Structure–organization–process

Abstract: The attempts to clarify (purify) the conceptual foundations of family therapy by means of “epistemology” have bred excitement, boredom, irritation and confusion. In the belief that at least the confusion can be alleviated, the present paper is offered as a study guide and something of a Rosetta Stone for translating the work of Gregory Bateson and Humberto R. Maturana. The paper demonstrates that Maturana's work is highly compatible with that of Bateson. In addition, several major points of contrast are argued: (1) Maturana's concept of structure determinism is an explicit ontological claim which directly implies an epistemology, whereas Bateson delineated an epistemology, but never clearly developed a corresponding ontology; (2) structure determinism is a more general concept than Bateson's concept of “mind” (i.e., cybernetic epistemology); (3) structure determinism deletes the remnants of objectivity from Bateson's theory (i.e., “the difference that makes a difference”); and (4) Maturana's concept of instructive interaction is a more general, nonsystemic version of what Bateson meant when he used the term “epistemological error.” Finally, it is claimed that the emphasis on epistemology has distracted proponents and detractors alike from the essential message of Bateson and Maturana: social systems and all human endeavor must be understood in light of our existence as biological entities that are coupled to a medium. The biological ontology implicit in Bateson's writings and explicitly delineated in Maturana's may (at long last) provide a sound foundation for the social and behavioral sciences.

Abstract: Maturana and Varela have developed a theory to explain the particular character of living systems. Such systems, they claim, have an “autopoietic,” or self-producing, organization. This term is now used widely, although often without a proper understanding of the detail of the theory. Moreover, the concept has been applied to other systems, such as societies and institutions, in a rather naive manner. It is a very important theory, with far-reaching consequences both for science and for social intervention, but it must be correctly appreciated and applied. The aim of this paper is to aid that process by, first, elucidating the theoretical ideas and, second, critically evaluating its implications and applications.

Abstract: The theory of cognition of Varela and Maturana differs in specific aspects from constructivist theories and so should not be seen or interpreted as another form of constructivism. To encourage the emergence of a discussion on important differences between both theories, this paper aims at highlighting three of these specific aspects, namely the biological roots of cognition, its phylogenic and ontogenic basis, and the nature of reality and knowledge. In many regards, it is possible that the first two points were seen as extensions of constructivism, and had not been theorized previously as distinctions, as is done in the paper. The third point concerning the ideas of “bringing forth a world” represents a clear conceptual shift from the visions inherent in constructivism, and should not be neglected in discussions on epistemology and the nature of knowledge and reality. This third fundamental point brings us to see Varela and Maturana as being different than constructivists, rather seeing them as “bring forthists.”

Abstract: The theory of autopoiesis developed by Maturana and Varela to explain living systems has been applied in various ways to social systems. However, whether such an application can be more than an analogy or metaphor is highly debatable. Maturana himself has generally not claimed that social systems were themselves autopoietic, but were the medium within which autopoietic systems could interact and become structurally coupled. This paper contrasts autopoiesis, and Maturana's social theory, with Giddens' theory of structuration which, at first sight, appears quite similar. The conclusion is that whilst autopoiesis does not fit structuration theory, there are valuable complementarities with Maturana's social theory.