The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision

by Fritjof Capra

Drawn from autopoiesis, the three perspectives of organization, structure, and process provide an integrative conceptual framework for the understanding of biological life

The natural sciences are supposed to deal with material phenomena, but only the structure perspective is concerned with the study of matter. The other two deal with relationships, qualities, patterns, and processes, all of which are nonmaterial

most scientists tend to think of a pattern of organization as an idea abstracted from matter, rather than a generative force.

The processes of self-organization in this network pattern are understood as cognitive processes that eventually give rise to conscious experience and conceptual thought. All these cognitive phenomena are nonmaterial, but they are embodied; they arise from and are shaped by the body. Thus, life is never divorced from matter, even though its essential characteristics – organization, complexity, processes, and so on – are nonmaterial.

To apply our knowledge of living networks to social phenomena, we need to find out, among other things, whether the concept of autopoiesis is valid in the social domain.

What is common to all these living systems is that their smallest living components are always cells, and therefore we can confidently say that all living systems, ultimately, are autopoietic.

The central problem with all attempts to extend the concept of autopoiesis to the social domain is that it has been defined precisely only for systems in physical space and for computer simulations in mathematical spaces.

Human social systems, however, exist not only in the physical domain but also in a symbolic social domain, shaped by the “inner world” of concepts, ideas, and symbols that arises with human thought, consciousness, and language.

More specifically, the organism's behavior is determined by its own structure, a structure formed by a succession of autonomous structural changes.

On the one hand, the network continually generates mental images, thoughts, and meaning; on the other hand, it continually coordinates the behavior of its members. From the complex dynamics and interdependence of these processes emerges the integrated system of values, beliefs, and rules of conduct that we associate with the phenomenon of culture.

culture arises from a complex, highly nonlinear dynamics. It is created by a social network involving multiple feedback loops through which values, beliefs, and rules of conduct are continually communicated, modified, and sustained.

the paramount form of power in the network society is the power to constitute networks – to connect individuals and institutions to these networks, or to exclude them, and to interconnect different networks.

In social networks, the hubs with the richest connections become centers of power. Because they connect large numbers of people to the network they are sought out as authorities in various fields. Thus, in a social network the centers of power are centers of both empowerment and of authority.

Living systems are self-generating networks, meaning that their pattern of organization is a network pattern in which each component contributes to the production of the other components. This idea is extended to the social domain by identifying the relevant living networks as networks of communications.

Social organizations, such as businesses or political institutions, are systems whose patterns of organization are designed specifically to organize the distribution of power.

Social systems produce nonmaterial as well as material structures. The processes that sustain a social network are processes of communication, which generate shared meaning and rules of behavior (the network's culture), as well as a shared body of knowledge. The rules of behavior, whether formal or informal, are known in sociology as social structures.

In recent surveys, CEOs (chief executive officers) reported again and again that their efforts at organizational change did not yield the promised results. Instead of managing new organizations, they ended up managing the unwanted side effects of their efforts

The principles of classical management theory are so deeply ingrained in the ways we think about organizations that for most managers the design of formal structures, linked by clear lines of communication, coordination, and control, has become almost second nature.

The core problem seems to be a confusion arising from the dual nature of all human organizations

On the one hand, they are social institutions designed for specific purposes, such as making money for their shareholders,

At the same time, organizations are communities of people who interact with one another to build relationships, help each other, and make their daily activities meaningful at a personal level.

It seems, therefore, that organizational change will appear in a new light when we understand clearly to what extent and in what ways human organizations are alive. Indeed, a number of organizational theorists have taken this approach in recent years (De Geus, 1997; Senge, 1990; Wheatley, 1999; Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers, 1998

The distinction of belonging to a network may be as simple as being able to follow certain conversations, or knowing the latest gossip.

Formal policies and procedures are always filtered and modified by the informal networks, which allow workers to use their creativity when faced with unexpected and novel situations.

The power of this interplay becomes strikingly apparent when employees engage in a “work-to-rule” protest. By working strictly according to the official manuals and procedures, they seriously impair the organization's functioning.

Experienced managers know how to work with the informal organization. They will typically let the formal structures handle the routine work and rely on the informal organization to help with tasks that go beyond the usual routine.

According to the Santiago theory of cognition, a living network responds to disturbances with structural changes, and it chooses both which disturbances to notice and how to respond

A machine can be controlled; a living system can only be disturbed.

Meaningful disturbances will get the organization's attention and will trigger structural changes.

Offering impulses and guiding principles rather than strict instructions evidently amounts to significant changes in power relations, changes from domination and control to cooperation and partnerships.

the phenomenon of emergence takes place at critical points of instability that arise from fluctuations in the environment, amplified by feedback loops.

In a human organization, the event triggering the process of emergence may be an offhand comment, which may not even seem important to the person who made it but is meaningful to some people in a community of practice.

This process of emergence involves several distinct stages. To begin with, there must be a certain openness within the organization, a willingness to be disturbed, in order to set the process in motion; and there has to be an active network of communications with multiple feedback loops to amplify the triggering event.

The next stage is the point of instability, which may be experienced as tension, chaos, uncertainty, or crisis.

At this stage, the system may either break down, or it may break through to a new state of order, which is characterized by novelty and involves an experienc...

Since the process of emergence is thoroughly nonlinear, involving multiple feedback loops, it cannot be fully analyzed with our conventional, linear ways of reasoning, and hence ...

Human organizations always contain both designed and emergent structures. The designed structures are the formal structures of the organization, as described in its official documents.

The emergent structures are created by the organization's informal networks and communities of practice. The two types of structures are very different, as we have seen, and every organization needs both kinds.

Designed structures provide stability.

In every human organization there is a tension between its designed structures, which embody relationships of power, and its emergent structures, which represent the organization's aliveness and creativity.

Whether we talk about economics, the environment, education, healthcare, law, or management, we are dealing with living organisms, social systems, or ecosystems. And consequently, the fundamental shift of perception from the mechanistic to the systemic view of life is relevant to all these areas.

the central theme of all criticism is the striking disproportion between the cost and overall effectiveness of modern medicine.

medical researchers and practitioners often limit themselves to understanding the mechanisms through which the disease operates, so that they can then interfere with them.

Although every practicing physician knows that healing is an essential part of all medical care, the phenomenon is presently not part of scientific medicine. The reason is evident: it is a phenomenon that cannot be understood when health is reduced to mechanical functioning.

there is a huge gap between the ability to identify genes that are involved in the development of disease and the understanding of their precise function, let alone their manipulation to obtain a desired outcome.

In the biomedical model, health is defined as the absence of disease, and disease as the malfunctioning of biological mechanisms.

the systems view of life leads us to see health as a process, and as a multidimensional and multileveled phenomenon.

As we have discussed, a living system is understood as a self-generating, self-organizing network that displays a high degree of stability.

This view of living systems suggests the notion of dynamic balance as a useful concept to define health. Such a state of balance is not a static equilibrium but rather a flexible pattern of fluctuations.

An impressive proof of the healing power of positive expectations alone is provided by the well-known placebo effect (see guest essay by Fabrizio Benedetti, MD, on p. 329).