Table of Contents
Highlights
Quote
This essay explores the concept of boundaries, edges, and margins, drawing on a range of theoretical frameworks and case studies to argue for a reconceptualization of boundaries as porous, relational interfaces rather than fixed, impermeable barriers.
Quote
In short, will all these micro-revolutions finally initiate a real revolution? Will they be able to take charge of not only local problems, but also administrative larger economic configurations
Quote
cooperative interfaces. These constitute a porous, relational boundary between diverse systems, including human and non-human communities, organizations, and ecosystems, that acts as a site of negotiation, transformation, and co-construction
Quote
Cooperative interfaces attempt to mediate the relationships between different values, worldviews, and modes of being, enabling the creation of shared meanings and practices while also preserving the autonomy and diversity of the interacting parties, across both human and non-human realms
Quote
Cooperative interfaces challenge the notion of fixed, impermeable boundaries that separate individuals, groups, and systems from each other. Instead, they emphasize the interdependence and entanglement of different actors and the need for more flexible and participatory mechanisms for negotiating the spaces between them.
Quote
Designing cooperative interfaces across these different scales requires a fundamental shift in our thinking about boundaries, power, and identity. It involves moving beyond the binary categories of “us” versus “them,” “inside” versus “outside,” and “win” versus “lose,” and instead embracing a more fluid, relational, and contextual understanding of the spaces between individuals, groups, and systems.
Quote
Autopoietic systems are operationally closed, meaning that their internal processes are self-referential and self-sustaining, but they are also thermodynamically open, exchanging energy and matter with their surroundings.
Quote
Homeostatic mechanisms are crucial for enabling autopoietic systems to adapt to changing conditions while still preserving their core identity, as well as structural and functional integrity over time.
Quote
active inference describes the process by which systems minimize the surprise (i.e., variational free energy) associated with their sensory inputs by actively modulating their sensory and active states (i.e., their Markov blanket) and updating their internal models.
Quote
autopoiesis and homeostasis describe the self-sustaining and self-regulating properties of living systems, while Markov blankets provide a formal description of the statistical boundaries that emerge from these dynamics. Active inference, in turn, describes the process by which autopoietic systems actively maintain their homeostasis and structural integrity by minimizing surprise and updating their internal models.
Quote
Plurality through preservation of autonomy and diversity: Cooperative interfaces maintain the autonomy and uniqueness of the interacting systems, while also enabling the creation of shared understandings and practices across human and non-human communities. In this way they are both self and other reinforcing.
Quote
Traditional conceptions of territorial sovereignty, as exemplified in the work of John Locke (1689), tend to treat borders as fixed, impermeable lines demarcating the exclusive authority of nation-states over their territory and population.
Quote
highlighting the limits of human sovereignty and the need for more ecologically attuned forms of politics.
Quote
From a deep ecological perspective, the territorial impulse driving much of modern border politics reflects a limited, human-centered worldview that fails to recognize the deeper, systemic interconnections between all forms of life.
Quote
More broadly, an ethics of interfaces invites us to rethink the nature of political community and belonging beyond the nation-state model
Quote
As Hardt and Negri (2000) argue, the increasing porosity and interconnectedness of borders under globalization points towards the need for new forms of political subjectivity and solidarity that transcend territorial divisions.
Quote
aimed at the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources, thereby contributing to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
Quote
The Protocol challenges purely anthropocentric approaches to genetic resources by recognizing the intrinsic rights and stewardship of indigenous/local communities over their traditional knowledge and biodiversity. It attempts to move beyond a colonial, extractive framing. Rather than treating genetic resources as commodities to be accessed unilaterally, the Protocol frames them as elements existing within relational socio-ecological contexts and knowledge systems.
Quote
n essence, the Nagoya Protocol instantiates cooperative interfaces by trying to establish a porous yet principled relational boundary for interactions around the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.
Quote
distort or exploit
Quote
The concept of cooperative interfaces emerges from this theoretical matrix as a way to describe boundaries that are porous, relational, and co-constructed, facilitating the exchange of information, resources, and perspectives across diverse systems while preserving their autonomy and integrity.
Quote
Through this work, we have attempted to consider the boundary becoming a relation-making, transformative zone rather than a barrier, in order to forge a future less dominated by zero-sum logics.
Quote
First, there is a need for more empirical studies on the effectiveness of cooperative interface approaches in various domains, from ecosystem management to conflict resolution. Second, further theoretical work is needed to refine and extend the concept, particularly in relation to emerging technologies and changing global power dynamics. Third, there is ample room for experimentation with new governance models and institutional designs that embody cooperative interface principles, perhaps building on examples like the Nagoya Protocol but pushing further towards true multispecies, non-anthropocentric frameworks.
Clean Copy
.. what happens at the margins
Published on May 09, 2025
Cooperative Interfaces: Rethinking the Politics of Borders & Margins
In an increasingly interconnected world, the nature and significance of boundaries have become a central concern across multiple domains, from biology and ecology to sociology and politics. This essay explores the concept of boundaries, edges, and margins, drawing on a range of theoretical frameworks and case studies to argue for a reconceptualization of boundaries as porous, relational interfaces rather than fixed, impermeable barriers. By rethinking the politics of borders and interfaces in this way, we open up new possibilities for understanding and transforming the complex systems and power relations that shape our world.
.. what happens at the margins
“Will these micro-revolutions, these profound examinations of the relationships within society only remain divided into limited spheres of the social arena? Or will a new “social segmentation” manage to connect them without imposing hierarchy and segregation? In short, will all these micro-revolutions finally initiate a real revolution? Will they be able to take charge of not only local problems, but also administrative larger economic configurations?”
Theoretical Foundation
Here we describe the characteristics of what we refer to as cooperative interfaces. These constitute a porous, relational boundary between diverse systems, including human and non-human communities, organizations, and ecosystems, that acts as a site of negotiation, transformation, and co-construction. Unlike fixed borders or rigid rules, cooperative interfaces are dynamic, fluid, and actively shaped by the ongoing interactions and self-organizing processes of the multispecies actors involved. Cooperative interfaces attempt to mediate the relationships between different values, worldviews, and modes of being, enabling the creation of shared meanings and practices while also preserving the autonomy and diversity of the interacting parties, across both human and non-human realms.
Modern day human society is widely premised on competition, zero sum logics and territoriality. If we are to envision or strive toward something more generative and cooperative, we need to consider how the edges of our worlds interact. Here we attempt to articulate the values of something that might counter the challenges posed by the competitive, zero-sum, and territorial logics that dominate modern human society. By reconceptualizing the boundaries and edges of our social, economic, and political systems as porous, relational, and collaborative spaces, we can begin to envision and create a more generative and cooperative world.
Cooperative interfaces challenge the notion of fixed, impermeable boundaries that separate individuals, groups, and systems from each other. Instead, they emphasize the interdependence and entanglement of different actors and the need for more flexible and participatory mechanisms for negotiating the spaces between them. This approach has the potential to transform the way we understand and manage the edges of our worlds, from the level of interpersonal relationships to the level of global governance. At the interpersonal level, cooperative interfaces can help foster a more empathetic and compassionate approach to human interaction. By recognizing the porous and relational nature of personal boundaries, we can move beyond the competitive and territorial mindset that often characterizes social relations and instead cultivate a sense of shared humanity and mutual understanding. This can involve practices such as active listening, perspective-taking, and nonviolent communication, which create space for dialogue, negotiation, and collaboration across differences. At the level of communities and organizations, cooperative interfaces can enable more participatory and inclusive forms of decision-making and resource management. By creating porous boundaries that allow for the exchange of ideas, resources, and perspectives between different groups, we can foster a sense of shared ownership and responsibility for the commons. This can involve practices such as participatory budgeting, community land trusts, and worker cooperatives, which distribute power and benefits more equitably among stakeholders.At the level of nation-states and global governance, cooperative interfaces can help transcend the territorial and zero-sum logics that often drive international relations. By recognizing the interdependence and shared vulnerabilities of different countries and regions, we can create more collaborative and resilient approaches to global challenges such as climate change, migration, and public health. This can involve practices such as transboundary resource management, regional integration, and multistakeholder diplomacy, which prioritize cooperation and mutual benefit over competition and unilateral action.
Designing cooperative interfaces across these different scales requires a fundamental shift in our thinking about boundaries, power, and identity. It involves moving beyond the binary categories of “us” versus “them,” “inside” versus “outside,” and “win” versus “lose,” and instead embracing a more fluid, relational, and contextual understanding of the spaces between individuals, groups, and systems. By creating more porous and participatory mechanisms for negotiating these spaces, we can begin to unlock the potential for a more generative and cooperative society.
Such a transformation is not simple, as it challenges deeply entrenched patterns of thought and behavior and requires deep shifts in cultural hegemony. However, by experimenting with new forms of social, economic, and political organization that embody the principles of cooperative interfaces, we can begin to create a world that is more equitable, sustainable, pluralistic and resilient. This will require ongoing dialogue, experimentation, and adaptation, as we learn to navigate the complex and dynamic edges of our interconnected world. Ultimately, designing cooperative interfaces is about recognizing the fundamental interdependence and shared destiny of all human and non-human systems on our planet. By creating more porous, relational, and collaborative spaces for negotiating the boundaries between these systems, we can begin to unlock the potential for a more generative and cooperative society that benefits all.
The Nature of Boundaries: Autopoiesis, Homeostasis, and Active Inference
To understand the nature of boundaries, we can draw on related concepts from biology and systems theory, such as autopoiesis, homeostasis, sympoesis, operational enclosure and active inference as a useful framework for understanding the nature and dynamics of complex systems, including the notion of what we are going to term ‘cooperative interfaces’. Markov blankets, active inference, autopoiesis, and homeostasis are all closely related concepts that describe different aspects of how self-organizing systems maintain their integrity and adaptively interact with their environment.
Autopoiesis, as developed by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela (1980), refers to the self-producing and self-maintaining properties of living systems, which create and sustain their own boundaries in interaction with their environment. Autopoietic systems are operationally closed, meaning that their internal processes are self-referential and self-sustaining, but they are also thermodynamically open, exchanging energy and matter with their surroundings.
Homeostasis, in turn, describes the ability of systems to maintain a relatively stable state despite perturbations and changes in their surroundings (Bernard, 1865). Homeostatic mechanisms are crucial for enabling autopoietic systems to adapt to changing conditions while still preserving their core identity, as well as structural and functional integrity over time.
Markov blankets provide a formal mathematical description of the boundaries that separate and mediate interactions between systems. In the context of autopoiesis, Markov blankets can be seen as the statistical boundaries that emerge from the self-sustaining dynamics of an autopoietic system, separating its internal states from external states while allowing for selective exchange via sensory and active states.
Active inference, suggests that systems with boundaries engage in ongoing processes of sensing and acting to maintain their integrity and viability. As articulated by Karl Friston (2010), active inference describes the process by which systems minimize the surprise (i.e., variational free energy) associated with their sensory inputs by actively modulating their sensory and active states (i.e., their Markov blanket) and updating their internal models. In the context of autopoiesis and homeostasis, active inference can be seen as the mechanism by which an autopoietic system maintains its integrity and stability in the face of environmental perturbations, by actively seeking out sensory inputs that conform to its expectations and updating its internal models to better predict those inputs.
Together, autopoiesis and homeostasis describe the self-sustaining and self-regulating properties of living systems, while Markov blankets provide a formal description of the statistical boundaries that emerge from these dynamics. Active inference, in turn, describes the process by which autopoietic systems actively maintain their homeostasis and structural integrity by minimizing surprise and updating their internal models. Together, these concepts provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the self-organization and adaptive behavior of living systems in interaction with their environment.
Active inference and cooperative interfaces are complementary concepts that shed light on how autonomous systems interact with their environment to maintain their integrity and establish cooperative relationships. Active inference, as a corollary of the free energy principle, describes how systems minimize surprise by actively modulating their sensory and active states to sample inputs that conform to their expectations and updating their internal models to better predict those inputs. This process enables systems to maintain their autonomy, adapt to environmental perturbations, and seek out mutually beneficial interactions across multiple scales. Similarly, cooperative interfaces characterize system boundaries as porous and relational, allowing for the adaptive co-construction of cooperative interactions while preserving the autonomy of interacting systems. Together, active inference and cooperative interfaces point to an intrinsic ethics of self-organization, where systems actively negotiate their boundaries and couplings to maintain their integrity and establish mutually beneficial relationships.
