Advance Search

Sociocybernetics and autopoiesis: New laws of organisational form?

New laws of organisational form?

Sonja Verwey
University of Johannesburg
Keywords:
Copyright and Licensing:
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Share:

How to Cite

Sociocybernetics and autopoiesis: New laws of organisational form?. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 30(2), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v30i2.1655
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
  • Articles
  • Submited: October 15, 2022
  • Published: October 17, 2022

Abstract

Contemporary debates in social disciplines are making increasing reference to theoretical
concepts such as sociocybernetics and autopoiesis (Bailey, 1983, 1997, 2001; Bopry, 2007,
Brier, 2005; Geyer, 1994, 1995, 2003; Glanville, 2004; Goldspink, 2001; Hernes & Bakken, 2003;
Krippendorff, 1996; Letiche, 2007; Luhmann, 1996; Mingers, 2002b; Morgan, 1998; Scott, 1996,
2001b, 2003; Smith & Higgins, 2003; Umpleby, 2005; Van der Zouwen, 1997; Von Foerster, 2003;
Von Glasersfeld, 1996). It becomes apparent from these debates that certain paradigm shifts are
imminent not so much as a result of new knowledge, but rather as a result of new metaphors that
present alternative perspectives for interdisciplinary corroboration.
Thus far, debates on revisiting cybernetic concepts have largely been conducted in other social
sciences disciplines such as sociology, politics and semiology, this despite the challenges a cocreational perspective poses for communication in general and for organisational communication
specifically. This paper aims to raise the debate amongst communication scholars, especially
since communication scholars are conspicuously absent in the social-scientific debates within
other disciplines, and we are in danger of failing to challenge our own intellectual assumptions.
As such, this paper discusses and explores the appropriateness and applicability of cybernetics
and autopoiesis as contemporary theoretical approaches to the study of organisations as
communicatively enacted entities. It attempts to identify some of the intellectual challenges posed
by extending the boundaries of our conversations beyond our recognised metaphors and concepts.
The purpose of this paper is to initiate dialogue among communication scholars that may resonate
with the constructivist epistemology, and which constitutes both cybernetics and postmodernism.
We argue that cybernetics in its entirety poses a challenge for the study of organisations from a
communication perspective. We argue, as Geyer (1995) has done, that it may be an intellectually
challenging exercise to reposition the current modern and postmodern organisational metaphors
within a single new emerging metaphor: the schismatic metaphor.

