Autopoiesis, complexity and Indigenous identity

The following is an excerpt from my dissertation The Ontology of Love: A Framework for Re-Indigenizing Community ©2015

Indigenous complex systems are self-producing and adaptive. This observation links a complexity theory-based understanding of human systems to the work of Maturana and Varela in The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, and subsequently to the field of radical constructivism.  Maturana and Varela define autopoietic systems as self-producing systems (43) that are consequently boundaried and open in order to respond to stimulation from their context by adapting in order to create congruence between these autopoietic system and its environment. This process of adaptation is called structural coupling (99). The role of memory in the self-producing process of organisms emerges in the human context as manifested in language, which for Maturana and Varela is directly responsible for human evolution. Language encapsulates our world views, and therefore is the medium through which human consciousness is manifested:

Consciousness and mind belong to the realm of social coupling. That is the locus of their dynamics. And as part of human social dynamics, mind and consciousness operate as selectors of the path which our ontogenic structural drift [human evolution] follows. Moreover, since we exist in language, the domains of discourse that we generate become part of our domain of existence and constitute part of the environment in which we conserve identity and adaptation. (234)

Mind and consciousness manifest our evolutionary choices through languaging (Ibid.), the process of continuously producing human consciousness, therefore setting the direction of our evolution. Languaging as a mechanism for self-production is a process that guarantees autopoiesis:

What biology shows us is that the uniqueness of being human lies exclusively in a social structural coupling that occurs through languaging, generating (a) the regularities proper to the human social dynamics, for example, individual identity and self-consciousness, and (b) the recursive social human dynamics that entails a reflection enabling us to see that as human beings we have only the world which we create with others— whether we like them or not. (246)

Cillier’s ninth principle of complex systems (memory) and Peroff’s identification of the presence of a common body of metaphor (CBM) resonate with Maturana and Varela’s  languaging concept. Again, in “Indian Identity,” Peroff validates this point by identifying the relationship between Indianness and a tribe’s common body of metaphor: “The key emergent property of an Indian tribe, its Indian identity, is in an ultimate sense, anchored in a tribe’s common body of community-based metaphor.” (489) Maturana and Varela define languaging as the process of coordinating actions between organisms and of creating signs to represent those coordinated actions. (209-10)  The coordination of actions is the process of ensuring humanity’s version of autopoiesis and structural coupling. Therefore, it follows that a people’s common body of metaphor would give rise to that community’s sense of identity and its sociopolitical structures. For indigenous communities, autopoietic and coupling processes constitute their ongoing choice to continue evolving as such while also adapting to the centuries’ long social relations of power that positions Western societies as dominant. Peroff illustrates as follows:

Indianness is defined as a natural and ongoing process of Indian adaptation and adjustment to the dominant society…, an “oppositional process” in which Indianness is a means by which native peoples maintain boundaries between themselves and “the controllers of the surrounding state apparatus”…, or Indianness may refer to a process of “ethnogenesis” or the renewal of Indian identities, social organizations or cultures”.  (486)

Identity, therefore, is the result of self-producing processes and as such, it is the product of the languaging process and the embodiment of the collective choice of a group to evolve in a particular way.

If our evolutionary direction is the sum total of our choices through our languaging processes, then each of us leads human evolution. It follows, therefore, that leadership is also an outcome of humanity’s autopoietic and social coupling processes. Leadership is thus a fundamentally constitutive aspect of being human. In “Communicating Culture Through Leadership: One View for Indian Country,” John Sanchez and Mary E. Stuckey draw a connection between a culture’s leadership practices and its values. They explain that “…it is commonplace in political communication research that political leaders in the ‘American’ context serve as representative and definitional function, that their words reflect the values and ideals of the people who elected them…” (104)

In a indigenous cultural context, indigenous leaders are living examples of our values and of the evolutionary direction we have chosen.  Leadership practice is performative because it is conducted in the context of communal life, which is seldom private and mostly subjected to thorough observation by members of the community. From this standpoint, complexity leadership should embody an understanding of its genesis as rooted in complex systems and complexity leaders should demonstrate a capacity to engage complex realities in their daily living.

According to Peter Jennings and Kevin A. Dooley in “An Emerging Complexity Paradigm in Leadership Research,” “leadership, as an emergent phenomenon, is sparked by tension caused by an ‘adaptive challenge’ and results in an adaptive outcome in which the interactive dynamics of the CAS produce new patterns of behavior and new modes of operating.” (23) Based on this definition, complexity leadership resonates with Maturana and Varela’s understanding of human evolutionary processes. It can be said, therefore, that complexity leadership is the process of human evolution. This conclusion is echoed by Barry Lopez and Oren Lyons in “The Leadership Imperative: An Interview with Oren Lyons.” 

Lyons is a wisdom keeper of the Haudenosaunee people and a faculty member at the State University of New York at Buffalo Department of American Studies. As a traditional elder, Lyons’ leadership practice reflects Haudenosaunee ontology. In the following passage, Lyons quotes the Peace Maker, the entity traditionally credited with the emergence of the Iroquois confederacy, as he explained his leadership philosophy to the Haudenosaunee people:

“Counselors, leaders,” he said, “now that we have raised you here, now that you are who you are,” he said, “when you counsel for the welfare of the people, then think not of yourself, nor of your family, nor even your generation.” He said, “Make your decisions on behalf of the seventh generation coming. You who see far into the future, that is your responsibility: to look out for those generations that are helpless, that are completely at our mercy. We must protect them.” And that’s great counsel in today’s times, if we want the seventh generation to be here, and to have what we have. (9)

For the Haudenosaunee, leadership is the practice of ensuring the continuous self-production processes that define their long-term evolution as a people. 

I propose that from this viewpoint, leadership is a reproductive function, an aspect of human autopoietic processes. It is representational only in that it can be said to embody a people’s ontology in its forms and function. Its fundamental purpose is the conservation of our humanity, which subsequently includes a sense of responsibility for the environment in which we live. Lyons explains:

We feel responsible for animals, we feel responsible for trees, and responsible for fish, responsible for water. We feel responsible for land and all of the insects and everything that’s there. And when he spoke of the four white roots reaching in the four directions, I think he was talking to all people. Not just Haudenosaunee. This is an instruction for all people. (9)

For the Haudenosaunee, leadership is the practice of humanity’s original instructions as given to them by the Peace Maker. As a result, traditional Haudenosaunee leadership practice requires open engagement with non-Haudenosaunee society, a concern and practical engagement in the creation of well being of our environment. Structures of leadership for the Haudenosaunee are not based on positional power and authority.  John Sanchez and Mary E. Stuckey explain:

Such horizontal structures, which support the values of equality and mutual respect, work precisely because they are embedded in contexts where the acquisition and maintenance of private property are not particularly central—because “worth” is defined and achieved by contribution to the group. Believing systematically in such a culturally embedded view of characters, members of Native societies generally see education, social structures, religion, and the relationships of these to one another as the creation of human personality, which is why they expect no less of their people and institutions. (111)

Furthermore, they add:

A leader is thus less of a commander than a facilitator, helping to uncover and then to act upon the will of the group as that is informed by traditions, values, and history. Leaders do not function to represent interests, whether defined geographically, economically, or institutionally. They function to expedite and to invoke consensus… this skill requires both knowledge and perspective, which is why it is most often found among tribal elders. (112)

Given the vast diversity of ontologies among indigenous communities, it is important to understand how these basic principles relate to other indigenous communities. In “Beloved Women: Nurturing the Sacred Fire of Leadership From an American Indian Perspective, ” Tarrell Awe Agahe Portman and Michael Tlanusta Garrett explain:

Given the wide-ranging diversity of this population of approximately 2.3 million people, it is important to understand that any discussion related to cultural aspects of American Indian people is, in fact, a discussion encompassing the vastness and essence of these sovereign nations and differing individuals. Within this context, however, there are some universal underlying values that permeate what can be considered a Native worldview and existence. One foundational value, leadership from an American Indian perspective, is viewed as a shared vision and responsibility. Although there may be individual or tribal differences among familial groups, this perspective is a consistent cultural view. (284)

Portman and Garrett explain that such common beliefs and values include the idea of the “Web of Life,” which they describe as “an appropriate description of the complex set of relationships in which all people live.” (Ibid.) The central role women play as leaders within indigenous complex systems is linked to this concept. It would be unthinkable to adhere to an indigenous complexity theory of leadership that led to the creation of droves of mostly men who enact and are perceived as leaders. The exclusion of women from exercising leadership functions would be no less than denying their role in their people’s ongoing self-creation. As many indigenous creation stories center on the role of women as initial creators of human life, a leadership philosophy and practice that erases women’s leadership would not be in accordance with indigenous ontologies. To support this point, Portman explains that early European explorers encountered women-led societies on a regular basis and even opted to collaborate with these leaders:  “The explorer’s accounts depict female leaders as holding considerable power and influence among the people” (285).

Another aspect of indigenous leadership that seems to exist across diverse groups is the collectivist nature of leadership.  Portman and Garrett explain:

For many American Indians, cultural identity is rooted in tribal membership, community, and heritage. The tribe is an interdependent system of people who perceive themselves as parts of the greater whole rather than a whole consisting of individual parts... Likewise, traditional American Indian people judge themselves and their actions according to whether or not they are benefiting the tribal community and its continued harmonious functioning. In mainstream American society, worth and status appear to be based on occupation or achievements. For American Indians, one is who one belongs to or where one came from… Disconnection is perceived as a dishonor or disgrace, such as passing judgment on an Indian by saying someone “acts as if he didn’t have any relatives… (287-8)

This is the deathknoll of Great Man Theory as far as I am concerned and an invitation to a much more dynamic and creative enactment of leadership.