8 - Systems Sole Constituent, The Operation Clarifying A Central Concept of Luhmannian

System's Sole Constituent, the Operation: Clarifying a Central Concept of Luhmannian Theory Author(s): Jean Clam Reviewed work(s):
Source: Acta Sociologica, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2000), pp. 63-79 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201182 . Accessed: 17/12/2012 03:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Acta Sociologica.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:10:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 2000
System's Clarifying Theory
Sole a
Constituent, Central Concept
the of
Operation: Luhmannian
Jean Clam CNRS, Paris, France
ABSTRACT The autopoietic turn in Luhmann's later theory is not thinkable without the refocusing of systems theory around a new concept of operativity. The article shows the lines of from the earlier theory towards the final prevailing of a purely operativist development of the system. The movement is one of deconstructing all intuitive conception of a border-defined, representations thing-like system. The radical version that emerges leaves the operation as the sole and unique systemic constituent. The article shows that such a strain of thought contracting an extensive transitive structure into a purely antecedents: Aristotle's conception of the operative core has major philosophical actuation of life or intellection in a composite being, Fichte's self-position of the transcendental I, Heidegger's subject and authorless 'Ereignis' constitute very similar This sheds light on the most problematic figures of 'operativization'. aspect of Luhmannian theory, namely its reliance on a 'protologic' that does not elaborate, like similar philosophical endeavours before it, on the fundaments of its own evidence. Jean Clam, 1796 Av. de Grasse, F-83300 Draguignan, ? Scandinavian Sociological Association 2000 France
Niklas Luhmann's systemist sociology is, in its own project, often misunderstood. The option for a description of society within a systems theoretical framework is very often reduced to an all-commanding assertion of the structuring function of systems in today's societies. Luhmannian is conceived frequently as systemism an attempt to apply a general systems approach to social phenomena. The benefits of such an then have to be assessed in would approach terms of a greater accuracy of the sociological as well as a greater explanatory description Not taking into consideration the potency. transformation of the original framecomplete work through Luhmann's fresh modelling of its central concepts, such an assessment is doomed to misapprehension. I will show in the following how and why Luhmann goes far beyond the current systems model, and in what direction his theory heads. I
shall have constructions radicalization
show the intricacy of the necessitated by the categorial it undertakes. I begin with an of the systems probintroductory presentation in Luhmann's lematics in order to sociology come to the core concept of the whole theory: that of a 'non-real', purely 'actual' system, and made of nothing but containing nothing operations.
to
1. The transformation Luhmann's interest
of systemism
in the systems model is To have a clearer idea ambiguous. particularly of the status and function of the model within the theory, I will set Luhmann's fundamental options and intuitions into the broader context of his sociological work. My thesis, which stresses a statement obvious for any person
64 ACTASOCIOLOGICA 2000
VOLUME 43 theoretical borrowings of incongruous are required and given order by perspectives from inadequate their distance modes of Luhmann is the sociologist of our thought. century with the most acute sense of the post(non) structure of communication ontological a world where things (res) have no constituting and where only differences are consistency events.1 He has, as a theoretician, an acute consciousness of the need for non-metaphysical frameworks for the description and comprehension of 'what is'. Thus, functionalist systems theory was, for a convenient Luhmann, departure point for a much more comprehensive theory designed to the paradoxical and grasp the non-identity, unsummarizable character of reality. The systems theory of Parsons and the first-order had to be enlarged and transformed cybernetics to integrate a variety of systemic and nonits systemic approaches capable of enhancing and viz. Second-order complexity reflexivity, differ(von Foerster), paradoxalist cybernetics ence theories (Spencer Brown, Derrida), emermedium-form (Fritz Heider), gence theory horizontalist meaning theory (Husserl), differentialist linguistic (Saussure) and communication (Bateson) theories. There thus remains of a previously nothing of the representation available general theory that could be applied to a special field of research. What should be most noted is that the system category is insistently only apparently wider than that of society as its field. Luhmann's eventual application special the one which gives his theory its intuition, and bestows on it a real specific profile with regard to all other philosophies autonomy and theories that contribute to its constructions, is the following: society is a self-contained field of social communication and the site of all of human communication:2 it self-descriptions is the place where all meaning is born and can be equated with a constituting intersubjectivity nature. Since all stripped of its transcendental or global world representations are partial elaborated, society (i.e. social communicatively is the self-engendering communication) reality - like Hegels Geist, once more denuded from The condensations metaphysical assumptions. of social communication institu(in meanings, tions, routines, systems. . . ) are purely circular and have no anchoring in any reality outside. because they include a They are paradoxical further structural reference to an indefinite and to an unattainable internal connection consistency. Society is the paradigm of a system constant
with the work, is that the specific acquainted conatus of Luhmann's enterprise is to conceive of an adequate, complex objects by means equally complex theory capable of accounting for the emergence of complexity as a specific mode of reality or givenness of the real. Luhmann had a very firm intuition of an and profound break in the repreinescapable sentation of reality, or making impossible of heretofore familiar illusory the continuation of thinking, feeling and theorizself-descriptions ing. He held the conviction that the objects to be modelled in sociology interaction, (personal functional institutions, groups, organizations, subsystems, society . . .) could not be conin the terms of classical structed sociology. Unlike Parsons, Luhmann had a vision of the historiality of categorial settings. His knowledge of Heidegger enabled his perspective on the transformations of all-sustaining matrices of as 'ontohistorial' thought (seinsgeschichtlich) ones. The 'epoqual' comprehensions of being precede and determine the modes of action and realizable in a historical social experience Luhmann's concerns reflected the setting. of theory-building in the historial problems terms of philosophical hermeneutics. He was conscious of the rupture of the profoundly tradition. From the beginning his ontological project is very clearly one of a post-metaphysical theory of society. The reformulation of systems theory initially seeks to critique and thereby overcome the sociological concept of action, a concept that both undefendable seems to Luhmann and doomed to atrophy. This took place at a time when no convincing model was available that could compete with it or prevail over it in descriptive or heuristic terms. Long before a new of systems version was developed, theory Luhmann saw the categorical nature of action as making too many massive assumptions of internal consistency and ontologiself-identity, cal firmness of the acting subject. The predominance of the action model was for him with the concept associated of a intimately constant privileged, dignified actor. Luhmann's and very early rejection of any axiological is reminiscent of Heidegger's own assumption repulsion with all value thinking. The functionalism of the early Luhmann could thus be seen as the expression of his definite disqualification of all ontologically impregnated ways of thinkcomplex interdisciplinary ing. His increasingly a number of heterointegrating arrangements 'theory pieces' (Theoriest?cke) and his geneous
System'sSole Constituent,the Operation 65 and or an entity that escapes all objectivation itself that posits it as its engulfs the observation objective correlate. vision of sociology as a science Luhmann's of society transforms it into a sort of vagrant with a special reference to the 'supertheorie' basic category of 'system'. The radical remodelling of the system category enables it to remain a a unifying pattern of the theory. Nevertheless, of the theory in terms of differreformulation as an alternative and mediation to entiation is ones thinkable is What systemist throughout. fundamental, then, is a type of category capable the measure of reflexivity, circuof expressing larity and paradox inherent to society as it is thought by Luhmann. The specific performance is. thus, the identification of his sociology and manifestation of social communication as the last convex, the untranscendable envelope, of all - that is, the all and meaning reality.3 Society - constitutes Kommunikation the 'Sinnsystem of indefinitely self-referential and unfolding inconcludable differences as a multi-dimensionarticulated ally system of meaning, overarching There is no access to the world of consciousness. a socialization without of individual meaning in the field and flux of an consciousness and ungroundable communication. unending Communication strucis, thus, a self-engulfing ture, being the context of itself. and system are interdependent Society insofar as the motive for the revision concepts of systems theory was the conception of society as a circular, self-contextual structure of a very specific type: on the other side, the systems theoretical framework offered a departure point a post-ontological for developing theory which will very soon exceed it. Moreover, the intuition of the unbounded status and scope of sociology is not a late product of the theory itself, but is there from the beginning: when Luhmann comes to sociology after many years in administrative office, he is attracted by the generality the possibility to advance in of its