I wish I'd found your excellent and, importantly, clear summary before I got bogged down and eventually turned off by the knotty writing and surfeit of acronyms and buzz-words in this paper. I would agree that canalization works as a really good metaphor for describing some forms of psychopathology but my concern is that the authors and others will see it as much more than a metaphor and before you know it we will have a new catch-all explanation for all mental disorders...
I admitingly don't read full papers as much as I could, but (as someone already interested in most the work of Carhart and Friston) I read this one all the way through when it came out. It still echoes in my thoughts now. This is a great summary. I appreciate the p factor push back - I think I needed that!
This is an application of Waddington’s epigenetic landscape that corresponds to his remarkable trans disciplinary vision that I explored in my book. Epigenetic Landscapes: Drawing as Metaphor (Duke, 2017). It also tallies with Waddington’s late life understanding of the epigenetic landscape as trans-personal in a way that rhymes with a psychedelic understanding. Pasting in a passage from my second chapter that expands on that point:
Waddington’s final volumes, Evolution and Consciousness: Human Systems in Transition (Jantsch and Waddington 1976) and Tools for Thought: How to Understand and Apply the Latest Scientific Techniques for Problem Solving (Waddington 1977) reveal his expansion of the epigenetic landscape to serve as a model for social behavior, psychology, ecology, landscape and urban design, and operations research and, finally, for explaining complex systems. The scale ranges from the molecular to the molar, from the individual human being to the environment, the biosphere, and the universe. The reach of these volumes is remarkable, as if his embrace of continuity among disciplines at the end of Behind Appearance liberated in him the willingness to take even greater risks in his thinking.
The time was certainly right for such ventures. Evolution and Consciousness, which he co-edited with the astrophysicist and forecaster Erich Jantsch, reveals early glimpses of a “systems counterculture” that, as Bruce Clarke points out, would soon motivate people as diverse as Heinz von Foerster and Margulis to “move beyond mainstream doctrines and institutions … to detoxify the notion of ‘system’ … and to redeploy it in the pursuit of holistic ideals and ecological values” (Clarke 2012, 197; see also Clarke 2015).
To Evolution and Consciousness Waddington contributed an introduction that considered the connection between human evolution and the evolutionary processes that predated and would succeed it. There he argued that “biological evolution, even at the subhuman level, is a matter of interlocking series of open-ended, cybernetic, or circular processes” (Jantsch and Waddington 1976, 15). The volume also included a chapter by Ilya Prigogine on the evolution of human consciousness and human social systems and one by the ecologist C. S. Holling that addressed the phase-space landscape as a way to model systems behavior. This was the sort of multidimensional system Waddington had once entertained for his epigenetic landscape, only to conclude that it was too difficult for “the simple-minded biologist” (like himself) to comprehend.6
Hollings maintained that Waddington’s concepts were useful when dealing with ecological systems. Applying the concept of homeorhesis to the human social world, Hollings concluded that for human beings to develop a workable new society, “We must learn to live with disturbance, live with variability, and live with uncertainties. Those are the ingredients for persistence” (91).
Thank you as always for the great summary, Awais. The concept of canalisation seems a nice if esoteric explanatory model. But apart from this - and boosting the psychedelic hype - what is the actual or potential clinical application of this? Are we replacing biological, psychological or social explanations of mental illness with complicated mathematical constructs (attractor basins, free energy etc) which are not only near-impossible for most to understand but do not offer the suffering individual any salve? I would be very interested in your thoughts.
Too early for clinical application — other than as a metaphor to appreciate the inflexibility of psychopathological phenomena (a good metaphor can be quite useful!). It has more application on the theoretical and research side, especially in linking work being done using complex, dynamic systems approaches with work being done in the area of neuroplasticity.
I wish I'd found your excellent and, importantly, clear summary before I got bogged down and eventually turned off by the knotty writing and surfeit of acronyms and buzz-words in this paper. I would agree that canalization works as a really good metaphor for describing some forms of psychopathology but my concern is that the authors and others will see it as much more than a metaphor and before you know it we will have a new catch-all explanation for all mental disorders...
That’s a legitimate concern and we should certainly be wary of it.
I admitingly don't read full papers as much as I could, but (as someone already interested in most the work of Carhart and Friston) I read this one all the way through when it came out. It still echoes in my thoughts now. This is a great summary. I appreciate the p factor push back - I think I needed that!
Fascinating post—thank you.
This is an application of Waddington’s epigenetic landscape that corresponds to his remarkable trans disciplinary vision that I explored in my book. Epigenetic Landscapes: Drawing as Metaphor (Duke, 2017). It also tallies with Waddington’s late life understanding of the epigenetic landscape as trans-personal in a way that rhymes with a psychedelic understanding. Pasting in a passage from my second chapter that expands on that point:
Waddington’s final volumes, Evolution and Consciousness: Human Systems in Transition (Jantsch and Waddington 1976) and Tools for Thought: How to Understand and Apply the Latest Scientific Techniques for Problem Solving (Waddington 1977) reveal his expansion of the epigenetic landscape to serve as a model for social behavior, psychology, ecology, landscape and urban design, and operations research and, finally, for explaining complex systems. The scale ranges from the molecular to the molar, from the individual human being to the environment, the biosphere, and the universe. The reach of these volumes is remarkable, as if his embrace of continuity among disciplines at the end of Behind Appearance liberated in him the willingness to take even greater risks in his thinking.
The time was certainly right for such ventures. Evolution and Consciousness, which he co-edited with the astrophysicist and forecaster Erich Jantsch, reveals early glimpses of a “systems counterculture” that, as Bruce Clarke points out, would soon motivate people as diverse as Heinz von Foerster and Margulis to “move beyond mainstream doctrines and institutions … to detoxify the notion of ‘system’ … and to redeploy it in the pursuit of holistic ideals and ecological values” (Clarke 2012, 197; see also Clarke 2015).
To Evolution and Consciousness Waddington contributed an introduction that considered the connection between human evolution and the evolutionary processes that predated and would succeed it. There he argued that “biological evolution, even at the subhuman level, is a matter of interlocking series of open-ended, cybernetic, or circular processes” (Jantsch and Waddington 1976, 15). The volume also included a chapter by Ilya Prigogine on the evolution of human consciousness and human social systems and one by the ecologist C. S. Holling that addressed the phase-space landscape as a way to model systems behavior. This was the sort of multidimensional system Waddington had once entertained for his epigenetic landscape, only to conclude that it was too difficult for “the simple-minded biologist” (like himself) to comprehend.6
Hollings maintained that Waddington’s concepts were useful when dealing with ecological systems. Applying the concept of homeorhesis to the human social world, Hollings concluded that for human beings to develop a workable new society, “We must learn to live with disturbance, live with variability, and live with uncertainties. Those are the ingredients for persistence” (91).
So interesting! Thank you for sharing this passage. I hope to learn more about your work!
Thank you as always for the great summary, Awais. The concept of canalisation seems a nice if esoteric explanatory model. But apart from this - and boosting the psychedelic hype - what is the actual or potential clinical application of this? Are we replacing biological, psychological or social explanations of mental illness with complicated mathematical constructs (attractor basins, free energy etc) which are not only near-impossible for most to understand but do not offer the suffering individual any salve? I would be very interested in your thoughts.
Too early for clinical application — other than as a metaphor to appreciate the inflexibility of psychopathological phenomena (a good metaphor can be quite useful!). It has more application on the theoretical and research side, especially in linking work being done using complex, dynamic systems approaches with work being done in the area of neuroplasticity.