xbn .
Photo by David Kline

In autopoiesis, there is no separation between what we do and the particular way in which the world appears to us.

Autopoiesis (“self-creation”) is a term that has long been an important part of the vocabularies of systems theory (biological and social) and cybernetics, but it has more recently become an important addition to various other fields in the social sciences and humanities. Taken up primarily as a concept accounting for the self-generating and self-reproducing nature of complex social systems and their forms of cognition and communication, autopoiesis has provided new and generative ways of thinking about epistemology, social organization, and ecological formations. In this brief introduction, I will provide a general description of autopoiesis and explore how Black Studies theorist Sylvia Wynter’s use of the concept might open up new directions for political theological engagements with the Christian west’s systems of religion, colonialism, and social inequality.

Autopoiesis was first introduced and elaborated by Chilean evolutionary and systems biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela in Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (Maturana and Varela, 1972/1980). The term designated for them a new knowledge of “the organization of living systems” that is premised on the idea that all living entities are unities organized around specific dynamic relations and not any essence or set of component parts. Generally speaking, an autopoietic system is one that generates and reproduces itself through itself. In contrast to an allopoietic system that generates a product other than itself (a mechanical assembly line, for example), an autopoietic system’s sole “product” is the continuation of its own relational unity.

At the heart of autopoietic production is a distinction from an environment, which is anything that is not the system. This distinction can be confusing because the autopoietic system is not just the system, but the unity of its distinction between itself and its environment. Just as there is no life without death, there is no system without an environment against which it defines itself.

This means that for the autopoietic system, the environment is always a self-referential aspect of the system itself. In other words, the outside is always an operation of the inside. Each system’s specific environment is a “virtual” product of the system’s own self-referentiality and encountered only as an operation of the system whose sole aim is to maintain and reproduce itself. This does not mean that the system can somehow control its environment or that the environment for each system does not actually exist for other entities. Rather, the point is that all experience of an environment is necessarily tied to a particular cognitive operation of self-referential sense-perception and knowing.

Because the operations of autopoietic systems always takes place against an uncontrollable environment, they must constantly compensate for “environmental perturbations” that trigger changes in the system’s dynamic state. System adaptation is made possible through the distinction between what Maturana and Varela call the system’s “organization,” which “denotes those relations that must exist among the components of a system for it to be a member of a specific class,” and its “structure,” which “denotes the components and relations that actually constitute a particular unity and make its organization real” (Maturana and Varela, 1992, 47). Autopoietic systems are closed at the level of their organization but open at the level of structure. Changing the structure of the system is a triggered response that transforms the physical or noetic state of the system but does not change its basic relational organization.

While Maturana’s and Varela’s early explorations of autopoiesis were aimed primarily at understanding the biological organization of cells, their project also had significant implications for theories of epistemology and social organization. One of the primary epistemological strengths of the theory of autopoiesis is an avoidance of representationalist schemas of cognition premised either on a recovery of a pregiven outer world or the projection of a pregiven inner world. Both of these perspectives assume that there exists a world independent of the observer that is then represented through the system’s cognition.

What makes the concept of autopoiesis so valuable for Maturana and Varela (and as we will see, Sylvia Wynter) is that it enables a different kind of approach to cognition that bypasses the “recovery” vs. “projection” conundrum altogether as it locates cognition as a phenomenon of embodied action. In autopoiesis, there is no separation between what we do and the particular way in which the world appears to us. In their words, “every act of knowing brings forth a world.All doing is knowing, and all knowing is doing” (Maturana and Varela, 1992, 26).  

Sylvia Wynter and Autopoiesis

Over the last four decades, Sylvia Wynter has applied Maturana’s and Varela’s theory of autopoiesis to her prolifically interdisciplinary and epoch-spanning project of thinking a new account of human being beyond “Man,” the Christian west’s “overdetermined” figure of a singular and universal form of human life that organizes the modern epistemological, political, and economic global order. Wynter’s use of autopoiesis is particularly relevant for political theology as it shows how European colonialism, racism, and secularism are self-inscribing systems of human differentiation whose operations depend heavily on religious and theological distinctions.

Man is framed within Wynter’s broader account of “genres of being human,” which describes the multiple forms of life grounded in different languages, stories, and religio-cultural forms that span across the human species. As “hybrid” beings of “bios/logos,” human beings are autopoietic entities both in terms of their biological processes and their own narrative productions of truth and knowledge that they experience as objective. For Wynter, religion has played a particularly important function for genres of being human. I refer to her basic concept of religion as “autoreligion,” which emphasizes religion’s autopoietic function as a human mechanism of world-making “already presupposed” with the emergence of language (Wynter and McKittrick, 2015, 26). Wynter understands (auto)religion primarily as a mode of self-referential storytelling that produces narrative codes of “extra-human” order and determination, or the idea that a transcendent force outside of human being’s own self-produced narratives of existence (whether divine or natural) is determinative of the ways in which human life is ordered and lived (Wynter, 2003, 271-273)

The production and repetition of autoreligious codes of distinction legitimates and grounds each genre of being human’s sense of self and the boundaries that separate the social inside from the outside, or system from environment. These boundaries are policed and enforced around what Wynter calls codes of symbolic life (“the name of what is good”) and death (“the name of what is evil”), which reflect a transcendentally given order of proper existence that is made real through concrete practices of subordinating those that do not align with the system’s criterion of inclusion (Wynter and Scott, 2000, 179ff).

Because autoreligion compels genres of being human to experience their own social reality as given from beyond the community itself, they are unable to perceive that the stories told about human origins, cosmological situatedness, and ontological differentiation are products of their own self-inscription and not in fact “natural” or “universal” to the whole of the human species. In this sense, “being human” describes not an essence or reduced figure of evolutionary biology, but an open-ended multiplicity of different stories and cultural practices.

It is from this insight that Wynter levels her critique of Man and its subjective codes of order that hinge around the system distinction between European Man as fully-human and all others as occupying various levels of sub-humanity. In Man’s genealogy, the life/death code that posits the system distinction between full and subordinated human being begins with the Medieval European political-theological scapegoating of Jews and Muslims (and other socio-political identities on a sliding scale of proper being) internal to Europe as the contaminating threat to the “true Christian subject” of the Church. Beginning in the late 15th century, the distinction between the True Christian and its untrue others is transported to the New World and structurally adjusted with the theo-political cum secularized colonial distinction between “irrational” Natives and Africans and “rational” European citizens enforced via the Spanish state’s encomienda system of enslavement. Finally, the code undergoes another structural transformation in the 19th century Darwinian “biocentric” marking of Africans as evolutionarily “dysselected” against white Europeans who are “selected” to thrive politically and economically. In each case, whether articulated in explicitly religious or secular terms, the former functions as the transcendent “name of what is evil” to the latter’s “name of what is good,” maintaining and reproducing Man’s general organization around the fully-human/sub-human distinction (Wynter, 2003).

What Wynter’s genealogy of Man provides political theology is a direct link between the west’s continuing organization around a metaphysics of a singularly authentic human subject and a series of autoreligious structural adjustments that are grounded in a political theological mode of othering. It is this mode of othering that has enabled Man to sustain and reproduce its various divisions (racial, economic, gendered, sexual, etc.) between those who find themselves on the symbolic side of life and those who find themselves on the side of death. For Wynter, understanding this as an autopoietic operation enables the possibility of a rupture within Man’s system of subordination as it exposes what is posited and often experienced as natural or objective simply as the self-referential product of a particular system.

As Wynter argues, it is Frantz Fanon who first turns this insight towards a decolonial thought in his realization that the “self-evident consciousness” of the Euro-colonial world is a very particular form of socially conditioned consciousness premised on an anti-blackness that permeates all experience within its boundaries (Wynter, 2001). In Black Skin, White Masks, when Fanon finds himself “an object among other objects” under the white gaze, he realizes that his own sense of self as a colonized black man subordinated to a white order is in fact the self-creation of the colonizer. It is this experience that leads Fanon to take the “leap” of self-invention outside the anti-black terms of order and set out anew in conscious self-creation.

Following Fanon’s lead, Wynter’s “autopoetic turn” (Wynter, 2015), which orients the “poiesis” of autopoiesis towards the more conscious creativity of “poetics,” is premised on thinking a new human future beyond the violent overdetermination of Man. In Wynter’s new vision, the quest for human flourishing begins with the acknowledgement of the globally shared enactment of human being through the infinite capacity of self-invention. It is only when the collective “we” of an open and differentiated global humanity can, from the liberated perspective of each of our own particular genres of being human, together know ourselves as the self-creating beings we are that we might finally “experience ourselves, not only as we do now, as this or that genre of the human, but also as human” (Wynter and Scott, 2000, 197).

Selected Works of Maturana and Varela and Wynter:

Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1980)

This book introduces the concept of autopoiesis as a new way to think about biological systems as self-generating unities whose operations are entirely self-referential.

___________. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding (Shambhala, 1992)

A highly accessible “textbook” on the autopoietic nature of biological systems and cognition, this book systematically explores the autopoietic origins of life and cognition. This is probably the best place to start to understand Maturana’s and Varela’s basic epistemological approach and how autopoiesis provides a new way of thinking about the organization of living and social systems.

Sylvia Wynter. “The Ceremony Must be Found: After Humanism” Boundary 2 Vol. 12/13, Vol. 12, no. 3 – Vol. 13, no. 1 (1984)

___________.  “The Ceremony Found: Towards the Autopoetic Turn/Overturn, its Autonomy of Human Agency and Extraterritoriality of (Self-)Cognition” in Ambroise and Broeck, Eds. Black Knowledges/Black Struggles: Essays in Critical Epistemologies  (Liverpool University Press, 2015)

These two essays can be read as bookends to Wynter’s later writings on humanism and “Man” (1984-2015), both focusing on the relationships between self-generating human forms of life, storytelling, and epistemological “ruptures.” “The Ceremony Must be Found” is Wynter’s first engagement with Maturana and Varela and the theory of autopoiesis, and it also contains Wynter’s most direct theorization of religion as an autopoietic operation key to the evolutionary emergence of human societies. “The Ceremony Found” is Wynter’s last major essay and argues that the knowledge of the autopoietic nature of human cognition and social invention provides an opportunity to construct a “new science” grounded in the hybrid reality of human beings as bios/logos.

___________. “Towards the Sociogenic Principle: Fanon, Identity, the Puzzle of Conscious Experience, and What it is like to be ‘Black’” in National Identities and Socio- political Changes in Latin America, Ed. Mercedes F. Durán-Cogan and Antonio Gómez-Moriana. (Routledge, 2001)

This essay is one of Wynter’s most direct engagements with Frantz Fanon and outlines the “sociogenic principle” that states that human beings’ particular social production is just as formative to their experience of reality as is biology.

__________. “Unsettling the Coloniality of Being / Power / Truth / Freedom: Towards the Human, after Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument.” cr: The New Centennial Review 3, no. 3 (2003)

This essay is a good place to start for Wynter’s genealogy of Man and the role that Spanish colonialism in the Americas played in the emergence of modern conceptions of race.

Sylvia Wynter and Katherine McKittrick. “Unparalleled Catastrophe for our Species?” in McKittrick, Kathrine, Ed. Sylvia Wynter: On Being Human as Praxis. (Duke University Press, 2015)

This interview with Katherine McKittrick provides an excellent overview of Wynter’s broad interests and concerns, with direct references to the theory of autopoiesis.

Sylvia Wynter and David Scott. “The Re-Enchantment of Humanism” Small Axe 8 (September 2000)

This interview with David Scott is a great starting point for those interested in Wynter’s life and thought. It provides overviews of her major interests and concerns and also includes substantial biographical information on Wynter’s fascinating life and career.


