Book Review

DOMINIC W. MASSARO, editorUniversity of California, Santa Cruz

Psychological Uses of Complexity Theory

The Evolving Self: A Psychology for the Third Millennium.By Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. New York: Harper Collins, 1993. 358 pp. Cloth,$25.00. Paper, $13.50.

The American Journal of PsychologyFall 1996, Vol. 109, No. 3

Content in the AJP database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only.You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transferor sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploitthe AJP content in whole or in part without the written permission of thecopyright holder.

To request permission to reprint material from The American Journal ofPsychology, please find us online at:

http://www.press.uillinois.edu/about/permission.html

or email us at:

UIP-RIGHTS@uillinois.edu

© 2002 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

Book ReviewDOMINIC W. MASSARO, editorUniversity of California, Santa Cruz

Psychological Uses of Complexity Theory

The Evolving Self: A Psychology for the Third Millennium.By Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. New York: Harper Collins, 1993. 358 pp. Cloth,$25.00. Paper, $13.50.

Psychologists construct scientific and specialized approaches to the understand-ing of human life and behavior. It is rare within the discipline’s thrust towardobjective, verifiable knowledge to encounter a work with broader ambitions.Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, the author of Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience(1990), along with books on creativity, adolescence, and television, has chosento go beyond the traditional confines of psychology. Using his broad knowledgeof science, history, art, literature, and philosophy, Csikszentmihalyi argues thatthe lessons from Flow can, and indeed must, be applied to society if humanityis to survive the third millennium. He provides a broad context for his studiesof enjoyment and optimal experience in his newest book, The Evolving Self: APsychology for the Third Millennium.

As a part of the movement toward a relevant and interpretive psychology,Csikszentmihalyi takes some valuable steps. Examining issues like the natureof self and consciousness, traditionally absent from a scientific psychology, hestresses the need for conscious participation in one’s fate and in a shared goalof humanity—continuing life on earth. The very strength of the book, address-ing crucial issues that most psychologists shy away from, however, also produc-es some of its weaknesses. It is impossible to create a book of such a scope with-out bringing one’s own values and traditional beliefs to such an enterprise.Thus, in building his theory, Csikszentmihalyi combines his personal beliefsystem with selective concepts from evolutionary biology, the social sciences,philosophy, and complexity theory. An important contribution of this book isintroducing complexity theory to readers interested in psychological issues. Agrowing number of physical and social scientists are addressing contemporaryissues by relying on theories of complexity and complex adaptive systems.Murray Gell-Mann, one of the founders of the Santa Fe Institute, a center forsuch endeavors, has indicated the scope of these investigations.

Research on the sciences of simplicity and complexity...naturally includes teasingout the meaning of the simple and the complex, but also the similarities and dif-ferences among complex adaptive systems, functioning in such diverse processesas the origin of life on Earth, biological evolution, the behavior of organisms in

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGYFall 1996, Vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 465–499

book reviews 467

ecological systems, the operation of the mammalian immune system, learning andthinking in animals (including human beings), the evolution of human societies,the behavior of investors in financial markets, and the use of computer softwareand/or hardware designed to evolve strategies or to make predictions based on pastobservations. (1994, p. 17)

Mitchell Waldrop’s book, Complexity (1992), depicts these early investigationsat the Santa Fe Institute and introduces complexity theory through descriptionsby some of its main proponents. A central figure in the book, economist BrianArthur, contrasts complexity theory with reductionist approaches.

Instead of relying on the Newtonian metaphor of clockwork predictability, complex-ity seems to be based on metaphors more closely akin to the growth of a plant froma tiny seed, or the unfolding of a computer program from a few lines of code, orperhaps even the organic, self-organized flocking of simpleminded birds. That’scertainly the kind of metaphor that Chris Langton has in mind with artificial life:his whole point is that complex, lifelike behavior is the result of simple rules un-folding from the bottom up. ( p. 329)

More recently, complexity ideas have been expanded to the study of the mind,the brain, and complex adaptive systems (Morowitz & Singer, 1995).

