Search

By introducing us into core concepts of Niklas Luhmann's theory of social systems, Elena Esposito shows their relevance for contemporary social sciences and the study of unsettled times. Contending that society is made not by people but by what connects them - as Luhmann does with his concept of communication - creates a fertile ground for addressing societal challenges as diverse as the Corona pandemic or the algorithmic revolution. Esposito more broadly sees in systems theory a relevant contribution to critical theory and a genuine alternative to its Frankfurt School version, while extending its reach to further conceptual refinement and new empirical issues. Fueling such refinement is her analysis of time and the complex intertwinement between past, present and future - a core issue that runs throughout her work. Her current study on the future as a prediction caught between science and divination offers a fascinating empirical case for it, drawing a thought-provoking parallel between the way algorithmic predictions are constructed today and how divinatory predictions were constructed in ancient times.

The paper argues, referring to systems theory, that the problem of our functionally differentiated society is not lack of integration, but rather an excess of integration. When there are difficulties in one area of society, all others are forced to make serious adjustments. In dealing with threats that come from the environment, the opportunities for rationality in society lie in the maintenance and exploitation of differences, not in their elimination. This hypothesis is discussed dealing with integration on three levels: 1) the consequences of the emergency on the relationships between different fields (or functional subsystems) of society: systemic integration; 2) the effects of the pandemic on the conditions of inclusion and exclusion of individuals in society: social integration; 3) the spread of the emergency in all regions of the world and the consequences for globalization: geographical integration.

The debate about ecology, as we understand it here, has a specific history that separates it from the rather organicist discourse concerning the relationship of living beings with their environments (since the second half of the nineteenth century). Ecology deals with the environment, but here we look to a generalization and an abstraction of the concept that have been emerging more recently (since the fifties). We speak of general ecology. And we look for a sharper problematization of the idea of environment—not as a “given,” to which an organism or system must adapt, but as a multifaceted and flexible reference, which changes with the way it is observed and with the perspective of the observer.

The condition of social isolation due to the Covid-19 pandemic makes most of us aware of the value of sociality – which we now lack. But society is not only sociality, and in the current emergency we perceive it as global interconnectedness that makes the crisis spread from one geographical area to another and between different fields of society. The common response to a global emergency is a call for coordination – the idea that we should “tighten up.” In sociology, this reference to unity and coordination is discussed as integration. The paper argues, referring to systems theory, that the problem of our functionally differentiated society is not lack of integration, but rather an excess of integration. When there are difficulties in one area of society, all others are forced to make serious adjustments. In dealing with threats that come from the environment, the opportunities for rationality in society lie in the maintenance and exploitation of differences, not in their elimination. This hypotheses is discussed dealing with integration on three levels: 1) the consequences of the emergency on the relationships between different fields (or functional subsystems) of society: systemic integration ; 2) the effects of the pandemic on the conditions of inclusion and exclusion of individuals in society: social integration ; 3) the spread of the emergency in all regions of the world and the consequences for globalization: geographical integration .

The title of my chapter has two references: time and money. In order to speak of money, I will speak mostly of time, because the two issues are connected, and because in dealing with systems theory and specifically with a theory of society one cannot forget that time has always been one of its fundamental topics. In my opinion it is indeed in reference to time that the originality and the innovative strength of systems theory finds its best expression - in Luhmann’s account but also as a theoretical approach in general. And precisely in reference to time one can observe increasing uneasiness recently.

Zusammenfassung Wittgenstein kritisierte in seinen Philosophischen Untersuchungen das philosophische Konzept der »Privatheit« aus der Perspektive der Sprachphilosophie. In Luhmanns Systemtheorie erscheint der Begriff der »Intransparenz«, das Problem also, dass kein Sinnsystem informationellen Zugriff auf ein anderes System haben kann, bisweilen wie eine Variante des philosophischen Begriffs »Privatheit«. Kehren demnach in der Systemtheorie jene epistemologischen Probleme (unter denen vor allem der Solipsismus und der Skeptizismus zu nennen wären) wieder, die sich aus dem privatistischen Konzept ergeben? Luhmann begegnet diesen Problemen, indem er den Begriff der Doppelten Kontingenz in die Theorie der Kommunikation einführt. Eine Gegenüberstellung der Begriffe »Privatheit« und »Intransparenz« soll zeigen, dass das Modell der Doppelten Kontingenz kein Privatheits-Postulat im von Wittgenstein kritisierten Sinne voraussetzt. Im Gegenteil: Die systemtheoretische Modellierung der Doppelten Kontingenz bietet die begrifflichen Mittel, um an Wittgensteins Argumentation gegen die privatistische Skepsis anzuknüpfen, ohne auf eine zu unterstellende integrative Urkraft der ordinary language zurückgreifen zu müssen.