✧༺ Becoming Constellations ༻✧

250423 Autopoietic Regeneration - A Theoretical Framework

12 min read

Autopoietic Regeneration: Dual Power for Systemic Transformation

Created: 250423 Tuesday, 23 April Tags: dual-power autopoiesis systems-thinking regenerative-systems cosmo-localism network-theory chico-mendes complexity

Systemic Crisis and the Emergence of Counter-Systems

For decades, the dominant global systems have boasted of their capacity to solve humanity’s greatest challenges. Yet it becomes increasingly apparent that these systems are fundamentally incapable of addressing the most crucial problems we face—ecological collapse, expanding inequality, and social fragmentation. What initially appeared as isolated crises have revealed themselves as interconnected symptoms of a systemic disease. And as with any systemic problem, treating individual symptoms resembles a futile game of whack-a-mole—we are eventually overwhelmed by the recurring manifestations of deeper dysfunctions.

It is precisely at this moment, when authentic alternatives seem impossible, that true hope appears. While established systems fail to address systemic problems directly, they have inadvertently created conditions through which alternative organizational forms can emerge. The development of decentralized technologies—blockchain networks, distributed governance systems, and digital commons—provides the foundation for new organizational possibilities that challenge existing power structures and resource flows.

The emergence of local regenerative networks represents one of the most promising manifestations of this potential. These networks don’t merely critique existing systems—they actively build alternatives that embody different values and governance structures. They operate as nodes of dual power, simultaneously resisting extractive systems while creating counter-institutions that prefigure more regenerative relationships between people and ecosystems.

Dual Power as a Theoretical Framework for Systemic Change

Dual power theory, originally conceptualized as a transitional phase during revolutionary periods, has evolved into a deliberate strategy embraced by contemporary social movements. At its core, this approach combines public resistance to oppression (counter-power) with the construction of alternative democratic institutions (counter-institutions) that embody desired social relations.

This framework has gained renewed relevance in our current historical moment, where movements must contend not only with political and economic power but also with technological infrastructure increasingly controlled by centralized corporate entities. The challenge becomes not just resisting extractive systems but simultaneously building viable alternatives that operate according to fundamentally different principles.

The power of this approach lies in its rejection of false dichotomies. It recognizes that we must both oppose destructive systems and create life-affirming alternatives. It acknowledges that we must work within existing conditions while simultaneously building the infrastructure for a different future. It understands that transformation happens through both resistance and creation.

For regenerative movements, dual power offers a strategic framework that avoids both naive utopianism and cynical defeatism. It grounds visionary work in concrete practice while ensuring that practical work serves transformative vision.

Historical Precedents: Ecological Dual Power in Practice

The application of dual power theory to ecological regeneration has important historical precedents, particularly in the work of Brazilian environmentalist and labor leader Chico Mendes (1944-1988). Mendes’ organizing in the Amazon rainforest created one of the most successful examples of ecological dual power in practice.

Mendes built a movement that simultaneously:

  1. Resisted extractive forces: Organized rubber tappers to physically prevent the destruction of the forest through nonviolent “empates” (standoffs) against logging and ranching operations.

  2. Created alternative institutions: Developed the innovative concept of “extractive reserves” (reservas extrativistas) where local communities could sustainably harvest forest products while maintaining the ecosystem intact.

This dual approach represented what Mendes called “socio-environmental struggle”—recognizing that environmental protection cannot be separated from social justice and economic alternatives for local communities. As he famously stated: “At first I thought I was fighting to save rubber trees, then I thought I was fighting to save the Amazon rainforest. Now I realize I am fighting for humanity.”

The extractive reserve model pioneered by Mendes embodied the principle of “saving the forest by using it”—creating economic value from standing forests while maintaining traditional knowledge and community governance. This prefigured contemporary regenerative approaches that seek to align ecological health with community prosperity.

Autopoiesis as an Organizing Principle for Regenerative Networks

The concept of autopoiesis—the capacity of living systems to reproduce and maintain themselves—offers a powerful framework for understanding how regenerative networks function and evolve. These networks exhibit several characteristics of autopoietic systems:

  1. Self-creation: They emerge from local conditions and self-organize according to the specific needs and capacities of their communities.

  2. Self-regulation: They develop governance systems that enable adaptation and learning in response to changing conditions.

  3. Self-perpetuation: They create mechanisms for resource generation and knowledge transfer that enable continuity and evolution over time.

  4. Boundary maintenance: They establish clear identity and purpose while remaining permeable to information and energy flows from their environment.

