Autopoiesis

Autopoiesis refers to the continual “bringing forth” of self. It has its origins in systems theory and is closely associated with the work of the Chilean biologists Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana. In their work, the term was used to mark the essential distinction between living and nonliving systems. An autopoietic system is therefore defined as a system of interrelated components that interact to produce themselves.

The concept of autopoiesis has had significant influence well beyond the field of theoretical biology. A detailed review and appraisal of the various implications and applications of autopoiesis can be found in the work of John Mingers, who demonstrates its impact in cognitive science, artificial intelligence, family therapy, law, and sociology. Autopoiesis receives its most significant reworking and extension for the domain of the social sciences in the work of Niklas Luhmann.

Autopoietic social systems are an evolutionary achievement of modern society. For Luhmann, they were nothing more than the communication systems that enabled the thematization of particular areas of social life. For example, the legal system is an autopoietic system that protects norms by deciding if something is legal or not. Such systems are not needed for society to function as a whole, as is the case in the functionalism of Talcott Parsons. These systems are there because they perform a function. There is no other justification for their existence. In this respect, Luhmann reversed Parsons's structural functionalism. In this view, society is not an integrated whole like an organism; rather, it is composed of a plurality of interacting systems. One of the interesting features of social autopoiesis is that people are no longer said to be contained within society but, rather, they exist in its environment. They can affect society because it would not exist without them, but the manner of their effect is said to be indirect and unpredictable.

Autopoietic systems are organized around the constant reproduction of a specific code; the economy, for example, achieves its autopoiesis because it generates the need to replace money that has been used by people to purchase end products such as food and electricity. These products are used up in the process of their consumption. The economy therefore continually reproduces the need to replace such goods, and this is its form of autopoiesis.

An important property of autopoietic systems is that they are organizationally closed. This means that they cannot “see” other systems. The economy cannot, for example, “see” political power nor can it ascertain legal decisions. It can, however, be affected by these in unpredictable ways. It follows then that such systems present special problems for steering and governance.

The significance of autopoietic social systems is of particular relevance to governance because such systems are not purposive or rational. A society composed of such systems is a process of social communicative evolution where systems such as the economy and law coevolve in complex ways. It is impossible to steer such a society in the form of governance.