Search results

Although Niklas Luhmann refrains from an explicit treatment of power as a force of social constraint, I propose that, if partially reconstructed, his Systems Theory can illuminate the subject considerably. I show this by distinguishing between five elements in Luhmann's treatment of each of the following six social subsystems: the economy, politics, law, science, religion and education. The five subsystem elements are: (1) a binary code, (2) a basis of authority, (3) a language of social communication, (4) a generalized medium of communication, and (5) a social function. Whereas Luhmann assumes that each subsystem approximates autopoiesis, or self‐contained internal operation and autonomy, I assume the pervasiveness of interpenetration, whereby operations is one subsystem nonetheless affect operations in others. Subsequently, I juxtapose the reconstructed systems‐theoretic framework developed in the first half of the paper with Michel Foucault's power/knowledge framework. I conclude that the use of a reconstructed systems‐theoretic approach, based loosely on Luhmann's original theory, could greatly illuminate the specifics of power/knowledge in modern societies, to an even greater extent than Foucault does himself.

To present the concept of moral invention as discussed by philosopher Paul Ricoeur and to examine how the selections operated by systems described by Niklas Luhmann as meaning‐constituting systems allow for the emergence of distinctions that would qualify as moral invention.

Ricoeur's philosophical position on ethics and morality is rooted in Husserlian phenomenology. So is Niklas Luhmann's description of meaning‐constituting systems and his discussion of their capacity to produce meaningful distinctions, including ethico‐moral ones. An interdisciplinary approach is used in order to highlight the conditions under which moral invention could become possible. In order to provide grounds for further discussions across disciplines, the extensive use of quotations is deemed necessary so that the material referred to can be traced back within Luhmann's extensive corpus, written and published in many languages.

Propositions are formulated as comments following the presentation of three of Luhmann's statements about meaning. These propositions indicate how meaning‐constituting systems could make distinctions or selections that would qualify as moral inventions.

To shows how second‐order cybernetics and philosophy, using as a common basis a description of meaning inspired by Husserlian phenomenology, can develop complementary propositions about ethics and morality.

This study aims to review Luhmann's theory of moral communication while focusing on symmetry conditions, in light of Armin Nassehi's criticism, to clarify issues regarding this concept. Then, Luhmann's symmetry condition is reconstructed as a concept containing double meaning via a case study in Japan. Correspondingly, interesting situations and characteristics of moral communication, such as “inflation,” the “polemogene” and ubiquity of moral communication, are interpreted more consistently.

In today's society, moral communication may spiral out of control and even be fatal. By examining Niklas Luhmann's theory, in this paper, the author elaborates on why and how this mechanism occurs.

The author emphasizes that the suspicion pertaining to the asymmetry of communication is stressed in the case of anonymity. When an individual communicates using a moral code, it is impossible to discern whether the implications of self-bindingness are undermined or not through observations or consequences of communication and can only be questioned or confirmed through communication. However, criticizing the outburst of the masses and exchanging blame by isolating only one aspect of such a phenomenon will only be superficial.

This study reveals that the very condition that makes moral communication possible enables people to communicate respectfully or contemptuously with others without any special qualification. Such an analysis can serve as a theoretical underpinning for the analysis of today's phenomena.

To get beneath the surface of the focal concepts of public relations practice today, the major sociological theories of Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann have been fruitful as frames of interpretation. Two paradigms for reflection on the public relations phenomenon have been developed on their theories: the inter‐subjective and the social systemic public relations paradigms. These paradigms indicate fundamentally different interpretations of the concepts of conflict and social responsibility, with crucial consequences for the role of public relations in today's social order. Each perspective has its blind spots but the switching of perspectives allows us to see more. Habermas's theories make it possible to disclose the ideal perception which seems to prevail in the self‐understanding of public relations practice while, at the same time, setting out normative ideals for the practice. The ideal in the inter‐subjective paradigm is to re‐establish the system's coupling to the lifeworld. The public relations practitioner must act as an individual through communicative action. Public relations is a matter of ethical issues in a normative perspective. We might also call this the ethical, communicative or normative paradigm of public relations. The keyword is legitimation in post‐conventional discourse society. Luhmann's theories make it possible to disclose the social systemic mechanisms that can be viewed as the framework for public relations practice, and to set out functional conditions for that practice. The functions of the social systemic paradigm are to assist in maintaining the boundaries of the organisation system through strategic reflection and to assist in ensuring that society's differentiated system logics can function autonomously because they also understand how to function together. The sphere of action of the public relations practitioner is defined by the social systems. Public relations is a matter of functional issues in a cognitive perspective. We might also call this the functional, reflective or cognitive paradigm of public relations. The keyword is public trust in the context‐regulated society. This paper is based on a thesis by the author entitled: ‘The Inter‐subjective and the Social Systemic Public Relations Paradigms’, University of Roskilde, April 1996, also to be published in English.

