Systems Research and Behavioral Science Syst. Res. 28, 577 –580 (2011) Published online 27 October 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/sres.1119
■ Research Paper
Commentary on the Separate Prologues by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela to the Second Edition of ‘De Máquinas y Seres Vivos—Autopoiesis: La organización de lo vivo’—Twenty Years After Alberto Paucar-Caceres1* and Roger Harnden2 1 2
Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester, UK Blaenau Ffestiniog, Gwynedd, North Wales, UK
The present paper introduces two documents written separately by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, which describe their early scientific and intellectual collaboration in the formulation of the idea of autopoiesis and reflect on how that idea impacted on the wider intellectual community up to the mid-1990s. The paper invites consideration of these papers in the context of the history of science as a rich narrative as to the way in which social, personal and historical factors deeply impact on any such work. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Keywords autopoiesis; constitution of the living; systemic; structural determinism; biology of cognition; epistemology; enaction
In 1973, Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela published ‘De Máquinas y Seres Vivos Autopoiesis: La organización de lo vivo’ (Maturana and Varela, 1973). Twenty years later, a second edition was published; for this edition, both Maturana and Varela wrote extensive and separate prologues under the title ‘Twenty years after’ (Maturana and Varela, 1994). The two distinct prologues contained * Correspondence to: Alberto Paucar-Caceres, Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Aytoun Building, Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH, UK. E-mail:
[email protected]
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
invaluable reflections from each of the authors on their experiences and memories of that 20 year period. Both the early and later publications had a limited audience in that they were published in Chile. Varela’s prologue was translated into English and published in part, 2 years after in a special issue of Systems Research dedicated to Heinz von Foesrter (Varela, 1996). The author gives a fascinating account both of how the initial ideas emerged and of the political and historical background in which these ideas developed and found their place in the scientific community. Received 9 August 2011 Accepted 29 August 2011
RESEARCH PAPER Maturana’s prologue has only recently been translated by the present authors and appeared in a special issue of Constructivist Foundations (Paucar-Caceres and Harnden, 2011). It is available online at: http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/articles/6/3/293.maturana. pdf. Maturana’s preface reflects on the shift of understanding from the original notion of selfreferred or auto-referred systems to the concept of autopoiesis itself. In view of the impact of the authors on various intellectual traditions, to understand the historical context of the entailed ideas and the changing insight of both men over the years, we felt it valuable to publish in full both prefaces in this special issue. It is well known that Maturana and Varela work together after their first encounter in April 1966,1 and indeed, for many years their two names became used almost interchangeably, something that caused both men considerable unease. For a variety of circumstances, their collaboration was not a continuous one, in spite of the resounding success of some of their joint writing (e.g. The Tree of Knowledge; ‘Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living). They worked together sporadically, and eventually their paths largely separated, and their professional and intellectual foci diverged. Apart from two specific periods, actual conjoint activity was not long-life but rather intense and short lived and for all intents and purposes concentrated in two specific periods, 1970–1973 and 1980–1983, as Varela recalls in his prologue: [. . .]. After the years of working intensely with Maturana around 1970–1973 and a brief interlude of new collaborations in the course of my second attempt to return to Chile (1980–1983), our intellectual paths clearly diverged, as much in content as in the focus and style. Indeed, this is not surprising – we are two different individuals living in different places. So it is important to clearly state that our collaboration in the Varela, in his preface, gives an intimate account of this first encounter: ‘I remember the beautiful day in April, 1966, when I went to see him [. . .]. He asked me, what interested me and, with the enthusiasm of my twenty years of age, I replied without vacillation: “The psyche in the universe!” Humberto smiled and said: “Boy, you have arrived to the right place. . .”. It was a memorable day and the beginning of a relationship that would have consequences for both.’ 1
