Talk:Niklas Luhmann
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Operational Closure
"Social systems are autopoietically closed in that they use and rely on resources from their environment;" shouldn't it spell "social systems are operationally closed .." as they can only rely on their enviroment if they are operationally close.
- I agree with you, "autopoiesis" itself is closure, or else it wouldn't be autopoiesis. Operational closure is the aspect of the theory talked about in that paragraph. Also, structural coupling is not mentioned in this article at all. Maybe it would be a good idea to do this when speaking of operational closure ? --Maxwell Rain 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I rephrased the following:
- He studied law first and was then active as an administration expert, after research activity at the beginning of the sixties, 1966 graduation and habilitation in the faculty sociology at the University of Münster, since 1968 lecturing sociology at the University of Bielefeld, Germany.
[edit] Functional Differentiation
Mention should probably be made of Luhmann's Die x der Gesellschaft, where x is Wirtschaft, Wissenshaft, Recht, and so on. In that connection, it wouldn't hurt to mention that functional differentiation plays a central role in his theory. A simple way of accomplishing this would be to base the English version of the article more closely on the German version... -- Hyperion 04:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] About Atheist and Anti-humanism
Is Luhmann generally considered to be an atheist? It seems he denies the existence of "entities" insofar as a "part to a whole" - there is no binding force of God as such, there are only systems consisting of operations which are not stable things and can change. So would he claim to be an atheist?
I think Luhmann, as he proclaimed the role of sociologist, is an atheist, inasmuch as sociologist are oblige to observe those unobservable, such as transcendence. And in religion, precisely, belief as their means to reach holistic unity and identity becomes more salient in the course of secularization. Yet systems theorist draws distinction on what are considered undistinguisable. These arguments appears in his article "Society, Meaning, and Religion".
Based on my readings of Luhmann it seems simplistic to call him anti-humanist. For his theory of social systems he was not interested in people but he recognized that people were responsible for bringing meaning into a system. To examine the meaning at that level one had to work at the level of psychic systems not social systems. Meaning is changed in components of a system. He again recognizes that meaning is changed by people but from the perspective of the social system the individual processes responsible for the meaning change could not be examined. He was interested in the communication itself. I am not sure he was so anti-humanist just that what is consider human would need to be considered by another perspective.
In fact, I think Anti-humanist is a too vauge term, however, Luhmann can be considered a "methodological anti-humanist" by virtue of he does not deny the crucial importance of human being as the environment of social systems, and yet individual volition and agency that constitutes sociality is hereby eliminated. Motivation, communicative orientations, and so on are detached from human individual but reserve to communication itself. Hence his anti-humanism can be tuned down to a mere methodological level, just like what Weberian theory is regard a "methodological individualism" (one can refer to James Coleman's Foundation of Social Theory). Skyliner852 07:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] references
This article, esspecially the theory section, needs citations. I would love to be able to take this article as a starting point, and go to the debates and influences directly. Can anyone give some sources? Smmurphy 15:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I think something should be mentioned about autopoietic theory of law.
[edit] jean-francois lyotard
Next to Habermas, the other famous person is Lyotard. In The Postmodern Condition the system theory of Luhman is critised as being a typical 'modern theory' (my words). The criticism is about the system being deterministic and the communicative nodes predictable and stable.
- I can't remember all of Lyotard's Postmodern Condition, but I seem to recall that it was published 5 years or so before Luhmann's Social Systems. I know that Luhmann published quite a bit in the 1970s as well, but still - did Lyotard really present a direct critique of Luhmann in that text, or was it aimed at general systems theory as such? --Thf1977 07:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- According to Google Books Luhmann is mentioned 12 times, though with only one direct reference to a work of him, it is Legitimation durch verfahren. The critique is mostly on the level of general systems theory, but it is clear that Lyotard sees Luhmann as the endpoint of a development from Comte - Parsons - Luhmann. Also several times referring to the reaction of Habermas to Luhmann. Although i´m not familiair with the work of Luhmann, from what i read in Lyotard it seems that Luhmann would have had his theory of social systems largely in place at the time Lyotard writes the Postmodern C.----Freetrader 18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- As I see it (without being an expert on Parsonian systems theory), Luhmann's systems are not necessarily stable and they are less deterministic (although they are, of course, conditioned). Luhmann talks about constant paradoxes evolving, only to be solved by the passing of time, etc. I'm not saying that Lyotard doesn't mention Luhmann, only that his critique seems to be less about Luhmann's particular "brand" of systems theory than about Parsons. --Thf1977 08:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Rereading the parts where Lyotard discusses Luhmann, i don't agree with you. I have to withdraw my first statements however, which actually dó pertain more to Parsons then to Luhmann. The point of Lyotard seems to be that in the systems of Luhmann, every disagreement (paradox?)is manipulated by the system to eventually contribute to the higher performence of the system (60/61 Google). And also: 'Administrative procedures should make individuals “want” what the system needs ...'. A few pages later he calls the systems of Luhmann terroristic: they supress 'difference'.--Freetrader 18:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Restructuring the article ?
Wouldn't it be better to build this article following the three main lines of his theory of social sytems :
1. Theory of systemsdifferentiation : with the distinction system / environment
2. Theory of sytemscomplexity : with the distinction element / relation
3. Theory of Autopoiesis : and with this the notion of operational closure and structural coupling
We could use the article as it is written now, but restructure it, and expand it where necessary. --Maxwell Rain 11:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "founder"
I changed the first sentence from "the founder of sociological systems theory" to "as well as one the most prominent modern day thinkers in the sociological systems theory". It could be argued that Durkheim was the founder (although this is a stretch), but most importantly we must not forget Talcott Parsons, in response to whom Luhmann wrote many articles.
- Agree. Parsons contribution to systems theory cannot be ignored! --Thf1977 09:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image
On Commons there is this sketch of Luhmann. I believe it is better than nothing, though not quite perfect. Have a look yourself. -- ExpImptalkcon 00:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the opposite: even nothing is better than this... ;) --Thorsten1 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed Laws of Form paragraph
Spencer-Brown's book "Laws of Form" pretends to do away with logic as it had been known until then altogether. Accordingly, Spencer-Brown praises himself in the preface of this book as the author of the "most intelligent book in the universe." Yet Maturana applies pre-Spencer-Brown logic. Therefore, Luhmann's claim to truth rests entirely on Spencer-Brown being what he pretends to be. Maturana cannot be reconciled with Spencer-Brown in the issue of autopoiesis, and Maturana has explicitly refused to be cited by Luhmann as a supporting theorist.[citation needed]
This paragraph is very confusing as to what it's trying to convey, gives a very reductive and biased treatment of Spencer-Brown's work, and argues using statements based on explicit but unsourced quotations. I've removed it for now until someone wants to clean it up and/or fact check.