Systems theory is frequently discussed. The aim of the contribution is to elaborate what is to be advised with the idea of closed systems regarding change management.

This paper follows Niklas Luhmann and his so-called “autopoietic turn.” It provides a profound theoretic basis, from which the needs and requirements of the post-heroic management emerge. The implications of this specific approach to change management are demonstrated by means of the contemporary example of scrum. The applied method is literature review.

This contribution seeks to understand the relevance of closed systems within change management. Especially, the meaning of indirect strategies of control as a requirement for change management will be shown. That means Luhmann emphasizes the pessimism of traditional change management. The findings emphasize the meaning of self-organizing systems predicating by means of observation, which configurates corporate agility.

Systems theory often suffers from lack of empirical evidence, as systems are multi-complex. As an alternative, in this study, a literature-based discussion of the contemporary agile project management technique “scrum” is used.

The meaning of power in management shifts from formal to informal or soft power, e.g. the ability to promote self-binding processes. Thus, closed systems emphasize the need to look for alternatives for change management.

Characterizing Luhmann as a hidden champion of contemporary management as modern management tools like hackathons or crowdsourcing also benefit from closed systems.

Drawing from the work of sociologist Niklas Luhmann, this paper analyzes and critiques the ways sociology presents itself as a vehicle for sociological “enlightenment.” It begins with a brief historical account of how sociology has come to describe itself as a science in the name of promoting social justice rooted back to the European Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. Next, the relevant elements of Luhmann's theory of society are explained ground the analysis. Luhmann's critiques of sociology and science are then presented to explain how a Luhmannian understanding of social systems exposes what is missing in sociology's current self-description of itself and its “enlightenment” mission. Building upon Luhmann's observations, a preliminary observational analysis of the communication techniques and technologies of sociology, such as classes, conferences, and publications, is assessed to evaluate the tools sociology uses to engage in communication and “irritate” other social systems. The central question here is, are these tools effective in communicating sociological knowledge in a way that aligns with the aspirational humanistic goals sociology seeks to achieve? The argument then concludes with some remarks about how sociology might potentially overcome its communicative efficacy problem if it takes seriously the insights from a Luhmannian approach to communication and considers alternative forms of communication to reach new audiences. In this way, sociology could perhaps overcome the gap between the facts of its communicational efficacy and its enlightenment norms.

The rise of the general systems theory in the twentieth century would not have been possible without the concept of feedback. Of special interest to the present paper is Niklas Luhmann’s reconstruction and critique of Wiener’s cybernetic approach to the feedback concept. Luhmann has suggested that the operation of the feedback-controlled systems potentially poses problems of sustainability. The purpose of this paper is to explore this suggestion in more detail.

The reconstruction of the arguments of Luhmann and Wiener shows that both scholars approached the feedback concept from the “system-environment” perspective. Luhmann takes system-environment relations to be inherently precarious. Wiener underscores the importance of the sensitivity of the feedback-controlled systems to their environment.

Drawing on Norbert Wiener’s and Niklas Luhmann’s ideas, the paper shows that every specification of the feedback mechanism implies the drawing of the moral boundary that demarcates those parts of the environment to which the relevant system is sensitive from those to which it is not. A likely outcome of this boundary drawing is the maintenance of intra-systemic complexity at the cost of the deteriorating sustainability of the system in its environment.

