by Hugh M. Lewis

Human beings have an inherent need for behavioral and symbolic anti-structure, and this need is a consequence of their transformational symbolic realities and the dual requirement to both adapt their symbolic systems to their ever-changing life worlds as well as to elaborate in an exploratory manner the alternative possibilities and search-solution spaces that are inherent to the constructive process and function of human symbolization. Dreams and dreaming can be considered "anti-structural" states, but it is evident that many mammals at least dream, and that dreams are a normal function of the brain during states of sleep. We do not normally ascribe to many animals an inherent need for anti-structural states that we associate for instance with human day-dreaming, imaginary play activities, myth, story-telling, etc. These are of course the consequence of the demand of complex symbolic apparatus of the human brain that is associated with advanced evolution of the neo-cortex and especially the frontal lobes of the cerebrum. We can see though that the requirement for symbolic anti-structure probably has its roots in the requirement of the brain for periodic dream-state activity, and we can thus define dream-state activity as proto-anti-structural behavior associated especially with the advanced brain of mammals. The fact that human beings dream in a symbolic manner, at least that they can remember enough to retell, suggests that even dream processes of the human brain have undergone higher-order symbolic transformation.

We must in this way try to understand the structure of the brain as integrated not only between centers, but also between stratified layers and regions of the brain, and that the brain always functions as a semi-integrated system such that we cannot isolate independent centers or loci that function in exclusion or in a completely isolated manner. The binding problem of the human mind is solved when we view the functional organization of the brain as an extremely complex system of neural circuitry, with differential latent activation states, giving rise to emergent properties of conscious awareness, memory association, imagination, reason, and so forth. A signal stimulus can trigger an entire cascade of highly organized neural activity, and this cascade can carry on in a train or cycle of complex activations that can be self-sustaining. In fact it seems that the active state of the brain, even in sleep, is the default and normal mode of its existence, even if it doesn't seem as if it is active. That neural networks can maintain a complex latent activation state, and achieve such states repeatedly over time, suggests, among other things, that memory content is stored in differential loads carried through networks between axonal synapses.

Anti-structure defined in a social sense refers primarily to the ritual organization of space and time in a manner to induce state alternation of identity and setting. In the classical view of anti-structure it is associated generally with "rites of passage," often marking transitions, and characterized by distinctive patterns such as liminality and communitas, the former being a state of inherent psycho-social ambiguity and uncertainty of status, and the second being a temporary social state in which normal social differences and boundaries are suspended or eliminated. It has been primarily during periods of travel abroad, as an ex-patriot or anthropologist sojourning in cross-cultural contexts, that I have experienced the greatest degree of such anti-structure, not with native populations but with other travelers or ex-pat sojourners who share a common sense of suspension of normal frames of reference and a temporary state of transition and disconnection from their own cultural orientation. I think movie houses and corner bars are other places to observe forms of anti-structure being articulated on a regular basis, as well as modern malls, especially upon weekends, amusement or theme parks, etc. Tourism seems to be a growing phenomenon, worldwide, in spite of the increasing threats of global terrorism and growing political and social insecurity in different corners of the world.

Anti-structure overall is one of the most culturally marked and controlled aspects of human reality. We may in fact most characterize different cultural orientations largely by the facets of anti-structure that such systems demonstrate, and even though on a basic structural level there are many universal human features associated with anti-structural realities. It is vitally important for societies to control and regulate anti-structure, for the failure to do so can be disruptive and result in catastrophic effects for the normal functioning of a system. This is evident in countries like the US where there is a general failure for instance to appropriately regulate or ritually sanction drug-induced state alternation of behavior, coupled with relative social freedom from coercion and open economic systems, such that there are entire segments of the working and non-working underclass that are essentially dysfunctional due to chronic and epidemic drug abuse.

I think the requirement for effective and healthy anti-structure is only increasing with rising expectations of affluence and achievement in world society. With increased choices in a modern setting and the challenges of so much choice, the need for the kind of symbolic mediation that anti-structural systems provides can only be greater than before, because such mediation effects our transition and general equilibrium as we switch between different frameworks and structures in a complex world.

We have largely received the notion of anti-structure as something that is unnecessary, superficial, something expendable and non-central to how we live our lives. We have been programmed and disciplined to put the requirement for anti-structure in the background of our lives, for the sake of maximization or optimization of our productivity in social systems. A source of this may be deeply rooted in a basic survival instinct that we have inherited from very remote times, and that we carry over into our social constructions of reality. We plan to base the organization of our systems on the grounds not the most likely outcomes, but on the grounds of the possibility of the worst case scenarios that may realistically develop. If we have to deal with the basic question of survival, the problem of play and anti-structure can seem mighty trivial by comparison. But we live now in a world in which most of humanity has in fact been taken off the knife edge of the problem of physical survival. Maintenance and equilibrium within and of the system becomes more critical to our survival than anything else, and as the system develops in its complexities and overall carrying capacity the room for the possibility of anti-structural play becomes more apparent and more necessary to the question of our survival, albeit in an indirect manner in relation to the system overall.

General Systems Essays, Vol. I