Humberto Maturana Interview

8/18/2019 Humberto Maturana Interview

1/12

T R V l W

umberto Maturana

In t e r v ie w e d b y d a m L u c a s

CONOMISTS,businessmen, and politicians are fond of saying that corn

petition is necessary for economic growth and human well-being.

Using Darwinian evolutionary theory as a justification for this asser-

tion, they claim that humans are 'naturally' competitive. It's the law of the

jungle out there , they seem to say, that's why we need the capitalist compe-

tition of the marketplace. Th e 'survival of the fittest' is a perfect descript ion

of how the market should operate. But if humans really are biologically com-

petitive, doesn' t that legitimate the exploitation of the'weaker' by the 'stronger ',

the 'unfi t' by the 'fittest'? Where might moral considerations and ethical re-

sponsibility fit into such a picture? And why is it so seldom that we ever hear

any other case put to us?

General ly speaking, the choice we are given seems rather bleak. Either we

accept the 'scientific' view that humans live in a cruel and indifferent cosmos,

and therefore, that we mus t ourselves be cruel and indi fferent in order to

survive, or else we can retreat to an uncr itical religious faith and some form

of creationism. Such a simple view of the meaning and implications of evolu-

tionary theory need not be accepted. The Chil tan neurobiologist, Humb erto

Maturana, is one of many scientists who dissent from this narrow orthodoxy.

Maturana shifts the terrain of the debate on human nature and evolution

by proposing that cooperation and love are not simply forms of social behav-

iour, but the biological preconditions for human evolution. According to

Maturana, humans are therefore not just naturally sociable and cooperative,

but naturally loving and compassionate beings. After all, he argues, how could

language and culture have arisen if humans had always lived in competition

and strife, in what Thomas Hobbes called 'a war of all against all', with each

person pursu ing his or her own self-interest? Maturana says that if we pause

to reflect on this issue, we find that it is trust, acceptance and the pursuit of

intimacy and a shared existence that provide the basis for social cohesion,

language and culture; not competition, and not self-interest, although there

can be no doubt that these latter characteristics have been instrumental n the

formation of hierarchical, male-dominated societies over the past several thou-

sand years.

Maturana's radical views on the origins of language, self-consciousness

and culture can be traced back to the beginning of his career in the early


2/12

T E R V W

1960s, when he first began to depar t from biological orthodoxy by trying to

conceive of living systems in terms of the processes that constitute them,

rather than in terms of the organism s relationship to the environment . In

some ways, Maturana s work can be seen as an elaboration into the biological

and social domains of Ilya Prigogine s theory of dissipative structures, in the

sense that Maturana shares Prigogine s concern with the dynamics of evolu-

tion and self-organlsation. Indeed, Ma turana s concept of autopoiesis is often

discussed in connect ion with Prigogine s work. At the same time, Maturana

has identified qualitative distinctions between different forms of biological

and social behaviour which Prigogine can only allude to at the physical level.

But while Prigogine places an emphasis on the essential openness of living

systems, because of his focus on thermodynamics and therefore, ma~ter and

energy fiow, Marurana s focus upo n perception and language places an em-

phasis on the essential closure of the nervous system in terms of its dyn am-

ics, and how this operational closure const rains the structural changes that

go on within organisms and species over time, including those changes re-

lated to perception and cognition.

Maturana is perhaps best-known for having coined the t erm autopoiesis

and for his related theories in developmental biology, which modify some of

classical Darwinism s basic assumptions a bout evolutionary cha ng e.

Autopoiesis refers to the self-production of living organisms that are struc-

rurally coupled to one another and the me dium or envi ronmentwithin which

they live. But the structural, evolutionary changes which they undergo over

time are not actually chosen or selected by their environment , as vulgar

Darwinism would have it. Matu ran a argues that, on the contrary, any struc-

rural changes that go on within an organism or species cannot be specified by

the envi ronment, because any changes occurring within the organism are

specified by the previous state of that organism, and not by the structure of

the disturbing agent. Maturana calls this the

structural determinism

of bio-

logical entities. Thu s, the env iro nme nt is merely the source o f external

perturbations, and can

trigger

structural changes in the organism, but it is

misleading and wrong to say that the envi ronmen t chooses or selects those

changes. It is only the scientific observer, who has some knowledge of the

possible changes that the organism could undergo in different environmen-

tal condi tions, who is able to see that only one possibility is actualised.

But this is simply one aspect of Maturana s fascinating contribution to

modern evolutionary theory. These ideas were first elaborated in Autopoiesis:

The Organisat ion of the Laving (1973), and subsequently refined in his more

recent book with Francisco Varela, The

Tree of Know ledge

(1987), and numer -

ous academic papers. Maturana recently retired as a Professor in the Faculty

of Science at the University of Chil~ in Santiago, having returned to his home-

land in 1980 after seven years in exile. Like man y other Chil6an academics


3/12

T E R V E W

and intellectuals,Maturana left the country following the overthrow in 1973

of the democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allend~ by the

American-backed fascist General Augusto Pinochet. Nevertheless, Maturana s

years of exile seem to have contr ibuted to a growing international audience

for his work, in fields as diverse as biology, ecology, psychology, social theory,

philosophy, medicine, education, and the arts.

I first encountered Maturana s challenging deas over ten years ago through

numerous references to his work in Er ich Jantsch s classic book, The Self-

Organizing Universe (1980). Shortly afterwards, I began reading Maturana s

own work, and was pleased and surprised at the clarity of his expression and

the refreshing and often philosophical insights which he brought to biology.

When I discovered that Maturana was a regula r visitor to Australia, I con-

tacted the Melbourne coordinator of his b iannua l weekend seminar pro-

gramme and organised to interview Maturana by telephone.The following is

a transcript of that interview.

C o u l d y o u b e g i n , P r o f e s s o r M a t u r a n a , b y e x p l a i n in g t h e m e a n i n g o f

t h e t e r m

au topo ies i s

a n d t h e c o n t e x t w i t h i n w h i c h y o u i n i t i a l l y a p -

p l i e d t h e t e r m ?

Certainly. The word has two Greek roots: Autos which means self , and

poien

which means to produce . So it indicates self-production. I thought

that I had coined the term, but it seems Aristotle used this word once or

twice...

D o y o u k n o w t h e n a m e o f t h e te x t ?

No, I don t. In fact, I didn t know that this word had been used before. I

invented it in order to refer to the organisation of living systems; systems that

produce themselves through their own constitution as molecular systems.

Obviously,

autopoies is

i s c l o s e l y b o u n d u p w i t h t h e g e n e r a l d y n a m -

i c s o f s e l f -o r g a n i s a t i o n i n t h e u n i v e r s e . U n l i k e P r i g o g i n e s c o n c e p t

o f d i s s i p a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s , h o w e v e r , y o u r o w n w o r k a p p l i e s s p e c i f i -

c a l l y t o l i v i n g s y s t e m s w i t h c e l lu l a r s t r u c t u r e s . I t s e e m s t o m e t h a t

w h a t i s n o v e l a b o u t y o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f b i o l o g i c a l e v o l u t i o n i s t h e

e m p h a s i s y o u p l a c e o n t h e n e r v o u s s y s t e m , w h i c h y o u c l a i m o p e r -

a t e s as a c l o s e d s y s t e m i n i t s d y n a m i c s , a n d t h a t i t i s t h i s o p e r a -

t i o n a l c l o s u r e o f t h e n e r v o u s s y s t e m w h i c h s h o u l d b e t r e a te d a s

f u n d a m e n t a l to o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h o w p e r c e p t io n a n d c o g n i t i o n

w o r k . B u t w h a t s y o u r e v i d e n c e f o r th i s?

Well, the evidence could be anatomical, for example. I f you look at the

nervous system in its make-up, in terms of nerve cells connec ting with each

other, you see that it forms a network of elements that are completely inter-

connected with one another. At the same time, it is not something that one


4/12

] T R V I W

can show, but something that one has to abstract and conceive from its op-

eration.

You see, in any system with which you interact, you can always consider

the surface of interaction as an opening. But this obscures what is happen ing

within the system. In the case o f the nervous system, I claim that if one looks

at the nervous system as open, in terms of the interactions of the organism

with the medium, then you do not see how the nervous system operates; that

it actually operates as a closed network of changing relations of activity.

For example, if you consider the energetic dimensions involved in seeing:

photo-receptors can respond to a single photon. Now, how does one know

that they can respond to a single photon? Because you can create an experi-

mental situation in which a person claims to be able to see when a single

photon of some sort is fired through their field of vision. But the whole activ-

ity required for seeing, in terms of the experience of seeing, involves the

activity of hundreds o f millions of cells. So the energetic activity of the brain

that is required to respond to that single photon is much, much larger than

the energy of that single photon. Secondly, the experience of seeing depends

on the connectivity of the network. So the photon only triggers something

that is realised within the nervous system. Now if one does not recognise this,

one will speak about the photon carrying information . But when you try to

work out just what to carry information means, you discover it means noth-

ing.

O n e o f t h e e x a m p l e s t h a t y o u o f t e n u s e t o i l lu s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t r e l a t e s

t o w h e t h e r t h e r e i s a d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s p e c t r u m o f

f i g h t t h a t c o m e s t h r o u g h t h e e y e , o r t h e w a v e l e n g t h o f f ig h t , a n d t h e

c o l o u r t h a t s a c t u a l ly n a m e d o r p e r c e i v e d . C o u l d y o u b r i e f l y e x p l a i n

t h e r e s e a r c h t h a t y o u c o n d u c t e d i n t h i s a r e a , a n d y o u r r e s e a r c h f i n d -

i n g s ?