perspective, direction, free from disciplinary any theoretical limitation. Sociology, in his perception, is a field where 'one can do everything',4 pursuing any interest in knowledge. The range of themes is almost unlimited, and the sociologist can direct his choice towards any mundane object: persons, nature, the state, music, intimacy, etc . . . There is a sociology of everything, everything constituted being communicatively through social media and systemic processes. Luhmann's of path from the presentiment the omnicompetence and thematic vagrancy of theoretical to the most sophisticated sociology of communicaof the self-reference expressions one. It shows us how an tion is an interesting theme of sociology in the universal interest takes body in the project of a general theory of of this theory society and how the generality leads to a radical reformulation of the concept of society as well as of the concept of system, the latter being designed to be the main category reflective of the former. Thus, the project of a general theory of an enlarged and profoundly reflexive concept of society induces the radical recasting of the systemic categories.5 To retrace Luhmann's towards a de-ontologiprogression zation of the system category is thus worthwhile. in Luhmann's The initial research early on organization work is concentrated theory. affinitive and were approaches Systemist in this and domain, already developed they have been considerably amplified since.6 Luhin this seminal phase mann's main questioning of an 'other' rationcentred on the conception administrative science and orgaality. Actually, nization theory were soaring in an impressive effort to renew their fundaments: the heretofore of the formal organization as unitary conception a human institution designed for the realization of definite goals instrumented through complex and procedural means was founinformational of organization The sociology was dering. all formal organizahow almost discovering tokens tional and routines were schemes, informal doubled ones. Therewith, through the system constituted by the organization revealed itself as much more complex than its instituted, unifying, mostly hierarchical design. the category of goal and goal Particularly, attainment was withering away: the difficult of final representations, the conidentifiability and co-variation of fusing interdependence and objective apparent, strategic goals, the constant but irregular re-import in the organization system of informal secondary and unintended positive ends . . . made necessary such a of the notion that it became complexification to work with it further.7 soundless eventually New light was also shed on the relations of the with its environments, organization thereby an more nuanced showing incomparably functional image than that of an internally to environmental consystem unit subjected straints and producing correlative responses. The organization conclusion theorist that Luhmann as an drew from these premises
VOLUME 43 such it is not self-evident. Most fallacious is thus the spatial representation of the order-unity as a closed in itself its order entity containing and as long components internally quiescent as its environment does not exercise any Order is rather an pressure on its boundaries. actual difference, which is order/non-order, reflected in its first term (order) and whose maintenance takes the deceptive, metaphorical form of a (spatial) In fact, the boundary. is a complex actual relation, an boundary effectuation or an actuation - I try to translate the German word: Vollzug - of an asymmetrical difference and its reflection in one of its terms. of complex order Very soon the problematic on the de-realization concentrates or de-ontoof the spaces, the fluxes and funclogization tional activities related to the system. To think as pure differences becomes the desystems ontologizing programme of Luhmann's systems theory. All its lines of argument converge in this direction. To sum up, I could say that the new deto the ontologized concepts are an alternative theoretical framegrounded metaphysically works of action theory. This does not mean that those frameworks are altogether invalid; are outclassed they just by a new theoretical in the design called for by deep transformations and projections (Entw?rfe)14 of the meaning structure of the objects of the relevant sciences. To use an analogy I will discuss more thoroughly at the end of the article, the projection of the unconscious as the primary psychic object and the proper theme of the science of the psyche is an alternative to the previous introspectivist and cognitivist projection of such an of consciousness. object within the psychology The old designs, which are thus superseded, do not lose their whole relevance. They must be brought up to the new level, nevertheless restructured so as to fit into the new categorial projections. Coming back to the problematics within sociology at the emergence of the postactionalist model. I can read it as systemist follows: Action theory is intrinsically ontologic?l in its categorial design; it is co-extensive with the triadic. extensive, transitive operator-operawhich structure, its tio-operatum objectifies terms as real, self-identical terms: it lives from the equally ontological made on assumptions the nature of the subject-actor as self-conscious bearer of intentions and will, promoter of his action its more or less rational through The invention (in the double instrumentation. and figuring) sense of founding of a de-
resulted in a research programme focussed on the concept of complex, or as he termed it. The programme was to be 'systemic rationality'. in two stages: (1) a critique of the implemented of an immanent instrumental supposition of rationality organization presenting the organizational mode of action as a unique tool, defined and unified by its goals and ends, and whose rationality is univocally inscribed in its transitive hierarchical and (2) a architecture; and conceptual work on a great descriptive number of phenomena constituting complex in a variety of complex figures. The rationality went through a series of reconprogramme structions of the complex intelligence sedimenas well as in every comted in organizations municational phenomenon. Actually, every such combines a series of mutually phenomenon devices to a relatively functional conditioned and operative whole that can take various forms, ranging from quasi-instant social systems of fugitive face-to-face interaction to the heaviest and most enduring formal institutional ventures. This combination is far from being a product of pre-projecting design and, above all. from being grasped in its consequences. Thus, the descriptive work converges towards the problem of order, of its origin and evolution. Within the framework of a theory of complex rationality, order appears as emergent, open to variation and self-sensitive,9 nonrequiring intransitive and original linear, theoretical At its origin, the research identifies concepts. An self-destabilizing paradoxical settings. of such settings instance is the double conwhich Luhmann scheme, takes over tingency from Parsons and Shils and develops into a generative figure of all order10 in collective - that is, social meaning systems systems.11 is thus a title for the Systemic rationality of the improbability, central intuition fluency and circularity of order. Order is improbable not because it calls for human - or divine - design, but because it has to be accounted for as the non-natural, non-spontaneous although self- realization of forms of organizing12 being that no design could have predicted and no selfcould directed have produced. The process from non-reproducible system-order emerging of factors and circumstances is conjunctions fluent, nurtured through fluency.13 It is never structured only from within. Order is 'differential' in the sense that it is the unceasing of a difference between non-order negotiation and order. The maintenance of the system-order is an explicit and continuous As performance.
System's Sole Constituent,the Operation 67 level of intellection15 is equivalent ontologizing in the direction of new to the breakthrough of the framing the comprehension categories social. These categories enable and demand an of the assumption that there is an abandonment actor or an action behind social communication. They allow the positing of a specific, autonomous, anonymic, non-aggregative objectivity. Such objectivity is no more ontologically It requires the framework of a projectible. transformed centred on the inhersystemism, self-differential which circular, ently entity to call a system. The new Luhmann continues - the social - is of sociology subject-object as a system. Communication communication is the last constituent of the social, behind which there are neither actors nor things, but only operations. These are the sole, variously specifiable constituents of all communicative systems. one and yet, importantly, not the is a convenient early - and a only one possible. Luhmann's work is not restricted to this fortiori later theme and contains already a series of more Nevergeneral as well as different perspectives. theless, where law or politics, power or values are at stake, the systems theoretical approach transforms the traditional problem positions through discovering the underlying paradoxical structures. Thus, the juridical code (lawful/ can itself be neither lawful nor unlawful) the medium of politics, power, lives unlawful; from its non-use; values are communicationally a sort of complexity to 'stoppers', instrumented cover the self-reference of all orders of meaning. these examples, the fundamental Throughout theoretical difficulty is that systems are inherand made unstable through ently incomplete their differential structures. I should, however, insist on the passage from ( 1 ) the classical representation of a system as a unity with an immanent order facing an which acts on it, thus promoting environment or inhibiting the unfolding of its order structure; to (2) a differential where the representation order unit is that of an asymmetrically reflected difference order/non-order. The contrast brings out the features of the end term. Actually, the involved relational and theoretical structure in this term is not unprecedented. It is part of a stock of very special, rarely used figures I encounter in the philosophical tradition from Aristotle to Heidegger. Where such figures associated with a appear, they are regularly daring and violent effort to think at a challenand against habits of ging level of originarity intuitive thought. I will discuss two such figures in unequal detail. The first, which I call the is the one 'originary self-positing self-identity', at stake here; the second is the one I call the a structure kNur-Vollzug structure, meaning whose terms are contracted in a sole selfcontained act or effectuation (this figure engulfs the first one and will be explained in more detail). My main purpose in this article is to show how Luhmann's most central theses can be read instructively by means of such a structural of the engaged figures of thought. commentary The objects of my attention are then those - I could figures of thought say logismoi - that make possible a radical transformation of the problem vision. My 'logismological' approach focuses on the constitution and performance of such figures and in this sense, it has certain affinities with Luhmann's as a theory-building
