The concept of autopoietic (social) space

Abstract

The popular currents in contemporary spatial theory postulate the openness of space, this claim seems to be reinforced by the tendencies of globalization. The present study, by applying the concept of autopoiesis in a spatial theoretical approach, maintains the possibility of the closeness of concrete spaces. After presenting Luhmann’s social system theory, the author reviews the main features of the general concept of social autopoiesis. The discussion will highlight the differences between operationally closed autopoietic systems and open trivial systems and their underlying characteristics. Autopoietic social systems develop a delicate balance between openness and closeness in order to ensure their self-construction and selfdevelopment. The study presents (spatial) resilience as a twin concept of autopoiesis. Resilience is the self-defense ability and territorial capital potential of various organizations and social groups through which they can successfully resist perturbations and shocks, as their capacity of selfregeneration, and continuous adaptation to the changes of the external environment. This can also be interpreted as a special case of autopoietic functioning. The author develops his own definition of closed spaces based on the essential features of autopoiesis. Endogenous autoreferential spatial units are created by their internal self-constructing processes; their specific “genetic” features and logic determine their operation and their distinction from the environment. The boundaries of concrete spaces are always aligned to the specifics of their components and relations which, in turn, are reproduced in their self-constructed space via their distinct operations. According to this, it does not make sense to narrow down the scope of possible operations in spatial theory because of the great diversity of actions directed at the construction of space. The components may either be human and non-human factors, immaterial goods, institutions, norms, etc. which are associated with the most diverse operations. In reaction to external impacts, the structure maintains survival and development by internal modifications. Closed spaces are not ex nihilo constructions of actors, but reproductions or transformations of existing spaces. Certain permanent features participate in the definition of spatial units’ essences (e.g. “organization”, enabling-constraining conditions, meta-domain) and the structural elements are dynamically reproduced. The existing structure (components and their relations) function as a “hereditary system”, in which language and communication play an outstanding role (symbolic inheritance). Space has no autonomous existence, it cannot be perceived as an individual substance, nor is it capable of action (it does not constitute an autonomous actor). Knowledge about the existing spatial structure is the only factor capable to motivate action. The permanence of closed spatial units is guaranteed by the dynamic evolutionary reproduction of internal components cooperating with each other. The end of a relatively autonomous auto-referential operation dissolves the natural spatial entity and leads to its components’ incorporation by a different unit. Artificially (exogenously) constructed and controlled spaces are not characterized by autopoietic but mechanical functioning.