Well, the research was precisely in terms of trying to make a correlation

between the spectral composit ion of the light to which the eye is responding ,

and the activity of the ganglial cells in the retina. What you find is that un der

many different conditions, which entail many different spectral composi-

tions from the object observed, you get the same activity in the nerve cells.

For example, the perception of the colour green can be triggered by a nu mb er

of different light perturbations.

If this is so, and exper iment shows that it is, whatever is happening in the

ganglial ceils in the retina is independent of the spectral composition coming

from the object. Therefore , it has to do with something else. And what that

turns out to be relates to the connectivity of the re tina, the characteristics of

the cells of the retina, and not with the characteristic of the light to which the

eye is responding.


5/12

T R V I W

H o w t h e n d o e s t h i s a f f e c t o u r t r a d i t i o n a l v i e w s o f p e r c e p t i o n a n d

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ?

F i rs tl y , i t s h o w s u s t h a t t h e c o l o u r o f t h e o b j e c t s w e s e e i s n o t d e t e r m i n e d

b y t h e f ea t u r e s o f t h e l i gh t w h i c h w e re c e i v e f r o m t h e o b j e c t s . W h e n y o u s e e

s o m e t h i n g , t h e a c t o f se e i n g i s i n fa c t a n a c t o r a p r o c e s s t h a t e n ta i ls a n e x p e -

r i e n c e d e t e r m i n e d i n t h e s t r u c tu r e o f t h e o b s e r v e r. S o t h e w h o l e q u e s t i o n o f

c o g n i t i o n c h a n g e s . I t c a n n o t b e t r ig g e r e d a n y m o r e a s a m a n n e r o f k n o w i n g

o r p o i n t i n g o r d i s t i n g u i s h in g o r p e r c e i v i n g a n i n d e p e n d e n t r e al it y , b u t a s a

m a n n e r o f o p e r a ti n g i n c o h e r e n c e w i t h th e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f l i v i n g . T h e q u e s -

t i o n i s t h e r e f o r e o f a d i f f e r e n t k i n d .

W h a t t h e n i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e e x t e r n a l w o r l d a n d o u r

p e r c e p t i o n o f i t?

T h e e x t e r n a l w o r l d i s a n e x p l a n a t o r y c o n s t r u c t f o r o u r e x p e r i e n c e s . I f

y o u w a n t t o e x p l a i n h o w w e a r e a b le t o d i sp l a y c o h e r e n t b e h a v i o u r , t h e n y o u

h a v e to r e s o r t t o t h e s tr u c t u r a l d y n a m i c s o f t h e o r g a n i s m . Y o u h a v e to s e e a n d

s h o w t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e o r g a n i s m i s a p a r t i c u l a r s t r u c t u r e t h a t a r i se s in

i n t e r a c ti o n w i t h a m e d i u m , w h i c h y o u m u s t e v e n t u a l ly d e s c r i b e w i t h r e fe r -

e n c e t o t h e o r g a n i s m .

A g o o d a n a lo g y c a n b e f o u n d i n p h ar m a c o l o g y . D u r i n g t h e p e r i o d i n

w h i c h c h e m i s t r y w a s l es s c a p a b l e o f m a k i n g f u ll d e s c r i p t i o n s o f d i ff e r e n t

m o l e c u l e s , s c ie n t is t s w h o w a n t e d t o s p e a k a b o u t t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f d i f fe r e n t

s u b s t a n c e s u s e d w h a t a r e c a l le d b i o - a s s a y s . Y o u i n j e c t e d a s u b s t a n c e i n t o a n

a n i m a l o r a d d e d i t t o a p la n t , a n d u s e d t h e a n i m a l o r p l a n t a s a n i n d i c a t o r o f

t h e p r e s e n c e o f th e s u b s t a n c e . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e c h a n g e s i n th e o v a r i e s o f a

f e m a l e r a b b i t i n d i c a te t h e p r e s e n c e o f a h o r m o n e , o e s t r o g e n . S o t h e s e s u b -

s ta n c es w e r e d e s c r i b e d i n t e r m s o f t h e c h a n g es t h e o r g a n i s m u n d e r w e n t w i t h

r e g a r d t o t h e m . T h e a n a l o g y i s t h a t th i s is h o w t h e o u t e r w o r l d i s d e s c r i b e d ,

t h r o u g h o u r c h a n g e s . S o w e d o n o t s e e an o u t s i d e w o r l d , b u t r a t h e r, w e g e n -

e r a te a n o u t s i d e w o r l d t h r o u g h o u r c h a n g e s .

T h i s

l a s t p o i n t l e a d s u s o n t o o n e o f y o u r m o r e c o n t r o v e r s i a l

c l a i m s ,

w h i c h i n s o m e w a y s c a n b e s e e n a s a r e s p o n s e t o K a n t . Y o u

c l a i m

t h a t a s b i o l o g i c a l b e i n g s w i t h a n o p e r a t i o n a l l y c l o s e d n e r v o u s s y s -

t e m , w e h u m a n s c a n t m a k e a n y s t a t e m e n t a b o u t a r e a l i t y t h a t e x -

i s t s i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f o u r d o i n g o r o u r a c t i o n s . B u t w h a t e x a c t l y d o

y o u m e a n b y t h i s ?

T h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r i t is p o s si b le t o s p e a k a b o u t a n i n d e p e n d e n t

r e a l it y is n o t n e w , o f c o u r s e . I n f a c t , i t i s v e r y o l d . K a n t h i m s e l f d e v e l o p e d t h is

c r i ti c i sm a b o u t t h e i d e a t h a t o n e c a n t c l a i m t o s p e a k a b o u t t h e t h i ng - i n -i t se l f ,

a n d y e t h e r e t a i n e d t h e n o t i o n o f th e t h i n g - in - i ts e l f.

N o w w h a t I a m s a y i n g is , i f w e c o n s i d e r o u r b i o lo g y , a n d t h e w a y t h a t w e

o p e r a t e a s l i v i n g s y s t e m s , o n e r ea l i se s t h a t , w h e n w e a r e a c t u a l l y e x p e r i e n c -


6/12

T E R V E W

i n g s o m e t h i n g , w e c a n n o t d i st in g u i s h p e r c e p t io n f r o m i l lu s i o n . W h e n w e c o m -

m i t a m i s t ak e , w e d o n o t k n o w t h a t w e a r e c o m m i t t in g a m i s t a k e . T h e m i s t a k e

is a c k n o w l e d g e d a s s o m e t h i n g t h a t i s i n a d e q u a t e o n l y a f te r w e h a v e d o n e i t.

W h i l e w e w e r e d o i n g i t, w e d i d i t a s t h o u g h i t w e r e v a li d .

T h r o u g h t h es e re f le c ti o n s a n d a r g u m e n t s , a n d b y l o o k i n g a t h o w w e o p -

e ra te , i t tu r n s o u t t h a t w e c a n s a y n o t h i n g a b o u t a n i n d e p e n d e n t re al i ty . W e

e x p l a i n o u r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h o u r e x p e r i e n c e . Y o u s e e , e v e n s c i e n c e d o e s n o t

d e p e n d o n t h e s u p p o s i t i o n th a t w e a r e sp e a k i n g a b o u t a n i n d e p e n d e n t r e a l-

ity . T h e p h i l o s o p h e r o f s c i e n c e , K a r l P o p p e r , h i m s e l f r e al is e s th i s , b u t h e

c o n s e r v e s t h e n o t i o n o f a n i n d e p e n d e n t re a l it y as a s o r t o f c o n t r o l l e r o f th e

v a l id i ty o f w h a t h e is s ay i ng . N o w w h a t I a m s a y i n g is t h a t e v e n th i s n o t i o n o f

r e a li ty a s a c o n t r o ll e r c a n n o t b e s u s t a i n e d , b e c a u s e i t p e r t a i n s t o o u r o p e r a -

t i o n a s b e in g s th a t c a n s ay n o t h i n g a b o u t a n y t h i n g i n d e p e n d e n t f r o m o u r

s el ve s. N o w t h is d o e s n t c r e a t e a p o w e r f u l p r o b l e m , b e c a u s e w e h a v e b e e n

l iv i n g l ik e th i s a n y w a y f o r a l o n g , l o n g t i m e , b u t i t a t l e a st o p e n s f o r u s t h e

p o s s i b il i ty o f b e i n g a w a r e t h a t w e s h a ll li ve t h e w o r l d t h a t w e b r i n g f o r t h .

T h a t t h e w o r ld i n w h i c h w e l iv e d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n s o m e t h i n g e x t er n a l t o

u s , it d e p e n d s o n u s a s li v i n g s y s t e m s d o i n g w h a t e v e r i t i s w e d o i n l a n g u a g e .

K a n t w a s p a r t ic u l a rl y c o n c e r n e d w i th t h is p r o b l e m , j u s t a s I a m . B u t f i -

n a ll y, h e c o u l d n o t a c c e p t t h a t o n e c o u l d i n d e e d s a y n o t h i n g a b o u t a n i n d e -

p e n d e n t re a li ty , a n d s o h e k e p t t h i s n o t i o n . I t r e q u i r e s , p e r h a p s , a c e r t a i n

d a r i n g t o a c c e p t t h a t y o u d o n t n e e d t hi s n o t i o n o f a n i n d e p e n d e n t r ea li ty .

M o d e r n p h y s ic s , p a r t i c u la r ly q u a n t u m p h y s i cs , is i n a s i t u a t io n i n w h i c h i t is

b e c o m i n g a p p a r e n t t h a t t h is s u p p o s e d r e a li ty is c o n t i n u o u s l y c h a n g i n g . O n e

o f t h e g r e a t p r o b l e m s i n c o n t e m p o r a r y p h y s ic s is t h e r o l e o f th e o b s e r v e r,

a n d w h e t h e r i t is p o s s ib l e to i n c l u d e t h e o b s e r v e r a s p a r t o f t h e p h y s i c a l

s y s t e m , b e c a u s e t h e o b s e r v e r i s n o t a p h y s i c a l b e i n g , b u t a b i o l o g i c al b e i n g .