2. Figures
of thought
Differential self-actuation I have followed Luhmann on his way from the reception of systems organization theory to his elaboration of systemic rationality. I saw that what was to be thought could not be conceived the classical schemes of along ontoiogical The kinds of objects that came objectivation. to the fore were paradoxical in the sense that of as identities or they could not be thought extrinsic relations to their unities, bearing but as system-environment environments, dualities with an asymmetrical of the anchoring of the duality in the system. This self-position was the abstract frame of systemic rationality, which had to enable us thinking organizational active or sedimented devices, as intelligence contributions to the system's stabiambiguous are lity as well as instability. When boundaries to become the expression of the de-spatialized of the system (as system-envirself-difference in the system a self(as building onment) identity), the system enshrines in itself its own negation. It becomes a circular dynamic whose flow from the internalization of its potentialities environment in itself. That is how (non-self) order is built from noise; that is why the main for stability and adaptation resources are inherent instability and variety and why fixed and diverse suboptimoptimality is suboptimal a asset for evolution. ality major This access to the problematic of asymmetrical self-identity of system from Luhmann's initial preoccupation with organization theory
2000 68 ACTASOCIOLOGICA
VOLUME 43 all terms here a sole differential and a sole self-actuating Vollzug but also an asymmetrical one. (effectuation), The Not-I can never attain to the determinative density of the I, because precisely the I is the site of the reflection of the uneven difference I/Not-I. is best stressed in moment This asymmetrical of G. Spencer who the protologic Brown, state within the unmarked the conceives as a sort of residual distinction inaugural to the marked state of the term, correlative Here also the duality of the selfdistinction. marked difference state/unmarked (I/Not-I, state) is reflected in the active density of, so to - the speak, the 'positive' term of the distinction in Spencer Brown's indication, terminology. is thus, in a specific, paradoxical Distinction insofar as it needs nothing sense, self-continent, united in one more to exist than its moments sole act: effectuation. As a matter of fact, Luhmann's reliance on for the presentation Brownian and protologic of his own theory development gradually to reach a quasi-dominant escalated position in his later work. As I shall stress later on, this the question makes about the dependence theoretical status of Luhmannian assumptions theorems most acute. At and proto-sociological what level is the body of the most general and of Luhmann's of sentences abstract theory a society to be situated? Is it transcendental a it a or is of set of simply generalization priori evidences from various crossed stemming is that domains of observation? My thesis Luhmann's major assertions rely on a sort of a reference, priori ground with no transcendental which is that of the Brownian protologic. Thus, calculus of George I think that the logical Spencer Brown, published under the title Laws as a qualified of Form,22 is most accurately Classical (1) an logics included 'protologic'. (sentence theory of enunciation encompassing and inference of and discourse) (deduction like the inaugural from sentences), sentences logic of Aristotle; (2) an apriorical deduction or of the constituting acts of a pure description the cognitive consciousness operaperforming and reckoning, like the tions of judgement transcendental logics of Kant and Husserl; (3) - an a formal or mathematical body of theorems set a inferred from small syntactically algebra like the logic of axioms and symbol definitions, and of R?ssel of the Principia mathematica In contrast to these logics, particuWhitehead. larly the last one, Spencer Brown's programme laws into the pre-discursive is an inquiry only are structure
type of highly reflexive venture. Luhmann pays a lot of attention to the theorization choices and their figures themselves. The actually unfolding theory becomes thus an object for itself and the result of a series of construction decisions made This leads to a consciously by the theoretician. level of reflexive in abstraction very high and argument. Luhmann's thought theory of the undertheory did not, however, thematize of its most crucial lying figures categorial While it is ultimately enlightening contractions. of complex theorizing,16 to the problematics it still lacks a genuine analysis of most decisive figures. These figures have, in my eyes, analoof first gues in the specific theory-building or prima philo(prot? philosophia philosophy 7 on the ground of the originary sophia) of the first lineaments of being. emergence Our thesis is, in particular, that the selfdifference paradox can be compared with such a and thus be clarified figure of prime philosophy the reminiscence of some of the through deductions that give expression transcendental to it. I chose Fichte's 'Wissenschaftslehre' whose In Fichte's line of progress is most elaborated.18 at the beginning is a 'Thathandlung' deduction, 9 which is the act), (self-performing self-position of the I (the transcendental Before subject).2 there is nothing worldly21 and this self-position, of the I is that of being, i.e. of a the emergence world. However, the self-position of the Ursubthe I is is not not a closed global-spherical: jekt in the sense hen kai pan, self- and all-containing no other. Fichte's is of having argument precisely that the advent of the I in its originary act is the advent of a difference, of a same and of I and not-I (Ich und Nicht-Ich). The non-same, which is not subject is a subject of something vision differs, thus, from the itself. Fichte's of the Parmenidian conceptions metaphysics or that of scholastic theological on speculation the state of being ante mundi creationem. The difference I/Not-I is, further, what is reflected in the most genuine act the I itself and constitutes of the I as I. The I is not a closed and total sphere. It is embedded in a split (or a scratch, Ritz). The I is the split whose name is world and whose act is the reflection of this same splitting difference. of thought The scheme here calls for a from intuitive modes of comprehendistancing sion, where unities or identities are posited as separate and closed wholes. I and Not-I cannot be thought of as two distinct entities standing in relation to each other, whose an extrinsic a and third distinct new term. Not is, product
System'sSole Constituent,the Operation 69 position of emerging with the most elementary These laws must be situated at a 'something'. level preceding the level of expression grasped denotes, thus, in by classical logic. Protologic the logic implied in the most our context, or position of a act of appearance general (a form). It reveals Our internal something knowledge of the structure of the world' (Laws of The form, as it is understood by Form 1969:xiii). Spencer Brown, is prior to anything logic can thematize at its own levels of generality. It is to of as lying at such a depth of be thought and generality as to be 'beyond the originality point of simplicity where language ceases to act normally' (ibidr.xx). It, then, 'resists expression' discursive logic is something (ibid.), whereas I can talk and which I can about which objectivize.23 To be sure, and this is a point I have already is not the only noted, Brownian protologic draws Luhmann upon in order to approach as differences and not as res. think systems own method commanded a diversiLuhmann's fication of the contributions integrated into the and curb theory, in order to raise its incongruity towards massively the tendency unifying and re-ontologizing concepts. Neverthepotentially becomes the less, Spencer Brown gradually dominant reference of the late theory, which theory' based on develops into an Observation the Brownian concept of difference as a bilateral This evolution is not concept (zwei-Seiten-Form). Brown's altogether advantageous. logic is still a for a theory waiting very poorly elucidated Yet, Luhappropriating reception. genuinely mann works with it as if it were not only but as if one had fully common knowledge, of the deep ontolograsped the transformation gical structure it induces. In his texts, the same hint at Spencer Brown's schematic concise, Laws of Form suffices to justify the most abstract concepts and the shorthand-like exposed arguments. This is the reason why I think that I should try to build an analogical space as much Brown's around Spencer as Luhprotologic mann's use of it. For this purpose, I turn to the as a reservoir of most tradition philosophical instructive figures of thought. The advantage of references is that they bring the philosophical with them the necessary diachronic and historical depth severely needed for the clarification of categorial revisions. selfFichte's deduction of the asymmetrical and of its reflexive entandifference structure because it reminds us is instructive glements that the main difficulties of theorizing on an level are twofold: (1) to originary-structural from a theoretical site lying before think in a transcendental world without experience time and without objective firmness; and (2) to think in a world of pure actuality without time of activity. and without objective products Despite the fact that Luhmann's theory does not develop on any transcendental ground, its still have many essential figures of thought features in common with the apriorical tradition. The theoretical constructs shaped in this tradition as groundwork of all subsequent have a sort empirical acting and experiencing in an enlarged of homological counterpart systems theory. This is even more the case as systems theory integrates protological components and is shaped in such a manner as to become a sort of universal theory of objects.24 It that at a certain level of is actually inescapable - which we could call protological, originality and where we would situate most apriorical schemes share in a theories - heterogeneous The instance of Fichte's series of figures. shows how a thought taking place deduction at the emerging point of things, at an observation site revealing their most universal features, is forced into unintuitive, reflexive, highly contracted paths. One should see that Luhmann's theory is not just a sociological theory of a particularly high generality. It should be seen that such a theory incorporates a very central protological dimension. Taken seriously, this fact changes the basis of the theory reception. It is thus hopeless to try to make sense of the theory social systems, above all when of self-referential they are conceived of as nothing but operations, while occulting the protological problematic. Circular actuality (Nur-Volhug) more accurately some Let us now examine of of the moments figure thought important on the self-difference structure. In elaborating on Fichte's the course of my commentary deduction, I said that the main pressure bending cominto counter-intuitive, highly thought from the twofold originates pacted patterns time and the necessity necessity of abstracting - i.e. all intuitively to reabsorb extensively - terms into one or a few ('verbal') posited actual aspects of a circular process. I now show of extensive terms that this figure of contraction in actual effectuation (Vollzug) is not specific to the transcendental tradition, but is also required in other philosophical confronted approaches with problems of the composite constitution of the preLuhmann, specific beings. Concerning
VOLUME 43
sent stage of my discussion will offer an instructive of his general concepspecification tion of system as a differential non-entity. It will take the form of a commentary on its most most pregnant 'nur statement: fundamental, Kommunikation kann kommunizieren' (only can communicate).25 communication I begin with a presentation of the figure as it is elaborated by Aristotle, in crucial developments of his psychological theory.26 It is the central figure of the act theory of the soul, which solves the major problems of the precedThe theory reacts to the quasiing doctrines. of psychology treatment mythological by Plato, for whom the soul is a composite being extended over several heterogeneous domains and whose ever since problematic. It is seemed unity and its heterogeneous dispersed topologically of as co-existing and often parts are thought with each other in a global space. interacting The question for Plato was that of the uniting domination (h?gemon?n) of one part over the within other or all others this plurality.27 scheme of Aristotle simplifies the stratificatory the soul into three main parts: a vegetative (growth and decay without motion), an animal motion and sense) and an intel(autonomous lectual (knowledge) part. He then resolves the problem of the unity of the strata in superior like animals or men in an beings living and straightforward audacious manner. He stratificatory rejects the idea of cumulative and brings to the fore an actualendowments or Verbal' concept of form, which effectual transforms the problem: the soul (psych?) is the form (eidos) of the living body in the sense that it is the act (the realized dynamis, the energeia) of living, which is its perfection (entelecheia). In the soul of a human being there are not three three or souls psychic floors interrelated partial through the material being they animate. There is only one act, through which the living human being lives and realizes his being (tois z?isi to zen einai, esse viventibus vivere, De anima 415b:14). Each time this act is specified as vegetative (when man sleeps), animal (when he perceives) or intellectual (when he thinks). The life of such a being is 'effectuated' (actually realized) in one sole act of being, which is here life in its farm. There is vegetative, animal or intellectual no need to multiply the involved beings. The act theory dispels all forms of being which are not actual-effectual (Vollzug), i.e. all forms of already The given res-like beings. of being theory transforms the comprehension as presence of objects (frozen products of once
in their multiplicity, enacted factual being) diversity and dispersion into that of an originary actus essendi. There is a transformation of the of an extensive, transitive multithick-setting moment structure into a circular intransitive, structure. effective, unique-moment internally The logico-grammatical triadic structure of must be counteroperator-operatio-operatum into a monadic structure intuitively compacted with last irreducible one the component, operado. A step must be made to cut behind the current logical and linguistic settings of and to attain to the triadic ontic evidence dimension of the 'solefounding protological operation' structure. The act theory invokes the ground, out of which a originary ontological whose obscured reality emerges, perception breaks its primal 'collection' (Sammlung) and its vivid core into cooled disjected scatters members. The problem created by such an analogy Aristotle's act theory in its modern between and Luhmann's theinterpretation operation ory is that of the limits beyond which both are no more comparable. theories Massive lurk, should the analogy be misinterpretations loaded with more than it bears. Aristotle's form in the sense that it is actuality is metaphysical or a self-organizationally not a historically but is the actuating of a emerging operation, is essence. It an actual not primarily arbitrary a contingent distinction, split on the world's surface. The Aristotelian actuality is essential. Its It is also strictly unitary and self-sufficient. or not differential it is is circularity paradoxical; and global. No form-act refers to spherical another form-act or to an environing non-act, the difference to whom is reflected in the formact itself. However, if these are the restrictions to be made on my analogy, the analogy itself as an elucidation of the remains pertinent is decisive in actual-effectual figure which revision of sociology. Luhmann's categorial While the Fichtean deduction could help us to the asymmetrical understand three-step prowith cess (position of system as concomitant of difference to an unmarked the position and reflection of the difference environment of the system) as a protoas core operation the unique circularity; untemporal logical a for underus Aristotelian figure gives key aspects standing more than the actual-effectual of extensive terms into one of the r?sorption already partially enlightoperative structure, with Fichte. It is ened by the comparison for the invaluable contribumainly interesting
Systems Sole Constituent,the Operation 71 tion it offers to the understanding of the between different operation couplings types, that is, different systems. The relatedness and dependency of the brain autopoiesis28 to the autopoiesis of conas well as the relatedness of the sciousness, latter to the autopoiesis of communication, can be explained in terms very much analogous to Aristotle's act theory. Only communication can - as communicate, meaning that consciousness well as the brain - cannot: this refers to an actual contraction necessary to think the form as act. There is no place for whatever multischeme because the plicity in the Aristotelian entities at stake are not objective (res-like), but actual-effectual (Vollzug). Multiplicity is the coexistence of many different items at a time, in a - or space. Prime actuality protological processes - are non-spatial and are untemporal in the sense that they are not in time as in a preexisting space. They are, on the contrary themselves There is thus no time-generative. place, on the originary ground, for a multiplicity of acts. The actus essendi of a living being is life and that of a thinking living being is thinking (noein). There is no stratification, ordering the acts of being, life, vegetation, and perception in space or time, intellection as a multiplicity at the higher levels. arranging their cumulation In the action theoretical the most framework, specific act is always and alone the actual one. AH others, 'underlying' ones, are there, in it. its actual specificity so are superseded They by that their actuation 'is' its own. Coupling Aristotle levels of operative a detailed proposed theory of the involved in the actual absorption of couplings within higher ones, in lower act dimensions particular the famous abstraction theory coupand intellection the ling perception through of sense data into intellectual processing forms.29 It is not possible to expose it here, but what is sure is that the analogical setting of both Aristotle's and Luhmann's, theories, persists around their central logismic figures. Thus, Luhmann approaches the problematics of coupof the autopoiesis of ling as one of a contribution to the autopoiesis the lower systems of the takes the form of higher ones. This contribution an entry of lower difference reflections in higher ones without breaking the unity of the specific When conscious actual effectuation. material - Gedanken)10 enters communication, (thoughts it does so in the form of that material which stimulates the asymmetrical differstructurally enee reflection that constitutes the communication acts. The conscious actuality entering the communicative actuality does not operate like a material component entering a material synthesis. Consciousness is already fully and genuin communication. When inely present communication is actuated, consciousness and cerebral life are as well. Aristotle had already stressed this presupposition of the relationship lower actuality by the higher one.31 In Luhmannian terms: whereas only communication there is no communication communicates, without and no consciousness consciousness without cerebral life. The difference between the two visions lies in Luhmann's of the absorption of conception the subordinate of actuality in the effectuation the more specific one in terms of contribution and stimulation. Since the lower actuality does not imply the realization of the higher one, since is not already communicae.g. consciousness must tion, the coming to pass of communication conditioned. be specifically Communication the continuous connection being autopoietic, from one instant to the next, of its operations is sequences, building more or less coherent in nature. That means purely communicative level of actuality is completely that each in its sequence-building autonomous and operation. The system endures time-consuming on the basis of self-motion and self-continuation of its parts through the structural connectibility - each the of a connection operation demanding The lower new one of the same actuality. actuality systems do not condition the operative of the higher ones - these would continuity otherwise not be autopoietic; rather they supply them with the type of actuality they need, which is in turn transformed by them, through into the higher a specific reticulation type 'material' The out of which commuactuality. nication is made is conscious 'Erlebnisse, sense kind that I call of the specific syntheses These syntheses build the basic consciousness. 'material' of communication by entering into the higher syntheses specific to this higher type of sense system. Not all conscious syntheses enter, however, into the higher communicative ones, as the of conscious transformation experience in Luhmann's into (thought, terminology) communication is not itself intersubjective automatic. Moreover, not all conscious synthto enter into eses are equally appropriate - some communication being structurally like incommunicable, ineffable conexcluded,
43 VOLUME
The choice of the terms scious experiences. and 'stimulations' to describe 'contributions' the relations between a pair of asymmetrically levels of actuality conditioned reflects this and selective structure of systemic unequal are more coupling. Some conscious operations than others to engage in commustimulated Once communication is actual, the nication. that the conscious material theory considers has ceased to operate and has acceded to the of communication. higher operative synthesis of a conscious of The problem experience itself during its own operation communication of the two levels of is not that of a confusion of a but that or doubleoperation, simultaneity (Vollzug) of the two syntheses. stage effectuation The problem is prevented the multithrough dimensional structure of communication itself in Luhmannian its theory. Through conception as a threefold of communication operation of information, (Mitimpartation consisting (Verstehen), the teilung)12 and comprehension theory accounts explicitly for the phenomenon of the continuous 'quant ? soi underwriting communication. Thus, the unquestionable pheof a current being-for-myself, nomenon feeling in myself of the contents of and judging while engaged in communicacommunication, tion, is not occulted in the theory. The conscious actual accompanying sequences continuously and forming, so to speak, its communication are respectively background, among the conacts of communication. The unimstituting and self-referentiality of autonomy peachable the communicative the sequences guarantee of the communication character autopoietic and inhibit to resolve any attempt system communication into consciousness. A possible interpretation of Aristotle's act a new towards theory points logismic horizon to explore. It has been that I will have of the Aristotelian to conceive suggested of a specific and individual being as actuation realization of a form in its a continuous matter. The actuation of vegetative adequate life in a rose is thus an actuation of being-arose in adequate each matter, throughout that of a cell, the of its existence; moment actuation and thereby continuous maintenance of the being or form cell in adequate all its metabolic processes. matter throughout The metaphor that bears the whole interpretathe tion is that of a whirlpool maintaining stability of the form through the flow of matter. of 'transtemporal This conception stability', and individual within which form specific
is a 'sempiternal wrap or bend actuating local the matter',33 goes beyond the informing theoretical heretofore With explored space. such a view of the temporal-operative event we enter the domain continuum of the realization of the prime originary concrete We leave the protological level, actuality. what we could call a strictly operareaching tional one. Whereas the former described the at their untemporal, state of things timethe latter corresponds emergence, inaugural of the concrete to a consideration actualeffectual (Nur-Vollzug) event. In real time, the of the Nur-Vollzug structure is compactness reflected in a very specific form. One would event of a selfexpect that, in the protological reflecting difference, the bundling or knotting terms into one circular actual of all extensive must embody in a contraction effectuation of the operator and the operatum into a timeself-centred operatio. The empirical consuming world when to its is, however, compared a world of cooled out matrix, originating derivatives. It constitutes a level of constructed to the protological one and reality opposite unable to host its circular archestructurally types. These must, when the departure is taken from the empirical level, always be reinvented in a stark effort of theoretical thought. The whirlpool is thus the best metaphor suited one to conceive of the sole-being and the of the operation, as well as the circularity derivative, transitory status of its cooled formaa not uninteresting, tions. It has, moreover, most concrete basis in biological phenomena. the material of living Actually, components renewed and replaced tissues are continuously constant within relatively periods, while the Thus, biological form is altogether maintained. the metaphor is in a way inescapable or ceases almost to be one. It offers a convenient transition towards unsaddled metaphysically of operative processes. Presuprepresentations on the status, ideal identity or positions sameness of the act forms need supratemporal not to be made within it. The conception of a stable operatum through the transtemporally continuous a action of unceasing, specific, contingent time and operatio (eventually consuming fits quite well as a dematter) of Aristotelian act theory. It ontologization the problematic on an empirical establishes operative ground and draws on the contingence and (evolutionary) variability of the form as to its supposed ideal incorruptible opposed On the whole, this conception sameness.
System'sSole Constituent,the Operation 73 seems to be very close to Luhmann's view of the of the system operation as a prime constituent of ontological with no guarantee identity and stability. Through the flow of time, the concretions and communication are of life, consciousness cooled forms of current continuous operations. maintain These identifiable, transtemporally in fine advantageous functionally operata. The a stability of the operata (a cell, a thought, communication such as a friendly specific a work conflict, a legal procedure) interaction, from instant to is nothing but the permanence, of the actual effectuation of the instant, The operata have no operation. corresponding and no substance the subsistence outside operation. But what then probabilizes coherent, rather enduring, system-building operations than anarchic, non-connon-self-confirming, ones? Within instantly vanishing densing, act theory, such a question Aristotle's is The act form is an ontologically irrelevant. firm eidos, ever since, and self-identical under all Within de-ontologized conditions. frameworks like systems theory, the tendency to condensaaccounted tion must be especially for, Luhmann's proposal elaborates on the ground of the self-organization theory in a protological differentialist formulation. Thus, each difference the surface of the world tends, that scratches from its prime event on, to iterate in a way that as well as for builds a nucleus for redundancy is the basic, variationvariation. Redundancy is the marenabling process, while variation Both are the the content of one. substance, ginal the operative life pulsing in the constituted form flow. Each operation, through the time-matter from moment to moment, either confirms and further the form, or inflects condenses its and prepares the possible wrapping movement of new forms. The emergence (not necessary) double trajectory of confirmation and variation one. Predictions of evolution is an unpredictable have some pertinence after bifurcation has occurred, in phases of necessary condensation through strong redundancy, the post-bifurcative initial ones. phase being similar to theoretically The nearer to the inaugural the distinction, is likely to prevail. more redundant operating the ground The more virginal where the is drawn, or the more originary the distinction the more hasty and intense level of emergence, are the processes of iteration. This is clear from form-theoretical the premises: protological, reflection of the difference system-environment within the system is stronger, and enhances the building of self-identity, when the environment as to impose is not already so differentiated of the system through internal complexification the differentiation of diverse roles and functions within the latter. These processes are namely factors of variation that inflect the actuated The systemic form in a number of directions. as long as variation structure is maintained does not provoke a switch to a changed form, would require anew a high whose confirmation measure of shape- or structure-building redundancy. A major feature of Luhmann's systems operativity theory is finally its inversion of the status of structure and (in all functionalist systemic theories) from one of a superordinated whose commanding magnitude, stability is the finality of the functional enhancing processes, to one of a flowing process with no in things. Structure reflects just real anchoring tendencies of operathe temporary redundancy effects upon certain with tions, 'enslaving' operative sequences.34 To sum up: a system would be a sort of stable whirlpool, a form maintranstemporally tained in actuality through a constant bend of into a its individual operative components The structure. mechanisms complex global or mutually indent the that link together are not deterministic. successive operations unstable because they are They are inherently These paradoxes are on paradoxes. grounded the main source of systemic dis-equilibrium as for complexitywell as the main resources variation. building and actuality-furthering Pure event of the logismic figure of The last instantiation like to present before I would Nur-Vollzug on Luhmann's this commentary sysclosing could help us understand its temic operation as the 'evential' 'happens' aspect. Operation of a difference in a reflection asymmetrical are form act. The 'products' of this happening contents conscious and social living beings, Luhmann's tends to theory interchanges. into these cooled deconstruct objectivities But as soon as their constituting operations. level for the the we leave real-objective of the one, we face the problem operative One of complexes. protological representability of of the problematic aspects of thinkability of pure originary operativity is the 'happening' What does it mean that an operaoperations. tion happens or comes to pass? Once more the evocation of a philosophical figure is most It is Heidegger's instructive. doctrine of
