I think "memetic autopoiesis" is a contradiction in terms to a certain extent, since autopoiesis is kinda the opposite dynamic to evolution of any sort. Evolution converges into a diversity of species. Autopoiesis in a sense converges to a more integrated organic reality.

More integrated than typical ecosystems that is, with parts that are way less capable of independent existence than even the most specialized of species relationships in an ecosystem (eg. koalas and eucalyptus leaves vs. your liver).

It's dynamics involve memetics (or genetics) but there are other things
going on as well (like more Lamarckian and other kinds of information
propagation that does not involve a carrier genotype/memotype).

OTOH "collective intelligence" is too weak a phenomenon, since on the least coordinated end of the spectrum you get things like traffic or mobs.

Ethnogenesis doesn't neatly fall into either end of the spectrum. I believe Benedict Anderson's notion of "imagined communities" is actually central. But this is a process that relies heavily on the actions of a few specially-privileged people who can shape a grand narrative. Like newspaper owners, popes, etc. Their actions and consequences are not adequately covered by either of your terms, memetic autopoiesis or collective intelligence.

I'd call it something like "orchestrated design/dance emergence" ... that's roughly the term I use in my book-in-progress to talk about such things...