Back • Return Home
MOLECULAR LIVING SYSTEMS THEORY
Lane Tracy
Department of Management Systems
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701
Abstract
Living systems theory develops a large set of hypotheses that are thought to be common to the following eight levels of living systems: cell, organ, organism, group, organization, community, society, and supranational system. Many of the disciplines from which living systems theory has derived its cross-level propositions are concerned not only with the properties of individual systems, but also with interactions between them. This paper focuses on linked systems and the linkages between them, rather than on individual systems. Intersystem relationships at various levels of living systems are examined for cross-level commonalities. The paper pays particular attention to dyads as the building blocks of higher-level systems, Exchange of resources between and among systems is found to be a common, cross-level factor in the bonding of systems.
Keywords: Living system, quasi system, relationship, exchange, linkage, ponding, resource.
Introduction
Living systems theory (LST) postulates that systems possessing the essential characteristics of life exist at eight levels: cell, organ, organism, group, organization, community, society, and supranational system. In developing the theory, Miller [6, 7] searched at each of these levels for the processes and structures that must be present in order for individual systems to survive. Twenty critical subsystems were found to exist at all levels. According to Miller [6: 1-4] these critical subsystems and other common cross-level properties of living systems were passed from one level to another as systems evolved at each level. At higher levels elaboration was often required in order to cope with greater complexity.
Recently, theorists have begun to look at living systems from other perspectives. Biomatrix theory, for instance, focuses on the teleological properties of living systems [3, 4]. The theory expands upon the purposeful relationships of a living system to its suprasystem and subsystems. Instead of dividing living systems into subsystems that process matter-energy or information, biomatrix theory separates them into internally and externally oriented subsystems called, respectively, endoteleons and exoteleons.
Another approach, which I intend to develop in this paper, is to concentrate on linked systems and the linkages between them, rather than on individual systems. I call this the molecular approach, Rather than dealing with individual systems (atoms), we are concerned with dyads, triads, and other combinations (molecules).
Many of the disciplines from which living systems theory has derived its cross-level propositions are concerned not only with the properties of individual systems, but also with interactions between them. Biology and psychology must deal with sexual behavior, for instance. Botanists and zoologists are concerned with parasitic and symbiotic relationships between species. Sociology focuses not only on the structure of individual groups, but also on such topics as formation of groups out of a population of diverse individuals, and linkages between groups and organizations. Political science is interested, among other things, in the development of coalitions among individuals, groups, communities, and societies.
In this paper I review these intersystem relationships at various levels of living systems, looking for cross-level commonalities. The paper pays particular attention to dyads as the building blocks of higher-level systems. Exchange of resources between and among systems is found to be a common, cross-level factor in the bonding of systems, much as the exchange of ions binds atoms into molecules. One clear distinction from chemical bonds, however, is that molecular combinations of living systems often become living systems at a higher level.
Linkages
Living systems bond to each other both horizontally and vertically. That is, they form bonds with systems on their own level as well as with subsystems and suprasystems. Regardless of direction, these linkages are based primarily on exchange of matter-energy and information between the systems. Linked systems may also share elements of their templates with each other and may endure a common fate.
The vertical bonds between system, component, subsystem, and suprasystem are well explored and will not receive much attention in this paper. Before dismissing them, however, let us look at some examples that we can later compare with the horizontal bonds.
Vertical Bonds
A system such as an organism is linked to its organs by a shared genetic template, a common destiny, and regular and continuous exchange of resources. The organism distributes resources such as heat, enzymes, and information to its organs in return for production of various sorts.
Groups of employees in an organization likewise are linked by template, destiny, and resource exchange. The shared template is the organization's code of behavior, including its purposes, goals, structure, policies, and procedures. The common fate is the survival and prosperity of the firm. The groups depend on the organization for resources such as raw materials, money, and work orders, just as the organization depends on them for expertise and work effort.
Horizontal Bonds
Let us now examine each of the levels of living systems to see what sorts of horizontal bonds may be found. We will also be looking at whether the same factors--shared template, common destiny, and resource exchange--are involved, or whether horizontal linkages are based on other factors.