VOLUME 43
The idea of 'Ereignis' (event).35 'Ereignis' climax the fundamental the of effort represents of Heidegger to think 'be' (Sein) in its difference to the 'being' (Seiendes). This effort leads to a 'verbalization' of thought structures complete on building with a concentration ways of to the non-objective, access actual purely universe of prime reality. The main statements have the form: Welt weitet. Nichts nichtet, of Ereignis ereignet, ist istet . . . ,36 reminiscent of pure actuality structure that fundamental and operatio are where operator, operatum in a sole intransitive, contracted internally act. Heidegger's is circular actual, novelty is thought as ab-solute that pure actuality in any transcendent finite, with no anchoring nor worldly rarity. Being is nor transcendental the pure event of itself, the gift of time and in itself like an out-less finite being, winding ring. The pure event is a circular event, a into its own being (Er-eignen). Once coming again, the circular structure is a complex one with a dual movement of giving time and being to the reciprocal duality of themselves. of a Luhmann's protological conception operativity is certainly nearer to self-sustaining the asymmetrical three-moment of movement deduction than to Heidegger's the Fichtean of a self-giving movement dual, quasi-mystical being. The interest of the Heideggerian figure is, however, its insistence on the event character of Its shaping circular of the event actuality. motive is one whose central stakes are the 'saying' of the gratuity of the givenness of the given. 'Ereignis is irrelative and causeless. There nor any other actor who is no transcendent does, makes or motivates the event. There is no internal necessity eliciting it and unfolding its is 'eventual' for Heimovement. Sole-actuality its the sense in that effectuation (Vollzug) degger has no motive outside of itself. When it comes to pass and endures through time and being, it is with no relation to still inaugurally motiveless, its event. This radicality outside pure anything of the Heideggerian figure has no correspondent in Luhmann's theory. Thus, my last analogical presentation to enrich my commentary on Luhdesigned has to be much mann's operational conception than the preceding more contrastive ones. the sole systemic constituents, Operations, 'happen', occur, in an already existing stream identical Metabolic of specifically operations. come processes, thoughts and communications insertion in such a stream, to pass through themselves to respectively adequate connecting
which and specific are at that operations This idea is developed effective. moment by Luhmann along with a well-known theoretical or connectability topic, that of the connection (Anschluss, Anschlussfahigkeit, Anschliessbarkeit) of current operations in systems. Thus, the pure of systems, though circular, is not operativity Its protological description can prime-eventual. it in statu nascendi as emerging show and and elucidate its structure, moments inaugural, It does not make any assumpand movement. tion on its prime event. Operative systems - in sense - appear then as structurally Luhmann's unstable: they can never stop or immanently operating, being, as I would say, tilted ahead connection and ever searching to adequate bent operate. They are literally 'pro-clivious', in a relentless concatenation forward with similar entities. This ever-current connecting else than the effectuation of the is nothing of the reflection difference asymmetrical within between the system and its environment the system. This difference can never attain the status of an in itself quiescent unity. As an actual difference, it is continuously, unceasingly in effectuation (in Vollzug). Thus, systems in actual operations consisting presuppose Their operations can never begin themselves. to out of nothing, but always lack connection in of the same autopoiesis other operations Each singular is order to happen. operation referential of other structurally operations connected to it through a puzzleimmediately is like key mesh. The operations sequence a sort of structural concatenated through intrusion of the 'end' of one operation into the of the next. 'beginning' To be sure, the expression of this state of and end of things in terms of a beginning is not though it very appropriate, operations reflects the fact that the circular process of the singular operation refers constantly backwards to its end moment from its (protological) In each a one. way operation has a beginning in an undetermined part of itself pre-posited the key fit next operation, specified through An of the relevant autopoiesis. characteristic be social cannot of communication operation with an operation of life or of connected as none of the moments of the consciousness, nor of consciousness are able life of autopoiesis to fit between the circularly organized moments i.e. informaof the communication operation, Each and comprehension. tion, impartation in itself hosts a of specific autopoiesis operation to a homopoietical the reference operation
System's Sole Constituent,the Operation 75 of under the form of an entangling intrusion in the circular process their different moments of their effectuation.37 do not motivate of meaning Other spheres communication Besides, there is a adequately. whole shadow domain of communication which a communicais structurally incommunicable: tion can never impart, in its own act, the impartation quality of this same act.39 A whole stream of non communication is thus cocurrent to that of communication, building of the whole of commuthe non attainability nication to itself.40 These are the paradoxes of pure operativity as structurally pro-clivious and these Besides unending. specific paradoxes, communication hosts, very centrally, another that does not reflect type of communication but the fact that problems of its self-reference, and self-contextual, although all-engulfing communication is not the 'largest' horizon of thus, contains the most being. Communication, hint towards a 'world', larger than paradoxical it is. The extreme of paradox is thus reached in a - which could be, like silence, a communication - that shows of communication renunciation beyond itself. World problems are problems of of ever-streaming the pure eventuality pure are not those of self-reference operativity. They but those of the self-referof communication, ence of the givenness of a world for it.41
3. The world
problem
with such an embeddedcontrasting Although ness of the advent of the like in the stream of event conever-actuated like, the Heideggerian cept still has illuminating aspects. It actually shows the thought of Nur-Vollzug in a state of full completion. Unfolding its immanent motives and making explicit its internal horizons, pure operativity would tend to these extremes of pure on the protoeventuality. Acutely elaborating Luhmann's structures, logical approach is, for its part, not blind to the problem of pure In its terms, the problem of the eventuality. event of circular actuality would be a world the scope of a theory of problem, outreaching - however radical the society theory may be in its categorial casting of pure, internal-intransitive, circular operativity. The achieving piece of Nur-Vollzug thought is the reflection of an aspect of reality which hints towards a horizon that and in a way engulfs the horizon of out-ranges, all- and self-engulfing communication. The world problem of world event is, however, like everything having sense, a potential object of social communication. It can be indicated, discussed, referred to. Any emergence In contrast to all of it is socially constructed. of communication, other constructions it is, that directly hits upon the however, something circular limitations of self-eluding, paradoxical, social communication itself. It unites all the paradoxity of the latter in one enigma and gives it the name of the sole horizon of all its horizons, that is, the world. Social communication being of itself cannot the ultimate cross envelope itself. it does not reflect this However, beyond as a problem of communication self-limitation itself, i.e. as a social problem. Communication reflects its paradoxical character as a whole in the form of a (non-social) world problem. It shows, then, in its most paradox forms like art38 or religion, that there still is a problem that is not its own. A problem that is neither a part of it with it. but definitely larger nor coextensive of a sphere that than it. It is the problem communication and should not be transcends confused with any sphere of the incommunicable within communication. We have seen that conscious experience, especially when very intimate and intense, is not easily communicable.
4. Social refounding Our
communication: sociology
a concept
for
of Luhmann's version of exploration a showed it as radical transfortheory systems a new mation of the initial model through shaping of its central categories. The main line this categorial revision of thought commanding as a programme of could be characterized viewed as historial universal de-ontologization necessity. My endeavour was to shed some light on the ways and motives that led to the final centring of the whole theory upon the concept I have proceeded by establishing of operation. of Luhmann's some conjunctions approach with philosophical theories, all of which docuthe emergence of mented efforts to conceive of meaning at protostructures fundamental of these theories logical levels. The convergence - or detowards a de-realization (Ent-dinglichung of current ontological catesubstantivization) Thus, most gories was in itself instructive. efforts went in the direction of a counterof internal-intransitive, intuitive thinking circular, effectual actuality. I brought them under title of Nur-Vollzug. the logismic Whereas Luhmann's alone in theory stands somewhat
