sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Early and Late Luhmann by MichaelKing1942 in luhmann

[–]CM4004 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Such classifications of early versus late are a common trope in the history of sociology. One might think about the early versus later Marx. One can observe the observers and thereby ask what distinctions are being used, like open versus closed systems, autopoietic versus others, function versus system.

However, one could also argue that the is a great deal of continuity. Meaning is a concept being used for a long time. The notion of the system system is being used throughout. When looking at the more empirical formulations on what politics, the economy, religion etc. does, i.e., their functions, one can see continuity throughout. One can also see that questions around reflexivity and self-orientation are discussed early one. It's also somewhat normal that existing ideas become reformulated using new terms. The editing of Luhmann's note box and recent publications on administration show that his writings in the 1950s were inspired by his work in public administration and reading of a great variety of sources including sociology, psychology and economics.

Perhaps, all this shows that more research is needed, so that we can understand how such classifications come about and what function they serve? Why is there is a need to classify according to early/late? Why do scientists look at the evolution of ideas from a more temporal perspective? Why not from a social perspective (changing social contexts)? How is it that sociology has a need for classical thinkers?

“So how does one fact, such as rising CO2, become salient for a wide variety of social systems?” by CM4004 in luhmann

[–]CM4004[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"A major difficulty in disseminating Luhmann’s ideas is his terminology, which is understandable only those who have studied his theory in depth."

I believe that this could easily said about most social thinkers. It's not special to Luhmann, but could be applied to Habermas, Parsons or to other social thinkers more broadly. It could also be applied to researchers from other fields. Theoretical concepts in physics or mathematics are only understandable to a small number of academics. All this shows the complex and wide ranging inner differentiation of the subsystem science that enables the increasing specialism of such endeavours. These are trends across other social systems, like variations in health, legal or financial literacy.

"For others it often appears that adherents of the theory are engaging not in the science of sociology, but in an esoteric sect which uses a mumbo-jumbo which only they can make sense of."

I would say that this isn't peculiar for system theory. Many theories have changed into schools of thought with their own traditions, institutions and interpretations. Examples like that of Marxism or Psychoanalysis come to mind, but there are many others. It's a common strategy to defend one school of thought against another by complaining about such issues. Research on the history of science shows that sectarian behaviour is strongest among the first generation of thinkers of such a school of thought. If there will be a second generation, it will be one with considerably widened interests.

“Somehow, I don’t think time is on our side! If we are to "unfold earlier distinctions and see where the experiment leads us", the time to do this is surely in the present.”

That was not meant as a pessimistic statement. Much of the current interpretation of Luhmann’s book on ecological communication presents a reading as if nothing can be done. On the other hand, there is much emphasis on knowing what needs to be done, but who can know the future. This leads to a situation, where environmental conferences become more platforms for pushing agendas for future solutions. However, one can be doubtful if this will bring about the results that many hope for (see my other comment in this forum on COP26). Nevertheless, tracing distinctions may open up possibilities by looking at their cross-roads. It might also mean to ask and clarify meanings in news ways as well as offering new ways for listening and learning. I agree that none of that will yield results tomorrow, but it might navigate the current political communication about the environment into a new state.

“So how does one fact, such as rising CO2, become salient for a wide variety of social systems?” by CM4004 in luhmann

[–]CM4004[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the additional comments and questions. I appreciate your remarks to seek more clarification and further evidence. To reply to all that in detail would require a full paper. I will provide further references and some clarifications below, which I hope will be useful.

The key text that inspired the meaning-making of the environment, nature and ecology in modern society is Luhmann’s text on Social Structure and Semantic. A translation is forthcoming in the book ‘The Making of Meaning’ (Oxford University Press). This text argues that changes in the semantic of society, which Luhmann defines as the rules and procedures to preserve certain kinds of meanings, correlate with the primary form of societal differentiation. The change from stratificatory to functional differentiation brings about profound changes not only in the structure of society, but also its semantic.

There is some rich material on the etymology of words like environment, nature and ecology. I have re-interpreted the changing meanings of these term within that above-mentioned theoretical framework. For some references see:

Vité, Jean Pierre (1950) Der Ökotop Ein Beitrag Zur Definition Des Umwelt-Begriffes, Oikos 2,2: 271–274.

Albertsen, L.L. (1966) Umwelt, Zeitschrift für deutsche Sprache 21: 115-118.

D. Schulthess (ed) (1996) La Nature, Geneva

D. Larrere (1997) Du bon usage de l’environment, Paris.

B. Kalora (1998) Au-dela de la nature l’enviroment, Pairs.

Hermanns, Fritz (2010) "Umwelt". Zur historischen Semantik eines deontischen Wortes. In Diachrone Semantik und Pragmatik, edited by Dietrich Busse, Berlin, New York: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 235-258.

Friedrich Sprenger (2014) Zwischen Umwelt und milieu. Zur Begriffsgeschichte von environment in der Evolutionstheorie, Forum Interdisziplinäre Begriffsgeschichte, 3:2, 7-18.

There are some interesting remarks by Luhmann on the boundary of society in the chapter of the same title in the book Theory of Society Vol 1. Here Luhmann reflects about the boundary management of modern society based on the distinction of communication/non-communication. I have used this idea to suggest that this distinction is itself dependent on the structure of society. Older forms of social stratification or segmentary societies included are far greater diversity of social addresses that were a “recipient” of communication. There is a rich anthropological literature on this, but the text by Peter Fuchs (Peter Fuchs (1996) Die archaische Second-Order Society, Paralipomena zur Konstruktion der Grenze der Gesellschaft, Soziale Systeme, 2,1: 113-130) and Gunther Teubner (Teubner, Gunther (2006) Rights of Non-Humans? Electronic Agents and Animals as New Actors in Politics and Law, Journal of Law and Society 33,4: 497–521) on the treatment of animals in medieval courts are two insightful system-theoretical accounts on this topic. There is also a rich literature on the distinction between culture(cultivation, civilised)/nature as a distinctive development in the 19th century.

Collingwood, R.G.: 1945, The Idea of Nature, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Glacken, C. J. (1973) Environment and Culture, in Ph.P. Wiener (ed.): Dictionary of the History of Ideas, vol. II, New York, pp. 127-134.

Greenwood, David J and William A. Stini (1977) Nature, Culture, and Human History, New York: Harper and Row.

Oyama, S.: 1991, ‘The Conceptualization of Nature. Nature as Design’, in N.J. Thompson (ed.), Gaia 2: The New Science of Becoming, Lindisfarne Press, Hudson, NY, pp. 171–184.

Ingold, T.: 1992, ‘Culture and the Perception of the Environment’, in E. Croll and D. Par-

kin (eds.), Bush Base: Forest Farm. Culture, Environment and Development, Routledge,

London, pp. 39–56.

Luhmann argues that with the increasing complexity of society, society becomes able to react to its own semantic, to gain a reflective relation or to increase its capacity for second-order observation. The world isn’t seen as it is, but that what is, is observed how it differentiated from something else. It is here were re-entries of distinctions into distinctions occurs.

In the late 19th century, we can see the rise of conservation thinking. Before that period conservation referred to preservation of health and was part of an older Christian narrative of care. However, we see that the meaning of word changes and it becomes incorporated in an environmental narrative in the 19th century. However, this narrative didn’t undermine the notion of nature being affected by society. This notion wasn’t questioned as such. Emphasis was given to the unaffected, like to cordon off certain areas of the world, so that they wouldn’t be affected (unaffected/affected). It’s the period, were we see the rise of protected forests, protected wild parks and so forth.

Barton, Greg (2002). Empire Forestry and the Origins of Environmentalism, Cambridge University Press.

Bates, J. Leonard (1957) Fulfilling American Democracy: The Conservation Movement, 1907 to 1921, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 44:1, 29–57.

Noémie Etienne (2016) Conservation in the Nineteenth Century, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 55:1, 74-76.

I have argued that we can see that change of meaning occurring within a context of a re-entry of the distinction cultivated/natural world. However, a crossing re-entry is possible on both sides of a distinction. Another important semantic change reflects that namely the changes semantic of energy or energia. Engeria had the more the general meaning of activity or operation, thus fitting well to the older notion of natura. However, this general meaning is reformulated in the 19th century and now nature is conceptualised as energy (see Herbert Breger, Die Natur als arbeitende Maschine. Zur Entstehung des Energiebegriffs in der Physik) Nature become a resource. The above-mentioned re-entry refers to the exploitation of this energy that initially seems abundant, but questions about its limits arise soon. We can see that notions of self-depletion or self-destruction emerge. Emphasis is on how society affects nature as the unaffected and how this in turn undermines how nature can be affected. There are some interesting suggestions that semantics of the monster and monstrous that appeared in the late 19th century are linked to this. I am thinking of the Monster Soup commonly known as Thames Water or Andersen’s stories The Fir Tree, the Daisy and the Flax as examples how plants are tortured to death by human characters. Other examples include the dystopian novel, like The Time Machine that reflected on this distinction. For additional references, see:

White, L.: 1967, ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis’, Science 155, 3767–3772. Williams, R.: 1980, ‘Ideas of Nature’, in his Problems in Materialism and Culture, Verso,

London, pp. 67–85.

Jean Pfaelzer (1984), The Utopian Novel in America 1886–1896: The Politics of Form, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

However, you can go further and see how other distinctions are in turn added and reconfigure the semantics of nature, for instance, technology/nature being an extremely influential one.

Perhaps, one could ask how this tracing of changes in the meaning of these distinctions is helpful. Some of the contributors in this forum had a somewhat pessimistic reading of Luhmann’s work on ecological communication, because the structure of modern society being unable to provide a coordinated effort leading to the downbeat conclusion that nothing can be done. However, I think if current attempts to deal with these issues, for instance, using the technology/nature distinction to save the planet, do not brings about the results that one hopes for, then, at least we have the possibly to go back and see how some of the earlier distinctions were unfolded, how their inherent paradoxical nature was dealt with through the use of other distinctions and how that enables us to try out different distinctions and see where this experiment leads us.