Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring System Boundaries

  • Published:
Law and Critique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Autopoiesis is normally considered to be the systems theory in law. In this paper complexity theory is presented as an alternative systems approach. In order to position complexity theory as a plausible alternative to autopoiesis I discuss the differing understanding of boundary within each theory, and use this as a vehicle to critique autopoiesis. My critique is situated within systems theory thinking but is external to both autopoiesis and complexity theory (although I must oscillate between the two objects of critique). Because both approaches possess an understanding of boundary it provides an effective tool to contrast their differences, while permitting each to be described in its own language. It is argued that complexity theory offers an approach to boundaries as contingent, emergent interfaces, which the autopoietic construction of boundary can learn from in several ways. More generally it is suggested that the complexity approach to boundaries offers lawyers engaging with systems theory a new critical perspective to assess legal constructions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is important not to conflate Luhmann’s use of the word complexity with that of complexity theory. Complexity theory is a systems theory independent of autopoiesis, which actively distinguishes between complexity and complicatedness. Something is complicated when there are a great many parts that fulfil a particular function when they are connected together in a specific way (for example, a jet airliner or a 10,000 piece puzzle). Conversely, something which is complex, or which displays the characteristic of complexity, possesses a great many parts which interact with one another in a multiplicity of ways. The character of the whole is not derived from the parts’ individual characteristics but from the emergent properties that become apparent only through their interaction. Therefore, although Luhmann has discussed ‘complexity’, and associated notions such as contingency (see Luhmann 1989, pp. 24–31) this was not complexity theory and appears more akin to complicatedness as the ‘progressive accumulating’ of parts (King and Schütz 1994, p. 270).

  2. On knowledge and information in complexity theory see Cilliers 2002, p. 80. On the contingent construction of meaning see Webb 2005, note 19 p. 231.

References

  • Bankowski, Zenon. 1996. How does it feel to be on your own? The person in the sight of autopoiesis. In Law as communication, ed. David Nelken, 63–80. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, Paul. 1995. Postmodern knowledge and complexity (or why anything does not go). South African Journal of Philosophy 14(3): 124–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, Paul. 1998. Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, Paul. 2001. Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems. International Journal of Innovation Management 5(2): 135–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, Paul. 2002. Why we cannot know complex things completely. Emergence 4(1&2): 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, Paul. 2005a. Knowledge, limits and boundaries. Futures 37: 605–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, Paul. 2005b. Complexity, deconstruction and relativism. Theory Culture Society 22: 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, Paul. 2007. Knowledge, complexity and understanding. In Thinking complexity: Complexity and philosophy Volume 1, ed. Paul Cilliers, 159–164. Mansfield: ISCE Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, Paul. 2008. Knowing complex systems: The limits of understanding. In A vision of transdisciplinarity. Laying the foundations for a world knowledge dialogue. eds. Frédéric Darbellay, Moira Cockell, Jérôme Billotte, and Francis Waldvogel, 43–50. Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL Press and Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

  • Cilliers, Paul. 2010. Difference, identity and complexity. In Complexity, difference and identity: An ethical perspective (Issues in business ethics, Volume 26), ed. Paul Cilliers, and Rika Preiser, 3–18. London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, Francis, Paul Cilliers, and Carlos Gershenson. 2007. Philosophy and complexity. In Complexity science and society, ed. Jan Bogg, and Robert Geyer, 117–134. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, John H. 1995. Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Reading: Helix Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Michael. 1993. The ‘truth’ about autopoiesis’. Journal of Law and Society 20(2): 218–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, Michael. 2001. The construction and demolition of the Luhmann heresy. Law and Critique 12: 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, Michael. 2006. What’s the use of Luhmann’s theory? In Luhmann on law and politics. Critical appraisals and applications, eds. Michael King and Chris Thornhill, 37–52. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.

  • King, Michael. 2009. Systems, not people, make society happen. Edinburgh: Holcombe Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Michael, and Anton Schütz. 1994. The ambitious modesty of Niklas Luhmann. Journal of Law and Society 21(3): 261–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas. 1988a. The unity of the legal system. In Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society, ed. Gunther Teubner, 12–35. New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas. 1988b. Closure and openness: On reality in the world of law. In Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society, ed. Gunther Teubner, 335–348. New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas. 1989. Law as a social system. Northwestern University Law Review 83(1&2): 136–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas. 1992a. Operational closure and structural coupling: The differentiation of the legal system. Cardozo Law Review 13: 1419–1441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas. 1992b. The coding of the legal system. In State, law, and economy as autopoietic systems: Regulation and autonomy in a new perspective, ed. Gunther Teubner, and Alberto Febbrajo, 145–185. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas. 1997. Limits of steering. Theory, Culture and Society 14: 41–57.

  • Maturana, Humberto. 1978. Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In Psychology and biology of language and thought: Essays in honour of Eric Lennenberg, ed. G. Millar, and E. Lennenberg, 27–63. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, Humberto. 1980. Man and society. In Autopoietic systems in the social sciences, ed. F. Benseler, P. Hejl, and W. Kock, 11–31. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, John. 1995. Self-Producing Systems: Implications and Applications of Autopoiesis. New York: Plenum Press.

  • Murray, Jamie. 2008. Complexity theory and socio-legal studies, Coda: Liverpool Law. Liverpool Law Review 29: 227–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas. 2006. Dealing (with) paradoxes: On law, justice and cheating. In Luhmann on law and politics, Critical appraisals and applications, ed. Michael King, and Chris Thornhill, 217–234. Portland: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas. 2010. Niklas Luhmann, law, justice, society. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preiser, Rika, and Paul Cilliers. 2010. Unpacking the ethics of complexity: Concluding reflections. In Complexity, difference and identity, ed. Paul Cilliers, and Rika Preiser, 265–288. London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Kurt A. 2004. Systems theory and complexity: Part 1. Emergence: Complexity and organisation 37: 75–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Kurt A. 2005. The hegemony of the physical sciences: An exploration in complexity thinking. Futures 37: 615–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Kurt A., and Paul Cilliers. 2001. What is complexity science? A view from different directions. Emergence 3(1): 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Kurt, A. Paul Cilliers, and M. Lissack. 2001a. Complexity science: A ‘gray’ science for the ‘stuff in between’. Emergence 3(2): 6–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Kurt A., Graham Mathieson, and Paul Cilliers. 2001b. The theory and practice of complexity science: Epistemological considerations for military operational analysis. SysteMexico 1(1): 25–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Kurt A., and G. Midgley. 2007. Systems theory and complexity: Part 4, The evolution of systems thinking. Emergence: Complexity and organisation 9(1/2): 163–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J.B. 1996. Complexity theory as a paradigm for the dynamical law-and-society system: A wake-up call for legal reductionism and the modern administrative state. Duke Law Journal 45(March): 849–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J.B. 2008. Law’s complexity: A primer. Georgia State University Law Review 24: 885–991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torpman, Jan. 2003. Learning to change: The production of contingency in modern legal systems. Law and Critique 14: 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeule, Adrian. 2012. The system of the constitution. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waldrop, Mitchell, M. 1994. 2nd ed. Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. London: Penguin Books.

  • Webb, Julian. 2005. Law, ethics, and complexity: Complexity theory and the normative reconstruction of law. Cleveland State Law Review 52: 227–242.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for the comments of Drs Barbara Mauthe and Sara Fovargue of Lancaster University Law School, and the two anonymous reviewers at Law and Critique. The ideas in this paper also benefited from the comments of those who attended the Systems, Complexity and Autopoiesis stream at the Socio-Legal Studies Association Annual Conference in April 2011. Any errors remain my own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. C58 Bowland North, LawSchool, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YN, UK

    Thomas E. Webb

Authors
  1. Thomas E. Webb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas E. Webb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Webb, T.E. Exploring System Boundaries. Law Critique 24, 131–151 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-013-9118-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-013-9118-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation