Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy

Living Edition
| Editors: Jay Lebow, Anthony Chambers, Douglas C. Breunlin

Autopoiesis in Family Systems Theory

  • Michelle A. Finley
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_244-1

Name of Concept




In the early development of family therapy, general systems theory offered a mechanistic view for explaining interactions among family members (Bateson 1972). Early family therapy work also was based on first-order cybernetics, which viewed families as self-stabilizing systems by employing homeostasis and feedback (Jackson 1957; Weiner 1948). These ideas focused on how family systems stabilize and organize. Family therapy underwent further refinement through the inclusion of second cybernetics, which focuses on processes such as positive feedback and deviation-amplification to explain how family systems are dynamic (Maruyama 1963). Autopoiesis originated in biology and was then adapted to other fields including family therapy (Mingers 1995). Family therapy theorists Dell (1982a, b, 1985), Keeney (1982), and Watzlawick (1984) brought the concept of autopoiesis to family therapy, which underscored a...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Jason Aronson.Google Scholar
  2. Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dell, P. (1982a). Beyond homeostasis: Towards a concept of coherence. Family Process, 21, 407–414.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dell, P. (1982b). Family theory and epistemology of Humberto Maturana. Family Therapy Networker, 6(4), 26, 39–41.Google Scholar
  5. Dell, P. (1985). Understanding Bateson and Maturana: Towards a biological foundation for the social sciences. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goolishian, H. A., & Winderman, L. (1988). Constructivism, autopoiesis, and problem determined systems. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 130–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoffman, L. (1985). Beyond power and control: Toward and “second order” family systems therapy. Family Systems Medicine, 3(4), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jackson, D. (1957). The question of family homeostasis. The Psychiatric Quarterly. Supplement, 31, 79–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Keeney, B. (1982). What is an epistemology of therapy? Family Process, 21, 153–168.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Leyland, M. L. (1988). An introduction to some of the ideas of Humberto Maturana. Journal of Family Therapy, 10, 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maruyama, M. (1963). The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. American Scientist, 51, 164–179.Google Scholar
  12. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Reidel Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mingers, J. (1995). Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Selvini Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1978). Paradox and counterparadox. New York: Jason Aronson.Google Scholar
  15. Varela, F. J. (1979). Principles of biological autonomy. New York: North-Holland Press.Google Scholar
  16. Watzlawick, P. (1984). The invented reality. New York: Norton Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Weiner, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Antioch University SeattleSeattleUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • David Kearns
    • 1
  • Bahareh Sahebi
    • 2
  1. 1.Iowa CityUSA
  2. 2.The Family Institute at Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA