Purpose: To explore the sociological concept of autopoiesis (N. Luhmann), investigate its interdisciplinary roots and demonstrate its practical relevance. Design/methodology/approach – The biological concept of autopoiesis (H. Maturana/F. Varela) and the philosophical concept of meaning (E. Husserl) are first discussed with respect to their contribution to the development of the sociological concept of autopoiesis. The autopoietic mechanism of three different social systems is then described, and the practical relevance of the sociological concept of autopoiesis demonstrated using the example of governance. Findings: The scientific positioning of the sociological approach to autopoiesis is two‐fold. On the one hand, it is firmly rooted in the scientific tradition and, on the other, its originality is determined by the adaptation and new combination of existing concepts. Although this adaptation‐combination process has provoked some criticism, the result does matter because it enriches the theoretical and empirical analysis which we use to explain the dynamics of modern societies. Practical implications: The application of the sociological concept of autopoiesis to politics gives new insights into the opportunities and barriers of governance processes. Originality/value – Positioning of the sociological concept of autopoiesis within the scientific tradition and its application (beyond metaphorical usage) as an analytical tool.

The conceptualization of society and actors as an interrelated ensemble of autopoietic systems-as it is done in Luhmann’s theory of social systemsÍ-raises above all the question: How is it possible to govern operationally closed entities? Luhmann himself was a steering-pessimist. He devoted considerable effort to the explanation of the constraints of governance. But closer examination of the theory of social systems shows that it could be used as well to develop ideas about ‘how to govern. ’ The present text attempts to interpret the autopoietic self-steering approach against its original steering-pessimism-intention. Contrary to the argument that the autopoiesis approach contributes to the steering discussion in only a marginal way, it will be shown how the conceptualization of the governance of autopoietic systems is possible. This will be done by using the concepts of resonance, openess to the environment (Umweltoffenheit) and media of steering (Steuerungsmedien). The empirical relevance of this approach will be demonstrated by the example of public governance of organizational systems.

Upshot: The three OPCs are instructive and inspiring, in particular for their pursuing of the question-generating function of Luhmann’s approach. Whereas Müller elaborates three broad perspectives (inventors, interpreters, and readers of constructivism), Scott concentrates on three specific socio-psychological issues (meaning, person, autopoiesis) and Whitaker addresses especially autopoiesis. In the response I first deal with specific issues and then with Müller’s three perspectives.

Context: Luhmann’s theory of autopoietic social systems is increasingly receiving attention in the scholarly dispute about constructivism. Problem: The paper explores the transition from Kant’s “transcendental/empirical” to Luhmann’s “system/environment” distinction to provide a deepened understanding of Luhmann’s constructivist approach. Method: Luhmann’s construction of reality via the system/environment distinction is discussed with respect to preceding concepts provided by philosophical and system/cybernetic scholars such as Kant, Husserl, Piaget, von Glasersfeld, von Foerster, and Maturana & Varela. The innovativeness of Luhmann’s approach is then critically evaluated. Results: Luhmann’s contribution to constructivism is innovative only in the context of his stringent theory architecture of autopoietic meaning-based systems. Implications: The text is a contribution to the positioning of this approach as part of the philosophical and systems/cybernetics constructivist heritage.

Key words: Theory of social systems (TSS), observation, autopoiesis, self-reference & hetero-reference, meaning

Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Science: Logic, Strategies, Methods” by Stuart A. Umpleby. Upshot: Second-order science requires a specific methodology. It thereby reverses the classical observer-observed relation in favor of the observed - i.e., the first-order observers - if the principle of autopoiesis is acknowledged.

Open peer commentary on the article “Cybernetic Foundations for Psychology” by Bernard Scott. Upshot: Psychology and sociology are distinct academic disciplines but nevertheless closely interrelated. What are the benefits of conceptual integration using a cybernetic approach and what are the strengths of progressing within the disciplinary paths?

Context: Both Luhmann and Pask have developed detailed theories of social systems that include accounts of the role of learning. Problem: Rather than see the theories as competing, we believe it is worthwhile to seek ways in which a useful synthesis of the two approaches may be developed. Method: We compare the two approaches by identifying key similarities and differences. Results: We show it is possible to make useful mappings between key concepts in the two theories. Implications: We believe it is worthwhile for social scientists to be familiar with the two theories and that it is not a case of “either/or,” rather, it is a case of “both/and.”

Key words: learning, conversation, interaction, expectation, Niklas Luhmann, Gordon Pask