Pdf
Pdf

Article Metrics Graph

Article Views | PDF Downloads
Chart Graph | Range Graph

References

  1. Aguado, J.M. (2009). Self-observation, self-reference and operational coupling in social systems: steps towards a coherent epistemology of mass media. Empedocles European Journal forthe Philosophy of Communication 1, (1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1386/ejpc.1.1.59/1
  2. Ashby, R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.5851
  3. Bailey, K.D. (1983). Social entropy theory: toward a statistical and verbal congruence. Quality and Quantity, 18, 113-133.
  4. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00221453
  5. -. (1997). System entropy analysis. Kybernetes, 26, (6/7), 674-688. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684929710169852
  6. -. (2001). Towards unifying science: applying concepts across disciplinary boundaries.
  7. Systems research and behavioral science. Systems Research, 18, 41-62.
  8. -. (2007). Insider coding: congruence in the theories of Luhmann and Miller. Journal of Sociocybernetics, 5, (1/2), 23-33. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http//www.unizar.es/sociocybernetics/ Blackler, F. & McDonald, S. (2000). Power, mastery and organizational learning. Journal of Management Studies, 37, (6), 833-851.
  9. Boje, D.M. (2000). Phenomenal complexity theory and change at Disney. Management, 13, (6), 558-566. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810010359598
  10. Boje, D. & Arkoubi, K.A. (2005). Third cybernetic revolution: beyond open to dialogic system theories. Tamara Journal, 4, (4.2), 138-150.
  11. Bopry, J. (2007). The give and take between semiotics and second-order cybernetics. Semiotica, 164, (1/4), 31-51.
  12. https://doi.org/10.1515/SEM.2007.018
  13. Botan, C.H. & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: state of the field. Journal of Communication,
  14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02649.x 54, (4), 645-661.
  15. Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory - the skeleton of science. Management Science, 2, (3), 197-208.
  16. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197
  17. Brier, S. (1996). From second-order cybernetics to cybersemiotics: a semiotic re-entry into the
  18. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199609)13:3<229::AID-SRES96>3.0.CO;2-B
  19. second-order cybernetics of Heinz Von Foerster. Systems Research, 13, (3), 229-244.
  20. -. (2005). The construction of information and communication: a cybersemiotic re-entry into Heinz Von Foerster's metaphysical construction of second-order cybernetics. Semiotica, 154, (1/4), 355-399.
  21. Brown, W.B. (1966). Systems, boundaries, and information flow. Academy of Management, 9, (4), 318-327.https://doi.org/10.2307/254950
  22. Capra, F. (2005). Complexity and life. Theory and Culture, 22, (5), 33-44.https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276405057046
  23. Carlston, D.E. (1994). Associated systems theory: a systematic approach to cognitive representations of persons. In R.S. Wyer (Ed.), Associated systems theory: a systematic approach to cognitive representations of persons, pp. 1-61. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  24. Chia, R. (1995). From modern to postmodern organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 16, (4), 597-604. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069501600406
  25. Christensen, L.T., Torp, S. & Firat, F. (2005). Integrated marketing communication andpostmodernity: an odd couple? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10, (2), 156-167.https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280510596961
  26. Clegg, S.R. (1994). Studying organisation: theory and method. London: Sage.
  27. Cohen, H.B. (1998). The performance of management paradox. Academy of Management Executive, 12, (3), 30-40.
  28. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1998.1109048
  29. Contu, A. & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: the importance of power relations in learning theory. Organizational Science, 14, (3), 283-296.https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.283.15167
  30. Cooper, R. & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: an introduction. Organization Studies, 9, (1), 91-112.
  31. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900112
  32. Craig R.T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, (2), 119-161.
  33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x
  34. Drucker, P. (1999). Beyond the information revolution. The Atlantic Monthly, October, 47-57.
  35. Edwards, M. (2005). The integral holon. A holonomic approach to organisational change and transformation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, (3), 269-288.https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810510599425
  36. Fairclough, N. (2001). The dialectics of discourse. Textus, XIV, 231-242.
  37. Geyer, F. (1994). Norbet Wiener and the social sciences. Kybernetes, 23, (6/7), 46-61. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684929410068334
  38. -. (1995). The challenge of sociocybernetics. Kybernetes, 24, (4), 6-32. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684929510089321
  39. -. (2003). The march of self-reference. Kybernetes, 31, (7/8), 1021-1042. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920210436318
  40. Gioia, D.A. & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15, (4), 564-608.
  41. https://doi.org/10.2307/258683
  42. Gioia, D.A. & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, (6), 433-448.
  43. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
  44. Glanville, R. (2004). The purpose of second-order cybernetics. Kybernetes, 33, (9/10), 1379-1386. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920410556016
  45. Goldspink, C. (2010). A review of sociocybernetics: complexity, autopoiesis, and observation of social systems by Geyer, F. & van der Zouwen, J. (Eds). 2001. Retrieved June 21, 2010, from http://jass.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/1/reviews/goldspink.html
  46. Green, R.M. (1993). Business ethics as a postmodern phehomenon. Business Ethics Quarterly,https://doi.org/10.2307/38572503, 219-225.
  47. Hassard, J. (1994). Postmodern organisational analysis: toward a conceptual framework. Journal of Management Studies, 31, (3), 303-324.
  48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00620.x
  49. -. (2002). Essai: organizational time: modern, symbolic and postmodern reflections. Organization Studies, 23, (6), 885-892.
  50. Hernes, T. & Bakken, T. (2003). Implications of self-reference: Niklas Luhmann's autopoiesios and organization theory. Organization Studies, 24, (9),1511-1535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603249007
  51. Huzzard, T. (2004). Communities of domination? Reconceptualising organisational learning and power. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16, (6), 350-361. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410550321
  52. Karp, T. & Helgø, T. (2008). The future of leadership: the art of leading people in a "postmanagerial" environment. Foresight, 10, (2), 30-37.
  53. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810869662
  54. Kelly, K. (1998). New rules of the new economy: 10 radical strategies for a connected world. NY: William Morrow and Co.
  55. Krippendorff, K. (1996). A second-order cybernetics of otherness. Systems Research, 13, (3), 311-328.
  56. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199609)13:3<311::AID-SRES106>3.0.CO;2-O
  57. Kumar D.M. (2004). The paradigm shift: Culture of chance to culture of choice. Retrieved September 8, 2009, from IndianMBA.com.
