Autopoiesis: Critique of a Postmodern Paradigm

Zolo, Danilo

doi:10.3817/1290086061

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is a precaution that the proponents of the theory of autopoiesis, and H. Maturana in particular, have failed to observe. While these authors propose a constructivist theory of cognition, they paradoxically treat self-reference as a fundamental truth, or as an objective structure of reality (e.g., Dell, 1982: 39; for a contrary view see Zolo, 1990). 20.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modernist and postmodernist metaphors of the policy process: Control and stability vs. chaos and reflexive understanding

Dobuzinskis

1992

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The complexity of the policy process is such that analysts often resort to metaphorical representations of its most salient aspects. Sometimes these metaphors are used deliberately but, in most cases, they are implicitly built into their theoretical frameworks. This article argues that commonly used metaphors based on the paradigmatic notion of 'control' have ceased to be relevant to the analysis of contemporary policy dilemmas. Two new conceptions of the policy process have emerged from the new sciences of complexity. Both chaos theory and models based on the concept of ,organizational closure' clearly reveal the self-organizing logic inherent in the problems confronting managers and policy-makers today. The main focus here is on examining the rationales for, and the potentials of, metaphors derived from these paradigmatic innovations -innovations which can be situated within an emerging postmodern culture insofar as they emphasize indeterminacy and the role played by social actors in constructing the social situations in which they find themselves. It is also argued, however, that within very specific contexts the notion of control may still be valid.Neither policy analysts, nor social theorists, nor ordinary mortals can avoid using metaphors -sometimes called 'models' -when talking about public affairs. Metaphors are more than superficial analogies used merely for stylistic purposes; they serve to transfer certain relationships from one level to another where such relationships rev.eal logical connections that had remained unnoticed (Black, 1979). This intrusion of rhetoric in the policy sciences is sometimes viewed as an unfortunate obstacle to the articulation of a truly 'scientific' language. But, as it is becoming more widely recognized, rhetoric and policy analysis are inseparable (Majone, 1989;Throgmorton, 1991).This being granted, two problems arise: First, how do we know the metaphors we are using are adequate. Second, how do we guard against the risk of confusing images of an elusive reality with that reality itself; in other words, how can we avoid what A. N. Whitehead called 'the fallacy of misplaced concreteness?' This paper examines the development and relevance of metaphorical construction in systems-theoretic approaches to policy analysis and draws several inferences from this particular case for the use of metaphors in the policy sciences as a whole.During the last two to three decades, systems theory and cybernetics have proven to be a fertile source of ideas for the many disciplines that are constitutive of the policy sciences, e.g., organization theory and information management, institutional design, strategic planning, budgeting and policy * The author wishes to thank Michael Howlett for his helpful comments on an earlier draft.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modernist and postmodernist metaphors of the policy process: Control and stability vs. chaos and reflexive understanding

Dobuzinskis

1992

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each of the above authors has received their fair share of criticism for various reasons, mostly stemming from ontological and epistemological inconsistencies (Zolo, 1990;Mingers, 1990Mingers, , 1995. It should be noted that the work of Danilo Zolo is critical of autopoiesis in its original form for epistemological and ontological reasons, and therefore the application of the theory in the social context only carries further epistemological and ontological problems to those that already existed.…”

Section: Theoretical Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although radical, Luhmann's work has several inconsistencies that need to be considered. Zolo (1986Zolo ( , 1990, cites several problems with the theory, the most serious stemming from his arguments regarding the shortcomings of Maturana and Varela's original work. Zolo notes that`he [Luhmann] embeds autopoiesis into his general theory without having dealt with its shortcomings' (Zolo,1990).…”

Section: The Sociological Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ontological and epistemological problems described by Zolo (1990) and Mingers (1990Mingers ( , 1992b provide grounds for a further evaluation of the perspectives above. It should be considered in this review that the focus of critique for these authors is the biological context which autopoiesis was originally applied to, not the organisational context that will become the focus of this paper.…”

Section: Criticisms Of Autopoiesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are organizations autopoietic? A call for new debate

Kay

2001

Syst. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our critique differs from earlier criticisms. Gaines (1981), for example, challenged the theory's novelty and the sophistication of its core theoretical constructs, while Zolo (1990), arguing from an epistemological perspective, criticized t h e experimental epistemology advocated by the theory. The critique that will be given in this article is derived from system science.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autopsies on autopoiesis

Scheper

1996

Syst. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article concerns t--e scientific va-le of the theory of autopoietic systems as developed by Maturana and Varela. In a first step, the explanatory power of the theory is investigated. It is argued that, due to the tautological nature of i t s core concept and t h e absence of t h e specification of t h e organization of the autopoietic system, the empirical counterparts of the theory's constructs cannot be determined. This renders the theory inadequate for descriptive and explanatory purposes. Proponents of autopoietic system theory do not agree with this kind of reasoning and its conclusion, since autopoietic systems, in their view, cannot be observed precisely because of its autopoietic nature. I n a subsequent step, therefore, the epistemology advocated by Maturana and Varela on which this counter argument rests is discussed. It is shown that the interpretation of the ultrastable system, which underlies this epistemology, is not correct. Consequently, it is concluded that autopoietic system theory a s developed by Maturana a n d Varela i s unscientific.

show abstract

Autopoiesis: Critique of a Postmodern Paradigm

Cited by 11 publications

References 1 publication

Modernist and postmodernist metaphors of the policy process: Control and stability vs. chaos and reflexive understanding

Modernist and postmodernist metaphors of the policy process: Control and stability vs. chaos and reflexive understanding

Are organizations autopoietic? A call for new debate

Autopsies on autopoiesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About