THE APPLICATION OF AUTOPOIESIS IN SYSTEMS ANALYSIS: ARE AUTOPOIETIC SYSTEMS ALSO SOCIAL SYSTEMS?

1992 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
MILAN ZELENÝ ◽  
KEVIN D. HUFFORD

1972 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter L. Wilkins ◽  
Blair W. McDonald ◽  
Allen Jones ◽  
Lee Murdy ◽  
Lawrence R. James ◽  
...  


2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-74
Author(s):  
Juan Miguel Aguado

This paper is concerned with the role of self-observation in managing complexity in meaning systems. Revising Niklas Luhmann's theory of mass media, we approach the mass media system as a social sub-system functionally specialized in the coupling of psychic systems' (individuals) self-observation and social systems' self-observation (including, respectively, themselves as each other's internalized environment).According to Autopoietic Systems Theory and von Foerster's second order cybernetics, self-observation presupposes a capability for meta-observation (to observe the observation) that demands a specific distinction between observer and actor. This distinction seems especially relevant in those social contexts where a separation between the action of observation and other social actions is required (in politics, for instance). However, in those social contexts (such as mass-media meaning production) where the defining action is precisely observation (in terms of the differentiation that constitutes the system), the border between observer and actor is blurred.We shall consider the significant divergence between the implicit and the explicit epistemologies of the mass media system, which appears to be characterized by the explicit assumption of a classic objectivist epistemology, on one side, and a relativist epistemology on the other, posing a hybrid epistemic status somewhere in between science and arts.



1982 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 509-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth D. Bailey




1975 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT DUBIN


1969 ◽  
Vol 9 (54) ◽  
pp. 33-40
Author(s):  
Kenneth E. Boulding




1973 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Otto Hondrich

AbstractThe terms of „need“ and „interest“ occupy a prominent place in contemporary social criticism and planning. As representatives of „person“ against „society“ their position is problematic since they are chronically influenced by changing social systems. Empirical research concerning the dynamics of differentiating need-orientations ought to go on within a theoretical concept of the relationship between personal needs and social structures. Structural functionalism, historical materialism, socialization theory, behavioral sociology, relative deprivation and symbolic interactionism are examined in this respect: A paradigm of systems analysis is proposed which interpretes exchange between material, social and personal systems by the medium of need-orientations. Need-orientations are seen as conflicts. Consequently, evolution of material and social systems is going on within personal systems by means of intrapersonal and social strategies of conflict resolution. Diagrams of the research project are intended to show how conflicts (need-orientations) and conflict solving strategies may be located empirically as differentiated variables and how those variables may be interconnected to form a body of hypotheses.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document