In past newsletters, I have reviewed several books on the transindividual, and while those were densely theoretical, I am now working on making them more practical as a basis for a new approach to change.
The fundamental question I am asking is, if the individual and the collective are mutually co-created, then how would that change how we think of organizational change?
To begin, I would like to provide an overview of the theory that will guide this new way of thinking. To do that, there are three key concepts to understand: the pre-individual, individuation, and the transindividual.
Pre-Individual, Individuation, Transindividual
The pre-individual is a metastable state that is full of potential. Metastable means that while it is a quasi-equilibrium, it can easily shift to any new equilibrium state. It is somewhat stable in that it won’t change on its own, but it is unstable in that it will only take a small amount of energy to shift it to a more stable state. One way to think of it is that it is the full collection of possibilities of you or a group that can form from it. It encompasses everything from each identity that you have and contains all of those states in tension. It is both prior to and a result of individuation. This can be seen as almost a quantum state, as many of the potentials of this start are in themselves contradictory. And as with the collapsing of the wave in quantum theory, it will only be one way in the individual.
Individuation is the process by which the pre-individual becomes an individual. There is always a remainder that is not included in the individuation. Rather than starting from the concept that we are a separate entity in the world and thus an individual who must individuate themselves, we start from the idea that the process of individuation itself is what creates the individual.
The individual would then be grasped as a relative reality, a certain phase of being that supposes a preindividual reality, and that, even after individuation, does not exist on its own, because individuation does not exhaust with one stroke the potentials of preindividual reality. Moreover, that which the individuation makes appear is not only the individual, but also the pair individual-environment.4 The individual is thus relative in two senses, both because it is not all of the being, and because it is the result of a state of the being in which it existed neither as individual, nor as principle of individuation. 1
There are two key points here: when we are individuated, there is always additional potential, and that individuation doesn’t only create the individual but also the environment that the individual is in. Part of what makes the environment is the individual that is created within it.
Having a sense of unity or identity comes after any individuation it is not something that exists in a pre-individual state. Think many, not one.
However, stable equilibrium excludes becoming, because it corresponds to the lowest possible level of potential energy;7 it is the equilibrium that is reached in a system when all of the possible transformations have been realized and no more force exists. All the potentials have been actualized, and the system having reached its lowest energy level can no longer transform itself. Antiquity knew only instability and stability, movement and rest; they had no clear and objective idea of metastability. In order to define metastability, the notions of order, potential energy in a system, and the notion of an increase in entropy must be used. 2
Individuation happens via transduction
By transduction we mean an operation–physical, biological, mental, social–by which an activity propagates itself from one element to the next, within a given domain, and founds this propagation on a structuration of the domain that is realized from place to place: each area of the constituted structure serves as the principle and the model for the next area, as a primer for its constitution, to the extent that the modification expands progressively at the same time as the structuring operation. 3
So, it is neither form being applied to matter, nor matter becoming a certain form, but a process that creates form through a propagation of structure that actualises the preindividual potentiality within the being 4
Each step in the process of this ongoing individuation is an individual, and each individual is built on the individuals that came before. We will delve into this further later.
Now, in Simondon, he defines three levels of individuation: physical, biological, and psychic-collective. We won’t go through each of these levels, for what concerns us the most is the final psychic-collective, where, in order to individuate as a subject, as an individual thinking person, we also individuate the collective. This is the transindividual, that which exists in the relation between individuals and the collective. Much of what we take as individual is really transindividual. Our language, customs, habits, memory, imagination, and affect all seem to be individual, but there is a necessary collective element.
The individual and the collective are formed simultaneously through this process of transindividuation. Thus, the emergence of any individuation, whether an individual or a group, is the resolution of tensions within the pre-individual. There are many ways to resolve those tensions.
What is important for Simondon is that the dual psychic/collective individuation process creates a new category which traverses the psychic and collective realm, this he calls the transindividual… The transindividual is the relational world that constitutes the connection between the psychic individual and the collective. 5
Given this brief overview, we can look more closely at how this ontological starting point can change how we think about change management. 6
Difference from other change processes.
Most change processes assume that there are those who change things and those things that are being changed. They are usually focused on the changes that individuals need to make to change a larger collective whole. The hylomorphic model and many change theories assume that things are generally stable, that change is periodic, and that making change is really about getting over resistance to change, focused on changing individuals, and a belief that individuals are primary, or rarely that structures or teams are.
Part of what makes this approach distinct is that we begin from a different perspective on the nature of things. Fundamentally, we don’t start from the perspective that individuals are primary (or that structures are); rather, we start from the perspective that the process of individuation (that which makes us individuals) is an ongoing process and that individuals and groups are both individuated at the same time. There is a relationship between the individual and the collective that is what makes up the individual and the collective, and that neither would exist without this relationship. Put more simply, fundamentally neither the individual nor the group exists on their own; they are mutually created by and in relation to the other.
From this perspective, we can’t just change individuals to change the larger system, nor can we just materially change the conditions of the systems and expect everything else to change. This isn’t to say both of those approaches aren’t useful, but rather that we need to see them changing together and mutually for any change to be effective.
