruction. Of course, this requires reflective capability and discipline, honest listening and evaluation of one’s playing. But the steps are simple. The distance between the novice and the expert however is many years of practice and this is where proficiency of an instrument becomes a complex problem.
Another argument might be that solutions to complex problems are harder to measure. Impact is a key word in these scenarios. How do we know that the solution solves the issue at hand? We know, from practical experience, how to solve the problems of the everyday, but the abstract, large scale problems are a different matter altogether.
Part II
So far there are three characteristics that determine whether a problem is complex or simple, first, the distance between problem and solution, second, the pragmatic availability of solutions available, and third the probability that the proposed solution solves the problem, or a part of the problem.
With regards to the last point, one critical hallmark of complex problems is that solutions do, usually, not cover the whole problem but only a part of it. The mop solves the spill problem entirely, or at least to a sufficient degree perhaps supplemented by a towel or kitchen paper, but the problem of poverty is not solved in its entirety by one single solution, which will perhaps solve less than a hundredth part of the problem, if at all, as many problems persist despite efforts to negate them. But is this not the solution to the problem at the same time? To make complex problems simple. While it is, in many cases, not possible to remove the element of distance, we can bring the solutions closer to practical experience. Of course, with modern bureaucracy, many solutions to problems are in fact as far removed from practical everyday experience as seems possible. This means that bureaucrats must twist themselves into a mould from which they conceive of solutions, which often seem ill conceived and hard to understand by those outside of the specific bureaucratic identity.
So the question of definition becomes a question of action and theory turns to praxis (practice). Is it possible, or feasible, to make a general formula by which complex problems are turned into simple ones. There are two issues at hand relating to the second and third characteristic of problems.
- Can pragmatic solutions be reduced
- Can we solve the probability of the proposed solutions problem-solving effectiveness
Can pragmatic solutions be reduced to a general number that makes decision making easier? As pointed out, even simple problems have numerous solutions, but we use what is practical or pragmatic. These are the solutions at hand rather than the improbable solutions. Let me therefore first distinguish between six types of solutions to problems.
- solutions at hand
The towel at hand, the available budget. These are often solutions of excess as well, and there are often numerous solutions at hand where we take the one closet or easiest to us. The problem of transport, train or car is a solution at hand that is solved by consideration of time and money. Solutions at hand refers to the ease of access as the ease of use. A solution could be ‘at hand’ in its proximity but might be a difficult solution due to its high requirement of use. A piano might be at hand to provide some atmosphere to a lacklustre party, but one must have the skills to play it. - unlikely or improbable solutions
Still probably solutions, solutions at hand, but ones we would not employ unless in drastic circumstances. Jumping out of the window or using the emergency staircase to go down faster is a solution to reach the ground floor just as using the stairs or elevators are, but these would, generally, be used only in emergencies such as fire. Suicide by jumping out of windows is of course a solution at hand to the problem of life rather than one that solves the problem of getting to ground floor. - difficult solutions
These are solutions that are hard to perform. These could be close or far but most of all they present a higher difficulty. This difficulty could be in terms of starting, or the performance of the act (solution) itself. A solution that is difficult to reach is a difficult solution. A solution at hand that is hard to execute is a difficult solution. In the example of the fire and the staircase, the simple solution of going down the stairs becomes a difficult solution as the staircase is on fire. Taking the elevator would become an impossible solution as it is inoperable. - Contested Solutions
Solutions are available, perhaps even feasible but they are contested. These disputed solutions are perhaps the most common problem in the field of solutions. Disagreements stemming from a host of reasons hold the decision makers to disagree on things. Contested solutions occurs in individual problem solving as well when the mind wants two things but cannot decide. the phrase ‘I am torn’ is emblematic of the contested solution as one is split (torn apart) as two bodies or minds (and let us hold no separation between them) which both consider one solution better. With contested solutions it does not matter which category the solution belongs. For what to some might be a solution at hand, or a difficult solution to others might be an impossible solution or even no solution at all. - impossible solutions
This category envelops solutions both impossible and improbable. We cannot fly out of the window, and we cannot expect to own enough cushions to be able to soften our fall. In the improbable a crucial factor is need. In the event of a fire then need to dictate that the improbably becomes probable and we would try to cushion our fall with whatever we have at hand. Improbable solutions can become difficult solutions but impossible solutions are impossible. The difference between an impossible solution and no solution is that the impossible solution can still aid in thinking, being a bridge to feasible solutions. No solutions however are a dead end. - no solution
No solutions also apply to solutions to problems that do not enter our realm of thinking. The solution to the fire in our apartment is not to freeze the entire world or to suck out all the air in the city to douse the fire. When the sun is blinding us, the solution is not to destroy the sun or to move the earth. These are not impossible solutions as they would never enter the problem space as the problem is not that the sun, or fire exists, but that there is an antecedent effect from this ongoing matter.
