Chapter 6:Summary and Conclusion

As described in the opening chapter, sustainability - continuation of natural conditions conducive to human persistence at a level above pure subsistence - is currently threatened by our actions. Threats include a wide array of problematic issues, ranging from declining biodiversity, and decreasing arable lands, to concerns about water quality and pollution. The resulting stresses include widespread malnutrition, great disparity between rich and poor, political unrest, and many other social concerns. Coupled with the sheer magnitude of our numbers and the complexity of our social systems, these sustainability concerns indicate a need to change the way we approach the interaction between natural and social systems. In particular, I believe we need to change our approaches to planning, a process fundamental to realization of such interactions.

Conventional approaches to planning, especially within bureaucratic institutions have tended toward control oriented, expert driven processes that rely on comprehensive information about predictable systems. Some argue that these approaches will continue to provide our species with "the technology to feed, clothe and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years" (Simon in Costanza 1995, p 89, see also Box 1.2). I believe, however, that the counter argument presented in Section 1.3 and the systems concepts outlined in this thesis suggest that such approaches may not be able to cope with the uncertainties and complexities we currently face. Perhaps most fundamental is the recognition that we have generated a critical change in the scale of our influence - our actions now have ecological impacts at a global scale. As discussed briefly in Section 4.4, we have yet to develop social systems for coping with issues at this scale. In addition, we must recognize that although impacts result from local and individual actions, they are influenced by underlying social values and norms, and global stresses. To make the situation even more complicated, we must recognize the role of feedback - a consideration with both positive and negative implications.

The ideas presented in this thesis, have been focused toward the question: What should we do? The uncertainties involved in the complex interactions among natural and social systems make it difficult to understand how we can cope. How can we guide our collective actions to ensure a continued global state conducive to human persistence?

I do not reach any definitive answers. To even attempt so, is to reinforce the dominant paradigm. Instead, I search for possibilities, in particular for new and/or different ways of looking at, and interpreting, the world. As Bowers notes:

We face the tragic prospect of the next generation being caught in a conceptual double bind where the ability to understand the problem will be dependent upon the same patterns of thought partly responsible for the scope of the crisis. (Bowers 1993, p 32)

We must develop new patterns of thought - new lenses for understanding - that can lead us toward new approaches to planning and management. The concepts presented in this thesis, and their application to critique planning, provide some possibilities. To conclude the discussion, I summarize key concepts and implications, and note a variety of limitations and possibilities.

There are some novel ideas and syntheses presented in this thesis. These emerge from the beginning act of relinquishing system boundaries, the consequent search for alternative means of definition, and the resulting concepts that are developed. To summarize, I draw attention to what I believe are the salient points.

• The most valuable aspect of the distinction between autopoietic and sympoietic systems is their heuristic potential. In particular, the contrast between the two system types emphasizes differences among key system characteristics. Defining a second lens forces recognition of the first one. By doing so, it encourages consideration of other possibilities.

• As a system property, sustainability refers to a systems ability to persist. Confusion and contradictions arise over definition of this concept due to lack of attention to the different sustainabilities of different types of systems that are of concern.
• As a normative human concern, sustainability can be interpreted as continuation of natural conditions that are conducive to the persistence of the human species. Our dependence on ecological systems for provision of essential functions must be acknowledged.

• Sympoietic Systems: These systems recurringly produce self-similar patterns of relations among their many different components through complex interactions and self-organizing influences. Ecosystems and many social systems are examples. Conceptualizing these systems allows and emphasizes identification of (at least) two unique and important characteristics. These characteristics open up possibilities for understanding the uncertainties and complexities of the 'real world,' although they also introduce some contradictions.
• Boundaries: Sympoietic systems lack self-defined spatial and temporal boundaries. In consequence, they must be defined by the noted interactions among their components and their creative self-organizing factors.
  In reference to social systems, Luhmann (1989, p 18) suggests that "system boundaries have to be drawn so that the world acquires the possibility of observing itself." I suggest another possibility: relinquishing boundaries - the world must be defined and observed by relations. Although many systems may be most easily defined by distinguishing them from their background I believe others, especially large, complex, and/or social systems, are better defined by linkages; by drawing connections among components. The concept of sympoiesis is an attempt to consider the possibilities and implications of such definition.
• Organizationally Ajar: Sympoietic systems, due to their lack of boundaries, have a pattern of organization that is open to the incorporation of new, yet somewhat restricted, information. This allows these systems to generate new patterns of organization, but retain some sense of self-determined identity. This makes these systems evolutionary, and open to surprising change. The restrictions, however, prevent the systems from becoming chaotic. Being organizationally ajar makes these systems more adaptable since they are able to incorporate new information, allowing the systems to capitalize on the uncertainty in their environment.
• Autopoietic-Sympoietic Contrast: I conceptualize sympoietic systems, as a contrast to autopoietic systems which are self-producing systems with self-defined boundaries. The distinction - exemplified by the difference between organisms and ecosystems - provides a valuable heuristic. As I describe them, however, the characteristics of these two types of systems must be recognized as ends of a continuum. 'Real' systems are most appropriately interpreted as sitting at positions in the gray area in between. The distinction, however, forces recognition that many systems which have been perceived as autopoietic, are better understood as sympoietic. The consequent contrast in characteristics leads to recognition of the need for different approaches to planning and management. In order to cope appropriately with both types of systems, it is necessary to recognize their differences.
  I believe we have primarily been using the autopoietic lens for understanding and must recognize the lack of boundaries, the prevalence of uncertainty, and the potential for surprising change that are inherent in sympoietic systems.
• Poiesis: Both system types are self-producing in the sense that they have a pattern of organization that can produce a structure that is able to produce a pattern of organization that can continue to produce such a structure. These systems, then, rely on interactions among their self-organizing factors. These are augmented by information resulting from the recurring poietic process. The importance of poiesis stresses the importance of history and of information.
• Structural Coupling: This concept emphasizes the interdependence between systems and their environment/context. Even when systems are organizationally closed, thus dis-allowing exchange of organizational information, they may be structurally open, allowing exchange of energy and material. Due to the latter exchange, systems can be dependent on the structural relations with their environment/context. This is the case, for example, with autopoietic systems, which are organizationally closed, but structurally open. The combination makes the systems less adaptable since they rely on environmental inputs, but have a restricted ability to alter their pattern of organization in response to environmental changes.
  Sympoietic systems are structurally coupled internally - a factor that provides the potential for sympoietic systems to be organizationally ajar. To be incorporated into the system, information must be embodied in a structure that can integrate, structurally, with the already existing components and relations.
  This concept provides insight into interdependencies in both biophysical and social systems.
• Self-Organizing Factors: To conceptualize systems without boundaries, I suggest using the factors involved in their generation. For many of the complex systems relevant to concern for sustainability, especially for poietic systems, this means understanding the process of self-organization. My emphasis in this discussion has been to describe these concepts in a manner accessible to people from various disciplines by using simple metaphors and common language. Although there is the danger of causing confusion, I believe the risk is worthwhile, since the concepts have valuable heuristic potential.
  Because I extend these system concepts into social systems where thermodynamics is of lesser importance (although still critical), I exclude discussion of non-equilibrium conditions which are often taken as essential for understanding self-organization. I focus on other key factors.
• Global-Local Interactions: Formative factors in the generation of self-organizing systems include the interactions between global-directional influences and local constraints. In complex systems there are many different, and different types, of interacting influences.
• Feedback and Recursion: These are critical factors in self-organizing and poietic systems. In such systems outcomes become generative influences.
• Points of Dynamic Tension: These describe the critical balancing point among the various factors influencing the system, including global-local influences and positive and negative feedback. It is at this balancing point that complex structures, behaviours, and systems emerge.
• Complexity Characteristics: A variety of characteristics associated with complexity are present in these systems. They are middle-number systems, have enough-but-not-too-much redundancy, and exhibit emergence.

• Biophysical Autopoietic Systems: On a individual biophysical level, we are autopoietic systems. We consequently rely on suitable structural inputs and have limited adaptive potential. Our consequent dependence on the environment for sustenance is a key factor relevant to our sustainability. Our complex mental abilities provide new skills and possibilities, however, they do not eliminate our biophysical dependence.
• Complex Human Characteristics: Human mental abilities, including cognition, emotion, imagination, intention, and self-awareness, provide both advantages and disadvantages. We have the potential for interpretation, but consequently also the potential for misinterpretation and biased perceptions. Learning from symbolic representations allows detachment from the subject being represented. We can plan, but by doing so, we can create unexpected and unintended outcomes. These and other human characteristics must be given consideration, even though the possibility for understanding them and their implications is limited.
• Paradox of Interdependence: Structural coupling is relevant for human systems on both biophysical and psycho-social levels. As individuals we are dependent on social systems, yet social systems are dependent on individual systems.

• Critique: The systems concepts just described provide useful heuristics for critiquing our current approach to planning. They are particularly relevant to critique the planning tradition that arises from the engineering paradigm; from the 'old' systems thinking. The critique can be separated into four areas considering four aspects of planning.
• Planning as part of emergent social systems: The notion of planning as a link between knowledge and action integrates with the notion that planning is an essential part of the poietic production process in social systems. As a key factor in the self-organization of human social systems, planning has the potential to be a key tool regarding our ability for achieving sustainable conditions.
  The autopoietic-sympoietic distinction can be useful for considering the type of social system any particular planning process is embedded within. However, I believe the most useful considerations that arise from the discussion for this aspect of planning are recognition of the poietic process, and the role of planning, and heuristics for considering the presence of the self-organizing factors that influence social systems. This is especially true of the underlying global-directional influences that are often ignored.
• Learning: This factor is the other key part of the poietic production process in social systems and must be incorporated into planning.
• Planning for emergent natural and social systems: This aspect of planning represents the most obvious application of the systems concepts. There is a growing recognition of the complexity of the systems that are a subject of planning, and of the need to develop planning systems that can cope with their complex and uncertain characteristics. The set of criteria described for identifying and characterizing the systems of concern are particularly useful for, and relevant to, sympoietic systems.
• Emergent planning systems: Application of the systems concepts, especially the autopoietic-sympoietic distinction, is particularly useful to critique planning procedures and planning systems.
• Typology of Planning Models: Distinction among the different systems types lends itself toward developing a typology of planning models based upon their ability to cope with system uncertainties and the diversity of stakeholder values.
  Rational-comprehensive planning has been the dominant model - especially within bureaucratic governance systems. The autopoietic characteristics of the model illustrate the limitations of its application to complex planning situations. Participatory models, including transactive planning, advocacy planning, and a range of contemporary approaches, fit in a middling position. Adaptive models carry sympoietic characteristics. The distinctions are useful for conceptualizing planning systems, for choosing appropriate models, and for considering aspects to alter in any given situation.
• Sympoietic Processes: Using the typology and drawing parallels to the systems characteristics, I argue for development of adaptive planning - incorporating sympoietic characteristics - as being the most appropriate type of approach for coping with sustainability issues. Such planning systems must be organizationally ajar, allowing inclusion of new interests, actors, knowledge, and other components.

One of the advantages of systems thinking, illustrated by general systems theory, is that the concepts can be applied across a wide range of subjects. Possible applications of the "ways of looking" described by autopoietic and sympoietic systems are limited only by the imagination. Although the usefulness of the subsequent understandings will vary and should be considered. Since I offer a new conceptualization, considering the breadth of possible applications seemed most important, so this thesis covered a wide array of ideas and subjects. To integrate the relevant concerns, I have necessarily focused on a broad, conceptual level, restricting the potential for detailed examples and in-depth case studies. In addition, many related and relevant concepts have been passed over, and many implications have not been articulated. Although these identify limitations of the current work, they simultaneously identify possibilities for future work.

Any attempt at a complete listing of the limitations/possibilities, would be impossible, however, I believe a taste is in order.

Systems Considerations

There are a variety of related concepts - some of which were briefly noted in the foregoing discussion - that would provide fruitful consideration for further development of sympoiesis. Here I note some of the interesting possibilities.

• Related complex systems concepts: A few other system conceptualizations based on complex, self-organizing concepts were noted in Box 2.9. What linkages can be drawn among these and the concepts described in this thesis? What are the differences among complex adaptive systems, SOHOs (self-organizing, holarchic open) systems, and CANL (complex adaptive nonlinear) systems as described by the various authors? How do these differ from sympoietic systems? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the different conceptions? How can they inform, improve, and/or contrast each other? Do they vary with respect to the types of systems they are most relevant for understanding?
• Self-organizing systems typology: In parallel with these investigations, developing a typology of self-organizing systems would be a very useful endeavour. This could be done using various criteria for categorization (e.g. thermodynamics, information). In addition, these concepts are typically applied to a variety of different examples. Comparison among these, in relation to what has been discussed here, would be useful.
• Co-evolution is another concept that has significant relevance to the ideas discussed here which has not been considered at all.
• Feedback and recursion: These two factors are central to the generation of self-organizing and poietic systems. They are discussed in Chapter 2, and are referred to throughout the subsequent discussion. Considering their significance, however, I do not believe I deal adequately with these factors and their implications. Cybernetics offers a large body of literature dealing with these issues. As a central facet of self-production, this area needs more consideration.
• Holarchical issues: Holarchies are implied by discussion of systems nesting within systems, but I do not explicitly address implications and concerns related to the issues that arise. Holarchical considerations are critical, since understanding the constraints imposed by a systems' context - the next holon 'up' - is critical for understanding system behaviours. I believe, however, that there is also potential for such consideration to be limiting. People will often focus only on the 'next level up' without also recognizing the next level, and the next level, and...
  Emphasizing a need to describe the global influences acting on a system provides a different perspective for considering constraints, without limiting them to only the 'next level.' Since holarchies provide a powerful heuristic, however, I question: How can one integrate the notion of holarchies with the notion of systems without boundaries? Are they mutually exclusive? Complementary?
• Sympoietic metaphors: One of the advantages of the autopoietic system lens is the possibility for applying simple metaphors. As applied to ecosystems, for example, 'health' is an understandable concept since we can relate it to personal experience. What can we use to replace the organism metaphor? It is difficult to use ecosystems as a metaphor for themselves, although they provide a useful metaphor for understanding social systems. Possibilities include: networks, symphonies, improvisational jazz, rhizomes, and michorrhizal fungi.
• Boundaries: The starting point for developing the concept of sympoiesis was a reaction against our habit of bounding systems. The difficulties inherent in such habits are well recognized. Many types of boundaries and other alternatives (e.g. fuzzy sets) have been offered for coping. Comparison of these approaches with use of self-organizing factors would be useful. In addition, considering approaches for coping with, and defining, boundaries in other cultures would be of value.

• Individual-Collective Relations: I briefly discussed the paradox of interdependence in Section 3.2.3, however, this discussion barely introduces some of the key considerations. Recognizing these inter-relations and consequent interdependencies is critical for understanding both natural and social systems. The distinction, yet interdependence, between autopoietic and sympoietic systems may provide some fruitful considerations to aid understanding individual and collective needs and their interactions.
• Cultural considerations: My discussion has been interpreted through, and weighted toward, western industrialized scientific culture. I believe, however, that these system concepts are applicable on a wider basis. Cross-cultural comparisons using the autopoietic-sympoietic distinction would be an interesting pursuit. For example, applying the contrast between these systems to consider the distinctions between individualist and collectivist cultures may be informative.
• Social Learning: Although a crucial concept for many alternative planning approaches, I have not discussed this concept specifically. Ideas from this body of literature could inform sympoietic considerations in the social context.

As with the systems concepts, there are a variety of planning concepts that would provide fruitful considerations. These range from theoretical considerations to practical applications. I list a few possibilities.

• Planning for emergent systems: The conceptualizing methodology described in Dempster (1997) developed on the basis of concepts described in this thesis could be expanded through further, and more in-depth, application and revision. This would serve to refine the characterization of sympoietic systems, and help clarify the distinction between autopoietic and sympoietic systems. Criteria to improve the capability of matching systems of concern and approach could also be developed and refined.
• Uncertainty: In regards to human use of the natural environment, we have presumed a degree of stability, adaptability, and predictability in natural systems that is neither accurate nor adequate. In consequence, we have relied on control oriented, rational approaches to planning. Since these are not appropriate for the complexities and uncertainties involved in the systems of concern for attaining sustainability, we must develop alternatives: adaptive approaches that have some potential for coping with these uncertainties.
• Recursion and Future Causality: In regards to human systems, we have not fully recognized the synergistic causal influences of recursion, interpretation, and intention which have significant implications for planning. Confounding factors are not only what makes human systems interesting, but are what makes their continued existence possible. Eliminating uncertainty may not be in our long-term best interest.
• Serendipitous planning: For planning to function in a continually changing environment, it is essential to recognize the critical advantage of uncertainty. As described for sympoietic systems, it can be the source of opportunities for adapting to change. I advocate serendipitous planning: we must cultivate an "aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident" (Random House 1991). We must plan, and remain open to new possibilities, encouraging adaptability. Such an approach must represent a new way of thinking - a way of thinking as subversive and pervasive as rationality has been, yet one that is characterized by openness, and readiness for capitalizing on cooperative opportunities.

The possibilities in this area are endless. Rather than expand into other areas, I consider possibilities arising from the examples used in the discussion.

• Small Groups: There is a vast fund of empirical research available that would allow a more in-depth conceptualization of task-oriented small groups as poietic systems. What key factors are used in describing such groups? Can the global-local influences governing these groups be more precisely defined? Is it then possible to more precisely define the point of tension? Can the difficulties noted in designing small groups be ameliorated through such understanding? For example, can it aid planners and others in facilitating participatory processes? Noting the importance of self-awareness, could a small group improve its potential for attaining a high level of cohesiveness and/or functioning by understanding the conceptualization and dynamics of their own particular group? Could such understanding aid in development of adaptive planning systems by facilitating shared-decision making among empowered publics and institutions? Understanding the factors involved in small groups as 'systems', can these be extended to understanding larger systems? For example, can interpreting small groups as sympoietic systems aid in understanding communities? What are the implications of these ideas for other types of small groups such as families?
• Knowledge Systems: In the discussion, I focused on western science from a Kuhnian perspective. Further possibilities include applying the concepts to western science from a different perspective, and to different types of knowledge systems. Could application of these concepts resolve any of the disputes about the evolution of western science? For example, I have interpreted science as involving both types of poietic system. Do the contradictory descriptions of science relate to descriptions of the two different types of system? What are the implications of structural coupling with respect to the potential for science - or scientists - to be objective? Can these concepts, especially the self-organizing factors involved, help illustrate the commonalties and differences among knowledge systems? Can these concepts, especially the understanding of sympoietic systems, suggest possibilities for linking different knowledge systems? For example, is it possible to develop a sympoietic system by developing linkages among different autopoietic (knowledge) systems without each of these latter systems losing their integrity?
• Parks and Protected Areas: I placed this example last, because I perceive that extending the application here can involve integration of all the preceding examples. There are many questions that arise from the discussion. Applications can include the natural and social systems of concern to parks as well as the planning systems responsible for parks.
• Ecosystem Conservation Plans: Application of the systems concepts can be applied in this area in two ways. First, the conceptualization can be used to critique plans for parks that are already in place. Second, the concepts can be used to help develop new ecosystem conservation plans. In addition comparison, among the models advocated here and other models used in development of ecosystem conservation plans could provide sources for further understanding of the relevance of these concepts to planning.
• CORE Process: A more in-depth critique of the CORE process in B.C., considering its more and less successful aspects and applications, would also be useful. This may provide learning possibilities that could extend to other areas.

In closing, I reiterate a concern for sustainability of the human species and for our ability to plan appropriately with respect to this concern. I believe the concepts introduced in this thesis provide opportunities for conceptualizing systems in a useful manner. In particular, I believe they offer potential for coping with the problematic issue that was my beginning - boundaries. I believe this issue poses a central challenge for coping with the complex systems that are a reality when planning for sustainability. In consequence, I believe the concept of sympoiesis has considerable value.

Some have noted that in attempting to describe systems without boundaries, I face a psychological challenge (Nelson 1996, pers. comm., Kay 1997, pers. comm., see also Jordan 1969). This challenge has two components: our ability for defining systems and our inability for coping with uncertainty.

The latter part of the challenge arises from a concern that by relinquishing boundaries we create an incomprehensibly vast area for contemplation. We lose any sense of certainty since we cannot understand what we cannot comprehend. How can we possibly identify, discuss, understand, or plan for systems or phenomena that we cannot define or even grasp? How can we identify or define that which we cannot bound? These difficulties arise from a tendency to define systems by separating them from their environment/context. Such distinctions - epitomized by delineating boundaries - are often taken as fundamental to understanding systems. The process is so habitual that we have difficulty conceiving of other possibilities. Yet we also define systems - especially large complex systems - by relation. For example, I do not define western industrialized scientific culture by drawing boundaries, but by recognizing linkages among particular values, customs, and modes of thinking. I define a forest by linkages among trees, plants, climate, soil, and other components; a wetland by linkages among emergents, submergents, water levels, nutrients, and other components; a social system by linkages among people, exchanges, norms, customs, and other components. I believe such an approach to system definition, supported by the concept of sympoiesis, is also fundamental and that it should be encouraged.

In response to both components of the challenge - definition and coping with uncertainty - I emphasize a theme that has been running through my thesis: the heuristic potential of the system concepts I have described. Boundaries - when applied to many complex systems - are simply a heuristic device. They allow system definition and subsequently appear to reduce uncertainty. The concepts I describe just offer a different heuristic. Although considerably less tidy than neatly drawn lines - the ideal description of a boundary - they do carry some potential for allowing us to identify and conceptualize complex systems. The concepts enable and encourage definition of systems according to the factors involved in their generation. Regarding uncertainty, however, the concepts provide three angles for consideration. First, by allowing a different possibility for defining systems, they reduce uncertainty in the same sense that boundary delineation does. Second, the concepts emphasize the impossibility of eliminating uncertainty. Third, uncertainty is given a positive connotation, since it provides the potential for adaptation. Recognizing these three points may help improve our understanding, and it may also provide some potential for developing better coping strategies. The second angle emphasizes the need for adaptive approaches, the third angle, illustrates possibilities.

Although the complexities involved preclude the possibility for prediction - or even comprehensive understanding - these concepts may aid us in acting from a more informed position, by recognizing the potential for change, including both its negative and positive implications.