‘The Autopoeisis of Architecture Pattk Schumacher Karim Rashi's sogan “I want to change the workd* works as an ironic gesture against all odds. It entertains as a crass Contradiction ofthe al to evident impossibilty of designing a new world. Karim Rashid's sense of humor thus indicates ‘now far utopia has been left behind ‘There are two related tendencies that conspire to frustrate any straightforward utopian impulse within architecture and design’ 1. The dissolution ofthe utopian politico-cultural discourses of emancipation and social progress, as expressed in Lyotard's notorious formula of “the end of grand nartatves."2 2. The increasing autonomy and self-referential closure of the discipline of architecture, as expressed most explicitly in the influential work and writings of Peter Eisenman (Goth phenomena are aso tackled inthe contributions of Bart Lootsma and Andreas Ruby.) might seem thatthe second tendency isa direct consequence of the first: architecture withdraws into itself because no ccompeling social project exists that could inspire and cvect architectural speculation However, there is another way one could theorize the relationship between these two phenomena Differentiation and Self-Referential Closure The tendency towards architectural autonomy might be understood as a moment of an overall societal process of dierentiation, whereby social communication fragments into a series of autonomous domains - the economy, politics, the legal system, science, at, etc. - establishing sei-relerentially closed subsystems within socety. Each of these autonomous discourses contributes, nits spectic way, to the overalt social process. But this overall socal process - society ~ no longer has any control center over and above the various increasingly autonomous communication systems. The differentiated discourses establish their own sovereign independence with respect to their underlying values, performance criteria, Programs, and priorities. In this sense the various subsystems operate set-referentilly. Scieniic truth is constructed and validated within the scientitic communication process. Positive law is Continuously re-written, interpreted and applied ‘on the bass offs own legally validated procedures. The establishment of economic rationality is long since internal to ‘the economic process (capitalism). The astonishing emancipation of artis perhaps the most familar example of self- referenvally enclosed autonory. Politics can no longer control any of these subsystems of society. The poitical system is but one of the subsystems which produce society through their co-evolution. Fach subsystem follows its owa logic and conceives of society in terms of its spectc problematic, within is particular (and increasingly incommensurable) conceptual framework. Potical deesions can neither determine judicial outcomes nor can they replace economic exchanges, nor dictate scientiic concepts or artistic paradigms. In tum, scientific arguments do not force political decisions. The evolutionary advantage of separating thesediscourses, .e., of establishing “near-decomposabilty"? ofthe societal subsystems, is enormous: a huge gain in the ability to experiment with adaptations to a turbulent environment on many local fronts simultaneously, without the need to synchronize all moves, and without running the risk that failures rip too deep into the social fabric. This has to be paid for wth a certain loss of control and sense of vertigo. The society that reproduces itself via the co-evolution of autonomous subsystems fas been able to bulid up new levels of dynamic complexity that effectively exclude the reintegration of society into a single project governed by 2 single rationality. Legal rationality is neither political ror scientific rationality. And one might add here: design rationality too can neither be reduced to nor controlled by any other than its own logic. ‘Any attempt to reduce al value systems to.one -a form of regressive totalitarianism - could ony serve to blunt the operative complexity achieved by the co-evolution ofthe sef-enciosed discursive systems - with catastrophic consequences Functionally Differentiated Society This sketch ofa society as a communication process without center and without binding self-representation is based on Niklas Luhmann’s theory of “functionally differentiated society." ‘According to Luhmann this internally cfferentated system of communication works because the process of differentiation follows a functional logic, crystalzingsai-referentially closed, but structurally couple, function systems. Luhmann defines modem society - the post-modern being but its most expressed form - as a society in which functional differentiation hhas replaced stratification (feudal order) and segmentary differentiation (tbat societies) as primary mode of societal diferentiation. Stratified society stil contained the privileged postion that could guarantee central control and a unified seif-descrotion with respect to social communication: the menarch, heading the internally stratified aristocracy atthe peak Of the social pyramid. ‘The ireversible result of societal differentiation is a society without center and therefore without the unified, hegemonic seit. description that could become a vehicle of utopian se-projection. Now the hierarchy of causation between the two tendencies - the end of utopla and the increasing sefeference of discourses - seems reversed, The se-eferental closure of the differentiated subsystems of societal communication spells the end of utopia Utopia as a coherent project and blueprint, ie. as the wholesale reinvention of society integrating pots, law, economy, {and architecture, breaks up in the face of an insurmountable complexity barrie. Vitravus and Albert could stil think of themselves as participating within a unified civic discourse. Architecture and good design were inseparably bound up with the good life, just society and cosmological harmony (science) To a certain