Thanks to Wolfgang for his lucid introduction to the rather
paradoxical (but of course) task of 'Luhmann for designers'.
    Some comments/questions, all in the spirit of communi-
cative variation, selection, re-stabilization. In other words,
I agree with everything, except 'autopoiesis', 'systems' and
'evolution'.

ON 'AUTOPOIESIS'
Firstly, Maturana and Varela's concept of autopoiesis
was developed in relation to the observation of living
systems. Are there not problems transferring this notion
to the production of non-living things?
    On the one hand, most designed things are still a long
way from being autopoietic, in the sense of self-repairing.
Is this not the very cause of our current unsustainability?
(Perhaps the dream of smart nano-bio-tech will enable
the industrialisation of autopoiesis, but 'at what cost?' -
personally, I prefer to trust allopoietic repair through the
more careful combination 'human + tool' over any attempt
at automation: but are my (and others') concerns irrelevant
to the destinies of techno-evolution [more on this below]?)
    On the other hand, autopoiesis is certainly a powerful
corrective when thinking through interface design: the
computer (or any product) has only certain states of being
which it adopts not through direct communication with
the outside (the user), but through purely internal variations
(like the nervous system). It is only to the observer (of the
computer/product and the user) that the two seem to be
coupled.
    Between these two points is perhaps Latourian 'hybrids'
or 'actor network theory'. The systems way of 'cutting'
things seems to deny the sort of 'fusing' that Latour's
thinking productively reveals. There is 'differentiation and
convergence', but how useful are these notions when:
1) absolutely everything can be viewed as both/either a
'differentiation' and/or a 'convergence'
2) the notion of 'convergence' somewhat undermines the
whole ontology of a system, especially autopoietic systems.

ON 'SYSTEMS'

> Soft Systems Methodology relies on almost the same systems concept but
> takes into account that it does not deal with the observation of
> reality, but with the observation of observations of reality (thus
> introducing contingency, for example through value-based decisions).
> In operational terms this means that SSM is interactive and not closed.
>
Similarly, when really taking account of the particularity of
the observations of the human observer, with all his or her
cultural specificity - for epistemological rather than political
reasons - there often seems to be very little 'systematicity'
left.
    Systems theory, and in particular soft systems theory,
seems to want its cake and eat it to. It wants to heed 'con-
tingency' and yet claim the scientistic rigour of a binary
codings. In this context, its constant caveats and escape
clauses (double binds, paradoxes, blind spots), make it
just a bit too slippery. It tends to become everything, and
so nothing. To this extent, I concur with the gist of Michael
Biggs' last email, suggesting that to a Bourdieuian, systems
theory reads like an exemplary academic game.

ON 'EVOLUTION'
And then, it feels like the game is up for systems theory's
totalitarian desires when it reaches for a notion like 'evolu-
tion'.
    It must be stressed that Luhmann's 'evolution' is a
long way from that of neo-Hegelians like Lazlo.
    Whilst Luhmann's concept of 'evolution' does draw
on current biological understandings of 'evolution', as
chaotic divergence and convergence, it must be acknow-
ledged that the word carries tons of baggage, so much
so that I often wonder whether it will ever be possible
to 'stabilize' a notion like a 'non-progressive evolution'.
    Again, when 'evolution' means something like 'non-
directional change', the concept is now so wide it is
almost empty.
    Even so, my biggest worries about this term concerns
its determinism. Despite its generality, it always seems
to miss the sort of surprising cultural constellations that
actually make history: eg mobile text messaging, Islamic
extremism, public opposition to genetic engineering, etc.
To this extent, it suffers the same embarrassment of other
Hegelians like Fukuyama. But then, it always recoups
every development that it missed anticipating back into
its grand narrative of evolution.
    Again, I think that Latour et al's ANT is much more
adept at both explaining, and intervening in, history
than any systems approach.
    From a more cultural and designerly perspective, I
 would put up instead Spinosa, Flores and Dreyfus
_Disclosing New Worlds_, who are writing from earlier
attempts to desystematise business and software
design.

IN SUM
I put forward these comments as questions. As I indi-
cated above, I believe that the reflexivity that a systems
perspective, especially when in the hands of master
like Luhmann, is crucial to responsible design. However,
I think that it will take some clarification and much term-
inology redesign to create a Luhmannian designing.

REFERENCES
Many of comments follow Hayles attempt to bring
Latour and Luhmann together in an ecofeminist con-
text.

N.Katherine Hayles _How we Became Posthuman_
Chicago: Uni of Chicago Press, 1999

also

Cary Wolf _Critical Environments: Postmodern
Theory and the Pragmatics of the Outside_
Minneapolis: Uni of Minnesota Press, 1998

Charles Spinosa, Fernando Flores, Hubert Dreyfus
_Disclosing New Worlds_
Cambridge: MIT, 1997


Cameron

_________________________________________
Dr Cameron Tonkinwise
CEO, EcoDesign Foundation
PO Box 369 Rozelle NSW 2039 Australia
ph (61 2) 9555 7028 [log in to unmask]
www.changedesign.org www.edf.edu.au

Interdisciplinary Design Theory
Faculty of Design, Architecture, Building
University of Technology Sydney
Building 6, Room 618 ph (61 2) 9514 8925
[log in to unmask]
GPO Box 123 Broadway NSW 2007 Australia
_________________________________________



UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F

DISCLAIMER
 =======================================================================
This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views the University of
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.
 =======================================================================