In his commitment to expand the scope of psychological investigation Csik-szentmihalyi gives complexity a central role in his argument.

If it is true that at this point in history the emergence of complexity is the best “story”we can tell about the past and the future, and if it is true that without it our half-formed self runs the risk of destroying the planet and our budding consciousnessalong with it, then how can we help to realize the potential inherent in the cosmos?(p. xviii)

However, implicated in his discussion of complexity theory are questions ofmoral codes and belief systems. To meet the challenges of the 21st century, heargues that we must become more complex as individuals and as a society, andif we are going “to direct evolution toward greater complexity, we have to findan appropriate moral code to guide our choices. It should be a code that takesinto account the wisdom of tradition, yet is inspired by the future rather thanthe past” (p. 162).

Csikszentmihalyi does recognize the difficulties inherent in connecting com-plexity theory to moral questions especially when it is used to analyze humansociety. The value judgments he uses are shaped by his view that the end of thisturbulent century is a period marked by the passing of traditional beliefs. Hecautions, though, against discarding these beliefs, religious and secular, with-out preserving those values which are still relevant for humanity today. Thevalues he retains are fundamental to the task he undertakes in The Evolving Self.

Without rules based on past experience it is easy to make costly mistakes; withouta sense of ultimate purpose it is difficult to sustain courage when the unavoidabletragedies of life strike. But where does one find faith one can believe in in the thirdmillennium? (p. xvi)

To answer this basic question, Csikszentmihalyi draws from his own values as aChristian humanist and from his scientific studies of daily consciousness. Rather

468 book reviews

than focusing on Csikszentmihalyi’s humanist value system, this review, aftersummarizing the argument presented in The Evolving Self, will explore some ofthe questions raised in applying complexity theory to psychology.

THE EVOLVING SELF

Csikszentmihalyi’s goal in The Evolving Self is ambitious.

To know ourselves is the greatest achievement of our species. And to understandourselves—what we are made of, what motives drive us, and what goals we dreamof—involves, first of all, an understanding of our evolutionary past. Only on thatfoundation can we build a stable, meaningful future. It is in order to develop fur-ther this contention that the present book was written. (p. xvi)

Csikszentmihalyi acknowledges that the questions The Evolving Self attempts toanswer are broad and far reaching but hopes that the book “will serve as a firststep in the process” (p. 5). The first part of the book explores internal andexternal forces that have been instrumental in shaping the human species. InPart II, Csikszentmihalyi suggests a way for humanity to take control of its des-tiny by consciously directing evolution and, in so doing, avoiding global disas-ters such as nuclear annihilation and environmental poisoning.

To guide the course of evolution, humanity must identify and understandthe forces that have contributed to the development of the species and bringthem under control. Csikszentmihalyi contends that consciousness is centralamong the forces that have shaped humanity and society but adds that con-sciousness is constrained by the genetic drive for survival.

Genetic programming

In order to reduce the impact of genetic programming, Csikszentmihalyiseeks an answer to the question, “Who controls the mind?” by exploring themechanisms, processes, and content of the mind. He examines the humancondition and the forces that have shaped it. Noting the “eternal dissatisfac-tion” that has plagued humanity to date, he speculates on the possibility of a“wired-in function” that “drives people ceaselessly to seek new experiences andpossessions without ever finding fulfillment”(p. 31). He also describes the ten-dency of the mind to be directed to negative outcomes as a survival mechanism.“[I]f we let our individual consciousness be directed by genetic instructions thathave been advantageous in the past, our quality of life is likely to suffer in thepresent” (p. 37). In order to develop the evolved self for the third millenni-um, we must overcome the genetic programming by understanding how it dis-torts reality. “Our genetic programming is inevitably bound to give us a distortedview of reality now that the external conditions have changed” (p. 51). Csik-szentmihalyi elaborates on this idea by examining the differences between thesexes and how gender-specific programming is assumed to affect us today. “Tothe extent that all of us are programmed to be hunters or mothers, we mustall somehow come to terms with this awkward heritage” (p. 50). Posing theproblem this way, however, denigrates the historical role that women haveplayed in the development of human society.

