With reference to three seminal books on cybernetics, communication theory and the calculus of distinctions, this article discusses some main threads in Niklas Luhmann's sociological systems theoretical thinking. It argues that the systems theory, despite its still lively reputation in some quarters of the humanities, is not technocracy's last attempt to cope with the complexity of modern society. Rather, it is an inquiry into the improbability of communication and into its translation into social structure, or better, into social form.

The background of the article is Marxism's lack of a notion of management. The article suggests that anyone rethinking capitalism should pause for a moment to check on the evidence for such a notion. It seems necessary because today's theory of capitalism can no longer be content with a structural theory of the conflict between capital and labour, but must integrate a poststructural, or operational, theory of how capitalism is sustained on a day-to-day basis by organized projects in networks. The (...) article develops a notion of `management by strata', which is matched to the traditional role of hierarchies, and a notion of `management by ties', which is tuned to the newly discovered role of hierarchies in networks. The method used in the article is a theoretical study based on the sociological theories of social systems and networks. (shrink)

Upshot: Are narratives systems on their own, or rather structures supporting and, if need be, subverting the reproduction of systems? Bruce Clarke inquires into the ability of social systems theory to help understand narratives - and comes across some “mysteries of cognition” concerning the questions of how systems emerge and which of them might be considered self-referential and autopoietic.

Open peer commentary on the target article “Who Conceives of Society?” by Ernst von Glasersfeld. Excerpt: The question I am most interested in is the question raised by von Glasersfeld as to whether Luhmann’s talk of “eigen-values” of society actually is, or is not, just a loose metaphor as von Glaserfeld maintains by emphasizing that in the society of human beings “the recursion of operations of observation or description is not governed by fixed rules, unlike the recursion of functions that (...) produce mathematical eigenwerte” . Indeed, how are we to conceive of the possible eigen-values of society? And who are we to possibly be able to conceive of possible eigen-values? (shrink)

Referring to MacOS’s »swoosh« as the signal of a successfully sent E-Mail the paper looks into the contribution of cultural values to communication with invisible machines. This contribution can be assessed within the context of Talcott Parsons’ action theory which addresses culture as one of four functional aspects of any one action (L), the other three being adaptation to physical, material, and technical environment (A), reference to the goal-attainment of both organism and personality (G), and the integration into, and differentiation (...) from, other action (I). The swoosh signals an »infrathin«, i.e. fleeting, connection of black boxes like machine, body, consciousness, and society being interrelated orthogonally. A culture develops, which momentarily leaves open the question whether or what controls whom or what, even though the calculi of computation themselves are becoming ever more incomputable. (shrink)

Explaining the seizure of power by the National Socialist Party and the totalitarian workings of the Nazi regime in the Third Reich is still difficult not only with respect to the atrocities committed but also to understanding whether the German population and society had to be terrorized into complying with the regime or were part and parcel of it. The paper introduces a notion of swarm to advance the idea that the German population was terrorized into a deliberate compliance with (...) the regime. The notion of swarm is sociologically controlled by a complementary notion of form, which serves to reconstruct and model the social calculus realized by the swarm to differentiate and reproduce itself inside a complex society. The data I use are the results of historical research done in the last 60 years. (shrink)

The article inquires into the uneasiness of sociological systems theory about culture. Culture alternatively is called the solution to the problem of double contingency (Parsons) and removed from this solution (Luhmann). It is shown that meaning is the more basic term whose description reveals a form rule of social systems which is only patterned, yet not understood by culture. Culture is a memory and control device of society. It may be conceived of as providing the distinction of correct versus incorrect (...) behaviour. But who decides on the correctness or incorrectness of this distinction? Sociological thinking takes off where the cultural and the social are distinguished. (shrink)

This book brings together international experts on the application of Niklas Luhmann’s theory of society as autopoietic communication. Luhmann’s sociological systems theory is counter-intuitive and in its detached coolness difficult for many to understand and accept. Naturally they ask: is it really worth the trouble to learn? This book demonstrates what this combination of systems theory, Batesonian information theory, von Foerster’s second-order cybernetics, Maturana and Varela’s autopoiesis and Husserl’s phenomenology can offer. The book is produced in cooperation with the Sociocybernetic (...) Group and Copenhagen Business School. (shrink)