A ‘pervasive’ problem in the social sciences, referred to as the ‘micro to macro problem’ concerns our capacity to explain the relationship between the constitutive elements of social systems (people) and emergent phenomena resulting from their interaction (i.e. organizations, societies, economies). Without a capacity to explain this relationship there is, in effect, no substantive theory of sociality. In this article, we explore the potential of a synthesis between autopoietic and complexity theory for understanding social systems in a way that addresses this issue. It is argued that autopoietic theory provides a basis for understanding the characteristics of the microlevel agents that make up social systems – human individuals, whereas complexity theory provides a basis for understanding how these characteristics influence the range and type of macro-level phenomena that arise from their interaction. The synthesis proposed here provides the basis for a theory of sociality that deals consistently with the relationship between the micro and macro-levels of social phenomena and their ontological status. This approach has the potential to re-unite current scientific oppositions and avoid unnecessary pluralism within social science.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Archer, M. Realism in the social sciences. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson & A. Norrie (Eds), Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge , 1998.
2.
Arthur, W.B., Durlauf, S.N. & Lane, D.A. The economy as an evolving complex system II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley , 1997.
3.
Ashby, W.R. Self-regulation and requisite variety. In F.E. Emery (Ed.), Systems thinking. London: Penguin , 1974.
4.
Bak, P. How nature works: The science of self-organized criticality. New York: Copurnicus , 1996.
5.
Bednarz, J. Autopoesis: The organizational closure of social systems . Systems Research, 1988, 5(1), 57–64 .
6.
Bhaskar, R. A realist theory of science. London: Verso , 1997.
7.
Bhaskar, R. The possibility of naturalism. London: Routledge , 1998.
8.
Boisot, M. Is there complexity beyond the reach of strategy? Emergence, 2000, 2(1), 114–134 .
9.
Brassel, K.H., Mhring, M., Schumacher, E. & Troitzsch, K.G. Can agents cover all the world. In R. Conte, R. Hegselmann & P. Terna (Eds), Simulating social phenomena. Berlin: Springer , 1997.
10.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Virago , 1994.
11.
Checkland, P. Systems thinking systems practice. London: Wiley , 1988.
12.
Cilliers, P. Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge , 1998.
13.
Cilliers, P. Knowledge, complexity, and understanding . Emergence, 2000, 2(4), 7–13 .
14.
Cohen, J. & Stewart, I. The collapse of chaos: Discovering simplicity in a complex world. New York: Viking , 1994.
15.
Coleman, J.S. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Belknap , 1994.
16.
Conte, R., Hegselmann, R. & Turner, P. Simulating social phenomena. Berlin: Springer-Verlag , 1997.
17.
Depew, D.J. & Weber, B.H. Darwinism evolving: Systems dynamics and the genealogy of natural selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press , 1997.
18.
Depew, D.J. & Weber, B.H. What does natural selection have to be like in order to work with self-organization? Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 1998, 5(1), 18–31 .
19.
Eve, R.A., Horsfall, S. & Lee, M.E. Chaos, complexity, and sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage , 1997.
20.
Gilbert, N. & Conte, R. Artificial societies. London: UCL Press , 1995.
21.
Gilbert, N. & Troitzsch, K.G. Simulation for the social scientist. Buckingham: Open University Press , 1999.
22.
Goldspink, C. Modelling social systems as complex: Towards a social simulation metamodel . Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2000a, 3(2). Available from: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/3/2/1.html
23.
Goldspink, C. Social attractors: An examination of the applicability of complexity theory to social and organisational analysis Social Ecology. Richmond: University Western Sydney , 2000b.
24.
Goldspink, C. Methodological implications of complex systems approaches to sociality: Simulation as a foundation for knowledge . Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2002, 5(1). Available from: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/5/1/3.html
25.
Hejl, P.M. Towards a theory of social systems: Self-organization, self-maintenance, selfreference and syn-reference. In P. Ulrich (Ed.), Self-organisation and management of social systems: Insights, promises, doubts and questions. Berlin: Springer-Verlag , 1984, pp. 60–78.
26.
Hejl, P.M. Culture as a network of socially constructed realities. In A. Rigney & D. Fokkema (Eds), Cultural participation: Trends since the Middle Ages. Amsterdam: Benjamins , 1993, pp. 227–250.
27.
Holland, J.H. Emergence: From chaos to order. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley , 1998.
Lorenz, E.N. The essence of chaos. Seattle: University of Washington Press , 2001.
37.
Luhmann, N. Essays on self reference. New York: Columbia University Press , 1990.
38.
Luhmann, N. Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press , 1995.
39.
Marion, R. The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage , 1999.
40.
Maturana, H. The ontology of observing: The biological foundations of self-consciousness and the physical domain of existence . American Society for Cybernetics Conference, Felton, CA, American Society of Cybernetics, 1988a.
41.
Maturana, H.R. Reality: The search for objectivity of the quest for compelling argument . Irish Journal of Psychology, 1988b, 9(1), 25–82 .
42.
Maturana, H. & Varela, F. Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston, MA: Reidel , 1980.
43.
Maturana, H.R. & Varela, F.J. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala , 1992.
McKelvey, B. Complexity theory in organization science: Seizing the promise or becoming a fad? Emergence, 1999, 1(1), 5–32 .
46.
Mingers, J. The cognitive theories of Maturana and Varela . Systems Practice, 1991, 4, 319–338 .
47.
Mingers, J. Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis. New York: Plenum Press , 1995.
48.
Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. London: Flamingo , 1985.
49.
Resnick, M. Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press , 1997.
50.
Smith, T.S. Non-linear dynamics and the micro–macro bridge. In R.A. Eve, S. Horsfall & M.E. Lee (Eds), Chaos, complexity and sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage , 1997.
51.
Stacey, R.D. Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler , 1996.
52.
Stacey, R. Complex responsive processes in organizations: Learning and knowledge creation. London: Routledge , 2001.
53.
Stacey, R., Griffin, D. & Shaw, P. Complexity and management. London: Routledge , 2000.
54.
Stewart, I. Does God play dice – The new mathematics of chaos. Harmondsworth: Penguin , 1990.
55.
Varela, F. Principles of biological autonomy. New York: Elsevier–North Holland , 1979.
56.
Varela, F. Laying down a path in walking. In W.I. Thompson (Ed.), GAIA, a way of knowing. Political implications of the new biology. San Francisco, CA: Lindisfarne Press , 1987.
57.
Varela, F., Maturana, H. & Uribe, R. Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model . Biosystems, 1974, 5, 187–196 .
58.
Varela, F., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. The embodied mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press , 1992.
59.
Von Krogh, G. & Roos, J. Organizational epistemology. London: St Martins Press , 1995.
