Niklas Luhmann

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Niklas Luhmann
University of Bielefeld
Academic advisorsTalcott Parsons
Notable students
]

Niklas Luhmann (

sociologist, philosopher of social science, and a prominent thinker in systems theory.[2]

Biography

Luhmann was born in

Harvard, where he met and studied under Talcott Parsons
, then the world's most influential social systems theorist.

In later days, Luhmann dismissed Parsons' theory, developing a rival approach of his own. Leaving the civil service in 1962, he lectured at the national

Deutsche Hochschule für Verwaltungswissenschaften (University for Administrative Sciences) in Speyer, Germany.[5] In 1965, he was offered a position at the Sozialforschungsstelle an der Universität Münster [de] (Social Research Centre of the University of Münster), led by Helmut Schelsky
. From 1965/66 he studied one semester of sociology at the University of Münster.

Two earlier books were retroactively accepted as a PhD thesis and

University of Bielefeld, Germany (until 1993). He continued to publish after his retirement, when he finally found the time to complete his magnum opus, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft (literally, "The Society of Society"), which was published in 1997, and has been translated into English as Theory of Society (volume I in 2012 and volume II in 2013). This work describes segmented societies where territory is a dividing line.[6]

Works

Luhmann wrote prolifically, with more than 70 books and nearly 400 scholarly articles published on a variety of subjects, including law, economy, politics, art, religion, ecology, mass media, and love. While his theories have yet to make a major mark in American sociology, his theory is currently well known and popular in German sociology,[7] and has also been rather intensively received in Japan, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe, including in Russia. His relatively low profile elsewhere is partly due to the fact that translating his work is a difficult task, since his writing presents a challenge even to readers of German, including many sociologists. (p. xxvii Social Systems 1995)

Much of Luhmann's work directly deals with the operations of the legal system and his autopoietic theory of law is regarded as one of the more influential contributions to the sociology of law and socio-legal studies.[8]

Luhmann is probably best known to North Americans for his debate with the

complexity theory, broadly speaking, in that it aims to address any aspect of social life within a universal theoretical framework—as the diversity of subjects he wrote on indicates. Luhmann's theory is sometimes dismissed as highly abstract and complex, particularly within the Anglophone world, whereas his work has had a more lasting influence on scholars from German-speaking countries, Scandinavia and Italy.[7]

Luhmann himself described his theory as "labyrinthine" or "non-linear", and claimed he was deliberately keeping his prose enigmatic to prevent it from being understood "too quickly", which would only produce simplistic misunderstandings.[9]

Systems theory

Luhmann's systems theory focuses on three topics, which are interconnected in his entire work.[10]

  1. Systems theory as societal theory
  2. Communication theory and
  3. Evolution theory

The core element of Luhmann's theory pivots around the problem of the contingency of meaning, and thereby it becomes a theory of communication. Social systems are systems of communication, and society is the most encompassing social system. Being the social system that comprises all (and only) communication, today's society is a world society.[11] A system is defined by a boundary between itself and its environment, dividing it from an infinitely complex, or (colloquially) chaotic, exterior. The interior of the system is thus a zone of reduced complexity: communication within a system operates by selecting only a limited amount of all information available outside. This process is also called "reduction of complexity". The criterion according to which information is selected and processed is meaning (in German, Sinn). Meaning being thereby referral from one set of potential space to another set of potential space. Both social systems and psychic systems (see below for an explanation of this distinction) operate by processing meaning.

Furthermore, each system has a distinctive identity that is constantly reproduced in its communication and depends on what is considered meaningful and what is not. If a system fails to maintain that identity, it ceases to exist as a system and dissolves back into the environment it emerged from. Luhmann called this process of reproduction from elements previously filtered from an over-complex environment autopoiesis (pronounced "auto-poy-E-sis"; literally: self-creation), using a term coined in cognitive biology by Chilean thinkers Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. Social systems are operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems' operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for communication, but neither appears in communication as such.[11]

Maturana, however, argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human communicators. Autopoiesis only applies to networks of processes that reproduce themselves,[12] but communications are reproduced by humans. For this reason, the analogy from biology to sociology does not, in this case, hold.[13] On the other hand, Luhmann explicitly stressed that he does not refer to a "society without humans", but to the fact that communication is autopoietic. Communication is made possible by human bodies and consciousness,[14] but this does not make communication operationally open. To "participate" in communication, one must be able to render one's thoughts and perceptions into elements of communication. This can only ever occur as a communicative operation (thoughts and perceptions cannot be directly transmitted) and must therefore satisfy internal system conditions that are specific to communication: intelligibility, reaching an addressee and gaining acceptance.[15]

