Operational closure
From Geography
m (9 revisions) |
JikkeVanTHof (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | Operational closure is a term that refers to systems. According to Maturana and Varela a system is operationally closed when its operators are not instructed by its environment, but determined by its own structure and organization (Maturana & Varela, 1980). A closed system as such can in fact be | + | Operational closure is a term that refers to systems. According to [[Humberto Maturana]] and [[Francisco Varela]] a system is operationally closed when its operators are not instructed by its environment, but determined by its own structure and organization (Maturana & Varela, 1980). A closed system as such can in fact be ̎disturbed ̎ by its environment by triggering cognitive acts, which means that it cannot be conceived as pre-existing information, but its environment is unable to enforce the system to take a certain course of action. The operational part of the term refers to “component actions, which are determined by component role and nature, and by their reciprocal interconnection” (Geyer & van der Zouwen 2001, p. 128). The closure part of the term refers to “the relationship between system and environment” (ibid. p. 128). |
| - | Autopoietic systems are often referred to as operationally closed systems. According to Luhmann social | + | [[Autopoietic]] systems ([[Autopoiesis]]) are often referred to as operationally closed systems. According to [[Niklas Luhmann]] [[social system]]s are autopoietic systems which are operationally closed. He claims that the operational closure for any system is necessary to be able to operate itself, and that therefore all autopoietic systems are self-referential (s[[elf reference]]). (Noe & Alroe 2002, p. 10) |
“Like every social system the family is a closed system. The notion of closure is, thereby, related to the operational process, i.e. for a family to exist as a family it is necessary to draw a boundary. This is executed by the family itself – the social system family is a so-called autopoietic system” (Koch 2005, p.6). | “Like every social system the family is a closed system. The notion of closure is, thereby, related to the operational process, i.e. for a family to exist as a family it is necessary to draw a boundary. This is executed by the family itself – the social system family is a so-called autopoietic system” (Koch 2005, p.6). | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
'''References:''' | '''References:''' | ||
| - | Morss, J.R., Stephenson, N., Van Rappard, H. (2001). Theoretical issues in psychology. Kluwer Academic, Norwell. | + | -Morss, J.R., Stephenson, N., Van Rappard, H. (2001). Theoretical issues in psychology. Kluwer Academic, Norwell. |
| - | Geyer, J.F., Van der Zouwen, J. (2001). Sociocybernetics: complexity, autopoiesis, and observation of social systems. Greenwood Publishing group inc., Santa Barbara. | + | -Geyer, J.F., Van der Zouwen, J. (2001). Sociocybernetics: complexity, autopoiesis, and observation of social systems. Greenwood Publishing group inc., Santa Barbara. |
| - | Noe, E., Alroe, H.F. (2002). FARM ENTERPRISES AS SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEMS: A NEW TRANSDISCIPLINARY FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING FARM ENTERPRISES?, International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food. | + | -Noe, E., Alroe, H.F. (2002). FARM ENTERPRISES AS SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEMS: A NEW TRANSDISCIPLINARY FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING FARM ENTERPRISES?, International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food. |
| - | 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. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Division of Geography, Seminar on Social Geography, University of | + | -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. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Division of Geography, Seminar on Social Geography, University of |
Munich. | Munich. | ||
| - | Published by Ivar le Loux (s4092031) & Jorg Schröder (s4083245) | + | '''Contributors''' |
| + | |||
| + | -''Published by'' Ivar le Loux (s4092031) & Jorg Schröder (s4083245) | ||
| + | |||
| + | -''Links added by'' --[[User:JikkeVanTHof|JikkeVanTHof]] 15:23, 18 October 2011 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 13:23, 18 October 2011
Operational closure is a term that refers to systems. According to Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela a system is operationally closed when its operators are not instructed by its environment, but determined by its own structure and organization (Maturana & Varela, 1980). A closed system as such can in fact be ̎disturbed ̎ by its environment by triggering cognitive acts, which means that it cannot be conceived as pre-existing information, but its environment is unable to enforce the system to take a certain course of action. The operational part of the term refers to “component actions, which are determined by component role and nature, and by their reciprocal interconnection” (Geyer & van der Zouwen 2001, p. 128). The closure part of the term refers to “the relationship between system and environment” (ibid. p. 128).
Autopoietic systems (Autopoiesis) are often referred to as operationally closed systems. According to Niklas Luhmann social systems are autopoietic systems which are operationally closed. He claims that the operational closure for any system is necessary to be able to operate itself, and that therefore all autopoietic systems are self-referential (self reference). (Noe & Alroe 2002, p. 10)
“Like every social system the family is a closed system. The notion of closure is, thereby, related to the operational process, i.e. for a family to exist as a family it is necessary to draw a boundary. This is executed by the family itself – the social system family is a so-called autopoietic system” (Koch 2005, p.6).
References:
-Morss, J.R., Stephenson, N., Van Rappard, H. (2001). Theoretical issues in psychology. Kluwer Academic, Norwell.
-Geyer, J.F., Van der Zouwen, J. (2001). Sociocybernetics: complexity, autopoiesis, and observation of social systems. Greenwood Publishing group inc., Santa Barbara.
-Noe, E., Alroe, H.F. (2002). FARM ENTERPRISES AS SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEMS: A NEW TRANSDISCIPLINARY FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING FARM ENTERPRISES?, International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food.
-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. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Division of Geography, Seminar on Social Geography, University of Munich.
Contributors
-Published by Ivar le Loux (s4092031) & Jorg Schröder (s4083245)
-Links added by --JikkeVanTHof 15:23, 18 October 2011 (CEST)
