Search

Sociologist Niklas Luhmann argued that the law functions as society's immune system by regulating conflicts that threaten the certainty of expectation structures. In this article, we argue that law itself has become a target of new social immune mechanisms. Since the 1980s, welfare states have increasingly seen their own structures as a threat. Today, the ideal is a public sector consisting of organizations that constantly emerge anew by selecting the structures that fit each specific moment, case, and citizen. To protect public sector organizations against their own structures, 'potentialization' now functions as a social autoimmune mechanism by initiating a constant search for new openings and possibilities. This critique of structures includes a critique of legal structures like rights. Looking at the Danish law of early retirement as our empirical case, this paper analyzes, how the tension between law and 'potentialization' is built into the law itself. While the law gives citizens certain rights to early retirement, it simultaneously 'protects' against the same rights by potentializing citizens. 'Potentialization' here functions as a mechanism that protects the operations of a system against its legal structures. It functions by 'un-relating' those operations from the structures. This means that when citizens claim their right to pensions, the social workers can reject them on the grounds of a right to a future that is not foreclosed and 'parked' on a pension. The paper's contribution is to show how potentialization works by dissolving even fundamental legal expectations. This profoundly transforms the relationship between the citizen and the public sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Die Proteste in Chile, die am 18. Oktober 2019 begannen und seit der Coronakrise teilweise zum Stillstand gekommen sind, haben die Form einer sozialen Eruption, die bis heute bedeutende Konsequenzen zeigt. Wie ist aber dieses Ereignis soziologisch zu verstehen? – dies ist die leitende Frage des vorliegenden Artikels. Trotz des Risikos einer vorschnell entwickelten Betrachtung der Problematik sollen einige Reflexionen hierzu angestellt werden. Diese basieren auf einer heterodoxen Verbindung der theoretischen Ansätze von Karl Marx und Niklas Luhmann, welche die Entwicklung eines systematischen Beobachtungsrahmens ermöglicht, um die objektiven Auslöser der „Konzentrationskrise" zu erfassen, in welche die Gesellschaft – in diesem Fall die chilenische – verwickelt ist und unter der die darin involvierten Personen leiden. Die hier vorgestellten Beobachtungen zielen darauf ab, die Form, die eine solche Konzentration annimmt, zu untersuchen, nämlich: die Konzentration der Partizipation an den Leistungen der verschiedenen gesellschaftlichen Systeme. Diese Art der Konzentration, die in Chile auf das Äußerste getrieben worden ist, trägt zur Erzeugung von Stratifikationsschemata bei, homogenisiert die Vielfalt der Optionen und Selektionen der Systeme und führt – sobald sie in Trägheitsspiralen verfangen bleibt – zu Krisenszenarien wie demjenigen, das in Chile festzustellen ist. Noch in dieser latenten kritischen Entwicklung steckend wird am Ende aber wohl klar werden, dass nur eine allgemeine Entscheidung, die sich gegen die Logik der Konzentration richtet, einen realen Ausweg aus dem beobachteten Konflikt bieten könnte. The protests in Chile, which started on October 18, 2019 and are partially paused since the corona crisis, take the form of a "social explosion" that has shown significant consequences until the present. The question that guides the paper is clear: How to sociologically understand this sociopolitical crisis? With the risk of colliding with the over-demonstrated premise that indicates the need to wait for circumstances to decay so the reflection can rest and overcome the anxiety for comprehension, some theses based on combining the theoretical approaches of Karl Marx and Niklas Luhmann are displayed. This connection allows for the development of a systematic observation framework in order to detect the objective triggers of the concentration crises in which society is involved –in this case, the Chilean society. The reflections presented here seek to investigate the form that such concentration takes, namely: a concentration of the participation in achievements of the different societal systems. This kind of concentration, taken to the extreme in the Chilean case, contributes to the generation of stratification schemes, homogenizes the diversity of options and selections of the systems and, captured in inertial spirals, ends up producing crises scenarios such as the one observable today. Thrown into this latent critical track, it is possible to maintain towards the end of this paper that only a decision that allows facing the logic inherent to the concentration must be able to offer a definitive way out of the convulsion witnessed in that country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Major paradigms in sociology and social sciences usually embrace either individualism or anti‐individualism as fundamental worldview. This paper explores a third way between individualism and anti‐individualism developed by German sociologist Niklas Luhmann in his systems theory. Luhmann treats actors or individuals as psychic systems and he distinguishes them from social systems. In a nutshell, social systems produce communication, whereas psychic systems produce consciousness. In line with anti‐individualism, Luhmann therefore argues that social systems are irreducible to psychic systems and their actions. On the other hand, Luhmann joins ranks with individualism to assert that psychic systems are not rigorously constrained by social systems. Ultimately, Luhmann explains that social systems and psychic systems are part of each other's environment and that each type of systems provides the ecological conditions that the other type depends on to emerge and grow. To discuss this third way between individualism and