book reviews 469

Because much of what follows in Csikszentmihalyi’s argument is based on thepowerful influence ascribed to genetic programming, it is important to raise somequestions about his position. For instance, our stance is more in favor of thosewho speak of the plasticity of the human organism (Edelman, 1987; Damasio,1994) rather than those emphasizing evolutionary strategies (Wilson, 1992).However, we realize that these issues are approached with certain biases as thescientific facts are open to a variety of psychological interpretations. For exam-ple, gender differences in mathematical achievement are attributed to genetic/hormonal variables by some theorists (Benbow, 1988). Others have document-ed a decreasing differential between males and females from 1981 to 1994 (Fried-man, in press), a finding that raises serious questions about the primary role ofbiological factors. Genetic dispositions are of value in simple or singular traitsand behaviors—for instance, eye color. But for complex human systems, genet-ic predispositions are of limited explanatory importance as they are the outcomeof many interdependent processes both social and biological.

The human genome (the sum total of the genes in our chromosomes) does notspecify the entire structure of the brain. There are not enough genes available todetermine the precise structure and place of everything in our organisms, least ofall in the brain, where billions of neurons form their synaptic contacts. The dispro-portion is not subtle: we carry probably about 105 (100,000) genes, but we have morethan 1015 (10 trillion) synapses in our brains. Moreover, the genetically inducedformation of tissues is assisted by interactions among cells, in which cell adhesionmolecules and substrate adhesion molecules play an important role. What happensamong cells, as development unfolds, actually controls, in part the expression ofthe genes that regulate development in the first place. As far as one can tell, then,many structural specifics are determined only by the activity of the living organismitself, as it develops and continuously changes throughout its life span. (Damasio,1994, pp. 108–109)

In addition to genetic programming, Csikszentmihalyi cites two other inter-nal sources of illusion: “cultural rules and the unbridled desires of the self” (p.55). With the formation of society, rules of conduct were adopted that playeda critical role in the survival of the community, but which at the same timecreated a partial view of reality. The world was seen through the lens of one’sparticular culture “...[I]t is important for each person to recognize that thevalues, rules, habits, and attitudes we inherit are useful and necessary, but arenot absolute” (p. 75).

Csikszentmihalyi writes that the third illusion, selfhood, begins in the mindas a “side effect of being conscious” (p. 76). In order to surmount the self hesays we must evolve beyond the purely individual mandates of the genes andculture and move toward a more conscious realization of the self as part of acommon good. Those individuals who participate in this realization are in flowand have created the kind of selves that must be developed and fostered to“make survival into the third millennium possible” (p. 82).

External sources of illusion

In contrast to the three internal sources, Csikszentmihalyi cites three exter-nal sources of illusion which arise from social interaction—predators, parasites,

470 book reviews

and memes (ideas and technological artifacts). Csikszentmihalyi contends thata new reality can be forged by identifying, exposing, and unraveling all of these“veils” or distortions. Tracing the development of society, Csikszentmihalyi lo-cates a source of oppression and exploitation in humanity’s transition from ahunting and gathering society to an agricultural society. This transformationin social relations led to a social surplus product and the development of per-manent caste or class distinctions. “Those who happened to be wealthy, or whoowned means of production—that is land, tools, beasts of burden—were ableto employ others who lacked the means of making a living for themselves” (p.91). Csikszentmihalyi refers to the exploitation of labor power as “using thepsychic energy of the poor.” He focuses particularly on the oppression of wom-en and children throughout human history.

Csikszentmihalyi then discusses parasites, the second external source of il-lusion, who drain psychic energy from the more powerful by taking advantageof their weaknesses. The victim of the parasitic activity is left bereft of psychicenergy in much the same way as the victim of oppression. In order to advancesuccessfully into the next millennium we must “understand how much of ourpsychic energy is channeled away by those who drain our lives to enrich theirs”(p. 114).

