Site Logo

STPrism

Humberto Maturana

5 min read

Based on the provided sources, the relationships between hierarchy, non-ergodicity (referred to as natural drift or historical drift in the texts), speciation, causality, and constraint can be untangled by using Structural Determinism as the central binding principle.

Here is the synthesis of these concepts:

1. Causality and Constraint: The Foundation

In Maturana’s framework, traditional linear causality (Input A causes Output B) is rejected in favor of Structural Determinism. This is the fundamental constraint on all systems.

• Internal Determination: A system is “structure-determined,” meaning that everything that happens in it or to it is determined by its own structure at that moment[1][2]. An external agent (environment) cannot “instruct” or “cause” a specific change inside the system; it can only trigger or perturb changes that are already permitted by the system’s structure[1][3].

• Causality as Description: Causality is viewed not as an operative mechanism in nature but as a “notion that pertains to the domain of descriptions” used by an observer to explain the correlation between events[4].

• The Ultimate Constraint: The primary constraint on any living system is the conservation of its organization (its identity as a living system, or autopoiesis). If the structure changes in a way that violates this organization, the system disintegrates (dies)[5][6].

2. Non-Ergodicity (Natural Drift): The Process

Because systems are constrained by their structure and operate in a closed loop (autopoiesis), they do not explore all possible states (ergodicity). Instead, they follow a unique, non-repeatable historical path.

• Natural Drift: The texts illustrate this with the metaphor of a water drop falling down a hill. The path is not determined by a design or a final goal, but by the continuous interaction between the drop and the terrain at every instant[7][8].

• Path Dependence: Living systems are historical systems. Their current structure (which determines what they can do next) is the result of a specific history of structural changes[9]. This history restricts future possibilities; a system slides through a “continuously changing present” where the past is not a reference but a structural antecedent[9][10].

• Robots vs. Living Systems: This distinguishes living systems from robots. Robots are designed (ahistorical), whereas living systems are the result of a history of drift where the organism and medium change together congruently[9][11].

3. Speciation: The Outcome

Speciation is the visible result of Natural Drift occurring within reproductive lineages. It is the outcome of non-ergodicity applied to reproduction.

• Reproductive Drift: Evolution is a “natural drift” of lineages, not a march toward optimization. It is the result of the conservation of autopoiesis (life) and adaptation across generations[12].

• Branching Lineages: Speciation occurs when a reproductive network branches. Slight structural variations in offspring (reproductive variation) accumulate over time. If groups become separated (e.g., physically), their structures drift in different directions. Over time, they become different lineages (species) because their history of structural coupling with the environment has been different[13].

• Survival of the Fit: Evolution is not “survival of the fittest” (which implies an external standard) but the conservation of adaptation. As long as the organism maintains its structural coupling with the environment (adaptation), it survives. Speciation is simply the diversification of ways to maintain this coupling[16][17].

4. Hierarchy: The Architecture and Social Domain

The sources define hierarchy in two distinct ways: biological complexity (orders of autopoiesis) and social relations (command/obedience).

• Biological Hierarchy (Orders of Unity): Evolution creates a hierarchy of structural coupling:

    ◦ First-order: Single-celled organisms (molecular autopoiesis)[18].    ◦ Second-order: Metacellulars (multicellular organisms) where cells are components[19].    ◦ Third-order: Social phenomena, where organisms interact recurrently (e.g., ant colonies, human societies)[20][21]. • Social Hierarchy vs. Social Systems: In the human social domain, Maturana draws a sharp distinction based on emotion:

    ◦ Social Systems: Based on the emotion of love (mutual acceptance). These are non-hierarchical in terms of dominance[22][23].    ◦ Hierarchical Communities: Based on power, obedience, and negation of the other. In these systems, one individual surrenders autonomy to another[24][25]. • Constraint in Social Design: Churchman and Reynolds note that applying the biological concept of autopoiesis to social systems can be dangerous if it implies that the system is “closed” to ethical reflection. They argue that social systems should be designed to be “uncomfortable” and open to the “enemies” (critics) to prevent oppressive hierarchies[26][27].

Summary of the Relationship

1. Constraint (Structural Determinism) dictates that a system can only change based on its current structure.

2. This constraint forces the system into a specific, historical trajectory (Non-Ergodicity/Natural Drift), rather than exploring all possibilities.

3. When this drift occurs in reproductive lineages, it results in Speciation (diversity of forms).

4. These forms can couple together to create Hierarchies of complexity (cells → organisms → societies). However, in human causality, we must choose between a hierarchy of control (power) or a social system of mutual acceptance (love)[22][23].

Graph View