EDITORIAL

Putting a Spotlight on Metaphors and Analogies in Industrial Ecology

John Ehrenfeld

his issue of the Journal of Industrial Ecology respects they will probably agree in othcontains an article by Jonah Spiegelman ers 2 a : resemblance in some particulars that builds on what is variously labeled the ecobetween things otherwise unlike: SIMIlogical metaphor or the biological analogy LARITY b : comparison based on such that underlies industrial ecology. A few more arresemblance 3 : correspondence between ticles raising related issues are in the pipeline, to the members of pairs or sets of linguistic be published in upcoming issues of this journal. forms that serves as a basis for the creaSpiegelmans article is important in two dimention of another form 4 : correspondence sions. First, it speaks of moving beyond the cenin function between anatomical parts of tral metaphor and then, invoking modern comdifferent structure and origincompare plex systems theory, makes some specic HOMOLOGY. suggestions about how to extend the mainstream simile : a gure of speech analytic framework of industrial ecology. I believe he A central research objec- comparing two unlike glosses over the difference be- tive of industrial ecology things that is often introduced by like or as (as in tween metaphor and analogy. must be to establish the cheeks like roses)compare Similarly, in a recent article also appearing in the Journal of useful limits of this [ecosys- METAPHOR Industrial Ecology, Ralf Isen- tem] metaphor. metaphor 1 : a gure of mann uses the terms roughly speech in which a word or phrase literinterchangeably. This editorial suggests that ally denoting one kind of object or idea these two terms, metaphor and analogy, are is used in place of another to suggest a fundamentally different and that it is very imlikeness or analogy between them (as in portant to maintain the distinction in our work. drowning in money); broadly : gurative I hope to provide a morsel of clarity in the meat languagecompare SIMILE 2 : an obof this editorial.1 ject, activity, or idea treated as a metaBut before I move into the entre e, here is a phor : SYMBOL bit of appetizer. Let us look at three words that often get confused: analogy, simile, and metaphor These concepts are often confused in general (all denitions are from the Merriam-Webster On- and particularly in writings on industrial ecology. line Dictionary). Analogy is a practical notion that compares two cases and suggests an alternative way of addressanalogy 1 : inference that if two or more ing the situation facing an actor in the rst case, things agree with one another in some based on the presumption that the same rules apply as in the second case. Analogy is a kind of Copyright 2003 by the Massachusetts Institute of map and is useful for solving normal problems by Technology and Yale University transforming the situation confronting the actor Volume 7, Number 1 to another, familiar scene.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/jie Journal of Industrial Ecology 1

EDITORIAL

Simile or metaphor is a gure of speech that is suggestive and transformative. It is not a map as is an analogy. It enables a problem solver or artist to escape from the rules that constrain routine action, that is, acts that take place within established cognitive and cultural beliefs and norms. In contrast to the third denition for analogy, metaphor does not assume the often erroneous logic that if things are alike in some sense, they are alike in others. As noted, metaphors are only suggestive. Analogies are often used prescriptively and can lead to false conclusions and mistakes in practice by assuming that because one thing follows another, it must be because of the prior act (post hoc, ergo propter hoc), an ancient bugaboo of logicians. Thinking of industrial systems as ecological systems in metaphorical terms may hatch learning and creative acts without establishing that the two systems are analogous, that is, following the same rules. For example, one can invoke the notion of interconnectedness, closed loops, community, local sufciency, or diversity as qualitative (metaphorical) similarities without claiming that materials and energy ow through industrial networks according to the same rules as ecosystems. It may be that there are indeed analogies between the two, but these need to be established through scientic observation. A metaphor is never wrong or incorrect; it is only useful or not. An analogy may be objectively false. Now, let me step off the diving board and plunge into deep waters by suggesting that learning, innovation, paradigm change, thinking out of the box, and so on, take place, rst, by grabbing onto a metaphor that dissolves the problems that have stymied action. Then, if the actor is comfortable in the metaphor, she or he begins to look for rules that allow analysis, design, and practical action. If these rules come from the source of the metaphor, we say that learning by analogy has occurred. But analogy is not necessary for the second step; rules can be invented by independent observation and deduction. Anytime, however, that theory is used to create new rules, analogy is out on the playing eld. Industrial ecology began as a biological metaphor. Robert Ayres and his colleagues used the term industrial metabolism in the book with the same title to suggest that industrial systems were like organisms processing energy and ma2 Journal of Industrial Ecology

terials. In other writings, Ayres and his colleagues used the metaphor referring to ecosystems. This use of metaphor spawned the development of several types of energy and material accounting methodologies and raised normative hopes for a way to change the wasteful state of industrial development. The plot thickened when Bob Frosch and Nick Gallopoulos pointed out in their seminal article in Scientic American, Strategies for Manufacturing, that the metabolism of biological ecosystems consisted largely of closed loops, quite different from our predominantly oncethrough economies. The jump from this observation to possibilities for more sustainable industrial economies was so clear and powerful that the article caught the attention of powerful interests in the United States and started industrial ecology on the road to its present state of development. But the jury is still out on the generality of this picture. A central research objective of industrial ecology must be to establish the useful limits of this metaphor. The early use of the ecosystem metaphor can be traced to classical models of ecosystem behavior and notions such as food webs, homeostasis, diversity, or succession. Spiegelman suggests that newer theories offer additional ways to expand the analogical power of the ecological metaphor, drawing from others works that argue that ecosystems are thermodynamically interesting as forms of quasi-stable (otherwise called steady state) systems operating far from equilibrium. Based on concepts of the Prigogine school of thermodynamics, he points out that, in closed steady state systems, structure must evolve in order to maintain gradients, that is, spatial differences of substances or energy potential. Without such structures, the system would eventually move to a state of uniform disorder corresponding to its entropy maximum. In open systems, such as industrial systems, materials and energy cross the boundaries and support the structures maintaining order. Spiegelman also points to a related concept that views steady state natural systems as a form of self-organizing complex systems. Life itself is the product of such a process, creating structure out of the abiotic primordial sea. Complex system theory leads to the possibility that observed quasi-stable systems can change from one state to another in unpredictable ways, or ip in the

EDITORIAL

vernacular. The changes that ensue are not reversible, as linear systems theory would allow. Little is known about the conditions that trigger such changes or where the ipped state will end up. This theory offers another model as an alternative to classical ecosystem theory to explain the development of community and the highly interconnected character of ecosystems. Spiegelman is speaking in analogical, not metaphorical, terms. The thrust of his article and that of the literature on which he draws is that the so-called self-organizing, holarchic, open (SOHO) model is the correct one to explain natural systems and, by analogy, the correct one for complex human economies.2 The implications for industrial ecology are twofold. On the objective side, this model opens up new areas for research and thinking. For example, are standard economic models based on general equilibrium theory appropriate for quasi-stable systems? One may argue that these standard economic models spring from a self-organizing framework, the invisible hand of Adam Smith, but SOHO theory would lead to a different kind of end state: steady state, not equilibrium. The invocation of these systems analogies points to a subtle shift from the organism as referent for metabolism to the ecosystem as source of the thermodynamic models and of notions such as community and interdependence. At this time, SOHO and related theories are provocative in the best sense: They get the juices owing. But they are still only theories when it comes to complex systems involving human beings; there is little or no empirical grounding as there is for natural systems. Further, an analogy from ecological systems behavior to social systems is problematic because humans are unique among species, possessing language and intentionality. We are active agents in creating the world in which we act. The structures of our world are not merely the products of an evolution according to some natural set of rules. We create the rules that drive change and permanence. Perhaps complex systems theory can be useful, but it needs to be established in a context where the rules that govern behavior change dialectically and much more rapidly than those that have governed evolution in an ecological sense. But if these new theories turn out to be valid

models for human systems, then there is a second, terribly important, consequence. The kind of behavior exhibited by SOHO systems stretches our conventional notion of science because we cannot know the outcome of processes that arise spontaneously or, more to the point in the modern world, come from processes that we humans kick off accidentally or even by design. No longer is it about what we do not know, but about what we cannot know. In an earlier article, Kay and colleagues (1999) went beyond the arguments made by Kay (2000), the article cited by Spiegelman, to claim that this fundamental uncertaintyI would call it unknowability demands a wholly different kind of science and decision-making process. Pointing out limits of the normal mode of anticipatory management, Kay points to the need for augmenting it with adaptive management in the style of Hollings (1978) or others. The challenge for our community is to plow the elds of the ecological metaphor as far as the results produce changes toward sustainability, but to never get so cocky about our successes that we forget the possibility of unforeseen and unpredictable ips into just those kinds of worlds we seek to avoid. I hope I have given you some food for thought.

Notes
1. My use of metaphors familiar to English speakers throughout the text is deliberate, to illustrate the pervasive use of metaphor in everyday language. I apologize to those whose native language is not English. For further reading about metaphor, see Lakoff and Johnson (1980). 2. For those readers interested in the theory of complex systems, see the work of J. Kay and colleagues; an extensive list of references is given in Kay (2000). For the historical ties of this analogy to industrial ecology, see the work of Ayres, for example, Ayres (1988).

References
Ayres, R. U. 1988. Self-organization in biology and economics. IIASA research report RR-88-1. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Hollings, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Ehrenfeld, Putting a Spotlight on Metaphors and Analogies in Industrial Ecology

EDITORIAL

Kay, J. J. 2000. On complexity theory, exergy, and industrial ecology: Some implications for construction ecology. In Construction ecology: Nature as the basis for green buildings, edited by C. Kibert, J. Sendzimir, and G. Bradley Guy. London: Spoon Press.

Kay, J. J., H. A. Regier, M. Boyer, and G. Francis. 1999. An ecosystem approach for sustainability: Addressing the challenge of complexity. Futures 31: 721742. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Journal of Industrial Ecology