"the relations that define a system as a unity, and determine the dynamics of interaction and transformations which it may undergo as such a unity..." (Maturana & Varela, 1980, p. 137)

"The invariant relations that hold between the components of a composite unity of a particular kind" (H. MATURANA, 1979, p.23).

The autopoietic form of organization is fundamentally different from allopoietic one.

Relations:

Definitions:

Principia Cybernetica
Encyclopedia Autopoietica
International Encyclopedia of Systems & Cybernetics

 

The relations that define a system as a unity, and determine the dynamics of interaction and transformations which it may undergo as such a unity, constitute the organization of a system. (Matura and Varela, 1979).

Has at least three meanings (1) The act of arranging components to form a pattern different from what could occur by change, by some criterion or better than it was before e.g., conducting a political campaign; (2) A complex complementary conditionality in behavior or in the coexistence of physical or living components (Ashby) as in an ecological system or in such social organizations as a family, a university or a government agency being constituted by its members through conventional rules of conduct, legally recognized and interacted with by observers or by other social organizations; (3) The relations, and processes of communication, including coordination and coorientation among the components or variables of a system that (a) determine the dynamics of interaction and transformations it may undergo in a physical space and (b) constitute its unity whether only for an observer or also for itself. In this third and largely cybernetic meaning, the properties of the components that realize a system as a concrete physical entity do not enter the description of that system’s organization. It follows that machines, organisms and social forms of vastly different materiality and components may have the same organization. Accordingly, a whole system may be explained in terms of the properties of its components and its organization. The use to which a particular system may be put or who created it in the first place is not a feature of its organization. A theory of design (including engineering), management and of (concrete) organizational behavior is concerned with (1). A theory of organizations concerns (2) and attempts to provide generalizations about how cells, or organisms interact or how and why people work together and form larger unities. Cybernetics is concerned and has in fact been considered coextensive with an organization theory which concerns (3) and attempts to provide theories of or a logic for how unities and whole systems can arise or be maintained through the forms of communication (and more complex kinds or interaction and interdependencies) among components without reference to their materiality. The theory of modelling is a direct outgrowth of this organization concept. Like cybernetics generally, an organization theory is not disturbed by the possibility that some organizations may not be realized by man or by nature but it will be informed by the finding that they cannot exist (Ashby).

(Krippendorff).

(Organization)

"the relations that define a system as a unity, and determine the dynamics of interaction and transformations which it may undergo as such a unity..." (Maturana & Varela, 1980, p. 137) Maturana notes ‘organization’ comes from the Greek and means ‘instrument’. By using this word for the essential, defining character of a system he focuses attention on "... the instrumental participation of the components in the constitution of the unity." (1975, p. 315) It is the organization of a system which defines its identity, its properties as a unity, and the frame within which it must be addressed as a unary whole.

"The organization of a machine (or system) does nor specify the properties of the components which realize the machine as a concrete system, it only specifies the relations which these must generate to constitute the machine or system as a unity.) Therefore, the organization of a machine is independent of the properties of its components which can be any, and a given machine can be realized in many different manners by many different kinds of components. In other words, although a given machine can be realized by many different structures, for it to constitute a concrete entity in a given space its actual components must be defined in that space, and have the properties which allow them to generate the relations which define it." (Maturana & Varela, 1980, p. 77)

This delineation ascribes a measure of generality or abstraction to the attribution of organization. This in turn results in the association of organization with a class of systems, as opposed to being limited to individual systems. "The organization of a system, then, specifies the class identity of the system, and must remain invariant for the class identify of the system to remain invariant: if the organization of a system changes, then its identity changes and it becomes a unity of another kind." (Maturana & Varela, 1980, p. xx

This means that the aorganization (or system) maintains its identity. However the system, while organizationally closed, is not isolated, because this being the case, its survival would be impossible, in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

As stated by ZELENY, the allopoietic mode of organization is characterized by the fact that the system does not produce its own components, nor possesses the processes to produce them. "Thus, allopoietic systems are not perceived as "living" and are usually referred to as mechanistic or contrived systems... For example, spatially determined structures, like crystals, or macromolecular chains, machines, formal hierarchies, etc., are allopoietic" (Ibid).