extent thisis st true, only subjectively, with respect to Le Corbusier. ‘An educated man of Albert's stature was at ease in all domains of social communication and the integration of those aspects of society, which later differentiated into autonomous subsystems, was as yet unproblematic. Society stl had an identifiable address, to which utopian speculation, with due deference, could be addressed. Poiltcal, judicial, economic 2and ideological power was stil concentrated at the top of the stratified order. Therefore itis no empty politeness that Albert's "De re aedficatoria” is dedicated to his powerful patron Lorenzo de’ Medio. “Today society has no address, no center and na opportunity to generate a binding representation of itself and its destiny Autopoeisis LLuhmann’s theory of modern society as a functionally differentiated society is embedded in his general theory of social systems. The problem of systems theary - the constitution, maintenance and evolution of continuous (rather than stab) systems within changing environments - is also the problem of Luhmann’s sociology. In particular Luhmann appropiates Maturana & Varels's theory of autopoeis.® Autoposisis defines biological fe processes as the ctcularsef-repreduction of recursive pracesses that constitute a unity of interaction (the system) within a domain of interaction (the environment) ‘The environment is nat assumed to be given as the same forall organisms tut each organism occupies a peculiar niche in accordance with its pecular mode of ife, sensitivity and responsiveness. Each systern thus determines what counts as its relevant ervironment, ie,, which diferences make 2 alfference versus those aspects that remain indifferent ‘Maturana poses divergent “observes,” dstingushed on the bass of different cogntive/metabolic mechanism. Although ‘Maturana talks about interactions, observers, distinctions, reference, self-reference, and the constitution ofthe observed through the observer, he is not implying consciousness as the necessary medium with which such terms traditionally re associated, Luhmann’stransferral of Maturane's conceptual schema to the domain of social systems maintains ths intially counterintuitive) refusal to imply Consciousness as the agent and medium of “dstinction,” "(elf}observation,” "(el reference” etc. Instead the bearer (quasi-subject) of these “operations” s the socal system which in turn is nothing but the sei-constrining recursive network of those very operation. Everything socal s theorzed as avtopoeitic communication systems. This accounts for friendships, families, ephemeral ‘gatherings, conversations, distributed intelectual communities (discourses), rituals, organizations such as corporations, Universities, hospitals, nation states, and, ast but not lees, the great modern function systems ike the economy, the legal system, the political system, the mass media, and the scentific system with alts dscplinay subsystems. Luhmann avoids giving a complete list of all modem function systems. Architecure - $0 fer - has not received separate recognition within Luhmane’s theoretical system. Luhmann refers to architecture within his "The Art of Society", where he treats art asa self-referential sociat system. It is my contention here that this treatment of architecture and design undee the umbrella concept of artis an anachronism = atleast since the re-foundation of the discipline as modern architecture ‘during the 1920s. However, if architecture and design are stil, at times, brought into proximity with the art system, this does not necessarily indicate an adherence to a traditional formula, Rather this re-assimlation of art and architecture! design is due to the recent, quite signficant fact that architecture, in its avant-gardist and experimental mode, uses the tropes, tactics and spaces of artistic communication. However, notwithstanding such partial simdaites and crass fertizations, architecture and design have clearly separated from art and constitute an independent function system within (post-modern societyIrritation versus Determination Differentiation can not be the ful story. Obviously autonomy and self-referential dosure can not imply hermetic isoation, LLuhmann posits the formula: openness through closure. This formula poses the taskof continuous adaptation of the system to the relevant changes it distinguishes within its erwironment. This process of adaptation in turn implies setf-referential autonomy for the system with respect to the task of organizing its response. The impact of the environment does not pervade and directly determine the system. Unlike the bilkad ball thats pushed around without options, the autopoertc Giving or social system is absorbing environmental impacts into ts complex web of processes so that no “response” canbe tegarded as immediate one-to-one effect of a singular cause, History plays @ part here. W's the difference between kicking 2 dog versus kicking a all {61s important te distinguish dearly between two types of communication: communication within a given subsystem of society ane cornmunication between different subsystems. Withina given system, communicationsareconsttuted recursively within 3 shared conceptual framework or honzon of understanding, Acoss systern boundaries, communications do not share the same horizon and are therefore not understood in the sare specific and elaborate way. Here communication can ‘only rely on the rather simple, common denominator of cologuial understanding, The distinction ofits own versus alien ‘communications is actively made within each autopoeitc socal system. Communications within a particular system have to bbe able (and mostly are able) to cecagnize each other as mutually relevent, and reject (as irrelevant) any foreign intrusion. ‘This active boundary maintenance isa crucial part of autopoeisis. Only within this bounded zone can a specific complexity cof discursive structures be elaborated beyond the mediocre level of everday conversation. Within