Regenerative networks thus function as living social organisms, constantly evolving in response to their environments while maintaining their essential identity and purpose. This autopoietic character gives them resilience that purely mechanical or hierarchical organizations lack. Rather than being designed from above, they grow from within—adapting, learning, and evolving in response to local conditions.

The autopoietic nature of these networks resolves a fundamental paradox: how can a system be both structured enough to persist and fluid enough to adapt? They achieve this balance through continual self-renewal, maintaining their core identity and purpose while evolving their specific strategies and practices in response to changing conditions.

Catalytic Infrastructure for Regenerative Systems

Just as in chemistry, where providing heat to a system increases the movement of particles and thus increases the chances of forming stable structures, the development of appropriate technical and social infrastructure increases the probability that communities can form stable regenerative systems. This infrastructure includes:

  1. Decentralized governance tools that enable participatory decision-making without requiring centralized control

  2. Transparent value accounting systems that make visible the regenerative contributions of individuals and communities

  3. Alternative capital formation mechanisms that direct resources toward regenerative activities without extractive intermediaries

  4. Knowledge commons platforms that enable the sharing of regenerative practices across contexts

This infrastructure functions as a scaffolding for regenerative action, not a solution in itself. The real transformation happens through the activities these tools enable—the regeneration of ecosystems, the strengthening of communities, the creation of circular economic flows that enhance rather than extract value from places.

As philosopher Ivan Illich might have noted, these are convivial tools—technologies that expand human autonomy and creativity rather than creating dependency and control. They are designed to be understood, modified, and governed by the communities that use them, rather than creating new forms of technological determinism.

The Evolution of Resistance Repertoires

The tactical repertoire available to regenerative movements has expanded dramatically through the integration of digital infrastructure with place-based organizing. The resistance strategies pioneered by movements like Mendes’ rubber tappers can now be complemented with digital tools that extend their reach and impact.

Contemporary regenerative networks are evolving these approaches by adding capabilities that:

  1. Measure and value ecosystem services: Creating verification systems for ecological services that historically went unrecognized by economic systems

  2. Enable participatory resource governance: Using digital tools to scale the democratic decision-making that was central to traditional commons management

  3. Connect bioregional struggles globally: Creating solidarity networks that can respond to threats with local immediacy while leveraging global coordination

  4. Generate resources for regenerative work: Developing funding mechanisms that direct capital toward regenerative activities without extractive intermediaries

These tools don’t replace the core strategies of resistance and alternative-building—they extend them. The physical defense of ecosystems and the creation of alternative economic activities remain fundamental. Digital tools simply make these approaches more visible, more coordinated, and more financially viable.

Cosmo-Local Organization: Resolving the Global-Local Polarity

The effectiveness of regenerative networks can be understood through the framework of cosmo-localism—an approach that combines “global knowledge sharing (‘cosmo’) with local production and governance (‘localism’)” based on the principle of “design global, manufacture local.”

This framework provides a theoretical basis for understanding how local regenerative initiatives can remain autonomous while benefiting from global knowledge flows. It resolves the apparent tension between localization and globalization by showing how they can function as complementary rather than contradictory forces. Through this lens, we can see regenerative networks as manifestations of a broader pattern where:

  1. Commons-based Peer Production: Knowledge, designs, and solutions are shared freely across the global network while being adapted to local contexts

  2. Local Autonomy with Global Connection: Each initiative maintains independence in implementation while benefiting from the collective intelligence of the broader network

  3. Bioregional Adaptation: Regenerative strategies are tailored to the specific ecological and social characteristics of each place, rather than imposed through standardized approaches

This framework helps us move beyond the false choice between isolated localism and homogenizing globalization. It shows how regenerative movements can be both deeply rooted in place and widely connected across geography—gaining the benefits of local adaptation and global cooperation simultaneously.

Multi-Scalar Democracy and Nested Governance

The application of dual power and autopoietic frameworks to regeneration creates opportunities for economic democracy at multiple scales simultaneously:

  • Micro-level: Individual neighborhoods and communities
  • Meso-level: Bioregional economies and ecosystems
  • Macro-level: Global networks for knowledge and resource sharing

This multi-scalar approach avoids the limitations of purely local or purely global strategies, creating nested systems of democratic governance appropriate to different levels of activity. It applies the principle of subsidiarity—decisions should be made at the most local level possible while recognizing interconnections across scales.