Cells. Cells are bonded to each other in a variety of ways. For instance, when cells reproduce mitotically, they grow in a similar fashion and carry out the same processes. In this case the new cells each carry 2 genetic template identical to the original. The bond thus produced does not appear to be strong, however.
Often cells provide physical support for each other simply by being packed closely together. That is, they act as part of the supporter subsystem for each other. One layer of cells may also interpose itself between the environment and another layer of cells, thus serving a boundary function. Providing critical subsystem processes for each other is a form of cellular resource exchange.
Nerve cells engage in exchange in order to transmit information. It is possible that, when they repeat the same message frequently, they form a closer bond that facilitates the passage of that message. The tighter bonding may, however, be a function of the cells' operation within the nervous system, rather than a response at the cellular level.
Recently, it has been discovered that bacteria are able to exchange strands of DNA directly [5]. In this way a bacterium that has developed an immunity to an antibacterial agent can pass on the instructions for that immunity to a bacterium of a different kind. The bond appears to last only long enough to effectuate the exchange.
Organs. Organs are partipotential; they each lack certain critical subsystems. Only by pooling their specialized talents can they survive collectively. Within an organism they share template, fate, and resources with each other as well as with the organism. For example, one organ may supply hormones through the distributor subsystem that are vital to the regulation or health of other organs. The exchange of resources may only return to the first organ through a long chain of exchanges within the organism, however. Indeed, the complexity of resource exchange linkages among organs within an organism is probably a characteristic of components within any living system. Such bonds are generally permanent within the lifetime of the organism.
Organs may also be linked across systems. Sexual behavior joins the reproductive organs of male and female in an exchange of resources that is vital to the sexual reproductive process. This process serves both organs and organisms. The organic bond is brief, but may be repeated frequently and may facilitate a more lasting linkage at the organism level.
Organs involved in the output transducer process exchange information with the organs of other systems engaged in the input transducer process. Information is then exchanged throughout the information-processing subsystems of each organism, ultimately bringing new information to the organs that started the chain. These bonds, like those based on sexual exchange, are generally brief but may be regenerated frequently and repeatedly.
Organisms. Organisms within various animal species engage in what appears to be altruistic behavior. For instance, birds risk their lives to fend off attacks from much larger predators in order to protect their newly hatched chicks. According to sociobiologists, the fact that the offspring share parts of their parents' templates helps to account for such behavior [1, 2]. The baby birds represent a substantial investment by the parents in genes, food, and effort. The strength of the bond grows as the investment increases.
Organisms also act together because they share a common fate. Bamboo trees grow closely together, providing mutual support against the wind, Students pool their knowledge to help each other pass a test. Indeed, shared destiny is often the basis for formation of a group or organization. Many kinds of animals band together in packs to facilitate hunting and avoid the common fate of starvation. The bond may last as long as the need for it. If game becomes plentiful or easy to catch, the hunting band may disperse.
A shared activity may be the source of a bond between organisms. A boy and his dog, for instance, develop a closeness based on a variety of mutual and reciprocal acts such as feeding, walking, and stick fetching. Competitive activities require an opponent. Thus, pairs form to play tennis, foursomes to play golf, and so forth. Although the bond does not need to extend beyond the duration of the game, it often does. This may occur because the activity is repeated on a regular basis, or because it leads to other mutual social activities.
Resource exchange between and among organisms is so common that it hardly needs mentioning. One not-so-obvious example is the interdependence between animals and plants, involving such exchanges as oxygen for carbon dioxide and food for fertilizer. These exchanges do not usually produce any bond between specific organisms, however, except in very restricted environments. Strong bonds are formed between organisms when the resources being exchanged are more specialized, as when an employee exchanges labor and skill for money and work orders from an employer. Such exchanges of specialized resources may be the basis for formation of an organization. A continuing need for each other’s resources is an important factor in maintaining the bond, If the employer loses sales, the employees may be out of a job.
Quite firm bonds can be based on what seems like a relatively small amount of exchange, provided that the trade is regular and continuing. Firm friendships may be based on daily visits with neighbors to share gossip, or a weekly gathering to play poker.
Groups. Employee work groups are specialized and partipotential. For instance, the design group in an automobile manufacturing firm cannot support itself with what it produces. Only by exchanging its output with groups that specialize in engineering, production, financing, marketing, and purchasing can it survive. These other groups within the firm are likewise subject to the fate of the firm and possess many of the same template elements, such as the mission and policies of the firm.
Family groups are based on shared template elements, both genetic and memetic. That is, family members share not only genes, but also norms of behavior, religious and political beliefs, and cultural and Linguistic background. But families overlap. The nuclear families of two brothers, for instance, have a bond based on many of these same elements even after the brothers’ parents die and the family suprasystem vanishes. The fraternal families may also hold a common fate in the form of inherited property and mutual duties to honor the dead, as well as shared genetic flaws.
Like organisms, groups may form a bond around a shared activity. Teams of bowlers or golfers may set up a league so that they can have regular competition. The bond may extend through the season and may continue in other social activities.
Organizations. When one organization is spun off from another, it is not at all uncommon for the two to maintain a close relationship. Companies such as IBM and Apple are serviced by a host of smaller firms owned and managed by former employees of the larger firms. Large Japanese companies show a similar pattern with respect to their suppliers. One factor that helps to bond the smaller firms to the larger ones is that the templates of the smaller firm have many elements that have been carried over from the larger firms of which they or their chief executives were once a part.
It should be noted, however, that sometimes the descendant organizations deliberately distance themselves from their former connections. The executives of a small firm may have left the large firm because of philosophical differences; the spinoff may have left hard feelings. A schism in a political or religious organization may produce offspring that are sworn enemies of one another, with radically differing templates.
Organizations that are closely tied by a commercial relationship may also share a common fate. The destiny of a firm that has only one primary customer, or perhaps serves only one small industry, is tied to the health of that customer or industry. The just-in-time production Process emphasizes such close relationships. The assumption is that, if a firm has only a single supplier of a critical component, it will establish a close relationship with that supplier to assure high quality and on-time delivery.
Exchanges of goods and services are, of course, the lifeblood of many organizations. In some cases these exchanges produce only brief, weak bonds between organizations. If the need of one organization is for a continuing stream of certain goods or services, however, the bond can become very firm and long lasting. It may even lead to purchase or merger of companies for purposes of vertical integration.
Thus far the examples of horizontal linkage between organizations have only cited cases in which the organizations were all part of a higher-level system. This is not a necessary condition, however, Business firms, for instance, can form strong bonds with each other even across national and industrial boundaries. When a manufacturer in the United States seeks to establish a subsidiary in Japan, it may contract the services of a Japanese marketing and distribution firm. This cooperative exchange of services may last many years and be mutually profitable. Such a linkage is based primarily on the exchange relationship; the fate of neither firm may depend on the joint effort, and their templates may have relatively little in common.
Communities. Cities spawn suburbs that often share similar concerns, although there are apt also to be divisions based on socioeconomic or ethnic differences. The communities may be linked by road systems, water districts, waste elimination problems, zoning of industry, sports franchises, and shared representation in the legislature, for example. Their city charters and their tax structures may be formatted under the same state and federal laws. Thus, they may act together or take similar stances on many issues. Yet they may also be rivals for economic development, tax revenues, and water supply. Thus, bonds between communities tend to weakened by the multiplicity of ways in which they interact. For each positive linkage based on similarities of template, shared fate, or beneficial exchange there is apt to be a negative factor such as ethnic differences or competition for scarce resources.
Communities that are geographically and politically very distant from one another can form bonds based on cultural exchange or common template elements. Sister cities in different nations have developed lasting bonds of cooperation and exchange, for instance. Distance seems to eliminate rivalries and to allow the positive links to flower, Religious communities also form bonds that transcend political and geographic boundaries.
Societies. Like religious communities, societies based on a common language or culture are often linked across political and geographic boundaries. Irish-Americans feel a bond with their "cousins" in Eire. Jews the world over are bonded to Israel. Muslims in Malaysia feel a kinship with Muslims in Mecca; indeed, they desire to make a pilgrimage there. These bonds are based on a common cultural, linguistic, or religious template.
Most societies are too large to suffer the same fate, unless we include concern for the fate of the whole planet. Yet nations recognize that the health of their economy may be tied to the economic development of a whole region. The European Union (EU) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for example, are designed to eliminate trade barriers between nations and create a much larger market for each nation’s goods and services. To the extent that the EU and NAFTA succeed, they also strengthen the bonds between the nations within each region, based both on a common fate and on increased exchange.
