Systems Research and Behavioral Science

Syst. Res. 24, 475^479 (2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI:10.1002/sres.848

&

OpeningAddress

Complexity and Lifey

Fritjof Capra

Center for Ecoliteracy, Berkeley, California

INTRODUCTION
Mathematically, we need to realize that even the
simplest living system, a bacterial cell, is a highly
complex network involving literally thousands of
interdependent chemical reactions. During the
1970s, a new set of concepts and techniques for
dealing with that enormous complexity was
developed, which is beginning to form a coherent
mathematical framework. Chaos theory and
fractal geometry are important branches of this
new mathematics.
The crucial characteristic of the new mathematics is that it is a nonlinear mathematics. In science,
until recently, we were always taught to avoid
nonlinear equations, because they are very
difcult to solve. Whenever we encountered
them, the main task was to nd linear approximations. Thus, virtually all of science up to the
1970s was formulated in terms of linear equations.
In the 1970s, however, scientists for the rst time
had powerful high-speed computers that could
help them tackle and solve nonlinear equations.
In doing so, they devised a number of
techniques, a new kind of mathematical language
that revealed very surprising patterns underneath the seemingly chaotic behaviour of nonlinear systems, an underlying order beneath the
seeming chaos. Indeed, chaos theory is really a
theory of order, but of a new kind of order that is
revealed by this new mathematics.


Correspondence to: Fritjof Capra, Center for Ecoliteracy, Berkeley,
California; www.ecoliteracy.org
y
Opening address at the 50th annual conference of the International
Society for the Systems Sciences, Sonoma State University, 9 July, 2006

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

When you solve a nonlinear equation with

these new techniques, the result is not a formula
but a visual shape, a pattern traced by the
computer. So, the new mathematics is a mathematics of patterns, of relationships. The strange
attractors of chaos theory and the fractals of
fractal geometry are examples of such patterns.
They are visual descriptions of the systems
complex dynamics.

DISSIPATIVE STRUCTURES AND

AUTOPOIETIC NETWORKS
One of the rst scientists to use nonlinear dynamics to explore basic properties of living systems
was Ilya Prigogine. What intrigued Prigogine
most was that living organisms are able to
maintain their life processes under conditions of
nonequilibrium. During the 1960s, he became
fascinated by systems far from equilibrium and
began a detailed investigation to nd out under
exactly what conditions nonequilibrium situations may be stable.
The crucial breakthrough occurred, when he
realized that systems far from equilibrium must be
described by nonlinear equations. The clear
recognition of this link between far from equilibrium and nonlinearity opened an avenue of
research for Prigogine that would culminate a
decade later in his theory of dissipative structures,
formulated in the language of nonlinear dynamics.
As Bertalanffy had already emphasized, a
living organism is an open system that maintains
itself in a state far from equilibrium, and yet is
Received XX XXXX
Accepted XX XXXX

OPENING ADDRESS
stable: the same overall structure is maintained in
spite of an ongoing ow and change of
components. Prigogine called such a system a
dissipative structure to emphasize the close
interplay between structure on the one hand
and ow and change (or dissipation) on the
other. The farther a dissipative structure is from
equilibrium, the greater is its complexity and the
higher the degree of nonlinearity in the mathematical equations describing it.
The dynamics of these dissipative structures
specically includes the spontaneous emergence
of new forms of order. When the ow of energy
increases, the system may encounter a point of
instability, or bifurcation point, at which it can
branch off into an entirely new state where new
structures and new forms of order may emerge.
This spontaneous emergence of order at critical
points of instability, often simply referred to as
emergence, is one of the most important concepts of the new understanding of life. Emergence is one of the hallmarks of life. It is the
dynamic origin of development, learning and
evolution. In other words, creativitythe generation of new formsis a key property of all
living systems and since emergence is an integral
part of the dynamics of open systems, this means
that open systems develop and evolve. Life
constantly reaches out into novelty.
The second principal theory of self-organization
is the theory of autopoiesis by Humberto
Maturana and Francisco Varela. From the early
days of ecology, a central insight of the systemic
understanding of life had been the recognition
that the networks are the basic pattern of
organization of all living systems. Ecosystems
are understood in terms of food webs (i.e.
networks of organisms); organisms are networks
of cells, and cells are networks of molecules. The
network is a pattern that is common to all life.
Wherever we see life, we see networks.
It is important to realize that these living
networks are not material structures, like a
shing net or a spiders web. They are functional
networks, networks of relationships between
various processes. In a cell, for example, these
processes are chemical reactions between the
cells molecules. In a food web, the processes are
processes of feeding, of organisms eating one
Copyright
2007 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