VOLUME 43 the fields of its thesis is that the acknowledged objects. My main and most potent acquisition of Luhmann's theory is the concept of 'social communication'. To make clear what I suggest, I would compare, in strictly epistemological terms, Freud's 'invention' of the Unconscious with Luhmann's construction of 'social communication'.42 The basic epistemological feature they share is that both concepts a sort of coming to embody themselves of their respective disciplines. and the Actually, both social communication unconscious are primary object concepts, cirthe proper theme of a specific cumscribing science. As the phenomenological thorough of these matters has shown, such theorizing of specific objectivities are nothing projections less than inductive. They represent fundamental 'Entw?rfe' (castings) of primary objects, impulof the scientific sing a decisive differentiation it on a new discipline at stake and establishing basis. They open unsuspected horizons for a much farthertheory-building, allowing reaching inspection of their objective domains, as well as a much more rigorous formulation of their accounts. They are prior to any set of observations or cognitions, and have something of a founding performance. Our suggestion is to consider the Luhmannian concept of 'social communication' as an inaugurative performance endowing sociology with its proper object: the social. In the same Freud's Unconscious a manner, represented new foundation of psychology on the basis of a recasting of the psychic. The analogy holds in a very pertinent manner. The problem of psychology at the beginning of the 20th century was, from a psychoanalytical point of view, the dominance of I-centred, introspective and cognitive thematizations of the psychic. The psychic as an objectivity was featured in a massively a firm, selfmanner, ontological supposing identical and individual mental entity. The of the Unconscious the concept anonymized it in a bundle of psychic entity, transforming affectual governed by a complex processes economy. We can observe in Luhmann's theory a similar aversion from individualistic ontology and a striking analogy with the anonymizing effects of the position of an anthropologically de- third centred - or de-anthropoiogized person, non-mechanical processual object. The limits of these similarities between both castings of decentre- and nameless individualized, primary has objects, is that the Freudian Unconscious of as an objective entity been often thought tion and so remote from
and seems therefore contemporary sociology erratic and incomprehensible, my procedure allowed me to situate it in a line of philosophical thought. The trajectory of the reviewed figures of sole-operation could lead us, in an altogether ordered way, from the first shapings of the motive within the complexity system-operation to the last of its reflections in the problematics world problem. Let us venture a last remark on the interest of such a theory of social sociological communication. Its primary level reveals itself, once more, as very remote from the traditional of social theory - and not only its settings ones. It would thus further the empirical of those who feel that its 'entry scepticism rights' are prohibitively high. Moreover, while such a general showing the strong stimulation theory receives and exerts on the specifically a priori theorizing of neighbouring philosophy, my could have enhanced the opinion interpretation of its marginal sociological fertility. My thesis would here be that a sound approach to Luhmann's design cannot do without a minimum of philosophical analysis of its theoretical premises. Such an analysis should a deliver characterization of the nature and level of the involved concepts. We should avoid self-delusion and recognize the basic evidence that the ground on which Luhmann's theory stands - and falls - is as practised by Luhprotological. Protologicity, mann, is a very new and peculiar, setting for archiforging primary categories, conceptual tectures and descriptive frameworks. Whereas classical sociology could lean on philosophical and Weber on neo(Simmel groundwork Kan tianism, Scheler and Sch?tz on phenomenola new type of ogy, etc.), Luhmann inaugurates a theory of society and the relation between or categorial foundational work of philosophy. He rejects any reliance on a global philosophical position. Instead, he combines a multiplicity of theoretical to a conception of high pieces abstraction and logical priority. The protological status of the whole synthesis is not always clear. is that the central pieces of Yet, my conviction the theory are protological, and hence require a elucidation. philosophical Actually, protologic is a sort of unidentified transcendental logic which is poorly established and whose contours are I can see no way to still very ambiguous. elucidation of its dispense with a philosophical statements. all this being done, the quesAdmittedly, tion remains as to the concrete returns of a theory so costly in terms of conceptual elabora-
System'sSole Constituent,the Operation 77 - a sort of Atlantis dissomewhere existing man who, after a covered by a good-hearted across it. From a Luhmancame search, long nian point of view, Freud's casting of the psychic For this was not thoroughly de-ontologizing. should have been the Unconscious purpose, thought as a difference and not as an identity.43 the However, on the whole, we can maintain and and insist on the autonomizing analogy fertilizing effects of the switch, in both psycholto anonymous and autonogy and sociology, who the allow omous objects primary of a level of reality in its own observation of right. Psychic life is no more an aggregate conscious or cognitive mental states than social is an aggregate of individual interchange actions. The contribution of Niklas Luhmann of sociology on the basis of a to a refoundation proper primary objectivity not only delivers the concept of such a specific object, but also a and protologihighly reflexive, epistemological cal theory thematizing all central processes of any de-ontologization project. My purpose here how the idea of a circular, was to show the core internally actual operation constitutes of such a theory. First version received July 1999 Final version accepted September 1999 (Luhmann 1997) was developedpartially on the Gesellschaft basis of such literature. 7 The major reference in Luhmann's work is definitely durch undSystemrationalitdt (1973). YetLegitimation Zweckbegriff (1969), where the rationalityof subordinate,microVerfahren final devices like proceduresis theorized,is also interesting. 8 See Clam (1997), the first part of which is dedicatedto Luhmann'searly work. A stimulatingdiscussionof Luhmann's administration and organization theory is Dammann et al. (1994). 9 That is. reacting to its own variation. 10 As checked disorder. 11 It should be notedthat the double contingencyscheme is the paradigmof what I would call the 'indefinitegenerativityof paradox'. It is the genus, so to speak, of all other reflexive paradoxeslike, for instance, that of the circularmaking of law through legal procedures. See on this latter circularity the enlightening work of G. Teubner(1989). 12 I make a terminological distinction between spontaneous and self-organizingorder. I understand spontaneous processes as reproducible, whereas self-organizing order is emergent, coming but once to pass and self-encaging. 13 We could call it the principleof 'das Festewird . . . auf das Flie?ende gegr?ndet' (found the solid upon the flowing', Luhmann 1962:190). 14 Using the terms of the phenomenologicalepistemology of Husserland Heidegger. 15 One should always insist on the fact that Luhmann's invention does not proceed like an abstract,aprioricaldeduction. It is nurtured through the evidence coming from reconceivedsciences (like attributiontheory constructivistically in psycho-sociology) and is developed along the lines of a theoreticalsociology - and not those of an aprioricphilosophy. 16 Likethose of the of notions sequencing (Sequenzierung) and arguments in circular or reticular topics, or those of the sense and scope of abstractionin general theory (cf. Luhmann 1979:170-177). 17 Succeeding Plato's distinction of different levels of philosophizing, the top of which is the Platonic dialectic. is a researchon how being reveals Aristotle'spr?te' philosophia itself as being; a research upon the most fundamental, i.e. categorial.ground of our worldcomprehension. 18 The dergesamten of 1794 is Wissenschaftslehre Grundlage the most detailed exposition of the system. However, the Grundrissdes Eigenth?mlichen der Wissenschaftslehre of 1795 contains, at its beginning,a very briefand clear presentationof the figureI am discussing.We quote fromthe firsteditionof the Werke (1834-35. 1845-46). 19 The I is understood Fichte as a by 'pure activity' (reine (Grundlage?1. 6). where the actor (das Handelnde) Tha'tigkeit) and its product{dieThat) sind eins und dasselbe'('are one and the same thing': ?1. 6). The same passage implicitlyidentifies das Handelnde (the actor)and dieHandlung (the action).This is a structurethat I very clear token of the underlying'Nur-Vollzug discuss later. 20 No need to say that our presentation of Fichtean deduction is a most cursory one. The exegesis of the extremely of the deductionfills an extended dense principles(Grunds?tze) literature. I concentrate, in our interpretation,on the central and consensually acknowledgedfigureof thought (logismos). A few hints at the literaturemay suffice:P.Rohs(1991), bringsan interesting image to illustratethe activity-basedconception of the I: like a photon which is nothing when stripped of its movement, the I is nothing besides its actual activity (p. 5 3. being the identity of Tat(activity) and Handlung Thathandlung (product of the activity); Hans-J?rgenM?ller (1980:120ff.) stresses the problemsof the sequenciationof circular activity under the title of 'symbolicnarrative'(the Thathandlung being