Supranational Systems. Supranational systems are the creatures of bonds between certain societies and rivalries with other societies. As such, they are unlikely to forge strong bonds with each other. Military and economic alliances are rivals. They are based on different lates and engage in only limited exchange. Their chief bond, if eer be shared fate. The threat of mutual assured destruction may ay ae ond of sorts between rival nuclear alliances. Likewise, the threat of worldwide deflation and depression may cause competing economic alliances to cooperate on monetary controls and loan programs to less developed nations.
Bonding into Higher-level Systems
Over time, horizontal linkages may grow to form a new living system at a higher level. For example, individuals may form into poker-playing group built around a common template consisting of local rules and customs. When the players begin to merge their individual decider subsystems in order to make decisions for the joint enterprise, they are creating a decider subsystem for a new, higher-level system. The group's decider subsystem then exercises decision-making power over the acceptance of new members, a change of venue, or introduction of new rules. Certain additional critical subsystems, such as a rudimentary channel and net, may also emerge. Other critical subsystems are dispersed to the members of the group.
Several organizations may form a coalition to influence public opinion or legislation. After a few years the coalition may evolve into an industrial council (i.e., a community) with its own charter, mission, executives, budget, and a variety of subsystems.
Yet even when exchange between systems does not lead to the creation of new, higher-level systems, it may contribute to formation of important structures and processes. These intermediate-level structures and processes are of particular interest here, because they have previously received little attention. They can be seen most clearly in horizontal or diagonal linkages between systems.
Quasi Systems
According to the foregoing analysis, lasting bonds may be formed between same-level living systems based on shared elements in their templates, common interests or a shared fate, joint activity, or repeated exchange of resources. Strong bonds create quasi systems, entities that may act purposefully, like a living system, but that lack some of the essential characteristics of life. Although the number and variety of systems that can be linked into quasi systems is theoretically unlimited, three cases are of particular interest. These are dyads, hubs, and chains of systems.
Dyads
The basic "molecule" of living systems is the dyad--two systems linked by template, destiny, or reciprocal exchange [8]. Examples abound among people and social systems. A married couple form a template for a family and exchange love, honor, and respect for each other's desires. A parent gives a child norms, love, protection, sustenance, and knowledge in exchange for love, obedience, and the implied promise of future benefits. Laborers accept terms of employment and trade their skills and energy to an employer in exchange for meaningful work, job security, tools, and money. Citizens exchange loyalty, taxes, and obedience to the government for security, stability, and maintenance of legal and physical infrastructures. A farmer who is a member of a cooperative trades part of the crop for seed and fertilizer. Members of a political party give their allegiance, time, and energy to the party in exchange for camaraderie and an opportunity to exert influence on the government. Members of a college football team trade their time, skill, and effort for a scholarship, coaching, and a chance to be part of a winning group.
Figure 1 shows a dyadic relationship based on exchange of resources between an employer and employee. Both parties fulfill a variety of important needs through this exchange relationship, and the transactions recur on a regular basis. An exchange could be a unique event based on a single resource flowing in each direction; for instance, holding a door open for a stranger in exchange for a thank you. However, when many resources are traded, or the resources fulfill important needs, or the exchange is repeated frequently or on a regular basis, a strong bond is likely to develop between the systems.
Figure 1. Dyad based on resource exchange.
(From [8], p. 118).
Another feature of the dyad that should be observed is the external relationships, represented in Figure 1 by arrows going nowhere. In fact, these arrows connect to other systems not shown in the figure. These other systems are alternate sources of resources and additional customers for the goods and services of the dyad's members.
Relationships outside of the dyad provide a means of escape if the dyadic exchange becomes inadequate or unfair to one of the parties. Neither system is totally dependent on the other, since each requires resources that the other cannot supply. For instance, the firm does not
look to the employee for raw materials or financing, and the employee seek not expect love or spiritual comfort from the firm.
Hubs and Chains
So far, although noting the existence of other relationships, we have focused on dyads. Another way to analyze the relationships and dependencies among living systems is to trace the resource inputs and outputs that support one system.
