Niklas Luhmann

Niklas Luhmann

Niklas Luhmann
Born (1927-12-08)December 8, 1927
Lüneburg, Germany
Died November 6, 1998(1998-11-06) (aged 70)
Oerlinghausen, Germany
Fields Social theory
Systems theory
Communication theory
Sociocybernetics
Institutions University of Bielefeld
Alma mater Harvard University
University of Freiburg
Academic advisors Talcott Parsons
Notable students Dirk Baecker, Peter Fuchs, Rudolph Stichweh
Known for Functional differentiation, Double contingency
Influences Talcott Parsons, Gregory Bateson, Heinz von Foerster, G. Spencer-Brown,[1] Edmund Husserl, Reinhart Koselleck[2]
Influenced Jürgen Habermas, Ole Thyssen, Harrison White, Armin Nassehi, Dirk Baecker

Niklas Luhmann (December 8, 1927 – November 6, 1998) was a German sociologist, and a prominent thinker in systems theory, who is increasingly recognized as one of the most important social theorists of the 20th century.[3]

Biography

Luhmann was born in Lüneburg, Lower Saxony, where his father's family had been running a brewery for several generations. After graduating from the Johanneum school in 1943, he was conscripted as a Luftwaffenhelfer in World War II and served for two years until, at the age of 17, he was taken prisoner of war by American troops in 1945.[4] After the war Luhmann studied law at the University of Freiburg from 1946 to 1949, when he obtained a law degree, and then began a career in Lüneburg's public administration. During a sabbatical in 1961, he went to Harvard, where he met and studied under Talcott Parsons, then the world's most influential social systems theorist.

In later years, 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, until 1965, when he was offered a position at the Sozialforschungsstelle (Social Research Centre) of the University of Münster, led by Helmut Schelsky. 1965/66 he studied one semester of sociology at the University of Münster.

Two earlier books were retroactively accepted as a PhD thesis and habilitation at the University of Münster in 1966, qualifying him for a university professorship. In 1968/1969, he briefly served as a lecturer at Theodor Adorno's former chair at the University of Frankfurt and then was appointed full professor of sociology at the newly founded 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 translated subsequently in English, under the title "Theory of Society" (volume I in 2012 and volume II in 2013).

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,[5] and has also been rather intensively received in Japan and Eastern Europe, including 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.[6]

Luhmann is probably best known to North Americans for his debate with the critical theorist Jürgen Habermas over the potential of social systems theory. Like his one-time mentor Talcott Parsons, Luhmann is an advocate of "grand theory," although neither in the sense of philosophical foundationalism nor in the sense of "meta-narrative" as often invoked in the critical works of post-modernist writers. Rather, Luhmann's work tracks closer to complexity theory broadly speaking, in that it aims to address any aspect of social life within a universal theoretical framework - of which the diversity of subjects he wrote about is an indication. 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.[5]

Luhmann himself described his theory as "labyrinth-like" 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.[7]

Systems theory

Luhmann's systems theory focuses on three topics, which are interconnected in his entire work.[8]

  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 the 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.[9] 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). 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. Note, however, that Maturana 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,[10] but communications are reproduced by humans. For this reason, the analogy from biology to sociology does not, in this case, hold.[11] 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, in the sense that communicative actions result to communicative actions, that is communication manifests itself only as communication (communication results in more communication, or the end of communication thereof).

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 the computers 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; everyone 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 used systems merely as an analytic tool to understand certain processes going on in society; Luhmann, in contrast, treats his vision of systems ontologically, saying that "systems exist". That is, Luhmann in fact suggests to substitute the paradigm of systems theory for the ontological paradigm: the difference system/environment (which also signifies a relationship).

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. He does observe how certain systems fulfill functions that contribute to "society" as a whole, but this is happening more or less by chance, without an overarching vision of society. Finally, the systems' autopoietic closure is another fundamental difference from Parsons' concept. Each system works strictly according to its very own code and has no understanding at all of the way other systems perceive their environment. For example, the economy is all about money, so there is no independent role in the economic system for extraneous aspects such as morals. Upon Luhmann's attempt of defining the relationship value of environment/system we can see a reluctantly atheist approach denying the 'cause' of the creator.

