On closed and open systems

• Published in: Ephemera Vol. 23; no. 3; pp. 37 - 54
• Main Author: Cooper, Robert
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Leicester Nick Butler (On Behalf of the Editorial Collective of Ephemera) 01.11.2023
• Subjects: Human subjects; Open systems; System theory; United States > US; Chicago Illinois
• ISSN: 2052-1499; 1473-2866

Living systems are open systems, maintaining themselves in exchange of materials with environment, and in continuous building up and breaking down of their components, (von Bertalanffy, 1950: 23) Specifically, open systems are characterised by (1) the maintenance of a steady state, despite continuous changes outside the system, i.e., the system is self-regulating; (2) equifinality or the ability to reach a final state or goal from different initial conditions and in different ways (e.g., solving a complex problem) in contrast to closed systems when the final state is determined by the initial conditions; (3) a tendency toward states of greater heterogeneity and complexity, i.e., higher order. [...]one can take issue with Emery and Trist's analysis on several grounds, not the least of which is that its conception of 'Openness' is limited to work enterprises whose main goal is to control the environment for the purposes of productive gain; the priority given to the concept of 'steady state' in fact suggests that a more accurate definition of the system's behaviour is to reduce environmental variety or uncertainty in the direction of a 'quasi-stationary equilibrium' (ibid). [...]the latter statement is so improbable that you would have difficulty in accepting it in other words, the message is very high on information but very low on meaning. [...]the meaning of a message is related to its probability, while information is related to its improbability (ibid: 7).