Autopoiesis

From Geography

Latest revision as of 08:42, 24 October 2012

The biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela first introduced the term ‘autopoiesis’. They did that in an attempt to define the difference between living entities and other entities and found that the distinct feature of living entities is that they are autopoietic, which means that they can produce and reproduce themselves (Arnoldi, 2001, p. 4; Gren & Zierhofer, 2003, p. 616). Niklas Luhmann used this concept in the context of social systems and linked it also to another concept: self-reference (Arnoldi, 2001, p. 4; Bailey, 1997). The concept of ‘autopoiesis’ enabled Luhmann to express meaning, interpretation and communication in terms of systems theory (Gren & Zierhofer, 2003, p. 616). Luhmann gives the following definition of the word autopoiesis:

“[it] refers to systems that reproduce all of the elementary components out of which they arise by means of a network of these elements themselves and in this way distinguish themselves from an environment, whether this takes the form of life, consciousness or (in the case of social systems) communication. Autopoiesis is the mode of reproduction of these systems.” (Luhmann, in: Bailey, 1997)

Luhmann was inspired by the logic of Spencer-Brown, which states that the foundation of any observation or meaningful experience is the drawing of a distinction (Possibility of distinction) between ‘this’ and ‘the other’ (Arnoldi, 2001, p. 4). The distinction-drawing as stated in the theory of Spencer-Brown is the basis through which meaning is combined with self-reference and autopoiesis.The distinction will lead to meaning and a possibility will become the centre of attention. Luhmann says that this distinction-drawing is not only an event or something that the system does, but also something through which the system itself is constituted (Arnoldi, 2001, p. 5). “The most striking feature of autopoietic systems is their ability to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and establish boundaries that distinguish them from their environment.” (Gren & Zierhofer, 2003, p. 616). So by drawing distinctions, the system is autopoietic. So “[…] the ‘autopoietic event’ for meaning-processing systems is, for Luhmann, the act of drawing a distinction.” (Arnoldi, 2001, p. 5). Koch (2005) links Luhmann’s theory to space in the autopoietic spatial systems approach: “A spatial system is an autopoietic, self-referential system that constitutes itself by being different from an environment. The constitution is based on congruency. Its elements are communications.” (Koch, 2005, p. 11)

So: “Systems that are able to reproduce themselves by observing themselves are autopoietic systems.” (Gren & Zierhofer, 2003, p. 616). Luhmann distinguishes four kinds of systems which are autopoietic: machines, organisms, psychic systems and social systems. These systems are autonomous, they exist only as an environment for each other. All other systems are called allopoietic (Gren & Zierhofer, 2003, p. 616). We have to keep in mind that autopic operation is temporal, but the next operation can always draw on, or proceed based on, operations that took place earlier (Arnoldi, 2002).

The Observer

For Luhmann this drawing of a distinction is not only an event, immanent in the system, through which the world becomes observable (Arnoldi, 2002). So it is not something that a system does. It is also the event through which the system itself is constituted (autopoiesis) (Luhmann, 1996). So the observer play a important role for Luhmann. Luhmann makes a distinction between two observers. The Ego, or Egos is the conscious system. The other is the social system. Social systems observe via communication, while conscious systems oberserve via cognition (Arnoldi, 2002). In Luhmann perspective the system (the observer) is, its own orm, its own distinction.

References

Arnoldi, J. (2002). Niklas Luhman. An Intorduction. In: Theory, Culture & Society. Vol. 18, No. 1, pp 1355-1372

Bailey, K.D. (1997). The Autopoiesis of Social Systems: Assessing Luhmann's Theory of Self-Reference. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, march-april 1997. URL: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7349/is_2_14/ai_n32004129/

Gren, M. & Zierhofer, W. (2003). The unity of difference: a critical appraisal of Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems in the context of corporeality and spatiality. In: Environment and Planning A. vol. 35, pp 615-630.

Koch, A. (2005). Autopoietic spatial systems: the significance of actor network theory and system theory for the development of a system theoretical approach of space. In: Social Geography. Vol. 1, pp 5-14.

Luhmann N. (1996). Die Realität der Massenmedien. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Contributors

Improved by User:BoudewijnIdema, 17 October 2011, 20:32 (UTC)

Links added by Aafke Brus --AafkeBrus 16:29, 31 October 2011 (CET)

Edited by HuubVanDerZwaluw 16:33, 22 October 2012 (CEST)

Edited by Pieter van Luijk 22 October 2012