Until today, the general system theory has sought to explain organized complexity and rightly underscored the role of feedback in maintaining it, thereby inadvertently creating the chasm between the complexity and sustainability dimensions of human civilization. The present paper pleads for reorienting of the systems-theoretic analysis of the feedback concept toward closing this chasm.

Blake is relatively well-known, but who was J M Robertson? What's his connection with George Spencer-Brown? And how exactly did J M Robertson influence George Spencer-Brown?

George Spencer-Brown (1923–2016) is the author (among other works) of the undeservedly little-known book, Laws of Form (1969/2011), which was a key inspiration for Niklas Luhmann (1927–1998). But what inspired George Spencer-Brown? This paper explores two key influences on George Spencer-Brown and his work: the English poet and artist, William Blake (1757–1827) and the Scottish rationalist, politician and author, J M Robertson (1856–1933).

The paper points to a broken link between George Spencer-Brown's work and Niklas Luhmann's.

These questions are explored from two perspectives: first, George Spencer-Brown's works and their debt to (1) Blake's work, from which he quotes in a number of instances and to (2) J M Robertson's (in particular, the latter's Letters on Reasoning (1905) and Rationalism (1912)); second, my personal connection to Spencer-Brown, who mentored me through Laws of Form and with whom I developed a close friendship involving regular weekly telephone conversations for the greater part of the last four years of Spencer-Brown's life. I share anecdotes and stories that connect George Spencer-Brown and J M Robertson that span George Spencer-Brown's lifetime – from his school days to his dying days. Both Blake's and Robertson's influences are relevant to Spencer-Brown's view of morality. The paper looks at specific connections between Blake's work and J M Robertson's on the one hand and George Spencer-Brown's on the other.

Many recent studies have voiced the growing concern that the body of knowledge that springs from organization science is hardly taken notice of in management practice. This has given rise to urgent calls for making organization research more relevant to practitioners and an intensive debate on how to realize this aim has set in (e.g., Hodgkinson, Herriot, & Anderson, 2001; Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001; MacLean & MacIntosh, 2002; Baldridge, Floyd, & Markoczy, 2004; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). In most of the existing literature one can identify three main reasons for the observable lack of connection between organization research and practice: research is not sufficiently focused on the “real” problems of practitioners (e.g., Rynes, McNatt, & Breetz, 1999), research results are not properly disseminated to practitioners (e.g., Spencer, 2001), and the language of science is not properly translated into the language practitioners' use (e.g., Starkey & Madan, 2001; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). The underlying assumption is that if scientists redressed these shortcomings, their findings would be utilized by practitioners and thus the gap between theory and practice would be bridged.

This article seeks to discuss trust within the context of public health crises using an autopoietic systems perspective that positions communication as one of its core concepts. This article will explore trust studies conducted during public health crises in this Millennium (from SARS to COVID-19 pandemics), including their problems; briefly summarize Luhmann's concept of Vertrauen; and use this concept to analyze trust issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article will explore trust studies conducted during public health crises from SARS to COVID-19 pandemics, including their problems. The perspective used is an explication of Niklas Luhmann's theory regarding Vertrauen which was derived as a framework for reading empirical facts on trust issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research design and exploration stages were inspired by the theory of autopoiesis systems by Niklas Luhmann.

From a systems perspective, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extraordinary complexity of the linkages between social systems. Trust will continue to evolve dynamically as new variants emerge in society. Consequently, the pandemic has provided the momentum necessary for maximally exploring the concept of trust. Indonesia thus experienced significant obstacles when making and implementing disaster mitigation policies. Owing to the lack of a trust system, greater emphasis was given to control and power. There has been little preparedness to create and reinforce public trust, and this in turn has stifled efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19.

This study of trust, communication and public health crises has provided space to reflect on the development of trust within the social system. This study shows that trust can prove to be a very important factor in resolving a crisis. However, the complexity of the interrelationships of the social system can affect the quality of trust. The context of Indonesia's social system which is very complex due to population density and the dynamics of the development of its social system which is very diverse as an archipelagic country has contributed to the originality of the study of trust in times of crisis in a growing contemporary society.