anti‐individualism, the paper examines more specifically two central points in Luhmann's theory: (1) how social systems and psychic systems are separated from each other, and (2) how social systems and psychic systems are coevolving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Ambiguity has become a central concept in strategic communication research in recent years. This paper addresses three central deficits in the research to date. First, clarity-focused approaches and ambiguity-focused approaches are in opposition to each other, resulting in an exaggeration of the advantages and opportunities of the respective favored perspective and affording the opposing position little justification at best. Second, research on strategic ambiguity is by and large limited to the organizational perspective and has little interest in societal change. Third, there has been barely any research into concrete practices of strategic ambiguity and these practices have never been systematized. Design/methodology/approach: The research questions will be answered on the basis of the "Theory of Social Systems" (TSS) by Niklas Luhmann, which can be attributed to the "Communication Constitutes Organization" (CCO) perspective. This perspective seems appropriate because the important concepts of communication and decision making play a central role in the TSS. Findings: Strategic communication oscillates between clarity and ambiguity in order to defuse the dilemma and paradox. The re-entry of the distinction is a second-order observation and, thus, reveals the blind spots of clarity- and ambiguity-focused approaches. On this basis, a systematic approach is developed that encompasses various different dimensions of strategic clarity and ambiguity. Practical implications: The paper focuses on the oscillation between strategic ambiguity and strategic clarity, making clear that the aim is not simply to substitute a new dominance of ambiguity for the clarity that has dominated textbooks thus far. Instead, it is a matter of reflective management of the distinction between strategic ambiguity and strategic clarity. The systematization of the practices of strategic ambiguity and strategic clarity can ultimately be used as a toolbox for the concrete application of strategic ambiguity and strategic clarity. Originality/value: Overcoming the dualism of clarity-focused and ambiguity-focused approaches makes it possible, first, to explore the situational use of strategic clarity and strategic ambiguity. Second, the societal theoretical perspective shows the way in which organizations respond with strategic ambiguity to the increase in social contradictions without, however, being able to abandon strategic clarity. Third, using the systematic approach to the dimensions presented here, these practices can be described and examined in context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Der Beitrag versteht unter der Spencer-Brown-Transformation die Interpretation einer (aristotelischen) Identität als eine (hegelsche) Differenz. Mit George Spencer-Browns cross wird eine Unterscheidung notiert, deren beide Seiten bezeichnet werden können. Die Form der Unterscheidung wird als reflexive Negativität verstanden, die die beiden Seiten der Unterscheidung, die Unterscheidung selbst und den Raum, der mit der Unterscheidung hervorgebracht wird, als eine mehrwertige Mannigfaltigkeit mit sich in ein einschließend-ausschließendes Verhältnis setzt. Der Beitrag diskutiert dieses Konzept im Anschluss an Niklas Luhmanns These, dass jede Kommunikation eines sozialen Systems nur als Prozessieren der Differenz von Form und Medium möglich ist. Entsprechend sind die beiden Begriffe der Form und des Mediums zu klären und in ein Verhältnis sowohl zum Begriff des Systems als auch des Netzwerks zu setzen. Es deutet sich eine allgemeine Theorie der Digitalisierung an, die beschreiben kann, wie in einem analog-kontinuierlichen Material diskret-digitale Unterscheidungen gesetzt werden, die ihrerseits ein analog-kontinuierliches Material für weitere Anschlussoperationen konstituieren. Aktuelle Phänomene einer elektronischen Digitalisierung sind ein Sonderfall einer allgemeinen Digitalisierung, verstanden als kognitive Erschließung von Welt. The paper understands the Spencer-Brown transformation as the interpretation of an (Aristotelian) identity as a (Hegelian) difference. George Spencer-Brown's cross marks a distinction the two sides of which can be indicated. The form of the distinction is understood as a reflexive negativity that places the two sides of the distinction, the distinction itself and the space that is produced with the distinction, in an including-excluding relation with itself as a multivalent manifold. The paper discusses this concept following Niklas Luhmann's thesis that any communication of a social system is only possible as processing the difference of form and medium. Accordingly, the two concepts of form and medium are to be clarified and placed in a relationship to both the concept of system and network. A theory of digitization suggests itself, which can describe how discrete-digital distinctions are set in an analog-continuous material, which in turn constitutes an analog-continuous material for further connective operations. Current phenomena of electronic digitization are a special case of a general digitization understood as cognitive disclosure of world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This conceptual paper seeks to bridge two existing theories in a bid to broaden our analytical scope when studying the process of onboarding, retention and exclusion of organizational members. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach: The authors draw on the social systems theory to advance the fit theory demonstrating the pertinence of macro social factors for the determination of person–organization (P–O) fit. Findings: The result of this conceptual groundwork is a framework for the creation of highly individual personal profiles that refrains from analyses of potentially discriminatory factors like age, race or gender. Originality/value: The authors present an individualized, multidimensional and flexible framework for the analysis of dynamically changing constellations of P–O fit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, Christian Morgner provides a critical reading of Niklas Luhmann's thinking as ignoring human beings or even as antihumanist. Here, he presents an alternative view that centers on Luhmann's idea of the child or human being as a medium. To explain Luhmann's use of these ideas to conceptualize the child and the consequences for research, Morgner refers to the translation of Luhmann's paper "The Child as the Medium of Education" and to as yet unpublished material from his famous card‐box reference system. Drawing on these materials, Morgner can more clearly illuminate Luhmann's novel perspective and how it could inform further theoretical development, supported by new analysis of existing research in other fields, including developmental psychology, education, philosophy, and sociology. He concludes that, far from neglecting the human, Luhmann's theory takes human being very seriously and acknowledges its key role as a form‐giving medium in addressing the challenges faced by contemporary society. This renewed perspective should be of particular interest to educational theorists, enabling them to more freely apply his ideas in various settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Complexity-oriented approaches built on complexity theories are not widely used in health promotion research. The field of health promotion faces significant difficulties in explaining and addressing unforeseen impacts and side effects due to the widespread tendency to implement health promotion initiatives that are considered best practices. It is important to theoretically embrace the fact that we operate in a complex world and that we, therefore, need to redefine our approaches by acknowledging the complexities involved in promoting health. In this theoretical paper, we propose a set of four complexity-oriented principles for health promotion research based on Niklas Luhmann's systems theory: (1) direct transfer of health knowledge and health competencies is impossible; (2) all individuals and social entities are fundamentally different from each other; (3) the individual's sense of health-related meaning determines what is deemed relevant; and (4) it is essential for communication to meet expectations if it is to be observed. The set of principles presented in this article can be applied to research projects intended to explore and address challenges related to complexity in health promotion settings. It can be used as a lens through which to observe health promotion practice. If health promotion research wants to address the field that we have defined for ourselves as extremely complex and unaddressed by anyone else, we need to embrace approaches that actually do this—by providing health promotion research with a formal framework appropriate to its existing main purposes and concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper aimed to analyze the ways in which Niklas Luhmann's theory of the functional differentiation of society can be applied to historical studies. To achieve this, a semantic analysis of the development of modern insurance in Germany during the nineteenth century was conducted. Design/methodology/approach: Through an examination of the significant features of Luhmann's theoretical frameworks in empirical objects, Luhmann's semantic analysis was reformulated as an approach based on a middle-range theory, similar to that of Robert K. Merton, where the potential of the theory can be maximized for empirical research. This paper embodies this proposal, citing several developments within organizations that imbued insurance technology with various ideas and values. Findings: The theory of the functional differentiation of society can be reconstructed as a working hypothesis from a methodological perspective, instead of a general theory that explains every part of society. Applying this to empirical social practices leads to progress in historical studies conducting the semantic variations connected to the institutional formation and their boundary works. Originality/value: This paper provides a practical research perspective for historical studies in the social sciences, employing a reinterpretation of sociological theory that may be understood only as a structural presupposition of modern society. Furthermore, the increased possibility of historical-comparative studies on modern insurance is indicated by illustrating the applicability of this framework to a detailed case study of modern insurance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sport scandals have attracted significant interest within and beyond the sociology of sport. However, developing a theoretical understanding of sport scandals has so far been neglected. Therefore, the two-fold purpose of this conceptual paper is to outline a theoretical model for understanding the form of a sport scandal, and to construct two typical sport scandals that can assist us in theorizing and differentiating how sport scandals may have varying effects on society. In our work, we rely on insights on form formulated by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann combined with notions of ideal types derived from Max Weber. Accordingly, scandals are described as examples of paradoxical forms where excluded meaning re-enters to create spaces of temporary liminality. Despite their common characteristics, we are able to construct two ideal types of scandals – bureaucratic fallacy and charismatic failure – to understand why scandals may have varying impacts on the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Szociológiai Szemle is the property of Hungarian Sociological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper provides insights on the contemporary