The following is a listing of materials on the theory of "autopoiesis", developed by the Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. This listing includes both primary and derivative literature. The listing, originally derived from one of my personal databases, is offered "as is". Occasional (and hopefully helpful) annotations and comments have been added here and there. The comments are my own, and are solely the reflection of my own opinions.
I use the term "autopoietic theory" to refer to the body of Maturana and Varela's work overall. Other relevant titles / labels include: autopoiesis; theory of autopoiesis; autonomy; biological autonomy; enactive cognitive science; second order cybernetics; self-organizing (-referential / -maintaining) systems.
WHERE TO START: Most of the folks who have requested this listing in the past are new to autopoietic theory. As an aid for "newcomers", I recommend the following starting place(s):
I apologize for the Anglicization / misspellings of names (especially involving German and Scandinavian alphabetic characters). This results from the need to locate and circumvent all the strange effects induced by non-English characters in ASCII text files when stored, transferred, and displayed on a variety of UNIX (and other) workstations.
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION ARE WELCOME!! ADDITIONAL REFERENCES ARE ALSO WELCOME!!
This list is archived and available (through Internet) upon request as a component of The Observer, an electronic forum / newsletter on autopoiesis and enactive cognitive science.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Randall Whitaker, Logicon Technical Services, Inc.
Apparently the same text as Andrew article of the same title (1980). Claims that autopoiesis alone cannot suffice for studying self-organizing systems (SOS). Andrew states there are 2 additional features of SOS which much be accounted for: (1) the progressively succinct representations applied as "meta- representations", and (2) the replication of existing "successful" structural features. Note that both entail some measure of teleology / purpose ascription and are therefore to be considered only from the perspective of a given observer.
Review of value of autopoiesis for SOS (self-organizing systems). Contrast with AI of the Feigenbaum school based on AI workers' alleged view that there exist too many "a priori" structural features in the nervous system for general systemic approaches to explain.
A critical discussion of the reappearance of Aristotelian concepts of purpose in the context of evolution and biological systems. Ayala differentiates between causal and teleological explanations, and insinuates that the distinction is one of observational perspective and contextual consistency. He claims that for 3 categories of biological phenomena teleological explanations are appropriate: (1) where the end-state is consciously anticipated by the agent (i.e., purposeful activity); (2) self-regulation with regard to one or more key variables; (3) "(I)n reference to structures anatomically and physiologically designed to perform a certain function." (p. 9)
A comparative analysis of autopoietic social theory and the "symbolic interactionism" of Mead / Blumer (sociology). Points of comparision include: environment / external determinants of behavior; social/self-consciousness; objectivity / subjectivity in perspectives (epistemology); openness/ democracy; novelty / emergence in human conduct.
This is a collection of papers given at a conference in April 1979 on the theme of "The Theory of Autopoietic Systems as a New Foundation for the Social Sciences". This is a good collection and a key reference work.
Criticizes Maturana as being either unoriginal or flawed, then criticizes family therapists' application of Maturana's ideas.
A discussion of social systems. Unfortunately, Braten severely misuses the theory, applying it only with strict regard to "organizational closure" of social systems. His usage is therefore biased, and self-serving.
This is a broad, general discussion of IT (info. tech.) issues. Braten identifies 2 distinct camps: AI/cognitivism and the phenomenological. He sees them as immiscible, and he discusses the prospects for accounting both in IT design.
This discussion proceeds from the foundation of society being background to the individual (seen as a social actor). This makes Castoriadis an exponent of the Luhmann/sys-referential view, wherein the system is primary and the individual must fit. He makes reference to Varela's autonomy as an exemplar of how such social systems are realized.
Criticizes Maturana and Varela's (1980) proposition that the passion to change others is both ethically wrong and impossible, and concludes the passion to change others is intrinsically constitutive of the therapist
Cottone critically analyzes autopoietic theory with respect to the social and behavioral sciences, suggesting a major contradiction induced through the idea of structure determinism prevents a consistent epistemology and ontology. Cottone tries to outline a "3rd epistemology" based on change.
Maturana & Varela's (e.g., 1980) delineation of autopoiesis begins with the characterization of living systems as machines. This should not be confused with an idea that living systems are strictly decomposable as mechanical entities -- only that they are describable in terms of their own structures and activities (without reference to extra factors). They term this outlook "mechanicism". de Solla Price's paper is an overview of mechanistic perspectives in biology.
A discussion of the limitations of homeostasis as a systems- theoretic concept, including a retrospective look at Bateson, Maturana, and the impacts they have had on Dell. He says in conclusion that his "coherence" is very similar to Maturana's concept of structure determination for systems.
This paper was incorrectly cited in Simon (1985). A review of Dell's path into (among other things) autopoietic theory as an inspiration to his view of therapy.
This is a response to criticism of Dell's previous article concerning structural determinism. According to Dell, Maturana makes no metaphysical claims about some hypothetically independent reality. Instead, Maturana explains the observer's constitutive ontology. Dell, following Maturana, asserts the cognitive domain of human observers is structure determined, and that humans can therefore only distinguish a structure-determined world.
Dell compares work of Gregory Bateson and Maturana, concluding they are compatible, although there are several points of contrast. Dell claims the essential message of both is that social systems and all human activities must be understood in the light of our being biological entities coupled to a medium. Dell suggests the biological ontology in both writers' work may provide a sound foundation for social / behavioral sciences.
Maturana's views on structural determinism, instructive interaction, and phenomenal domains are applied to illustrate that many problematical theoretical concepts (e.g., communication, information, resistance, homeostasis, pathology) reveal the experiential validity of instructive interaction repeatedly leads humans into employing instructive interaction in a domain where it can never be valid: that of theory and explanation.
This is a discussion of the effect which Adam Smith's "invisible hand" had on the history of ideas, in terms of economics and in politics as well. Dupuy's presentation goes on to discuss Rousseau's attempts to put the law above the individuals, so as to disengage it from their ability to manipulate. Dupuy thereby draws remarkably close to the view of Luhmann -- that a social system (seen in a moral / political perspective) should be an autonomous entity. Well-written and provocative.
A healthy but skeptical list of questions concerning the value and strength of autopoietic theory.
Discusses constructivism and autopoiesis with respect to psychotherapy. A theoretical basis for clinical practice is presented, focusing on (1) humans being meaning-generating systems and (2) the concept of problem determined systems.
This is a hard-to-find collection of papers given at a conference in April 1978 on the theme of "The Theory of Autopoietic Systems as a New Foundation for the Social Sciences". All the papers are in German, with the exception of Maturana's contribution, entitled "Cognition".
NOTES: Hejl is the only writer I've found to date who clearly sees autopoiesis' application to social systems as a "bottom-up" process - -- i.e., the organisms come first, and the social system derives from them. This makes Hejl the single clearest exponent of a position on social systems close(st) to that espoused (even if only implicitly) by Maturana and/or Varela. All Hejl's papers listed above are very well written, concise, with explicitly laid out definitions.
Maturana was in Stockholm for a conference sponsored by "Institutet foer systemteoretisk beteendevetenskap" (Institute for System-Theoretical Behavioral Sciences"). He discusses "co- drift" (mutual influence between people) and uses the term "multi- versum" (multi-verse, in contrast to universe) to describe the world as a set of observer-dependent interpretations.
Jantsch attempts to categorize autopoiesis as one subcomponent of a more general class of systems, essentially that of dissipative structures.(rest of the file missing - but this gives you a good sampling.)