Sympoiesis

(see other relevant key terms such as autopoiesis, craic and conviviality)

Early uses of the term

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): 

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

Our use of the term

• In the context of learning and scholarship, we can see sympoiesis as the sharing of the creative act.
• Haraway's 2020 book is called it matters what stories tell stories; It matters whose stories tell stories.
• Collett explains this more pragmatically as, becoming with and through each other. (Collett, et al., 2020)
• However, Koestler argues (1967) that every creative act is combinatorial.
• This suggests that sympoiesis might require a four-fold mode of reasoning
  • (See creative quartets & structural coupling)
• van Nieuwenhuijze & Wood's paper on anticipatory systems (2006) (download here) focuses on co-agency within creative collaboration.

A practical overview

(this summary is for diagnostic purposes)

1. Attributability
   • is the work still recognisable to each collaborator?
   • (e.g. is each collaborator proud of their part in the whole task?)
2. Transcendence
   • is the work of a higher quality than what each collaborator might have achieved separately?
   • (this may be an important factor for sustaining working relations)
3. Emergence
   • does the work have qualities or outcomes that surprised both/all collaborators?
   • (i.e. were the innovative qualities the result of the collaboration, rather than individual input?)
4. Applicability
   • could the work be applicable beyond its original purpose?
   • (n.b. creative/innovative processes is mercurial, so may be more useful to 'outsiders')

A managerial overview

(this summary is for team management purposes)

1. Individual self-respect
   • i.e. collaborators value their own viewpoints
   • (e.g. some may need coaxing out of being passive or self-effacing)
2. Individual abilities to form open-hearted relationships
   • i.e. they are willing to risk giving their ideas to the team
   • (i.e. some may need to refine their skills of listening or empathy)
3. Team-consciousness
   • i.e. each member has learned when/how to contribute selflessly to the team
   • (this may require different modes of knowing heart/head/hand/humour level, etc.)
4. Team generosity
   • i.e. its willingness to think beyond the original task or context
   • n.b. has the innovation process created:
     • i) new meaning?
     • ii) new value?
   • i.e. who might find it useful in the larger scheme of things?

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
• 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.

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.
• This process can be socially uncomfortable, as it requires 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.

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:

1. Mutual - Relationship of different organisms or species, in which each individual benefits
2. Commensal - Relationship of organisms or species in which one benefits without affecting the other
3. Exploitative - Relationship in which the fitness of one organism is lowered by the presence of another
4. Amensal - Relationship in which the product of one organism or species has a negative effect on another
5. 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

When mapping individual costs/benefits include the Ecosystem

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