Luhmann likens the operation of autopoiesis (the filtering and processing of information from the environment) to a

program; making a series of logical distinctions (in German, Unterscheidungen). Here, Luhmann refers to the British mathematician G. Spencer-Brown's logic of distinctions that Maturana and Varela had earlier identified as a model for the functioning of any cognitive process. The supreme criterion guiding the "self-creation" of any given system is a defining binary code. This binary code is not to be confused with a computer's operation: Luhmann (following Spencer-Brown and Gregory Bateson) assumes that auto-referential systems are continuously confronted with the dilemma of disintegration/continuation. This dilemma is framed with an ever-changing set of available choices; every one of those potential choices can be the system's selection or not (a binary state, selected/rejected). The influence of Spencer-Brown's book, Laws of Form
, on Luhmann can hardly be overestimated.

Although Luhmann first developed his understanding of social systems theory under Parsons' influence, he soon moved away from the Parsonian concept. The most important difference is that Parsons framed systems as forms of

autopoietic and operationally closed.[16][17] Systems must continually construct themselves and their perspective of reality through processing the distinction between system and environment, and self-reproduce themselves as the product of their own elements. Social systems are defined by Luhmann not as action but as recursive communication. Modern society is defined as a world system consisting of the sum total of all communication happening at once,[18] and individual function systems (such as the economy, politics, science, love, art, the media, etc.) are described as social subsystems which have "outdifferentiated" from the social system and achieved their own operational closure and autopoiesis.[19]

Another difference is that Parsons asks how certain subsystems contribute to the functioning of overall society. Luhmann starts with the differentiation of the systems themselves out of a nondescript environment. While he does observe how certain systems fulfill functions that contribute to "society" as a whole, he dispenses with the assumption of a priori cultural or normative consensus or "complimentary purpose" which was common to Durkheim and Parsons' conceptualization of a social function.[20] For Luhmann, functional differentiation is a consequence of selective pressure under temporalized complexity, and it occurs as function systems independently establish their own ecological niches by performing a function.[21] Functions are therefore not the coordinated components of the organic social whole, but rather contingent and selective responses to reference problems which obey no higher principle of order and could have been responded to in other ways.

Finally, the systems' autopoietic closure is another fundamental difference from Parsons' concept. Each system works strictly according to its very own code and can observe other systems only by applying its code to their operations. For example, the code of the economy involves the application of the distinction between payment and non-payment. Other system operations appear within the economic field of references only insofar as this economic code can be applied to them. Hence, a political decision becomes an economic operation when it is observed as a government spending money or not. Likewise, a legal judgement may also be an economic operation when settlement of a contractual dispute obliges one party to pay for the goods or services they had acquired. The codes of the economy, politics and law operate autonomously, but their "interpenetration"[22] is evident when observing "events"[23] which simultaneously involve the participation of more than one system.

One seemingly peculiar, but, within the overall framework, strictly logical, axiom of Luhmann's theory is the human being's position outside the strict boundaries of any social system, as initially developed by Parsons. Consisting of, but not being solely constituted by, "communicative actions" (a reference to Jürgen Habermas), any social system requires human consciousnesses (personal or psychical systems) as an obviously necessary, but nevertheless environmental resource. In Luhmann's terms, human beings are neither part of society nor of any specific system, just as they are not part of a conversation. People make conversation possible. Luhmann himself once said concisely that he was "not interested in people". That is not to say that people were not a matter for Luhmann, but rather alluding to the scope of the theory where,[clarification needed] the communicative behavior of people is constituted (but not defined) by the dynamics of the social system, and society is constituted (but not defined) by the communicative behavior of people: society is people's environment, and people are society's environment.

Thus, sociology can explain how persons can change society; the influence of the environment (the people) on a given social system (a society), the so-called "structural coupling" of "partially interpenetrating systems". In fact Luhmann himself replied to the relevant criticism by stating that, "In fact the theory of autopoietic systems could bear the title Taking Individuals Seriously, certainly more seriously than our humanistic tradition" (Niklas Luhmann, Operational Closure and Structural Coupling: The Differentiation of the Legal System, Cardozo Law Review, vol. 13: 1422). Luhmann was devoted to the ideal of non-normative science introduced to sociology in the early 20th century by Max Weber and later re-defined and defended against its critics by Karl Popper. However, in an academic environment that never strictly separated descriptive and normative theories of society, Luhmann's sociology has widely attracted criticism from various intellectuals, including Jürgen Habermas.[citation needed]

Luhmann's reception

Luhmann's systems theory is not without its critics; his definitions of "autopoietic" and "social system" differ from others. At the same time, his theory is being applied worldwide by sociologists and other scholars. It is often used in analyses dealing with

corporate social responsibility, organisational legitimacy, governance structures as well as with sociology of law, and of course general sociology. His systems theory has also been used to study media discourse of various energy technologies throughout the US, including smart grids, carbon capture and storage, and wind energy,[citation needed] but also to highlight how diplomacy differs from politics as these two may pose two distinct systems with distinct functions and distinct media (peace and power, respectively).[24]

His approach has attracted criticism from those who argue that Luhmann has at no point demonstrated the operational closure of social systems, or in fact that autopoietic social systems actually exist. He has instead taken this as a premise or presupposition, resulting in the logical need to exclude humans from social systems, which prevents the social systems view from accounting for the individual behavior, action, motives, or indeed existence of any individual person.[25]

Note-taking system (Zettelkasten)

Luhmann was famous for his extensive use of the "slip box" or Zettelkasten note-taking method. He built up a zettelkasten of some 90,000 index cards for his research, and credited it with making his extraordinarily prolific writing possible. It was digitized and made available online in 2019.[26] Luhmann described the zettelkasten as part of his research into systems theory in the essay Kommunikation mit Zettelkästen.[27]

Miscellaneous

Luhmann also appears as a character in

Richard Buckminster Fuller
and others.

Luhmann owned a pub called "Pons" in his parents' house in his native town of Lüneburg. The house, which also contained his father's brewery, had been in his family since 1857.

Sergey Tyulenev’s Application of Luhmann's Social Systems Theory to Translation Studies

Sergey Tyulenev begins his discussion on the relation between translation studies and social theory by summarizing Luhmann’s ideas in his SST. He refers to several other scholars in this introductory section. Initially, referring to Knodt (1995), Tyulenev puts that acknowledging the impossibility of a singular depiction of society, Luhmann addressed the situation without adopting negative perspectivesonly, contending that our tremendously fragmented world can be still explored despite the collapse of metanarratives.[28] He further conveys by quoting Moeller (2006) that Luhmann's groundbreaking departure from traditional European anthropocentrism can be seen in his highlight on social institutions and communication as the center of his sociological analysis, thereby challenging the notion of human beings as mere components of social systems.[28] This introduction ultimately allows Tyulenev to ask “What are the advantages of Luhmannian social-systemic approach to the study of translation?”[28]

Tyulenev sees that translation as a sophisticated matter is to be seen as part of a larger system and “translation can be placed within a larger system of similar types of activity or phenomena, being viewed as subsystem within larger semiotic and social systems … [and] be systemically juxtaposed with other social (sub)systems (the economy, law, art, religion, medicine, etc.)”.[28] Therefore, he expresses that “SST allows us to go beyond declarations about translation as a distinct social activity (whatever the limits of this distinctness may be), but to describe what properties and characteristics of translation make it a distinct social activity among other distinct social activities”.[28]

Among profound concepts of Luhmann’s SST that can be also utilized in translation studies are the concepts of environment, system and sub-system. Environment exists outside the syste and can influence its functioning by providing inputs to the social system; though, the system stays operationally closed and does not have direct interaction with the environment. Thus, a system or a social system amounts to an autonomous entity that constantly intearct with the environement, receiving inputs and producing outputs. Nevertheless, it stays operationally closed. Finally, a subsystem exists within a broader social system. It obtains its resources from the larger system but owns its specific operations and communication networks. Tyulenev refers to Luhmann who says “from the social-systemic viewpoint, translation may be seen as a social (sub)system within the overall social system, where the social system may stand for a nation-state or any other cultural-historic formation, or a civilization, or even a global system”.[28] Tyulenev divides “different aspects of the catalyst’s performance need” into 4, which are “activity, selectivity, stability, [and] regenerability”.[28]

In terms of translation’s activity, Tyulenev states that translation's role and impact vary across regions and historical periods, allowing for examination on different scales, such as studying its activity throughout the history of a specific nation-state, which can provide insights into translation's selectivity in relation to varying social circumstances and structures.[28] Tyulenev separates selectivity into two: On the one hand, Tyulenev sees “selectivity as applied to translation may be described as translation’s contribution to various social processes and subsystemic domains.[28] For this, he gives Even-Zohar’s Polysystem theory as an example. On the other hand, he states that selectivity affects which languages are prioritized for translation or which phenomena are to be conveyed.[28] He continues that translation’s stability concerns two fundamental distinctions of translation as written and oral, extending towards intralingual, interlingual and inter-semiotic translation.[28] He puts that stability interrogates the question “How stable is translation’s role in society”.[28] Lastly, Tyulenev introduces the idea of the regenerability of translation, putting that via a deep analysis of historical data, we can gain insight into the factors that influence the fluctuations in the importance of translation throughout history, which sometimes experiences decline and sometimes experiences a resurgence and genuine revitalisation.[28]

To conclude, Tyulenev maintains that SST is implemented to understand “the internal mechanisms that made/make translation possible” and what translation is for. Thus, he suggests that comprehension of the purpose of translation through SST allows to argue that in order to understand “the function of translation in this overall structure”, translation is to be defined as “a social activity”.[28] Additionally, he proposes that

The metaphorization of translation as catalyst and of translational communication event as catalysis helps to bring into a focus otherwise scattered aspects of the social-systemic role of translation. Taking the cue from Luhmann’s social systems theory, we are able to see what translation is as a social catalyst, what its social-systemic properties are, and how it catalyzes social interaction. (145)[28]

Publications

References

  1. ^ Raf Vanderstraeten, "Parsons, Luhmann and the Theorem of Double Contingency," Journal of Classical Sociology 2(1), 2002.
  2. ^ Bechmann and Stehr, 'The Legacy of Niklas Luhmann' Society (2002).
  3. ISBN 978-3-476-05271-1
    .
  4. ^ In an interview Luhmann once said: "... die Behandlung war—gelinde gesagt—nicht nach den Regeln der internationalen Konventionen [... the way I was treated was—to put it mildly—not according to the rules of the international conventions]". Source: Detlef Horster (1997), Niklas Luhmann, München, p. 28.
  5. ISBN 978-1-4129-1410-9
    .
  6. ISBN 978-1-135-14255-1
    .
  7. ^ a b Roth, S. (2011) Les deux angleterres et le continent. Anglophone sociology as the guardian of Old European semantics, Journal of Sociocybernetics, Vol. 9, No. 1-2, available for download at SSRN
  8. ^ Luhmann, N, A Sociological Theory of Law (1985) and Law As a Social System, translated by Klaus A. Ziegert (Oxford University Press, 2003)
  9. ^ "Niklas Luhmann: Unverständliche Wissenschaft: Probleme einer theorieeigenen Sprache, in: Luhmann, Soziologische Aufklärung 3: Soziales System, Gesellschaft, Organisation. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 4th. ed. 2005, pp. 193–205, quote on p. 199.
  10. ^ Niklas Luhmann (1975), "Systemtheorie, Evolutionstheorie und Kommunikationstheorie", in: Soziologische Gids 22 3. pp.154–168.
  11. ^
    ISSN 0308-1079
    .
  12. PMID 4407425
    .
  13. OCLC 59207392
    .
  14. ^ Luhmann, N. Theory of Society, Vol. 1. Stanford University Press, 2012, pp.56.
  15. ^ Luhmann, N. Social Systems. Stanford University Press, 1995, p. 158.
  16. ^ Luhmann, N. Social Systems. Stanford University Press, 1995.
  17. ^ Luhmann, N. Introduction to Systems Theory. Polity, 2012.
  18. ^ Luhmann, N. Theory of Society, Vol. 1. Stanford University Press, 2012, pp. 83–99.
  19. ^ Luhmann, N. Theory of Society, Vol. 2. Stanford University Press, 2013, pp. 65ff.
  20. ^ Luhmann, N. Theory of Society, Vol. 1. Stanford University Press, 2012, p. 6.
  21. ^ Luhmann, N. Theory of Society, Vol. 1. Stanford University Press, 2012, esp. pp. 336–343.
  22. ^ Luhmann, N. Social Systems. Stanford University Press, 1995, Chapter 6.
  23. ^ Luhmann, N. Theory of Society, Vol. 2. Stanford University Press, 2013, p. 93.
  24. S2CID 258526002
    .
  25. ^ Fuchs, C.; Hofkirchner, W. (2009). "Autopoiesis and Critical Social Systems Theory. In Magalhães, R., Sanchez, R., (Eds.)". Autopoiesis in Organization: Theory and Practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald. pp. 111–129.
  26. ^ Noack, Pit (7 April 2019). "Missing Link: Luhmanns Denkmaschine endlich im Netz". heise online (in German). Retrieved 2020-05-31.
  27. ISBN 3-925471-13-8, p. 53–61; translated in: "Communicating with Slip Boxes"
    . luhmann.surge.sh. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
  28. ^
    ISBN 978-1-136-63137-5
    .

Further reading

External links
Media related to Niklas Luhmann at Wikimedia Commons

Quotations related to Niklas Luhmann at Wikiquote

  • Sistemas Sociales Scientific divulgation of fundamental ideas of Luhmann's theory of autopoietic social systems (in Spanish)
  • Luhmann archive Access the digital contents of the Niklas Luhmann-Archives
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niklas_Luhmann&oldid=1219726546"