No solutions also relate to the perceived effectiveness for others. This is only relevant in the case of disputed solutions where a proposed solution, for example, giving money to the poor directly to alleviate poverty and homelessness, is considered no solution at all, as the poor are often framed as wasteful and incapable. In this solution of giving money directly, which might be a solution at hand given enough budget, its opponents would consider no solution at all.
While some might consider inaction part of this category, doing nothing is always a solution belonging to the first category, solutions at hand, for we should always be able to do nothing, although oftentimes doing nothing is more difficult than doing something.
Finally, there are some problems that have, as of yet, no known solutions and that is in some way a solution to a problem as a problem without a solution is not a problem but a fact of life that we must yield to as the tree does to the wind.
Now that I have distinguished the six types of solutions, let’s return to the question of reducing the number of pragmatic solutions for complex problems. The first three categories seem most important in this discussion. But to get to these we must first overcome disputed solutions otherwise even when there are solutions they will not be recognised as such.
In the example of the complex problem of poverty alleviation I can now re-frame the problem. To make the poor disappear is a simple problem, a society can give them money to not be poor which is a disputed solution. The matter is not what should we give to the poor, but rather what should we, or what is acceptable to, take from the rich.
Like most problems considered complex, the problem of poverty is not about poverty itself, but rather about what is socially acceptable to propose. In many societies, the poor are considered untrustworthy and giving blanket sums of money to lift people out of poverty is considered a waste as they would ostensibly spend it on vices instead of proper things to alleviate their conditions. Therefore, schemes are made up and whole departments pop into being to act as a filter for the proper poor.
First, we need to understand what is at hand as this can be a complicated affair in large organisations. Determining the budget, the manpower and so on is part of the process of what is at hand. The second step is to determine how to use these resources. Making solutions true to daily life requires the assistance of those that come into contact frequently to those who need. For who knows best what one needs than those who require it? The problem of bureaucracy is that often the decision makers are far removed from those decided upon. This means that what are offered as solutions (regardless of category) for one group are no solutions or unlikely solutions to another. A second problem is that solutions of bureaucracy are there to, by and large, maintain the status quo. The bureaucracy is not there to alleviate the problem of the bureaucracy but to maintain it. But this is a topic for another time.
The problem of poverty is an easy one when taken at face value. If we take poverty as the lack of resources, then solving poverty is about giving resources to those who need it. Of course, things are not as straightforward for giving things for free in modern society is a sin. Instead, things must be earned, either through paper trials, procedures of accreditation, or through other means, programmes, education, self-debasement to prove worthy to the givers. As is evident simple matters are made complex. Complexity more than often becomes a mask to obfuscate and hidden actual solutions. Complex issues can be found in any area of problems of society. History is often regarded as a complex cause for certain problems, but it does not matter necessarily how things have happened (for where do we end the search of causality in the depths of history?) but rather how things are solved. Of course, this assumes a kind of common sense, equal view between people that appears to be rare in the world.
So, the matter of problem solving is in fact not a matter of solutions at all but rather a matter of seeking shared truths. This is where compromise enters the conversation.
Compromise, in the ideal case, is a middle ground decision that neither party intended but, in the end, has made both parties sufficiently satisfied to perform the solution. How do two disputing parties arrive at a compromise however? To compromise in disputed solutions is to find an intermediate ground in which the parties exchange truths (as in perspective on the world; ideology; believe system and such) and find some common ground. In the example of the welfare of the poor compromise might mean from refraining to make blanket statements ‘the poor are so and so’ but to pull the other party in your direction to acknowledge that some poor people are so and so and that this acknowledgement of a part of their truth is a stepping stone towards a solution. Compromise therefore is a partial exchange of truths.
The key to solutions is therefore not to make simple problems complex. But to keep the problem simple even when entering the realm of compromise. This allows you to communicate to others the how and why of things without shielding oneself with the mask of complexity. And vice versa it allows one to oppose the other party by accusing them of making complex what should be (and is) rather simple. As seen over the globe the past years, extremist parties have done this all too well.
[These essays were written the past years as writing and thinking practice. I have revised them to be somewhat presentable
Not Just About Culture 
Leave a comment