relevance of Talcott Parsons's writings by analyzing 20 textbooks from Austria, Germany, Great Britain and the United States, published in 1999–2019. Whether having knowledge of Parsons is helpful to today's students and other interested readers, and what knowledge, deserves consideration. Therefore , the paper asks: Which future gains of readers did textbook authors envision when they chose, in their own present, to discuss (or not) sociological writings from long ago? In order to understand what future opportunities authors wanted to create for readers, as well as how they chose to discuss Parsons to this end, the paper draws on Niklas Luhmann's notion of memory. The analysis reveals several key competencies that student and other interested readers might acquire through having knowledge of Parsons' writings and its critiques. These potentials would have gone unnoticed if authors had assessed Parsons's relevance only according to whether he adequately considered conflict or not, as has been done in many debates about his work until today. Moreover, through analyzing how authors remembered Parsons, I distilled two key selective criteria: First, what must be remembered in order to enable readers to acquire those competencies? Second, which memories would be impeding for readers and thus be better left out? These criteria are relevant for research, as well. Looking at the future, it would be desirable that sociologists let Parsons assist them in their research in many different ways, if possible. As a result, we might see a revival of Parsons that enables genuine advancement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to give yet another example of the analytical strenght of Niklas Luhmann’s theory. The example will be drawn from the contemporary situation of religion, or more precisely from the as of yet unresolved question of a religious medium. The central point is whether or not some large-scale attempt was made during the Twentieth Century to coin a new religious medium, one different from those considered in Luhmann’s works. Paragraphs 1 and 2 will summarize Luhmannian analysis of contemporary religion. Paragraph 3 will discuss the justification for focusing attention on the religious medium’s issue. Paragraphs 4 and 5 will be devoted to testing the chances of a certain kind of ritual to work as religious medium. In doing so we shall assess the difference between performance-centred rituals and liturgy-centred rituals [Humphrey Laidlaw 1994]. Paragraph 6 will be discussed if the Vatican II liturgical reform can be classified as a large-scale attempt to elaborate and circulate a new religious medium, irregardless of its success or failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following reflections by Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann, this paper is concerned with the changing meaning of the profession as a sociological category for analyzing modern society. Professions are practical academic occupational groups oriented to certain social values, to which a special significance for society was attributed in the social sciences for a long time, thus marking a connection between professions' research and theory of society. This paper now describes that the causal relationship between profession and society is limited to a historically relatively early period. In the transition to modern society, this close network of relationships begins to dissolve, and now professions operate in the context of some function systems of society whose task is the professional assistance of single clients, such as in the fields of health, law, and pastoral care. However, the professions' highlighted position in the knowledge and action structure of single function systems seems to dissolve more and more today so that one can ask whether we can speak here already of an end of the social form profession. This would correspond with the observation that actually the professions no longer appear at all in the newer theories of society and therefore their function as an important mechanism of social structure formation is no longer attributed to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that practice, not science, decides the performativity of science. The argument is inspired by Austin's question of what it is that gives language its performative force. What are the conditions which connect sentences to certain effects? Advancing this question from the level of sentences to a societal level, and taking inspiration from the failure of Marxist notions of the relation between theory and practice, the paper suggests thinking critical performativity under the conditions of differentiation. This idea is qualified by means of Niklas Luhmann and his theory of a functionally differentiated - or polycontextural - society. Functional differentiation and polycontexturality mean that systems cannot communicate with each other; there is no real transfer of scientific knowledge into practice. Unhappy performativity is the rule. Based on this insight the paper discusses elements of a critical research strategy - under polycontextural conditions - and four guidelines for a critical science are suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the wake of climate change, social theory has been subject to a surge of new materialist and posthuman approaches that reconfigure ontology and politics beyond the modern nature/culture binary which the Anthropocene has rendered untenable. But their (re-)turn to ontological speculation brackets the socio-epistemic situatedness and productivity of the way we think nature and its relationship to society. This paper reads Niklas Luhmann's systems theory as a posthuman perspective that can address the epistemological blind spot of materialist-ecological thought. Luhmann's ecology aligns with the former on the posthuman framing of shaping power, the productivity of an environmental outside that remains unknown, and the call for political modesty which follows. On the other