The Atlas of Social Complexity. Chapter 20: Configurational social science

As I stated in my previous posts, The Atlas of Social Complexity is comprised of several content themes.

 

The first major content theme in The Atlas of Social Complexity is Cognition, Emotion and Consciousness. This first theme includes six chapters, which I have so far blogged on. Chapter 6 addresses autopoiesis. Chapter 7 turns to the role of bacteria in human consciousness. Chapter 8 explores how the immune system, just like bacteria and cells, is cognitive – and the implications this has for our wider brain-based consciousness. Chapter 9 explores a complexity framing of brain-based cognition, emotion and consciousness. Chapter 10 explores the complex multilevel dynamics of the Self. Chapter 11 is about human-machine intelligence.

 

The second major content theme in The Atlas of Social Complexity is The Dynamics of Human Psychology. So far for this theme, I’ve given a basic overview, found here. I then moved on to the first theme, Human psychology as dynamical system (Chapter 13). From there I reviewed Chapter 14: Psychopathology of mental disorders ; Chapter 15: Healing and the therapeutic process; and Chapter 16: Mindfulness, imagination, and creativity.

The third major theme is living in social systems (Chapter 17). The first chapter in this section it Complex social psychology (Chapter 18). From there we move on to Collective behaviour, social movements and mass psychology (Chapter 19).

 

The focus of the current post is CHAPTER 20: CONFIGURATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE

 

 

OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER

Although the Atlas is radically democratic in its survey of the current literature, there is nonetheless some key areas that form the foundation for a disruptive social complexity, and Chapter 20 is one of them.

Chapter 20 introduces us to configurational social science, an innovative framework that tackles the complexities of social systems through advancing two interconnected approaches: intersectionality and case-based configurational methods. Together, these approaches provide a robust lens for understanding causal complexity, social structures, and agency in ways that traditional models often overlook.

 

Configurational social science centres on cases and configurations. A “case” represents any entity, from individuals to organizations or communities, situated within a specific social system. A “configuration” is the set of social factors or conditions that define the case. Unlike traditional complexity sciences, which often focus on systems or datasets as abstract entities, configurational social science keeps the focus firmly on the lived realities of cases. These cases are not merely data points but are deeply embedded within intersecting systems of power, identity, and agency.

 

Intersectionality contributes by foregrounding the interconnectedness of social categories such as race, class, gender, and ability. It compels us to examine how these categories construct and perpetuate power dynamics, discrimination, and inequality. It addresses structural oppression while fostering complexity and resisting simplistic categorizations. Case-based configurational methods, meanwhile, emphasize studying configurations to understand causal complexity. They reveal how different combinations of conditions can produce varied outcomes (multifinality) or similar results through diverse pathways (equifinality), encouraging us to explore not only why certain outcomes occur but also how comparable systems achieve differing results.

 

Configurational social science advances the limitations of these methods by synthesizing their strengths. It incorporates intersectionality’s focus on power and oppression while extending case-based methods with insights from complexity science, such as emergence, feedback loops, and system dynamics. This integration enables researchers to capture the fluidity of social structures and to address broader systemic patterns.

 

Configurational social science also prioritizes a critical lens, addressing issues of power, conflict, and inequality. It examines how systems of power shape the experiences and agency of cases, making the study of oppression and resistance a central concern. This critical orientation challenges the neutrality often assumed in traditional models, insisting on the importance of context and social justice in research.

 

We explore these ideas through the work of Sylvia Walby and David Byrne. Walby integrates intersectionality and complexity science to analyse interconnected systems of power and inequality, advancing a nuanced theoretical framework. Byrne pioneers case-based configurational methods, demonstrating how configurations reveal causal complexity and advocating for policy-driven solutions to real-world problems. Together, their work exemplifies how configurational social science bridges critical theory and empirical research.

 

By synthesizing these perspectives, configurational social science equips us to address pressing social issues with rigor, equity, and inclusivity, challenging dominant paradigms and fostering a deeper understanding of life within complex social systems. It pushes beyond the constraints of existing methods, offering a more dynamic and comprehensive approach to studying the interplay of power, identity, and causality.

 

With this framing in mind, the chapter come to a finish, setting up the framework used by the remaining chapters in this theme.