Autopoiesis and Configuration Theory: New Approaches to Societal Steering

Public administration badly needs a firm underlying theoretical framework. Such a framework should enable the scholars who concentrate on problems concerning public policies, on questions related to the connections between public authorities and society at large, on questions related to effective regulation or steering — the central process in political life that consists of efforts to influence the behavior of citizens and organizations in a purposeful manner — and the like, to base their considerations and recommendations on more solid ground.

A major goal of discussions on societal steering within the field of Public Administration is to diminish steering pretentions. Unrealistic expectations concerning the possibilities for societal steering dissipate in these discussions. The monocentric perspective on steering is corrected by pointing out that the government is not the only, nor the central steering authority (Van Vught, 1986). Government operates in a policy arena of mutually dependent actors who are trying to realize their own private goals and who each have their own means of influencing other actors (Ringeling and Hufen, 1990). This perspective on steering, defined as the polycentric perspective, helps to explain the disappointing results of steering by government. The possibilities for making recommendations regarding the improvement of steering results based on research conducted from a polycentric perspective are however limited. Often one has to confine oneself to the recommendation to lower expectations concerning steering results. At times, researchers even resort to using the monocentric perspective when formulating recommendations.

A new scientific theory that has been attracting attention in recent years, and will in all likelihood have a considerable effect on several fields of research, is the autopoi-esis theory. Stafford Beer (1980) refers to it as one of the most important innovations in systems theory. Boulding (1981) predicted that the autopoietic concept is likely to have a considerable impact on several disciplines, from thermodynamics to sociology. And in a way it already has. Autopoiesis is a dominant concept in a sociological theory developed by Luhmann (1984). In other social sciences, though its value is not undisputed, the attention given to the concept is growing. Morgan (1986) attempted to adapt autopoiesis to organizational science, while Teubner (1989a) has done the same in the field of law. By applying autopoiesis theory in the field of public administration and policy sciences, new insights can be developed regarding the (im)possibilities of societal steering.

A lot has changed since we started our research program on social integration and I developed the first tentative theoretical formulations. Several books have been published and, as was foreseeable, a certain diversity on the basic concepts has developed over time. In this sense it is of importance to note that the development of the theory is still underway and has not yet been finalized. This paper is to be considered as part of the ongoing debate on social integration.

The other day I observed (and was part of) the following scene. Both my sons had been told by my wife (and their mother) to take a cup of hot chocolate from the kitchen. They ran into the kitchen and, in front of the kitchen sink, they apparently hesitated a moment: on the counter stood a cup and a mug of hot chocolate. Which one would each take? Quick as lightning my elder son took the cup and cheerfully sneaked out of the kitchen. At exactly that moment the younger three-year-old burst out crying, his usual means of expressing a variety of messages and feelings at once. There I was. What could I do? Run after my older son and punish him? (Why?) Console my younger son? (Why?) Walk away? Call their mother? Ignore the whole scene? I was struck silent: many possibilities kept running through my mind and all were immediately dismissed. Intervene? Stay out of it? Why not both? Finally, I decided to do both and to invite the boys for a short story-telling session. They loved Andersen’s ‘the emperor’s new clothes’ and I hoped that telling the story would cheer up both my sons (my wife and myself). Within minutes, all of us were sitting cozily on the couch, concentrating on Andersen’s story and leaving behind the incident for a moment.

In this chapter a method for managing organizing processes is presented (section 2) and subsequently illustrated in the framework of a case history (section 3). This presentation is preceded by a description of the main starting points, the paradigms of the method (section 1). For a more extensive description of the subject the reader is referred to the author’s dissertation ‘Managing in a multiple context’ (Voogt, 1990).

Typical of the configuration approach is its strong opposition to reification. Attempts at identifying or defining ‘the’ organization are invariably remonstrated. Process and change are posited over against the immutable and the thing-like. Why do configurationists do this? Are their arguments sound? The motive is that people produce their reality in knowing and acting. Nor should they ever forget this. If they do, stagnation and fossilization will occur and development will become impossible. The configuration approach works out this motive in two directions: in epistemology and in the field of action, i.e. the human capacity to direct social processes. I mean to analyze the arguments predicated on this motive in both the theory of knowledge and that of action. It turns out that the case for giving preference to ‘process’ cannot rest on the ‘reification’ diagnosis. Let us begin with the epistemological motive.

The essence of process-oriented configuration theories is Van Dongen’s social integration theory. Placed in the context of state and society (against the background of the steering-issue), we may discuss the use of this theory as a possible political steering theory. Even though it was not primarily developed for that purpose, it nevertheless implies a conception of (minimal) steering.

There has been a growing tendency in policy science to incorporate parts of the policy environment in theories on policy making (Snellen, 1987). Studies on implementation have shown that the government when implementing its policy must take into account the reactions of several organizations in the policy field, organizations which each have their own aims and goals. An analyst starting from this multi-actor point of view, must analyze decision making as ‘joint action’ (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1983). In this method of analysis the complexity of joint action is accepted. A priori mutual adjustment and consensus building thus become new areas for research. Government is not a monolithic entity. Joint policy making calls for different conceptual approaches to analyze the policy process other than the ‘one-actor-approach’. The configuration theory can be seen as one of the theories that fit in this multi-actor approach to public policy. It is, however, not the only one. In policy science the network approach to the analysis of policy decisions has gained many followers in the last ten years. In this article we will introduce the network perspective on public policy and elaborate on the consequences of this perspective for analysis, evaluation and improvement of public policy. We will also contrast these views with some of the views from the configuration perspective. Three questions will be dealt with:

Autopoiesis is a typical biological systems concept. As developed in the seventies by the Chilean scientists, Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela (1980), it stands for the autonomous, self-referring, identity-maintaining and self-producing organization of living systems in relation to their unitary/holistic character. An autopoietic system is fundamentally a homeostatic machine maintaining invariantly, as the critical systemic variable, its own organization, defined as a network of relations (Varela, 1979). They are “self-contained unities whose only reference is to themselves” (Maturana and Varela, 1980). The image of these self-referring situations is the mythical one of the snake eating its own tail.

I shall begin with a question that is trivial as it is fundamental: why, in order to steer society, does politics take the detour through law? Why does it not rule directly into society at its own boundary points, say by authoritatively ordering money payments, or by using economic interest groups as ‘juridifying’ instruments of political control? Instead, politics takes the laborious path of norming its policies through legislation, adjudication and administration, only in the end to find how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland.

The paradigm of environmental regulation has changed. From its inception in the late sixties until the beginning of the eighties, environmental policies were anchored in command-and-control regulation. The legalistic prerogative of unilaterally imposed rules dominated governmental steering in this area. A vast number of legal rules were adopted without questioning of their effectiveness in terms of pollution abatement. When government agencies, however, started to monitor the implementation of environmental programs and when the first policy effectiveness studies came out, the difference between law-in-books and law-in-action became apparent, and the shortcomings of the approach were recognized. It is not surprising therefore that during the eighties, environmental policy was characterized by a search for alternative modes of intervention. Two considerations have played a major role in reflections on environmental re-regulation: finding ways to make environmental policy instruments compatible with market forces and assuring social consensus about conflict situations prior to the legal implementation of policy decisions. In practice this has meant an increased use of economic incentives and the institutionalization of consultation and consensus building mechanisms in decision making processes.

Metaphors can lead you by the hand, but they can also pull your leg. Fruitful metaphors normally do both at the same time. It will be some time before a final verdict is reached on whether the autopoiesis metaphor is doing one or the other. Originally developed for the field of biology, autopoiesis is difficult to convert to the social sciences. In the opinion of the author, terms like ‘operational closure’ and ‘biological drift’ are not easy to adapt for use in the social science sphere and might appear more of a hindrance than a help. In this chapter the correct translation of autopoiesis into the domain of public administration will not be at issue. A concise description of the manner in which the author views and interprets autopoiesis and self-referentiality in social systems of meaning, such as the legal, the economic, the political and the differentiated sectoral systems and in social organizations, may suffice.

To consider the problem of governmental steering intelligently, we must have some insight into the tools or instruments that might be used by government. The instruments of government can be considered as the means by which it attempts to steer the behavior of non-governmental actors. It seems plausible that these instruments will be an influential variable in the process of governmental steering. In daily life, using a carrot will lead to other results than using a stick or a sermon. This is also the case with policy instruments and the policy analyst is therefore required to have theories on policy instruments at his disposal. One element of these theories should be a hypothesis about the autopoietic character of the target group which is to be steered. The autopoietic character of the target group which is to be influenced makes it difficult for the steering actor to evaluate the effects of his steering efforts.

Political theories have for some time portrayed public organizations as omnipotent philosopher-kings. However, public administrators now find themselves in changing times. They are confronted with complex, wicked problems and face dynamic, unwilling environments. The disappointing results of governmental policies aimed at influencing societal development create a need for reflection and opportunities for new theoretical approaches to public administration. Two of these approaches are learning theories and theories about autopoietic social systems.

Social problems are, in general, the result of an interplay of the actions of many actors who formulate their goals and develop their strategies within different systemic contexts and lifeworlds. Attempts by the state to steer the conduct of actors often run up against the ‘logic’ or resistance of these social systems and lifeworlds.

A remarkable number of applications of the concept of ‘autopoiesis’ has appeared in various fields of the social sciences. The popularity of ‘autopoiesis’ in the social sciences seems to stem from the work of the sociologist Luhmann in the mid-eighties. He used the model of a living system -autopoiesis- which was formulated by Chilean biologists (Varela, Maturana and Uribe, 1974) to describe how a living system is able to generate and regenerate its own organization, in the development of a more general theory of self-referential systems centered around the key concept of ‘communication’. The law theorist Teubner, who was struggling with paradoxes of self-reference in modern methodological approaches, picked up Luhmann’s theory of self-referential systems and communication and developed an autopoietic approach to law (Teubner, 1988). The Marxist political scientist Jessop, interested in the problem why the capitalist system could survive despite its immanent crisis tendencies and continuing class struggle, used the autopoietic theories of Luhmann to develop a model for radical autonomy in societies (Jessop, 1990). The organization scientist Morgan (1986) used autopoiesis in one of his metaphors about organizations. Morgan created an interpretation of autopoiesis which lead him to intriguing ideas on self-referential closure, ego-centrism and self-reflective evolution of organizations.

In the preceding chapters steering, autopoiesis and configuration were dealt with mainly from a theoretical viewpoint. In this chapter several related methodological issues for experimenting with notions of (self-)steering in social systems will be discussed. ‘Social system’ will be used as a generic term for various types of human organizations.

In 1908 Georg Simmel described one of his so called social types ‘Der Fremde’ as follows: “The stranger will (...) not be considered here in the usual sense of the term, as the wanderer who comes today and goes tomorrow, but rather as the man who comes today and stays tomorrow — the potential wanderer so to speak, who, although he has gone no further, has not quite got over the freedom of coming and going. He is fixed within a certain spatial circle — or within a group whose boundaries are analogous to spatial boundaries — but his position within it is fundamentally affected by the fact that he does not belong in it initially and that he brings qualities into it that are not, and cannot be, indigenous to it. “(Levine, 1971, p.143). This description seems to apply both to my experience at the conference as to its subject matter. To put it another way: I could not help thinking of a traditional anglo-saxon superstitious rhyme that tells brides to wear: ‘something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue’ on their weddingday.