Finally, Csikszentmihalyi relies on the concept of memes, developed by theBritish biologist, Richard Dawkins, to describe the third external illusion fac-ing human kind. Dawkins defines a meme as “a unit of cultural informationcomparable in its effects on society to those of the chemically coded instruc-tions contained in the gene on the human organism” (p. 120). Csikszentmi-halyi writes that a meme is “any permanent pattern of matter or informationproduced by an act of human intentionality” (p. 120). He points out that where-as the mind is initially responsible for the creation of memes, once in existence,they begin to shape both the consciousness of their creator and other humanbeings. Memes exist as part of the material of the human mind and “replicateimages of themselves in consciousness” (p. 122). Collectively, over time, theyinfluence the behavior and thought patterns of society. Csikszentmihalyi ex-plores the role that literacy played in the proliferation of memes when infor-mation could be stored extrasomatically and spread to many more people andto different communities.

Csikszentmihalyi concludes Part I by reiterating that for a more enlightenednew millennium, we must expose the sources of illusions—”the world createdby genes, by the culture, by the ego, by oppressors, parasites, and mimeticexploiters”(p. 143). Doing so, he contends will allow humanity to evaluate theuses, both individual and social, to which its psychic energy is being directed.

Directing the evolution of humanity

Building upon the theoretical foundation laid in Part I of The Evolving Self,Csikszentmihalyi sets an even more difficult task in Part II—to analyze the stepsnecessary for humanity to direct evolution and transform human society. Forthis analysis, Csikszentmihalyi relies heavily on evolutionary and complexitytheory, in particular, the notions of harmony and entropy, as well as differentia-tion and integration. Evolutionary principles central to his argument are:

book reviews 471

1. There are two opposite tendencies in evolution: changes that lead toward har-mony (i.e., the ability to obtain energy through cooperation, and through the uti-lization of unused or wasted energy); and those that lead toward entropy (or waysof obtaining energy for one’s purposes through exploiting other organisms, there-by causing conflict and disorder).

2. Harmony is usually achieved by evolutionary changes involving an increase inan organism’s complexity, that is, an increase in both differentiation and integra-tion. (pp. 155–157)

The concept of complexity is central to Csikszentmihalyi’s new psychologyfor the third millennium. Csikszentmihalyi defines complexity as involving “theoptimal development of both differentiation and integration” (p.157). Usingthe concept of entropy to explain chaos and disharmony on a societal level,he stresses the need for a new moral code as we move to create a more com-plex, harmonious society. Csikszentmihalyi writes that a moral code drawing onthe wisdom of tradition, yet looking forward to the needs of the future, mustbe developed. The purpose of such a code is twofold. First, it must dictate thatpopulation growth does not outstrip the resources needed to sustain it. Sec-ond, it must mandate control of memes—technology and information—toensure that they work for a more harmonious society rather than one in whichentropy reigns.

Csikszentmihalyi draws on lessons from his research to describe the experi-ence of flow, which he contends is a component of a more harmonious exist-ence. People in flow are usually joyful and happy as they meet challenges anddevelop new skills. They tend, therefore, to take on new challenges and in theprocess help bring about “relatively more complex evolutionary changes” (p.189) for humanity as a whole.

Csikszentmihalyi also describes destructive flow activities, using as an exam-ple the ecstasy that the Emperor Nero reportedly experienced while seeingRome burn or watching lions tear apart human beings. The fundamental dif-ference between the destructive and the constructive flow experiences is thatthe former leads to entropy and disorder whereas the latter leads to harmonyand order. Flow that leads toward greater harmony does so because an individ-ual’s consciousness has been more fully developed in the direction of complex-ity. “Complexity of consciousness is not a function of only intelligence or knowl-edge, and is not just a cognitive trait—it includes a person’s feelings and actionsas well” (p. 207). To explain the notion of complexity of consciousness, Csik-szentmihalyi presents four individuals, referred to as transcenders, who nurtureharmony and invest their psychic energy in complex goals. They are all offeredas examples because they transformed themselves into individuals who were a“part of the evolutionary process that leads to higher levels of harmoniouscomplexity” (p. 215). His emphasis upon the individual as the agent of socialchange is particularly salient in this discussion.

The transcendent self

Csikszentmihalyi clarifies his notion of the concept of self to show how hu-manity can strive to construct the sort of evolved selves represented by the tran-scenders. In order not to be overwhelmed by the sensory input that bombards

472 book reviews

an individual brain, the nervous system has bundled information in manage-able chunks or images which are endowed with separate identities by the indi-vidual’s imagination. Through the process of reification,

we attribute reality to mental constructions. The self is such a reification, and cer-tainly one of the most significant ones. We usually think of it as a force, a spark, aninner flame with an indivisible integrity. Yet, from what we know now, the self is morein the nature of a figment of the imagination, something we create to account forthe multiplicity of impressions, emotions, thoughts, and feelings that the brainrecords in consciousness. (p. 216)

Csikszentmihalyi feels that the self includes everything that passes throughconsciousness, and is, therefore, shaped by what the individual and society at-tend to over time. He writes that the self is the brain’s awareness of its own formof organizing information.

To create the kind of self that Csikszentmihalyi argues will lead to a complexand harmonious evolution of humanity in the third millennium, differentiation(the development of individual uniqueness), and integration (actively lookingout for the best interests of others) must occur. The evolved self then is the re-sult of a dialectical motion between the need to develop one’s own identity, self-actualization and the need to bring greater complexity and harmony to one’s lifeby becoming involved in causes for the betterment of humanity.

Csikszentmihalyi examines those experiences, qualities, and traits necessaryfor the construction of the transcendent self—the ability to enjoy life, to seekcomplexity, to master wisdom and spirituality, and to invest psychic energy in thetask of creating a harmonious future. Individuals who strive for the collective well-being of all life, “become part of the stream of evolution....[whatever] happensto their individual bodies and minds, the shape of their consciousness will in-fluence the matrix of growing complexity, the forms of future energy”(p. 249).

It is not enough, Csikszentmihalyi points out, for a few individuals to createtranscendent selves. What is needed are social institutions that support flow anddevelop complexity. This task of building “complexity into the fabric of soci-ety” is the focus of the last section of The Evolving Self. Csikszentmihalyi tracesthe way that flow has influenced the course of history in creating a “good soci-ety,” by “contributing to the evolution of memes, including both technologi-cal advances and changing beliefs and institutions” (pp. 253–254).

According to Csikszentmihalyi, a good society is one in which equality ofopportunity and equality before the law coexist with freedom and solidarityamong people. He emphasizes that in a good society, individuals are not per-mitted to advance at the expense of others.

[T]he task of a good society is not to enshrine the creative solutions of the past intopermanent institutions; it is, rather, to make it possible for creativity to keep assert-ing itself. Its task is to give people a chance to bring forth new memes to be evalu-ated, selected, and joyously implemented by informed, free, and responsible peers.(p. 276)

Csikszentmihalyi offers some concrete suggestions for what can be donetoday to build toward a social system free of greed and exploitation. Echoing

book reviews 473

Thomas Carlyle, Csikszentmihalyi suggests that a starting point might be “toimprove one’s own self, and work toward a better society within existing insti-tutions” (p. 280). However, Csikszentmihalyi suggests that it is not really possi-ble to live a decent life in present society. Instead, we need to become activein the larger social issues and “develop a community that shares a belief in theevolution of complexity” (p. 281). He argues that “creative minorities” haveplayed the instrumental role throughout history in bringing about social trans-formations and making the most important cultural contributions. Stating thathe does not wish to “debate here whether creative minorities are autonomousagents of social transformation or simply the tools of much larger historicalforces” (p. 283), Csikszentmihalyi ignores the important relationships that existbetween the larger historical forces and the “creative minorities.”

Csikszentmihalyi suggests that individuals can participate in the creation ofa more complex, harmonious society by forming cells of at least four members.The function of the cell would primarily be to collect and analyze informationand then to translate this knowledge into action. At first Csikszentmihalyi sug-gests this might involve supporting a local political candidate, but as cells grew,they could begin working with other groups in their neighborhoods and“[e]ventually the isolated cells may coalesce in a loose confederation, an evo-lutionary fellowship that could provide a vision and a conscience for society asa whole” (p. 289).

Csikszentmihalyi concludes The Evolving Self by saying,

evolutionary cells will make it possible to experience flow while working for the mostambitious goal available to the human imagination: to blend our individual voicein the cosmic harmony, to join our unique consciousness with the emerging con-sciousness of the universe, to fold our momentary center of psychic energy into thecurrent that tends toward increasing complexity and order. (p. 293)

COMPLEXITY

One of the aforementioned strengths of The Evolving Self is that it raises is-sues and areas of investigation which fall outside the bounds of scientific psy-chology. While Csikszentmihalyi’s view of complexity differs in its elaborationfrom ours, it is important that he gives complexity theory a central role in hisargument. This should help to promote more discussion on the relationshipof complexity theory to psychological inquiries.

A fundamental tenet of complexity theory is the interrelatedness of all phe-nomena. To apply complexity theory to humans involves studying the emer-gence of humans both ontogenetically and phylogenetically. To become a com-prehensive unifying theory, a goal of its proponents, complexity theory wouldhave to study the mind, society, and language as interconnected, emergent,dynamic, and complex adaptive systems.

The primary challenge facing complexity theorists is to choose a level ofanalysis and to integrate it across domains. While perceptual phenomena havebeen effectively linked with carefully studied brain mechanisms, broader phe-nomena, such as the self, are hard to connect to neurophysiological models

474 book reviews

focusing on components. There are current efforts in this direction. In a re-cently published book (Morowitz & Singer, 1995), complexity theory has beenexpanded to the study of mind, brain, and complex adaptive systems; howev-er, contributors to this recent volume have not succeeded in joining their sep-arate endeavors and creating a unified theory of complex adaptive systems. Theconceptual tools provided by complexity theory are very broad; they tend tobe interpreted by each individual theorist within existing frameworks. Thus, theapplication of complexity theory to a unified psychological approach is as yetfar from realized, although its promise is intriguing to an increasing numberof theorists.

Csikszentmihalyi’s view of complexity theory, with his infusion of moralityinto the discussion and his focus on integration and differentiation as the keyelements, differs from ours. We look to the more complete elaborations of thepioneering theorists of the Santa Fe Institute and to the theories of L. S. Vy-gotsky (1978; 1986) and A. Luria (1979), whose concepts of functional systemsare used to examine questions such as the relationship between language andthought, internal and external factors in consciousness, and neurological foun-dations and the rise of consciousness. Vygotsky’s and Luria’s views on the in-terrelationships between external and internal factors in the development ofthe mind, and of the quantitative and qualitative transformations which occurduring development, are resonant with the phase transition notions advocat-ed by complexity theorists (Lewin, 1992). A psychological example analogousto phase transitions in physical systems (i.e., changes from solids to liquids, orsingle-cell to multi-cell organisms) is the qualitative transformation that occursat the boundary of childhood and adolescence.

The interconnected processes through which structures emerge are of greatinterest to complexity theorists. Doyne Farmer poses a pivotal question in ex-amining these processes, “Why is matter constantly becoming more and moreorganized on a large scale, at the same time that it is becoming more and moredisorganized on a small scale?” (Waldrop, p. 286). Farmer and his colleaguesapproach issues of human functioning by focusing on complex interactionsbetween simple networks and messages. They suggest that “the essence of lifeis in the organization and not the molecules” (ibid., p. 292).

