Autopoiesis literally means “self-reproduction,” and expresses a fundamental complementarity between structure and function. The term was originally introduced byChilean biologists Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana in the early 1970s. More precisely, the term refers to the dynamics of non-equilibrium structures; that is, organised states (sometimes also called dissipative structures) that remain stable for long periods of time despite matter and energy continually flowing through them. A vivid example of a non-equilibrium structure is the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, which is essentially a gigantic whirlpool of gases in Jupiter’s upper atmosphere. This vortex has persisted for a much longer time (on the order of centuries) than the average amount of time any one-gas molecule has spent within it.
For a general introduction see The Web of Life by Fritjof Capra [RandomHouse 1997]
A good book on Autopoiesis is Self-Producing Systems by John Mingers [Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 1994].
A good website with more explanation is THE OBSERVER WEB: Autopoiesis and Enaction at http://www.informatik.umu.se/~rwhit/AT.html
An email list on Autopoiesis exists at email@example.com. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/autopoiesis-dialognet/.
Several papers on Autopoietic theory are available at http://archonic.net.
|Look up autopoiesis inWiktionary, the free dictionary.|
Autopoiesis (from Greek αυτό (auto), meaning “self”, and ποίησις (poiesis), meaning “creation, production”) literally means “self-creation”, and expresses a fundamental dialectic between structure and function. The term was introduced in 1972 by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela:
An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.
[…] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection.
Autopoiesis was originally presented as a system description that was said to define and explain the nature of living systems. A canonical example of an autopoietic system is the biological cell. The eukaryotic cell, for example, is made of various biochemical components such as nucleic acids and proteins, and is organized into bounded structures such as the cell nucleus, various organelles, a cell membrane and cytoskeleton. These structures, based on an external flow of molecules and energy, produce the components which, in turn, continue to maintain the organized bounded structure that gives rise to these components.
An autopoietic system is to be contrasted with an allopoietic system, such as a car factory, which uses raw materials (components) to generate a car (an organized structure) which is something other than itself (the factory).
Though others have often used the term as a synonym for self-organization, Maturana himself stated he would “never use the notion of self-organization, because it cannot be the case… it is impossible. That is, if the organization of a thing changes, the thing changes.” Moreover, an autopoietic system is autonomous and operationally closed, in the sense that there are sufficient processes within it to maintain the whole. Autopoietic systems are “structurally coupled” with their medium, embedded in a dynamic of changes that can be recalled as sensory-motor coupling. This continuous dynamic is considered as a rudimentary form of knowledge orcognition and can be observed throughout life-forms.
An application of the concept to sociology can be found in Niklas Luhmann‘s Systems Theory, which was subsequently adapted by Bob Jessop in his studies of the capitalist state system. Marjatta Maula adapted the concept of autopoiesis in a business context.
Criticism of the use of the term in both its original context, as an attempt to define and explain the living, and its various expanded usages such as applying it to self-organizing systems in general, or social systems in particular, have been widespread. Critics have argued that the term fails to define or explain living systems and that, because of the extreme language of self-referentiality it uses without any external reference, it is really an attempt to give substantiation to Maturana’s radicalconstructivist or solipsistic epistemology, or what Danilo Zolo has called instead a “desolate theology.” An example is the assertion by Maturana and Varela that “what we do not see does not exist” or that reality is an invention of observers. The autopoietic model, said Rod Swenson, is “miraculously decoupled from the physical world by its progenitors […] (and thus) grounded on a solipsistic foundation that flies in the face of both common sense and scientific knowledge.”
- Systems theory
- Dissipative system
- Dynamical system
- Relational order theories
- Non-equilibrium thermodynamics
- Loschmidt’s paradox
- Robert Rosen
- ^ Maturana, Varela, 1980, p. 78
- ^ Maturana, Varela, 1980, p. 89
- ^ Maturana, H. (1987). Everything is said by an observer. In Gaia, a Way of Knowing, edited by W. Thompson, Lindisfarne Press, Great Barrington, MA, pp. 65-82, p. 71.
- ^ Fleischaker, G. (Ed.) (1992). Autopoiesis in Systems Analysis: A Debate. Int. J. General Systems, Vol. 21, No 2, pp. 131-271
- ^ Swenson, R. (1992). Autocatakinetics, Yes—Autopoiesis, No: Steps Toward a Unified Theory of Evolutionary Ordering. Int. J. General Systems, Vol. 21, 207-208
- ^ Kenny, V. and Gardner, G. (1988) The constructions of self-organizing systems. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 9, 1, 1988, pp. 1-24
- ^ Wolfe, Cary (1998). Critical environments: postmodern theory and the pragmatics of the “outside”. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 62–3. ISBN 0816630194.
- ^ Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1988). The Tree of Knowledge. New Science Library, Shambhala, Boston. p 242.
- ^ Swenson, R. (1992). Galileo, Babel, and Autopoiesis (It’s Turtles All The Way Down). Int. J. General Systems, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 267-269.
- Goosseff, Kyrill A. (2010), Autopoeisis and meaning: a biological approach to Bakhtin’s superaddressee. Journal of Organizational Change Management > Volume 23 issue 2 Abstract DOI
- Capra, Fritjof (1997). The Web of Life. Random House. ISBN 0-385-47676-0 —general introduction to the ideas behind autopoiesis
- Dyke, Charles (1988). The Evolutionary Dynamics of Complex Systems: A Study in Biosocial Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Livingston, Ira (2006). Between Science and Literature: An Introduction to Autopoetics. University of Illinois Press. —an adaptation of autopoiesis to language.
- Luhmann, Niklas (1990). Essays on Self-Reference. Columbia University Press. —Luhmann’s adaptation of autopoiesis to social systems
- Luisi, Pier L. (2003). Autopoiesis: a review and a reappraisal. Naturwissenschaften 90 49–59. —biologist view of autopoiesis
- Maturana, Humberto & Varela, Francisco ([1st edition 1973] 1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living. Robert S. Cohen and Marx W. Wartofsky (Eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 42. Dordecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co. ISBN 90-277-1015-5 (hardback), ISBN 90-277-1016-3(paper) —the main published reference on autopoiesis
- Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications.
- Maula, Marjatta (2006). Organizations as Learning Systems: Living Composition as an Enabling Infrastructure. Elsevier. ISBN 0-08-043919-5
- Mingers, John (1994). Self-Producing Systems. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. ISBN 0-306-44797-5 —a book on the autopoiesis concept in many different areas
- Robb, Fenton F. (1991) Accounting – A Virtual Autopoietic System? Systems Practice 4, (3) (215-235).
- Tabbi, Joseph (2002). Cognitive Fictions. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-3557-9 — draws on systems theory and cognitive science to introduce autopoiesis to literary studies
- Varela, Francisco J.; Maturana, Humberto R.; & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems 5187–196. —one of the original papers on the concept of autopoiesis
- Winograd, Terry and Fernando Flores (1990). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Pub. Corp. —cognitive systems perspective on autopoiesis
- The Observer Web: Autopoiesis and Enaction: a website with more explanations
- Several papers on autopoietic theory are available through archonic.net
- A mindmap-collection of links and papers visualized by Ragnar Heil
- Autopoiesis and knowledge in the organization by Aquiles Limone, Luis E. Bastias
- Poietic Generator: an autopoietic collective game