Sociological understanding often brings to light elements that were initially invisible: relationships, institutions, history, inequality, and multiple levels of society. This can reduce self-blame and lead to more incisive questions. But this understanding can also become burdensome. If everything is interconnected, how is it possible to take action without oversimplifying?
Chapter 30 brings together complexity, wisdom, and action. Complexity concerns how multiple parts interact and change over time. Wisdom involves assessing what is valuable and reasonable in a given situation, taking into account power and consequences. Action involves taking a step that corresponds to the level of the problem, the actor’s capacity, and the rights of those affected.
The goal is not total control. Social systems involve feedback loops, interdependencies, and other people who may respond unexpectedly. A useful analysis must therefore be sufficiently comprehensive to preserve the central relationships and sufficiently focused to be testable. Action then becomes not the endpoint of certain knowledge, but part of a cycle: observe, formulate, act, follow up, and revise.
ABT is also used here as a theoretical working hypothesis. The concepts in this chapter do not constitute a method for treating mental health issues and offer no guarantee that an action will succeed. In cases of acute danger, severe symptoms, or decisions with major consequences, safety, professional competence, the law, and the consent of those involved take precedence over an everyday experiment.
Complexity lies in the relationships between parts
A problem does not become sociologically complex simply because many factors are listed. What matters is how the parts influence one another. An organizational rule can change how time is allocated. A lack of time can affect collaboration, sleep, and decision-making. These consequences can then reinforce the rule—for example, if fatigue reduces the ability to protest or participate in change efforts. Complexity lies in the connections, the feedback loops, and the passage of time.
It is possible to distinguish between a wealth of detail and relevant complexity. Gathering twenty pieces of information about a situation can create a detailed description without revealing what keeps the problem alive. A simpler map with three well-founded connections may be more useful. Delimitation therefore does not mean turning a blind eye to the social, but rather choosing which relationships are necessary for the specific issue and action being examined.
A first delimitation concerns time and space. “My work is unsustainable” is very broad. “During the late shifts over the past four weeks, responsibility becomes unclear after the handoff” identifies a recurring pattern. A second delimitation concerns actors and mechanisms. Who does what, which rule or resource has an impact, and through what intermediary does the consequence arise?
The same problem can exist at multiple levels
The micro level concerns the individual’s actions and concrete situation. The meso level concerns relationships, groups, and organizations. The macro level concerns institutions, social structure, and historical patterns. These levels are analytical tools, not three separate worlds. A decision made at the macro level is implemented within organizations and experienced through bodies and relationships.
C. Wright Mills demonstrates how private concerns can be linked to societal issues. If a person loses their job, an understanding of their situation is needed. If many people lose their jobs due to an industry transformation, an institutional and historical analysis is also required. The larger pattern does not negate the individual’s experience, but it does shift where responsibility and possible actions need to be placed.
These levels must not become a routine where the same amount of text is written under every heading. Sometimes a relational mechanism is crucial; sometimes an organizational rule is. An action at the micro level can be valuable even when the cause is structural, but it should not be described as a complete solution. Conversely, a macro-level explanation becomes insufficient if it does not show how the structure actually affects the situation under study.
Simplifying Without Distorting
Every action requires a selection. A person cannot simultaneously take into account every historical cause, relationship, and possible consequence. The risk lies in two directions. Oversimplification reduces the problem to a slogan or places all responsibility on a single person. Overcomplexity makes the formulation so boundless that no observation can contradict it and no course of action can be chosen.
The main manuscript uses “simplexity” as ABT’s term for the balance between simplicity and complexity. The concept is used here as a working hypothesis formulated by the author: preserve the relationships necessary for a genuine understanding while making the next question or action manageable. It is not an established treatment model and should not be used as a promise that complicated life problems have simple solutions.
A comprehensive yet focused formulation typically includes the situation, mechanism, level, resource, scope for action, and uncertainty. It does not need to include everything that research knows about the subject. If the issue concerns a meeting procedure, the central mechanism may be that information is provided too late and that a group is therefore unable to prepare. Other societal conditions may be real but are nevertheless set aside in that particular assessment.
What is set aside must not be denied. A delimitation is temporary and explicitly stated: “In this analysis, I focus on the time rule, not because economics is unimportant, but because the time rule can be observed and falls within the group’s mandate.” This allows the analysis to be critiqued and later expanded.
Alternative explanations guard against jumping to conclusions too quickly
An explanation may seem convincing because it aligns with one’s own experience or the group’s narrative. That is not enough to make it true. Sociological curiosity therefore seeks a plausible alternative explanation and asks what observation would distinguish the two. The alternative does not have to be the opposite. It could be another mechanism that also contributes.
If a colleague does not respond, the initial interpretation might be a lack of respect. An alternative could be unclear responsibilities, a heavy workload, or a communication channel that isn’t being used. Sometimes power and respect are indeed central factors. The point is not to dismiss them, but to avoid letting an uncertain interpretation become a definitive accusation before anything has been investigated.
Dan Kahan and his colleagues have studied scientific curiosity in an American political context. Their observational and experimental studies suggest that people with greater curiosity about science sometimes seek out and absorb surprising information even when it runs counter to group-based expectations. The result is not a universal rule, and the exercise below is not their measurement tool. The relevant principle is to actively seek out information that can change one’s own perspective.
Practical wisdom is about values and power in a situation
Practical wisdom, or fronesis, is about judgment in matters where rules alone cannot determine what should be done. Bent Flyvbjerg has developed a social science application of fronesis. At its core are questions of values and power: Where are we headed? Who wins and who loses? Is this development desirable? What can be done?
Such questions differ from simply seeking the most effective technology. A measure may meet a metric and still distribute costs unfairly. An organizational change may work for management but place a greater invisible burden on others. Wisdom therefore requires facts about the situation, but also clearly articulated values and the opportunity for those affected to have a say.
Wisdom is not the same as a personal gut feeling. Judgment is developed through experience, knowledge, dialogue, objections, and follow-up. Those in high-status positions need to make a special effort to seek out information about consequences that would otherwise not reach the decision-makers. Those with little power do not need to shoulder the burden alone of educating those in power or correcting the entire organization.
Reflexivity connects conditions and projects
Margaret Archer uses reflexivity to describe people’s reflections on themselves in relation to their social circumstances. People have projects that matter to them, but these are realized under conditions they have not chosen themselves. The inner conversation is not isolated from the world; it engages with experiences of opportunities, obstacles, and other people’s reactions.
Reflexivity becomes sociologically useful when it leads to questions about both projects and conditions. Do I want this because a role demands it, because it has personal value, or because the project contributes to the common good? What resources are required? What relationships does it entail? What needs to be renegotiated? Self-reflection without these intermediaries can become yet another form of self-surveillance.
Paulo Freire uses praxis to unite reflection and action in dialogue with others. Reflection without action can become empty talk. Action without reflection can become activism that merely repeats what one sought to change. Dialogue here does not mean polite agreement, but rather a collaborative effort in which people can articulate their reality, test their understandings, and become active agents.
These two perspectives highlight an important distinction. A project needs to be developed by the individual, but it does not become sound simply because it feels well-thought-out. It needs to engage with other perspectives, receive genuine feedback, and take into account the conditions under which the action will be carried out.
Action must correspond to the mechanism and mandate
An action is sociologically effective when it targets a mechanism that actually perpetuates the problem. If the problem is an unclear division of responsibility, a reminder to an individual may miss the organizational rule. If the problem is isolation, a new policy may be insufficient without concrete contact and an accessible space. Actions must therefore be distinguished by level and intended effect.
An individual action changes one’s own behavior or the immediate situation. A relational action changes coordination, boundaries, or support among people. An organizational action concerns rules, resources, division of labor, or decision-making processes. A collective or societal action coordinates multiple actors around a common issue. The same project may involve multiple types, but the next step should have a clear recipient and a reasonable mandate.
There is a risk of pseudo-action: something creates a sense of activity or moral stance but leaves the central mechanism untouched. This does not mean that symbolic actions are always empty; they can change language, visibility, and coordination. The question is what effect is expected and how it should be observed. If the sole result of the action is that the actor feels consistent, an honest reevaluation is needed.
Erik Olin Wright’s “real utopias” and Elinor Ostrom’s studies of common-pool resources demonstrate two ways to make alternatives investigable. Wright focuses on real institutions that realize aspects of a desirable alternative. Ostrom shows that sustainable collective governance depends on local rules, participation, monitoring, and conflict resolution mechanisms. Neither of them offers a model that can be replicated without regard to context.
Small and reversible trials can generate knowledge
When uncertainty is high and the risk is low, a small experiment can yield more knowledge than continued abstract planning. “Reversible” means that the experiment can be stopped or reversed without significant harm. A work team can test a new rotation schedule over the course of two meetings. An organization can test a clearer communication channel for a month. An individual can change a digital habit for a week and observe their attention, time, and relationships.
An experiment is not an arbitrary activity. It requires a clear definition of what is expected to change and what will be observed. The metric should be closely aligned with the goal. If the aim is increased participation, it is not enough that the meeting was shorter. Ask which had a chance to speak, whether the decision was understandable, and whether the workload was shifted to someone else.
Reversibility has its limits. People are not test subjects, and some decisions cannot be undone. An experiment must not circumvent consent, labor law, research ethics, or professional responsibility. The greater the power imbalance and the potential for harm, the less appropriate an informal experiment is.
Failure can serve as feedback without being romanticized
An action may fail because the wording was incorrect, resources were insufficient, the recipient lacked authority, or the circumstances changed. It may also cause unexpected harm. Follow-up should not turn every failure into a lesson in personal development or excuse the cost to others. First, the consequence must be acknowledged and, when possible, remedied.
A learning log distinguishes between what was done, what actually happened, and how the result is interpreted. This reduces the temptation to retrospectively describe every outcome as confirmation. If nothing can cause the working hypothesis to change, it is no longer flexible or testable.
The follow-up must also account for displacement. An action may reduce a visible problem by shifting work, risk, or silence onto someone else. The “ ” must therefore ask who benefited, who bore the cost, and whether new voices or information change the assessment.
A Work Cycle for Understanding and Action
The chapter’s work cycle can be summarized in five steps. First, a situation is defined. Next, a few key relationships and levels are identified. Then, alternative explanations and value-based questions are examined. A course of action is selected based on mechanism, capacity, and mandate. Finally, the consequences are monitored, and the approach is revised.
The cycle is not a fixed plan that must always be carried out from start to finish. In the event of danger, the first course of action may be to leave the situation or seek help. In a well-known routine, a small change may be possible immediately. For decisions that affect many people, knowledge gathering, representation, and formal preparation must be significantly more extensive.
Wisdom is not demonstrated by never being wrong. It is demonstrated, among other things, by how a person or group handles uncertainty, responds to objections, acknowledges harm, and changes course. Sociological understanding is therefore not a distancing from action. It becomes a way to make the action more mindful of relationships, power, and consequences.
Concept Overview
Role: Expectations associated with a position in a specific social environment. A role is performed through interaction and therefore does not appear identical in all contexts.
Front and back regions: Goffman’s terms for the part of a situation where a performer faces an audience and, respectively, the space where the performance can be prepared, adjusted, or concluded.
Generalized Other: Mead’s concept of more general social expectations that a person learns to adopt and use in evaluating their own actions.
Social identity: The aspect of self-understanding associated with membership in social groups and the significance that membership carries.
Relationality: A perspective in which people, actions, and characteristics are understood through their connections and mutual dependencies.
Embedded autonomy: ABT’s working hypothesis regarding the scope for action that is supported by relationships, resources, and institutions, rather than independence from all social factors.
Power: The ability to influence conditions, resources, decisions, and the prevailing definition of a situation.
Stigma: A power-dependent process in which labels and stereotypes are linked to exclusion, loss of status, and discrimination.
Intersectionality: An analysis of how power structures, rules, and social conditions intersect and together shape a particular situation.
Disconsensus: The author’s ABT term for a challenging balancing act between necessary conflict and necessary cooperation.
Identity technology: A social way of creating and assessing identity. The chapter discusses sincerity, authenticity, and profilicity.
Profilicity: Identity work in which a recognizable profile is built and valued through audience feedback.
Genuine pretense: The author’s ABT concept that identity performances can be meaningful and, at the same time, consciously constructed. The concept is not a validated treatment.
Sociological biography: A life story that connects personal experiences with relationships, institutions, and historical changes.
Complexity: The characteristic whereby a process is shaped by multiple interconnected parts, levels, feedback loops, and changes over time.
Micro-, meso-, and macro-levels: Analytical levels for individuals and situations, relationships and organizations, as well as institutions and social structure.
Simplexity: The author’s ABT term for preserving necessary complexity while making an issue or action manageable.
Practical wisdom, phronesis: Situation-specific judgment regarding values, power, consequences, and what should reasonably be done.
Reflexivity: People’s reflections on their projects in relation to the social conditions that enable and limit them.
Praxis: In Freire’s view, a combination of reflection and action in dialogue with others, aimed at understanding and changing the world.
Mechanism: The intermediary through which an action, rule, or resource contributes to a specific outcome.
Reversible trial: A low-risk experiment that can be interrupted or reversed and is used to obtain feedback.
References
Archer, Margaret S. 2007. Making Our Way through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berglund, Anders. 2026. The Mediocre Society and Aristotelian Balance Theory. Cited in the main manuscript as the theoretical basis for ABT.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989(1):139–167.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. *Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freire, Paulo. 2000. *Pedagogy of the Oppressed*. 30th anniversary ed. New York: Continuum.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. *The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life*. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Haslam, Catherine, Tegan Cruwys, S. Alexander Haslam, Genevieve Dingle, and Jolanda Jetten. 2019. “Groups 4 Health: Evidence That a Social-Identity Intervention That Builds and Strengthens Social Group Membership Improves Mental Health.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 87(9):787–801. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000427
Kahan, Dan M., Asheley Landrum, Katie Carpenter, Laura Helft, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 2017. “Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing.” Political Psychology 38(S1):179–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12396
Link, Bruce G., and Jo C. Phelan. 2001. “Conceptualizing Stigma.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363
Mead, George Herbert. 1934. *Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moeller, Hans-Georg and Paul J. D’Ambrosio. 2021. You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. “Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems.” American Economic Review 100(3):641–672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641
Sennett, Richard. 2012. Together: The Rituals, Pleasures, and Politics of Cooperation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wright, Erik Olin. 2010. Envisioning Real Utopias. London: Verso.