hand, Luhmann's theory poses a critical challenge to materialist-ecological thought: the society/environment binary is here constitutively necessary, and its mapping onto a nature/culture binary functionally advantageous for subjects and social systems because it offers opportunities for complexity-reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of MATRIZes is the property of Universidade de Sao Paulo, Programa de Pos Graduacao em Ciencias da Comunicacao and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: The stakeholder theory encompasses instrumental and normative varieties whose mutual relationship remains unclear and exhibits a classic tension between rational self-interest and moral motivation. The purpose of this paper is to develop a strategy for navigating this tension. Design/methodology/approach: Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory is concerned with the limited ability of social systems to codify, and be receptive to, the complexity of the environment. Drawing on this theory, the paper juxtaposes the codification problems of two types of social systems: the for-profit firm and the economic function system. Findings: This juxtaposition allows to identify four firm behavior patterns, two of which can be aligned with instrumental and normative stakeholder theories. If the codification capacity of the economic function system is assumed to be sufficient, the codification problems of the for-profit firm are shown to specify the range of applicability of the instrumental stakeholder theory. Dropping the above assumption is shown to specify the range of applicability of the normative stakeholder theory. Originality/value: The argument offers a fresh way of understanding the institutional economics foundations of the stakeholder theory. Given that the systems-theoretic idea of codification reflects the functioning of the real-world institutions, the argument shows that both instrumental and normative stakeholder theories reflect the institutional texture of the modern society in distinct but equally legitimate ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the paper is to present a brief insight into the significant works and views of the German sociologists Niklas Luhmann and Jűrgen Habermas on the role of law in regulating human relations in society. Educated as a lawyer, Niklas Luhmann in the late academic career was under the influence of the American sociologist Talcott Parsons. Niklas Luhmann later, under the influence of the American sociologist Talcott Parsons, he built a sociological theoretical system called the systems theory. On the other side, Jűrgen Habermas was a philosopher and sociologist, highly influenced by the Frankfurt school of sociology. According to Luhmann's systems theory, the social reality and the separate aspects of the social life are part of a deeper system called society, and in relation to the same they are set as subsystems. Social systems are divided into allopoietic and autopoietic. One of the significant axioms of Luhmann's theory is that the largest number of systems tends to simplify due to the pressure of the environment for greater efficiency. Law in Luhman's systems theory enjoys the status of an autonomous system for regulating society, rather than an instrumental contribution to politics. This brief review exposed a big clash between two influential German thinkers. In this paper we are going to use historical method and analysing of the content of different materials and previous authors that are dealing with the work of Niklas Luhmann and Jűrgen Habermas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Social Sciences have been investigating the processes of Public Opinion formation since the second half of the 19th century. From Tocqueville to Le Bon, from Toennies to Allport, from Lazarsfeld to Habermas, from Niklas Luhmann to Pierre Bourdieu, from Noelle-Neumann to Landowski. Among these authors, Lippmann stands out for his theoretical-practical orientation that anticipated themes and scenarios. Exactly one hundred years ago, in his best-known work Public Opinion (Lippmann 1922) he had opened the way to the inevitability of the construction of a world "beyond the real", through the concept of "pseudo-environment". The need for representation determines "pseudo-environments", interstitial realities made up of stereotyped images and contents that the public interprets to construct shared imaginaries that do not adhere to reality: «The world outside and the picture in your head» (Lippmann 1992: 3). Pseudo-environments enable decision-making and action, reducing complexity (Luhmann e De Giorgi 1992). This phenomenon anticipates the concept of simulacrum, in the sense of Braudillard (1985), but also that of Second Life and the Meta-verse in the sense of Stephenson (1992). Starting from Lippmann's vision, this proposed paper intends to recontextualise his thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Die Frage der Verschiebung von Verantwortung, die durch den vermehrten Einsatz von datenintensiven Algorithmen verursacht wird, beschäftigt seit einigen Jahren die sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung. Dabei geht es vor allem darum, welche Personen oder Instanzen dafür verantwortlich sein sollen, wenn sich Entscheidungen als diskriminierend, sachlich falsch oder ungerecht herausstellen. Aus soziologischer Perspektive fällt auf, dass in diesen Debatten nicht trennscharf zwischen Verantwortung und Verantwortlichkeit unterschieden wird. In unserem Beitrag greifen wir diese Unterscheidung so wie sie von Niklas Luhmann formuliert wurde auf, um Veränderungen und Kontinuitäten des Organisierens zu analysieren, die mit dem Einsatz datenintensiver Algorithmen verbunden sind. Wir zeigen, dass Algorithmen in organisationalen Entscheidungsprozessen Unsicherheit absorbieren und somit durchaus Verantwortung übernehmen, aber nicht für Fehler verantwortlich gemacht werden können. Durch den Einsatz von Algorithmen wird Verantwortung in