476

Syst. Res.
another. In both cases the network is a nonmaterial pattern of relationships.
During the 1960s, while Prigogine established
the crucial link between systems far from equilibrium and nonlinearity, Maturana had a crucial
insight about living networks. He realized not
only that their central characteristic is their
nonlinearity, or circular organization, as he
called it then, but also that the components that
are involved in that circular organization are
produced and maintained by it. In other words,
the key characteristic of living networks is that
they are self-generating. In a cell, for example, all
the biological structuresthe proteins, enzymes,
the DNA, the cell membrane, etc.are continually produced, repaired and regenerated by the
cellular network. Living networks continually
create, or recreate themselves by transforming or
replacing their components. In this way they
undergo continual structural changes while preserving their web-like patterns of organization.
Maturana called this property autopoiesis,
which literally means self-making, and together
with Francisco Varela he developed a coherent
theory of these autopoietic, or self-generating,
networks.
Now, it is very interesting to me that the two
outstanding theories that apply the concepts of
complexity theory to understand living systems,
reect the basic tension between the study of
matter and the study of form. Prigogines theory
of dissipative structures derives conceptually, if
not historically, from Bertalanffys theory of open
systems; and Maturanas thinking was clearly
rooted in cybernetics. Consequently, Prigogine
used the language of physics and chemistry,
while Maturana and Varela used a more abstract
language of patterns of organization and there
has been surprisingly little communication
between the collaborators and followers of
Prigogine and the collaborators and followers
of Maturana.

SYNTHESIS OF THE PERSPECTIVES

OF MATTER AND FORM
It has been my conviction for the past 20 years
that the full understanding of living systems will
Syst. Res. 24, 475^479 (2007)
DOI:10.1002/sres

Fritjof Capra

Syst. Res.
require a synthesis of the two perspectives on
lifethe perspective of matter (or substance,
structure, quantity) and the perspective of form
(or pattern, order, quality). In my last two books,
The Web of Life and The Hidden Connections, I have
presented the outlines of such a synthesis. Let me
give you a very brief summary.
The emergence and renement of the concept
of pattern of organization has been a central
theme in systems thinking. The early systems
thinkers dened pattern as a conguration of
relationships. The ecologists recognized the network as the general pattern of life. The cyberneticists identied feedback as a circular pattern of
causal links; and the new mathematics of
complexity is a mathematics of visual patterns.
So, the understanding of pattern is of crucial
importance to the systemic understanding of life.
But that is not enough. We also need to understand the details of the systems structureits
cells and molecules, its biochemistry, etc. To
show you how the pattern approach and the
structure approachi.e. the perspective of form
and the perspective of mattercan be integrated, let me now dene these two terms more
precisely.
The pattern of organization of any system,
living or nonliving, is the conguration of
relationships among the systems components
that determine the systems essential characteristics. In other words, certain relationships must
be present for something to be recognized as
saya bicycle, a tree or a cat. That conguration
of relationships that gives a system its essential
characteristics is what I mean by its pattern of
organization.
Let me illustrate this with the bicycle, because
it is easier with a nonliving system. If I took all the
parts of a bicyclethe saddle, the handle bars,
the frame, the wheels, and so onand put them
here in front of you in a heap, you would say:
This is not a bicycle; these are the parts of a
bicycle. How do I turn them into a bicycle? By
putting them together in a certain order ! And it is
this order, this conguration of relationships
among the parts, that I call the pattern of
organization.
To describe the bicycles pattern of organization, I can use an abstract language of relationCopyright
2007 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