“Ingenium, nature or temperament, individuates both the nation and the individual, but it does not make either an effect of the other, producing a state which is nothing other than the sum total of individual desires or an individual that is nothing other than an effect of its nation. Instead ingenium demonstrates that the individuation of individuals and collectives are made up of the same material, affects, desires, and ideas, and virtually the same process, the constitution of a memory, of habit. The various political regimes are not just relations between individuals, but regimes of individuation: tyranny is inseparable from the production of ignorance and fear, of superstition, just as democracy is inseparable from the production of rationality.” 7
In traditional change management, there are a few underlying assumptions that come from having an individualistic perspective.
- The starting point for change is the individual, and therefore, there is a psychological component to change.
- There is an assumption of hylomorphism. Hylomorphism is the idea that things are separated into material and form, and that material is then shaped into form. In the traditional approach to change management, the team is made up of individuals, and the form is what the leaders want the team or system to look like.
- There is an assumption that a team is made up of relatively stable individuals and that the team and system are therefore relatively stable. While most will admit that people and systems change, it is often assumed this happens only through deliberate action and periodically.
- It is assumed that to change a system, you will need to overcome the resistance to that change, resistance which generally takes the form of individuals who do not want the change.
- Change can happen in a relatively linear way. Many who work in complexity-informed practice have already thrown this one out long ago, but it still exists.
Let’s examine each of these points and how this new approach, based on the updated ontology, can impact the situation.
Changing Change Management:
When we apply these five principles to a change management process, things begin to take shape. We see that the organization is always already in a state of becoming, and that any approach to change is about who gets to guide the direction.
Moving from individuals to transindividuals
From this new perspective, it isn’t individuals that make up collectives, but rather that each makes the other. The individuals that are in the group are only those individuals because of the group they are in. A simple way to think about this is how you behave, act, and likely even think differently when you are at home with your family than when you are at work. You are a different individuation in those contexts, and in each context, the you that is there and the group are only what they are because of those who are in it.
Many of the features and aspects that we think are ours alone, affect, gestures, language, and stories, are actually transindividual; they exist through and across all the individuals and the collective. At one workplace, the head of the group said fair when acknowledging any point that was made. Soon, the whole leadership team was doing it, and I eventually carried it home when my wife called it out and I became aware I was doing it. I later posted that story on LinkedIn and a few more, and suddenly they saw they did it too.
So the idea that you are changing individuals is inaccurate, you are changing transindividuals, that which is across and through the individuals, and that doesn’t happen only through the psychological change of its members, but instead has to happen to the relations that exist.
Against Hylomorphism: Towards Transduction
A hylomorphic approach assumes that you are fitting some sort of material individuals, etc, into an existing form. This is what this new state will look like, and now we need to push, squeeze, and shift people into that form.
This approach moves through transduction. Transduction necessarily starts in the middle 8 of the pre-individual material and resolves the tensions into new, and then newer, individuations that are built upon it. It is an adaptive and emergent approach where each new layer and resolution forms the basis for those that come after it; it is not something that happens at the beginning.
Not stable, metastability of the preindividual
It doesn’t start from our expectation to finish with a stable state. There is no stable equilibrium to be found. And that is good, stable equilibria are hard to change. It is rather a metastable equilibrium that can move with the right force to form a new metastable equilibrium based on what it is able to resolve. As a result, change is not hard it is constant, guiding the transduction in the way that makes the most sense for the group (and this is key) is the part that takes work. What is often seen as stability is the territorialization of the current state. which is a change, but one that strengthens the individuation. The pre-individual is never fully exhausted so there is always material available to
Not overcoming resistance but managing and resolving tensions
Most of these models assume, based on the individual approach, that you will then need to overcome resistance. And this isn’t to say that change is easy or easily happens in the best way, but the resistance is not so much resistance as it is shifting of tensions. Some tensions and pulls may be stronger than others. But that resistance is what makes change possible.
Individuation is always already ongoing and non-linear
And finally, change doesn’t have an endpoint; it is always already ongoing. Change is a constant, and it will likely follow previously established pathways if not disrupted. The role of history and nature. And is there a difference? Things like language are historical and natural. Without our natural biological capacities, we wouldn’t have language, but the language we have is a historical development.
Final Thoughts
And when we recognize the role each of us plays in being created by the collective as we create it, the only possible path is for everyone to have a say in how things evolve.
With that in mind, there are three focuses that I suggest:
- Give voice to everyone in the organization to share their narratives; the less tied to the identity of the speaker, the better. Stop gate-keeping narratives
- Resolve tensions that arise through changes in the structures of relations. Create an opportunity for conflict to work on oblique problems.
- We make change by changing the relations between things, not the things themselves.
As a note, this is a theory-driven approach with the intention of making it as practical as possible. More to come…
- Simondon, G. (2009). THE POSITION OF THE PROBLEM OF ONTOGENESIS. (G. Flanders, Trans.).Parrhesia, 7, p5. ↩
- Ibid p6 ↩
- Ibid p11 ↩
- https://medium.com/epoch%C3%A9-%E1%BC%90%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%87%CE%AE/gilbert-simondon-and-the-process-of-individuation-61b11bf079bc ↩
- https://epochemagazine.org/40/on-psychic-and-collective-individuation-from-simondon-to-stiegler/ ↩
- This can also change how we approach change as individuals, which is something that I am thinking more about in coaching. ↩
- Read, J. (2017). The Politics of Transindividuality. Haymarket p25 ↩
- Simondon, G. (2009). The Position of the Problem of Ontogenesis. (G. Flanders, Trans.).Parrhesia, 7, p11. ↩