Luhmann's Systems Research Articles

Identidad, tolerancia e intolerancia: un horizonte abierto a la investigación desde la teoría de los sistemas de Niklas Luhmann

<p>Este artículo se origina en dos cuestiones muy diversas: la principal es mi deseo de destacar la enorme utilidad que tiene la teoría de los sistemas autorreferentes y autopoiéticos del recientemente desaparecido sociólogo alemán Niklas Luhmann para el estudio de los fenómenos de identidad, tolerancia e intolerancia; la segunda argumentar una objeción hecha por un colega a mi intención de utilizar la citada teoría como marco de referencia general en mi investigación sobre este tema.</p> El objetivo de este artículo es responder ambas cuestiones demostrando la pertinencia de la teoría. Esto se realizará, no a partir de una crítica a otras teorías que nos conduciría a una perspectiva estéril, sino profundizando en el análisis de algunos de sus elementos y mostrando su potencial productivo mediante un ejemplo acerca de la forma en que pueden aplicarse al estudio de la identidad, la tolerancia y la intolerancia. El procedimiento para alcanzar este propósito consiste en una aproximación gradual, que aparte del reconocimiento de los recursos teóricos, los relaciona con la realidad cotidiana y los hace evolucionar hasta el punto en que permiten observar la identidad, la tolerancia y la intolerancia de una manera sencilla.

From Building Blocks to Radical Construction: West German Media Theory since 1984

1. Here I am bracketing (at least) three major theoretical constructions with implications: Oskar Negt and Kluge, Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere, trans. Peter Labanyi, Jamie Owen Daniels, and Assenka Oksilof, fwd. Miriam Hansen (Minnesota: U of Minnesota P, 1993), originally published in 1972; the updated systems theory of Niklas Luhmann, Social Systems, trans. John Bednarz Jr. with Dirk Baecker, fwd. Eva M Knodt (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1995) originally published in German in 1984; and, of course, Jtirgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Thomas McCarthy (Boston: Beacon, 1984-1987), originally published in German in 1981. All three are ultimately concerned not primarily with media, but with larger social constructions that implicate media. Kluge's concept of an oppositional public sphere focused less on television than on film, and, as such, has been analyzed in detail by Miriam Hansen, Alexander Kluge, Cinema and the Public Sphere: The Construction Site of Counter-History, Discourse 6 (Fall 1983). Luhmann's systems theory presents a terminological problem: to Luhmann, the technological manifestations we commonly refer to as are epiphenomena compared to his analysis of media discourse through such concepts as love, money, religion, etc. Finally, Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action while striking a slightly less pessimistic note vis-&-vis the mass than the traditional Frankfurt School had done, nevertheless sees technological mass as at best a derivative, commercialized, corrupted version of the enlightenment-based ideal of unrestrained discourse articulated in the print media. Cf. Norbert Bolz, Am Ende der Gutenberg-Galaxis (Munich: Fink, 1993) 78. More importantly, all three of these works are not primarily concerned with theories of electronic media, and a discussion of the (limited) role of within their overall theoretical parameters is not feasible within this more narrowly defined context.

The Modern Emergence of Religions and a Global Social System for Religion

The article posits that central to contemporary notions of religion and religions has been the gradual development of a differentiated global social system for religion that manifests itself in a plurality of mutually distinguished religions. What counts as religion within this globalizing system and the globalized cultural model for what constitutes a religion are both the product of a highly selective historical process. The presentation of the hypothesis has three parts: a look at the historical development of a particular notion of religion and religions in the context of modern Western Christianity, an analysis of religion that adapts concepts from Luhmannian systems theory to argue that systemic religion uses binary codings as strategies for closure or recursiveness, and an examination of how other religions around the world have formed or not formed according to the systemic and cultural model of what a religion looks like. Throughout all the sections, the concern is not only with the existence of this religious system and its structure, but also with its fragility. The article concludes with implications of the hypothesis for research.

Niklas Luhmann's Systems Theory as a Challenge for Ethics

The author discusses Niklas Luhmann's concept of ethics and morals. Therefore he sketches the main traits of Luhmann's theory of systems (e.g. the terms autopoiesis, system and environment, code and programme). From the system-theoretical point of view, ethics are characterized as the reflexive theory of morals. Morals are described as the communication of regard or disregard. The author shows which consequences follow from this concept by discussing problems concerning several subsystems at the same time. The problems of Luhmann's theory of morals and ethics are demonstrated by analyzing the concepts of risk and responsibility. Finally, the author demands that ethics should be understood even more as social ethics which reflect upon their social foundation in a more consequent way.

Paradox Preserved: From Ontology to Autology. Reflections on Niklas Luhmann's the Art of Society

As a universal theory Luhmann's systems theory of society includes art in its ambit. The Art of Society (1995) reconstructs the formal and the social-historical conditions of the functional differentiation of a system of art since the Renaissance. The methodological focus of the reconstruction - Luhmann's theory of form (perception, first and second order observation, medium and form) and of systemic differentiation (social function, self-organization, codes and programmes, evolution and self-description of art) - are analysed in the first part of the paper. The second part examines the unresolved question of the code of the art system, the hermeneutic circle integral to Luhmann's theory design, and the relation of his theory of art to the `aesthetic epoch' of art theory with special reference to Heidegger and Adorno.

A theory of post‐ecologist politics

The environmental movement has traditionally been interpreted as the vanguard of a new social, political and economic order which is to replace the ecologically unsustainable development practised in industrialised countries. The ideology of ecologism was expected to sign‐post society's path of self‐reformation. Social theory and its young sub‐discipline of environmental sociology have developed a number of models for the assumed ecologisation of society. But whilst the latter never seemed to materialise, the former remained subject to the criticism of not being ‘well suited to the elaboration or discussion of this kind of political problem’.1 Contrary to its efforts so far, the most valuable contribution of social theory to the ecological debate might be to demonstrate that processes of modernisation have rendered ecologism itself an outdated ideology, and the ecologisation of society a conceptual bubble. Inspired by Niklas Luhmann's systems theory, and based on a constructionist reinterpretation of environmental concern, the theory of post‐ecologist politics argues that ecologism and the environmental movement have to be seen as a rearguard battle defending a world‐view that is irretrievably lost. The theory provides a conceptual framework for the analysis of contemporary eco‐politics and exposes serious weaknesses in much of contemporary ecological thought.

Essai: Dislocating (Instrumental) Organizational Time

In this essay I explore the role of time in proximal and distal approaches to organizational analysis. I argue that an instrumental and linear view of time may undermine efforts to describe organizations as partial and contingent pro cesses. Therefore, I supplement instrumental time with a discontinuous and non-teleological account, using A. Giddens' and N. Luhmann's systems frame works to illustrate my argument. Both theorists explain how systems extend present conditions through communication technologies that shrink time and space and, concomitantly, that facilitate reflexive control over future condi tions. However, I argue that the systems framework may overstate organiza tional control by instrumentalizing time in the extension and reproduction of formal organizational structures. I then use the idea of temporal dislocation to signify how 'otherness' subverts systemic presence and thus offers a way of studying those ('untimely' aspects of organizational life that are typically mar ginalized in organizational analysis.

Gender and Temporality in Interpersonal Systems

This essay provides a nonessentializing account of how gender affects the social construction of time in communicative interactions. Niklas Luhmann's systems theory serves as the theoretical framework for explaining how time is constructed through communication codes. Using Luhmann's model, the essay argues that gender is a communication code that operates to align social participants' perspectives towards a socially constructed “present.” However, the essay notes that participants' experience of that present will be contingent upon the specific cultural and historical criteria that constitute their use of the gender code. The criteria specific to Anglo‐American culture are used to illustrate how this instanciation of the gender code might affect temporal experience.

How is a Sociology of sociological Knowledge possible?

By deconstructing Merton's distinction between the history and systematics of sociological thought, this paper aims first at uncoupling the process of legitimation of sociology as a scientific discipline from classical narratives commonly arranged around the “founding fathers”. Second, a constructivist approach to the history of sociology is deployed by dealing with issues of reflexivity. Drawing on the concept of autopoiesis, internal links are highlighted between the chance of persistence of a scientific domain and the conditions of its possibility. In line with Steve Woolgar, a reflexive Sociology of sociological Knowledge (SsK) is said to be possible by deconstructing the standard view of science, and its implementation within social sciences. This requires an integration of: (a) the post-structuralist concept of “discipline” as put forward by Michel Foucault; (b) postmodern theories prompting an understanding of cognitive differentiation of scientific discourses as a kind of “self-similarity” within a given episteme; and (c) Niklas Luhmann's systems theory focusing on the functional differentiation of science.

Gnosis, science, and mysticism: a history of self-referential theory designs

In this paper, we understand the advent of a “scientific spirit” as a revival of Gnosticism, which proclaims the superiority of man over his creator and considers knowledge (gnosis) to be the key to salvation. Salvation is here understood as a form of “emancipation”. Empirically, we see our interpretation confirmed in the tremendous influence of the Corpus Hermeticum and the Lurianic Cabala on all the Renaissance scientists. In the second part of this essay, we continue a line of research inaugurated by Ferdinand Christian Baur in the 19th century, and look for Gnostic outlooks in contemporary philosophy and social science. By reading Niklas Luhmann's systems theory as a modern version of Gnostic mysticism, we do not intend to dismiss the relevance of his work. For if Gnosticism defines “modernity”, we should not be surprised to find a speculative, Gnostic system among society's self-descriptions.

Enabling Paradoxes: Gender Difference and Systems Theory

I have argued elsewhere that there is a philosophical alliance between Niklas Luhmann's systems theory and what I have renamed deconstruction?the philosophy of the limit.1 This alliance turns not only on shared philosophical roots in French phenomenology but on the replacement of grounding principles with grounding paradoxes. Luhmann explicitly argues that systems theory can have no higher level grounding of itself beyond the analysis of the operations of the systems themselves.2 The paradox is that one only knows a system as a system from within it and by distinguishing it from other systems, but there is no system of all systems in which we could ground the analysis of systems theory. Derrida's philosophy of the limit, as I have interpreted it, is in alliance with this position in two senses: first, the philosophy of the limit is an articulation of the philosophical limit of any attempt to ground reality in an appeal to a system of all systems or, on the contrary, in a transcendental subjectivity. The limit of philosophy is, in Luhmann's sense, a limit to the traditional philosophical project of grounding sociological analysis in either a normative description of a sphere of nature with a corresponding teleological conception of history or some other conception of the ultimate system which encompasses all systems and therefore serves as the basis of the analysis of how one system is either integrated with or distinguished from another. Both the philosophy of the limit and systems theory also analyze social and intellectual phenomena within a concept of meaning-effects that does not coincide with the concept of meaning as individual intention ality. But even if we accept these as legitimate and shared philosophical presuppositions between the philosophy of the limit and systems theory, we shall need to ask the question: What are the conditions, even if we understand these as systems, that make a system appear as a system rather than just as the nature of reality? Luhmann's consistent answer to

Människan som individ i sociala systems omvärld. Om individ och person i Niklas Luhmanns systemteori

Man as individual in the environment of social systems. On individual and person in Niklas Luhmann's systems theoryThe relation between man and society is an old and central problem in the modem social sciences. Traditionally, man has been seen as a part of society. Luhmann’s main thesis, contrary to the sociological tradition, is that man as individual always belongs to an environment of social systems. The intention of this article is to present Luhmann’s analysis, and at the same time to discuss it in relation to the sociological theoretical tradition and to show its actuality. Luhmann’s analysis follows four main lines: First, the difference between social and psychic systems is clarified as distinctions; secondly, the obvious connections between these systems has to be defined. This is done through the concept of structural coupling and specified in terms of interpenetration, socialization, inclusion and exclusion, a third way of analysis focuses on the concept of person. Only as person is man part of a social system, and as such takes on and breaks roles and other social relations. Finally, the modem individuality is focused upon. Humanistic philosophy, which has strongly influenced the social sciences, signifies the modem individual as a subject. This subject, on the one hand, complains of alienation, on the other hand, demands emancipation. Consequently, the subject is confrontedwith the paradox of too much and, at the same time, too little solidarity. From the point of view of social systems problems of individualization are problems of the environment of society and therefore not questions of solidarity. As employee, man is included in the economy as a functional system; as citizen in a democracy, he or she is included in a political system, etc. Without a job citizenship, etc, the individual is excluded from functional systems. The current growing global problems of the individual, in terms of unemployment, of homelessness, deplacement, etc, must be understood as beeing closely connected with the functional differentiation of society. By placing the individual in the environment of social systems, these societal and social problems can be analysed in a new way, and it implies, paradoxically, a concept of society more adapted to man than the one proclaimed by humanistic philosophy.

A Systems Theoretical Perspective on Communication

This essay asserts that it is impossible to understand any communica- tive utterance outside the context in which it is uttered. Within this context, I expound a conception of communication based on ideas in information theory and on Niklas Luhmann's systems theory, which provides a theoretical founda- tion for the context dependency of utterances. At the same time, I introduce readers to Luhmann's version of systems theory, which is becoming more and more influential in German literary theory. The view of communication ex- pounded here implies that as all meaning is founded on difference, an utterance can acquire meaning only by differing from other utterances, that is, by negat- ing other positions. Therefore, the context is always part of the utterance; it enters, so to speak, into the utterance. At issue here is a specific type of con- text, a specific axis of difference, correlated with the utterance in a particular way. I try to show exactly how this specific conceptualization of the relation be- tween meaning and context, between communication and difference, is to be understood. First, I discuss the systems theoretical concept of communication and illustrate it with several examples taken largely from political and literary communication. Next, I address the way this concept of communication and difference diverges from (post)structuralist theories, to which it might seem to bear some resemblance. Finally, I examine the difficult question of the relation- ship between communicative utterances, contexts, and their place within social systems, focusing especially on Luhmann's conceptualization of the art system. The first thing the pope asked on his arrival in Chicago was, Where are the prostitutes in this city? I want to visit them first. A rather surprising

Select Annotated Bibliography to Luhmann's Systems Theory and Its Applications in Literary Studies

Luhmann has written more than forty books and three-hundred-odd articles, so the choice presented below is highly selective. The emphasis is on works that have specific relevance to literary and communication studies. Biographical Note Niklas Luhmann was born in Lfineburg in 1927. After studying law in Freiburg, he became a civil servant. In 1960 he obtained a year's leave of absence to study at Harvard under Talcott Parsons, who strongly influenced his thinking, although from the very beginning Luhmann had difficulties with-in fact, rejected-two key elements of Parsonian systems theory: the primacy of structures over functions and the emphasis on norms and normativity. The works of Husserl were also important for Luhmann's intellectual development at this stage. In 1965 Luhmann was discovered by Helmut Schelsky; three years later he became professor of sociology at the University of Bielefeld. In 1971 Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie, a debate between Luhmann and Habermas, was published and brought Luhmann fame. At this time Luhmann still conceived of social systems as open systems consisting of actions (the early Luhmann). In the early eighties he incorporated Maturana's concept of autopoiesis (self-referentiality) into the theory. From this point on, he conceptualized social systems as autopoietic processes consisting of

Från ideal via paradox till problem. Individualiteten och kärleken i Niklas Luhmanns systemteori

From ideal via paradox to problem. Individuality and love in Niklas Luhmann's systems theoryThis paper deals, on the one hand, with the question of man as an individual and his relationship to society and, on the other hand, with the sociology of love and intimacy and hence with the sociology of modern individualization. The aim is to introduce for Scandinavian sociology the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, especially with regard to these themes and, at the same time, his radical and new conception of social systems. It is often suggested that sociological systems theory can only deal with macro level problems, and not with the micro level; of understanding problems on the individual level. In Luhmann’s approach this is no longer the case. The individual is conceived of as strictly belonging outside of society, as part of the environment. Only as person is it possible to identify man inside social systems. But in using the distinction between system and environment, both environment and system is focused upon. Love is analyzed primarily as a semantic code and not as a feeling (as is often the case). The thesis is that only as a code can love be expressed in its emotionality. In his book Love as Passion (an excellent example of historical sociology) the code of love is observed from Middle Ages as an ideal form, via its form of paradox, till today when love as a problem of the family system is penetrated by specialists of all kinds. Luhmann’s intention is not to find a solution for the family, but to provide an understanding for solutions which are contingent.