Self-Organization
Most recent substantive changes:
Feb 23, 2001
The notion of self-organization has become popular in a variety of disciplines, ranging across both natural and social sciences. Andrew (1989: 24) commented that "it is difficult, probably impossible, to find a precise definition of what is understood by a self-organizing system. Nevertheless it is an important and useful idea." It seems these two statements still hold true. Such ambiguity can encourage discourse over meaning and allow broad imaginative application, yet it can also hinder understanding by evading, for example, the rigor that may be useful for communication. While I support the ferment of ambiguity and its benefits, my intention here is to sort through the range of meaning and definition attributed to 'self-organization' and related concepts. To be more explicit, I question: What entities and/or phenomena are and/or should be described as self-organizing?
This can be viewed as a two part question - regarding current use and appropriate use - both of which I will consider here and both of which lead to the question: According to who? also to be considered here.
Regarding current use, Andrew's point, echoed by others, is well taken. In a recent message, Randy Whittaker noted:
- self-creation -- the notion that a given system's origin is somehow determined by its character or the specific circumstances in which it occurs. Cf. Hejl's self-organizing system.
- self-configuration -- the notion that a given system actively determines the arrangement of its constituent parts.
- self-regulation --the notion that a given system actively controls the course of its internal transformations, typically with respect to one or more parameters.
- self-steering -- the notion that a given system actively controls its course of activity within some external environment or a general set of possible states.
- self-maintenance --the notion that a given system actively preserves itself, its form, and / or its functional status over time.
- self-(re-)production -- the notion that a given system generates itself anew or produces other systems identical to itself.
- self-reference. -- the notion that the significance of a given system's character or behavior is meaningful only with respect to itself. (Whitaker Feb 2001)
The question arises: Given these variations, why do people use the same term if they actually mean something different? What is captured by the connotation "self-organizing" that makes people want to use this term out of all possibilities? What similarities exist among the various applications that encourage use of the term?
I believe there is more here than simply following fashion trends. The word is grasped because it intuitively offers an appropriate signifier for a particular - and rather ubiquitous - type of phenomena.
To illustrate, it seems instructive to recognize differences and similarities that are apparent in application of the term among different disciplines. For example, "self-organizing" - and its characteristic description - seems to mean something different in biology than it does in physics or chemistry - or sociology. These differences likely arise from differences in the phenomena studied and the subsequent different expectations regarding their behaviours.
But what are the similarities? I think back to the question: What is captured? What intuitive understanding emerges from use of the term?* I think the essence here is something I have referred to before:
On an intuitive level, self-organization refers to exactly what is suggested: systems that appear to organize themselves without external direction, manipulation, or control. (Dempster 1998: 41)
This statement arises from similar generic statements from others:
Self-organization is to be understood as the spontaneous emergence of coherence or structure without externally applied coercion or control" (Ho and Saunders 1986, 233).
Self-organization may be taken as the opposite of construction. It probably is due in part to our cognitive make-up, but also to cultural factors in science, that we see the systems of the world as coming into existence under the control of an agent, or according to an algorithm, specified in genes, or in something else. Most people seem to have great difficulty in imagining that order at large, may emerge out of local interactions, without any general plan being present anywhere. And this is exactly what self-organization amounts to (Dalenoort 1989, ix)
Perhaps, then, the concept is predominantly about emergence - yet not only emergence - perhaps emergence without design, as suggested by the quote from Dalenoort. This quote also points to the importance of recognizing the role of the observer in determining "self-organization." As noted above, this leads to the question: According to who?
For now, I turn to consider the other part of my original two-part question: What entities and/or phenomena should be described as self-organizing? What is the appropriate use of the term?
After considering a distinction between order and organization [see discussion] I take the former to refer to a simpler arrangement/pattern that may be generated according to some simple rule, but that has a more static, structural connotation. In contrast, I take organization to refer to something more complicated, involving a functional arrangement of some kind. Incorporating, also, considerations from a discussion on self, it is worthwhile to question what the "self" that is organized actually is...
Given these considerations, then, to what does it seems appropriate to apply the term self-organization?
...good question!!?!...
As Wolfgang Krohn et al. point out, the basic idea of self-organization is as old as philosophy, with roots reaching back well into antiquity... (Knodt 1995: xxi)
The concepts relating to dissipative self-organization have not yet formed a "talking relationship" among themselves (Jantsch 1980: 81).
Different people use the term 'self-organization' in somewhat different ways... (Salthe 1989: 201)
We shall say that a system is self-organizing if it acquires a spatial, temporal or functional structure without specific interference from the outside. By "specific" we mean that the structure or functioning is not impressed on the system, but that the system is acted on from the outside in a nonspecific fashion. For instance, the fluid which forms hexagons is heated from below in an entirely uniform fashion, and it acquires its specific structure by self-organization (Haken 1988: 11 from Harper 1996) .
Those are some of the most primitive but, nevertheless, real examples of self-organization going in a purely mechanical way. In all of these cases, self-organization means the creation of macroscopical patterns by the action of forces distributed in a much more homogeneous way than the structures that arise. Hence, this kind of transformation implies a spontaneous breaking of symmetry (Beloussov 1993 from Harper 1996).
~ "components, through mutual interaction, participate in maintenance of whole system by influencing probability of genesis of each other's genesis (in one or both directions) (Csanyi 1986: 74).
In a self-organizing (or self-reinforcing) system, structure and processes mutually reinforce one another. The system may have a random seed, but, once initiated, pulls itself up by its own bootstraps and (within bounds) maintains order through internal interactions.
Self-organizing (or self-reinforcing) behavior as used here refers to the creation of metastable dynamics through internal interactions, including, but not necessarily restricted to, positive feedback.
Since all subglobal ecological systems are open to transfers of energy and matter, self-organization in nature must be understood in relative terms - that is, system dynamics must involve not only internal interactions, but modification of external forces such that they reinforce, or at least do not overwhelm, internally generated order (Perry 1995: 241).