S o t h is q u e s t i o n h as s o m e h o w b e e n p r e s e n t i n m a n y w a y s , b u t a s fa r a s I

k n o w , n o b o d y e ls e h a s b e e n w i l li n g t o t a k e t h e f u l l s t e p o f a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t

w e c a n s a y n o t h i n g a b o u t t h is s o - c a l le d i n d e p e n d e n t re a li ty . I b e li e v e t h a t t h e

v e r y n o t i o n o f a n i n d e p e n d e n t re a li ty is m e a n i n g l e s s .

W o u l d i t b e f a i r to s a y , t h e n , t h a t y o u a r e n o t d e n y i n g t h a t t h e r e i s a

w o r l d t h a t e x i s t s i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f u s ? B u t i s i t s i m p l y a m a t t e r o f

f a c t t h a t t h e w a y w e a r e s t r u c t u r e d d o e s n t e n a b l e u s to s p e a k a b o u t

i t ?

W e l l, i t s a li tt le b it m o r e t h a n t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e v e r y n o t i o n t h a t t h e r e is a n

o u t s id e r e a li ty b e lo n g s to o u r w a y o f b e i n g . Y o u m a y r e m e m b e r t h a t w h e n

p h y s i c i s ts f t rs t b e g a n t o d i s c u s s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f b l a c k h o l e s ,

t h e y c l a i m e d t h a t t h e l a w s o f p h y s i c s e n d w h e r e t h e b l a c k h o le b e g i n s . W h a t

t h e y m e a n t b y t h is is t h a t a b l a c k h o l e i s a m a s s o f m a t t e r t h a t a b s o r b s o t h e r

m a t t e r ; e v e r y t h i n g g o e s i n s id e , b u t n o t h i n g g o e s o u t s i d e . T h e p h y s i c is t c a n


7/12

T R V I W

therefore say nothing about what happens inside the black hole. Physics sim-

ply ends there, because it can say noth ing about that particu lar state of af-

fairs. In order to say something about it, you must operate in interactions.

Therefore, anything you could say abou t it would no t apply. So it is a matter

of that kind. Whatever we say about an independent reality does not apply.

We may argue that we need this notion for epistemological reasons, but when-

ever we want to say something about it, it doesn t apply. So the very notion of

an independ ent reality is intrinsically misleading, because it leads us to be-

lieve that reality would apply to notions such as thingness . But it doesn t

apply, because the notion of things applies to what we do.

Y o u r c o m m e n t s r e m i n d m e o f t h e d i f f e r e n t a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t t h e

n a t u r e o f r e a l i t y w h i c h u n d e r l i e d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e s . F o r e x a m p l e ,

i n H o p i I n d i a n , a n d s o m e A b o r i g i n a l l a n g u a g e s , t h e r e i s n o n o t i o n

o f s u b j e c t a n d o b j e c t . L i k e t h e la t e p h y s i c i s t D a v i d B o h m s c o n c e p t

o f t h e h o l o m o v e m e n t , t h e s e l a n g u a g e s a s s u m e t h a t t h e r e i s a n u n -

b r o k e n u n i t y o f b e i n g w i t h i n w h i c h d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s e x i s t a s r e l a -

t i v e l y a u t o n o m o u s . H e r e , r e a l i t y i s t h e w h o l e n e s s w i t h i n w h i c h w e

m o v e a n d d r a w a t t e n t i o n t o p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i t i e s . I t i s t h e a c t o f b r i n g -

i n g t h o s e q u a l i t i e s i n t o a t t e n t i o n a n d i s o l a t in g t h e m f r o m t h e w h o l e

t h r o u g h l a n g u a g e w h i c h g i v e s t h e m t h e i r a p p e a r a n c e o f t h i n g n e s s .

I n y o u r o w n t e r m s , s u c h l a n g u a g e s c o u l d b e s e e n a s r e c u r s i v e ly d r a w -

i n g a t t e n t i o n t o t h e i r o w n c o n s t r u c t i o n . A r e s u c h i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o

w h a t y o u a r e t a lk i n g a b o u t ?

Yes, but at the same time, these languages are still just languages.They are

domains of operation in coordinations of coordinations of behaviour. Enti-

ties do arise in terms of whatever it is we can distinguish; which could be

relations, totalities, differences. But in different cultures, with their different

languages and different manne rs of living together, the kinds of distinctions

made in each language are also different.

For example, Chinese th inking is very systemic, while European thinking

is very linear. Westerners deal with everything as though it had to do with

linear argumentation. Although I d on t know what is happening now with

this tremendous occidentalisafionof China, I do know that in traditional China,

there was systemic thinking. The whole notion of yin/yang, for example, has

to do with a systemic view, not oppositions in our terms, but systemic

coherences. This entails different manne rs of living, and yet language still

has to do with coordinations of coordinations of behaviour.

H o w d o e s y o u r o w n t h e o r y o f l a n g u a g e d i f f e r f r o m t r a d i t i o n a l v i e w s ?

The re are several traditional views on language. Chomsky, for example,

insists on the generative character of grammar , and the d istinction between

superficial and deep st ructures. Essentially, his has to do with the coherences


8/12

T R V l W

of the generation of speech. But Chomsky doesn t deal with meaning; it is

simply left out. It is another problem. Th e school of Jacobson does some-

thing different. It is not concerned so much with grammar, but with mean-

ing. Jacobson thinks that every element in language has meaning.

Now, the notion of communication, symbolisation and symbols enters

very much into the usual description of language. What I m saying is some-

thing different in the sense that I think that any reflection about language has

to go together with the under standin g of mean ing, and that grammar is sec-

ondary to meaning. Secondly, I am saying that communication and symboli-

sation are secondary to language, and that language consists in an operation

of coordinations of behaviour, and in fact not just in coordinations ofbehav-

lout, bu t in coordinations of coordinations of behaviour. Therefore, meaning

arises immediately in the process of coordinations of coordinations of be-

haviour which in turn constitute language. Grammar has evolved to deal

with the regularities of those coordinations of behaviour.

So language is primarily related to doing, to behaviour and activity, no t

symbols, and not communica tion, because symbols and communication are

secondary. The primary th ing in language, according to what I say, is the

process of coordinations of coordinations of behaviour.

T h e e x a m p l e t h a t y o u s o m e t i m e s u s e t o e x p l a i n y o u r c o n c e p t i o n o f

l a n g u a g e a s c o o r d i n a t i n g c o o r d i n a t i o n s o f b e h a v l o u r r e la t e s t o th e

a c t o f p o i n t in g . I f s o m e o n e p o i n t s a t s o m e t h i n g f o r s o m e b o d y e l s e

t h e y c a n p e r c e i v e t h a t t h e r e i s a r e l a t io n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e p o i n t i n g

f i n g e r a n d t h e o b j e c t t h a t i s b e i n g p o i n t e d a t w h e r e a s a d o g o r a c a t

w i l l s i m p l y l o o k a t t h e p o i n t i n g f i n g e r .

Th at is basically correct, but it s not exactly that they will perceive tha t

there is a relation. If I point, I am doing two things. On the one hand, I a m

coordinating my relation with the person for whom I am doing the pointing,

and on the other hand, I am coordinating this coordination by orienting the

attent ion of this person in one direction. So what you have there is a coordi-

nation of a coordination of behaviour.

You would have a better example when you call a taxi.You make a gesture,

and you connect with the taxi driver. Wha t you see is that the person looks at

you, and then you make another gesture, indicatingwhere you would like this

person to stop.With the second gesture, you coordinate your previous coor-

dination. Now the result is a coordination of behaviour which can be com-

mented upon as if it had been an agreement for taking a taxi.

A n o t h e r c o n t r o v e r s ia l c l a i m w h i c h y o u m a k e i s t h a t l a n g u a g e o r i g i -

n a t e d a t s o m e t i m e i n t h e v e r y d i s ta n t p a s t . C o u l d y o u e x p l a i n h o w

l o n g a g o y o u t h i n k l a n g u a g e f ir s t a r o s e a n d w h y y o u h a v e c o m e t o

t h i s c o n c l u s i o n ?


9/12

T R V I W

I believe language may have begun as early as three million years ago,

because of the great many changes in the structure of the nervous system, the

face, and the respiratory dynamics. All of these changes are associated with

our being languaging beings that use sound production in language.

A r e y o u r e f e r r in g t o p h y s i o l o g i c a l c h a n g e s t h a t h a v e b e e n f o u n d i n

t h e f o s s i l r e c o r d o f e a r ly h o m i n o i d s a n d h o m i n i d s ?

Physiological changes, anatomical changes, and behavioural changes.These

are very great coherent changes, so they are not something that could arise

through a single mutation . It's a whole series of coherent changes that must

have taken place cont inuously for many generations.

B u t w h a t s t h e s o u r c e f o r y o u r c o n c l u s i o n s ? W h a t o t h e r r e s e a r c h

h a s b e e n d o n e i n t h i s a r e a i n o r d e r f o r y o u t o d r a w s u c h c o n c l u -

s i o n s ?

My propositions about language have to do with my own more or less

formal research in relation to daily life and what we do with language. Now

with respect to the origins of language, I make this assessment because if you

listen to many o f the people who are dealing with this question, they will say

that language began fifty thousand or one hundred thousand or two hundred

thousand years ago; some time much nearer to the present. They are also

thinking in terms of genetic changes. Now the reason why I think differently

is because the characteristics of a species are not primarily determined through

their genetic constitution, but rather by a man ner of living that is concerned

with systemic actualisation, in which living system and medium change to-

gether. This requires different dynamics, and this is why I d on' t think that

two hundred thousand years is enough.

It's been known for some time now that humans share a fossil ancestor

with the chimpanzees , and that our early homin id ancestors began to evolve

along a different evolutionary path about five to six million years ago. My

own criticism of the genetic basis for language partially relates to the fact that

hum an beings share more than 99 of their DN A with chimps, and yet our

physiology and behaviour is very different. I believe that the tremendous

expansion of intelligence, apparent throughout human history, is the result

of our hominoid and hominid ancestors being biologically different from the

chimpanzees; the outcome has been an enormous increase in the size of the

human brain.

If you compare the size of the brain of huma n beings to the size of brains

of chimpanzees for example, the human brain is three times bigger. It's not

only bigger, there are of course ma ny other differences in terms o f the con-

nectivity.


10/12

] T R V I W

In t h e b o o k y o u c o - w r o t e with F ranc isco Varela, The ree

o f Kno~ol

edge

1 9 87 ) , y o u a r g u e t h a t , a l t h o u g h c h i m p a n z e e s

are l anguag lng

b e i n g s , a n d c a n e v e n b e t a u g h t to u s e s i g n l a n g u a g e , a s e v i d e n c e d b y

t h e w o r k

of R.A. and B.T. Gar dne r

a n d o t h e r s , t h e y d o n o t l i v e

i n

language. Unl ike any o ther creature s on ear th , hu ma n beings l i v e

within t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s e n a b l e d b y l anguage or s y m b o l i c c o m m u -

n i c a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , y o u a s s e r t t h a t c h i m p a n z e e s d e m o n s t r a t e a

g r e a t e r p r o p e n s i t y f o r c o m p e t i t i o n a n d s t r u g g l e s f or p o w e r t h a n d i d

o u r h o m i n i d a n c e s t o r s , w h o l i v e d i n c o o p e r a t i o n , l o v e a n d s h a r e d

i n t i m a c y . Y o u a l s o c l a i m t h a t i f t h e y h a d n o t p o s s e s s e d t h e s e c h a r a c -

t e r i s t i c s , w e w o u l d h a v e r e m a i n e d s i m i a n , l i k e t h e c h i m p a n z e e . I n

o t h e r w o r d s , i t w a s t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t a l l o w e d o u r h o mi n i d

a n c e s t o r s t o d e v e l o p l a n g u a g e a n d e v o l v e in a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t d i r e c -

t i o n t o o u r n o w d i s t a n t c o u s i n s .

Because you place love at the centre of huma n relationships and language,

and claim that humans are biologically loving beings, could you talk about

the role of trust in h uman relationships generally?

Tru st is a fundamental element in social life, bu t it is love that constitutes

social coexistence, just as it is the emotion that constitutes trust. Love is the

domain of those behaviours through which the Other rises in a legitimate

and allied coexistence with you. Thi s constitutes trust; to trust the Other to

the extent that he or she does not have to justify himself or herself in relation

to you. So trust is secondary to, or goes together with, love.What I claim in

relation to love and language is not that love is central for language, but that

love has been central for the origin of language. Now that we are in language,

we can also use language to hate one another.

B u t l o v e w a s t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n ...

Love was the precondition. It was the condition which allowed humans to

live together in sufficient nearness and recursive intimacy to subsequent ly

permit the growth, development and conservation of living in coordinations

of coordinations of behaviour.

However, it should be acknowledged that there has been a shift in human

development since Neolithic times. I think that hu ma n history is a history of

cooperation, in the sense that it is centred on love. But in the last fifteen

thousand years, cultures have arisen which have emphasised struggle, com-

petition, and relations of domination.

I take i t that you are here refe rr in g t o th e e m e r g e n c e of pat r iarchy,

a n d t h e w o r k o f s o m e a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s a n d a r c h a e o l o g i s t s w h o argue

t h a t t h e e a r l ie s t h u m a n s o c i e t i e s w e r e b a s i c a l l y e g a l i t a r i a n , a n d t h a t

e l e m e n t s of this egal i tar ia n ct tl ture s u r v i v e d i n v a r i o u s f o r m s o v e r a

wide geographic ar ea unt i l the late Middle Ages?


11/12

Yes. I believe that such ways of life arose from herding practices amongst

pastoral tribes. These tribes, who worked and lived with herd animals, devel-

oped techniques for killing off other animals which preyed on the herds. At

some time in the d istant past, these techniques related to the appropria tion of

food sources and the development of weapons and killing began to be con-

served as a ma nner of living. Appropriat ion in the broader sense of taking

land, animals and people by force soon followed. In this patriarchal manner

of living, procreation and reproduction, rather than a focus on the systemic

coherences of life, became more impor tant.

I believe that if you took at history, you will soon realise several things.