Native survivance, in [Gerald] Vizenor’s parlance, is a combination of the words “survival” and “resistance,” and it “creates a sense of presence.” According to him, “The suffix -ance designates a condition, a nature, or a quality that is more than a mere description of survival.”


Where relationality is most productive in critical projects is where it transcends its projects of critique and explores the possibilities—ethical, political, and theological—of its account of subjectivity and community.


Facing the violence of contemporary terror, many intellectuals have spoken in our present times about a return of political theology and religion in its violent forms. Attention to the concept of martyrdom has reappeared due to an increasing interest in religious conflicts.


In autopoiesis, there is no separation between what we do and the particular way in which the world appears to us.


Where state sovereignty as theology would have subjected groups accept their condition with its attending violence and suffering, the micro sovereignty I propose here – not merely as a futuristic idea, but more as a reflection on how subjected groups have dealt with subjection – invites us not to accept that violence and suffering, but to find creative ways out of it through the cracks of Empire.


Abolition is a process of imagining alternatives to the settler colonial, carceral present; it requires modes of kinship and care to replace prisons and policing.

Gratuitous Violence

Signifying a critical homology between the fields of Black studies and political theology, gratuitous violence is an important keyword for interrogating how religio-political concepts can afford unique insights into issues of slavery, race, and the human which continue to inform our world today.  


Asian American literary criticism’s analysis of contemporary orientalisms centered around the figuration of Asian subjectivities reminds political theologians that unconscious (white) fear and fascination with the Orient still guides political and theoretical engagement with the Asian “other.”


Thing as concept can be helpful to elucidate the specific yet ambiguous interaction of the religious and the political. Using recent thingly theoretical work within these two spheres, with an emphasis on body and shape, I will suggest ways through which thing (and things and thingness) both clarifies and challenges that interaction.


Diaspora might be a problem for political progressives for the very reason that it is so alluring. Diaspora promises both freedom and connection: freedom from national borders or the essentialisms of race and language, connection between people who affirm shared memory and heritage.
But heritage is never really free.


If there is one thing that can be said about blackness, it is this: blackness is unruly.

Black Reason

Black reason is propelled by a fantastic imaginary, a changeling animus that aggregates and transmogrifies the desires and fears of whiteness.

Racial Capitalism

The historical and theoretical relationships between race and capitalism are internally contested and in need of further exploration from theologians and scholars of religion.


Sometimes referred to as “population control,” other times “better breeding,” eugenics has been seen as a religious solution to social ills, and sometimes a new religion unto itself.


Gilroy’s “planetary humanism” contributes to political theology by offering more than a critique: in his work, humanism is a starting point, a concept to guide multicultural political projects today.


Official responses to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have encouraged us to understand risk in individual terms. They’re wrong: risk is all about interdependence.

Food Sovereignty

Food sovereignty represents a refusal of a globally commodified food system in favor of systems and institutions that support self-sufficient communities.


Doxa is a term used in sociology to contend with belief and orthodoxy without reducing either to behavior or cognition. It explores disposition and embodied belief—the gut sense of the world which is acquired through practice rather than discourse.

Settler Colonialism

I propose Decolonial Settler Theology as a contextual political theology that is uniquely the task of the settler, who must face their own complicity in narratives of ongoing colonization and aim at their undoing.


In an era during which police institutions and ideology are so fundamental to our cultural common-sense, how can theologians and critical theorists challenge this form of power?


This essay takes taboo as a critical term to trace the history of our modern present and as a conceptual companion with which to think through the complex entanglement of the ethical, the theological, and the political.


What is still nascent… is an explicit conversation between political theology and critical theories of affect, particularly in a way that might contribute to constructive projects. The sort of political theology that might emerge from such collaboration would consider how affective regimes intersect with theological constructions or religious performances.


While kinship has traditionally held a vibrant conceptual life in anthropological inquiry, more recent studies on kinship as a form of spiritual relationality have opened up a new space of interdisciplinary exploration for political theology.


The modern state form itself is inextricable from the commandement, not just as an emblem for sovereignty in Schmitt’s sense, but also because the exemplary political form of modernity, the nation-state, has racist and exclusionary tendencies that can be understood as political-theological transfers of monotheistic principles.


That structural violence is always also relational, proximate, and personal is, perhaps, one of the core insights that the concept of mourning brings to the fore for political theology.


The conversation about nature’s personhood and rights is always political, often legal, and sometimes theological. Most importantly, it is a localized conversation about the boundaries of a given community – who is part of the community and who isn’t.


For political theology, we might find ourselves compelled by practices that seek to connect us with our ecologies, our communities, and our relations with ourselves – in ways that are more about humility and provisionality than finding cures or solutions.


Queer, I think, should remain different, differing, dissonant, and plural. It shouldn’t contract or calcify into anything singular or solid.


If theorizations of care are to more directly address the current “crisis of care,” we need not only to prioritize the kinds of embodied, particularized care that care ethics has highlighted in the past, but to explore a wider range of caring relationships and their diverse structures.


A preliminary question for political theology is how to understand the meaning and significance of matter. The response to this question shapes how a political theology does or doesn’t engage political economy and theological tradition.


The triangulation of money, sovereignty, and divinity is a good point of entry to study the mutual constitution of theological and political concepts and the questions about ultimate value and social form that they raise.


Refusal is a strong current resisting the structure of settler colonialism. It crashes, churns, and erodes the death-dealing dams of settler knowing. Its path turns away from the settler’s gaze.


Seva lends itself to easy appropriation across political and religious contexts, while also furnishing mutually intelligible tropes of service, welfare, and social betterment.


Political theology intimately understands that given reality teems with forms of life that remain opaque to us.


Spillers, Cheng, and Halberstam provide us with tools to approach the histories of violence, economics, relationships, desires, and contestation that infuse our experiences with flesh in its multiplicity. Flesh is never neutral.


It is not always possible (or advisable) to separate the “political” from the “religious” or “cultural” in Indigenous contexts. Indeed, all of these are concepts developed by outsiders to describe Indigenous life. Instead, Indigeneity invites scholars of political theology and related fields to consider the relationships between these threads of cultural life.


As we watch the illusion that was Man fall apart, we also see these more-than-human worlds that Man called “animal” disrupting and revealing the cracks and fractures in his own divine intentions.

Temporality I: History

William Apess, like Walter Benjamin a century later, sought to shift the paradigms of society with history and theology as orienting poles for colonial critique. Anticipating Benjamin, Apess looked to those who had been wrecked by the advance of colonialism as the grounding site for historical and political theological inquiry.

Temporality II: Futurity

Both Benjamin and Apess discern that historical narratives are imbricated with notions of futurity, that is, which bodies and polities are allowed to inhabit and thrive within the temporality in which the “not yet” and the “always already” co-constitute each other.


In this short essay, written from my perspective as a Jewish feminist, I draw together a plurality of engagements with natality to engender new conversations in political theology.

Critical Race Theory

CRT is a framework or an approach to understanding the way racism is foundational to systems of judicial, political, social, cultural, religious, and theological power.


[S]ituating demonology more fully in its religious and theological contexts furnishes resources that not only nuance understandings of movements for whom demonization is central, but also recontextualize discussions of core political theological concepts, including sovereignty, power, economy, subjectivity, and freedom.


From Myanmar to Mariupol, from the streets of Memphis to the waves and winds of the Mediterranean Sea: resistance to violence takes many forms. So does political protest against precarity. At which point does the unavoidable vulnerability of the living condition come to expression as political agency? Can such precarious politics constitute or configure an alternative community?

Hunger Strike

“Instead of neatly separating the forms of resistance to biosovereignty into life-affirming struggles and necroresistance and mapping them (and life and death) onto the reform/revolt dichotomy, I suggest that we conceive life and death as relational rather than oppositional categories. For every differentiation and intensification of death creates new possibilities of life; and every differentiation and intensification of life entails experiences of “death” that cannot be reduced to the power of one’s death.”

Like what you're reading?

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Share This

Share this post with your friends!