7/29/2019 3 - Introduction Observing Luhmann

1/3

Introduction: Observing LuhmannAuthor(s): Roar HagenReviewed work(s):Source: Acta Sociologica, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2000), pp. 3-4Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201177 .

Accessed: 17/12/2012 03:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toActa

Sociologica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon 17 Dec 2012 03:07:24 AM

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4201177?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4201177?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd

7/29/2019 3 - Introduction Observing Luhmann

2/3

ACTAOCIOLOGICA000

Introduction: Observing Luhmann

Roar HagenDepartment of Sociology, University of Tromse, Norway

From his inauguration as a professor at theUniversity of Bielefeld in 1968, Niklas Luh-mann's research project was to develop a theoryof society. This was presented in several mono-graphs on the different function systems ofmodern society and was concluded with histwo-volume magnum opus on the Society ofSociety (Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, 1997).To fulfil his program Luhmann had todevelop sociology as general theory, to clarifyits vocabulary, and to invent new concepts. Hedid this in a truly interdisciplinary spirit. Inparticular, he made use of advances within thefield of general systems theory, wherein he foundthe inputs he believed sociology needed. Asystem must always be seen in relation to itsenvironment; social systems are closed and donot import elements from the outside. Theirinternal events are not caused by events in theenvironment. Only because the system is closedcan it be open to observe itself as a system in anenvironment. Social systems are autopoieticsystems that produce themselves of out of theirown operations. Luhmann also proposed a newconception of the basic social element. Socialsystems are not made up of human beings, andnot even of actions, but consist only of commu-nication as the synthesis of the differentiationamong information, utterance and understand-ing. Human bodies are not part of social systems,but belong to the environment. Not evenconsciousness can communicate. Only commu-nication can. The main contribution in this fieldis his Social Systems (Soziale Systeme, 1984).With respect to this unity of a theory ofsociety and general theory as a system ofconcepts, Niklas Luhmann's new systems the-ory is today without rivals (for an updated list ofreferences to Luhmann's rather voluminousproduction, see Soziale Systeme 1998:4, 233-264). Luhmann has a new proposal for whatmodern society is about and the concepts we

could use to analyse it. His theory promises tofertilize discussions on several of sociology'smost important subjects. Unfortunately sociol-ogy has so far been reluctant to take up thechallenge. True enough, within Germany,Luhmann's work belongs to the canon and iscounted among the classics of the sociologicaltradition. There, he is among the most citedauthors, and some of his presumptions seem tohave acquired the status of self-evident truths,in particular his views concerning the over-complexity and non-governability of modernsociety. That is perhaps not so good either.Outside Germany the response has thus farbeen modest. Translations of the works are few,and his main work within general theory,published in 1984, appeared in English only in1995. Luhmann's suggestions are to a largeextent neglected or rejected on the false premisethat his work is simply a continuation of TalcottParsons' systems theory. Luhmann therefore isoften known best through the writing of hisopponents. However, it could be that theconcept J?rgen Habermas has extracted fromLuhmann's project and incorporated into hisown framework in terms of 'system integration'is not at all the same concept of system that wefind in Luhmann's own writings.This is an unfortunate situation. On theone hand, the English-speaking social sciencecommunity needs systems theory to shake off itsmatter-of-course uses of terms like 'action','actor' and 'systems as relations of actions'. Onthe other hand, systems theory could do with alittle more discussion on the status of the sameterms within its own paradigm. The aim of thisspecial issue of Acta Sociologica is to contribute tothis kind of cross-fertilization.

In the first article, Rudolph Stichwehexplains why the concepts of action and systemare not real theoretical alternatives to eachother, and what led Luhmann to replace actions

This content downloaded on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:07:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/29/2019 3 - Introduction Observing Luhmann

3/3

4 ACTASOCIOLOGICA000 VOLUME3

with communications as the constitutive ele-ments of society. Stichweh is well qualified forthis task. As both a student of Luhmann andnow professor in the Faculty of Sociology at theUniversity of Bielefeld, he has intimate knowl-edge of the subject.

Dag Osterberg begins his contribution withan attempt to substantiate the claim thatLuhmann is a conservative thinker who sprin-kles his text with ideological and cynicalremarks. This disfigures the subject matter ofLuhmann's work, but is in itself not a sufficientreason to reject its basic tenets. Osterberg'smain critique is directed against Luhmann'simaginary and equivocal use of the term'functional differentiation', which allows himto conflate differentiation and autonomization.Osterberg argues that a more plausible accountof modern society is achieved through a blend ofthe theories of Karl Marx and Talcott Parsons.

The concept of functional differentiationimplies that subsystems are observed as usefulor harmful to society by society, but, accordingto Luhmann, modern society is without anyapex or centre which might make this observa-tion. Instead of trying to resolve this ambiguityby taking recourse to the alternatives ofnormative integration proposed by action the-ory, Hagen attempts in his article to provide anew solution to the problem of order within theframework of systems theory. By rethinkingcollective action as communication, he developsa concept of collective rationality that allows thetheorist to appreciate how the public economyand the welfare state have the capacity to guidethe operations of other subsystems wheneverthere is a process of communication bringingforth what he calls 'rational solidarity'.Nils Akersrom Andersen in his article dealsempirically with the state and market asalternative mechanisms for allocating resourcesto the subsystems of medical treatment and carefor elderly people. Based on a study of anattempt at privatization taking place in Den-mark, Andersen shows that when the codes fordetermining social needs are to be coupled withresources by organizations oriented towards

profit, new complexities arise for the businessorganization. The surprising conclusion to hisanalysis is that the political code threatened toswallow up the economic one, and in fact it wasprivate business that found it in its best interestto withdraw from this confused and alienenvironment. In the end privatization led tomore politics, not less.The last article in our collection is writtenby the rare case of a French philosopher with aninterest in Luhmann's systems theory. JeanClam's main focus is on the concept of theoperation as a social system's sole constituent. Itis a risky undertaking of Luhmann to build histheoretical edifice on a concept involving aprotologic that has a precarious standing bothwithin and outside systems theory. Clam seeksto demonstrate that the notion of operativity aspure actuality is not without antecedents. Hegoes on to show how Luhmann inaugurates anew type of relation between a theory of societyand the foundational or categorical work ofphilosophy.The effort behind this special issue of ActaSociologica is motivated by a conviction thatLuhmann's contributions to sociological theoryhave not yet been allotted the necessaryattention for the debate to reach a point ofsaturation where a verdict on what should beaccepted and what is to be rejected within thishuge intellectual effort can be made. Fortu-nately, systems theory is itself an example ofwhat it calls a 'super theory', and that shouldmake the task of assessing it easier. Supertheory, which at first could be seen as an insultto a sociology that has dismissed aspirationstowards grand theory, may actually represent anew possibility for epistemological grounding.As a theory that covers everything, includingitself, systems theory knows that it is its owninvention. As a closed system of self-referentialpremises, everything can be looked upon anddiscussed, not at the same time, but in turn fromone or another place in the system. With respectto their self-awareness as scientific construc-tions, super theories are r?visable and humbleprojects.

This content downloaded on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:07:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp