Context: Humberto Maturana has generated a coherent and extensive explicatory matrix that encompasses his research in neurophysiology, cognition, language, emotion, and love. Purpose: Can we formulate a map of Maturana’s work in a manner that is consistent with the systemic matrix it represents and that serves as an aid for understanding Maturana’s philosophy without reifying its representation? Method: Our arguments are based on experience gained from teaching and presentations. Results: We present a map that that represents Maturana’s main contributions as clusters of notions clustered according to how we see them to be related to each other as a projection of a matrix of ideas onto a two-dimensional space. We claim that there are many paths through these clusters of ideas. Though ideas relevant to individuals are obtained from various partial perspectives, a deep understanding of any element is dependent on an understanding of the whole matrix. Furthermore, we summarize the contributions to this special issue on Maturana.

Key words: generative process, matrix of concepts, systemic, conceptual map, pedagogy

The notion of mechanistic explanation is given a very specific meaning by Maturana. Does it influence research in human sciences? In this article an attempt is made to answer this question.

George A. Kelly, a psychologist born in Kansas, began to elaborate personal construct theory in the first half of the twentieth century; Humberto R. Maturana, a Chilean biologist, started to conceive his theory of autopoiesis during the second half of the same century. The two were unknown to each other, yet their theories show striking similarities. Though the focus of convenience of personal construct theory is psychotherapy whereas the theory of autopoiesis is a biological theory of knowledge, Kelly’s ingenious ideas can be enriched by the way in which Maturana deals with features common to both theories.

Criticizes H. R. Maturana and F. J. Varela’s (1980) proposition that the passion to change others is not just ethically wrong but essentially impossible. Maturana argued that since reality is observer-dependent, no knowledge about an objective reality is possible. Maturana also stated that the behavior of people is not a purposeful accommodation to the environment but a manifestation of internal structure. It is suggested that Maturana’s distinction between organization and structure is not incompatible with the idea that the therapist may purposefully structure the therapeutic environment to encourage a family to change in a given direction. It is concluded that the passion to change others is intrinsically constitutive of the therapist and that even Maturana is a closeted agent of change in his effort to shift the thinking of family therapists.

This article is a critical analysis of Maturana’s recent works as applied to the social and behavioral sciences. It proposes that there is a major contradiction in Maturana’s “structure determinism” which prevents a consistent epistemological and ontological perspective. The concept of change is viewed as crucial to understanding Maturana’s work and to extending his ideas to form a consistent philosophical viewpoint, which is defined as the third epistemology for the social and behavioral sciences. Accordingly, the idea of structure is abdicated. It is proposed that the new perspective on Maturana’s work has practical application to the social and behavioral sciences, in general, and family therapy, in particular.

The article presents a synopsis of the fruitful relationship between Niklas Luhmann and Humberto Maturana. The Luhmannian theory is a conceptual structure whose dimensions include the understanding of the social as a whole. Notwithstanding the passing of the author in 1998, his posthumous writings are still being published and the influence of his thinking is gradually extended to several domains within social sciences. A core part of that complex thinking was developed with the benefit of concepts that Luhmann adapted from Humberto Maturana’s biology. This study explains the workings of such tie and its reach for understanding modern globalized society.

Key words: autopoiesis, emergence, operational closure, communication, structural coupling, self-reference

The essay proposes to replace the leadership, as a way of managing organizations, for a co-inspiring management. The authors propose we are living in a post-post modern era, whose main characteristic is that we, human beings, know what we know we know and understand what we understand we understand. This situation leads us to an ethical action-reflexion in which human beings can not run away of the consciousness and responsibility of their behaviors. In this context, human relations such as leadership are meaningless. Thus, the concept of co-inspiring management arises. This concept allows people to participate in an active and creative way in the creation and accomplishment of common projects and in the fulfillment of well-being.

Key words: co-inspiring management, leadership, human relations, post-post-modern era.