This nested approach to governance mirrors the organization of natural systems, where different processes operate at different scales while remaining interconnected. Just as a forest ecosystem contains processes that operate at the levels of soil microbiomes, individual plants, species communities, and landscape dynamics, regenerative governance systems must function coherently across scales.

Reclaiming Technology for Autopoietic Regeneration

By developing decentralized tools specifically designed for cooperative economics and ecological regeneration, this approach reclaims technology from its extractive applications. It embodies the principle of “building digital democracy”—creating platforms and protocols that can be co-designed and co-governed to serve collective needs over individual capital accumulation.

This represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between communities and technology—from consumers of technologies designed for extraction to co-creators of technologies designed for regeneration. It moves from what philosopher Albert Borgmann called the “device paradigm,” where technology becomes increasingly opaque and disempowering, to what we might call a “convivial paradigm,” where technology becomes transparent and empowering.

The goal is not to reject technology but to reconceive it—to create technical systems that embody different values and serve different purposes. Technologies for autopoietic regeneration are designed to strengthen community self-determination, ecological resilience, and distributed intelligence rather than centralized control, resource extraction, and artificial scarcity.

Integration of Environmental and Social Justice Struggles

The mission of combining ecological regeneration with social justice continues to animate contemporary regenerative movements. By developing approaches that integrate ecosystem health with community prosperity, these movements implement what Chico Mendes articulated when he stated:

“Ecology without class struggle is gardening.”

This perspective—that ecological protection must be integrated with economic alternatives and community sovereignty—remains central to effective regenerative work. It recognizes that environmental degradation and social inequality are not separate problems but interconnected manifestations of the same underlying systems.

As Mendes demonstrated decades ago, true sustainability requires both protecting ecosystems and creating economic alternatives for communities. Contemporary regenerative networks are evolving this vision by adding the infrastructure necessary to scale these alternatives globally while maintaining their local rootedness.

Persistent Challenges in Theory and Practice

Despite its promise, this integrated approach to regenerative change faces significant theoretical and practical challenges that must be addressed:

  1. Complexity and Coordination: As networks grow in complexity, how can they balance the need for coordination with the principles of autonomy and diversity?

  2. Digital Divides: How can these initiatives ensure that technical barriers don’t exclude the communities most affected by ecological crisis?

  3. Institutional Mimesis: How can these alternatives protect against unconsciously reproducing the logics and structures of the systems they seek to replace?

  4. Material Dependencies: How do these initiatives navigate their continued dependencies on existing economic and material systems?

  5. Measuring Complex Value: What epistemological frameworks can capture the multidimensional impact of these initiatives beyond reductive metrics?

  6. Security and Resilience: How can these networks protect their participants from both physical threats and system collapse while building long-term resilience?

These challenges do not invalidate the approach but rather point to the ongoing theoretical and practical work required to manifest its full potential. Each represents a frontier of learning and innovation for the field as a whole.

Conclusion: The Autopoietic Promise

The integration of dual power theory with autopoietic systems thinking represents one of the most promising frameworks for addressing the interconnected crises of our time. By simultaneously building counter-institutions while resisting extractive systems, and by understanding these initiatives as living, self-reproducing systems, this approach offers a path toward genuine systemic transformation.

This integrated approach doesn’t merely resist extractive systems—it actively builds the infrastructure for a regenerative future while meeting immediate community needs. It demonstrates how tools and technologies, often associated with extraction and alienation, can be reclaimed as means for connection, regeneration, and community sovereignty.

As both ecological crisis and social fragmentation intensify, this convergence between autopoietic thinking and regenerative practice offers a compelling path forward—not just imagining alternatives but actively building them through living laboratories of systemic change.

In the ongoing search for viable alternatives to extractive systems, the emergence of these autopoietic nodes of regeneration represents not just a protest against what is, but a practical demonstration of what could be. At a time when systemic alternatives seem impossible, these living experiments in regeneration reveal that another world isn’t just possible—it’s already being born.

References

  • Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., & Schoon, M. L. (Eds.). (2015). Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press.
  • Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry. University of Chicago Press.
  • Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Duke University Press.
  • Illich, I. (1973). Tools for Conviviality. Harper & Row.
  • Kostakis, V., & Bauwens, M. (2014). Network Society and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  • Mendes, C. (1988). Fight for the Forest: Chico Mendes in His Own Words. Latin America Bureau.
  • Rodrigues, G. (2019). Chico Mendes: Environmental Activism and the Politics of Memory in the Brazilian Amazon. University of California Press.
  • Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press.