Niklas Luhmann: The Social System

Introduction
Autopoiesis and Operational Closure
The Concept of ‘Autopoiesis’
Self Production, Organization, Reference
Elements of Social System

Introduction

While Karl Marx treats the economy as more fundamental than other social systems, for Luhmann the social system includes all functional systems in a modern society that are equally important and irreplaceable. He excludes a ruling class (an Oberschicht) that can govern society as a whole and denies any class relations and class identities with respect to other social relations or collective identities. Therefore, for Luhmann, the social system is a communication system and, as a communication system, it differentiates into different functional systems such as the family, law, economics and science. These systems are structured and codified. For example, a legal system communicates according to a legal/illegal code, art through aesthetics/aesthetics, the political system through government/opposition, and so on. Any system can only observe what its code describes and cannot observe it outside the code because it cannot observe what it cannot observe (Luhmann 1990d: 53). Therefore, no system can control or predict its impact on other systems and is not able to communicate with them.

To overcome the above dilemma, Luhmann suggests that a sociological analysis must examine the structural similarities between different autonomous systems. This gives them a general description of the company. He finds that functional systems operate autopoietically and are functionally closed. In ongoing autopoietic reproduction, the system builds on the structure created by its previous operations. This in turn leads to a shutdown state. Therefore, for Luhmann, the basic assumption is that a system exists and is not based on the idea of a set of elements integrated into a "whole". On the contrary, for Luhmann, the system works through sense (psychic and social) which operationally differs, and the way it works is communication. For example, for the psychic sense, the mode of production is cognition. For Luhmann, the following topics attempt to build a coherent picture of the world we live in today by explaining systems thinking and social theories.

Autopoiesis and Operational Closure

Before going into the analysis of what Luhmann called the "autopoietic" system, let us recall what the general theory of systems tells us. According to general systems theory, systems are wholes, which cannot be understood by analyzing their parts. Similarly, society is like an organism whose parts cannot be separated from each other. Drawing on these numerous sociologists, such as Max Weber, Durkheim, Comte had developed important theoretical approaches to analyzing the world for the study of social facts, relationships and actions. After World War II, these early functional theories were refined and popularized by major contributors to structural functionalism, such as Talcott Parsons, who propagated the AGIL model to which all society must conform. For him, a social system consists of operating codes, adaptive mechanisms, integrative mechanisms and value systems.

As a student of Talcott Parson at Harvard University, Niklas Luhman uses most of his ideologies. However, he sees a social system as an "organic" system capable of:

Self Production: Systems produce basic elements.
Self-Organisation: Systems create their own boundaries as well as internal structure.
Self Referencing: Each elements refer to the system itself and are a closed system.

The Concept of ‘Autopoiesis’

The central point around which Luhmann develops his theory of the social system comes from the writings of the Chilean biologists H. Maturana and F. Varela. The word "autopoiesis" derives from the Greek root, "autos" means "self" and "poiein" means "to produce", together means "self-production" and "self-reproduction". Autopoietic systems are systems that reproduce themselves. For Luhmann, the concept of "autopoiesis" is not limited only to biological systems, but can also be applied to a variety of non-biological systems. In keeping with the general systems tradition, Luhmann attempts to abstract from the original biological concept of autopoesis to a transdisciplinary concept of autopoesis. For him, this concept is very applicable when the elements of a system are reproduced by the elements of the system such as life, psychic and social. For example, when the living system reproduces itself on the basis of life, the social system reproduces itself on the basis of communication, and psychic systems reproduce themselves on the basis of consciousness or thoughts which are not physical substances but elements of meaning. So to speak, for Luhmann "autonomy" is the fundamental characteristic that characterizes the living system.

Self Production, Organization, Reference

As mentioned above, autopoiesis refers to the autonomy of systems to produce and reproduce themselves. A living system is characterized as a network of component production processes that is continuously, recursively generated and realized as a concrete entity in the physical space, through the interaction of the same components that produce it as a network. Despite Parsons' influence on Luhmann, social systems are not systems of action but of communication, and they give meaning to their environment. Thus, Luhmann moved from action to communication. On the one hand, Parsons, through his AGIL paradigm, sees the action as outside the actors. On the other hand, Luhmann also stayed out of the actors by questioning earlier structural functionalism. For him, social systems are no longer primarily systems of action, but sensory systems through observation. To put it in his own words: “A social system is a communicative process that makes sense of its environment, just as the world makes sense in a conscious process (Luhmann 1995).

Elements of Social System

According to Luhmann the main elements of Social systems are the followings

Communication: Earlier theorists usually treat communication as an asymmetrical process of transferring meaning or information from a sender to a receiver. Luhmann adopted Karl Buhler's theory of speech and argued that communication is a combination of the following three components (Seidl 2004):
(i) Information: it states that communication selects what is being communicated from everything that could have been communicated.
(ii) Utterance: It is through utterance that information can be collected or communicated. That means „how and why something is being said‟. It can be said that utterance is the selection of a particular form and reason from all possible forms and reasons.
(iii) Understanding: For Luhmann a communication to be understood the information has to be distinguished from the utterance. Thus, what is being communicated must be distinguished from how and why it is communicated.
Earlier theorists prioritized information and enunciation in understanding communication as a concept; but it was Luhmann who attached the greatest importance to "understanding." For him, the meaning of a communication is ultimately determined by understanding. In Luhmann's own words, "communication is made possible from behind, so to speak, contrary to the timing of the process", which is called the "principle of hermeneutics". (Luhmann 1995a:143).
(iv) Acceptance / Rejection: For Luhmann if the system is not discontinued a fourth type of selection will take place in the meaning of communication. He argued that one should keep in mind that acceptance does not simply come from understanding but one can also reject the total communication. So for him communicative structure does not always refer to acceptance. Rather there arise rejections too. This distinction between understanding and the selection of acceptance or rejection adds a dynamic element which bridges the gap from one communicative event to the next. This leads to a very important point pertaining to reproduction of communication.
Interpretation: Social vs. Psychic: For Luhmann, man is not conceptualized as a systematic entity, but as an agglomeration of an organic and psychic system. The first (organism) is made up of biological ones, while the second (psychic) is made up of thoughts. While they are operationally opposed, they are nonetheless structurally related or taken together. Luhmann thus viewed society as a first-order social system distinct from the economic and legal system. This is because the latter has no other social system like the environment. On the other hand, the environment of the society consists of a natural and a psychic system but all are connected for the proper functioning of the social system. For Luhmann, differentiation is a systemic way of dealing with complexity and changes in the environment. If a system is to deal with complexity, it must be complex and allow for variety, variation, and internal conflict. Must be flexible enough to deal with changes in its environment. Thus for Luhmann, although man is not a systematic unit, the social system treats him as "a person". Thus man in conglomeration with the organic and psychic system forms the social system. The autopoesis of the social system also requires the autopoesis of the psychic system. Because of their structural bond, the social system can expect their communication to cause irritation in the psychic system and, if necessary, to receive irritation from the psychic system as well. For him, therefore, systems theory begins with the unity of difference between system and environment. The environment is a constitutive element of this difference, therefore no less important for the system than the system itself. (Luhmann, 1995a, p.212)
Communication and Action: Although Luhman values communication, he never neglects the idea of action. For him, it is necessary to act to reproduce the system. While Habermas treats communication as a kind of action, for Luhmann communication is the synthesis of a triple choice of enunciation, information and understanding, as we have seen previously. However, action alone cannot explain all three choices except for "understanding". Therefore, Luhmann argues that simply treating communication as an action is to neglect the notion of communication itself.

References

Ducros, Louis.(1967) Jean Jacques Rousseau. New York: B. Franklin
Luhmann, (2000) Organisation und Entscheidung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Luhmann, N. (1986) "The Autopoiesis of Social Systems." Pp. 172-92 in Sociocybernetic Paradoxes: Observation, Control and Evolution of Self-Steering Systems, eds. F. Geyer and J. Van d. Zeuwen. London: Sage.
Luhmann, N. (1992b). "Organisation." Pp. 165-85 in Rationalitdt, Macht Und Spiele in Organisationen, eds. W. Kupper and G. Ortmann. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.