The concepts of Markov blankets and cooperative interfaces are complementary approaches for understanding the boundaries and interactions between living systems. Both deal with how systems at multiple nested levels, from cells to organisms to ecosystems, co-construct and negotiate their boundaries to maintain autonomy while enabling cooperative interactions. Markov blankets provide a mathematical formalism for defining system boundaries and interactions in terms of active inference, where internal system states actively infer external states via sensory and active states to maintain system integrity. Kirchoff (2018) describes “how a collective of Markov blankets can self-assemble into a global system that itself has a Markov blanket; thereby providing an illustration of how autonomous systems can be understood as having layers of nested and self-sustaining boundaries”. They conclude that (i) any living system is a Markov blanketed system and (ii) the boundaries of such systems need not be co-extensive with the biophysical boundaries of a living organism. cooperative interfaces build on this by conceptualizing system boundaries in explicitly ethical terms as porous, relational interfaces that preserve the diversity and autonomy of interacting systems while allowing for communication and coordination. Thus, both point to the fundamental relational ontology of life, where system boundaries are not rigid separations but rather loci of active inference and ethical co-construction. This suggests an intrinsic ethics in how systems co-constitute their boundaries - the active inference induced by Markov blankets can be seen as a kind of “self-evidencing” by systems to maintain their autonomous organization, which cooperative interfaces make explicit by characterizing system interactions as an ongoing negotiation to preserve the intrinsic integrity of all interacting parties. Together, Markov blankets and cooperative interfaces provide a potentially useful framework for understanding the nested, multi-level, and inherently ethical nature of the boundaries and interactions between living systems.
“This approach [..leveraging the Markov blanket construct (Pearl, 1998)] endorses the segregation of the brain into regions but also emphasises the absence of a privileged scale of description at which ‘modules’ might be defined. By selecting a Markov blanket, we implicitly identify the variables that define the simplest element of our system at a given scale. It follows that, depending on the scale of interest, the variables comprising the Markov blanket will be different. For a single neuron, the blanket includes the presynaptic and postsynaptic membrane potentials that mediate its interactions with other neurons. For cortical columns, the blanket will include neural populations mediating interactions between different columns. In principle, the identification of functional boundaries can proceed at finer (ion channels and molecules) and coarser (networks, brains, and people) scales.” (Hipólito et al, 2021)
The Markov blanket formalism provides a rigorous mathematical basis for defining system boundaries and interactions in terms of active inference, which cooperative interfaces conceptualize in explicitly ethical terms as enabling autonomous but cooperative relationships between systems at multiple scales.
Our obsession with drawing boundaries and creating categories has come from a history of mapping. From the brain “A prominent justification for drawing boundaries – from the last century – is the ‘modularity of mind’ paradigm (Fodor, 1983), which itself inherits from the phrenology of the preceding century (Gall and Lewis, 1835)” to the land and groups of people, we have tended toward making sense of the world through demarcations.In recent years however, we have discovered functional units in the brain, not grouped by spatial boundaries but by shared function. Moreover we find that there are networks of ‘effective connectivity’. Effective connectivity refers to ‘dynamic coupling between functional units, whose form recapitulates that of a Markov blanket at each level of analysis’. What might the world look like then if interfaces were mediating not spatial difference but functional, fluid and relational as evidenced by effective connectivity?
Defining Key Features of Cooperative Interfaces
1. Porosity: Cooperative interfaces are permeable and allow for the exchange of information, resources, and perspectives between diverse systems, including human and non-human actors, rather than acting as impermeable barriers.
2. Relationality: Cooperative interfaces are constituted by the multispecies relationships and interactions between systems, rather than being externally imposed or predetermined by human actors alone.
3. Co-construction: Cooperative interfaces are actively shaped and negotiated by the multispecies actors involved, through ongoing processes of dialogue, adaptation, and mutual influence, recognizing the agency and participation of non-human entities.
4. Transformative potential: Cooperative interfaces enable the transformation and evolution of the interacting systems, by creating spaces for the emergence of new practices, values, and forms of organization that are attentive to the needs and perspectives of both human and non-human stakeholders.
5. Plurality through preservation of autonomy and diversity: Cooperative interfaces maintain the autonomy and uniqueness of the interacting systems, while also enabling the creation of shared understandings and practices across human and non-human communities. In this way they are both self and other reinforcing.
6. Non-anthropocentric orientation: Cooperative interfaces challenge anthropocentric assumptions and prioritize the intrinsic value and interdependence of all life forms, recognizing the complex entanglements and ecological relationships between human and non-human systems.
7. Cooperation: The logic of the Cooperative interface is one that coordinates cooperation, reciprocity and plurality, rather than competition or territoriality.
8. Sympoetic > autopoetic: While communities, organisms and entities may display autopoetic characteristics, cooperative interfaces recognise that self reproducing systems do not exist in a vacuum but always in relation to each other and to their environment. Donna Haraway used the term sympoesis (‘making-with’) to describe the ways that multi-species groups “interpenetrate one another, loop around and through one another, eat each other, get indigestion, and partially digest and partially assimilate one another, and thereby establish sympoetic arrangements that are otherwise known as cells, organisms, and ecological assemblages.”
Cooperative interfaces describe dynamic, relational boundaries that facilitate the co-creation of shared ethical frameworks and practices between diverse human and non-human communities, organizations, and ecosystems, while also preserving the autonomy and diversity of the interacting parties. They offer a more flexible, adaptive, and inclusive alternative to fixed borders or rigid rules, enabling the ongoing negotiation and transformation of the relationships between different systems and modes of being, beyond anthropocentric biases and hierarchies. By emphasizing the porosity, relationality, and co-construction of boundaries across multispecies realms, cooperative interfaces foster a more ecologically attuned and responsible approach to the governance and stewardship of our shared planet.
These terms provide ways of thinking about how systems, such as nation-states or ecological communities, can maintain their coherence and viability in the face of external perturbations and challenges. Operational enclosure, as introduced by Maturana and Varela (1980), refers to the way in which an autopoietic system’s internal processes and interactions are self-contained and self-referential, creating a boundary that separates the system from its environment. This concept is relevant to the essay’s discussion of how systems create and maintain their own boundaries and identities through self-referential processes and interactions.
In the context of cooperative interfaces, these concepts can help us understand the way in which boundaries between systems (such as nation-states, communities, or ecosystems) are not just given or fixed, but actively constructed and maintained through ongoing processes of self-organization and interaction. The essay argues for reconceptualizing these boundaries as porous, relational interfaces rather than impermeable barriers, emphasizing the importance of studying the complex, dynamic interactions between systems and their environments.
Moreover, the concept of operational enclosure can shed light on the way in which cooperative interfaces are not just passive boundaries, but active sites of negotiation, transformation, and co-construction. By understanding how systems create and maintain their own identities and boundaries through self-referential processes, we can better appreciate the role of cooperative interfaces in mediating the relationships between different communities, values, and worldviews.
At the same time the emphasis on the porosity and interdependence of boundaries here, suggests the need to move beyond a rigid or closed conception of operational enclosure. By recognizing the fluid, negotiated, and co-constructed nature of boundaries and identities, we can develop a more dynamic and relational understanding of the ethical and political dimensions of interfaces. In summary, the concepts of autopoiesis, homeostasis, and operational enclosure provide a valuable theoretical framework for understanding the nature and dynamics of complex systems and their boundaries. When applied to the discussion of cooperative interfaces, they can help us appreciate the active, self-organizing, and relational character of boundaries, while also highlighting the need for a more porous and inclusive conception of the interfaces between different communities and worldviews.
These concepts highlight the dynamic and adaptive nature of boundaries in complex systems, challenging the notion of boundaries as fixed or static. As the example of the cell illustrates, boundaries in living systems are selectively permeable membranes that allow for the exchange of energy and information while still maintaining the system’s identity and coherence. Boundaries, in this sense, are not simply barriers but interfaces that mediate the relationship between the system and its environment.
The Politics of Borders: From Territorial Sovereignty to Multispecies Entanglements
The dynamic, relational understanding of boundaries developed in biology and systems theory has important implications for the politics of borders and sovereignty. Traditional conceptions of territorial sovereignty, as exemplified in the work of John Locke (1689), tend to treat borders as fixed, impermeable lines demarcating the exclusive authority of nation-states over their territory and population. This view underlies much of modern border politics, from the construction of border walls and fences to the policing of migration and mobility. However, as scholars such as Rafi Youatt (2020) have argued, this anthropocentric, territorial conception of borders is challenged by the realities of multispecies entanglements and ecological interdependence. Drawing on case studies of the US-Mexico border, Youatt shows how the mobility and territoriality of non-human species, from ocelots to cattle ticks, intersect with and complicate human border regimes. The borders that matter for these species often cut across or overflow the boundaries of nation-states, highlighting the limits of human sovereignty and the need for more ecologically attuned forms of politics. The philosophy of deep ecology, as developed by Arne Naess (1973) and others, provides a further challenge to anthropocentric conceptions of borders and sovereignty. By emphasizing the intrinsic value and interdependence of all life forms, deep ecology calls into question the notion of the nation-state as the primary unit of political organization and the exclusive bearer of rights and interests. From a deep ecological perspective, the territorial impulse driving much of modern border politics reflects a limited, human-centered worldview that fails to recognize the deeper, systemic interconnections between all forms of life.
Towards an Ethics of Interfaces: Relationality, Porosity, Transformation
Reconceptualizing boundaries as porous, relational interfaces rather than fixed, impermeable barriers opens up new possibilities for an ethics and politics of borders and margins. As the example of the US-Mexico border illustrates, recognizing the multispecies entanglements and ecological interdependencies that cross-cut territorial boundaries can help to reframe border politics in more ecologically sensitive and inclusive ways. This might involve prioritizing the maintenance of wildlife corridors, habitat connectivity, and biodiversity conservation alongside human mobility and security concerns. More broadly, an ethics of interfaces invites us to rethink the nature of political community and belonging beyond the nation-state model. As Hardt and Negri (2000) argue, the increasing porosity and interconnectedness of borders under globalization points towards the need for new forms of political subjectivity and solidarity that transcend territorial divisions. The “proliferation of margins” they describe, in which marginalized struggles and spaces give rise to relatively autonomous forms of resistance and alternative-building, suggests the possibility of a more pluralistic, decentered politics of borders and edges.
Central to this reimagining of borders and margins is a relational understanding of subjectivity and agency. Rather than conceiving of political subjects as pre-given, bounded individuals, an ethics of interfaces emphasizes the co-constitution and interdependence of subjects through their relations and interactions with others, both human and non-human. Boundaries, in this view, are not so much lines of separation as zones of encounter, negotiation, and transformation, where new forms of identity and solidarity can emerge.
The Utopian Impulse: Case Studies & examples
1. Conservation corridors and transboundary protected areas: These involve coordinated efforts across borders to preserve migratory routes and habitat connectivity for wildlife species. Examples include the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative spanning Canada and the U.S., and the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor across several Central American countries. In these examples rather than enforcing strict territorial separation, these initiatives aim to enable cooperation for shared conservation goals across political boundaries. Conservation corridors, indigenous shared territories, transboundary watersheds and integrated land-use systems all exemplify porosity by enabling flows, interactions and relationships across boundaries rather than strict enclosure. They are constituted by the ecological/cultural relationships between human/non-human systems rather than externally imposed separations.
2. Indigenous shared territories: Many Indigenous groups have traditional practices of shared stewardship and resource use across fluid territorial boundaries. The Inuit of the Arctic, for instance, have long held an understanding of the land as a commons traversed through customary travel routes and seasonal camps rather than enclosed properties. The Sápara nation in the Ecuadorian Amazon similarly embraces a model of “life territorialities” defined by complex socio-ecological relations across large shared landscapes.
3. Transboundary water governance: As water sources transcend political borders, examples like the Great Lakes Commission and Guarani Aquifer Agreement aim to facilitate cooperative governance frameworks for shared watersheds among multiple states/provinces. The logic focuses on integrated management rather than exclusionary claims over these critical eco-zones.
4. Shared socio-ecological production landscapes: Traditional agro-forestry, pastoralist, and other integrated land-use systems like the dehesa of Spain are premised on enabling complementary flows and interactions across ecological zones and community territories rather than rigid segregation. Boundaries are drawn to maximize symbiotic dynamics between humans, livestock, and nature.
5. Regions of cultural diffusion: Border territories like the Himalayan regions and the Silk Road routes historically enabled fluid interchange, syncretism and cooperation between cultures through permeable frontiers rather than enforcing exclusion. Trade, religious influences, and cultural hybridity flourished via these interfaces.
In many of these examples, the underlying logic is one of enabling sharing, reciprocity, diffusion and synergistic human-environment interactions across spaces - in contrast to exclusive claims to territoriality or segregation of human/nature realms. Borders are reimagined as symbiotic membranes facilitating cooperation with/in the larger ecological/cultural whole, rather than hardened perimeters of enclosure and competition. While challenging dominant nationalist/capitalist paradigms, such cases point to alternative interface rationalities foregrounding ethical cooperation.
Limitations & constraints: These examples still operate within constraints of state/capitalist structures rather than articulating full-fledged post-territorial political ecologies. The degree of ongoing dialogic co-construction and recognition of non-human agency can be limited, with human institutions still playing a central mediation role. With some exceptions, Western cultural assumptions about human/nature dichotomies may still exert influence, stopping short of the full ontological reframing towards relationality that cooperative interfaces envision. There can often still be an anthropocentric prioritization of human interests like conservation, production etc. rather than centering intrinsic ecological values. Ultimately, while providing fertile precedents that prefigure cooperative interface logics to an extent, the examples may not fully realize the pluralistic, radically de-centralized and ontologically “flat” vision of human/non-human systems interrelating through continually renegotiated cooperative interfaces.These examples nonetheless offer important pathways for further developing and embodying cooperative interface praxis by intentionally extending the principles of porosity, relationality, co-construction and non-anthropocentrism in more thorough-going ways. This could involve deeper embracing of multispecies perspectives, more autonomous self-organization across human/non-human realms, and deinstitutionalizing engrained anthropocentric hierarchies.
Policy/governance implications of operationalizing cooperative interfaces
In 2010 the Nagoya Protocol on ABS was adopted in Japan. The protocol, (full name:Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity) aimed at the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources, thereby contributing to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The Nagoya Protocol exemplifies several key principles underlying the concept of cooperative interfaces. The Protocol challenges purely anthropocentric approaches to genetic resources by recognizing the intrinsic rights and stewardship of indigenous/local communities over their traditional knowledge and biodiversity. It attempts to move beyond a colonial, extractive framing. Rather than treating genetic resources as commodities to be accessed unilaterally, the Protocol frames them as elements existing within relational socio-ecological contexts and knowledge systems. Access requires negotiating relationships and responsibilities. The requirement of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and negotiating Mutually Agreed Terms essentially aims to co-construct the conditions and protocols for access and benefit-sharing through an interface of dialogue and agreement between users and providers. While enabling regulated access, the Protocol affirms the autonomy and authority of states/communities to determine rules over their genetic resources based on their values and contexts, preserving diversity of knowledge systems. The Protocol facilitates regulated porosity and flows in terms of access to genetic resources across communities/borders, while stipulating ethical parameters to govern those cross-boundary interactions and exchanges.
In essence, the Nagoya Protocol instantiates cooperative interfaces by trying to establish a porous yet principled relational boundary for interactions around the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. It subjects such interactions to negotiated co-construction with indigenous/local communities as autonomous stakeholders rather than a unilateral extractive model. Challenges around implementation, power asymmetries, and limitations in adhering to deeper non-anthropocentric values have been critiqued however. Overall, the Protocol represents an attempt to constitution ethical multispecies interfaces that transcend purely economic, human-centric framings of biodiversity and genetic resources. It remains an imperfect but noteworthy example in practice.
Critical Considerations
While this essay attempts to offer a framework for reconceptualizing boundaries, it is not without challenges and limitations. The implementation of such interfaces must grapple with existing power dynamics, which may distort or exploit the intended porosity of these boundaries. There are also questions of scalability – how effectively can this model be applied across vastly different scales, from cellular to global systems? The resolution of conflicts within these more fluid structures presents another hurdle, particularly when different systems hold fundamentally incompatible values or goals.
Moreover, the shift towards more porous, co-constructed boundaries raises important questions about accountability and efficiency. In a world of cooperative interfaces, how might we assign responsibility when things go awry? Would the universal use of interfaces be more effective than traditional boundaries, or might there be situations where more rigid delineations are necessary or beneficial? The practical implementation of this framework also poses significant challenges, from navigating resistance to change to addressing potential unintended consequences, such as the inadvertent spread of diseases or invasive species.
There are deeper philosophical considerations as well. Despite an attempt at inclusivity, this framework likely still harbors inherent anthropocentric and other biases in its conception. Given this it is unclear how we might reconcile this approach with existing legal and regulatory frameworks, particularly in areas like property rights or national sovereignty. Finally, there are ethical implications to consider. In viewing all boundaries as negotiable and porous, we must be cautious not to enable the exploitation of vulnerable systems or entities. These considerations underscore the complexity of reimagining boundaries and interfaces, and highlight the need for careful, nuanced application of this framework across different contexts and scales.
Conclusion
As we find ourselves living in times of global interconnectedness and ecological crisis, this essay attempts to describe a reconceptualization of boundaries, edges, and margins. By drawing on diverse theoretical frameworks from biology, systems theory, and political philosophy, I have articulated the concept of cooperative interfaces as a more nuanced and generative alternative to traditional notions of fixed, impermeable borders.
The synthesis of autopoiesis, homeostasis, and active inference provides the inspiration for understanding the dynamic, self-organizing nature of living systems and their boundaries. These perspective, when extended to social and political realms, challenges anthropocentric assumptions about the nature of borders and sovereignty. The concept of cooperative interfaces emerges from this theoretical matrix as a way to describe boundaries that are porous, relational, and co-constructed, facilitating the exchange of information, resources, and perspectives across diverse systems while preserving their autonomy and integrity.
Rethinking boundaries, edges, and margins as porous, relational interfaces rather than fixed, impermeable barriers has far-reaching implications for the politics of borders and sovereignty in an interconnected world. Through this work, we have attempted to consider the boundary becoming a relation-making, transformative zone rather than a barrier, in order to forge a future less dominated by zero-sum logics. By challenging anthropocentric, territorial conceptions of political space and subjectivity, this view opens up new possibilities for more ecologically attuned, inclusive, and transformative forms of politics and ethics. While the challenges of navigating the complex, multispecies entanglements that constitute our world are significant, embracing the porosity and interdependence of boundaries offers a promising path forward for building more just, sustainable, and resilient forms of political community and coexistence.
The case studies explored in this essay, from indigenous shared territories to transboundary water governance, provide concrete examples of how cooperative interface principles can be operationalized. These examples, while imperfect, offer valuable lessons and inspiration for further developing and implementing this approach across various scales and contexts.
This is not an argument for cooperative interfaces carte blanche. I describe a number of considerations and concerns that highlight the need for careful navigation of existing power dynamics, the complexities of scaling cooperative interfaces from micro to macro levels, and the potential unintended consequences of increased porosity. These challenges underscore the importance of ongoing dialogue, experimentation, and adaptation as we seek to embody cooperative interface principles in practice.
Looking to the future, several promising directions for research and practice emerge. First, there is a need for more empirical studies on the effectiveness of cooperative interface approaches in various domains, from ecosystem management to conflict resolution. Second, further theoretical work is needed to refine and extend the concept, particularly in relation to emerging technologies and changing global power dynamics. Third, there is ample room for experimentation with new governance models and institutional designs that embody cooperative interface principles, perhaps building on examples like the Nagoya Protocol but pushing further towards true multispecies, non-anthropocentric frameworks.
In conclusion, the reconceptualization of boundaries as cooperative interfaces offers a powerful lens for understanding and transforming our world. By embracing the porosity, relationality, and transformative potential of boundaries, we open up new possibilities for creating more just, sustainable, and resilient forms of coexistence in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.
References:
Bernard, C. (1865). Introduction à l’étude de la médecine expérimentale. Paris: Baillière.
Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127-138.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Harvard University Press.
Hipólito, I., Ramstead, M. J. D., Convertino, L., Bhat, A., Friston, K., & Parr, T. (2021). Markov blankets in the brain. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 125, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.003Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government. London: Awnsham Churchill.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry, 16(1-4), 95-100.
Youatt, R. (2020). Interspecies Politics: Nature, Borders, States. University of Michigan Press.
“A revolutionary movement does not spread by contamination / But by resonance / Something that constitutes itself here / Resonates with the shock wave given off by something that constituted itself elsewhere / The body that resonates does so in its own way / An insurrection is not like the propagation of the plaque or a forest fire a linear process spreading little by little from a spark / But rather this / It becomes embodied in a MUSICAL way / and whose focal points / Dispersed in / time and space manage / To impose the rhythm of their VIBRATION / To get ever more dense / to the point where one can no longer desire to turn back” - Jean-Marie Gleize
NOTES
A note on who & what constitutes the margins
“A system is what is distinguished as a system” - Gaines
Edges and limits serve as the boundaries that define spaces, both physically and conceptually. Some boundaries are fortified by external forces, validated by societal norms or legal frameworks or by host organisms. In these instances, the characteristic exterior edges act as shields, safeguarding against encroachment, providing appropriate cues that signalling protection from the exterior is warranted, whilst also at times upholding interior responsibilities. An example of this is the family unit, which is recognised by the state in a myriad of ways. This unit recognition confers as legitimacy that both offers protections (tax benefits, legal protections such as spousal testimonial privilege, exemption from certain housing laws and so on), whilst at the same time requires specific configurations and responsibilities to be present (one must be legally married for many of these to be upheld, one there are financial and legal responsibilities conferred as parents and so on). Failure to uphold these interior responsibilities of the family, may result in the exterior, in this case the state, to intervene and enter the edges of the family unit. Legal entities and corporate structures in general often fall into this category, whereby they are recognised by the exterior, and this recognition confers both protections and responsibilities to the interior.
Conversely, a distinct way of thinking about edges, are limits that must be self defended for survival or through some other form of intentional choice. There are entities that exist only by internal maintenance of boundaries, which are self-imposed and internally guarded, shaping individual identities or ideologies.
For example, the planetary boundaries framework is an assessment of the planetary guard rails and tolerable windows for viable planetary function, whereby to step outside of these would render humanity outside of a “‘safe operating space’ for humanity (J Rockström et al, ‘A Safe Operating Space for Humanity’ (2009) 461 Nature 472). In this framework, there is no exterior power conferring legitimacy, nor protections. Thus, the responsibility is constituted from the interior alone.
Yet another example of an operation that we can see at the mergains is one whereby the interior and exterior converge, forming interfaces where relationships are forged. These intersections of edges and margins become fertile grounds for interaction, negotiation, and transformation, blurring the lines between what is within and what lies beyond. In this dynamic interplay, the notion of boundaries evolves, highlighting the interconnectedness of the self with its surroundings.
An example of this comes from biology, in the form of the cell. The (eukaryotic?) cell exemplifies the intricacies of edges and limits within a living system. Its membrane acts as a boundary, shielding the internal components from the external environment while selectively allowing substances to pass through. This external edge is crucial for the cell’s survival, as it regulates the exchange of nutrients and waste products. Internally, the cell maintains its own set of boundaries, such as organelle membranes, which protect and segregate various cellular processes. These internal edges are self-defended, ensuring the integrity and functionality of the cell’s interior. However, at interfaces like the cell membrane, the interior and exterior interact dynamically. Signalling molecules traverse this boundary, orchestrating responses to environmental cues. Here, the edges blur, and the cell’s relationship with its surroundings becomes evident. Thus, the cell embodies the complex interplay between self-preservation and interaction with the external world, showcasing the nuanced nature of edges and margins in biological systems.
Edges, limits that are protected and legitimised from and by the external environment. There are edges and margins that are constituted from the inside and self defended. And there are edges, interfaces and margins where the interior and exterior are in relationship.
Autopoiesis
An autopoietic system is able to reproduce itself by observing itself (self-referential) and the only elements that it produces itself are its own components (self-producing/ constructing). There are three general types of processes in an autopoietic system: (1) Degradation, (2) Production and (3) Bonding: Production is a process of creating new components. Bonding is a process of introduc- ing new components into the system structure. Degradation is a natural process of components ageing and falling out of the system structure, which requires production of new components to be bound into the structure (Zeleny). Structural coupling cannot be considered to be adaptation but rather bilateral coevolution. It is possible to see it as a bridging between the system and the environment (Lee 2000, 325).
These basic concepts were abstracted by Niklas Luhmann who distinguished between three types of autopoietic systems (Luhmann 1995):
1. living/biological systems (system reproduction based on life)
2. psychic/mental systems /systems of consciousness (system reproduction based on thought or experience) &
3. social systems (system reproduction based on communication)
Luhmann’s theory of social systems anticipates three basic interpretive components – communications, evolution and differentiation.
6 point test of autopoiesis
Key Point #1: Determine, through interactions, if the unity has identifiable boundaries. If the boundaries can be determined, proceed to 2. If not, the entity is indescribable and we can say nothing.
Key Point #2: Determine if there are constitutive elements of the unity, that is, components of the unity. If these components can be described, proceed to 3. If not, the unity is an unanalyzable whole and there- fore not an autopoietic system.
Key Point #3: Determine if the unity is a mechanistic system, that is, the com- ponent properties are capable of satisfying certain relations that determine in the unity the interactions and transformations of these components. If this is the case proceed to 4. If not, the unity is not an autopoietic system.
Key Point #4: Determine if the components that constitute the boundaries of the unity constitute these boundaries through preferential neighbourhood relations and interactions between themselves, as deter- mined by their properties in the space of their interactions. If this is not the case, you do not have an autopoietic unity because you are determining its boundaries, not the unity itself. If4 is the case, however, proceed to 5.
Key Point #5: Determine if the components of the boundaries of the unity are produced by the interactions of the components of the unity, either by transformation of previously produced components, or by transformations and/or coupling of non-component elements that enter the unity through its boundaries. If not, you do not have an autopoietic unity; if yes, proceed to 6.
Key Point #6: If all the other components of the unity are also produced by the interactions of its components as in 5, and if those which are not produced by the interactions of other components participate as necessary permanent constitutive components in the production of other components, you have an autopoietic unity in the space in which its components exist. If this is not the case and there are components in the unity not produced by components of the unity as in 5, or if there are components of the unity which do not participate in the production of other components, you do not have
an autopoietic unity.
Homeostasis
A system maintaining an approximate identity despite it being made of unstable material and subject to an ever changing environment close system for autopoiesis vs. open system for homeostasis,
The Intersection of Autopoiesis & Homeostasis
How the autopoietic activities help with homeostasis, i.e. adapting the system to the changes inside and outside the system while maintaining its identity.
Active Inference - edges & boundaries
In the case that a system has an edge, or a “particular partition” (i.e., into particles, with their Markov blankets), the free energy principle says that if a system has a then subsets of that system will track the statistical structure of other subsets (which are known as internal and external states or paths of a system). This is important as it pertains to what is likely to happen, in terms of paths of least resistance about how a system might interact with its environment. Paths of least resistance need not determine behaviour, and the difference between these is of import in this essay.
A Markov blanket defines the boundaries of a system in a statistical sense.
Resonance, echo & stigmergy
On discreteness
What if space and the margins that define space are not the only unit of interest? What if there is a relationship between units that serves an important function that is not describable by looking at the activity and edges of the units alone?
What of the role of resonance in fractal scaling projects?
On time
Assembly theory: Rather, the theory proposes that the existence of objects we observe and interact with—from a peptide to a shark’s tooth to the entire planetary whole—can be explained by their formation histories. How some objects have assembled, through billions of years of selection and evolution, are complex enough to be considered alive—and even human.
Whereby boundaries become cooperative interfaces in the form of relationships.
Rules & boundaries: rules determine what others are allowed to do, whereas boundaries tell you what is important to me. Rules tend to be enforced and are automatic, hard to change, and their origin is usually ‘somewhere else’, whereas boundaries are internally generated, fluid/evolving, subject to mistakes and errors. Similarly, hard, binarized edges determine an inside and an outside. What if, we related to boundary technologies as cooperative interfaces in the form of relationships.
“Labour is, first of all, a process between man and nature, a process by which man, through his own actions, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature. He confronts the materials of nature as a force of nature… he acts upon external nature and changes it, and in this way he simultaneously changes his own nature… At the end of every labour process, a result emerges which had already been conceived by the worker at the beginning, hence already existed ideally. (Marx, 1976: 283)”
Here, Marx touches on the notion that what happens between man and nature is action, in the form of labour.
The work of Rafi Youatt analyses the US-Mexico border through the lens of interspecies politics, arguing that the border is best understood as a set of multispecies mobility regimes involving the circulation of signs like endangerment, invasiveness, and connectivity [“Interspecies Politics: Nature, Borders, States”, Rafi Youatt]. Through two case studies investigating the interactions between nilgai antelope, cattle ticks, cattle fever, and human “tick riders” along the border, and ocelot conservation efforts focused on maintaining habitat corridors to enable connectivity of the endangered ocelot population, alongside human migration and borders, Youatt reveals the ways in which sovereignty and politics must be rethought in a less anthropocentric way, with security practices and borders understood as fundamentally interspecies. Crucially, their analysis suggests that the mobility regimes that regulate human and animal life are key to generating the sovereign state itself. The philosophical perspective of Deep Ecology, as articulated by Arne Naess and others, presents a profound challenge to the anthropocentric assumptions that underpin traditional border politics. By emphasizing the intrinsic value and interdependence of all life forms, Deep Ecology calls into question the very notion of dividing the natural world into discrete, politically bounded spaces subject to human control (Naess, 1973). The territorial impulse driving much of contemporary border politics, from this perspective, can be seen as a product of a human-centered worldview that fails to recognize the deeper, systemic interconnections between all forms of life.
The ecological arbitrariness of most political borders, which often cut across ecosystems, migration routes, and the habitats of various species, is thrown into stark relief when viewed through the lens of Deep Ecology. This perspective invites us to consider the ways in which the imposition of human borders can disrupt the delicate balance of ecological systems and relationships that transcend political boundaries.In contrast, the notion of “cooperative interfaces that center relationality,” as described here resonates strongly with Deep Ecology’s emphasis on interdependence and the need for humans to situate themselves within, rather than apart from or above, the rest of the natural world. In a world organized around such principles, border politics might be less about asserting hard lines of division and control, and more about negotiating and nurturing the complex web of ecological relationships that bind together human and non-human communities across space.
Reconceiving borders as zones of interface, exchange, and co-existence, rather than barriers or sites of exclusion, would require a fundamental shift in the way we think about political boundaries and sovereignty. Policy-making around borders, in this context, would need to prioritize ecological integrity, the maintenance of biodiversity, and the rights and needs of non-human species alongside human concerns.
However, it is important to recognize the tension between Deep Ecology’s holistic, borderless vision of the world and the practical realities of human politics and governance. While the notion of “cooperative interfaces” might help to navigate this tension, it does not fully resolve the fundamental challenge that Deep Ecology poses to the anthropocentric assumptions of the modern nation-state system. Ultimately, bringing Deep Ecology into dialogue with border politics highlights both the transformative potential and the challenges of fully embracing an ecocentric, relational paradigm in a world still largely organized around human-centered institutions and worldviews. It invites us to imagine alternative ways of conceptualizing and inhabiting borders that better reflect the ecological realities of our interconnected planet, while also grappling with the complex political, economic, and social implications of such a shift.
Image:
A demonstration of the desire for relationships at the margins is the prize-winning Teeter-Totter Wall, installed in 2019 when when workers slid steel beams through the slats of the border near El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez [source].
Case studies across scale
The cell, the self, the community, the nation & beyond
Self - active inference, markov blankets, the self as articulated by other social beings.
A Markov blanket defines the boundaries of a system in a statistical sense
“It is a statistical partitioning of a system intointernal states and external states, where the blanket itself consists of thestates that separate the two. The states that constitute the Markov blanket canbe further partitioned into active and sensory states. Here, states stand in forany variable that locates the system at a particular point in state space; forexample, the position and momentum of all the particles constituting a thermo-dynamic system—right through to every detail of neuronal activity that mightdescribe the state of the brain.”
Intercommunicalism as an example of interfaces being relational (linkages between ‘liberated zones’.
“The logic of the thesis of intercommunalism is: imperialism leads to ‘reactionary intercommunalism’ to ‘revolutionary intercommunalism’ to pure communism and anarchy. Each of the concepts is in need of definition and redefinition.”
Our thoughts on ‘joining is a side effect of doing’ as an example of a praxis based edge or interface. Enspiral had a version of this.
Conclusions & Speculative Futures
In conclusion, this exploration of boundaries, edges, and margins reveals the profound interconnectedness and complexity of systems at various scales, from the biological to the social and political. It highlights the nuanced ways in which boundaries are constructed, maintained, and challenged, shaping the dynamics of autonomy, identity, and interaction within and between systems.
The concepts of autopoiesis and homeostasis underscore the inherent drive for self-preservation and adaptation that undergirds the existence of living and social systems. Yet, as exemplified by the cell and the notion of resonance, these systems are not closed off but engage in constant exchange and co-evolution with their environments through porous and dynamic interfaces.
The examination of margins and marginalised spaces points to the potential for subversive and transformative forces to emerge from these liminal zones, challenging dominant structures and narratives. The “proliferation of margins” suggests that autonomous subjectivities can arise not only from communities of fate but also from communities of choice, as individuals and groups strive to construct alternative modes of existence beyond the confines of existing systems.
Ultimately, this exploration invites us to rethink our understanding of boundaries as fixed and impermeable barriers, and instead consider them as cooperative interfaces – sites of negotiation, transformation, and the forging of new relationships. By embracing the fluidity and relational nature of boundaries, we open up possibilities for more equitable, sustainable, and collaborative systems that acknowledge the inherent interdependence of all entities, human and non-human alike.
The concepts presented here offer a rich tapestry of ideas and frameworks for navigating the complexities of our interconnected world, prompting us to consider how we can cultivate resilient, adaptable, and self-sustaining systems that respect and nurture the dynamic interplay between autonomy and interdependence at all scales of existence.
References
Kim, R.E. and Kotzé, L.J. (2021), Planetary boundaries at the intersection of Earth system law, science and governance: A state-of-the-art review. RECIEL, 30: 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12383
The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision
Kirchhoff M, Parr T, Palacios E, Friston K, Kiverstein J. 2018 The Markovblankets of life: autonomy, active inference andthe free energy principle. J. R. Soc. Interface 15: 20170792
Interspecies Politics: Nature, Borders, States, Rafi Youatt
Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry, 16(1-4), 95-100.
1. Both deal with the boundaries and interactions between systems. Markov blankets define the statistical boundaries that separate and mediate interactions between systems, while cooperative interfaces conceptualize the relational boundaries between systems in terms of porosity, co-construction, and preservation of autonomy.
2. Both enable a reconceptualization of boundaries as loci of communication and coordination rather than rigid separations. Markov blankets induce conditional independence between systems while still allowing influences to pass via sensory and active states. Similarly, cooperative interfaces are porous boundaries that enable cooperative interactions between diverse systems.
3. Both imply a nested, multi-level structure. The essay describes how Markov blankets can be composed of Markov blankets, forming a hierarchical organization from the micro to macro scales. Likewise, cooperative interfaces coordinate between systems at multiple nested levels, from cells to organisms to ecosystems.
4. Both point to an active inferential process underlying system interactions. With Markov blankets, internal system states actively infer external states via sensory and active states to maintain system integrity. cooperative interfaces also involve active co-construction of relational boundaries between systems through ongoing negotiations.
5. Both suggest an intrinsic ethics in how systems co-constitute their boundaries. The active inference induced by Markov blankets can be seen as a kind of “self-evidencing” by systems to preserve their autonomous organization. cooperative interfaces make this ethical dimension explicit - they are interfaces constructed to preserve the intrinsic diversity and autonomy of interacting systems.
Notes on autopoesis and homeostasis
Locke’s ideas centered on understanding humans nature as animal with the notion that understanding the individual would lead to an equilibrium of human society similar to that of social equilibrium of molecules.
‘“When Locke applied his theory of human nature to social phenomena, he was guided by the belief that there were laws of nature governing human society similar to those governing the physical universe. As the atoms in a gas would establish a balanced state, so human individuals would settle down in society in a “state of nature.” Thus the function of government was not to impose its own laws on the people, but rather to discover and enforce the natural laws that existed before any government was formed. According to Locke, these natural laws included the freedom and equality of all individuals as well as the right to property, which represented the fruits of one’s labor”
Excerpt From - The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/reel.12383
However as Lovelock has demonstrated life systems on earth are far from a gentle equilibrium. Instead they are an active set of forces that actively create the conditions for life.
“Locke’s ideas became the basis for the value system of the Enlightenment and had a strong influence on the development of modern economic and political thought. The ideals of individualism, property rights, free markets, and representative government, all of which can be traced back to Locke, contributed significantly to the thinking of Thomas Jefferson and are reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution.”
Commoning boundaries
Planetary boundaries
According to Hardy & Negri, the new geo-economic and geo-political formation of empire now resembles a system of power that has ‘no outside’ (Hardt and Negri, 2000).
Dependency theorists state that there are clear boundaries of core/ periphery, which is now being undone: Historically, the suburbs have been wealthy areas, but formerly urban areas are seeing a shift of poverty to suburban neighborhoods—a process calls “the great inversion.
Proliferation at the centre
For my years we have relied on the theory that change will come from communities of fate. We have relied on social innovations emerging from those most marginalised under current modes of struggle. From care work to restorative justice to indigenous ways of managing relationship to land. Whilst it may be true that the ultimate power is held by those who are seeking their labour to make the world run, we run the risk of allowing those who live at the centres off the hook. What of the elite? What is the role of the revolutionary capitalist? For there are many who have come to hold the position of capitalist but who also strive for a system beyond the one in which they sit. What is the theory of change for this group.
A friend told me at the beginning of the bitcoin bubble that many of their Marxist friends had bought bitcoin bc they believed in the early mission. One of cybernetic structural change. And these individuals found themselves wealth in ways they never intended.
There are numerous people in this position. Who have an understanding and critique of the system. This essay argues that the changing conditions in formerly “core” nations are increasingly becoming a situation in which dominance persists without hegemony (cited by subaltern theorists).
Parts of the US are starting to resemble a third world state: vast and rising inequality, decaying infrastructure, high levels of political and administrative corruption, and the decline of state and municipal services and investment.
An new pattern of global income inequality caused by declining inequality across nations accompanied by rising inequality within nations.
Bifocal economy, correlated with spatial and political bifurcations.
The response to this
“proliferation of margins”—when marginalized struggles and spaces lead to relatively autonomous subjectivities and struggles against capitalism: “Unlocatable on the dominant coordinates, they produce their own axes of reference, establish underground, transversal connections among themselves, and thus undermine older relationships of production, society, the family, [etc.].”
Perhaps there is political agency in the people and places that reside on the periphery of global capitalism such as the slums and poverty stricken areas
The proliferation at the center, when communities of choice, not fate build autonomous subjectivities though their own struggles to build beyond capitalism.
references
https://autonomies.org/2023/02/italy-autonomia-14-felix-guattari/
Autonomia – Post-Political Politics, semiotext(e), 1980)
Information Measures of Complexity, Emergence, Self-organization, Homeostasis, and Autopoiesis
https://click.endnote.com/viewer?doi=arxiv:1304.1842&route=6
Annotated Copy
.. what happens at the margins
Published on May 09, 2025
Cooperative Interfaces: Rethinking the Politics of Borders & Margins
In an increasingly interconnected world, the nature and significance of boundaries have become a central concern across multiple domains, from biology and ecology to sociology and politics. This essay explores the concept of boundaries, edges, and margins, drawing on a range of theoretical frameworks and case studies to argue for a reconceptualization of boundaries as porous, relational interfaces rather than fixed, impermeable barriers. By rethinking the politics of borders and interfaces in this way, we open up new possibilities for understanding and transforming the complex systems and power relations that shape our world.
.. what happens at the margins
“Will these micro-revolutions, these profound examinations of the relationships within society only remain divided into limited spheres of the social arena? Or will a new “social segmentation” manage to connect them without imposing hierarchy and segregation? In short, will all these micro-revolutions finally initiate a real revolution? Will they be able to take charge of not only local problems, but also administrative larger economic configurations?”
Theoretical Foundation
Here we describe the characteristics of what we refer to as cooperative interfaces. These constitute a porous, relational boundary between diverse systems, including human and non-human communities, organizations, and ecosystems, that acts as a site of negotiation, transformation, and co-construction. Unlike fixed borders or rigid rules, cooperative interfaces are dynamic, fluid, and actively shaped by the ongoing interactions and self-organizing processes of the multispecies actors involved. Cooperative interfaces attempt to mediate the relationships between different values, worldviews, and modes of being, enabling the creation of shared meanings and practices while also preserving the autonomy and diversity of the interacting parties, across both human and non-human realms.
Modern day human society is widely premised on competition, zero sum logics and territoriality. If we are to envision or strive toward something more generative and cooperative, we need to consider how the edges of our worlds interact. Here we attempt to articulate the values of something that might counter the challenges posed by the competitive, zero-sum, and territorial logics that dominate modern human society. By reconceptualizing the boundaries and edges of our social, economic, and political systems as porous, relational, and collaborative spaces, we can begin to envision and create a more generative and cooperative world.
Cooperative interfaces challenge the notion of fixed, impermeable boundaries that separate individuals, groups, and systems from each other. Instead, they emphasize the interdependence and entanglement of different actors and the need for more flexible and participatory mechanisms for negotiating the spaces between them. This approach has the potential to transform the way we understand and manage the edges of our worlds, from the level of interpersonal relationships to the level of global governance. At the interpersonal level, cooperative interfaces can help foster a more empathetic and compassionate approach to human interaction. By recognizing the porous and relational nature of personal boundaries, we can move beyond the competitive and territorial mindset that often characterizes social relations and instead cultivate a sense of shared humanity and mutual understanding. This can involve practices such as active listening, perspective-taking, and nonviolent communication, which create space for dialogue, negotiation, and collaboration across differences. At the level of communities and organizations, cooperative interfaces can enable more participatory and inclusive forms of decision-making and resource management. By creating porous boundaries that allow for the exchange of ideas, resources, and perspectives between different groups, we can foster a sense of shared ownership and responsibility for the commons. This can involve practices such as participatory budgeting, community land trusts, and worker cooperatives, which distribute power and benefits more equitably among stakeholders.At the level of nation-states and global governance, cooperative interfaces can help transcend the territorial and zero-sum logics that often drive international relations. By recognizing the interdependence and shared vulnerabilities of different countries and regions, we can create more collaborative and resilient approaches to global challenges such as climate change, migration, and public health. This can involve practices such as transboundary resource management, regional integration, and multistakeholder diplomacy, which prioritize cooperation and mutual benefit over competition and unilateral action.
Designing cooperative interfaces across these different scales requires a fundamental shift in our thinking about boundaries, power, and identity. It involves moving beyond the binary categories of "us" versus "them," "inside" versus "outside," and "win" versus "lose," and instead embracing a more fluid, relational, and contextual understanding of the spaces between individuals, groups, and systems. By creating more porous and participatory mechanisms for negotiating these spaces, we can begin to unlock the potential for a more generative and cooperative society.
Such a transformation is not simple, as it challenges deeply entrenched patterns of thought and behavior and requires deep shifts in cultural hegemony. However, by experimenting with new forms of social, economic, and political organization that embody the principles of cooperative interfaces, we can begin to create a world that is more equitable, sustainable, pluralistic and resilient. This will require ongoing dialogue, experimentation, and adaptation, as we learn to navigate the complex and dynamic edges of our interconnected world. Ultimately, designing cooperative interfaces is about recognizing the fundamental interdependence and shared destiny of all human and non-human systems on our planet. By creating more porous, relational, and collaborative spaces for negotiating the boundaries between these systems, we can begin to unlock the potential for a more generative and cooperative society that benefits all.
The Nature of Boundaries: Autopoiesis, Homeostasis, and Active Inference
To understand the nature of boundaries, we can draw on related concepts from biology and systems theory, such as autopoiesis, homeostasis, sympoesis, operational enclosure and active inference as a useful framework for understanding the nature and dynamics of complex systems, including the notion of what we are going to term ‘cooperative interfaces’. Markov blankets, active inference, autopoiesis, and homeostasis are all closely related concepts that describe different aspects of how self-organizing systems maintain their integrity and adaptively interact with their environment.
Autopoiesis, as developed by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela (1980), refers to the self-producing and self-maintaining properties of living systems, which create and sustain their own boundaries in interaction with their environment. Autopoietic systems are operationally closed, meaning that their internal processes are self-referential and self-sustaining, but they are also thermodynamically open, exchanging energy and matter with their surroundings.
Homeostasis, in turn, describes the ability of systems to maintain a relatively stable state despite perturbations and changes in their surroundings (Bernard, 1865). Homeostatic mechanisms are crucial for enabling autopoietic systems to adapt to changing conditions while still preserving their core identity, as well as structural and functional integrity over time.
Markov blankets provide a formal mathematical description of the boundaries that separate and mediate interactions between systems. In the context of autopoiesis, Markov blankets can be seen as the statistical boundaries that emerge from the self-sustaining dynamics of an autopoietic system, separating its internal states from external states while allowing for selective exchange via sensory and active states.
Active inference, suggests that systems with boundaries engage in ongoing processes of sensing and acting to maintain their integrity and viability. As articulated by Karl Friston (2010), active inference describes the process by which systems minimize the surprise (i.e., variational free energy) associated with their sensory inputs by actively modulating their sensory and active states (i.e., their Markov blanket) and updating their internal models. In the context of autopoiesis and homeostasis, active inference can be seen as the mechanism by which an autopoietic system maintains its integrity and stability in the face of environmental perturbations, by actively seeking out sensory inputs that conform to its expectations and updating its internal models to better predict those inputs.
Together, autopoiesis and homeostasis describe the self-sustaining and self-regulating properties of living systems, while Markov blankets provide a formal description of the statistical boundaries that emerge from these dynamics. Active inference, in turn, describes the process by which autopoietic systems actively maintain their homeostasis and structural integrity by minimizing surprise and updating their internal models. Together, these concepts provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the self-organization and adaptive behavior of living systems in interaction with their environment.
Active inference and cooperative interfaces are complementary concepts that shed light on how autonomous systems interact with their environment to maintain their integrity and establish cooperative relationships. Active inference, as a corollary of the free energy principle, describes how systems minimize surprise by actively modulating their sensory and active states to sample inputs that conform to their expectations and updating their internal models to better predict those inputs. This process enables systems to maintain their autonomy, adapt to environmental perturbations, and seek out mutually beneficial interactions across multiple scales. Similarly, cooperative interfaces characterize system boundaries as porous and relational, allowing for the adaptive co-construction of cooperative interactions while preserving the autonomy of interacting systems. Together, active inference and cooperative interfaces point to an intrinsic ethics of self-organization, where systems actively negotiate their boundaries and couplings to maintain their integrity and establish mutually beneficial relationships.
The concepts of Markov blankets and cooperative interfaces are complementary approaches for understanding the boundaries and interactions between living systems. Both deal with how systems at multiple nested levels, from cells to organisms to ecosystems, co-construct and negotiate their boundaries to maintain autonomy while enabling cooperative interactions. Markov blankets provide a mathematical formalism for defining system boundaries and interactions in terms of active inference, where internal system states actively infer external states via sensory and active states to maintain system integrity. Kirchoff (2018) describes “how a collective of Markov blankets can self-assemble into a global system that itself has a Markov blanket; thereby providing an illustration of how autonomous systems can be understood as having layers of nested and self-sustaining boundaries”. They conclude that (i) any living system is a Markov blanketed system and (ii) the boundaries of such systems need not be co-extensive with the biophysical boundaries of a living organism. cooperative interfaces build on this by conceptualizing system boundaries in explicitly ethical terms as porous, relational interfaces that preserve the diversity and autonomy of interacting systems while allowing for communication and coordination. Thus, both point to the fundamental relational ontology of life, where system boundaries are not rigid separations but rather loci of active inference and ethical co-construction. This suggests an intrinsic ethics in how systems co-constitute their boundaries - the active inference induced by Markov blankets can be seen as a kind of “self-evidencing” by systems to maintain their autonomous organization, which cooperative interfaces make explicit by characterizing system interactions as an ongoing negotiation to preserve the intrinsic integrity of all interacting parties. Together, Markov blankets and cooperative interfaces provide a potentially useful framework for understanding the nested, multi-level, and inherently ethical nature of the boundaries and interactions between living systems.
“This approach [..leveraging the Markov blanket construct (Pearl, 1998)] endorses the segregation of the brain into regions but also emphasises the absence of a privileged scale of description at which ‘modules’ might be defined. By selecting a Markov blanket, we implicitly identify the variables that define the simplest element of our system at a given scale. It follows that, depending on the scale of interest, the variables comprising the Markov blanket will be different. For a single neuron, the blanket includes the presynaptic and postsynaptic membrane potentials that mediate its interactions with other neurons. For cortical columns, the blanket will include neural populations mediating interactions between different columns. In principle, the identification of functional boundaries can proceed at finer (ion channels and molecules) and coarser (networks, brains, and people) scales.” (Hipólito et al, 2021)
The Markov blanket formalism provides a rigorous mathematical basis for defining system boundaries and interactions in terms of active inference, which cooperative interfaces conceptualize in explicitly ethical terms as enabling autonomous but cooperative relationships between systems at multiple scales.
Our obsession with drawing boundaries and creating categories has come from a history of mapping. From the brain “A prominent justification for drawing boundaries – from the last century – is the ‘modularity of mind’ paradigm (Fodor, 1983), which itself inherits from the phrenology of the preceding century (Gall and Lewis, 1835)” to the land and groups of people, we have tended toward making sense of the world through demarcations.In recent years however, we have discovered functional units in the brain, not grouped by spatial boundaries but by shared function. Moreover we find that there are networks of ‘effective connectivity’. Effective connectivity refers to ‘dynamic coupling between functional units, whose form recapitulates that of a Markov blanket at each level of analysis’. What might the world look like then if interfaces were mediating not spatial difference but functional, fluid and relational as evidenced by effective connectivity?
Defining Key Features of Cooperative Interfaces
1. Porosity: Cooperative interfaces are permeable and allow for the exchange of information, resources, and perspectives between diverse systems, including human and non-human actors, rather than acting as impermeable barriers.
2. Relationality: Cooperative interfaces are constituted by the multispecies relationships and interactions between systems, rather than being externally imposed or predetermined by human actors alone.
3. Co-construction: Cooperative interfaces are actively shaped and negotiated by the multispecies actors involved, through ongoing processes of dialogue, adaptation, and mutual influence, recognizing the agency and participation of non-human entities.
4. Transformative potential: Cooperative interfaces enable the transformation and evolution of the interacting systems, by creating spaces for the emergence of new practices, values, and forms of organization that are attentive to the needs and perspectives of both human and non-human stakeholders.
5. Plurality through preservation of autonomy and diversity: Cooperative interfaces maintain the autonomy and uniqueness of the interacting systems, while also enabling the creation of shared understandings and practices across human and non-human communities. In this way they are both self and other reinforcing.
6. Non-anthropocentric orientation: Cooperative interfaces challenge anthropocentric assumptions and prioritize the intrinsic value and interdependence of all life forms, recognizing the complex entanglements and ecological relationships between human and non-human systems.
7. Cooperation: The logic of the Cooperative interface is one that coordinates cooperation, reciprocity and plurality, rather than competition or territoriality.
8. Sympoetic > autopoetic: While communities, organisms and entities may display autopoetic characteristics, cooperative interfaces recognise that self reproducing systems do not exist in a vacuum but always in relation to each other and to their environment. Donna Haraway used the term sympoesis (‘making-with’) to describe the ways that multi-species groups “interpenetrate one another, loop around and through one another, eat each other, get indigestion, and partially digest and partially assimilate one another, and thereby establish sympoetic arrangements that are otherwise known as cells, organisms, and ecological assemblages.”
Cooperative interfaces describe dynamic, relational boundaries that facilitate the co-creation of shared ethical frameworks and practices between diverse human and non-human communities, organizations, and ecosystems, while also preserving the autonomy and diversity of the interacting parties. They offer a more flexible, adaptive, and inclusive alternative to fixed borders or rigid rules, enabling the ongoing negotiation and transformation of the relationships between different systems and modes of being, beyond anthropocentric biases and hierarchies. By emphasizing the porosity, relationality, and co-construction of boundaries across multispecies realms, cooperative interfaces foster a more ecologically attuned and responsible approach to the governance and stewardship of our shared planet.
These terms provide ways of thinking about how systems, such as nation-states or ecological communities, can maintain their coherence and viability in the face of external perturbations and challenges. Operational enclosure, as introduced by Maturana and Varela (1980), refers to the way in which an autopoietic system’s internal processes and interactions are self-contained and self-referential, creating a boundary that separates the system from its environment. This concept is relevant to the essay’s discussion of how systems create and maintain their own boundaries and identities through self-referential processes and interactions.
In the context of cooperative interfaces, these concepts can help us understand the way in which boundaries between systems (such as nation-states, communities, or ecosystems) are not just given or fixed, but actively constructed and maintained through ongoing processes of self-organization and interaction. The essay argues for reconceptualizing these boundaries as porous, relational interfaces rather than impermeable barriers, emphasizing the importance of studying the complex, dynamic interactions between systems and their environments.
Moreover, the concept of operational enclosure can shed light on the way in which cooperative interfaces are not just passive boundaries, but active sites of negotiation, transformation, and co-construction. By understanding how systems create and maintain their own identities and boundaries through self-referential processes, we can better appreciate the role of cooperative interfaces in mediating the relationships between different communities, values, and worldviews.
At the same time the emphasis on the porosity and interdependence of boundaries here, suggests the need to move beyond a rigid or closed conception of operational enclosure. By recognizing the fluid, negotiated, and co-constructed nature of boundaries and identities, we can develop a more dynamic and relational understanding of the ethical and political dimensions of interfaces. In summary, the concepts of autopoiesis, homeostasis, and operational enclosure provide a valuable theoretical framework for understanding the nature and dynamics of complex systems and their boundaries. When applied to the discussion of cooperative interfaces, they can help us appreciate the active, self-organizing, and relational character of boundaries, while also highlighting the need for a more porous and inclusive conception of the interfaces between different communities and worldviews.
These concepts highlight the dynamic and adaptive nature of boundaries in complex systems, challenging the notion of boundaries as fixed or static. As the example of the cell illustrates, boundaries in living systems are selectively permeable membranes that allow for the exchange of energy and information while still maintaining the system’s identity and coherence. Boundaries, in this sense, are not simply barriers but interfaces that mediate the relationship between the system and its environment.
The Politics of Borders: From Territorial Sovereignty to Multispecies Entanglements
The dynamic, relational understanding of boundaries developed in biology and systems theory has important implications for the politics of borders and sovereignty. Traditional conceptions of territorial sovereignty, as exemplified in the work of John Locke (1689), tend to treat borders as fixed, impermeable lines demarcating the exclusive authority of nation-states over their territory and population. This view underlies much of modern border politics, from the construction of border walls and fences to the policing of migration and mobility. However, as scholars such as Rafi Youatt (2020) have argued, this anthropocentric, territorial conception of borders is challenged by the realities of multispecies entanglements and ecological interdependence. Drawing on case studies of the US-Mexico border, Youatt shows how the mobility and territoriality of non-human species, from ocelots to cattle ticks, intersect with and complicate human border regimes. The borders that matter for these species often cut across or overflow the boundaries of nation-states, highlighting the limits of human sovereignty and the need for more ecologically attuned forms of politics. The philosophy of deep ecology, as developed by Arne Naess (1973) and others, provides a further challenge to anthropocentric conceptions of borders and sovereignty. By emphasizing the intrinsic value and interdependence of all life forms, deep ecology calls into question the notion of the nation-state as the primary unit of political organization and the exclusive bearer of rights and interests. From a deep ecological perspective, the territorial impulse driving much of modern border politics reflects a limited, human-centered worldview that fails to recognize the deeper, systemic interconnections between all forms of life.
Towards an Ethics of Interfaces: Relationality, Porosity, Transformation
Reconceptualizing boundaries as porous, relational interfaces rather than fixed, impermeable barriers opens up new possibilities for an ethics and politics of borders and margins. As the example of the US-Mexico border illustrates, recognizing the multispecies entanglements and ecological interdependencies that cross-cut territorial boundaries can help to reframe border politics in more ecologically sensitive and inclusive ways. This might involve prioritizing the maintenance of wildlife corridors, habitat connectivity, and biodiversity conservation alongside human mobility and security concerns. More broadly, an ethics of interfaces invites us to rethink the nature of political community and belonging beyond the nation-state model. As Hardt and Negri (2000) argue, the increasing porosity and interconnectedness of borders under globalization points towards the need for new forms of political subjectivity and solidarity that transcend territorial divisions. The “proliferation of margins” they describe, in which marginalized struggles and spaces give rise to relatively autonomous forms of resistance and alternative-building, suggests the possibility of a more pluralistic, decentered politics of borders and edges.
Central to this reimagining of borders and margins is a relational understanding of subjectivity and agency. Rather than conceiving of political subjects as pre-given, bounded individuals, an ethics of interfaces emphasizes the co-constitution and interdependence of subjects through their relations and interactions with others, both human and non-human. Boundaries, in this view, are not so much lines of separation as zones of encounter, negotiation, and transformation, where new forms of identity and solidarity can emerge.
The Utopian Impulse: Case Studies & examples
1. Conservation corridors and transboundary protected areas: These involve coordinated efforts across borders to preserve migratory routes and habitat connectivity for wildlife species. Examples include the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative spanning Canada and the U.S., and the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor across several Central American countries. In these examples rather than enforcing strict territorial separation, these initiatives aim to enable cooperation for shared conservation goals across political boundaries. Conservation corridors, indigenous shared territories, transboundary watersheds and integrated land-use systems all exemplify porosity by enabling flows, interactions and relationships across boundaries rather than strict enclosure. They are constituted by the ecological/cultural relationships between human/non-human systems rather than externally imposed separations.
2. Indigenous shared territories: Many Indigenous groups have traditional practices of shared stewardship and resource use across fluid territorial boundaries. The Inuit of the Arctic, for instance, have long held an understanding of the land as a commons traversed through customary travel routes and seasonal camps rather than enclosed properties. The Sápara nation in the Ecuadorian Amazon similarly embraces a model of “life territorialities” defined by complex socio-ecological relations across large shared landscapes.
3. Transboundary water governance: As water sources transcend political borders, examples like the Great Lakes Commission and Guarani Aquifer Agreement aim to facilitate cooperative governance frameworks for shared watersheds among multiple states/provinces. The logic focuses on integrated management rather than exclusionary claims over these critical eco-zones.
4. Shared socio-ecological production landscapes: Traditional agro-forestry, pastoralist, and other integrated land-use systems like the dehesa of Spain are premised on enabling complementary flows and interactions across ecological zones and community territories rather than rigid segregation. Boundaries are drawn to maximize symbiotic dynamics between humans, livestock, and nature.
5. Regions of cultural diffusion: Border territories like the Himalayan regions and the Silk Road routes historically enabled fluid interchange, syncretism and cooperation between cultures through permeable frontiers rather than enforcing exclusion. Trade, religious influences, and cultural hybridity flourished via these interfaces.
In many of these examples, the underlying logic is one of enabling sharing, reciprocity, diffusion and synergistic human-environment interactions across spaces - in contrast to exclusive claims to territoriality or segregation of human/nature realms. Borders are reimagined as symbiotic membranes facilitating cooperation with/in the larger ecological/cultural whole, rather than hardened perimeters of enclosure and competition. While challenging dominant nationalist/capitalist paradigms, such cases point to alternative interface rationalities foregrounding ethical cooperation.
Limitations & constraints: These examples still operate within constraints of state/capitalist structures rather than articulating full-fledged post-territorial political ecologies. The degree of ongoing dialogic co-construction and recognition of non-human agency can be limited, with human institutions still playing a central mediation role. With some exceptions, Western cultural assumptions about human/nature dichotomies may still exert influence, stopping short of the full ontological reframing towards relationality that cooperative interfaces envision. There can often still be an anthropocentric prioritization of human interests like conservation, production etc. rather than centering intrinsic ecological values. Ultimately, while providing fertile precedents that prefigure cooperative interface logics to an extent, the examples may not fully realize the pluralistic, radically de-centralized and ontologically “flat” vision of human/non-human systems interrelating through continually renegotiated cooperative interfaces.These examples nonetheless offer important pathways for further developing and embodying cooperative interface praxis by intentionally extending the principles of porosity, relationality, co-construction and non-anthropocentrism in more thorough-going ways. This could involve deeper embracing of multispecies perspectives, more autonomous self-organization across human/non-human realms, and deinstitutionalizing engrained anthropocentric hierarchies.
Policy/governance implications of operationalizing cooperative interfaces
In 2010 the Nagoya Protocol on ABS was adopted in Japan. The protocol, (full name:Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity) aimed at the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources, thereby contributing to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The Nagoya Protocol exemplifies several key principles underlying the concept of cooperative interfaces. The Protocol challenges purely anthropocentric approaches to genetic resources by recognizing the intrinsic rights and stewardship of indigenous/local communities over their traditional knowledge and biodiversity. It attempts to move beyond a colonial, extractive framing. Rather than treating genetic resources as commodities to be accessed unilaterally, the Protocol frames them as elements existing within relational socio-ecological contexts and knowledge systems. Access requires negotiating relationships and responsibilities. The requirement of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and negotiating Mutually Agreed Terms essentially aims to co-construct the conditions and protocols for access and benefit-sharing through an interface of dialogue and agreement between users and providers. While enabling regulated access, the Protocol affirms the autonomy and authority of states/communities to determine rules over their genetic resources based on their values and contexts, preserving diversity of knowledge systems. The Protocol facilitates regulated porosity and flows in terms of access to genetic resources across communities/borders, while stipulating ethical parameters to govern those cross-boundary interactions and exchanges.
In essence, the Nagoya Protocol instantiates cooperative interfaces by trying to establish a porous yet principled relational boundary for interactions around the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. It subjects such interactions to negotiated co-construction with indigenous/local communities as autonomous stakeholders rather than a unilateral extractive model. Challenges around implementation, power asymmetries, and limitations in adhering to deeper non-anthropocentric values have been critiqued however. Overall, the Protocol represents an attempt to constitution ethical multispecies interfaces that transcend purely economic, human-centric framings of biodiversity and genetic resources. It remains an imperfect but noteworthy example in practice.
Critical Considerations
While this essay attempts to offer a framework for reconceptualizing boundaries, it is not without challenges and limitations. The implementation of such interfaces must grapple with existing power dynamics, which may distort or exploit the intended porosity of these boundaries. There are also questions of scalability – how effectively can this model be applied across vastly different scales, from cellular to global systems? The resolution of conflicts within these more fluid structures presents another hurdle, particularly when different systems hold fundamentally incompatible values or goals.
Moreover, the shift towards more porous, co-constructed boundaries raises important questions about accountability and efficiency. In a world of cooperative interfaces, how might we assign responsibility when things go awry? Would the universal use of interfaces be more effective than traditional boundaries, or might there be situations where more rigid delineations are necessary or beneficial? The practical implementation of this framework also poses significant challenges, from navigating resistance to change to addressing potential unintended consequences, such as the inadvertent spread of diseases or invasive species.
There are deeper philosophical considerations as well. Despite an attempt at inclusivity, this framework likely still harbors inherent anthropocentric and other biases in its conception. Given this it is unclear how we might reconcile this approach with existing legal and regulatory frameworks, particularly in areas like property rights or national sovereignty. Finally, there are ethical implications to consider. In viewing all boundaries as negotiable and porous, we must be cautious not to enable the exploitation of vulnerable systems or entities. These considerations underscore the complexity of reimagining boundaries and interfaces, and highlight the need for careful, nuanced application of this framework across different contexts and scales.
Conclusion
As we find ourselves living in times of global interconnectedness and ecological crisis, this essay attempts to describe a reconceptualization of boundaries, edges, and margins. By drawing on diverse theoretical frameworks from biology, systems theory, and political philosophy, I have articulated the concept of cooperative interfaces as a more nuanced and generative alternative to traditional notions of fixed, impermeable borders.
The synthesis of autopoiesis, homeostasis, and active inference provides the inspiration for understanding the dynamic, self-organizing nature of living systems and their boundaries. These perspective, when extended to social and political realms, challenges anthropocentric assumptions about the nature of borders and sovereignty. The concept of cooperative interfaces emerges from this theoretical matrix as a way to describe boundaries that are porous, relational, and co-constructed, facilitating the exchange of information, resources, and perspectives across diverse systems while preserving their autonomy and integrity.
Rethinking boundaries, edges, and margins as porous, relational interfaces rather than fixed, impermeable barriers has far-reaching implications for the politics of borders and sovereignty in an interconnected world. Through this work, we have attempted to consider the boundary becoming a relation-making, transformative zone rather than a barrier, in order to forge a future less dominated by zero-sum logics. By challenging anthropocentric, territorial conceptions of political space and subjectivity, this view opens up new possibilities for more ecologically attuned, inclusive, and transformative forms of politics and ethics. While the challenges of navigating the complex, multispecies entanglements that constitute our world are significant, embracing the porosity and interdependence of boundaries offers a promising path forward for building more just, sustainable, and resilient forms of political community and coexistence.
The case studies explored in this essay, from indigenous shared territories to transboundary water governance, provide concrete examples of how cooperative interface principles can be operationalized. These examples, while imperfect, offer valuable lessons and inspiration for further developing and implementing this approach across various scales and contexts.
This is not an argument for cooperative interfaces carte blanche. I describe a number of considerations and concerns that highlight the need for careful navigation of existing power dynamics, the complexities of scaling cooperative interfaces from micro to macro levels, and the potential unintended consequences of increased porosity. These challenges underscore the importance of ongoing dialogue, experimentation, and adaptation as we seek to embody cooperative interface principles in practice.
Looking to the future, several promising directions for research and practice emerge. First, there is a need for more empirical studies on the effectiveness of cooperative interface approaches in various domains, from ecosystem management to conflict resolution. Second, further theoretical work is needed to refine and extend the concept, particularly in relation to emerging technologies and changing global power dynamics. Third, there is ample room for experimentation with new governance models and institutional designs that embody cooperative interface principles, perhaps building on examples like the Nagoya Protocol but pushing further towards true multispecies, non-anthropocentric frameworks.
In conclusion, the reconceptualization of boundaries as cooperative interfaces offers a powerful lens for understanding and transforming our world. By embracing the porosity, relationality, and transformative potential of boundaries, we open up new possibilities for creating more just, sustainable, and resilient forms of coexistence in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.
References:
Bernard, C. (1865). Introduction à l’étude de la médecine expérimentale. Paris: Baillière.
Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127-138.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Harvard University Press.
Hipólito, I., Ramstead, M. J. D., Convertino, L., Bhat, A., Friston, K., & Parr, T. (2021). Markov blankets in the brain. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 125, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.003Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government. London: Awnsham Churchill.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry, 16(1-4), 95-100.
Youatt, R. (2020). Interspecies Politics: Nature, Borders, States. University of Michigan Press.
“A revolutionary movement does not spread by contamination / But by resonance / Something that constitutes itself here / Resonates with the shock wave given off by something that constituted itself elsewhere / The body that resonates does so in its own way / An insurrection is not like the propagation of the plaque or a forest fire a linear process spreading little by little from a spark / But rather this / It becomes embodied in a MUSICAL way / and whose focal points / Dispersed in / time and space manage / To impose the rhythm of their VIBRATION / To get ever more dense / to the point where one can no longer desire to turn back” - Jean-Marie Gleize
NOTES
A note on who & what constitutes the margins
“A system is what is distinguished as a system” - Gaines
Edges and limits serve as the boundaries that define spaces, both physically and conceptually. Some boundaries are fortified by external forces, validated by societal norms or legal frameworks or by host organisms. In these instances, the characteristic exterior edges act as shields, safeguarding against encroachment, providing appropriate cues that signalling protection from the exterior is warranted, whilst also at times upholding interior responsibilities. An example of this is the family unit, which is recognised by the state in a myriad of ways. This unit recognition confers as legitimacy that both offers protections (tax benefits, legal protections such as spousal testimonial privilege, exemption from certain housing laws and so on), whilst at the same time requires specific configurations and responsibilities to be present (one must be legally married for many of these to be upheld, one there are financial and legal responsibilities conferred as parents and so on). Failure to uphold these interior responsibilities of the family, may result in the exterior, in this case the state, to intervene and enter the edges of the family unit. Legal entities and corporate structures in general often fall into this category, whereby they are recognised by the exterior, and this recognition confers both protections and responsibilities to the interior.
Conversely, a distinct way of thinking about edges, are limits that must be self defended for survival or through some other form of intentional choice. There are entities that exist only by internal maintenance of boundaries, which are self-imposed and internally guarded, shaping individual identities or ideologies.
For example, the planetary boundaries framework is an assessment of the planetary guard rails and tolerable windows for viable planetary function, whereby to step outside of these would render humanity outside of a “‘safe operating space’ for humanity (J Rockström et al, ‘A Safe Operating Space for Humanity’ (2009) 461 Nature 472). In this framework, there is no exterior power conferring legitimacy, nor protections. Thus, the responsibility is constituted from the interior alone.
Yet another example of an operation that we can see at the mergains is one whereby the interior and exterior converge, forming interfaces where relationships are forged. These intersections of edges and margins become fertile grounds for interaction, negotiation, and transformation, blurring the lines between what is within and what lies beyond. In this dynamic interplay, the notion of boundaries evolves, highlighting the interconnectedness of the self with its surroundings.
An example of this comes from biology, in the form of the cell. The (eukaryotic?) cell exemplifies the intricacies of edges and limits within a living system. Its membrane acts as a boundary, shielding the internal components from the external environment while selectively allowing substances to pass through. This external edge is crucial for the cell’s survival, as it regulates the exchange of nutrients and waste products. Internally, the cell maintains its own set of boundaries, such as organelle membranes, which protect and segregate various cellular processes. These internal edges are self-defended, ensuring the integrity and functionality of the cell’s interior. However, at interfaces like the cell membrane, the interior and exterior interact dynamically. Signalling molecules traverse this boundary, orchestrating responses to environmental cues. Here, the edges blur, and the cell’s relationship with its surroundings becomes evident. Thus, the cell embodies the complex interplay between self-preservation and interaction with the external world, showcasing the nuanced nature of edges and margins in biological systems.
Edges, limits that are protected and legitimised from and by the external environment. There are edges and margins that are constituted from the inside and self defended. And there are edges, interfaces and margins where the interior and exterior are in relationship.
Autopoiesis
An autopoietic system is able to reproduce itself by observing itself (self-referential) and the only elements that it produces itself are its own components (self-producing/ constructing). There are three general types of processes in an autopoietic system: (1) Degradation, (2) Production and (3) Bonding: Production is a process of creating new components. Bonding is a process of introduc- ing new components into the system structure. Degradation is a natural process of components ageing and falling out of the system structure, which requires production of new components to be bound into the structure (Zeleny). Structural coupling cannot be considered to be adaptation but rather bilateral coevolution. It is possible to see it as a bridging between the system and the environment (Lee 2000, 325).
These basic concepts were abstracted by Niklas Luhmann who distinguished between three types of autopoietic systems (Luhmann 1995):
1. living/biological systems (system reproduction based on life)
2. psychic/mental systems /systems of consciousness (system reproduction based on thought or experience) &
3. social systems (system reproduction based on communication)
Luhmann’s theory of social systems anticipates three basic interpretive components – communications, evolution and differentiation.
6 point test of autopoiesis
Key Point #1: Determine, through interactions, if the unity has identifiable boundaries. If the boundaries can be determined, proceed to 2. If not, the entity is indescribable and we can say nothing.
Key Point #2: Determine if there are constitutive elements of the unity, that is, components of the unity. If these components can be described, proceed to 3. If not, the unity is an unanalyzable whole and there- fore not an autopoietic system.
Key Point #3: Determine if the unity is a mechanistic system, that is, the com- ponent properties are capable of satisfying certain relations that determine in the unity the interactions and transformations of these components. If this is the case proceed to 4. If not, the unity is not an autopoietic system.
Key Point #4: Determine if the components that constitute the boundaries of the unity constitute these boundaries through preferential neighbourhood relations and interactions between themselves, as deter- mined by their properties in the space of their interactions. If this is not the case, you do not have an autopoietic unity because you are determining its boundaries, not the unity itself. If4 is the case, however, proceed to 5.
Key Point #5: Determine if the components of the boundaries of the unity are produced by the interactions of the components of the unity, either by transformation of previously produced components, or by transformations and/or coupling of non-component elements that enter the unity through its boundaries. If not, you do not have an autopoietic unity; if yes, proceed to 6.
Key Point #6: If all the other components of the unity are also produced by the interactions of its components as in 5, and if those which are not produced by the interactions of other components participate as necessary permanent constitutive components in the production of other components, you have an autopoietic unity in the space in which its components exist. If this is not the case and there are components in the unity not produced by components of the unity as in 5, or if there are components of the unity which do not participate in the production of other components, you do not have
an autopoietic unity.
Homeostasis
A system maintaining an approximate identity despite it being made of unstable material and subject to an ever changing environment close system for autopoiesis vs. open system for homeostasis,
The Intersection of Autopoiesis & Homeostasis
How the autopoietic activities help with homeostasis, i.e. adapting the system to the changes inside and outside the system while maintaining its identity.
Active Inference - edges & boundaries
In the case that a system has an edge, or a “particular partition” (i.e., into particles, with their Markov blankets), the free energy principle says that if a system has a then subsets of that system will track the statistical structure of other subsets (which are known as internal and external states or paths of a system). This is important as it pertains to what is likely to happen, in terms of paths of least resistance about how a system might interact with its environment. Paths of least resistance need not determine behaviour, and the difference between these is of import in this essay.
A Markov blanket defines the boundaries of a system in a statistical sense.
Resonance, echo & stigmergy
On discreteness
What if space and the margins that define space are not the only unit of interest? What if there is a relationship between units that serves an important function that is not describable by looking at the activity and edges of the units alone?
What of the role of resonance in fractal scaling projects?
On time
Assembly theory: Rather, the theory proposes that the existence of objects we observe and interact with—from a peptide to a shark’s tooth to the entire planetary whole—can be explained by their formation histories. How some objects have assembled, through billions of years of selection and evolution, are complex enough to be considered alive—and even human.
Whereby boundaries become cooperative interfaces in the form of relationships.
Rules & boundaries: rules determine what others are allowed to do, whereas boundaries tell you what is important to me. Rules tend to be enforced and are automatic, hard to change, and their origin is usually ‘somewhere else’, whereas boundaries are internally generated, fluid/evolving, subject to mistakes and errors. Similarly, hard, binarized edges determine an inside and an outside. What if, we related to boundary technologies as cooperative interfaces in the form of relationships.
“Labour is, first of all, a process between man and nature, a process by which man, through his own actions, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature. He confronts the materials of nature as a force of nature… he acts upon external nature and changes it, and in this way he simultaneously changes his own nature… At the end of every labour process, a result emerges which had already been conceived by the worker at the beginning, hence already existed ideally. (Marx, 1976: 283)”
Here, Marx touches on the notion that what happens between man and nature is action, in the form of labour.
The work of Rafi Youatt analyses the US-Mexico border through the lens of interspecies politics, arguing that the border is best understood as a set of multispecies mobility regimes involving the circulation of signs like endangerment, invasiveness, and connectivity [“Interspecies Politics: Nature, Borders, States”, Rafi Youatt]. Through two case studies investigating the interactions between nilgai antelope, cattle ticks, cattle fever, and human “tick riders” along the border, and ocelot conservation efforts focused on maintaining habitat corridors to enable connectivity of the endangered ocelot population, alongside human migration and borders, Youatt reveals the ways in which sovereignty and politics must be rethought in a less anthropocentric way, with security practices and borders understood as fundamentally interspecies. Crucially, their analysis suggests that the mobility regimes that regulate human and animal life are key to generating the sovereign state itself. The philosophical perspective of Deep Ecology, as articulated by Arne Naess and others, presents a profound challenge to the anthropocentric assumptions that underpin traditional border politics. By emphasizing the intrinsic value and interdependence of all life forms, Deep Ecology calls into question the very notion of dividing the natural world into discrete, politically bounded spaces subject to human control (Naess, 1973). The territorial impulse driving much of contemporary border politics, from this perspective, can be seen as a product of a human-centered worldview that fails to recognize the deeper, systemic interconnections between all forms of life.
The ecological arbitrariness of most political borders, which often cut across ecosystems, migration routes, and the habitats of various species, is thrown into stark relief when viewed through the lens of Deep Ecology. This perspective invites us to consider the ways in which the imposition of human borders can disrupt the delicate balance of ecological systems and relationships that transcend political boundaries.In contrast, the notion of “cooperative interfaces that center relationality,” as described here resonates strongly with Deep Ecology’s emphasis on interdependence and the need for humans to situate themselves within, rather than apart from or above, the rest of the natural world. In a world organized around such principles, border politics might be less about asserting hard lines of division and control, and more about negotiating and nurturing the complex web of ecological relationships that bind together human and non-human communities across space.
Reconceiving borders as zones of interface, exchange, and co-existence, rather than barriers or sites of exclusion, would require a fundamental shift in the way we think about political boundaries and sovereignty. Policy-making around borders, in this context, would need to prioritize ecological integrity, the maintenance of biodiversity, and the rights and needs of non-human species alongside human concerns.
However, it is important to recognize the tension between Deep Ecology’s holistic, borderless vision of the world and the practical realities of human politics and governance. While the notion of “cooperative interfaces” might help to navigate this tension, it does not fully resolve the fundamental challenge that Deep Ecology poses to the anthropocentric assumptions of the modern nation-state system. Ultimately, bringing Deep Ecology into dialogue with border politics highlights both the transformative potential and the challenges of fully embracing an ecocentric, relational paradigm in a world still largely organized around human-centered institutions and worldviews. It invites us to imagine alternative ways of conceptualizing and inhabiting borders that better reflect the ecological realities of our interconnected planet, while also grappling with the complex political, economic, and social implications of such a shift.
Image:
A demonstration of the desire for relationships at the margins is the prize-winning Teeter-Totter Wall, installed in 2019 when when workers slid steel beams through the slats of the border near El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez [source].
Case studies across scale
The cell, the self, the community, the nation & beyond
Self - active inference, markov blankets, the self as articulated by other social beings.
A Markov blanket defines the boundaries of a system in a statistical sense
“It is a statistical partitioning of a system intointernal states and external states, where the blanket itself consists of thestates that separate the two. The states that constitute the Markov blanket canbe further partitioned into active and sensory states. Here, states stand in forany variable that locates the system at a particular point in state space; forexample, the position and momentum of all the particles constituting a thermo-dynamic system—right through to every detail of neuronal activity that mightdescribe the state of the brain.”
Intercommunicalism as an example of interfaces being relational (linkages between ‘liberated zones’.
“The logic of the thesis of intercommunalism is: imperialism leads to ‘reactionary intercommunalism’ to ‘revolutionary intercommunalism’ to pure communism and anarchy. Each of the concepts is in need of definition and redefinition.”
Our thoughts on ‘joining is a side effect of doing’ as an example of a praxis based edge or interface. Enspiral had a version of this.
Conclusions & Speculative Futures
In conclusion, this exploration of boundaries, edges, and margins reveals the profound interconnectedness and complexity of systems at various scales, from the biological to the social and political. It highlights the nuanced ways in which boundaries are constructed, maintained, and challenged, shaping the dynamics of autonomy, identity, and interaction within and between systems.
The concepts of autopoiesis and homeostasis underscore the inherent drive for self-preservation and adaptation that undergirds the existence of living and social systems. Yet, as exemplified by the cell and the notion of resonance, these systems are not closed off but engage in constant exchange and co-evolution with their environments through porous and dynamic interfaces.
The examination of margins and marginalised spaces points to the potential for subversive and transformative forces to emerge from these liminal zones, challenging dominant structures and narratives. The “proliferation of margins” suggests that autonomous subjectivities can arise not only from communities of fate but also from communities of choice, as individuals and groups strive to construct alternative modes of existence beyond the confines of existing systems.
Ultimately, this exploration invites us to rethink our understanding of boundaries as fixed and impermeable barriers, and instead consider them as cooperative interfaces – sites of negotiation, transformation, and the forging of new relationships. By embracing the fluidity and relational nature of boundaries, we open up possibilities for more equitable, sustainable, and collaborative systems that acknowledge the inherent interdependence of all entities, human and non-human alike.
The concepts presented here offer a rich tapestry of ideas and frameworks for navigating the complexities of our interconnected world, prompting us to consider how we can cultivate resilient, adaptable, and self-sustaining systems that respect and nurture the dynamic interplay between autonomy and interdependence at all scales of existence.
References
Kim, R.E. and Kotzé, L.J. (2021), Planetary boundaries at the intersection of Earth system law, science and governance: A state-of-the-art review. RECIEL, 30: 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12383
The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision
Kirchhoff M, Parr T, Palacios E, Friston K, Kiverstein J. 2018 The Markovblankets of life: autonomy, active inference andthe free energy principle. J. R. Soc. Interface 15: 20170792
Interspecies Politics: Nature, Borders, States, Rafi Youatt
Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry, 16(1-4), 95-100.
1. Both deal with the boundaries and interactions between systems. Markov blankets define the statistical boundaries that separate and mediate interactions between systems, while cooperative interfaces conceptualize the relational boundaries between systems in terms of porosity, co-construction, and preservation of autonomy.
2. Both enable a reconceptualization of boundaries as loci of communication and coordination rather than rigid separations. Markov blankets induce conditional independence between systems while still allowing influences to pass via sensory and active states. Similarly, cooperative interfaces are porous boundaries that enable cooperative interactions between diverse systems.
3. Both imply a nested, multi-level structure. The essay describes how Markov blankets can be composed of Markov blankets, forming a hierarchical organization from the micro to macro scales. Likewise, cooperative interfaces coordinate between systems at multiple nested levels, from cells to organisms to ecosystems.
4. Both point to an active inferential process underlying system interactions. With Markov blankets, internal system states actively infer external states via sensory and active states to maintain system integrity. cooperative interfaces also involve active co-construction of relational boundaries between systems through ongoing negotiations.
5. Both suggest an intrinsic ethics in how systems co-constitute their boundaries. The active inference induced by Markov blankets can be seen as a kind of “self-evidencing” by systems to preserve their autonomous organization. cooperative interfaces make this ethical dimension explicit - they are interfaces constructed to preserve the intrinsic diversity and autonomy of interacting systems.
Notes on autopoesis and homeostasis
Locke’s ideas centered on understanding humans nature as animal with the notion that understanding the individual would lead to an equilibrium of human society similar to that of social equilibrium of molecules.
‘“When Locke applied his theory of human nature to social phenomena, he was guided by the belief that there were laws of nature governing human society similar to those governing the physical universe. As the atoms in a gas would establish a balanced state, so human individuals would settle down in society in a “state of nature.” Thus the function of government was not to impose its own laws on the people, but rather to discover and enforce the natural laws that existed before any government was formed. According to Locke, these natural laws included the freedom and equality of all individuals as well as the right to property, which represented the fruits of one’s labor”
Excerpt From - The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/reel.12383
However as Lovelock has demonstrated life systems on earth are far from a gentle equilibrium. Instead they are an active set of forces that actively create the conditions for life.
“Locke’s ideas became the basis for the value system of the Enlightenment and had a strong influence on the development of modern economic and political thought. The ideals of individualism, property rights, free markets, and representative government, all of which can be traced back to Locke, contributed significantly to the thinking of Thomas Jefferson and are reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution.”
Commoning boundaries
Planetary boundaries
According to Hardy & Negri, the new geo-economic and geo-political formation of empire now resembles a system of power that has ‘no outside’ (Hardt and Negri, 2000).
Dependency theorists state that there are clear boundaries of core/ periphery, which is now being undone: Historically, the suburbs have been wealthy areas, but formerly urban areas are seeing a shift of poverty to suburban neighborhoods—a process calls “the great inversion.
Proliferation at the centre
For my years we have relied on the theory that change will come from communities of fate. We have relied on social innovations emerging from those most marginalised under current modes of struggle. From care work to restorative justice to indigenous ways of managing relationship to land. Whilst it may be true that the ultimate power is held by those who are seeking their labour to make the world run, we run the risk of allowing those who live at the centres off the hook. What of the elite? What is the role of the revolutionary capitalist? For there are many who have come to hold the position of capitalist but who also strive for a system beyond the one in which they sit. What is the theory of change for this group.
A friend told me at the beginning of the bitcoin bubble that many of their Marxist friends had bought bitcoin bc they believed in the early mission. One of cybernetic structural change. And these individuals found themselves wealth in ways they never intended.
There are numerous people in this position. Who have an understanding and critique of the system. This essay argues that the changing conditions in formerly “core” nations are increasingly becoming a situation in which dominance persists without hegemony (cited by subaltern theorists).
Parts of the US are starting to resemble a third world state: vast and rising inequality, decaying infrastructure, high levels of political and administrative corruption, and the decline of state and municipal services and investment.
An new pattern of global income inequality caused by declining inequality across nations accompanied by rising inequality within nations.
Bifocal economy, correlated with spatial and political bifurcations.
The response to this
“proliferation of margins”—when marginalized struggles and spaces lead to relatively autonomous subjectivities and struggles against capitalism: “Unlocatable on the dominant coordinates, they produce their own axes of reference, establish underground, transversal connections among themselves, and thus undermine older relationships of production, society, the family, [etc.].”
Perhaps there is political agency in the people and places that reside on the periphery of global capitalism such as the slums and poverty stricken areas
The proliferation at the center, when communities of choice, not fate build autonomous subjectivities though their own struggles to build beyond capitalism.
references
https://autonomies.org/2023/02/italy-autonomia-14-felix-guattari/
Autonomia – Post-Political Politics, semiotext(e), 1980)
Information Measures of Complexity, Emergence, Self-organization, Homeostasis, and Autopoiesis
https://click.endnote.com/viewer?doi=arxiv:1304.1842&route=6