Luhmann and Koselleck: Conceptual History and the Diagnostics of the Present

Abstract

There is a growing interest in conceptual history in management and organization studies. The work of Reinhart Koselleck and Paul Riceour is most often cited in this regard, and in this article I want to suggest adding the work of Niklas Luhmann to the mix. Koselleck and Luhmann, as it happened, had offices quite close to each other at the University of Bielefeld and met on a number of occasions. Luhmann, in fact, was inspired by Koselleck in his own writing on semantics and concepts. But while Koselleck, like the modern historian that he was, developed his conceptual history through a reading of Heidegger and Gadamer, Luhmann grounded his conceptual history in the sociological theory of social systems. While Luhmann anchored the concepts of his semantics into a larger theory of meaning and communication, Koselleck hoped that conceptual history might contribute to a more general social history. Conceptual history was never construed as a radical alternative to traditional history, but as an important and necessary supplement. So there was always a tension between conceptual history and social history more broadly. Conceptual history was not a goal in itself but was meant as a contribution to more traditional history.