the autopoertc system communications recursively refer to each other. Across tie boundary ies the “environment”, which remains an Unpredictable source of iritation because the various spedatized discourses are not mutually mastered and thus remain largely opaque with respect to each other Specialized communication is thus convasted with itation. This formulation is reminiscent of Maturana’s nation of Perturbation as the mode in which the autopoeitic system engages with its environment. ‘This notion of external iritation is nat only distinguished from internal communication, but is then sharply contrasted with any notion of external determination, This contrast focuses on two aspects What can or can not became an irtation for a system depends first of all upon the istovicaly elaborated structure of the system. “Living systems as units of interactions... can not enter into interactions that are not specified by their ‘argansation."° Secondly the responsive behavior of the autapaeitc system is specified ky ts pecular sensitivity Gnformation processing apparatus) and its current momentaryhistorical state. Thus there can be no talk of external determination with respect to {an autopoetic system, except inthe purely necatve and trivial sense of a crude physical disruption. (Hitler and Stain had 10, ‘sort to such crud, and ultimately self-defeating, mears of contro, This aso included the poitcal control of architecture, ‘which in effect obliterated their countries’ participation inthe discourse of architecture } ‘Sut the reverse is also true - 2s much as the system retains is sovereignty with respect to its adaptive rasponse to external ““imtations," itn tum can only irntate, never contiol and positively determine the operations of the various other auropoeitic systems it fs able to locate within its environmentAll it can do i absorb perturbations and intervene by counter-perturbation The result ofthis imprecise type of exchange, in case of recurrent and continuous mutual perturbation, & termed structural coupling, AS dynamic process this implies co-evokition and structural dift. This sat of related concepts replaces the idea of integration, implying a far looser and less predictable coupling of aspects of the overall social process. This leads to an enormous acceleration of evolution fut at the same time, paradoxically, such autopoeiis i flux, with the only prerogative of continued communication, by whatever means necessary, and in whatever mutant forms, might be presumed to be tar more robust and resent thar ‘any supposedly stable or static socal formation (Fourth Reich, Soviet Union) ‘The “los” ofa single, integrated social formation implies that we have to move from the pursuit ofa single, a priri posited Utopia to the playful and “opportunistic” browsing across multiple latent utopias that crculate as “iritations” between the co-evolving subsystems of society, Architecture has to allow itself to be mate by its societal environment and in turn should become a productive initant. Architecture as Autopoeltic System of Communications The dispute within archtecture about its degree of autonomy might be clafied and assessed within the framework of Lubmann’s theory of social autopoe'ss Archtecture’s autonomy within saciety does not imply indifference to society Rather its a necessary mode of contributing tosociety with suficientRexibilty and sophistication, Contemporary society é far too complex and to0 dynamic to establish clear and fied hierarchies of valuespriontes that would in turn alow the societal dision of labor to be conceived as chains of instruction, whereby centaly/democratcally set purposes are to be fulfilled by the various appointed function systems. Instead, each function system is condemned to self-governance. Architecture too can only appoint itself, and define is own purposes, both with respect to the identification ofthe mast urgent architecturally relevant sociat problems {and with respect to the appropriate selection of architectural means to tackle such problems. However architecture, lke all the other subsystems of society is doing this under risky conditions af mutual interdependence. Failure to set-organie effectwe responses teads to ielevance and spells extinction This why Elsenman’s stance of absolute autonomy can only be a subsidiary moment within the overall constitution of the discipline. Equally one-sided however the attempt to return to the tenets of a radca functionalsm that pretends to be able to react directly o socio-economic demands, without any dscursve detour into the depth of an elaborated (and to be elaborated) formal universe. The formalist stance finds its partal rationality inthe fact that inital proliferation of spatial concepts and formal techniques flourishes best inthe absence of functional and programmatic constraints. This i the raison d’@e ofthe ceuvre of Peter Eisenman and his ftiowers. However this stance can not be generalized across the discipine, That would indeed be succdal When we compare diferent stages inthe evolution of system eifferentation within a socety we can observe an increase in the degree of) the autonomy of the developing systems. The systems increase the selectivity of their iritabilty, shazpen thes relevance criteria, construct longer chains of communications, distributed across time (and space), and increasingly ‘establish their own independent temporal chythms,‘The autopoettic system, 2s a comple, historically evolving system, always uses time and involves whole seres of events into its "sponses, so that simple, predictable one-to-one correlations between envronmental impacts and system responses are out of the question With respect to architecture, any attempt to establish immediate and determinate correlations between architecture as a discipline, with its current enalyticsynthetic procedures on the one hand and its social environment on the other hand, | as futile as the related attempt to determine fixed one-to-one relations between functions and forms. Changes in the '200-economic environment (functions) donot straightforwardly determine new architectural concepts and types (forms), although some response(s) might soones o later be elaborated, and pertaos several responses be released in parallel. Any Jimpact is absorbed and mediated via @ route through the evolving internal complexity of the system. One important aspect of this mediation is the subordination of the response tothe system's own temporal regime, i. the response is delayed ‘and various impacts might be aggregated and dealt with en blac, or an impact might be worked through piecemeal via a Jong series of cifferent responses, stretched out across time. Such mediation might involve an extensive internat processing Cf options before a response is established. This has enormous advantages i compared with immediate action: A client might ty to force the "straightionvard” adaptation of 2 design to his bref or a crowd might simply overun its allocated ‘and articulated space to create an ad hoc “event architecture” from the spatat features at hand. Compared with such "myopic immediacy, the absorption of functional demands into architectural design processes (that are alt bout processing ‘and selecting from options allows the integration ofthe current concern with a whole numberof other concerns through the application of procedures that represent the condensed experience of discipline. We might refer to those experiences that have sedimented within the operating distinctions and routines ofthe dscplinefrofession asthe discursive structures Of architecture” However delayed, roundabout and sett-determined/structure-determined the response, some form of ‘adaptation willbe required. ‘A mark ofthe sel-referential closure of architecture is that design decisions are tightly knit to thei kind andl only obliquely? indirectly, .e., en bloc, refer to external demands and circumstances. Design decisions always refer to other design decisions, which in wun are embedded in the extensive chain and network of architectural discourse, Design decisions also hhave financial as wel as fegal, sometimes even politcal implications and they respond to such external concems. However, they do so only indirectly, nly en bloc, nd on the bass of the architectural structures (concepts, principles, routines) that ‘ude all individual operations. Pbtial, legal or financial concerns are not immediately architectural concerns. No one-to ‘one correlations can be established here - however much a cent in distress might lke this to be the case. The network (of implications is too complex. Any architectural response has to involve whole networks of design decisions an the basis of architectural (theoretical) principles. Ths is a measure ofthe sophistication of architecture; it can not be bulied into a knee-erk response. Tiss the raison d'etre of autapoottc closure. ‘A client might force his way nevertheless, but the result will have litle chance of being recognized as architecture Architectures innovative architecture onthe basis of mutated principles combining both variation and redundancy. Nether ‘epetition of old formulas nor mere deviation qualifies as architecture, The distinction of avant-garde versus mainstream, merely commercal “architecture” remains constitutive for the disciple. Oniy innovative, generalizable contributions are 6considered, e. contriautions that are deeoly entangled in the autopositic network of architectural communication, and therefore are able to move tis network. ‘The degree of autonomy that architectural discourse has established by diferentiating ist rom the immediacy of everyday talk about buildings, and thus the complexity ofthe discursive detour that mediates a particular impacUtesponse, should {grow with the averall complexity of society. The more complex the societal environment the more autonomously « the ‘ore selectively and specifically » must every social system operate in order to cope with the various, often contradictory ‘demands that challenge the respective socal system. ‘Architecture has to react to societal and technological changes. It has to maintain its ability to deliver solutions, But its very problems are no longer predefined. In fact, these problems are themselves a function of the ongoing autopoeisis, of architecture. Architectural experimentation has to leap into the dark, hoping that sufficent fragments of its manifold audience will throw themselves into architecture's browsing trajectory. Risks have to be taken. Obviously, architecture + armed with architectural theory - tries to aim in the right direction. Current experimental work focuses 07 issues of ‘organizational complexty (layering, interpenetration of domains), the production of diversity (teration vs. repetition), the spatial recognition of fuzzy social logics (smooth vs. strated space), ways of coping with uncertainty (virtual vs, actuality), ‘and engagement with new production technologies (file to factory), etc. Thus architecture is tying to take aim at what ‘seem like relevant tacgets popping up in its societal environment. However, the resulting manifestos remain precarious, relative and are often based on retrospective discoveries rather than prospective visions. Utopia i latent within the stray trajectories of architectural speculation, but to the extent that they cross the path of the projectiles that escape from the ‘other domains of socal communication. ‘este He arm fais meng Kam Rashi ent to Change Be Wore Urwese Pasig, New Yo 2001 mantras tar Lg coeSton patron eit 197 rete Siren, The sere of eA Camano 1962, 28, ape 7, “he Ate ot Compt” "is unmarni omltS” Gerfo Suan, asia Msn 1387, per “anon tera Geant arcana Matra Nance ae, utp ond Coton Tre anton ote Ung, Dre 380 ‘arte tNataara 8a al Autmpon an agrton. The erin oe amg ore T8070. Rather “Wha an ore pence eat main mare ray ey ea consort alae 80a sew NER iB 2 ne srctoes enh nt on sence Tae ur on # ogy Ho esas. The dee sce eon nreug