One is that conflicts are never resolved through war. War may change the

domain of the conflict, but conflicts are always resolved through agreement,

through collaboration. Competition has never led to what one would call the

creation of general and basic better conditions for life. It may have led to a

more deep, effective handling of things here and there, and through this per-

haps to things that may sound very novel, but it s always very narrow.

If we look at what happens to us in daily life, first of all, we see that when

people are deprived of love at whatever age, they become ill. Competition

generates all kinds of stressful situations; physiological distortions and things

of this sort. Now if you attend a little to daily life, you will soon realise that

domains of competition reduce intelligence, and they reduce the ability to

see, because they force you to focus in a particu lar direction, while the reIa-

tional situation of mutua l respect and acceptance, that means love, opens this

space of view, expanding intelligence. If you are a teacher and you observe

your students, you will observe that whenever they are accepted, and treated

in a respectful manner , and loved, they become more intelligent.

D o e s w h a t y o u a r e s a y i n g h a v e a n y i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r e d u c a t io n

Th e main implication for education is a change of emphasis from compe-

tition to collaboration, as a condition which fosters self-respect in young peo-

ple.To collaborate, you have to respect yourself. If you do not respect yourself,

you canno t collaborate, because you feel that you risk your own disappear-

ance in your relations with the Other. So you have to foster self-respect, and

self-acceptance. Through that respect for the Other, acceptance of the Other,

comes the possibility of generating things together in the pleasure and desire

of doing them together.

Now if you compare this with what happens in most schools, where there

is an emphasis on competition, you soon realise that schools should on the

contrary be generat ing situations in which children can cooperate and grow.

I do not know what it is like in Australia, but in Chil~ there is an expression,

The y are not even there . As a consequence of this kind of attitude amongst

adults, children become disconnected. The y are being brought up in such a

way that they have no connection with the communi ty to which they belong.


12/12

N T R V W

They live a life which is essentially empty. I believe that one has to shift the

orientation of education to creating the conditions of the development in

children of self-respect, rather than fostering the idea of competition. This

would open respect for collaboration, and if there is collaboration, there is

the possibility of doing things together for the well-being of everyone, rather

than simply for oneself or a small group of people with similar interests.

W h a t a b o u t s c i e n c e a n d e t h i c s ?

Well, for ethics I think that this is very important. Unlike Kant , I think tha t

ethical concern has no rational foundations. Therefore, h uman rights have

no rational foundations. Hu ma n rights are rather an expression of a desire to

live in a certain, particular way. So ethics has to do with love; the concern for

the Other has to do with love.This entails a change in understand ing of the

matter of ethics.With science in general, I think that this may lead to a recov-

ery of systemic think ing--which s of course happening already--to a deeper

understanding of systems in general. A more adequate interplay of linear

thinking and systemic thinking allows for a more complete und erstanding of

ecological and biological phenomena.

In

s o m e o f y o u r m o r e r e c e n t w o r k y o u h a v e c l a i m e d t h a t th e r e i s a

p o t e n t i a l l y i n f i n i t e n u m b e r o f f o r m s o f r e a s o n o r r a t i o n a l i t y . Y o u

s u p p o r t t h i s c l a i m b y p o i n t i n g o u t q u i t e r i g h t l y I t h i n k t h a t a n y

r a t io n a l s y s t e m i s a l w a y s f o u n d e d o n p r e m i s e s t h a t a r e a c c e p t e d

t h r o u g h n o n - r a t i o n a l p r e f e r e n c e s . A l t h o u g h t h i s m a y i n i t ia l l y s e e m

l lk e a v e r y r a d i c a l v i e w a n d c e r t a i n l y o n e t h a t w i l l n o t e n d e a r y o u t o

p o s i t iv i s t s a n d r e a l i s ts i t d o v e t a i l s w i t h s o m e i d e a s i n p o s t - s t r u c -

t u r a l i s m a b o u t t h e r e b e i n g m a n y f o r m s o f r e a s o n r a t h e r t h a n a

singu lar rat ional i ty, w h i c h h a s b e e n t h e c l a s s i c a l i d e a .

The very many forms of reason have to do with the very many domains in

which we live. So each domain of coherences of life is also a domain o f ra-

tionality, in the sense of coherences of the argumentat ion possible in that

domain. Therefore, whether an individual is in one domain or another is

simply a matter of preference. If one is aware of one s emotions and hence

one s preferences, one can be responsible for the rational arguments that one

develops, which is usually not the case.

You see, one needs to make a distinct ion between having reasons for do-

ing something, and having motives for doing something. When one asks for

reasons, one asks in terms of rational argumentat ion to justify something.

When you ask for motives, you ask for the involvement of another person,

and hence the opening of responsibility for his or her participation in doing

something.Thus, he distinction between reasons and motives opens the pos-

sibility of being aware of one s responsibility for what one does. Although

this is not necessarily a new idea, it does make the relationship between rea-

son and ethical responsibility more obvious. And I think this is very impor-

for science and ethics, indeed, for social life in general.

Humberto Maturana Interview

Documents

Transcript of Humberto Maturana Interview