Notes testimonyto this consciousness, where the '?berholtseinder ?berlieferten metaphysischen Bestimmung der Wahrheit von ontologischen Pr?missen her' (Luhmann 1962:1. 63) is stated as the basis for a profound transformationin the dogmaticstructureof social beliefs. 2A of politicalproject,a juridicaldogmatics,the perception or the acting in a market,a scientifictheory,a game, a conflict ... all are conceived as self-descriptions of social communication, constituting modes of representing the world within communication as well as modes of experiencing or acting related to it. 3 The text (Derrida),consciousness (Husserl),language or logic (Saussure,Spencer Brown) are other figures of the same protologicalparadigm. 4 A formulationLuhmannuses in biographicalinterviews: . . . weil man als Soziologealles machen kann, ohne auf einen bestimmtenThemenbereichfestgelegtzu sein' (1987:141). 5 Parsons' systemismwas in many respectstoo narrow,too essentialistfor that purpose,lacking the main characteristics of the requiredtheory, namely high reflexivity. For a reconstruction and critiqueof Parsons'essentialism,see Clam(1999:142150). 6 The relevant literature is immense. The theoretical sophistication has been ever-increasing.Organizationtheory and its literatureremaineda constant source of inspirationfor the later Luhmann - until recently, where the evolutionary der problematicin the chapter 'Evolution'of Die Gesellschaft 1 Luhmann'sfirstarticlesbear
2000 78 ACTASOCIOLOGICA explainedin the deduction'symbolischerz?hlend')as well as the of the I is the paradigm of every fact that the Thathandlung position (setzen);Dieter Henrich (1982) brings into discussion the later (1801) Fichteanformula'an activitywhom an eye has been implanted' (p. 75ff.) which would fit very well into our interpretation-however, he proposesa divergentassessmentof it; Reinhard Lauth (1984:19ff.) analyses very accurately the and hetero-determinadoublingof self-reflection/determination tion in one unique act (Vollzug or Selbstvollzug). 21 The transcendental philosophy of consciousness is no longer modelledon the perfectand divine intellectus originarius, of whom the human intellect represents a derivative form Thus far, the statement that worldliness derivativus). (intellectus begins with a finite subjectivitydoes not prejudgethe givenness or not givenness of a pre-worldly consciousness. 22 Firstedition:London (1969); second edition:New York (1972) containing some significantcomplements. 23 A recent discussionof SpencerBrown'slogic with a clear link to Luhmann'srevival of its central stakes is to be found in the two volumes edited by DirkBaecker(1993a, b). 24 The in the manner of 'allgemeine Gegenstandstheorie' the pure Logistikof the beginning does not reach such deep originarylevels as SpencerBrown'sprotologic.It doesn't really propose a theory of purely actual, paradoxical and circular objects. 25 The context of the statement is the following: Aber Menschen k?nnen nicht kommunizieren, nicht einmal ihre Gehirnek?nnen kommunizieren,nicht einmal das Bewusstsein kann kommunizieren.Nur die Kommunikationkann kommunizieren' (in the chapter entitled 'Wie ist Bewusstsein an Kommunikationbeteiligt?'Luhmann 199 5b:3 7). 26 The main text is De anima (especiallyBook 11:412a-b, 414a). Our interpretationdraws on Inciarte (1970), Frede & Patzig (1988) and Liske(1985). 27 Plato, 436a, 544e, 580d-e, 588c-e; Timaeus Republic 69c-?. 28 Autopoiesis means, in our context, self-producing circular actuality and activity. 29 Cf. Hamelin (1953). I suppose that Aristotle, with his theory of the totalizing unity of the most specific form act, resolved the problem of the coupling between the principleof intellectualknowledge and that of animation of the body.For a detailed study of the long groping search for that solution, see Nuyens (1948). 30 I would like to add, in the wide sense of all conscious experience (Erlebnisse).However, Luhmann's texts on consciousness occult the affectivedomain of conscious experience. 31 With the exception that pure intellects are not only conceivable, but really exist with no anchoring in animal or vegetativelife. 32 To avoidconfusion I translatethe second moment of the communication (Kommunikation) operation,namely Mitteilung, as 'impartation' - rendered otherwise most naturally into English 'communication'. 'Impartation'has the advantage of replicatingwith relativefidelitythe etymologicalcompositionof the German word - an advantage the word 'utterance' (the adoptedrenderingin Englishtranslationsof Luhmann)does not have. 33 Furth (1978, quoted in Liske1985:256). 34 These effects have drawn the attention of the selforganization theorists. On this point, cf. Schweitzer (1997). Mostimpressiveexamplesof redundancyin initial phases of selforganizingprocessesare paths (or tracks:Wege). 35 The basic text is Zur Sachedes Denkens (1969). As for Fichteand Aristotle,a thorough penetrationof the philosophical notion requiresa much greater textual basis, extending to the entire corpus. 36 One can easily figure how embarrassingthe translation
VOLUME 43 of such nominal-verbal doublets is. World worlds, nothing nothings, event events, is ises . . . reflect quite accurately the challenging violence done to language in the German of the original text. 37 all systems are describedas being always in Empirically, a state of operative'ongoing'. 38 I mean the figureof art which Luhmanncalls 'worldart' in distinctionfromall other art configurations.'Worldart' is the form of art characteristicof our differentiated societies, where art has no referenceoutsideitself,concentratingits self-creating mission and paradoxityon the closure of the workof art itselfon itself. See Luhmann (1990, 1995a). 39 It cannot convey or 'communicate'its own intentionality (communicationquality),because the intentionalityof the intentionality communicating act would, while this latter is in effectuation, itself be still veiled - awaiting a higher act of explicitation, whose intentionality again would have to be unveiled . . . 40 Erreichbarkeit (attainability) of social communication forms a consistent topic in Luhmann'stheory (1997, ch. 5). It has been explicitlythematizedby Fuchs (1992). 41 Luhmann does not make a clear distinction between communicationalparadoxesand world problem.World,as the derDifferenz), is what is all-engulfingunity of difference(Einheit in the paradoxesof communication. I 'concomited'(mitgefuhrt) opted for a formal distinction as a means of giving a higher profileto a world problemthat is not just silently concomitant with current communication, but takes form as such and for itself. A basic Luhmannian text dealing with the world problematicis 'Redenund Schweigen'(1989). 42 What is at stake is not on any account an assessmentof the scientific or cultural repercussionsof both. That would be obviously mistaken, the weight of the Luhmannian theory being, in this respect,rather modest when comparedto that of Freudianpsychoanalysis. 43 Moreover, the energeticeconomy of psychiclife by Freud is still too mechanistic,that is, not complexenough to enable the emergence of a differencetheoreticaltheorizing.
References derForm.Frankfurt: Baecker,D. (ed.) 1993a. Kalk?l Suhrkamp. der Form.Frankfurt:SuhrBaecker,D. (ed.) 1993b. Probleme kamp. Clam, J. 1997. Droit et soci?t? chez Niklas Luhmann- La contingencedes normes (Avec un Avant-propos de Niklas de France. Luhmann).Paris:Presses Universitaires Clam, J. 1999. Choses, ?change, m?dia:enqu?te sur les ?tapes d'une d?mat?rialisationde la communication. Archivesde du droit,43, 97-137. Philosophie Dammann, K., Granow, D. & Japp, K. P. (eds.) 1994. Die des politischen Systems:Neueresystemtheoretische Verwaltung Opladen:WestdeutscherVerlag. anfein altes Thema. Zugriffe 11 vol. Berlin: Fichte, J. G. [1834r-35/1845-46] 1971. Werke. Walterde Gruyter. Z': Frede, M. & Patzig, G..(eds.) 1988. Aristoteles'Metaphysik 2 vol. M?nchen: Beck. undKommentar. Text,?bersetzung ZurKonstruktion der Gesellschaft: Fuchs, P. 1992. Erreichbarkeit Einheit. Frankfurt: derImagination Suhrkamp. gesellschaftlicher Furth, M. 1978. TranstemporalStability in Aristotelian Substances. Journal 75, 624-646. of Philosophy, Ariostoteet ses de l'intellect Hamelin, O. 1953. La Th?orie d'apr?s Paris:Vrin. commentateurs. M. 1969. ZurSachedesDenkens. T?bingen:Niemeyer. Heidegger, Gedanken und Auslegungen Henrich, D. 1982. Selbstverh?ltnisse: zu den Grundlagender klassischen deutschen Philosophie. Stuttgart:Reclam.
Systems Sole Constituent,the Operation 79 der Inciarte, F. 1970. Forma formarum: Strukturmomente im Ruckgr?ff Seinslehre thomistischen auf Aristoteles. Freiburg: Alber. Fichtesnachden Naturlehre Lauth, R. 1984. Die transzendentale der Wissenschaftslehre. Hamburg:Meiner. Prinzipien EssentiaLiske,M.- Th. 1985. Aristotelesund der aristote?sche Alber. lismus:Individuum, Art. Gattung. Freiburg: Luhmann. N. 1962. SoziologischeAu?l?rung 1. Opladen: WestdeutscherVerlag. durch Verfahren. 3rd ed. Frankfurt: Luhmann. N.Legitimation Suhrkamp. undSystemrationahtdt. FrankLuhmann, N. 1973. Zweckbegriff furt:Suhrkamp. Luhmann, N. 1979. Unverst?ndlicheWissenschaft:Probleme einer TheorieeigenenSprache.In N. Luhmann(ed.), Soziolo3, pp. 170-177. Opladen:Westdeutscher gische Aufkl?rung Verlag. undwir.Berlin:Merve. Luhmann.N. 1987. Archimedes Luhmann.N. 1989. Redenund Schweigen.In N. Luhmann& P. Fuchs (eds.), Reden und Schweigen,pp. 7-20. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Luhmann. N. 1990. [with F. D. Bunsen & D. Baecker]. Bielefeld: Unbeobachtbare Welt: OberKunst und Architektur. Haux. Frankfurt: Luhmann, N. 1995a. Die Kunst der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp. Luhmann. N. 1995b. Soziologische Aufkl?rung6. Opladen: WestdeutscherVerlag. der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Luhmann, N. 1997. Die Gesellschaft Suhrkamp. als symbolisches undschematisches M?ller,H. J. 1980. Subjektivit?t Bild des Absoluten:Theorieder Subjektivit?t und Re?gionsin der Wissenschaftslehre Fichtes.Meisenheim. philosophie dela psychologie Louvain. d'Aristote. Nuyens, F. 1948. L'Evolution Gottlieb Fichte. M?nchen:Beck. Rohs. P. 1991. Johann Schweitzer, F. 1997. Wege und Agenten: Reduktion und in der Selbstorganisationstheorie. Konstruktion Selbsorganisain den Natur-, Sozial- und tion: Jahrbuch f?r Komplexit?t 8. 113-135. Geisteswissenschaften, Spencer Brown, G. [1969] 1972. Lawsof Form.London:Allen Unwin/New York:JulianPress. Teubner,G. 1989. Rechtals autopoietisches System.Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

8 - Systems Sole Constituent, The Operation Clarifying A Central Concept of Luhmannian

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

8 - Systems Sole Constituent, The Operation Clarifying A Central Concept of Luhmannian

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

System's Sole Constituent, the Operation: Clarifying a Central Concept of Luhmannian Theory Author(s): Jean Clam Reviewed work(s):

ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 2000

System's Clarifying Theory

Constituent, Central Concept

Jean Clam CNRS, Paris, France

shall have constructions radicalization

1. The transformation Luhmann's interest

4. Social refounding Our

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen