Diana Bang's ETEC 531 e-portfolio

The expanded conception of ecology is Guattari’s attempt to address mass mediatization and by asserting that there are 3 ecologies in which we are trying to cope with technological advancements. The 3 ecologies consist of: the environment, the subject or self, and the socius. According to Murphie & Potts (2003), this is akin to Bateson’s (1972) idea of 3 cybernetic/homeostatic systems: the individual human organism, the human society, and the larger ecosystem.

Guattari (1995) suggests that there are two different types of sign systems that are the foundation in which our communities have been formed (as cited in Murphie & Potts, 2003). According to Guattari (1995), signs that only operate are those that help us “plug into it” (i.e. traffic lights, ATM, etc), but differ from signs that are meaningful which signify communities.

I think that meanings from signs can be interpretive, subjective and differ from person to person. For example, signs in the form of gestures, symbols and even sign language hold a vast amount of meanings as that may be (for some) the main form of communication. Thus, signs are only meaningful when it is interpreted as such. In contrast, signs can also be operational and hold a functional quality to provide a designation, direction, or command as evident in storefront signage, street signs, and exit signs.

Autopoietic are self-operating and self-contained. For example, living organisms are autopoietic in the sense that they can be born and die on their own. In contrast, allopoietic processes depend on aspects outside of themselves in order for their survival. According to Guattari (1995) there is a relationship between autopoietic and allopoietic in that most assemblages contain both aspects (as cited in Murphie & Potts, 2003). Examples of both processes are illustrated in the Internet and people (i.e. communities that we are all a part of). Murphie & Potts (2003) states that we and our communities are essentially “autopoietic and allopoietic machines” (p. 197).

Also, a quick check of the online Encyclopaedia Britannica (2011) reveals the following:
“A newer definition of life revolves around the idea of autopoiesis. This idea was put forth by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela and emphasizes the peculiar closure of living systems, which are alive and maintain themselves metabolically whether they succeed in reproduction or not. Unlike machines, whose governing functions are embedded by human designers, organisms are self-governing. The autopoietic definition of life resembles the physiological definition but emphasizes life’s maintenance of its own identity, its informational closure, its cybernetic self-relatedness, and its ability to make more of itself. Autopoiesis refers to self-producing, self-maintaining, self-repairing, and self-relational aspects of living systems.”

References

Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2011). Autopoietic. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/340003/life/279344/Autopoietic

Mariotti, H. (n.d.). Autopoiesis, culture and society. Retrieved from http://www.oikos.org/mariotti.htm

Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Hingham, MA: Kluwer Boston Inc. Retrieved from http://books.google.ca/books?id=nVmcN9Ja68kC&lpg=PR9&ots=_mpZ3QEf2f&dq=Autopoietic%20autopoiesis%20culture&lr&pg=PR4#v=onepage&q=Autopoietic%20autopoiesis%20culture&f=false

Murphie, A. & Potts, J. (2003). Culture and technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thomson, K. R. (2007). System type: Allopoietic system. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~aptac/glossary/atisAllopoieticSystem.pdf