Organizational Closure

These differences notwithstanding, to the extent that structures and functional organizations are continually regenerated by internal mechanisms, some degree of material and functional closure is achieved. This closure, or internal causation, in turn creates domains of relative structural and functional autonomy wherein invariant structures and functional relations are preserved by virtue of internal rather than external processes. Living organization entails this closure of production of material parts and relations (structural and functional self-causation), that is, the system reproduces its parts and its whole. Closure creates an inside that is self-produced and controlled from within, and an outside realm of relatively contingent processes that are not produced by the self-production loop. Closure and autonomy are always only partial for biological systems that are in constant interaction with their environs: for an energetically-open system there is always the necessity of material exchange; for an informationally-open system there must always be some contingent interaction with the external world.

Organisational closure/Autopoiesis

: An observer distinguishes a system as organisationally closed if the products of the processes of the system include the processes themselves, i.e., the system, as an organisation, is self-productive. Maturana and Varela (1980) refer to living systems that are organisationally closed as autopoietic (self-producing) systems.

Commentary: Note that here we have a case of not only the observer distinguishing a system but the system distinguishing itself by computing and maintaining its own boundary. As described on p. 26, Maturana makes a distinction between the ‘structure’ of a system and the ‘organisation’ of a system. A system’s structure is the configuration of its parts at a given moment in time: a snapshot of the system’s state. The organisation of a system is the set of processes that are reproduced by circular causality such that the system continues to exist as an autonomous unity. An organisationally closed system can be modelled as a strange attractor: always changing its structure but always maintaining its organisation.

...

As argued above, cultures (qua social systems or societies) are self-perpetuating. Their structure may vary as they adapt to changing circumstances but their organisational closure is conserved. They reproduce themselves, more or less successfully. The biomechanical fabric decays and dies and is replaced. The beliefs and behaviours of the culture are passed on from generation to generation. The newborn are nurtured and socialised. The subsystems that support these processes vary in detail from culture to culture. They include the family, the education system, and the processes of induction and training that accompany being a member of a particular organisation and occupying a particular social role. None of the systems and processes is perfect. Examples of successful cultural transmissions are many, for example, the traditions of the great faiths and associated civilisations (Huntington, 1997), and the long-term stability, over centuries, of some preliterate societies (see, for example, Rappaport, 1967).

Although many cultures are long-lived, they are still subject to change. Some cultures suffer more drastic changes, to the point that the culture itself may cease to exist. ...