Order vs. Organization - A discussion about definition
...vs. Production...

Most recent substantive changes:
Feb 17, 2000

Emphasizing the importance of a distinction between order and organization, authors such as Wicken (1979, 1987), Kay (1984), and Jackson (1991) also note the lack of consensus regarding the meaning of these two words. Although often used interchangeably or with overlapping meaning, there are connotations that allow differentiation - a differentiation useful when entering a discussion on self-organization.

As a basic beginning, consider the selection of college dictionary definitions listed on the right - definitions that are consistent with application in much self-organizing systems literature. In particular, the root words seem to carry significance: ordo - rank, regular arrangement vs. organizare - to contrive, arrange.

To some extent, order is the simpler, more straightforward of the two terms, generally referring to a 'regular arrangement' or pattern. The term has a rather static, structural connotation, yet it can also refer to pattern generated according to some simple rule. A non-random series of numbers, the sorting of pebbles on a beach, and crystal structures all exemplify order. As these examples suggest, it is worthwhile to recognize that order does not necessarily imply the existence of something that would be denoted a "system."

Organization, on the other hand, implies a set of characteristics that also distinguish something - at least to some extent - as a "system." Perhaps, one could even define organization as that quality which contributes to the "systemness" of a system...
In particular, it refers to a functional arrangement of some kind: a whole consisting of interdependent or coordinated parts. Molecules, ecosystems, and social groups, exhibit organization. Comparing these examples with the examples of "order" suggests that "organization" connotes something more dynamic; something formed through a continuing (or perhaps completed) process. The term also suggests the notion of purpose - an issue which must acknowledge participation of an observer. The factors described, then, pose some challenge for objectively and universally defining the meaning of "organization."

Organization:
1) the act or process of organizing 2) the state or manner of being organized 3) organic structure; composition (3 of 9 definitions).
Organize:
1) to form as or into a whole consisting of interdependent or coordinated parts, esp. for united action: to organize a committee 2) to systematize; order 3) to give organic structure or character to (3 of 9 definitions).
From: ML organizare to contrive, arrange = organ(um) organ (mechanical device, instrument) + izare -ize
(Random House 1991)

Role of the observer:

While the concept of 'order' cannot escape the need for an observer (somebody must perceive the pattern) the concept carries a greater sense that an objective description or rendering of the phenomena in question is possible. [Recognizing, of course, that there are degrees of - rather than an absolute possibility for - objectivity. Brief discussion can be found elsewhere...] The types of words generally used to describe organization, however - such as functions, coordination and wholes - bring in the spectre of subjectivity. They ascribe an ever more complicated role for the observer. I note, in particular, two interconnected factors.

First, is the scale of observation, which will influence the possibility for recognizing pattern, and subsequently for defining something as 'ordered' or 'organized.' For example, although we tend to categorize crystals as 'ordered,' some crystalline structures are quite complicated on a molecular scale, leading to their description as 'organized' instead. Such a shift in description, however, tends to indicate a shift in the observer's conception that has resulted from their shift in perception. While the structure or pattern has not changed, the observer's understanding of the structure or pattern has changed. In particular, the latter has likely changed toward incorporating relations that carry some purpose or intention. In consequence, according the distinctions noted above, it makes more sense to refer to these as organized rather than ordered.

This shift, however, leads to the second - and perhaps more critical and contentious - influence: the role of the observer in assigning, attributing, or interpreting purpose, function, or goal to any particular set of arrangements. This issue raises the teleological debate, which I will eventually cover elsewhere, but will not get into here. At its simplest this debates covers such questions as: Do the functions involved relate to internal or external goals? At its more complicated, are questions regarding the possibility of ascribing such potential to something that does not have consciousness - the belief that goal-oriented behaviour is restricted to humans.

There may also be some sense that organized also implies some degree (potentially quite limited) of explanatory ignorance - awareness, but not understanding - of goals or purposes.

To summarize, there are differences between the two terms order and organization, despite interchangeable, overlapping and ambiguous application. While in many circumstances the distinction is inconsequential, in the discussion about self-organizing systems, the differences carry significance. Given these distinctions, then, and in particular some understanding of what 'organization' means, it is possible to proceed to the question: What does the term 'self'-organization mean? Do the distinctions described here aid in understanding self-organization? Perhaps in two different ways: First, the role of the observer is emphasized. Second, it emphasizes the concern that some systems deemed self-organizing, might be more appropriately termed self-ordering. Considering the notion that a system might be 'self' ordered, raises, or perhaps enhances, the question of what it might mean to be 'self'-organizing...
But first, I also consider the definition of production...

Production

Given the distinction between order and organization, it seems fruitful to also consider the notion "production." Although I have not observed this term used interchangably with the preceding terms, I have noted ambiguity regarding reference to and definition of self-organizing and self-producing systems. Once again, dictionary definitions listed on the right are instructive. The most obvious difference is that while the preceding terms refer to arrangement of things that already exist, production refers to the manufacture or creation of something new. Even more than organization, then, production connotes process, and perhaps complication.

Produce:
1) to cause to exist; to give rise to: to produce steam 2) to bring into existence by intellectual or creative ability: to produce a great painting 3) to make or manufacture: to produce automobiles for export 4) to give birth to; bear 5) to yield products, offspring, etc. (5 of 11 definitions).
From: Latin producere to lead or bring forward, extend, prolong, produce
(Random House 1991)

Different types of systems...

In conclusion, then, I sketch distinctions among self-ordering, self-organizing, and self-producing systems - not as precise categories, but as relevant distinctions along a continuum.
Self-ordering is the simplest term. I suggest that 'self'-ordering entities are created through the interaction of global(directional) and local(constraining) influences such as in the generation of eddies and tornadoes. If the influences are removed, the 'system' dissolves. In this case, it seems a little hard to imagine the entity as a "self"...
Self-organization implies something more complicated, perhaps involving feedback processes such as in an autocatalytic network where outputs of the system enhance its own existence. Here it is easier to imagine a "self"...
Self-production involves something even more complicated, perhaps even complex. In this case, a set of interconnected, interdependent processes (the system) creates something new: outputs (or products) which become functional components of the system. They play an active role in the system's creation, rather than just feedback enhancing existence. Consequently, there is something here about the system defining its own "self" in a much more identifiable manner (the role/bias of the observer in establishing such possibility not to be forgotten).

Additions regarding production were prompted by discussion on the autopoiesis-dialognet.