Taking a business firm called NewVent as an example, we could list every organization that contributes inputs, although we might conveniently aggregate some of them, such as financial institutions or suppliers. We could also list all of the organizations that receive outputs from the firm. Following convention, sources of input could be ranged on the left and recipients of output could be placed on the right. Adding arrows representing resource flow, the result would be a hub-and-spoke figure such as Figure 2.
Figure 2. Hub of living organizations.
(From [9], p. 70).
Additional information could be added to the figure. Arrows could be made fat or thin to represent the importance of the resource, and solid or dashed to show the frequency of exchange. Solid, heavy arrows would indicate important dyadic relationships. Different-colored arrows could be used to represent matter, energy, information, people, and money.
Another way of depicting resource exchange is to picture it as a chain of dyadic relationships. We could do this, for instance, to show what happens to a single resource as it flows through a series of systems, or to show how money is used to balance a series of exchanges. Figure 3 is an example of the latter usage.
Figure 3. Chain of living systems.
(From [9], p. 70).
To the extent that the chain represents a series of dependencies on a particular resource, it displays an important set of bonds among a group of systems. The chain may be only as strong as its weakest link. If one of the systems in the chain ceases to function, all of the others will suffer deprivation of the resource or money.
In some cases the chain may return to its starting point, forming a complete circle. Even then it represents only a small segment of the exchange relationships among the systems involved. Each system in the chain is a hub of relationships, and many of the systems connected to each hub are interrelated. Chains, hubs, and dyads are simplifications that allow us to isolate and examine local areas of a vast complex of relationships between living systems.
Behavior of Quasi Systems
Recognition of the existence of quasi systems allows us to examine in what ways they may act like living systems or interact with them. At the level of organisms and above, at least, dyadic bonds and communication are often strong enough for members of the dyad to act purposefully in concert, even though the decider subsystems are acting independently. For instance, two friends may act as a team to persuade a third person to join them in recreation or an economic venture. Several suburban communities may act together with a hub city to set up an enterprise zone to attract industry. A set of firms engaged in different phases of the same industry may form a coalition to lobby for legislative protection or relief.
Managers may find the concepts of dyads, hubs, and chains useful in analyzing a firm's relationships and dependencies. Knowing that individuals, departments, and other firms may respond as dyads, hubs, or chains rather than as individual systems adds a level of complexity, but also of realism, to planning efforts. Such behavior is quite observable and predictable, if one is looking for it, because it requires overt coordination between the bonded systems. They are not acting on the basis of a unified template or decisions of a single internal decider. Thus, they must negotiate the terms of their joint behavior.
Another reason for studying quasi systems is that they may often resent intermediate stages in the development of new systems. Like a zygote, a wedding engagement between two people can be regarded as a developmental stage on the path toward creating a new family group. Friendship may bloom into a business partnership. A temporary coalition of organizations may solidify into a semi-autonomous agency. A military alliance of nations may evolve into a new political unit.
For these reasons and others yet to be discovered, I believe it is important that we recognize and study quasi living systems. As a first step this paper has identified three common varieties. It has also noted four factors on which the bonds that hold quasi systems together
are based; namely, shared template elements, a common destiny, joint activity, and repeated exchange of resources.
[1] D. Barash, 1979, The Whisperings Within. New York: Harper & Row.
[2] R. Dawkins, 1976, The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
[3] G. G. Járos and A. Cloete, 1987, "Biomatrix: The Web of Life," World Futures Vol. 23: 203-224.
[4] G. G, Járos and A. Cloete, 1990, "The Biomatrix: A Web of Purposeful Processes or Teleons." In Advances in Education and Human Development, (G. E. Lasker, ed.) Institute for Advanced Systems Research and Cybernetics, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, pp. 124-133.
[5] S. Levy, 1992, The Antibiotic Paradox. New York: Plenum.
[6] J. G. Miller, 1978, Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[7] J. G. Miller and J. L. Miller, 1990, "Introduction: The Nature of Living Systems," Behavioral Science Vol. 35: 157-163.
[8] L. Tracy, 1989, The Living Organization: Systems of Behavior. New York: Praeger.
[9] L. Tracy, 1994, Leading the Living Organization: Growth Strategies for Management. New York: Quorum.
