Lessons from the Nonlinear Paradigm: Applications of the Theory of Dissipative

Structures in the Social Sciences

Author(s): L. Douglas KIEL
Source: Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 3 (September 1991), pp. 431-442
Published by: University of Texas Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42862899
Accessed: 15-10-2016 10:08 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley, University of Texas Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Social Science Quarterly

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Lessons from the Nonlinear Paradigm:
Applications of the Theory of Dissipative
Structures in the Social Sciences

L. Douglas KIEL, The University of Texas at Dallas

An emerging scientific paradigm focuses on the behavior of nonlinear systems that

reveal complex and unexpected behavior. This new intellectual model has profound
implications for modeling social systems. This paper examines the lessons learned
from the applications of one of the theories from this new paradigm to evolving
social systems. This work examines the challenges of incorporating the dynamics of
complex systems, as presented in the theory of dissipative structures, into social
science models.

The twentieth century has given rise to a new paradigm in the natural
sciences. This new paradigm, comprised of a variety of theories, is often
identified by labels such as "nonlinear dynamics," "chaos theory," or the
"sciences of complexity" (Gleick, 1987; Pagels, 1988). At the foundation of
this new paradigm is an emphasis on nonlinearity, instability, and uncer-
tainty as critical elements in the change processes of natural systems. The
emphasis of the previously dominant Newtonian paradigm on simplicity,
linearity, and certainty has been enhanced with a concern for complexity,
asymmetry, and the unexpected.
At the core of this new paradigm is the study of the dynamics of nonlinear
systems. Nonlinear systems are evidenced by dynamic relationships between
variables in which the relationship between cause and effect may not be
proportionate. Thus, in nonlinear systems seemingly minor changes or dis-
turbances may generate positive feedback, or amplifications, resulting in
wholesale structural and behavioral change. Such change may result in a
variety of possible outcomes. These outcomes may range from new states of
equilibrium to novel states of increased complexity and organization, or
even to "chaos" in which predictability and organization break down. The
instabilities that may occur in nonlinear systems thus generate considerable
uncertainty and enormous potential as to the results of system change.
The nonlinear paradigm is now spilling into the social sciences (Loye and

SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 72, Number 3, September 1991

© 1991 by the University of Texas Press

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
432 Social Science Quarterly
Eisler, 1987). The decade of the 1980s w
application of the nonlinear paradigm
For example, economists have examine
that can lead to chaotic time paths causin
tically (Baumol and Benhabib, 1989). S
linear dynamical model of superpower be
race (Saperstein and Mayer-Kress, 198
This new scientific perspective has pr
social system behavior. This is because
the nonlinear paradigm appears to inco
the enormous array of potential outcom
Yet, what have the social sciences lear
paradigm during the 1980s? The purp
examine the lessons learned from effort
new paradigm. Furthermore, this wor
understanding of the nonlinear paradigm
for social science modeling.
Rather than attempting to detail all o
paradigm, this paper focuses on one theo
applications to social systems behavior. T
structures, is attributed to the work of
(cf. Prigogine and Stengers, 1984). This t
tion in the social sciences (Jantsch, 19
1982). Initial applications of this theor
in the scholarly literature during the
of urban spatial evolution (Allen and S
the 1980s applications of the theory o
areas ranging from organizational c
Smith, 1986) to political revolutions (
Of particular interest to the social scien
nonlinearity, random events, and unpred
provide evolving systems an enormity
gine's theory also provides a thermody
attraction and usage play an essential r
evolution of systems. It is this aspect of
that distinguishes it from other theo
While these other theories are funda
theory incorporates both thermodynami
the nonlinear paradigm. The comprehens
led some social scientists to see this th
standing and simulating the evolution
len, 1988).
The body of this paper is comprised
ments of Prigogine's theory of dissipativ

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Theory of Dissipative Structures in the Social Sciences 433
which affords a view of the dynamics of nonlinear systems. Then the appli-
cation of the theory of dissipative structures to urban spatial evolution is
briefly detailed so as to indicate how this theory has been applied to struc-
tural and behavioral change in a social system. Finally, lessons learned from
research utilizing this theory are detailed, and their implications for social
systems modeling are discussed.