Assemblagen von Personen und Technik zerlegt, während die Zuschreibung von Verantwortlichkeit hochgradig kontrovers wird. Daraus entstehen neue Diskrepanzen zwischen Verantwortung und Verantwortlichkeit, die insbesondere für das organisationsinterne Vertrauen und die Innovationsfähigkeit von Organisationen folgenreich sein können. The question of the shift of responsibility caused by the increased use of data-intensive algorithms has occupied social science research for several years. Existing research has been mainly concerned with discussing which persons or entities should be accountable when decisions turn out to be discriminatory, factually incorrect or unjust. From a sociological perspective, it is striking that in these debates no clear distinction is made between responsibility and accountability. In our paper, we take up this distinction as formulated by Niklas Luhmann to analyze changes and continuities of organizing associated with the use of data-intensive algorithms. We show that algorithms absorb uncertainty in organizational decision-making processes and thus can indeed assume responsibility but cannot be held accountable for mistakes. Through the use of algorithms, responsibility is decomposed into assemblages of people and technology, while the attribution of accountability becomes highly controversial. This gives rise to new discrepancies between responsibility and accountability, which can be particularly consequential for the internal trust and innovative capacity of organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Die zunehmende Bedeutung digitaler Plattformen für die moderne Gesellschaft wird bisher noch nicht hinreichend von einem übergreifenden Interesse an einer allgemeinen Theorie begleitet. Der Beitrag steuert aus systemtheoretischer Perspektive erste Vorarbeiten zu einem solchen Vorhaben bei. In Abgrenzung zu bestehenden Konzeptualisierungen digitaler Plattformen als Techniken, Märkte, Netzwerke oder Organisationen bestimmt er diese als soziale Systeme sui generis. Insbesondere das Festhalten am Organisationsbegriff eröffnet dabei aussichtsreiche Vergleichspunkte für Funktionsbestimmungen digitaler Plattformen. Anders als Organisationen konstituieren sich diese nicht durch die Konditionierung von Mitgliedschafts-, sondern von Sichtbarkeitserwartungen. Digitale Plattformen leisten analog zu Organisationen eine Maximierung der Generalisierung von Verhaltenserwartungen in allen drei Sinndimensionen zugleich. Anders als Organisationen leisten sie diese Maximierung aber zeitlich über Kognitionen, sachlich über Programme und sozial über materiell-technisierte Spuren. The increasing importance of digital platforms for modern society has not yet been matched by an overarching interest in a general theory. This paper provides preliminary groundwork towards such a project from the perspective of the theory of social systems by Niklas Luhmann. In contrast to existing classifications as technologies, markets, networks, or organizations, we conceptualize digital platforms as a novel form of social systems. In order to develop a functional definition of digital platforms, referring to the concept of organization offers promising points of comparison. Digital platforms constitute themselves not by the conditioning of membership expectations, but of prospects for visibility. Digital platforms generalise meaning via cognitions, programmes, and materialized technical traces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to define transcendental relativization, by using the binary in some anthropological works, and to give a description of it along with Niklas Luhmann's sociology. We examine how the binary [the West/non-West] has been used in some anthropological works and how it has contributed not only to understanding 'them' as a research object but also to realizing 'our' conceptual limitations. This paper is an attempt to deal with political or power-relational asymmetry and scientific observational asymmetry in anthropological works. Luhmann's sociology, which is based on the functional analysis and theory of social systems, shows that the binary approach in anthropology can be seen as a semantic form of science system, which realizes the existence of blind spots in anthropological observation, and is a possible strategy for anthropological investigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the meaning of the concept of ‘second-order observation’ used by Niklas Luhmann (1927–1998). Luhmann identifies second-order observation as a defining characteristic of modern world society. According to Luhmann, all social systems construct a social reality on the basis of the observation of observations. Rating agencies in the economy or the peer-review process in the academic system are examples of social mechanisms manifesting second-order observation. Social media also represent organized second-order observation. The paper suggests that in a society based on second-order observation, ‘genuine pretending’ is an adequate mode of existence. This notion is derived from the Daoist text Zhuangzi. It indicates a disassociation from social roles which allows their performers to exercise these roles with ease and, at the same time, maintain a state of sanity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates US immigration law as a spatial system whose application results in geographic confusion. I take the case of Barton v. Barr as a vivid example of this structure, where the petitioner was found to be simultaneously "outside" and "inside" the country under a legal perspective. Beginning from this paradox, I focus on the law's ability to produce extraterritorial folds within the country's interior, thus confining aliens into spaces that escape constitutional rules. Through an engagement with legal geography and Niklas Luhmann's work, I conceptualize immigration law as a system which lives off the repetition of operations that distributes rights and privileges to aliens by assigning a degree of foreignness to their location. The resulting paradox must not be confused for a mistake or a flawed logic. Instead, it constitutes the dispositive that allows the law to produce its effects and draw its territorial enclaves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The normative theory of citing considers citations as rewarding tools to acknowledge the influence of scientific works, while the social constructivist theory of citing considers citations, for example, as persuasion tools used by authors to support their claims, and convince the scientific community that those claims are valid. Other citation theories and models have been proposed in recent years to overcome the limitations of the normative and social constructivist theories. Nevertheless, they have not been able to fully explain all citation motives of scientists (but have a certain focus). This study proposes a new theory (which we call “social systems citation theory”, SSCT) that integrates previous theories and models on publications and their citation links and is mainly based on Niklas Luhmann’s “social systems theory”. Luhmann’s social systems theory focuses on “communications” as the basic constituting elements of a social science system and not on humans and their motives. Humans are not part of social systems but are connected with them and irritate them. Thus, the social systems theory does not have the problem of integrating various and different motives of humans to cite in the science system. In the SSCT, authors’ motives to cite belong to psychic systems while publications and their citation links belong to the social science system. The systems operate autonomously but interact with each other: the social system operates recursively with publications and citation links. Although psychic systems stimulate or irritate the science system, they do not determine communications in the science system. In this study, we explain the SSCT and demonstrate how the theory can be used to underlie empirical bibliometric studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper aims to probe the limits of the empirical-normative divide as a conceptual framework in business ethics. Design/methodology/approach: A systems theory perspective debunks this divide as a false distinction that cannot do justice to the conceptual complexity of the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR) scholarship. Findings: Drawing on the systems-theoretic ideas of Niklas Luhmann and the "Laws of Form" by George Spencer Brown, the paper shows that the divide may be dissected into a four-cell matrix constituted by two other distinctions-descriptive vs prescriptive and categorical vs hypothetical-the latter of which was seminally suggested by Donaldson and Preston (1995). Practical implications: The emerging four-cell matrix is shown to centrally embrace the multiplicity of normative, empirical and instrumental approaches to CSR. This multiplicity is exemplified by the application of these approaches to the phenomenon of CSR communication. Social implications: A more general implication of the proposed argument for the field of business ethics is in tracing the phenomena of moral diversity and moral ambivalence back to the regime of functional differentiation as the distinguishing feature of the modern society. This argument drives home the point that economic operations are as ethical or unethical as political operations, and that both economic and political perspectives on ethical issues are as important or unimportant as are religious, artistic, educational or scientific perspectives. Originality/value: In contrast to the empirical-normative divide, the perspective is shown to centrally embrace the multiplicity of normative, empirical and instrumental approaches to CSR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Direito Internacional is the property of Revista de Direito Internacional and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of IDP: Revista de Internet, Derecho y Politica is the property of Universitat Oberta de Catalunya and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This JWP Focus paper argues that material culture transformation can be understood as the transformation of the way human beings and material culture mutually open up their potentialities. Such opening up/becoming takes place in the domains of their encounter, which often take the form of human communications. In communication, human beings and material culture mutually mediate/intervene/transform their modes of existence as the former cope with various uncertainties and risks that the world generates and that communication differentiates. Drawing upon the theory of communication developed by the social systems theorist, Niklas Luhmann, the paper will elucidate and elaborate this perspective through an examination of the long-term transformation of the mode of such mutual opening up/becoming by human beings and the material culture of their potentialities that took place in the Jomon and the Yayoi periods of Japan between 13000 Cal BC and AD 250/300. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article introduces a symposium on sociologist Niklas Luhmann's 1991 article "The Child as a Medium of Education," which is being published in English for the first time. Luhmann's work is well-known in German-speaking countries, Scandinavia, and Latin America, but less familiar to Anglophone readers. The symposium aims to outline Luhmann's background and wider project before introducing his theory of education and other papers in the symposium. Luhmann's sociological project is characterized as a system theory of society, and his theory of education emphasizes the concept of medium. The symposium includes contributions that explore Luhmann's theoretical construction of the child and the concept of causality in his theory of education. The translation and associated responses in the symposium aim to stimulate further debate in the field of educational theory and introduce Luhmann's sociological project to a wider audience. [Extracted from the article]

Chester Barnard's organisation theory is widely acknowledged to be grounded on a systems-theoretic approach which has however remained largely inchoate. The present paper ventures a hypothetical reconstruction of this approach by identifying the salient parallels between Barnard's thought and Niklas Luhmann's theory of social systems as well as Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy of organism. While these parallels are by no means perfect, Barnard seems to have anticipated the Luhmannian view of organisations as complexity-reducing systems navigating a precarious outer environment. Drawing on Whitehead, Barnard argued that organisations may succeed with this task insofar as they operate as organismic wholes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent contribution to this journal, Deng et al. (2021) draw on an extensive range of theoretical and empirical literature to make the case for the tendency of social capital resources of agricultural cooperatives in the Western world to decline over time. The present paper revisits this argument by drawing on a Luhmannian systems-theoretic perspective that takes the capitalist economic system to be limitedly sensitive and receptive to a broad variety of human needs. Whereas many of these needs remain marginalized and neglected, some of them may be codified or translated into a profit-making calculus. Cooperatives are shown to present one of the channels through which this codification may be possible; namely, the codification effect of cooperatives enables the incorporation of a multitude of mutual self-help activities into the economic system. This incorporation gives rise to intrasystemic adjustment processes that can be considered complete when the mutual self-help activities introduced by cooperatives no longer require the cooperative form and are integrated into the activities of investor-owned firms. If this view is accepted, then declining social capital may be an indicator of the successful codification process, which helps to make the economic system less exclusionary and more sensitive to human needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Review of Sociology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Predicated on a one-sided focus on political 'voice', analyses of political silences traditionally focused almost exclusively on their negative role as the harmful absence of participation or responsibility. More recently, a new appreciation for the wide spectrum of political functions of silence has gained ground, including forms of willful renitence and even active resistance. Yet this thematic expansion has also resulted in a loss of focus. Lacking a common analytical framework, research on political silences risks limiting itself to the purely additive: finding and filling in ever more minute 'blank spots' on the periphery of the map of political research. Building on the work of the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, this paper proposes a solution to this dilemma by means of a reconsideration of the political role of expectations. In political discourse, the expected distribution of moments of silence and articulation expresses established power structures, while unexpected silences and the breaking of expected silences conversely present a powerful means of calling these into question. Focusing on this ambivalence paves the way to a new systematic typology of political silences as a distinct mode of political communication. But above all, it points to the value of silence as an analytical probe, an instrument to fathom the expectations and constraints structuring political discourse in various contexts and spaces. Besides providing the study of silence with an overarching research focus, such an approach would thus build a bridge between the issue of political silence and wider debates on the structures of the political field as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Praxis Filosófica is the property of Universidad del Valle and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: 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. Design/methodology/approach: 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. Findings: 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. Research limitations/implications: 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. Practical implications: 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. Originality/value: Characterizing Luhmann as a hidden champion of contemporary management as modern management tools like hackathons or crowdsourcing also benefit from closed systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study presents the longitudinal overview of 40 years of Luhmannian research in the Anglophone academic community by employing a quantitative content analysis. As the first study of this kind, this paper aims to explore the current topography of Luhmannian research. For the purpose, a total of 1,231 journal articles published in English were analyzed in terms of the number of articles in relation to several variables such as publication year, region, discipline, methodology, and the purpose of utilizing Luhmann. In summary, the key findings include: first, decreasing Anglo-American authors' contributions to the Luhmannian research in the English-language academic publications, as opposed to growing outputs of authors from continental Europe and other regions; second, the difference in the maturity of Luhmannian scholarship by region; third, the demonstration of the breadth and versatility of Luhmann's theory of systems; fourth, the capability of Luhmann's theory accommodating empirical research and its potential as a framework to lead fruitful research streams. This study is expected to provide a useful reference for Luhmannian researchers, as well as for authors from other research strands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]