Editorial: About the Journal Distinktion
Niklas Luhmann: 'What is the Case?' and 'What Lies Behind It?' The two Sociologies and the Theory of Society (in Danish)
Ever since the inception of its academic career, sociology has approached its subject-matter in two different ways: one positivist, the other critical. Important theories, such as those of Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, have always emphasized one of these perspectives, but could never completely ignore the other one. As an empirical science, sociology has been interested in latent structures, while as critical theory, it has pointed out that social reality is not what it seems to be. Therefore, all attempts at building a unified theory of society on the basis of the critical/positivist distinction had to lead into the paradox of treating front and back, latent and manifest structures as one and the same thing. Under these conditions one could not develop a theory of society that would meet the scientific and the public demands. This situation is now changing in radical ways which sociology has yet to appreciate. One can refer to recent interdisciplinary discussions about theories of self-referential systems, autopoietic closure, second-order cybernetics of observing systems, and constructivist epistemology and information processing. One can draw upon these recent discussions in order to understand society as a self-observing system that defines its own identity while, at the same time, leaving an 'unmarked space' for the possibility to describe society in quite different ways.
Rudolf Stichweh: On the Genesis of World Society: Innovations and Mechanisms (in English)
The essay, first of all, tries to give a very brief historical and explanatory answer to the question: When begins the history of world society? World systems theory (Wallerstein) and systems theory (Luhmann) converge in locating the beginnings of world society in differentiation processes germane to 15th/16th-century Europe. The theory of world society is then the theory of the societal system emerging from this conjuncture. The essay, furthermore, adds two argumentative steps. Firstly, it sketches three structural innovations which are of special relevance for the genesis of world society: 1. Functional differentiation; 2. Organizations (especially: multinational enterprises and non-governmental organizations); 3. Communication technologies. There is something to be said for this list of structural innovations being an open one to which other innovations (networks, markets) may have to be added. Secondly, this argument on structural innovations is supplemented by three mechanisms or processual mechanisms: 1. Global diffusion of institutional patterns; 2. Global interrelatedness; 3. Decentralization in function systems. What should be quite clear in the development of this explanatory apparatus is that there are no convincing arguments for looking at world society as a system characterized by homogenized patterns of social structure and culture.
Urs Stäheli: Writing Action: Double Contingency and Normalization (in English)
Luhmann's systems theory claims to abandon an action theoretical framework in order to look at processes of communications. Action, then, becomes a secondary construct of an observer observing communications. Taking seriously Luhmann's claim of a social theory based upon communication, the paper asks how much 'action theory' resides in systems theory. Thus, it becomes necessary to re-examine two dimensions of Luhmann's conceptualization of action: action becomes an indispensable tool which makes communications 'visible', and the semantics of action is a constitutive element of the model of double contingency. My contention is that Luhmann's re-insertion of action into communication theory is still too closely linked to action theory. One of the consequences of this ethico-theoretical decision is the foreclosure of the very possibility to theorize those techniques which normalize the contingency of communication. The paper suggests to supplement Luhmann's theory of communication with a foucauldian account of procedures of subjectivation. What becomes necessary is a genealogy of 'double contingency' and the distinction between experience and action. Such an account of the production of action is more in line with Luhmann's theory of communication than the left-overs of classical sociology within systems theory.
Ole Thyssen: Luhmann and Sport (in Danish)
Taking its point of departure in Luhmann's theory of modern society as a system of functionally differentiated subsystems, each operating as autopoietic systems with a code, a medium, elements and a borderline, sport is taken as a possible candidate for a new subsystem. Without having the ambition of giving an empirical or theoretical analysis of the modern phenomenon of sport, it is shown that the domain 'sport' can be described as isomorphic with the established subsystems both in general structure and in detail. The article concludes that the concept of a functionally differentiated subsystem is ill-defined and discusses if this lack of precision will open for a multitude of new subsystems, candidates being the health system, the transport system, the advertising system, etc.
Gorm Harste: The Role of Social Theory in Society: Positioning and Differentiation through 500 Years (in Danish)
The article analyses the rationality of social theory in relation to society as a question of self-implication. This is done through an analysis of theoretical reflections of the differentiation process by which theory was separated from empirical social analysis. The article undertakes a retrospective analysis of the reflections of such a differentiation beginning with the 'new classics', Luhmann, Habermas, Foucault and Bourdieu back to the old Frankfurt School and the classic sociologists and further back to Hegel and Kant. The point is that social theory developed in a thematic differentiation of natural law and social analysis as well as a professional differentiation of research from the work of top administrative officers and advisers such as Montesquieu, d'Aguesseau and Jean Bodin. The possibility of the social knowledge conditions were questioned still more differentiated from social analysis since the early Enlightenment.
The number of intellectuals and researchers have increased ever since the Middle Ages and the roles of theory and theoreticians has changed as well. In the future the 'lack' of theory and theoreticians will disappear completely, and the surplus of theories and writings is likely to pave the way for further differentiation between abstract analysis and empirical analysis as well opening fields of translation between different research fields as well as to public use of theory.
Nils Mortensen: The Paradoxes of the Modern Individual (in Danish)
When Luhmann discusses the different aspects of the process of individualization he mentions the paradoxality which this process involves, but without every time to use the concept of paradox explicitly. The article tries to reconstruct these paradoxes and to construct a circular network of concepts: for example individuality as self-reference, role, person, 'highly individualized individuality'. The conclusion is that individuality and identity are boundary concepts in the relation between and difference between psychic and social systems. It is demonstrated that this conception can easily be brought in dialogue with the sociological tradition from Durkheim, Simmel and Mead to Schütz and Goffman.
Christian Borch: The Re-entry of Forms: Luhmann and Spencer-Brown (in Danish)
Judging from Luhmann's own references the relatively unknown logician George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form occupies a predominant position in the distinctions theoretical foundation of systems theory. In large parts of the systems theory reception the calculus of Spencer-Brown is therefore regarded as a critical point in Luhmann's theory. The article examines the relationship between Luhmann and Spencer-Brown by introducing the calculus. It is shown among other things how Luhmann is extremely selective in his use of Spencer-Brown, as he is aware of the difference between logical connections and social phenomena. However, even the selective use of Spencer-Brown is not without difficulties. Furthermore there seems to be potentials in the calculus that Luhmann could have merited from in his own theory. This is illustrated by the concept of space.
Interview with Dirk Baecker: On the Distinction Theoretical Turn in Systems Theory (in Danish)
Book Reviews