Complexity and Life

OPENING ADDRESS
ships. I do not need to tell you whether the frame
is made of heavy iron or light aluminium, what
kind of rubber went into the tyres and so on. In
other words, the physical materials are not part of
the description of the pattern of organization.
They are part of the description of the structure,
which I dene as the material embodiment of the
systems pattern of organization.
Whereas the description of the pattern of
organization involves an abstract mapping of
relationships, the description of the structure
involves describing the systems actual physical
componentstheir shapes, chemical compositions and so on.
Well, this is all quite simple with a bicycle. You
can visualize its pattern of organization, you can
draw a sketch of it, you can get the actual
materials and build the bicycle according to your
design sketch, and then the bicycle will just stand
there and will not do much on its own.
With a living system, the situation is very
different. Every living organism, as I mentioned
before, involves thousands of interdependent
chemical reactions. There is a ceaseless ux of
matter; there is growth, development and
evolution. This striking dynamic nature of living
systems suggests process as a third criterion for a
comprehensive description of the nature of life.
The process of life is the activity involved in the
continual embodiment of the systems pattern of
organization. Thus the process criterion is the
link between pattern and structure.

THREE PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE

The process criterion completes the conceptual
framework of my synthesis. All three criteria are
totally interdependent. The pattern of organization can only be recognized if it is embodied in a
physical structure, and in living systems this
embodiment is an ongoing process. The three
criteriapattern, structure and processare
three different but inseparable perspectives on
the phenomenon of life. They form the three
conceptual dimensions of my synthesis of the
perspective of matter and the perspective of
form.
Syst. Res. 24, 475^479 (2007)
DOI:10.1002/sres

477

OPENING ADDRESS
In terms of the theories of self-organization
mentioned before, we can now identify the
structure of a living system as a dissipative
structure, as described in Prigogines theory, and
its pattern as an autopoietic network, as described by Maturana and Varela.
What about the process of life? This is perhaps
the most revolutionary aspect of the new
systemic understanding of living systems, as it
implies a new conception of mind and consciousness that overcomes the Cartesian division
between mind and matter. This new conception
was proposed independently by Gregory Bateson and Humberto Maturana, and was elaborated more completely by Maturana and Varela.
The decisive advance has been to abandon the
Cartesian view of mind as a thing (res cogitans) in
favour of viewing it as part of the life process.
During the past 25 years, the study of mind from
this new perspective has blossomed into a rich
interdisciplinary eld, known as cognitive
science.
Maturanas central insight was the identication of cognition, the process of knowing, with
the process of life. Cognition is the activity involved in the self-generation and self-perpetuation
of living networks. This organizing activity of
living systems, at all levels of life, is a mental
activity. Thus life and cognition become inseparably connected. Mindor, more accurately,
mental activityis immanent in matter at all
levels of life.
With this new conception of mind, the
Cartesian division is nally overcome. Mind
and matter no longer appear to belong to two
separate categories, but can be seen as representing two complementary aspects of the phenomenon of lifethe process aspect and the structure
aspect. At all levels of life, beginning with the
simplest cell, mind and matter, process and
structure, are inseparably connected. For the rst
time, we have a scientic theory that unies
mind, matter and life.

MEANINGTHE FOURTH PERSPECTIVE

Let me now tell you about the last part of my
synthesis. In my most recent book, The Hidden
Copyright
2007 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

478

Syst. Res.
Connections, I have extended the systemic understanding of life to the social domain within a
conceptual framework that integrates lifes
biological, cognitive and social dimensions.
My framework rests on the assumption that
there is a fundamental unity to life, that different
living systems exhibit similar patterns of organization. This assumption is supported by the
observation that evolution has proceeded for
billions of years by using the same patterns again
and again. As life evolves, these patterns tend to
become more and more elaborate, but they are
always variations on the same basic themes.
The network pattern, in particular, is one of the
very basic patterns of organization in all living
systems. At all levels of life the components and
processes of living systems are interlinked in
network fashion. Extending the systemic conception of life to the social domain, therefore,
means applying our knowledge of lifes basic
patterns and principles of organization, and
specically our understanding of living networks
to social reality.
As Niklas Luhmann and others have emphasized, social networks are networks of communications. In the human realm, this means that we
need to consider our whole inner world of
consciousness and cultureof ideas, values,
goals, conicts, relationships of power and so
on. In other words, the perspectives of matter,
form and process are not sufcient to describe the
social dimension of life. We need a fourth
perspective.
Like biological networks, social networks are
self-generating, but what they generate is mostly
nonmaterial. Each communication creates
thoughts and meaning, which give rise to further
communications, and thus the entire network
generates itself. The dimension of meaning is
crucial to understand social networks. Even
when they generate material structuressuch
as material goods, artefacts, or works of art
these structures are very different from those
produced by biological networks. They are
usually produced for a purpose, according to
some design, and they embody some meaning.
I have therefore called the fourth perspective
on life the perspective of meaning. A full
understanding of social reality must involve
Syst. Res. 24, 475^479 (2007)
DOI:10.1002/sres

Fritjof Capra

Syst. Res.
the integration of all four perspectivesform,
matter, process and meaning.

BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL NETWORKS

It is very instructive to juxtapose biological and
social networks and highlight some of their
similarities and differences. Biological networks
operate in the realm of matter; social networks
operate in the realm of meaning. Both produce
material structures and social networks also
produce the nonmaterial characteristics of culturevalues, rules of behaviour, shared knowledge, etc.
Biological systems exchange molecules in their
networks of chemical reactions; social systems
exchange information and ideas in their networks of communications. Biological networks
produce and sustain a material boundary, which
imposes constraints on the chemistry that takes
place inside it. Social networks produce and
sustain a nonmaterial, cultural boundary, which
imposes constraints on the behaviour of its
members.
The extension of the systemic conception of life
to the social domain, which I have briey
outlined for you, explicitly includes the material
world. For social scientists, this may be unusual,
because traditionally, the social sciences have not
been very interested in the world of matter. Our
academic disciplines have been organized in
such a way that the natural sciences deal with
material structures while the social sciences deal
with social structures, which are understood to
be, essentially, rules of behaviour.
In the future, this strict division will no longer
be possible, because the key challenge of our
timefor social scientists, natural scientists, and
everyone elsewill be to build ecologically
sustainable communities. A sustainable community is designed in such a way that its
technologies and social institutionsits material
and social structuresdo not interfere with
natures inherent ability to sustain life. In other
words, the design principles of our future social

Copyright
2007 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

Complexity and Life

OPENING ADDRESS
institutions must be consistent with the principles of organization that nature has evolved to
sustain the web of life. A unied conceptual
framework for the understanding of material and
social structures will be essential for this task.

RECENT THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS

To conclude, let me mention just some recent
theoretical developments that involve the concepts and ideas I have discussed. In biochemistry
and biology, there has been some exciting work
on prebiotic, or molecular evolution by Harold
Morowitz, Pier Luigi Luisi and others. There has
been a revival of the study of morphogenesis, the
origin of biological form, through applications of
the concepts and techniques of complexity
theory. Stuart Kauffman, Brian Goodwin, Ricard
Sole and Ian Stewart are some of the scientists
working in this eld, and then there is the Gaia
theory by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis,
which is now well established and is being
developed by numerous researchers.
In cognitive science, the exploration of the
nature of consciousness has become a rich and
very lively eld. Some of the main contributors
are the late Francisco Varela, Gerald Edelman,
Antonio Damasio and George Lakoff.
In social theory, the study of networksfor
example, by Manuel Castells, Albert-Laszlo
Barnabasi and John Urryhas signicantly
advanced our understanding of social reality.
This has been applied to the understanding of
human organizations by organizational theorists
such as Peter Senge, Margaret Wheatley and
Juanita Brown.
The scientists developing these models and
theories often shy away from using the terms
systems theory or living systems, and prefer
instead to emphasize complexity, or networks.
But this does not change the fact that they
are working in the systems sciences and are
contributing to advancing the integrated,
systemic understanding of life.

Syst. Res. 24, 475^479 (2007)

DOI:10.1002/sres

479