The Truth About Autopoiesis

Like the economy and the royal family, autopoiesis has been receiving some bad publicity recently in Britain. What are we to make of a theory which apparently sees the legal system as firmly closed to all external influences' and which refuses even to accept the obvious fact that 'people make decisions'2? Surely our sympathies must lie with the critic who dismisses this unpronounceable theory as a lawyers' attempt 'to aggrandize the legal discourse by writing of law in half-apologetic and half-admiring tones'3? Or is what we have here not so much a social theory but a recognition of law's 'need to defend and perpetuate its traditional hegemony by defining itself as closed'4 a new and virulent form of legal positivism perhaps? Let me from the start declare an interest. Having myself presented an account of one version of the theory and applied its principles to decisions concerning children's welfare,5 I am anxious to scotch some of the rumours and distortions surrounding autopoiesis before they take on the status of unassailable myths. Furthermore, there is a risk that some of the misapprehensions that have been flying around are likely to deter students from taking the effort required to give the theory any serious attention. This, I believe, would be a pity, as, in spite of its controversial nature, autopoiesis does offer new and valuable insights into the operation of the legal system and its relationships with other social systems.

[1]  N. Luhmann.  The Representation of Society within Society , 1987 .

[2]  John Austin,et al.  The Province of Jurisprudence Determined , 1832 .

[3]  Karl-Heinz Ladeur.  From the Deductive to the Argumentative Rationality of Law , 1990 .

[4]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 1963 .

[5]  H. Fallding,et al.  Sociology: the study of social systems , 1959 .

[6]  Ebbe B. Ebbesen,et al.  The Criminal justice system : a social-psychological analysis , 1982 .

[7]  Gunther Teubner,et al.  Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law , 2021, Luhmann and Law.

[8]  Gunther Teubner,et al.  Law as an autopoietic system , 1993 .

[9]  H. Maturana,et al.  Autopoiesis and Cognition , 1980 .

[10]  N. Luhmann,et al.  The Unity of the Legal System , 1987 .

[11]  M. King.  Child Welfare within Law: The Emergence of a Hybrid Discourse , 1991 .

[12]  F. Varela.  Principles of biological autonomy , 1979 .

[13]  D. Baecker.  Information und Risiko in der Marktwirtschaft , 1988 .

[14]  J. Habermas.  Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns , 1981 .

[15]  G. Teubner,et al.  Changing Paradigms in the Sociology of Law , 1987 .

[16]  Gianfranco Poggi,et al.  The Development of the Modern State , 1978 .

[17]  H. Rottleuthner.  A Purified Sociology of Law: Niklas Luhmann on the Autonomy of the Legal System , 2021, Luhmann and Law.

[18]  J. Kemp,et al.  The Concept of Law , 1962 .

[19]  P. Berger,et al.  The Social Construction of Reality , 1966 .

[20]  G. Teubner.  Autopoiesis and Steering: How Politics Profit from the Normative Surplus of Capital , 1991 .

[21]  T. Parsons,et al.  Law in Modern Society , 1976 .

[22]  T. Parsons.  The Social System , 1953 .

[23]  G. Teubner.  How the Law Thinks: Toward a Constructivist Epistemology of Law , 1989 .

[24]  Rudolf Stichweh,et al.  Self-Organization and Autopoiesis in the Development of Modern Science , 1990 .

[25]  F. Olsen.  The Family and the Market: A Study of Ideology and Legal Reform , 1983 .

[26]  A. James.  An Open or Shut Case? Law as an Autopoietic System , 1992 .

[27]  G. Teubner,et al.  The Autonomy of Law: Two Visions Compared , 1987 .