  58. Letiche, H. (2007). Parasites and self-organization or is self-organization Researchable? Tamara Journal, 6, (6.2), 187-202.
  59. Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In R.F. Geyer & J. van der Zouwen (Eds).
  60. Sociocybernetic paradoxes: observation, control and evolution of self-steering systems, pp. 172-192. London: Sage.
  61. -. (1995). Social systems. California: Stanford University Press.
  62. -. (1996). Membership and motives in social systems. Systems Research, 13, 341-348.
  63. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199609)13:3<341::AID-SRES92>3.0.CO;2-5
  64. Lynch, D. & Kordis, P. (1988). Strategy of the dolphin: scoring a win in a chaotic world. NY: William Morrow.
  65. Marion, R. & Bacon, J. (2000). Organizational extinction and complex systems. Emergence, 1, (4), 71-96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327000em0104_5
  66. Mayer, J.D. (2001). Primary divisions of personality and their scientific contributions: from the trilogy-of-mind to the systems set. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 31, (4), 449-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00169
  67. Maturana, H.R & Varela, F.J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. The realization of the living. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
  68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8947-4
  69. McCulloch, W.S. (1965). Embodiments of mind. Cambridge Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  70. McKenna, B. (2005). Wisdom, ethics and the postmodern organisation. In D. Rooney, G. Hearn & A. Ninan (Eds). Handbook on the knowledge economy, pp. 37-53. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  71. McSweeney, B. (2006). Are we living in a post-bureaucratic epoch? Journal of Organisational Change Management, 19, (1), 22-37.
  72. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810610643668
  73. Mingers, J. (1997). Systems typologies in the light of autopoiesis: a reconceptualization of
  74. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199709/10)14:5<303::AID-SRES161>3.0.CO;2-A
  75. Boulding's hierarchy, and a typology of self-referential systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14, 303-313.
  76. -. (2002a). Systems typologies in the light of autopoiesis: a reconceptualization of Boulding's hierarchy, and a typology of self-referential systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14, 303-313.
  77. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199709/10)14:5<303::AID-SRES161>3.0.CO;2-A
  78. -. (2002b). Can social systems be autopoietic? Bhaskar's and Giddens' social theories. Journalfor the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34, (4), 403-407.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2004.00256.x
  79. Morgan, G. (1981). The schismatic metaphor and its implications for organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 2, (1), 23-44.
  80. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068100200103
  81. -. (1998). Images of organization. (Executive ed.). California: Sage Publications Inc.
  82. Nonaka, I. & Toyama, R. (2007). Strategic management as distributed practical wisdom. Industrial
  83. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm014 and Corporate Change, 16, (3), 371-394.
  84. Nowotny, H. (2005). The increase of complexity and its reduction: emergent interfaces between https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276405057189
  85. natural sciences, humanities and social sciences. Theory, Culture & Society, 22, (5),15-31.
  86. Nÿstrom, H. (2000). The postmodern challenge - from economic to creative management. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00163
  87. Creativity and Innovation Management, 9, (2), 109-114.
  88. Power, M. (1990). Modernism, postmodernism, and organization. In J. Hassard & D. Pym. (Eds).
  89. The theory and philosophy of organization. London: Routledge.
  90. Powers, W.T. (1973). Perceptual control theory. Chicago: Aldine.
  91. Ramsey, C. (2003). Planning and playing: a little narrative on modern and postmodern management. Journal of Management, 22, (6), 552-555.
  92. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710310478512
  93. Rooney, D. & McKenna, B. (2005). Should the knowledge-based economy be a savant or a sage?
  94. Wisdom and socially intelligent innovation. Prometheus, 23, (3), 307-323.
  95. Rowley, J. & Gibbs, P. (2008). From learning organisation to practically wise organisation. Learning Organisation, 15, (5), 356-372.
  96. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470810898357
  97. Schultz, P.D. (1996). The morally accountable organization: a postmodern approach to organizational responsibility. Journal of Business Communication, 33, (2), 165-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369603300205
  98. Scott, B. (1996). Second-order cybernetics a cognitive methodology. Systems Research, 13, (3), 393-406.
  99. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199609)13:3<393::AID-SRES102>3.0.CO;2-A
  100. -. (2001a). Cybernetics and social sciences. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18, 411-420. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.445
  101. -. (2001b). Gordon Pask's conversation theory: a domain independent constructivist model of human knowing. Foundations of Science, 6, 343-360.
  102. -. (2003). Second-order cybernetics: an historical introduction. Kybernetes, 33, (9/10), 1365- 1378. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920410556007
  103. Smith, W. & Higgins, M. (2003). Postmodernism and popularisation: the cultural life of chaostheory. Culture and Organization, 9, (2), 93-104.
  104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759550302803
  105. Stacey, R.D. (1995). The science of complexity: an alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16, (6), 477-495.
  106. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160606
  107. Umpleby, S.A. (1994). The cybernetics of conceptual systems. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from http://www.gwu.edu/~umpleby/Conceptual_Systems.txt
  108. -. (2005). What I learned from Heinz von Foerster about the construction of science. Kybernetes, 34, (1/2), 278-294.
  109. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920510575843
  110. Urry, J. (2005). The complexity turn. Theory, Culture & Society, 22, (5), 1-14.
  111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276405057188
  112. Van der Zouwen, J. (1997). The validation of sociocybernetic models. Kybernetes, 26, (6/7), 848-856. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684929710170058
  113. Varela, F.G., Maturana, H.R. & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. BioSystems, 5, 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0303-2647(74)90031-8
  114. Von Foerster, H. (2003). Understanding understanding. Essays on cybernetics and cognition. New York: Springer.
  115. https://doi.org/10.1007/b97451
  116. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Farewell to objectivity. Systems Research, 13, (3), 279-286.
  117. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199609)13:3<279::AID-SRES91>3.0.CO;2-L
  118. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine.
  119. USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  120. -. (1950). The human use of human beings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
How to Cite
Sociocybernetics and autopoiesis: New laws of organisational form?. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 30(2), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v30i2.1655

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel

Custom technologies based on your needs

  • ORCID
  • Crossref
  • PubMed
    • Clarivate