Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Autopoiesis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Knowledge Production in Organizations

  • 984 Accesses

Abstract

The original concept of autopoiesis reached the international scientific community through an article published by Varela, Maturana, and Uribe in 1974 (Varela et al. 1974), sponsored by von Foerster (Varela 1996). Its roots lie in cybernetics and in the neurophysiology of cognition. The autopoietic approach was subsequently refined and developed over a period of 5 years (Maturana 1975a, 1978; Maturana and Varela 1980; Varela 1979). Two readings edited by Zeleny (1980, 1981) established in quite a definite manner the essence of the autopoiesis paradigm, as well as differences between Maturana and Varela as to the possibility of its applications to the social sciences.

Koskinen, K. U. (2010). Autopoietic knowledge systems in project-based companies. Palgrave Macmillan.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Koskinen, K. U. (2010). Autopoietic knowledge systems in project-based companies. Palgrave Macmillan.

References

  • Andrew, A. M. (1989). Self-organizing systems. New York: Gordon & Breach Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. (1968). Principles of the self-organizing system. In W. Buckley (Ed.), Modern systems research for the behavioral scientist pp. 108–118). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baecker, D. (1996). Kybernetik Zweiter Ordnung [Second order cybernetics]. In H. von Foerster (Ed.), Wissen und Gewissen: Versuch einer Brücke [Knowledge and Conscience: Trial of a Bridge] pp. 17–23). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in antropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity (Advances in systems theory, complexity, and the human sciences). New York: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, A. (1991). A short essay on languaging. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflexivity pp. 226–234). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the firm. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggiero, L. (2001). Are firms autopoietic systems? In F. Geyer & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Sociocybernetics: Complexity, autopoiesis, and observation of social systems pp. 125–139). London: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brocklesby, J. (2009). Outlining the terrain of autopoietic theory. In R. Magalhaes & R. Sanchez (Eds.), Autopoiesis in organization theory and practice pp. 29–41). Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Science, 29, 1349–1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capra, F. (1996). A new understanding of living systems: The web of life. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chia, R. (1994). The concept of decision: A deconstructive analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 781–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. (1986). Organization/disorganization. Social Science Information, 25, 299–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dell, P. (1982). Family therapy and the epistemology of Humberto Maturana. Family Therapy Networker, 6(4), 39–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell, P. (1985). Understanding Bateson and Maturana: Toward a biological foundation for the social sciences. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 1(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupeuy, J.-P. (1988). On the supposed closure of normative systems. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society pp. 51–69). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efran, J., Lukens, M., & Lukens, R. (1990). Language, structure, and change-frameworks of meaning in psychotherapy. New York: W.W. Norton and C. Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischaker, G. R. (1992). Autopoiesis in systems analysis: A debate. International Journal of General Systems, 21(2), 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goolishian, H. A., & Winderman, L. (1988). Constructivism, autopoiesis and problem determined systems. Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 130–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. D., & Fagen, R. E. (1968). Definition of system. In W. Buckley (Ed.), Modern systems research for the behavioral scientist pp. 81–92). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. (1988). A constructivist position for family therapy. Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 110–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch, E. (1980). The self-organizing universe: Scientific and human implication of the emerging paradigm of evolution. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1993). The truth about autopoiesis. Journal of Law and Society, 20(2), 218–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskinen, K. U. (2009). Project-based company’s vital condition: Structural coupling: An autopoietic view. Knowledge and Process Management, 16(1), 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskinen, K. U. (2010a). Autopoietic knowledge systems in project-based companies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, 6, 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingston, I. (2006). Between science and literature: An introduction to autopoiesis. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In F. Geyer & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Sociocybernetic paradoxes pp. 172–192). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1987). The representation of society within society. Current Sociological, 35, 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1988). The unity of the legal system. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Autopoietic law, a new approach to law and society pp. 12–35). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays of self-reference. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1992). Ecological communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (2000). Organization und Entscheidung [Organization and decision]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Magalhaes, R., & Sanchez, R. (2009). Autopoiesis in organization theory and practice. Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R. (1975a). The organization of the living: A theory of the living organization. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 7, 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R. (1978). Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In G. A. Miller & E. Lenneberg (Eds.), Psychology and biology of language and thought pp. 27–63). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R. (1988). Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument. Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 25–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R. (1991). Science and daily life: The ontology of scientific explanations. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflexivity pp. 30–52). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. London: D. Reidel Publishing Co.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maula, M. (2006). Organizations as learning systems: ‘Living Composition’ as an enabling infrastructure (Advanced series in management). London: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (1995). Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (1997). Systems typologies in the light of autopoiesis: A reconceptualization of Boulding’s hierarchy, and a typology of self-referential systems. A research paper. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14, 303–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (2010). Realising systems thinking: Knowledge and action in management science. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mollona, E. (2008). A competence view of firms as resource accumulation systems: A synthesis of resource-based and evolutionary models of strategy-making. In J. Morecroft, R. Sanchez, & A. Heene (Eds.), Systems perspectives on resources, capabilities, and management processes pp. 93–125). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (1996). Images of organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morin, E. (1982). Can we conceive of a science of autonomy? Human Systems Management, 3, 201–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1936). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl, D. (2005). Organizational identity and self-transformation: An autopoietic perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivula, P., van den Bosh, F. A. J., & Elfring, T. (1997). Competence building by incorporating clients into the development of a business service firm’s knowledge base. In R. Sanchez & A. Heene (Eds.), Strategic learning and knowledge management pp. 121–137). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. (1982). Philosophical problems in thinking about organizational change. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Change in organizations pp. 316–373). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer Brown, G. (1979). The laws of form. New York: E. P. Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, G. (1991). Autopoiesis and steering: How politics profit from the normative surplus of capital. In R. J. in‘t Veld, L. Schaap, C. J. A. M. Termeer, & M. J. W. van Twist (Eds.), Autopoiesis and configuration theory: New approaches to social steering pp. 127–134). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (1993). Analogical reasoning and knowledge generation I organization theory. Organization Studies, 14(3), 323–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Twist, M. J. W., & Schaap, L. (1991). Introduction to autopoiesis theory and autopoietic steering. In R. J. in’t Veld, L. Schaap, C. J. A. M. Termeer, & M. J. W. Twist (Eds.), Autopoiesis and configuration theory: New approaches to social steering pp. 31–44). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. J. (1979). Principles of biological autonomy. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. J. (1981). Describing the logic of the living: The adequacy and limitations of the idea of autopoiesis. In M. Zeleny (Ed.), Autopoiesis: A theory of living organization pp. 36–48). New York: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. J. (1996). The early days of autopoiesis: Heinz and Chile. Systems Research, 13, 407–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. J., Maturana, H. R., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems, 5(4), 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Foerster, H. (1972). Responsibilities of competence. Journal of Cybernetics, 2(2), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1995a). Organizational epistemology. New York: St Marin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh, G., & Vicari, S. (1993). An autopoiesis approach to experimental strategic learning. In P. Lorange, B. Chakravarthy, J. Roos, & van de Ven (Eds.), Implementing strategic processes change learning and co-operation pp. 394–410). London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh, G., Roos, J., & Slocum, K. (1996a). An essay on corporate epistemology. In G. von Krogh & J. Roos (Eds.), Managing knowledge: Perspectives on cooperation and competition pp. 157–183). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weathly, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, G. M. (2001). An introduction to general systems thinking: Silver anniversary edition. New York: Dorset House Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (1980). Autopoiesis, dissipative structures, and spontaneous social orders. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (1981). Autopoiesis: A theory of living organization. New York: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (2005). Human systems management: Integrating knowledge, management and systems. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B., & Hurst, D. K. (1993). Breaking the boundaries: The fractal organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 334–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. (1997). Applying autopoiesis to the facilitation of worldview change. Australian and New Zealand systems conference, Brisbane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maula, M. (2000). The senses and memory of a firm – Implications of autopoiesis theory for knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 157–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H., & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge. Boston: New Science.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tampere University of Technology, Pori, Finland

    Kaj U. Koskinen

Authors
  1. Kaj U. Koskinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Koskinen, K.U. (2013). Autopoiesis. In: Knowledge Production in Organizations. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00104-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation