Tautology and Paradox in the Self-Descriptions of Modern Society

Abstract

Over the past two decades, Niklas Luhmann has elaborated a general functionalist theory of that continues the program of the grand tradition in theory to develop theories of universal range and applicability. But while current discussions in theory focus on reinterpreting, reconstructing, and synthesizing the classics, Luhmann's work is based on recent developments in general theory, cybernetics, biological epistemology, and information theory-to name just a few. At present, Luhmann's theory of is the only general theory that can claim to introduce a new paradigm to the field. Utilization of research traditions external to particular scientific disciplines always impedes the recognition andeventually-the adaptation of innovative paradigms. But if accepted, Luhmann's proposal will radically change the conventional ways of doing theory. Luhmann (1984) interprets his theory of as a special case of general theory. Together with machines, organisms, and psychic or personal systems, constitute the generic class of in general. The category of social systems itself comprises interaction systems, organizations, and entire societies. Three fundamental theoretical decisions structure this hierarchical schema. First, Luhmann avoids the frequently criticized organismic analogy in which most previous systemstheoretical models of society were trapped (Turner, 1986). Although organisms and belong to the same generic