One seemingly peculiar, but within the overall framework strictly logical, axiom of Luhmann's theory is the human being's position outside any social system, initially developed by Parsons. Consisting of "pure 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 systems, just as they are not part of a conversation. 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, the communicative actions of people are constituted (but not defined) by society, and society is constituted (but not defined) by the communicative actions 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 the system (the society), the so-called "structural coupling". 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). This 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.[12]

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, perhaps most notably from Jürgen Habermas.

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 or used worldwide by sociologists and other scholars:

In Europe
In North and South America
In the Asia-Pacific
In Africa

It is often being used in analyses dealing with corporate social responsibility, organisational legitimacy, governance structures as well as with sociology of law and of course general sociology.

Miscellaneous

Luhmann also appears as a character in Paul Wühr's work of literature Das falsche Buch, together with - among others - Ulrich Sonnemann, Johann Georg Hamann and Richard Buckminster Fuller.

Luhmann owned a pub ("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's hands since 1857.

Publications

A certain number of original books and articles are available for download (see below: External Links).

Articles

About Luhmann

References

  1. ↑ Journal of Sociocybernetics 4, 2 - Universidad de Zaragoza
  2. ↑ Ziemann, Benjamin (2007). "The Theory of Functional Differentiation and the History of Modern Society. Reflections on the Reception of Systems Theory in Recent Historiography". Soziale System, 13 (1+2). pp. 220–229.
  3. ↑ Bechmann and Stehr, 'The Legacy of Niklas Luhmann' Society (2002).
  4. ↑ In an interview Luhmann once said: "... die Behandlung war – gelinde gesagt – nicht nach den Regeln der internationalen Konventionen". Source: Detlef Horster (1997), Niklas Luhmann, München, p.28.
  5. 1 2 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
  6. ↑ Luhmann, N, A Sociological Theory of Law (1985) and Law As a Social System, translated by Klaus A. Ziegert (Oxford University Press, 2003)
  7. ↑ "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.
  8. ↑ Niklas Luhmann (1975), "Systemtheorie, Evolutionstheorie und Kommunikationstheorie", in: Soziologische Gids 22 3. pp.154–168
  9. ↑ Niklas Luhmann. (1982). The World Society as a Social System. International Journal of General Systems, 8:3, 131-138.
  10. ↑ Varela, F., Maturana, H., & Uribe, R. (1974). "Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model". Biosystems. 5: 187–196. doi:10.1016/0303-2647(74)90031-8.
  11. ↑ Maturana, H., & Poerkson, B. (2004). From Being to Doing: The Origins of the Biology of Cognition. Carl Auer International. pp. 105–108. ISBN 3896704486.
  12. ↑ 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.
  13. ↑ Anderson, Niels A. (2003) Discursive analytical strategies: understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann. Policy Press. Bristol, UK. ISBN 1-86134-440-6
  14. ↑ /Link to Jesper Taekke
  15. ↑ Brier, S. (2008a). Cybersemiotics: Why Information Is Not Enough, Toronto Studies in Semiotics and Communication, University of Toronto Press. ISBN 1442626364. /Link to Søren Brier
  16. ↑ Brier, S. (2007b). Applying Luhmann’s system theory as part of a transdisciplinary frame for communication science, Cybernetics & Human Knowing, Vol. 14, no. 2-3. Pp.29-65. ISBN 1845401484 http://www.chkjournal.org /Link to Cybernetics and Human Knowing Journal
  17. ↑ Schinkel, Willem (2007) Denken in een tijd van sociale hypochondrie, aanzet tot een theorie voorbij de maatschappij
  18. ↑ Kopić, Mario (2013) The Beats of the Other (Otkucaji drugoga), Belgrade.ISBN 978-86-519-1721-2
  19. ↑ Yoldaş, Yunus "Sistem Kuramı", Derin Yayınları, İstanbul 2013, "Toplumun Siyaseti", Derin Yayınları, İstanbul 2011
  20. ↑ http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674015968
  21. ↑ http://lapa.princeton.edu/eventdetail.php?ID=330
  22. ↑ "Foundations of Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems", Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 29:4, 481-516, 1999.
  23. ↑ "Neither Cited nor Foundational: Niklas Luhmann's Ecological Communication", The Communication Review, 8: 329–362, 2005; "Gregory Bateson, Niklas Luhmann, and Ecological Communication", The Communication Review, Volume 11, Issue 2 April 2008, pages 151 - 175.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Niklas Luhmann.
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Niklas Luhmann
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 9/18/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.