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
578
Syst. Res. creation of autopoiesis does not imply that we share a common vision of some “autopoietic theory.” But, there is an area we shared, which we have described in a book addressed to the outside world, The Tree of Knowledge. We wrote this work between 1982 and 1983, and its translation into twelve languages signalled a significant success. Both authors have given account of these circumstances and have acknowledged the divergent paths they have followed over the years, and this is not the place to describe this in detail. Readers who have followed the prolific output of both men will make their mind about these circumstances. In this commentary, we will just touch on to a couple of issues: first, when they met, Maturana was already an established figure and had performed ground-breaking work. This fact, together with being 18 years older than Varela, perhaps inevitably made their relationship an unequal one for at least in the latter part of the 1960s and earlier 1970s. This is hinted in Maturana’s prologue when he states [. . .] when I say that Francisco was my student I do not pretend to diminish his stature or to subordinate his thinking to mine - I am just referencing the history of the ideas and our changing relationship. I am eighteen years older than Francisco, and in early life that age difference between a student and his teacher is enormous; however it lessens or even disappears as the teacher’s scientific life nears its end. Paucar-Caceres and Harnden (2011) The second factor concerns the cataclysmic political episode experienced in Chile in 1973, when President Allende was assassinated, resulting to the creation of a ‘Chilean diaspora’ as many intellectuals were threatened and felt obliged to leave the country. Varela had always been far more engaged in the global social unrest of 1968, and as is seen from his preface, very much related his political passion with his intellectual quest. Maturana, whether by temperament or ideology or his more mature years, saw his task as the consolidation and nourishment of his faculty and students. It might also be fair to say that Maturana chose to remain focused upon what he saw as Syst. Res. 28, 577 – 580 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/sres
Alberto Paucar-Caceres and Roger Harnden
Syst. Res. his responsibility as a scientist, whereas for Varela, the science always remained situated within a broader historical social and political context. As Varela points out, this resulted in a difference in both style and content, and this is acknowledged by both men in these two prefaces. The style is certainly different: Varela was always interested, as Maturana comments, (Maturana, 2011) in building ‘bridges’ between different disciplines, whereas Maturana himself was more focused upon what one might call ‘pure’ biology. Over the years, many people will have noticed that Maturana consistently refuses attempts to put him into some box such as philosophy and insists that he speaks ‘as a scientist’ and strictly about ‘scientific explanations’ and not others. Varela was deeply imbued with the French tradition concerning the situatedness of any discipline (including the pure sciences) within their historical and cultural context and increasingly actively sought links and resonances between different bodies of knowledge and disciplines. It is interesting to reflect that these differences impacted on the influence of the work of both men, although in somewhat different ways. As the interested reader, one will discover that this difference in style is evident in both the format and the content of these two papers. From the start, Varela discusses the wide and varied influences on his own intellectual development. On a more trivial level, it is interesting to note the there are thirty seven references in his preface, half of which are to articles or books by other authors, or co-authored by Varela. Conversely, Maturana includes nine references, of which eight are selfreferences. These stylistic difference in their scientific work is consistent with the difference in temperament that both scientists have in life in general: Varela was from an early age looking to learn from and share views with various communities and groups2 , whereas one might say that Maturana seems to have regarded groups with certain scepticism. He is open to admitting that 2
In a conversation between Paucar-Caceres and Maturana in Sardinia (May, 2011), it transpired that Francisco was always interested in joining groups or as Maturana calls making ‘bridges’: in his early youth he was an active member of ‘Accion Catolica’ (Catholic Action); latter on as he himself confessed, a committed supporter of the socialist president Salvador Allende; and later in his life he was an active practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism. He worked with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and was a close friend of his.
RESEARCH PAPER indeed he was never a ‘political animal’ although defining himself a democrat Maturana and Poerksen (2004). Indeed, one might reflect that Maturana’s notion of democracy worked against the notions of cliques and group membership of any kind, as has come clear form his later writing on the interaction between persons and their various cultures. For him, the critical action is not political but intellectual and social and concerns widening a sense of responsibility for and inclusion of difference in the social fabric. For the more aggressively engaged (such as Varela, especially in his early years), the demand is for the agenda of a particular ideology or interest. These different temperaments may have contributed to their different stands when Chile faced the political events in 1973 where some 3000 people died as a consequence of the military coup lead by General Pinochet against the democratically elected socialist president Salvador Allende. Shortly after the military coup, Varela left Chile, and Maturana decided to stay. Varela, in his prologue, explains his reasons behinds his decision; Maturana as well has explained his personal reasons in Maturana and Poerksen (2004)3 : My motives to stay were of different kinds. My first thought was: if all democratically minded people left the country there would soon be norecollection of a democratic culture and another better time. [. . .] then I was concerned about the fate of all the many students who were dispirited and suddenly found themselves drifting through the university. Many professors had fled or gone into hiding, or have already been arrested. I met with some of them at the university one day and, and we formed a sort of pact and decide to stay in Chile. I kept the pact and continue to work as a democratically minded member of the university because I felt responsible for the students in my country, Maturana and Poerksen (2004:168): The last point we wish to mention is the marked difference between the two men in their position towards formalization. Maturana has clearly emphasized his believe that for him, the critical issue is 3
In this book, there is an interesting account of Maturana’s encounter with Pinochet (Maturana and Poerksen, 2004: 178)
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Commentary on prologues by H. Maturana and F. Varela
Syst. Res. 28, 577 – 580 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/sres
579
RESEARCH PAPER to understand and that mathematization is a secondary matter, which comes subsequently in that understanding is a necessary prerequisite. Varela saw things differently: for him, formalization is in itself a tool for understanding. This is no surprise, given Varela’s competence and fascination with the mathematical, but it is a point that continues to lay down divisions and sometimes conflicts in the way different people continue to approach intellectual and social matter (such as, for example, the complexity sciences) and the implications they sometimes draw from such difference approaches. These two papers are an intriguing insight into personal, historical and intellectual happenings and the relationship of two truly remarkable and original thinkers. This is the first time that these two prologues have been presented side-by-side, providing the opportunity for immediate comparison. We invite and hope that you will read both prologues and experience the reading as a braiding of a diverse, rich and complex stream of thinking rather than as standing for a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ view. Autopoiesis is far from simply being a scientific theory or insight. As Maturana has said, his own understanding is that it is an ‘abstraction’ of our experience of the coherences of our living. These two documents when read together present a rich picture of what some of those coherences in our living are.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
580
Syst. Res. REFERENCES Maturana HR. May 24–29 2011. Personal conversation with Alberto Paucar-Caceres. International Meeting. “For a bioethics of complexity”, Scuola Matríztica del Mediterraneo, dedicated to the study and dissemination of work of Humberto Maturana, University of Sassari, and Sassari’s branch of the Italian Philosophical Society Sardinia, Sardinia. Maturana HR, Poerksen B. 2004. From Being to Doing, the Origins of the Biology of Cognition. Carl-Auer: Heidelberg. Maturana HR, Varela FJ. 1973. De Maquinas y Seres Vivos Autopoiesis: La organización de lo vivo., Editorial Universitaria, Santiago. The book was the Spanish translation of a manuscript originally written in English that later was to be reproduced in the volume Autopoiesis and Cognition— the Realization of the Living. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Volume 42. pp 2–58). Reidel, Dordrech (Maturana H. R. & Varela F. J., 1980). Maturana HR, Varela FJ. 1994. De Maquinas y Seres Vivos. Autopoiesis: La organización de lo vivo, (Rev. 2nd edn). Editorial Universitaria: Santiago. Paucar-Caceres A, Harnden R. 2011. ‘Origins and Implications of Autopoiesis: Translation, Discourse and Languaging’—Note on the English version of: Twenty Years After: Preface to the Second Edition of “De Maquinas y Seres Vivos Autopoiesis: La organización de lo vivo”, by Humberto R. Maturana. Constructivist Foundations 6(3): 293–306. http:// www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/articles/ 6/3/293.maturana.pdf. Varela F. 1996. The early days of Autopoiesis: Heinz and Chile. Systems Research 13(3): 407–416.
Syst. Res. 28, 577 – 580 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/sres
Alberto Paucar-Caceres and Roger Harnden
