## [[Niklas Luhmann]]: What is Autopoiesis? Self Emerging complexity is another name for autopoiesis ☝️ ### 🧠 Connection to Memes A kinship with memetic theory. [[Memes]] — as Richard Dawkins defined them — are units of cultural replication that spread and mutate through minds and media. They form self-perpetuating structures of meaning, **reproducing by [[Communication]]**. In that sense, a memetic network functions autopoietically: - It selects, preserves, and propagates elements that help sustain the network. - It develops complexity and variation through its own internal processes. However, there’s a subtle difference: - _Memes_ focus on **replication** of content. - _Autopoiesis_ focuses on **systemic self-maintenance** — the ongoing process that allows replication to occur in the first place. You could say that memes are _ingredients_ in the larger autopoietic process of culture. Autopoiesis, a concept originating from [[Biology]], refers to a system’s ability to produce and maintain itself by regenerating its own components and [[Boundaries]]. The term, introduced by biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela in the 1970s, means “self-creation” or “self-production.” It describes systems that are autonomous, self-sustaining, and self-referential. In [[Sociology]], autopoiesis is applied to understand how social systems operate independently and sustain themselves within [[Society]]. ## What is Autopoiesis? [What is Autopoiesis](https://criticallegalthinking.com/2022/01/10/niklas-luhmann-what-is-autopoiesis/) #### 1. Core Characteristics: • Self-Referential: Autopoietic systems rely on internal operations to reproduce their structures and processes. • Boundary Maintenance: They distinguish themselves from their external [[Habitus|environment]]. • Operational Closure: While interacting with their environment, their operations are internally [[Index/Dictionary/Determined|determined]]. #### 2. Examples in Biology: • A cell is an autopoietic system. It produces its components ([[Proteins]], membranes, etc.), maintains its boundaries (membranes), and sustains itself through internal processes. ## Autopoiesis in Sociology The concept was adapted to sociology by [[Niklas Luhmann]] to explain how social systems (e.g., politics, law, education) function and maintain themselves within society. Luhmann argued that society consists of self-referential systems that operate autopoietically. #### 1. Social Systems as Autopoietic: • Social systems reproduce themselves through communication, which is their basic operational process. • For instance: • Legal System: Maintains itself by continually reproducing legal decisions and distinctions (e.g., lawful/unlawful). • Economic System: Operates by reproducing transactions using the binary distinction of payment/non-payment. #### 2. Operational Closure: • Social systems are “closed” in the sense that their operations are [[Index/Dictionary/Determined|determined]] internally (e.g., the legal system doesn’t operate based on [[Morality]] but on its legal code). • However, they are open in that they interact with other systems and their environment (e.g., the law may address economic or political issues). #### 3. Self-Reproduction: • Autopoietic systems maintain their identity over time, even as external conditions change. For example, a university maintains itself as an educational system by continually organising teaching and research activities. ## Applications of Autopoiesis in Sociology ##### 1. Understanding Social Complexity: • Autopoiesis provides a framework for analysing how complex social systems manage their internal processes while interacting with a dynamic environment. ##### 2. System-Specific Communication: • Different systems (e.g., law, politics, media) communicate using their own “codes.” For instance: • Law uses the code of legal/illegal. • Politics uses the code of power/opposition. • This helps explain how systems maintain coherence despite external influences. ##### 3. Mediating Change: • Social systems evolve by adapting their operations without losing their core identity. For example: • The healthcare system adopts new technologies but continues to function based on the distinction of [[Health]]/illness. ##### 4. Conflict and Coordination: • By understanding systems as autopoietic, sociologists can study how systems interact or clash (e.g., how media sensationalises political issues to fit its entertainment logic). #### Example in Action: The Media System The [[Media]] system operates autopoietically by continuously reproducing news through communication. It functions independently, using its own logic (e.g., the distinction between newsworthy/not newsworthy), while interacting with politics, economics, and other systems. Even when external events influence the media, it processes them in a way consistent with its operational logic (e.g., focusing on sensationalism to maintain viewership). #### Strengths of the Autopoietic Perspective • Clarity on System Independence: Highlights how systems sustain themselves without direct control from others. • Insight into Social Evolution: Explains how systems adapt over time while retaining their distinct functions. • Interdisciplinary Use: Provides a model for studying organisational, economic, or cultural systems. #### Critiques • Overemphasis on Closure: Critics argue that autopoiesis might downplay the extent of mutual influence between systems. • Abstractness: The theory can be highly theoretical and difficult to apply empirically. #### Conclusion Autopoiesis in sociology offers a way to understand how social systems sustain and reproduce themselves through distinct internal operations. It is particularly useful for analysing complex, interconnected structures like law, politics, and media, providing insights into their independence, adaptability, and interactions. Using biology as an analogy, we can draw parallels to explain the differences between Marx, Chomsky, autopoiesis, and memetics in their views on propaganda. 1. Marx (Intentional Control - “Ruling Class as the Genetic Engineer”) • Biological Analogy: Marx’s view is akin to genetic engineering in biology. A genetic engineer deliberately modifies DNA to produce desired traits in an organism. Similarly, the ruling class (capitalists) deliberately shapes media content to propagate specific ideas that maintain their dominance. • Explanation: • The “genetic code” of media (its content) is controlled by those in power, with clear intent to manipulate and suppress alternative ideologies. • Propaganda is a top-down process where the ruling class acts as the designer, controlling the evolution of ideas to maintain social and economic structures in their favour. 2. Chomsky (Structural Filters - “Selective Breeding”) • Biological Analogy: Chomsky’s propaganda model is like selective breeding in agriculture or animal husbandry. While no single breeder designs every outcome, structural pressures ensure only certain traits (or ideas) are passed on. • Explanation: • Media operates within structural constraints, like how breeders choose plants or animals with favourable traits for reproduction. • Ownership, advertising, and sourcing biases act as “selection pressures,” favouring narratives that align with elite interests. Propaganda emerges as a systemic bias, not necessarily through conscious design, but through structural filters. 3. Autopoiesis (Self-Sustaining Systems - “Ecosystem Dynamics”) • Biological Analogy: Autopoiesis resembles the dynamics of an ecosystem, which operates as a self-organising and self-sustaining system without external control. • Explanation: • Media systems function like ecosystems, where each organism (media institution) interacts with others in a way that maintains the system’s balance. • Propaganda emerges not from deliberate intent or external pressures but as a byproduct of the media’s internal need to sustain itself. Like an ecosystem, the media selects, amplifies, and reproduces certain information to remain functional and relevant. 4. Memetics (Viral Evolution - “Genetic Mutation and Natural Selection”) • Biological Analogy: Memetics is like natural selection in genetics, where random mutations spread or die out depending on their fitness in a given environment. Memes (ideas) replicate and evolve based on their ability to “survive” in the cultural ecosystem. • Explanation: • Propaganda spreads like a viral genetic mutation—ideas that are catchy, simple, or emotionally appealing are more likely to be shared and replicated. • This process is not guided by any conscious designer or structural filter; it is an evolutionary battle for survival among competing ideas. Key Biological Differences Aspect Marx (Genetic Engineer) Chomsky (Selective Breeding) Autopoiesis (Ecosystem) Memetics (Genetic Mutation) Agency Central planner (ruling class) Selective pressures (structural) Self-organisation (no external) Random mutation (no planner) Mechanism Top-down control Structural filtering Emergent system behaviour Evolutionary competition Outcome Predetermined ideas dominate Favourable ideas thrive under bias System sustains itself Viral memes outcompete others Source of Propaganda Deliberate elite manipulation Systemic bias Internal systemic processes Survival of the most “fit” ideas Summary • Marx and Chomsky see propaganda as shaped by external forces (ruling classes or institutional structures), akin to intentional breeding or cultivation in biology. • Autopoiesis and memetics view propaganda as a result of internal or evolutionary processes, akin to the self-organisation of ecosystems or the natural selection of genetic mutations. Combining the concepts of **autopoiesis** and **habitus** can lead to profound insights about the interplay between individual agency, social structures, and the processes of self-creation and adaptation. Here’s an exploration of what we might learn from this combination: **Key Concepts:** 1. **Autopoiesis (from Maturana and Varela)**: • Refers to the self-producing and self-maintaining nature of living systems. • Organisms maintain their boundaries and coherence by continuously generating the components that constitute them. • Emphasises autonomy, internal organisation, and adaptability in dynamic environments. 2. **Habitus (from Pierre Bourdieu)**: • Describes the deeply ingrained dispositions, behaviours, and ways of perceiving that individuals acquire through their social environment and lived experiences. • Habitus is both structured by social conditions and a structuring force that shapes future behaviour and social reproduction. **Potential Synergies:** When combining these ideas, we can frame **social agents as autopoietic systems embedded in a network of social and cultural structures**. This synthesis yields insights in several areas: **1. The Dynamics of Self and Society:** • Autopoiesis highlights the individual’s ability to maintain coherence and identity through self-regulation, while habitus situates this self-creation within the context of social and cultural norms. • This suggests that individual identity is a constant negotiation between internal processes (autopoiesis) and external influences (habitus). • Learning: Individuals are not merely shaped by their environment; they actively reshape their internal structures in response to social conditions. **2. Adaptation and Change:** • Habitus tends to emphasise the reproduction of social norms, but integrating autopoiesis introduces the potential for transformative feedback. • Social agents adapt by selecting and internalising specific elements of their environment that align with their evolving internal states. • Learning: Social and cultural change is driven by autopoietic systems (individuals) that reinterpret and renegotiate the constraints of habitus. **3. Creativity and Innovation:** • Autopoiesis emphasises the creation of new patterns and processes, while habitus often focuses on continuity. • This combination suggests that innovation arises when individuals draw on ingrained dispositions (habitus) but reconfigure them in novel ways to respond to emergent challenges or opportunities. • Learning: [[Creativity]] is not ex nihilo; it is a process of reassembling familiar elements (habitus) in ways that preserve coherence (autopoiesis). **4. Social Systems as Living Systems:** • If we view social systems as autopoietic entities, habitus becomes the mechanism through which these systems reproduce their “identity” across generations. • Social structures maintain coherence by embedding their norms within individuals, but they also depend on the adaptability and agency of those individuals. • Learning: Societies are dynamic ecosystems, where the tension between structure and agency fuels growth and resilience. **5. Embodied Knowledge and Practice:** • Habitus is often linked to bodily dispositions, while autopoiesis foregrounds the organism as an embodied system. • Combining these ideas underscores the centrality of the body as both the site of internal self-production and the medium through which social norms are enacted and transformed. • Learning: Embodiment is where internal and external worlds meet, shaping both personal identity and collective social life. **Implications:** 1. **Agency and Structure**: • Individuals are neither wholly [[Determined - By Robert Sapolsky|determined]] by their [[Habitus|environment]] nor entirely independent of it; they are co-constructors of reality. • This dual perspective can inform approaches in [[Sociology]], [[Psychology]], and [[Education]], focusing on empowering individuals to adapt and innovate within their social contexts. 2. **Sustainability and Resilience**: • Applying autopoiesis to habitus highlights the importance of feedback loops in maintaining [[Sustainable]] social and ecological systems. • Resilient societies would nurture habitus that fosters adaptability rather than rigid reproduction. 3. **Interdisciplinary Bridges**: • This synthesis creates a bridge between systems theory (autopoiesis) and social theory (habitus), opening up new pathways for interdisciplinary research. In essence, combining autopoiesis and habitus offers a rich framework for understanding how individuals and societies co-evolve, highlighting the interdependence of internal self-maintenance and external social reproduction. This approach could inspire new ways of [[Thinking]] about identity, [[Culture]], and social transformation. `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:` [[Biology]]