In a somewhat similar way, Vygotsky suggested that it is the interfunctionallinks between concepts which provide the specificity of human thinking. Theseconnections are not built in simple, linear ways; they are similar to phase tran-sitions where fluidity is maintained, and change occurs in varied ways. Changeand interconnectedness are central to a Vygotskian approach to psychology:“[D]evelopment is a complex dialectical process characterized by periodicity,unevenness in the development of different functions, metamorphosis or qual-itative transformations of one form into another, intertwining of external andinternal factors, and adaptive processes” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 73). This descrip-tion of developmental change, first offered in the 1930s, bears interesting sim-ilarities to complex adaptive systems but presents a methodological challengeto psychologists. When complexity theorists explore organization at the levelof physical and biological systems, in which components can be effectivelyspecified, their efforts have yielded important results. The study of the inter-

book reviews 475

relationships between brain, mind, and human activity, however, is harder toanchor. The difficulty lies in establishing units for analysis. Vygotsky suggested“word meaning” as a meaningful unit for analysis of human conceptual activi-ty. For him, and many contemporary sociocultural theorists, symbolically me-diated activity constitutes the level at which analysis is most productive. Thedevelopmental organization and reorganization of language forms has beenexamined from this point of view (Wertsch, 1991); but most of psychology isstill fit into Newtonian, mechanical models of analysis.

The contemporary challenge, then, is to apply a nonlinear model ofchange—a model shared by complexity and sociocultural theorists—to a vari-ety of psychological and cultural domains. Such a task requires a prolongedstudy of complex adaptive systems and their relevance to a broad range of psy-chological phenomena. It is in this context that Csikszentmihalyi’s use of ideasdrawn from the complexity literature is of interest. He sees an analogy betweenphysical systems and the psychic state of flow: “In both cases, the evolution ofnew traits or new skills proceeds most readily at the interface of order andchaos” (p. 319). In this analogy, flow exists “on the boundary between bore-dom and anxiety.” He further suggests that “all living things—at least those thatwill evolve—prefer to dwell on that precarious boundary” (p. 319). These anal-ogies are intriguing, but they have the same, understandable limitations as allcurrent attempts at relying on complexity notions at the psychological level.Scholars interested in applying complexity theory are working in isolation fromeach other, selecting promising features from this theoretical framework with-out the larger transformation of thought needed. The hold of linear modelsis hard to overcome.

The sweep of The Evolving Self is impressive. It offers a promising beginningtowards nonlinear modes of thinking and the fruitful application of complex-ity theory. Csikszentmihalyi’s contention is that humanity’s fate rests on theboundary between annihilation and evolution as we enter the third millenni-um. The challenge Csikszentmihalyi offers his readers as we face “the awesomecosmic adventure” is to take new perspectives and approaches as we becomeactively involved in seeking to direct human evolution. In spite of its limitations,The Evolving Self takes an important initial step in analyzing the problems fac-ing humanity and then suggesting possible solutions.

Holbrook Mahn3004 San Pablo, N.E.Albuquerque, NM 87110

E-mail: hmahn@unm.edu

Vera John-SteinerUniversity of New MexicoDepartment of LinguisticsHumanities Building 526Albuquerque, NM 87131–1196

E-mail: vygotsky@unm.edu

476 book reviews

ReferencesBenbow, C. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectual-

ly talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral andBrain Sciences, 11, 169–232.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper& Row.

Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: G. P.Putnam and Sons.

Edelman, G. M. (1987). Neural Darwinism: The theory of neuronal group selection. New York:Basic Books Inc.

Friedman, L. (In press). Meta-analysis and quantitative gender differences: Reconcilia-tion. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics.

Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The quark and the jaguar. New York: Freedman & Co.Lewin, R. (1992). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. New York: Macmillian.Luria, A. R. (1979). The making of mind: A personal account of Soviet psychology. (M. Cole &

S. Cole Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Morowitz, H. J., & Singer, J. L. (1995). The mind, the brain, and complex adaptive systems.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M.

Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (1992). The diversity of life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.