The Elements of the Theory of Dissipative Structures

Prigogine's discoveries were precipitated by his work with the chemistry

of open systems (Prigogine and Nicolis, 1977). These open systems, referred
to as dissipative structures, import high levels of energy from their environ-
ments. The entropy created from energy usage, however, is dissipated into
the external environment. The capacity of dissipative structures to export
the disorganization of entropy into their environments allows these systems
to maintain the integrity of their structure and thus avoid the degeneration
of entropy.
Dissipative structures consist of a variety of subsystems interacting in a
nonlinear fashion. Such nonlinearity, in which the relationships between
components are unstable, creates the potential for relatively small, or minor,
events to have explosive and systemwide effects. Furthermore, dissipative
structures are continually subjected to random "fluctuations," or distur-
bances, both from the external environment and from existing subsystems.
These "nonaverage" events probe the stability of the existing structure. Dur-
ing some time periods dissipative structures remain relatively stable; how-
ever, during other periods a random fluctuation may amplify existing non-
linear interactions and drive the structure to a state of extreme instability.
During this state of instability the structure may reach a critical point,
referred to as a "bifurcation point" (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984: 160), at
which the symmetry of the existing structure breaks down. Once the de-
struction of the preexisting structure occurs,
it is inherently impossible to determine in advance which direction change will
take: whether the system will disintegrate into "chaos" or leap to a new more
differentiated, higher level of order or organization. (Prigogine and Stengers,
1984:xv)

A "leap" to a new, higher level of order represents the creation of a new

dissipative structure. The preexisting nonlinearities that initiated the struc-
tural shift, however, also serve to alter the relative importance of system
parts following a symmetry break. This new structural symmetry thus gen-
erates novel patterns of interaction in the new dissipative structure. Of par-
ticular interest, however is the fact that it is impossible to predict the evo-
lutionary pathway, or branch, the system will follow at a bifurcation point.
Thus, it is also impossible to predict the specific nature of the resulting new
configuration.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
434 Social Science Quarterly
For Prigogine the evolution of a system
and determinism. While the history of a s
element of chance plays an essential ro
outcome. The elements of chance and d
matically via nonlinear differential equa
The iterations of the resulting equation
erating the potential for amplifying flu
structural and behavioral arrangements.
Prigogine believes his theory has relev
instance, he has written that "the ideas of
into the social sciences" (Prigogine and
contended that the nonlinear behavior o
also apparent in social systems:
Nonlinearities clearly abound in social phe
an automobile with fins, or a lifestyle can
population. (Prigogine and Allen, 1982:7)

Dissipative Structure Theory and Models

The most fully developed models with

theory of dissipative structures are in t
and Sanglier, 1981; Allen, 1982a, 1982b;
Urban geographers, using the dissipative st
nonlinearity in models to examine the s
ban areas are seen as nonlinear and dissi
activity and the generation of supply an
and economic energy (capital and busines
and growth.
These models attempt to incorporate b
interactions and behaviors of a variety o
variables include those such as populati
transportational linkages, and business
interaction of these variables thus drive
of the urban area.
The indeterminism in the resulting spa
the use of nonlinear differential equations
mation of each iteration of the equation
generates a fluid and continuous model o
Allen and his colleagues (Allen et al., 198
model in which a dynamic probability
fluctuation. With this approach a much
to the equation as potential sources of fl
assumption that an average value may re
behaviors and outcomes. These mathema

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Theory of Dissipative Structures in the Social Sciences 435
able aspect of the "new" structure. The resulting structure is thus contingent
upon which fluctuation drives the structure through an instability phase to
a new symmetry.
The results of these models are graphical representations of the geo-
graphic distribution of variables such as residential population, industrial
sites, and areas of heavy employment (Allen et al., 1985; Engelen, 1988).
The urban spatial structure is thus seen as a dynamic system contingent
upon the nonlinear interplay among a variety of variables relevant to urban
geography and economics.
Since nonlinear systems may evidence a sensitivity to their initial condi-
tions, small changes in initial values can have significant effects. A small
divergence in initial conditions between two apparently similar urban re-
gions can lead to considerable structural divergence. Each execution of the
model thus produces a unique spatial distribution of the urban structure. It
is this interaction of chance and determinism over time that results in a
multitude of possible outcomes.

Lessons from the Nonlinear Paradigm

Undoubtedly, several aspects of the theory of dissipative structures pos-

sess considerable intuitive appeal for the social scientist. The concept of
nonlinearity and the potential behaviors generated by nonlinear systems ap-
pear central to this appeal. For social systems do appear as nonlinear sys-
tems in which the relationships between variables are unstable and dynamic.
The remainder of this paper examines the lessons learned from efforts to
incorporate nonlinearity and thermodynamic principles, using the theory of
dissipative structures, in social science models. The implications of these
lessons for social science modeling are also discussed.

