Educational Psychology—Limitations and Possibilities

Providing a Warrant for Constructivist Practice 475
parts and processes that comprise the living system are manufactured within the boundaries
of the system itself. The cell is the prototypical example of autopoiesis as its organization is
characterized by closed or circular processes of production. The concept of organizational closure
was powerful enough to begin to influence practitioners in fields other than biology. Unfortunately
because the form of closure Maturana and Varela described was autopoietic, it was this form of
closure that people tried to import into other fields, so one that would read of communication
producing communication, laws producing laws, etc. [This is an improper translation because
people are important mediators in both instances: people produce communication, people produce
laws.] Instead of choosing the common term autonomy, Maturana and Varela had coined the
term autopoiesis specifically to distinguish living from nonliving systems. Such importations
at best muddied the intended distinction; at worst they caused nonliving systems (e.g., social
systems) to be treated as if they were living systems, something Maturana and Varela coined
the term autopoiesis in order to avoid. The application of the organismic metaphor to social
systems can result in people being considered mere component parts of larger living entities,
the survival of which takes precedence over the survival of the people (now relegated to the
status of interchangeable parts) that comprise it. This misuse of autopoiesis theory led Varela
to develop the autonomous systems theory, which makes it possible to deal with the concept of
organizational closure without limiting it to processes of production. Organizational closure is
the criterion characteristic of all autonomous systems; autopoiesis is a special case of autonomy.
Autonomous systems theory and autopoiesis theory share concepts and terminology that are
relevant to the enactive framework. These require some explanation as their meanings are not
intuitive. In particular, the terms organization and structure, which in everyday English are often
used interchangeably, have specific and distinct meanings.
BASIC CONCEPTS UNDERLYING THE ENACTIVE FRAMEWORK
Organization and Structure
Organization is the set of relationships that must be present for something to exist as a member
of any given class or category of entity. Take for example a geometric figure, the square. The
organization of a square is a closed figure on a single plane composed of four equal sides connected
at right angles. This definition includes both the properties of the components of the square (four
equal sides) and the relationships inhering between them (closed, on a single plane, connected
by right angles). The organization of the square is instantiated in all actual examples of that class
of systems. All figures that have this organization will be recognized as squares.
Any actual example of an organization is a structure. Our square may be made of pencil lines,
built of wood, built of plastic, etc. I can replace all the wood parts of my square with plastic
parts and still have a square. If, however, I change the angle at which the sides of the figure
connect, I have changed the organization of the figure and it is no longer a square. Organization
and structure, therefore, are complementary concepts. Organization requires a physical structure,
and any structure is an instance of some organization. Organization is the source of the identity
of a system.
Organizational Closure—Autonomous Systems
Systems are divided into two major categories: closed or self-referred (autonomous), and
open or other-referred (allonomous). An autonomous system is any system exhibiting a circular
or closed organization. This type of organization allows no inputs or outputs. An allonomous
system exhibits linear or open organization and allows inputs to and outputs from the system.