• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
John Mingers: Can social systems beautopoietic?
Assessing Luhmann’s social theory.
Notes
Mingers, J., 2002. Can social systems be autopoietic? Assessing Luhmanns social theory.Sociological Review 50, 278-299.Overview of the structure of the article:
Background – system theory and autopoiesis ......................................................................................................1Autopoietic theory and social theory ....................................................................................................................2 Nomic – an autopoietic game ...............................................................................................................................3Luhmann’s theory .................................................................................................................................................3Problems with autopoiesis in Luhmann’s theory .................................................................................................5
Background – system theory and autopoiesis
Pre-autopoiesis view of systems: open systems.
Problems with the open-systems approach from a social theoretical point of view:It gives primacy to the environment – the environment is seen to specify or determine thestructure of the social system, which has to adapt to it.What is the environment of social systems or a society? The physical world, or other societies?How can you demarcate a social system with a well-defined boundary?What could be the inputs and the outputs of a social system?
But in autopoietic systems theory...
i. A
continuous, circular process of self-production
: For autopoietic systems, both input andoutput are itself – while of course it requires elements from the environment and produceswaste.ii.
autonomy
, contingent on the environment (Maturana: structural coupling),iii.
Distinction between structure and organization
:Organization is abstract, structure is concrete. Structure is the actual components and their relationships. The structure “may change dramatically over time, or may by realised in manyways, so long as the organisation maintains its relations of self-production. It can be said to be
organisationally
closed but
 structurally
open.” p. 280.(BK: See also Maturana and Varela, 87, p. 47.)iv.
Structural determinism
: Changes are determined by the structure at each point in time,the environment is only a trigger for them.v. structural coupling is a mutual process, it is not like adaptation to an environmentvi. embodied cognition, which does not separate cognition and action – anti-Cartesian, non-representationalistAlso incorporates language, the observer and self-representation in a coherent manner.
 
Autopoietic theory and social theory
Why is autopoietic theory attractive to sociologists?
Based on the above, several reasons why the theory may be attractive to sociologists:i. “The distinction between organisation and structure allows for radical change anddevelopment in a system without loss of its identity. This is very common in the socialworld…” p. 281.ii. no functionalism, no external dependence, no input-output –only self-definition of systemiii. “the idea of structural determinism places the origin of change and development firmlywithin the system rather than from the environment, whilst the concept of structural couplingshows how, nevertheless, the systems and their environments can mutually shape each other”iv. fits in well with the ideas of Giddens and Bhaskar, who emphasise how structures arecontinually (re)produced and transformed through the social activities that they govern;in Luhmann: functional differentiation of sub-systemsv. fits in with the linguistic and communicative turn – Habermas, Luhmann; and therecognition of the importance of the body: Turner, Featherstone, Shilling, Shinott, Groszvi. resonates with social constructivism (c.f. Gergen)“Maturana (1988) emphasises the extent to which we ‘bring forth’ the world we experiencethrough our own linguistic distinctions.” p. 281.
Difficulties for application
“if the concept is only to be used metaphorically, as Morgan (1986) suggests, to generateinteresting insight then no great problems emerge”To go beyond metaphor raises ontological claims which are difficult to substantiateThis is already present “in autopoiesis at the physical level where a clear distinction is drawn between the observer’s descriptions and the operational autopoietic system.” p. 282.
The challenge for social systems:
i. Autopoiesis is concerned with the processes of production of the components whichconstitute the system – the components and the processes should be specifiedHumans cannot be components as they are produced by physical and biological processes.There could be non-physical but conceptual autopoietic systems“Maturana defines a unity as ‘… an entity, concrete or conceptual, defined by an operation of distinction’ (Maturana, 1975)” which opens the possibility of non-physical systems, i.e. of concepts, descriptions, rules, or communications.ii. “The autopoietic organisation is constituted in terms of temporal and spatial relations, andthe components involved must create a boundary defining the entity as a unity” – can weidentify boundaries for social systems?iii. This is an abstract theory which does not specify anything beyond processes of self- production –if it has to be modified for social systems, can it still be called autopoietic?Varela (1979) suggests organisational closure instead of processes of production.BK: We see meaning everywhere, even there where there is no meaning. Gestalt theorytradition.
 
Nomic – an autopoietic game
The game Nomic as an ideal type for assessing the possibility of autopoiesis in social systems.Invented by Peter Suber in 1990 (1982?) to show that ‘only laws can produce laws’There exist meta-laws: rules for changing the laws and meta-meta-laws, rules for changingmeta-laws. In the game there are immutable and mutable rules, though even the first may bechanged over time. The object of the game is to make changes to rules.In each turn either a mutable rule can be changed, deleted or created, or an immutable oneturned mutable, by vote upon the suggestion of the player.“It would be possible to begin playing Nomic and end up playing chess.” p. 283.It is a good example of a non-physical autopoietic system. The components are the rules[players are bracketed]: they are conceptual, but they may be represented in writing, speech or thought. It is capable of self-production of its components, the rules, which then may producefurther rules.It seems, however, that there is no boundary in the game, there are no boundary rules.“it may be that with self-producing conceptual systems it is only necessary for the system to be able to clearly demarcate inside from the outside. In this case to be able to distinguish‘genuine’ rules that apply at a particular time from ‘false’ ones that have not beenincorporated correctly, or indeed from everything else, eg. the players.” p. 284.“The players participating in a game are an example of Giddens’ social
system
, while the rulesof the game are equivalent to his social
structure
. The rules both enable and constrain theactions of the players, while the playing of the game directly reproduces and transforms thestructure (rules)” p. 284.“A question arising here is: could the same be said of any game, or only a reflexive game like Nomic? Consider chess: while the rules govern the possible moves and actions there is nofeedback from moves to rules. Nothing in the play of the game can alter the rules. However, if we consider not the formal rules of chess but the informal knowledge of tactics and strategythen the same situation does seem to apply. For a knowledgeable player moves are governed by informal (as much as formal) rules while the history of past chess games generates theinformal knowledge. Thus ordinary games have a degree of self-production within externallyfixed constraints but Nomic is radically autonomous by incorporating its constitutive ruleswithin its own domain of possible changes.” pp. 284-84
Luhmann’s theory
In many ways, Luhmann’s is a good attempt at an autopoietic social theory.Luhmann’s work up to autopoiesis is well covered by the Differentiation of Society, 1982Theory with autopoiesis: Social Systems, 1984/1995He adopts Varela’s conceptual systems, the psychic and the social system, but unlike Varela,who restricts autopoiesis to living systems, considers these autopoietic.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...