The Importance of Minor and Random Events in Nonlinear Systems. Tra-

ditionally, social science research and model building focuses on "normal"
or average behavior of relevant systems. Random fluctuations or "nonaver-
age" events are generally considered anomalous and are often deleted from
the set of "relevant" data. Such a focus of course is intended to afford a
generalized picture of the phenomenon examined. Average behavior also is
seen as important since it serves as a source of system stability that rein-
forces existing structural arrangements.
Yet, investigations of nonlinear systems, as typified by the theory of dis-
sipative structures, reveal that it is nonaverage behavior that often serves as
an impetus for the amplification of nonlinearities and the potential for dra-
matic change. Seemingly minor changes can have unpredictable and massive
effects in nonlinear systems. This understanding emphasizes the importance
of errors in such systems. Errors that may initially appear minor may drive
nonlinear systems to unexpected and unwelcome outcomes.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
436 Social Science Quarterly
If "nonaverage" fluctuations can gener
rangements and patterns of behavior, pe
tistical "outliers" may enhance knowled
inclusion of nonaverage or random eve
havior may also allow the expression of
expedite change. The potential importan
the theory of dissipative structures is d
application of this theory to political r
Prigogine's theory as allowing for "indi
and unpredictable role in the evolutiona
through creative actions at critical time
Historical experience reveals that often
vidual, the random fluctuation, who app
in social system organization. It appears
the "average" mass to new structural arran
modes or thought. A greater considera
data may afford insight into their potenti
behavioral change. Incorporating nonline
behavior may thus afford individual act
of social systems.

Dynamic Nonlinear Models and the Lim

ture of linear and deterministic models re
best a "snapshot" of reality with, most lik
determinism generally embedded in tra
namics that may arise over time. This can
on assumptions of static relationships be
The potential for episodes of "chaos" in n
dictable nature of the eventual result f
regarding the value of all forecasting ef
Benhabib, 1989). Forecasting suggests a r
and system status that seems to belie the u
systems.
This understanding thus suggests a rethin
ing. Research in nonlinear dynamics reveal
onset of chaos in nonlinear systems (Ba
a more prudent approach to forecasting
"symmetry-breaking" events when existin
ing extreme uncertainty as to structura
than attempting to identify specific out
in nonlinear systems, a more appropriate f
the onset of structural disintegration (L

The Importance of Instability in Nonli

evolving nonlinear systems, such as dis
break with existing configurations suggest

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Theory of Dissip ative Structures in the Social Sciences 437
instances of instability in social systems. The social sciences, however, often
appear to savor the search for mechanisms of system stability and continu-
ity. This search for stability does serve the modern behavioral concern for
the identification of patterns that expedite conventional forecasting.
A search for pattern in the processes of social system evolution however
might be greatly enhanced via a focus on instances of instability when ex-
isting patterns of interaction are poised for symmetry-breaking events. A
cursory glance at human history suggests that, in many cases, the most sig-
nificant events were those when existing symmetries dissolved and were re-
placed by new patterns of interaction and modes of organization.
Such symmetry-breaking events, however, occur with relative infre-
quency. Thus social scientists appear to have accepted a compromise with a
concentration on stability, and thus testability, that may neglect the signifi-
cance of symmetry-breaking events. However, a complete view of nonlinear
systems will require careful consideration of both the dynamics of instability
and its relationship to preexisting sources of stability.

Nonlinear Systems and the Limits of Generalization. Nonlinearity affords

neither the precision nor the aura of certainty that linear models provide.
Nonlinear models, however, incorporate an uncertainty as to outcomes that
accommodates the tenuous nature of prediction and forecasting in the social
realm. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of systems as portrayed in the
theory of dissipative structures reinforces the caution that must follow
theory building in the social sciences. For as Forrester (1987) noted, when
contending with nonlinearity, results are less generalizable, but more rele-
vant. Sweeping theories are replaced by bounded classes of rules of thumb"
(p. 108).
The unique character of nonlinear systems necessitates the creation of a
unique "model" for each system under study. Traditional theory assumes a
homogenized environment in which systems of the same type follow similar
evolutionary patterns. Nonlinear systems, however, are best understood by
their heterogeneity. Extrapolation from one nonlinear system to a similar
system is generally not sensible since the components of stability and in-
stability may vary greatly between systems.
Furthermore, the sensitivity of nonlinear systems to their initial condi-
tions explains the difficulties in transferring policy "successes." Rather than
development of a few essential models, a thorough understanding may re-
quire a plethora of models, situations, and results before any "rules of
thumb" can be generated.

The Limits of Control in Nonlinear Systems . Successful modeling that

incorporates nonlinearity, such as that represented in the theory of dissipa-
tive structures, reinforces an understanding of the limits of "rational" con-
trol over evolving social systems. This understanding has profound impor-
tance for social policy. The traditional "engineering" view of public policy
interventions intended to produce desired outcomes appears to better rep-

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
438 Social Science Quarterly
resent an abstract Newtonian vision, rat
experience with such efforts. In short, the
ship between many variables in social sy
can result in an enormity of unexpected ou
In a nonlinear system the most well-in
tion may fail miserably due to the capacity
ter changes to initiate widespread system
may not be proportionate, the vagaries o
consideration in policy analysis and polic
The unique nature of individual system
short their potential divergent sensitivity
that efforts at centralized control may
large-scale systems. This recognition als
political theory concerning the importan
vidual actors or the design of social struct
At the same time, the uncertainty eviden
afford the comfort of previous notions
some "invisible hand." In an uncertain w
and determinism does not guarantee pos
Rethinking the Character of Social Sci
learned from social scientific research wit
nonlinearity can be incorporated into m
evolution. Nonlinear mathematics has sh
science models with the multiplicity of
tion of complex and uncertain systems
Furthermore, mathematical tools do exi
into social systems models.
Yet, as Forrester (1987) has noted:
there has been a reluctance to give up the l
the result that models have been biased to
pense of faithfulness in representing the r

It does appear that linear models assume a

cal precision in lieu of attempting to ca
system's dynamics. However, linear mod
such as the identification of relevant an
matics of the nonlinear paradigm may n
nity to forgo the need for compromise in
capability to incorporate nonlinearity into
both greater utility and more complete co
The more fluid and dynamic view of
sented by applications of the theory of
that models are unlikely to provide "fin
be adapted to new circumstances as prom

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Theory of Dissipative Structures in the Social Sciences 439
eminence in generating structure and system behavior. Allen (1982a) de-
scribed the new challenges to modeling and prediction presented by the
dynamic perspective of the dissipative structures model in this manner:

It moves away from the idea of building very precise descriptive models of the
momentary state of a particular system towards that of exploring how interact-
ing elements of such a system may "fold" in time, and give rise to various
possible "types" corresponding to the branches of an evolutionary tree. (P. 110)

Thermodynamics and Society. Economics has been examined from the

thermodynamic perspective by scholars such as Georgescu-Roegen (1971),
and Proops (1983), using the theory of dissipative structures, has examined
the relationship between economic complexity and the energy usage of na-
tional economies. While such research is consistent with the constructs of
earlier systems theorists such as von Bertalanffy (1968) and Miller (1978),
it further suggests an increasing recognition of the similarities between natu-
ral and social systems.
Intuitively, it is apparent that the maintenance and longevity of social
systems is contingent upon energy extraction, utilization, and the capacity
to reorganize from unexpected and chaotic episodes. From this perspective
the dynamics of human organizational history, or the rise and fall of empires
and nations, can be seen as a result of energy usage, entropy, and structural
generation (Adams, 1982).
This understanding raises doubts regarding the traditional distinction in
the sciences between the natural and social realms. Surely, the strength of
this tradition will require considerably more empirical verification for most
scholars, prior to claiming more than only metaphorical similarities be-
tween human and natural forms of organization. Some scholars, however,
are seemingly convinced that human systems are simply one form of dissi-
pative structures. For example, Adams (1982:129) considered human be-
ings as the "molecules" that compose larger dissipative structures.
Thus, the nonlinear paradigm, and more specifically the theory of dissi-
pative structures, suggests a rethinking of the relevance of the natural sci-
ences to the social realm. Perhaps, even more, the theory of dissipative struc-
tures raises questions concerning the anthropocentrism of much of social
science. This understanding suggests the possibility of a "new naturalism"
in social systems study that demands a highly integrative and comprehensive
approach to modeling social systems behavior (Jantsch, 1980a, 1980b).

Conclusion

Scholars reveal considerable excitation as to the importance of research

emanating from the nonlinear paradigm. For example, Loye and Eisler
(1987) argued that research in nonlinear dynamics may help mankind avoid

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
440 Social Science Quarterly
the potential "chaos" of overpopulation,
clear war. The research "successes" by u
structure theory have also generated co
and applicability of the theory to the so
denced in this remark by Engelen (1988)

The importance of this all for the social sci

base on which to explain systems that ev
order and more complexity resulting from th
or outside the system. This observation is
the tool is. (P. 44)

Yet, the elements of the nonlinear paradi

dissipative structures, that add hope to
tionary processes in social systems also s
utilizing this model in the social science
linear mathematics to assess social system
relative lack of sophistication of nonlin
suggests only incremental advances in
Even those analysts experienced with th
aware of the difficulties of designing s
system behavior. For example, explicat
the theory of dissipative structures to
(Gemmili and Smith, 1985) are, at this poin
of efforts to mathematicize.
Questions thus arise as to the capacity
linear paradigm, as expressed in the theory
ture the scope of the complexities of socia
even the dynamics of nonlinear differenti
of uncertainties, or the "richness" of so
further contended that applications of the
the social sciences have overestimated the
metry-breaking, events and thus overestim
structural change in social systems.
Yet, while the tools of the nonlinear pa
plete description of social reality ultima
to represent an incremental step toward g
ior of complex social systems and towar
in the social sciences.
Perhaps, most importantly, the nonlinear
sipative structures demand consideration o
social sciences. The certainty previously
digm has given way to a greater understan
natural systems. The nonlinear paradigm
link between system dynamics in both t

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Theory of Dissipative Structures in the Social Sciences 441
recognition may initiate a unification of the sciences with genuine potential
for integrating the entire body of scientific knowledge as a means for greater
understanding of evolutionary processes in social systems. SSQ

REFERENCES

Adams, Richard N. 1982. "The Emergence of Hierarchical Social Structure: The Case of
Victorian England." Pp. 116-31 in William C. Schieve and Peter M. Allen, eds., S
Organization and Dissipative Structures: Applications in the Physical and Social Sciences.
tin: University of Texas Press.

Allen, Peter M. 1982a. "Evolution, Modelling, and Design in a Complex world." Environm
and Planning 9:95-111.

and Peter M. Allen, eds., Self-organization and Dissipative

Physical and Social Sciences. Austin: University of Texas Pres

Allen, Peter M., and M. Sanglier. 1978. "Dynamic Model

Social and Biological Structures 1 : 265-80.

Analysis 11 (3): 256-72.

Structures 2 : 269-78.

Planning 13 : 167-83.

Allen, Peter M., M. Sanglier, G. Engelen, and F. Boon. 1985.

Modeling of Evolving Complex Systems." Environment and

Artigiani, Robert. 1987a. "Organizing the Nation: Revolutio

pean Journal of Operational Research 30:208-11.

Model." Journal of Social and Biological Structures 10:249

Baumol, William J., and Jess Benhabib. 1989. "Chaos: Sign

nomic Applications." Journal of Economic Perspectives 3 : 7

Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. 1968. General System Theory. New

Engelen, Guy. 1988. "The Theory of Self-Organization and

tems." European Journal of Operational Research 37:42 -57.

Forrester, Jay W. 1987. "Nonlinearity in High-Order Mode

Journal of Operational Research 30: 104-9.

Gemmili, Gary, and Charles Smith. 1985. "A Dissipative S

Transformation." Human Relations 38:751-66.

Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

Gleick, James. 1987. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Viking.

Gould, Peter. 1987. "A Critique of Dissipative Structures in the Human Realm." European
Journal of Operational Research 30:211-21.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 442 Social Science Quarterly
Jantsch, Erich, ed. 1980a. The Evolutionary Visio
Biological and Sociocultural Evolution. Boulder, C

Emerging Paradigm of Evolution. New York: Pergamon.

Loye, David, and Riane Eisler. 1987. "Chaos and Transfor

brium Theory for Social Science and Society." Behaviora

Miller, James G. 1978. Living Systems. New York: McGra

Pagels, Heinz. 1988. The Dream of Reason. New York: Sim

Prigogine, Ilya, and P. M. Allen. 1982. "The Challenge of

C. Schieve and Peter M. Allen, eds., Self-Organization and
in the Physical and Social Sciences. Austin: University of T

Prigogine, Ilya, and G. Nicolis. 1977. Self-Organization

York: Wiley.

Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. 1984. Order Out o

Nature. New York: Bantam.

Proops, John L. R. 1983. "Organisation and Dissipation in Economic Systems." Journal of

Social and Biological Structures 6:353-66.

Saperstein, Alvin M., and Gottfried Mayer-Kress. 1988. "A Nonlinear Dynamical Model of
the Impact of SDI on the Arms Race." Journal of Conflict Resolution 32 : 636-71.

Schieve, William C., and Peter M. Allen, eds. 1982. Self-Organization and Dissipative Struc-
tures: Application in the Physical and Social Sciences. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Smith, Charles. 1986. "Transformation and Regeneration in Social Systems: A Dissipative

Structure Perspective." Systems Research 3 : 203- 13.

Zeleny, Milan, ed. 1980. Autopoiesis, Dissipative Structures , and Spontaneous Social Orders.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:08:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms