"Joint-stock companies could be similarly flexible. "The absence of close control by the British crown in the early stages of colonization," Elliott points out, left considerable latitude for the evolution of those forms of government that seemed most appropriate to the people actively involved in the process of overseas enterprise and settlement--the financial backers of the enterprise and the colonists themselves--as long as they operated within the framework of their royal charter. In contrast to Spain's "new world" colonies--and to the territories that France, more recently, had claimed (but barely settled) along the banks of the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio and Mississippi rivers--British America "was a society whose political and administrative institutions were more likely to evolve from below than to be imposed from above." 10 That made it a hodgepodge, but also a complex adaptive system. Such systems thrive, theorists tell us, from the need to respond frequently--but not too frequently--to the unforeseen. Controlled environments encourage complacency, making it hard to cope when controls break down, as they sooner or later must. Constant disruptions, however, prevent recuperation: nothing's ever healthy. There's a balance, then, between integrative and disintegrative processes in the natural world--an edge of chaos, so to speak--where adaptation, especially self-organization, tends to occur. 11 New political worlds work similarly."