AUTOPOIESIS: About LUHMANN's view
| Collection | International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics |
|---|---|
| Year | 2004 |
| Vol. (num.) | 2(1) |
| ID | ◀ 216 ▶ |
| Object type | Human sciences |
O. THYSSEN (1995, P. 13) characterizes as follows the way LUHMANN (1927-1998) extends the concept of autopoiesis: “LUHMANN generalizes the concept to cover not only living systems , but also mental and social systems . Whereas living systems operate in the medium ”life“, mental systems operate in the medium ”consciousness “and social systems in the medium ”communication “. According to LUHMANN, a social system does not consist of human beings or artifacts . It consists of an ongoing stream of communication ”. THYSSEN has some problems with these views: “An autopoietic system is closed”(Note: i.e. organizationally closed) “It has no contact with the environment ”(Note: it is however structurally coupled with it. Is that not a “contact”?)
THYSSEN adds: “A disturbing consequence is that mental and social systems are totally distinct. No analysis of consciousness will ever reveal anything about brain processes , which are the domain of living systems ”
One wonder if it is not the reverse: could not brain processes reveal something about consciousness . And: “Another disturbing consequence is that LUHMANN has no place for the individual. This point is methodological, not normative or ”antihumanistic“.(Ibid)
MAN is a very diffuse idea allowing references to many different systems which do not have MAN as an element and which do not form a unity: no supersystem encompasses living, mental and social systems . So what is MAN depends on who is observing and how. KORZYBSKI (1879-1950) could have said it: MAN is a high level abstract “label ” that should be used very carefully.
The hinge of the problem is obviously that any social system depends on individual observers in two complementary ways:
1- In any activity the structural coupling with the environment of the social system is through individuals (which make a kind of porous frontier with the environment)
2- The internal autopoietic behavior of the system as a whole depends on myriads of interindividual structural couplings as observers of each others