On this concept, FLOOD states :"Anarchy itself suggests disorder and lack of government; however the argument is not one of entropy, but as follows. Anarchy can cause such strains on a system, including positive feedback, that the system itself may go through a transition. In many cases anarchic behavior is a catalyst of a system transition, not from a state to another (within a predetermined state space, one to one mapping of the state variables), but rather from one nature to another. That is, some essential qualities are replaced by another set of essential qualities" (1991, p.188)
FLOOD does not elaborate much as to the causes of anarchy. There seem to exist basically two:
- Weakening of the control of the system upon its parts;
- Overload of inputs from the environment, basically excess of energy or information inflow, which produces local or general unresponsiveness or confusion by saturation of communication channels.
FLOOD states that: "The system 's label however, may well remain the same: France was still France after the revolution" (p.181). True enough about the "label". But what about the deep identity of the "France" system ? This is a good example of how difficult it is to apply even systemic concepts to socio-cultural situations. Metaphorically, one could speak of destructive anarchy, as for example in cancer, and constructive anarchy as in the case of ebullient elements breaking down some established structures and producing, as a result, some more efficient or encompassing global organization.
Besides, anarchy as a concept whose systemic meaning is still ill defined, should be clearly distinguised from chaos.