Chapter 8: Design as an Autopoietic System

Much of the line of thinking I have presented so far in this book is based on the fact that we stand at a critical juncture in human history, an era increasingly defined as the Anthropocene/Capitalocene, where human economic activity has become a dominant force shaping planetary systems (A. Malm, J. W. Moore). This epoch is characterized by interconnected, complex challenges often described as “wicked problems” due to their intricate, dynamic, and ambiguous nature (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Design, in its myriad forms, has been deeply implicated in creating many of these conditions, through its role in fostering industrial production, consumerism, and unsustainable lifestyles (Papanek, 1971; Fry, 2009). However, design also possesses an immense potential to contribute to pathways toward more sustainable, equitable, and resilient futures (Manzini, 2015; Irwin, 2015). To unlock this potential, we require a more profound and nuanced understanding of design itself—not merely as a professional practice or a set of technical skills, but as a complex, adaptive, and living system.

The Symbiotic Design Framework conceives of design as a dynamic, evolving system, best illuminated through the lens of autopoiesis (Maturana & Varela, 1980, 1992) and enriched by broader principles from General Systems Theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968), cybernetics (Wiener, 1948; Ashby, 1956), amongst many others ideas and of course by relevant design theories. This perspective allows us to map design’s intricate territory by first defining its operational context—its ecological niche—then articulating its core operational concepts, and finally, delineating its fundamental structure and components. The SDF emerges from the critical mindset shifts discussed in preceding chapters, acknowledging our temporal embeddedness, the socio-political dimensions of design, and the pressing need for more ethical, pluralistic, and life-affirming approaches (Escobar, 2018).

Design, as viewed through this framework, is not a static collection of aesthetic principles or a mere toolkit for problem-solving. Instead, it is a vibrant, emergent phenomenon arising from human activity, interaction, and cognition. While individual designers and design actors possess freedom and agency, the enduring behaviors, methodologies, values, and discourses that constitute the discipline of design are forged and continually re-negotiated through collective consensus, dialogue, and institutionalization over time. This ongoing, recursive process of collective agreement and interaction forms the discipline’s core identity, its operational logic, and its capacity for self-maintenance and transformation – its autopoiesis. Understanding this “livingness” is paramount to guiding design towards more symbiotic relationships with the broader social and ecological systems it influences and upon which it depends.

The Ecological Niche of Design: A Systems Perspective on Context

The Symbiotic Design Framework posits that design never operates in a vacuum; it is invariably and profoundly embedded within a Context or Ecological Niche. This concept, borrowed from ecology, signifies the multidimensional space of opportunities and constraints – the sum of all environmental factors and relational dynamics – that influence an entity’s existence and evolution. The assertion that design is acutely sensitive to its environment is not novel; it is evidenced throughout its history. Major design movements from the centers of power ranging from Arts and Crafts to the Bauhaus, De Stijl, and the Ulm School, arose within specific socio-cultural, technological, and economic conditions and were nourished by them (Lupton & Miller, 1993; Wingler, 1969). When these contextual factors shifted dramatically, as they did for these institutions, their specific organizational forms often faltered or dissolved, even as the broader discipline of design reformulated itself and continued its developmental trajectory. This historical contingency underscores the principle of structural coupling (Maturana & Varela, 1980), where a system (design) and its environment co-evolve through recurrent interactions, each triggering changes in the other without loss of their respective identities.

The ecological niche of design, therefore, encompasses the entire spectrum of events, conditions, resources, and relationships that influence design’s behavior, its possibilities, and its impacts. This environment is conceptualized within the SDF as comprising two fundamental, interacting spheres:

The Abiotic Sphere (The Non-living Milieu)

This realm consists of all non-living physical, chemical, and energetic elements that form the material and infrastructural basis for design activity. It includes:

Physical Materials: Natural resources (wood, stone, fibers, minerals), processed materials (metals, ceramics, polymers), and advanced materials (composites, nanomaterials, smart materials). The availability, properties, and extraction/processing impacts of these materials profoundly shape design possibilities and responsibilities (McDonough & Braungart, 2002).

Energy Sources: Fossil fuels, renewable energies, and the energy embedded in materials and processes. Design decisions related to energy efficiency, consumption, and sourcing are critical.

