Sympoiesis

(See other key terms)
These notes are based on a 2006 conference paper by Otto van Nieuwenhuijze & John Wood
download original paper

Sustainable systems

Beth Dempster used the 'sympoiesis' (around 1995) for describing complex sustainable systems (ecosystems/human communities). In comparing it with the term autopoiesis she makes the following distinctions (c.f. Dempster, 2000):

Whereas autopoietic systems have self-defined boundaries, sympoietic systems do not
Whereas autopoietic systems are self-produced, sympoietic systems are collectively produced
Whereas autopoietic systems are organizationally closed, sympoietic systems are organizationally ajar.

Sympoiesis within co-authorship

Nieuwenhuijze and Wood's, (2006) paper applies the term sympoiesis to co-editing in creative teams.
This implies the sharing of the creative act and also derives from previous work within systems theory.
- More specifically it is a modified form of autopoiesis (literally, 'self-creation').
- see also structural coupling, bisociation and creative quartets.

Four key criteria for sympoiesis

When it is synergistic
- - i.e. when the standard/quality/usefulness of the writing transcends what each co-author had previously achieved independently.
When each co-author still recognises their individual influence
- (e.g. when the outcome pleases each co-author).
When others in the wider community or ecosystem recognise the outcome as having potential value.
When the co-authorship process enhances team bonding and/or organisational consciousness
- (i.e. when it reciprocally sustains the relationship between the co-authors or the team).

Why not just say "co-authorship"?

In a professional context such as publishing the term 'co-authorship' may simply mean the technical process of editing content that is already known, approved and, or extant.
In such cases the creative aspects of the task may be managed relatively impersonally on a managerial, hierarchical basis where there are editors and sub-editors etc..
However, where new insights or behavioural change is required (e.g. paradigm change) it may be necessary for authors to work more speculatively, creatively and holarchically.
This is likely to entail challenging some of the prevailing ‘realities’ and discourses held by the co-authors.
This can cause discomfort to one or more of the co-authors.
In some cases this process was socially uncomfortable, as it required both/all authors to challenge their own assumptions in addition to those of their partners.
In extreme cases it forced one or more collaborators to question their self-identity, especially when a new idea unexpectedly challenged axioms that underpinned their fundamental beliefs.
In our development of the process we found that it required a re-languaging process.

How useful is sympoiesis?

It may prove to be a synergistic engine of new knowledge or unforeseen opportunity.
This is because it harnesses the creativity of each author, coupled with their combined co-creativities
- see four-fold reasoning
Sympoietic modes of co-authorship test the willingness of collaborators to change their roles and standpoints.
It may test the goodwill of co-authors and the resilience of their social relationships.
On the other hand it can also serve to build or strengthen trust and connectivity within teams or networks.
The following four criteria are offered as a checklist to guide the development of effective sympoiesis.

Some ecological parallels

It is useful to regard sympoiesis as a type of symbiosis (see, for example, Margulis, 1998) as both are special forms of synergy pertaining to living organisms. Scientists usually categorise the 'cost-benefits' using only five categories:

Mutual - Relationship of different organisms or species, in which each individual benefits
Commensal - Relationship of organisms or species in which one benefits without affecting the other
Exploitative - Relationship in which the fitness of one organism is lowered by the presence of another
Amensal - Relationship in which the product of one organism or species has a negative effect on another
Neutral - Relationship in which the organisms or species interact but do not affect each other

These make for a rather imprecise and misleading mapping of how organisms interact because they reflect a concern that is more biological, than ecological. For example, the term 'exploitative' (3) would include both 'parasitic coupling' and 'predator-prey coupling within the same category. While the table (below) uses the 5 categories it also acknowledges benefits or disadvantages to the (ecological) neighbourhood that is affected by these couplings.

ECO	P1	P2	COUPLING	DESCRIPTION
+	+	+	Mutual	Ecosystem benefits / beneficial to both partners
+	+	0	Commensal	Ecosystem benefits / one partner benefits / no harm to the other.
+	+	—	Exploitative	Ecosystem benefits / one partner benefits at expense of other.
+	—	0	Amensal	Ecosystem benefits / negative effect on one of the partners
+	—	—	Competitive	Ecosystem benefits / both partners suffer
0	+	+	Mutual	Neutral to ecosystem / beneficial to both partners
0	+	0	Commensal	Neutral to ecosystem / one partner benefits / no harm to the other.
0	+	—	Exploitative	Neutral to ecosystem / one partner benefits at expense of other.
0	—	0	Amensal	Neutral to ecosystem / negative effects on one of the partners
0	—	—	Competitive	Neutral to ecosystem / both partners suffer
0	0	0	Neutral	Neutral to ecosystem / no benefits or difficulties for either partner.
—	+	+	Mutual	Damage to ecosystem / beneficial to both partners
—	+	0	Commensal	Damage to ecosystem / one partner benefits / no harm to the other.
—	+	—	Exploitative	Damage to ecosystem / one partner benefits at expense of other.
—	—	0	Amensal	Damage to ecosystem / negative effects on one of the partners
—	—	—	Competitive	Damage to ecosystem / both partners suffer

Including the Ecosystem when mapping cost/benefit for individual agents

Some books

Bateson, G. (1980). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books.
Christensen, Clayton and Raynor, Michael (2003). The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Collett, K., Van den Berg, C. and Verster, B., 2020. Sympoiesis ‘becoming with and through each other’: Exploring collaborative writing as emergent academics. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 8(SI), pp.168-185.
Cox, G., & Dayan, Z., (2005), Cox Review of Creativity in Business: building on the UK’s strengths, TSO: Norwich, Chapter 1.
Cunningham, J. B., & Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining entrepreneurship. Journal of small business management, 29(1), 45-61
Dawkins, R., “The Selfish Gene”, New York: Oxford University Press, 1976
Dempster, B., 2000, July. Sympoietic and autopoietic systems: A new distinction for self-organizing systems. In Proceedings of the World Congress of the Systems Sciences and ISSS (pp. 1-18). Toronto, Canada.
Haraway, D., 2019. It matters what stories tell stories; It matters whose stories tell stories. A/b: Auto/Biography Studies, 34(3), pp.565-575.
Koestler, A., (1967), The Ghost in the Machine, Penguin: London (reprint 1990).
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M., (1980), Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago: Chicago and London
Landry, C., (2000), The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators, Earthscan Ltd, UK & USA, ISBN-10: 1853836133, ISBN-13: 978-1853836138
Lovelock, J. (1979), Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Margulis, L. (1998) Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution, Basic Books: New York.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F., (1980), ‘Autopoiesis and Cognition; the realisation of the Living’, in Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, Reidel: Boston.
Nieuwenhuijze, O. and Wood, J., 2006. Synergy and Sympoiesis in the Writing of Joint Papers; anticipation with/in imagination. International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, 10, pp.87-102.
Ponting, C., (1991), A Green History of the World, Penguin,
Rayner, A. (2012), NaturesScope?, O Books: Winchester, UK.
Simon, H., (1969), The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA
Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. E. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, Philadelphia: New Society Publishers
Wood, J. (2007), Design for Micro-utopias; thinking beyond the possible, Ashgate: UK.
Wood, J. (2011), ‘Languaging Change from Within; can we metadesign biodiversity?’ in Journal of Science and Innovation, Volume 1, Number 3, October 2011, pp. 27-32