Why do you think, from your very personal involvement with cultural thinking, that a topological approach can help understand contemporary cultural dynamics? As a physicist, I have been studying the dynamics of financial markets using tools coming from statistical physics, out of equilibrium systems, collective phenomena, stochastic methods and complexity theory. As complexity theory asserts, the study of a (social) atom isolated or a couple of those atoms would tell us very little about the (cultural) dynamics of the whole community. The study of the structure of relations between these agents, that is: topology, deserves further attention. The type of interactions, let's say electricity or gravitation, is less important that the topology of the system. This approach lets us put on the same level the Internet, ecosystems, language, among many other living systems, since they all appear to have a very similar topology. The similarities are present, although the mechanics or forces of the interactions of each system have nothing to do with each other.
Can you explain a little what do you expect from this project? I expect to learn a lot from other disciplines. Although we could have been studying the same objects, my experience tells me that my interests, worries and objectives may differ very much from those participants coming from other fields like Social Science, Artificial Intelligence or Economics. Finding common points of interest certainly will enrich my own approach and provide a more complete landscape of culture dynamics. If we talk about new topics, I also expect to know more of emergence and dynamics of language. I find this field very attractive.
Which cross disciplinary combinations do you expect to profit particularly from the topological approach? There are many possibilities. My favorite exchange would be one with social scientists, neuroscientists (or researchers of robotics) and with psychologists. I want to learn more about their approach to cultural dynamics, thus avoiding oversimplifications and misunderstandings that physicists too often create when tackling these systems. On the other hand, I believe that a physicist's point of view can also refresh other participants' perspective. Perhaps the biggest obstacle for us will be the use of very different languages and tools. This will ask us to put up an extra effort to really understand each other.
If change is one main feature of culture today, why is this approach helpful in conceptualizing or understanding cultural change? The knowledge of how topology describes the relationship between the participants in a community will let us detect the mechanisms that generate changes in culture. We will observe which relations are most important. It is also true, however, that the structure is in permanent mutation; but the geometric and statistical magnitudes of that topology might presumably remain constant over time.
Can everything in culture really be measured in numbers? Certainly not. But numbers are the only way to confront in a quantitative manner different theories or different observations.
One idea of the approach is that it avoids normative judgements. Is that not risky, or might it lead to a "neutral" and ultimately empty understanding of culture? I do not think so. It is difficult or even impossible to be "neutral", but mathematical tools for studying certain phenomena can help us being more objective. As mentioned before, we will thus be able to test theories and hypotheses by confronting them with empirical observations. If this is possible, then conclusions are far from useless for understanding the phenomena.
 
CV: Josep Perelló was born in Tàrrega, Spain, the 1974. He holds a Professor Lector position (Tenure) at the Departament de Física Fonamental of the Universitat de Barcelona. Josep graduated in Physics in 1996 and did his Ph.D. in 2001 on Correlated Stochastic Dynamics in Financial Markets. He is also interested in the relation between Science and Arts. Recently, he published "Teoria de l'striptease aleatori".