Tools and Technologies: This spectrum ranges from traditional hand tools and craft-based instruments to sophisticated digital fabrication machines (3D printers, CNC routers), software (CAD, CAM, CAE, AI-driven design tools), global communication networks (the internet, cloud computing), and the complex technological systems that underpin contemporary society. As Marshall McLuhan (1964) argued, our tools shape us as much as we shape them, a principle highly relevant to design.

Infrastructure: Physical infrastructures (buildings, transportation networks, manufacturing plants, energy grids, waste management systems) and digital infrastructures (data centers, communication protocols, software platforms) that enable and constrain design and its manifestations.

Broader Environmental Conditions: Geographic location, climate patterns, geological factors, electromagnetic radiations and other geophysical parameters that influence resource availability, design constraints (e.g., designing for extreme climates), and the environmental impact of design outcomes.

The Biotic Sphere (The Living Realm and Its Constructs)

This sphere encompasses all living organisms and the complex systems arising from their interactions. A crucial definitional criterion is that any entity within this sphere must be in an autopoietic state to be considered part of it; that is, it must be actively self-producing and self-maintaining its own organization and boundaries as a living entity. If an organism ceases to be alive, its material components transition to the abiotic sphere. The biotic sphere includes:

Individual Humans: Designers, users, clients, stakeholders, manufacturers, policymakers, and all individuals whose lives are touched directly or indirectly by design. This includes their biological needs, cognitive abilities, emotional responses, and diverse cultural backgrounds (Norman, 2004, 2013).

Human Collectives and Communities: Families, social groups, organizations, corporations, institutions, and broader societal structures. These collectives exhibit their own emergent properties and dynamics.

Social, Cultural, Economic, and Political Constructs: Stemming from human (biotic) activity and interaction, this realm is characterized by complex, often intangible, yet powerfully influential systems. These include:

Social Structures: Hierarchies, networks, class systems, gender relations, and power dynamics that shape access to resources, opportunities, and decision-making in design.

Cultural Norms and Values: Shared beliefs, traditions, rituals, aesthetic preferences, ethical frameworks, worldviews, and narratives that inform what is considered desirable, appropriate, or meaningful in design (Escobar, 2018; Margolin, 1995).

Economic Systems: Capitalism, socialism, market economies, gift economies, informal economies; including financial institutions, corporations, labor markets, consumer behavior, and global trade patterns that drive and constrain design activity.

Political Institutions and Ideologies: Governments, legal systems, policies, regulations, political movements, and power struggles that create the governance framework within which design operates and that design, in turn, can influence (Winner, 1980; DiSalvo, 2012).

Knowledge Systems: Scientific paradigms, indigenous knowledge, artistic traditions, tacit knowledge, and educational systems that generate, validate, and transmit the knowledge used in and produced by design (Cross, 2006; Schön, 1983).

Non-human Biological World: Plants, animals, fungi, microorganisms, and the ecosystems they form. Acknowledging the intrinsic value and agency of the non-human world is central to an ecological and symbiotic design ethic (Haraway, 2016; Van Dooren, 2014). This is probably the aspect least internalized by design and we must think about designing not only for humans, but also about designing in a more-than-human and multispecies design way.

It is within this rich, dynamic, and often contested niche that design finds its purpose, draws its resources, and manifests its effects.

Core Operational Concepts: Illuminating Design’s Dynamics

To achieve a more profound comprehension of design’s self-sustaining and generative nature, the Symbiotic Design Framework draws upon foundational concepts from systems biology and social theory, particularly concerning how systems operate, produce, and maintain their identity.

Autopoiesis and Allopoiesis

Autopoietic systems are defined as systems that are organized as a unity as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes/relations that produced them; and constitute it as a concrete unity in the space in which these same components exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network (Maturana & Varela, 1980, p. 78-79). In simpler terms, they are self-creating and self-maintaining networks, where the system’s own operations produce the very components that define and sustain the system itself. This concept was initially formulated to distinguish living organisms, characterized by “molecular autopoiesis,” from non-living entities.

Key characteristics of autopoietic systems relevant to understanding design include:

Self-Production: The system continuously produces its own components and the network of relations that define it.

Organizational Closure: The system’s defining organization (the specific relations between components that make it the system it is) is internally determined and maintained. The environment can trigger changes in the structure of the system but not directly determine its organization.

Structural Coupling: The system interacts with its environment through a history of recurrent interactions, leading to congruent structural changes in both the system and the environment, without the system losing its organizational closure or identity. This is how an autopoietic system adapts and evolves.

Boundary Maintenance: The system actively defines and maintains its own boundaries, distinguishing itself from its environment. These boundaries are not necessarily physical but are operational and relational.

While Maturana and Varela initially focused on the cellular and organismic levels, the core principles of autopoiesis have been powerfully extended by sociologists like Niklas Luhmann (1995, 2012) to understand the operations of social systems, including law, science, art, politics, and we could also argue that by extension, disciplines like design. He argued that social systems are autopoietic systems of communication, producing communications from communications, thereby maintaining their distinct identity and operational closure. Just like autopoiesis was adapted for social systems, other scholars have extended its principles beyond biology into diverse fields. Gunther Teubner, for example, applied it to understand law as a self-referential system, while Jerome McGann explored texts as autopoietic, self-generating entities within textual studies. Evan Thompson utilized autopoietic concepts in the philosophy of mind and cognitive science. In more technical domains, Barry McMullin has worked on computational autopoiesis within Artificial Life, and Jakob Axelsson has discussed its implications for Systems-of-Systems Engineering. These thinkers demonstrate just a very small glimpse into the broader applicability of the autopoietic paradigm.

In contrast to autopoietic systems, Allopoietic systems (from allo “other” and poiesis “production”) are those that produce something different from themselves. A classic example is a factory machine that produces bottles; the machine produces bottles, but it does not produce itself (Maturana & Varela, 1980). Many of the outputs of design (artifacts, products, buildings) can be seen as the results of allopoietic processes, where the design system (or a sub-system within it) produces an entity that is distinct from the design system itself. However, the discipline of design, in its capacity to regenerate its methods, theories, practitioners, and identity, exhibits strong autopoietic characteristics.

Heteropoiesis

Within the broader scope of human activity, Maturana and Varela (1992, p.76, footnote 10, originally from a 1984 text by Maturana, “Ser y Hacer”) introduce the concept of Heteropoiesis (from hetero “different” or “other,” and poiesis “creation”). This term, as depicted in the original text’s Illustration 64 (“Heteropoiesis, the making of human”), refers specifically to that subset of human actions which are voluntarily undertaken, involving conscious awareness, intention, and decision-making. It encompasses intentional physical or intellectual actions that require a conscious choice or an act of will. This distinguishes such actions from those that happen to humans (e.g., environmental influences) or those that their bodies perform autonomously (e.g., physiological processes like digestion or reflexive responses).

Design, as an act of deliberate envisioning, planning, and creation aimed at achieving particular purposes or shaping future states, operates firmly within this sphere of heteropoiesis. It is an expression of human agency and intentionality. Herbert Simon (1969) in “The Sciences of the Artificial” famously defined design as concerned with “how things ought to be – to devising artifacts to attain goals.” This goal-directed, future-oriented, and intentional nature places design squarely in the domain of heteropoiesis. The cognitive processes involved in designing—problem framing, ideation, synthesis, evaluation, decision-making—are all hallmarks of heteropoietic activity. Recognizing design as heteropoietic highlights the ethical responsibilities inherent in such intentional acts, as conscious choices invariably involve value judgments and have consequences (Buchanan, 1992). It may be concluded that design is an activity exclusive to human beings; other species within the biotic sphere do not produce designed outcomes. While these species certainly create, their creations do not constitute design. This distinction extends to individuals who are not trained designers. These individuals may also create objects, but if these objects are not produced within the discipline of design, they are something other than design, perhaps artifacts.

The Design System as a Unit: Navigating Complexity Through Differentiation

The challenge of understanding a complex field like design is amplified by the inherent limitations of observation, a concept Niklas Luhmann (1995) elaborated through the theory of functional differentiation. In functionally differentiated societies, various social systems (like science, law, art, or design) specialize in particular functions and develop their own unique codes, operations, and ways of observing the world. From its own operational perspective, design can only perceive and process information that aligns with its specific codes, methods, and established “virtues and limitations” at any given moment. This is akin to Plato’s allegory of the cave, where the prisoners’ perception of reality is shaped and constrained by the shadows they observe, which are themselves products of a system they cannot fully grasp from their vantage point. Design, therefore, grapples with the complexities of the heteropoietic human world, but it does so through its own differentiated lens, distinct from how anthropology, sociology, or economics might approach the same phenomena. Each discipline, maybe as an autopoietic system of communication, constructs its own reality based on its internal operations.

When we, as observers, are unable to fully articulate or discern all the internal components and intricate interrelations of a discipline, despite being able to differentiate it from its context or other disciplines, we may perceive it as a Simple Unit. This perception often arises from an external observer’s standpoint. For instance, a sociologist studying the design profession might treat “design” as a singular object of sociological inquiry, their observations limited and framed by the tools and theories of sociology. As Maturana and Varela (1992, p. 241) state, an observer can only make distinctions that their cognitive capacities and operational domain allow: “Everything said is said by an observer.” What we see depends on where we stand and what tools of observation we employ. From this external vantage, design might appear as a “black box” whose internal workings are opaque.

However, for practitioners, educators, and researchers within the field of design—the internal observers—design is undeniably a Composite Unit. Those embedded within the discipline are acutely aware of, and actively engage with, its multifaceted internal constitution: its diverse methodologies and methods (Cross, 2001, 2006), its evolving theoretical discourses (Buchanan, 1992; Margolin & Margolin, 2002), its specialized skill sets and “designerly ways of knowing” (Cross, 2006), its institutional forms (design schools, professional organizations, journals), its ongoing ethical debates (Papanek, 1971; Escobar, 2018), its specific communication practices (renderings, prototypes, scenarios), and its rich, often contested, historical lineages and traditions. We certainly at an individual level can disagree on what those components are, but at a collective level there exists a consensus on them.

Recognizing design as a composite unit is crucial for understanding its internal dynamics, its capacity for self-generation and adaptation (autopoiesis), and its potential for intentional transformation. If design were an unanalyzable, monolithic whole, it could not be considered autopoietic, as autopoiesis depends on the production and interaction of components within a defined network of relations. Since some members of the design community may not always possess the conceptual tools or the reflective capacity to identify and understand all these interacting components and their systemic implications, it can lead to deficient responses that address only a superficial part of a problem, failing to engage with the deeper systemic causes that triggered the design process in the first place. This underscores the importance of systemic literacy and reflective practice (Schön, 1983) within the design field.

Dimensions of the Symbiotic Design Framework: Mapping Design’s Operational Space

To visualize and navigate the complexity of design as a living, self-sustaining system operating within time and context, the Symbiotic Design Framework (SDF) conceptualizes it through three primary, interacting Dimensions. These dimensions, provide a map of design’s operational territory:

Design (Core): The Locus of Autopoiesis

At the very center of the framework lies the Design Core. This represents the autopoietic essence of the discipline – the generative engine where the system produces and continually renews its own identity, its shared knowledge (epistemologies, theories), its foundational practices (core methodologies, widely accepted processes), its core values (often implicit, sometimes explicit ethical stances or aesthetic principles), and its distinct operational logic. It is here that the principle of organizational closure is most evident. The Core maintains the coherence and continuity of the design discipline over time, ensuring that “design” remains recognizably “design” despite ongoing evolution and external perturbations. It is the locus of the discipline’s self-referential operations, where design produces design (e.g., design research produces new design knowledge, design education produces new designers who perpetuate and evolve design practices). This Core is not static; it is a dynamic field of ongoing production and reproduction of the elements that constitute design as a specific social system (Luhmann, 1995). Design as we just argued is created exclusively by certified designers, others using design as a tool are either in an inter, trans or multidisciplinary scheme. This will be further explored during the examination of components and their respective dimensions.

Design, by its very nature is located in the future, is a forward-looking endeavor, inherently oriented towards the creation of novel solutions and the shaping of future realities. Consequently, the design process is deeply immersed in hypothetical thinking, exploring potential scenarios, and iteratively developing concepts within imagined contexts. This speculative approach allows designers to proactively address future needs, anticipate emerging challenges, and envision transformative possibilities that do not yet exist in the present.

Frontier: The Zone of Structural Coupling and Heteropoietic Action

Surrounding the Core is the Frontier. This is not a rigid, impermeable wall but a dynamic, permeable, and highly active interface. The Frontier is the zone of negotiation, exchange, and transformation where the internal logic, resources, and identity of the Design Core meet the specific contingencies, constraints, opportunities, and demands of the external world—the Ecological Niche. This is where abstract design knowledge and methods are applied to concrete projects, where designers interact with users, clients, markets, materials, and broader societal issues.
Heteropoiesis—conscious, intentional human action—is highly manifest at the Frontier. Designers make deliberate choices, adapt existing methods, improvise solutions, and engage in reflective conversations with the situation (Schön, 1983). It is a zone of structural coupling (Maturana & Varela, 1980), characterized by mutual influence and co-evolution. The Design Core influences actions at the Frontier (e.g., by providing established methods), and experiences at the Frontier feed back into the Core, potentially leading to the evolution of methods, theories, or values over time (e.g., the rise of user-centered design or sustainability concerns). This Frontier is where much of the “messiness” and creativity of design practice occurs, mediating between the relatively stable identity of the Core and the constantly shifting realities of the Environment. It is also a site of potential innovation and disciplinary evolution, as novel practices emerging at the Frontier can eventually become integrated into the Core.

Designs Frontier is located in the Present, is where we solve the challenges, where the fires are extinguished.The true frontier of design practice resides not in the realm of speculation or future projections, but firmly within the present moment. It is here, amidst the immediate complexities and pressing needs, that the core work of a designer unfolds. This is the arena where tangible challenges are confronted head-on, where practical solutions are forged, and where existing problems—like urgent crises demanding immediate attention—are actively resolved and brought to an end. The designer operating on this “Designs Frontier” is an agent of immediate impact, directly engaged in shaping and improving the reality of today.

Environment (Ecological Niche): The Contextual Matrix

Beyond the Frontier lies the Environment, which is synonymous with the broader Ecological Niche containing the Abiotic, Biotic, and the Intangible socio-cultural factors previously discussed that fall outside of Design’s realm. This dimension encompasses the totality of contextual factors that surround and permeate design. It includes cultural narratives and worldviews (Escobar, 2018), ethical frameworks and moral considerations, economic systems and market forces (Julier, 2008), political structures and power dynamics (Winner, 1980), technological affordances and constraints, and the biophysical planet with its ecological limits and processes (Fry, 2009; Wahl, 2016).

The Environment exerts pressures, presents challenges, and offers resources to the design system operating at its Core and Frontier. Simultaneously, the Environment is profoundly shaped by design’s outputs—the artifacts, services, systems, and communications that result from design processes. These outputs, often the products of allopoietic processes (producing something other than the design system itself), re-enter and modify the Environment, leading to intended and unintended consequences. This constant interplay highlights the deep responsibility of design, as its creations actively co-construct the world we inhabit. Understanding the Environment is crucial for anticipating impacts, identifying leverage points for systemic change, and fostering more symbiotic relationships.

These three dimensions—Design, Frontier, and Environment—are not discrete, separate entities but are dynamically interconnected and mutually constitutive, existing in a constant state of flux and interaction. They provide a conceptual topography for understanding where and how different aspects of design operate and interrelate. Design’s environment, when viewed through the lens of time, encompasses both the legacy of past endeavors and the horizon of future challenges. By examining historical successes and failures, we gain invaluable insights that can inform our approach to forthcoming complexities. However, consciously dwelling solely on either the past or the future removes us from the immediate context of the present, where design action truly unfolds. In this conceptual framework, the past and the future can be considered as residing within the realm of theoretical contemplation, providing the raw material and the aspirational goals for design thinking. Conversely, the present moment is the domain of practical application, where ideas are tested, refined, and materialized. It is within this dynamic interplay between theory and practice that design operates. As Riis astutely observed, design functions as an “internal observer,” a critical faculty that assesses needs, identifies opportunities, and orchestrates the transformation of concepts into tangible realities within the constraints and possibilities of the present. This internal observation allows design to mediate between the lessons of the past, the ambitions for the future, and the pragmatic necessities of the current situation.

The Seven Components of the Framework: Constituting Design’s Composite Nature

The recognition of design as a Composite Unit necessitates the identification of its constituent parts. The Symbiotic Design Framework proposes that the existence and operation of the design system are defined by the presence and dynamic interaction of its core Components, the specific Organization, the set of relations between these components that must be present all times for the system to be identified as design, and its resulting Structure, the actual components and relations embodied at a specific point in time and space. Design, therefore, exists both through the integrity of its internal properties (its components and their organization) and through its differentiation from, and interaction with, its Ecological Niche.

The SDF identifies seven essential, interdependent components. As we defined earlier these components were derived from an iterative process of analyzing design activities, studying interactions between designers and their environments, and refined through empirical research and theoretical reflection as we saw previously. The dynamic interconnections and interactions between components, recognizes that the essence of a system lies not just in its parts but in the way those parts are related and influence each other. These relations act as the connective tissue, enabling the system’s coherence and emergent properties and they will be further explored in a later chapter on Symbiosis.

Presented herein is an introductory overview of the seven components, the detailed specifications of which, including their respective Dimensions and Variables, will be thoroughly expounded upon in Chapter Nine.

Humans: The “Who?” This core component focuses on the human element in design, including the cognitive, emotional, physical, and ethical capacities of designers, users, clients, stakeholders, and communities. 

Commissions: The “Why?” The commission is the trigger, need, aspiration, or problematic situation that starts and guides the design process. It’s the design’s explicit or implicit purpose, goal, or question, ranging from well-defined to “wicked” problems. Commissions can be client-driven, socially motivated, or self-initiated, involving problem framing, understanding intent, and articulating desired futures.

Observations: The “Based on What?” – This component represents the cybernetic aspect of design – the gathering, processing, and interpretation of information and insights. It involves diverse modes of inquiry and learning from feedback. It is the epistemological engine of design, fueling understanding and informing decisions.

Procedure: The “How?” The design process includes methodologies, methods, techniques, strategies, and workflows, spanning divergent thinking to project management. These procedures, formal or informal, linear or iterative, traditional or experimental, embody “designerly”ways of doing things

Partners: The “With Whom?” Contemporary design is inherently collaborative and networked, involving all individuals, groups, or organizations actively participating in or contributing to the process. This includes interdisciplinary teams, clients, users (in co-design or participatory design), suppliers, manufacturers, community stakeholders, and even non-human actors or data systems.

Tools & Material: The “With What?” Design resources include physical and intangible materials, tools, finances, time, and knowledge used to explore and realize design intentions. The selection and application of these resources carry inherent values and consequences.

Outcome: The “What?”This refers to the tangible or intangible results, outputs, or interventions generated by the design process. Outcomes can range from sketches, mock-ups, and prototypes, to finished products, services, systems, experiences, environments, communications, policies, strategies, or even social and behavioral changes. Crucially, this component also encompasses the intended and unintended impacts and consequences of these outcomes in the world.

These seven components are not a static checklist but represent dynamic, interacting elements of a self-organizing and self-producing system. Their interactions are governed by the Relational Component, which ensures the system functions as a coherent whole. This systemic view, drawing from General Systems Theory and autopoiesis, emphasizes that the behavior of the design system emerges from the complex interplay of these components, rather than being a simple sum of its parts. The Symbiotic Design Framework outlines seven Constituent Components that are always present in design, regardless of whether they are consciously considered or not. Neglecting any of these components in practice leads to unsustainable outcomes, basically because we are leaving areas unattended. There are also Secondary Components that could be incorporated by a sub discipline to help configure their niche inside Design. You can add secondary components, but you can never extract constituent ones. If that would be the case the system as we know it would suffer an Organizational Closure change, making it collapse and becoming something else. If the secondary components become permanent and are collectively “approved” they could eventually become Constituent ones. In this case we would be in the presence of an evolution in Design. The SDF as we know it now, offers a new perspective for design, emphasizing thorough research and critical thinking to inherently eliminate unsustainability.

Variables within the Components

Each of the seven Constituent Components is further nuanced by a range of specific Variables. These variables provide the necessary granularity to understand and describe the particular conditions, characteristics, and states of each component as it manifests across the different challenges and opportunities it encounters. They allow for a more precise analysis of any given design situation, project, or even the state of the design discipline itself at a particular historical moment.

This detailed articulation demonstrates how the variables interact and influence the overall dynamics of the design system, affecting its capacity for adaptation, innovation, and responsible engagement with its ecological niche. They are crucial for applying the SDF as an analytical and diagnostic tool, allowing for a tailored understanding of specific design contexts rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. This aligns with Ashby’s (1956) Law of Requisite Variety from cybernetics, which suggests that for a system to effectively regulate or respond to the complexity of its environment, it must possess a comparable level of internal variety. 

We should also address how variables relate to components, its dimensions and between them, because they can do so in a direct or indirect relation or even a mixture of these two due to the Time constant that will make the conditions evolve, just like in wicked problems. Variables are the trickiest, since they are the most elusive and the less apprehensible ones. If we recall Maturana, we can only see what we are capable of seeing and this translates to areas that we could probably miss. To avoid this the SDF will provide you with a set of questions for each component, but most importantly it provides a holistic view of the challenge you are encountering and within the components you will find that there are presented exactly as guides to do the right answers to the right questions.

We now know that variables should not be considered static entities upon identification, but rather as evolving phenomena. For example environmental variables can intrinsically incorporate the temporal dimension through cyclical patterns. These cycles are manifested in diverse forms, including the annual periodicity of seasons, the diurnal alternation of day and night, and extended lunar cycles. Even earthquakes have  cyclical patterns. You can not predict their periodicity but you know they will come. Such temporal embeddings within environmental factors exert considerable influence upon the Abiotic and Biotic spheres, thereby shaping the relations between the components and the Ecological Niche within it works. The predictable or unpredictable nature of these cycles facilitates adaptation and synchronization within ecosystems to achieve sustainability, something bioclimatic architecture is an expert in.

Design as a Living, Autopoietic, and Symbiotic System: Towards a Holistic and Responsible Practice

The preceding examination, particularly the rigorous application of Varela, Maturana, and Uribe’s six-point model, has furnished compelling evidence for conceptualizing the discipline of design as an autopoietic system. We have established that design, as a complex social phenomenon, possesses identifiable, albeit dynamically negotiated and socially constructed, boundaries that differentiate it as a recognizable unit within the broader societal landscape. It is constituted by describable, interacting components, rendering it far more than an unanalyzable, monolithic entity. The design system operates “mechanistically” not in a simplistic, deterministic sense, but in that the interactions and transformations of its components are governed by coherent, relational rules and emergent patterns, largely determined by its own internal organization and historical trajectory.

Crucially, the very components that constitute design’s defining boundaries, are themselves actively constituted, maintained, and evolved through the preferential relations and interactions among the system’s own elements, predominantly within the diverse communities of design practitioners, educators, and researchers. These boundary-defining elements are not static impositions but are continuously produced and reproduced by the internal dynamics of the unit, often through the transformation of previously existing elements or via the selective integration (structural coupling) of influences from its complex Ecological Niche. Finally, design’s operational components, are demonstrably produced by the interactions among these same components. Underpinning all this productive activity is the fundamental presence of Time, acting as a necessary and permanent constant element that enables the entire autopoietic endeavor of design to be able to project into the future.

Where, then, does this deeply systemic and autopoietic perspective ultimately lead us? The insights gleaned from viewing design as a “living”, self-creating, and self-maintaining system open up potent new avenues, not only for understanding the discipline with greater depth and nuance but, more critically, for practicing it with enhanced responsibility, efficacy, and wisdom, particularly in the face of the Anthropocene/Capitalocene’s complex, interconnected challenges. A truly holistic model of design, grounded in this perspective, transcend fragmented or purely instrumentalist views. It captures design’s full complexity, mapping its internal dynamics of self-production and self-regulation while simultaneously accounting for its recursive, co-evolutionary interactions with its ever-changing socio-ecological environment.

Such a model, as the SDF strives to be, recognizes that:

• Design is fundamentally self-creating (autopoietic): It recursively defines and regenerates its core components (methods, theories, values), its operational boundaries, and its unique organizational logic through the collective actions, communications, and reflections of its practitioners. Its identity emerges from within and is actively maintained.
• Design is inherently adaptive and evolutionary: It persists and maintains its identity through continuous structural change, learning, and evolution in response to both internal innovations and external perturbations from its environment. This demonstrates the elasticity and resilience necessary for navigating temporal flux and shifting contexts.
• Design is deeply relational: Its identity, function, and meaning are not inherent in isolated components but are formed through the dynamic interactions among its internal dimensions (historical, institutional, methodological, epistemic, communicational) and through its ongoing exchanges (structural coupling) with the broader world. Design exists in relationship, a core tenet that paves the way towards a truly symbiotic orientation.
• Design is ethically and culturally engaged, never neutral: By constantly interacting with its rich Ecological Niche design inevitably becomes entangled with, and an agent in, complex ethical and cultural dynamics. It must therefore be mindfully aware of its potential impacts, including issues amongst others of cultural appropriation, epistemic injustice, environmental sustainability, social equity, and political consequences (Winner, 1980; Escobar, 2018; Fry, 2011). Remember, Design is a political act, always!

Embracing this holistic, systemic, and autopoietic framework empowers the design community to address pressing contemporary questions with greater clarity and purpose: Why do certain dominant design practices perpetuate environmental harm or social inequity? How can alternative design paradigms—those that respect diverse cultural heritages, ecological limits, and promote flourishing—be nurtured and gain traction within the discipline? Answering these and many other relevant questions requires a sophisticated understanding of design’s internal structure and organization: its self-maintaining feedback loops, its embedded values and assumptions, and the nature of its external relationships. It necessitates a delicate balance between disciplinary self-regulation and an open, ethical, and responsive interaction with the wider world. Viewing design as a autopoietic system, capable of learning, evolving, and even healing, offers a pathway to cultivating that essential balance and fostering its overall Integrity as a discipline.

Understanding design as an adaptive system reveals that achieving sustainable and equitable outcomes—true Symbiotic Design—requires more than superficial changes. It demands critical thinking to influence design’s internal organization, values, and discourses. By engaging design’s operational logic and integrating living systems principles through informed decision-making, we can foster regenerative and adaptive solutions, moving beyond merely extractive or brittle approaches.

The goal is for design to genuinely embody living systems logic, fostering informed decisions through rigorous investigation, critical self-reflection, and systemic experimentation. Such a shift profoundly impacts how we define problems, conduct research, select materials, and understand our accountability for social and ecological impacts. Crucially, Symbiotic Design offers a path for better design education, moving it towards systemic, ethically-rooted thinking and practice. This new educational approach is essential to empowering future designers to take ownership of the relationships they encounter and learn to manipulate them to achieve sustainable outcomes, thereby redefining the responsibility and impacts of design.

References 

(Illustrative – a full bibliography would be more extensive and specifically cited in-text):

Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21.

Buchanan, R. (2001). Design Research and the New Learning. Design Issues, 17(4),³ 3-23.

Cross, N. (2001). Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49-55.

Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer.

Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415(6867), 23.

DiSalvo, C. (2012). Adversarial Design. MIT Press.

Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. MIT Press.

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press.

Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Duke University⁴ Press.

Fry, T. (2009). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Berg.

Fry, T. (2011). Becoming a Design Culture. Berg.

Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.

Irwin, T. (2015). Transition Design: A Proposal for a New Area of Design Practice, Study, and Research. Design and Culture,⁵ 7(2), 229-246.

Julier, G. (2008). The Culture of Design (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press.

Luhmann, N. (2012). Theory of Society, Volume 1. Stanford University Press.

Lupton, E., & Miller, J. A. (1993). The ABCs of Bauhaus: The Bauhaus and Design Theory. Princeton Architectural Press.

Manzini, E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press.

Margolin, V. (1995). The Struggle for Utopia: An Introduction to the Work of Thomas Maldonado. In V. Margolin (Ed.), The Idea of Design. University of Chicago Press.

Margolin, V., & Margolin, S. (2002). A “Social Model” of Design: Issues of Practice and Research. Design Issues, 18(4), 24-30.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1992). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding⁶ (Revised ed.). Shambhala.

McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. North Point Press.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McGraw-Hill.

Morin, E. (2008). On Complexity. Hampton Press.

Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books.

Norman, D. A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. Basic Books.

Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. Pantheon Books.

Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. Bantam Books.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5-18.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner:⁷ How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.

Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press.

Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature? Ambio, 36(8), 614-621.⁸

Van Dooren, T. (2014). Flight Ways: Life and Loss at the Edge of Extinction. Columbia University Press.

Varela, F. J. (1979). Principles of Biological Autonomy. North Holland.

Varela, F. J., Maturana, H. R., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. BioSystems, 5(4), 187-196.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. George Braziller.

Wahl, D. C. (2016). Designing Regenerative Cultures. Triarchy Press.

Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press.

Wingler, H. M. (1969). The Bauhaus: Weimar, Dessau, Berlin, Chicago. MIT Press.

Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136.