European Journal of Social Theory http://est.sagepub.

com/

An Observation of Luhmann's Observation of Education

Raf Vanderstraeten European Journal of Social Theory 2003 6: 133 DOI: 10.1177/1368431003006001420 The online version of this article can be found at: http://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for European Journal of Social Theory can be found at: Email Alerts: http://est.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://est.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 1, 2003 What is This?

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013

European Journal of Social Theory 6(1): 133143

Copyright 2003 Sage Publications: London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi

REVIEW

E S S AY

An Observation of Luhmanns Observation of Education

Raf Vanderstraeten
UNIVERSITY OF BIELEFELD, GERMANY

Niklas Luhmann and Karl Eberhard Schorr, Problems of Reection in the System of Education, trans. Rebecca A. Neuwirth. Mnster: Waxmann, 2000, 412pp., 25.50, ISBN 3893258906 (pbk) Niklas Luhmann, Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft, ed. Dieter Lenzen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2002, 236pp. inc. index, 25, ISBN 3518583204 (hbk); 11, ISBN 3518291939 (pbk) With the publication of Soziale Systeme in 1984, Niklas Luhmann (192798) provided us with what he himself later called the introductory chapter of a general theory of modern society. This book which consists of 675 pages became available in English in 1995 under the title Social Systems. It is presented as an attempt to reformulate the theory of social systems via the current state of the art in general systems theory (p. 11). Its central aim is the application of the idea of autopoiesis (= self-production) to social systems. Soziale Systeme wants to indicate the autonomy of social systems with regard to the production and reproduction of their elemental units. Luhmann argues that social reality continually organizes its own self-renewal by means of communicative acts. In his following books, which appeared at a remarkably great pace, this general theory of social systems has been specied and applied to particular kinds of social systems. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, which is the grand nale of his work, appeared in 1997, at a moment when Luhmann was already terminally ill as a consequence of a viral infection. This 1164-page book, bound in a black cover, focuses on society understood as the comprehensive social system. The other chapters of his theory are devoted to analyses of the major function systems which have differentiated in modern society. During Luhmanns lifetime, voluminous monographs by him appeared on the economy, science, law and art. In 2000, this series was complemented by the posthumously published monographs on politics and religion. As the last volume in this series, there has now appeared the relatively short, uncompleted manuscript of Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft which has been edited by Dieter Lenzen. A number of Luhmanns recent chapters on societys function systems draw

1368-4310[200302]6:1;133143;033420
Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013

134

European Journal of Social Theory 6(1)

substantially on publications which appeared prior to the publication of Soziale Systeme i.e., in the so-called pre-autopoietic phase of his theory. This is particularly the case for his monographs on the systems of law, religion and education. These books explore new issues, but, in some regards, they also merely recapitulate and reframe ideas which were already presented in his publications of the 1960s and 1970s. The monograph on education is the successor to Reexionsprobleme im Erziehungssystem, which was jointly written by Niklas Luhmann and Karl Eberhard Schorr. This book, originally published in 1979 and reprinted with a new postface in 1988, has recently been translated into English, and hence has now become available to a much wider audience. The main theoretical difference between both books is that Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft is based on the concept of communication. This posthumously published manuscript is, much more than its predecessor, an attempt to conceive of education in terms of communication and face-to-face interaction. It is well known that many of Luhmanns readers have been intimidated by the abstract nature of his theoretical writings. Luhmann was aware of these problems. In fact, he discussed in a number of publications the often-voiced complaints about the incomprehensibility of science (e.g. 1981: 1707; 2000: 4734). At the same time, it seems questionable whether he did care much about these kinds of complaints. In the Preface to the English edition of Soziale Systeme, Luhmann wrote:
If one seriously undertakes to work out a comprehensive theory of the social and strives for sufcient conceptual precision, abstraction and complexity in the conceptual architecture are unavoidable. Among the classical authors, Parsons included, one nds a regrettable carelessness in conceptual questions as if ordinary language were all that is needed to create ideas or even text. (1995: xxxvii)

Abstraction and complexity indeed characterize Luhmanns work; they are the counterpart of its wide-ranging scope. Moreover, Luhmann used to introduce concepts and conceptual determinations that are fairly uncommon in the eld of social theory (let alone ordinary language). These characteristics probably explain the still rather marginal position of Luhmanns writings in the eld of social theory especially outside Germany and outside the circle of the Luhmaniacs. In my view, Luhmanns and Schorrs systems-theoretical observations and analyses nevertheless deserve close attention from researchers in the eld of social theory. With regard to education, Luhmanns analyses offer a clearly articulated theoretical approach that might stimulate further developments. After the demise of the so-called new sociology of education, theoretical investigations have in fact virtually disappeared from this elds research agenda (see Shain and Ozga, 2001; Vanderstraeten, 2002). Against this background, this review essay seeks to illuminate some of the central intuitions of Luhmanns observations of the educational system of modern society. In line with Luhmanns general theory of social systems, I will rst focus on communication as the basic social unit and on education as a social system or communication system. In a second step, I will

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013

Raf Vanderstraeten

Review Essay

135

briey deal with Luhmanns theory of social differentiation and with the analyses of education as a function system of modern society. Given the rather enigmatic style of Luhmanns (and Schorrs) writings, this review rst of all intends to clarify their main arguments. Communication as the Basic Element of Social Systems In the eld of the social sciences, theorists have opted for different concepts to represent the basic unit of social reality such as action, exchange, power or force. Niklas Luhmann, however, was the rst major writer to consider communication as the constitutive element of social reality. As Stichweh (2000) argues, Luhmanns writings seem to draw the consequences from a number of post-war developments, which were, most of all, initiated by the new technologies of information processing. These developments seem to make founding a contemporary social theory upon the concept of communication nearly unavoidable. It was Luhmann, in choosing communication theory over action theory, who took on the role of the rst major sociological communication theorist, a role which had to be taken by someone anyway (p. 9). From this perspective, communication is the constitutive element of social systems. This element can be described as an occurrence or event, which emerges from the processing of selections. According to Luhmann (1984/1995), the unit of communication consists of the co-ordination or synthesis of three different selections. These selections are: information, utterance (Mitteilung) and understanding (Verstehen). Communication, thus, is an emergent, three-part unity. For Luhmann, information is a selection from a repertoire of possibilities. It is the selection that is actualized in the communication. Without this selectivity of information, no communication would emerge, however minimal the news value of the exchanges (e.g., if communication is only engaged in to pass the time and avoid periods of silence). A communicative act, however, does not make a selection in the same way in which one grabs one thing rather than another off the rack. Pieces of information do not just exist out there, waiting to be picked up by the system. Communication is not just a two-part matter of sending and receiving messages; the selection of information is one of its crucial components. The second selection concerns the choice of behaviour, an utterance, that expresses the information. Information should be provided in a form which the sender and the addressee are able to understand. Communication requires an adequate standardization of the utterance (e.g. linguistic forms). Certainly, this utterance can occur intentionally or unintentionally. It is also possible without language, e.g. through revealing looks, through dress or outt, through absence, etc. But the utterance must always be interpretable as selection, and not just appear as a sign of something else. In this sense, rushing about can be observed as a sign of urgency, just like dark clouds as a sign of rain. But it can also be interpreted as a demonstration of urgency (Luhmann, 1995: 151). The difference between both interpretations underlines at the same time the importance of the

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013

136

European Journal of Social Theory 6(1)

last selection of communication. What is decisive with regard to understanding is the fact that this third selection can base itself on a distinction, namely the distinction between information and its utterance. Understanding therefore implies more than mere observation; it only takes place if the receiver construes the information from the utterance. It does, on the other hand, not imply that the addressee understands the information as it was intended by the sender. The information might mean something very different for both participants. As a three-part unity, communication does not come about if the addressee does not x his or her own state on the basis of uttered information. It does not come about without understanding. Seen from this perspective, one could say that communication is made possible from behind. Understanding (and understanding will almost inevitably contain some misunderstanding) concludes the communicative act. An understanding, however, needs to manifest itself. The receiver needs to show understanding, by addressing him or herself to the information component (e.g., question what is said) or to the utterance (e.g., question the way something is said). A communication necessitates a new communication. Each communication is an element only as an element of a process, however minimal or ephemeral that process may be (Luhmann, 1995: 144). Communications conclude preceding communications and allow them to be connected. These elements of social systems organize their own renewal; they operate, as Luhmann says, autopoietically. They enact the autonomy of social reality. The wide-ranging implications of this view can already be seen in Luhmanns essays from the late 1960s and early 1970s, in which he presented the foundations of his version of social systems theory for the rst time. But they have come more to the fore since the publication of the introductory chapter of Luhmanns theory of society, viz. Soziale Systeme (1984/1995). The publications on education are also informed by this perspective. Especially in Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft, one nds attempts to conceive of education in terms of communication and face-to-face interaction. In the following sections, I will try to present a systematic account of this perspective. First, the focus is on the concepts of socialization and education; second, a systems-theoretical account of the basic structure of interaction in classrooms is presented. Socialization and Education As indicated, Luhmann argues that social systems are emergent realities that use communication to process meaning. They consist of communications, not of individual human beings. From Luhmanns perspective, human beings are part of the social environment. This certainly does not mean that the human being or actor is estimated as less important than in traditional theory. On the contrary, the distinction between social system and environment offers the possibility of conceiving human beings in a way that is both more complex and less restricting than if they had to be interpreted as parts of the social order. It is because they are part of the environment of the societal system that human beings are

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013

Raf Vanderstraeten

Review Essay

137

conceded greater freedom (greater complexity) than concepts of social roles, norms and structures would allow. Luhmanns argument is based on the idea that social and personal systems are characterized by a fundamental instability. The elements, out of which they exist, have the character of occurrences or events, i.e. they vanish immediately after their appearance. They are continually replaced by other elements (different thoughts, different communications). They are radically temporalized systems. This characteristic allows for a high degree of congruence between both system types. Communications can be at the same time conscious events; thoughts can be communicated. But even if personal and social systems use the same elements, they give each of them a different selectivity and connectivity, different pasts and futures. The elements signify different things in the participating systems; they select among different possibilities and lead to different consequences. Thus, the congruence of social systems and personal systems is only temporary and vanishes time and time again. For the individual participants, the so-called turn-taking of active and passive participation in communication almost inevitably re-establishes the difference between personal and social systems. The mind might, for example, wander, think of something incommunicable, interrupt or pause, while the burden of communicating passes to somebody else. Communication can also be rejected. Human beings do not have to accept what is communicated, or how it is communicated. This theoretical approach entails important consequences for the conceptualization of socialization and education. In classical socialization research, as displayed in the writings of Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, Pierre Bourdieu and others, socialization fulls a fairly unambiguous societal function. Socialization refers to the internalization or inculcation of social expectations. Luhmanns system/environment perspective, which is spelled out in the second chapter of Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft, questions these assumptions. Participation in communication cannot result in the transfer of knowledge, nor in the internalization of the norms and value orientations of a social group. The meaning of norms, rules, habits, etc. which are transmitted does not remain the same. In the different participating systems, these elements have different meanings. There is always the possibility of rejecting the instruction or information which a communication contains. The interaction between a human being and its social environment might or might not provoke particular structural changes in the inner sphere of the individual; a human being might or might not adapt to particular aspects of its environment. Socialization is therefore dened as the process, steered by communication that inuences the psychological development and the bodily behaviour of human beings. It refers to changes that take place in societys environment. It is only this way, Luhmann argues (and rightly I think), that the possibilities which human beings have to travel a certain distance, to use their individual degrees of freedom, can be adequately taken into account (see Vanderstraeten, 2000). While socialization is limited by/to the stimuli of the socializing context, education strives for specic outputs. It aims to attain something that cannot be

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013

138

European Journal of Social Theory 6(1)

left to chance socializing events. Education is a form of action that is attributable to intentions; it is a form of intentional socialization. But is it able to eliminate the shortcomings of socialization? As indicated, socialization presupposes the possibility of reading the behaviour of others as selected information, e.g. about dangers or social expectations. The meaning of this communication can be rejected if the addressee nds the information unsatisfactory or unacceptable. Education cannot eliminate this possibility of resistance. It cannot be conceived of as the rational form of socialization, as effective action. On the contrary, intentional communications with educational goals will double the motives for rejection. The addressee now also has the opportunity to reject the communication because it is aimed at his or her education, if he or she refuses the role of someone who needs to be educated. In other words, intentional communication enables the addressee to oppose both the information component and the utterance. It is against this background that the overly pessimistic attitude of Luhmann and Schorr vis--vis education needs to be understood. Educational Interaction in Schools As is well known, education relies heavily on face-to-face interaction. Education takes place in family households or in classrooms, where the physical presence of parent and child, teacher and student is guaranteed. While societal sub-systems such as politics, the economy, law or science have become less dependent on interaction situations and on the existence of personal bonds between the partners, education has evolved into another direction. This exceptional evolution is related to the fact that educational interventions aim to alter or ameliorate the students inner world, and that the results of this effort can best be recorded in the course of face-to-face interaction. To enable the success of education and of other forms of people processing (e.g. therapy, conversion) personal contact is vital (see Stichweh, 1997). Luhmann and Schorr devote a number of scattered remarks to this particular form of communication in Problems of Reections in the System of Education. A more systematic theoretical account is provided in the fourth chapter of Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft. Luhmann and Schorr focus on the idea that educational interaction often takes the form of organized interaction. At school, students are prepared for entirely different situations; they learn things that might be of use in another context and at another moment in time (e.g. in professional life). Decisions about what is to be learned and how something is to be learned there are made without consulting the family of the students. There is, however, no immediate access to the results of educational interventions. Nobody can look in the heads or souls of other human beings. A teacher can only record the patterns of external, visible behaviour of the students. The teacher has to deduce the results of his or her own action from these external characteristics. What can be done in the interaction to resolve this problem? What kind of Ersatz is available if immediate observation is not possible? With regard to these questions, Luhmann argues that educational

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013

Raf Vanderstraeten

Review Essay

139

initiatives automatically produce a situation within which particular patterns of behaviour are acceptable, while others are not. What occurs is compared with what is expected. Students are continually confronted with questions, remarks, tests, exams, and other kinds of communicated expectations (Luhmann and Schorr, 2000: 31825). Seen this way, it can be argued that the educational intention produces its own characteristic distinction (Luhmann, 2002: 10210). The difference between acceptable and unacceptable patterns of behaviour, between approval and disapproval, between good and wrong, etc., develops within the school system. It is worthwhile exploring this line of thought in more detail, and linking Luhmanns theoretical insights with ethnographical research in classrooms. I will briey point to some potential directions for further research, which may allow us to bring Luhmanns theory down to earth and stimulate a theoretical reection on so-called empirical facts. For example, selection forms can be specied in a number of ways in classrooms. Teachers can observe that one group of students lives up to the norm and that the other group does not, or that one student is more diligent in a particular course with a particular teacher than during another course with another teacher. Students can also observe each other and assess particular differences. Moreover, students can anticipate the evaluations. As a consequence, there thus emerges a situation within which students have to reckon with new alternatives for action, and within which the consequences of their behaviour are multiplied. In his famous Life in Classrooms, Philip Jackson makes similar comments:
In fact, he has three jobs. The rst, and most obvious, is to behave in such a way as to enhance the likelihood of praise and reduce the likelihood of punishment . . . A second job . . . consists of trying to publicize positive evaluations and conceal negative ones . . . A third job . . . consists of trying to win the approval of two audiences at the same time. The problem, for some, is how to become a good student while remaining a good guy, how to be at the head of the class while still being in the center of the group. (1990: 26)

The theoretical point which needs to be stressed is that classroom education creates these conditions itself. Educational intentions elicit a form of selection which would not emerge without these intentions. The distinctions that are introduced (such as good/wrong, positive/negative, praise/punishment, succeed/fail) are internal constructions. Educational decisions are taken in the educational setting itself. Thus, one can say that the meaning of evaluations is dened in the educational system itself following an internal scale. For example, satisfactory is better than unsatisfactory but less than excellent. A report mark indicates how much one can/could do better or worse. The autonomy of educational organizations depends upon this self-referential closure. Certainly, it does not depend upon true independency vis--vis the environment. Its autonomy does not deny that school organizations import knowledge from their environment, as well as the differences which are of importance in this context. Thus, the distinction between sine

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013

140

European Journal of Social Theory 6(1)

and cosine is not invented within education itself. But education determines who has to be able to use this distinction, and when, and what difference it makes when one does or does not know the distinction at that particular moment. Education does not distinguish between sine and cosine, but between those who are able to use the distinction and those who are not. It is only the latter distinction which determines the course of further decision-making in the educational system. Only with regard to this distinction, there can be no input or output (see also Luhmann, 1990). In my view, this systems-theoretical line of thought provides particularly fruitful perspectives for further research both in a theoretical and an empirical direction. Self-descriptions in the Educational System The nal theme, which I would like to discuss, has its origins in the theory of social differentiation. In modern society, Luhmann convincingly argues, each of the primary sub-systems accentuates the primacy of its own function. Each establishes a highly selective set of system/environment relations; each distinguishes itself from its environment by means of particular procedures, concepts, criteria, and operations. All other sub-systems belong to its internal environment and vice versa. Modern society is differentiated into the political sub-system and its environment, the legal system and its environment, the economic sub-system and its environment, the scientic sub-system and its environment, the educational sub-system and its environment, and so on. This kind of system/environment distinction provokes function systems to observe their own identity as distinct from their environment. It provokes them to reect on the specicity of their own function. The last chapter of Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft is devoted to a discussion of the self-descriptions and reections (i.e. elaborated selfdescriptions) that have emerged in the educational system in the modern era. This chapter reiterates and slightly revises the analyses and critical commentaries of Problems of Reection in the System of Education. This theme has a rather long tradition in sociological theory. Although Luhmann and Schorr do not give credit to Emile Durkheim, they certainly rely on Durkheims analyses of practical theories and reections. Following Durkheim, the increasing complexity and differentiation of social labour call for the elaboration of new value patterns, which give direction to specic elds of action. In Education and Sociology, Durkheim writes: Their object is not to describe or to explain what is or what has been, but to determine what should be (1956: 99). Furthermore:
These reections take the form of theories: they are combinations of ideas, not combinations of acts . . . But the ideas which are so combined have, as their object, not to express the nature of things as given, but to direct action. They are not actions, but are closely related to actions which it is their function to orient. If they are not actions they are at least programmes of action. (1956: 1012)

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013

Raf Vanderstraeten

Review Essay

141

It is in line with Durkheims observations, that Luhmann stresses that functional differentiation provokes wide-ranging symbolic or cultural changes. Luhmann sees reections as concepts or theories developed within a function system for that function system. These reections articulate the sub-systems main objectives. They thus lead to the appropriation of the world from a particular functional point of view, e.g. economic, political, religious, artistic, legal, educational, etc. The background of this perspective on self-descriptions can also be approached from another angle. In the eld of the history of ideas, it has been clearly outlined that the conceptual apparatus used in the Western world transformed in fundamental ways in the second half of the eighteenth century. The period 17501850 was an epoch of radical conceptual transformations. Numerous key social concepts, that are characteristic of modernity, were coined in this epoch, such as tolerance, authority, ideology, civil society, peace, culture, state and sovereignty, revolution, factory, history or progress. These new basic concepts indicate how the social and political reality is comprehended in the modern era. They record the dissolution of the old world and the emergence of a new one (Koselleck, 1972; 2000) and are not only the expression of changes within contemporary orientations, but also contribute to changing contemporary patterns of action and reection. Luhmann as a sociologist argues that structural transformations, i.e. the emergence of function systems, provoke these conceptual changes. Self-descriptions and reections are one of the most salient results of this great transformation. Their analysis allows studying the coevolution of structural and cultural changes in modern society. It is against this background in sociology and history that Luhmann and Schorr analyse at great length pedagogical modes of reection on educational realities, an analysis which forms the core of their book. English-speaking readers, however, should be aware of the fact that the discussions in the major parts of this book on the autonomy of education, on controlling prolonged processes via instruction technology, and on social selection are embedded within a predominantly German context. Luhmann and Schorr sharply criticize the idealistic articulation of the structural conditions of education in the reection theory of the educational system. In comparison, the analysis in Luhmanns Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft is less critical about the reections developed in and by the educational establishment. But the bottom line of the observations remains the same. It is that educations self-descriptions focus too much on subjects (teachers/parents, pupils/children) and too little on communication and social interaction. As can be expected, the alternative suggestions of Luhmann and Schorr go in the direction of the themes which I discussed in the preceding sections. Luhmann and Schorr make a plea for a social re-conceptualization of the reection theories, for a re-conceptualization which takes its point of departure in educational communication.

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013

142

European Journal of Social Theory 6(1)

Conclusion A nal observation concerns a classical theme in the literature on sociology of education, viz. the so-called hidden curriculum of schools. Several authors consider the demand on behaviour within school classes to be representative of the demands of life in modern society not (only) on the level of the ofcial curriculum and its goals but (also) on the level of latent structures within an universalistic, affect-neutral, and performance-oriented modernity. Emile Durkheim already spoke of that social microcosm that the school is (1956: 131). However, it should have become clear by now that the school socializes for the school, not for society. At school, it becomes important to be a good student. Its way of working generates its own, special side-effects. It promotes attitudes that make it possible to handle educational problems in special ways via educators, teachers, and schools. As previously indicated, Luhmanns own sceptical conclusions about education should in my view be interpreted against this background: A system that is structured too improbably and that tries to identify itself entirely with the transformation of input into output ends up having to deal with the problems resulting from its own increase-directed reductions (1995: 207). Seen in this perspective, most of the prevailing concerns in the educational system are consequences of its own differentiation in modern society. In my view, Luhmann and Schorr offer a rich sociological theory of education which is also able to stimulate further research. The preceding observation provides some hints for further inquiry. Other research perspectives can be added as a number of (mainly) German authors have demonstrated in the past years. But it remains doubtful whether Luhmanns and Schorrs writings will attract a wide audience outside Germany. The singular vocabulary and condensed style of these publications create a number of problems. Moreover, Luhmann (and Schorr) had the German reader and thus a specic social and intellectual context in mind. Many notions in the reviewed books retain a local colouring. An English-speaking audience places these texts in a different setting, thus adding to the difculties of trying to understand highly demanding theoretical arguments. In this regard, I have tried to focus on the backgrounds of the more general aspects of these books and thus contribute to a well-considered reception of this work. This is something which these books certainly deserve. Acknowledgement The author acknowledges funding by the European Commission (HPMF-CT200000835). References
Durkheim, Emile (1956) Education and Sociology. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013

Raf Vanderstraeten

Review Essay

143

Jackson, Philip (1990/1968) Life in Classrooms. New York and London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Koselleck, Reinhardt (1972) Einleitung, in Otto Brunner, Werner Conze and Reinhardt Koselleck (eds) Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. (2000) Zeitschichten. Studien zur Historik. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Luhmann, Niklas (1981) Soziologische Aufklrung 3. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. (1982) The Differentiation of Society. New York: Columbia University Press. (1984) Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp (English translation, Social Systems, trans. John Bednarz, Jr, with Dirk Baecker, 1995, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press). (1990) Die Homogenisierung des Anfangs: zur Ausdifferenzierung der Schulerziehung, in Niklas Luhmann and Karl Eberhard Schorr (eds) Zwischen Anfang und Ende: Fragen an die Pdagogik. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. (1997) Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. (2000) Organisation und Entscheidung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Shain, Farzana and Ozga, Jenny (2001) Identity Crisis? Problems and Issues in the Sociology of Education, British Journal of Sociology of Education 22: 10920. Stichweh, Rudolf (1997) Professions in Modern Society, International Review of Sociology 7: 95102. (2000) Systems Theory as an Alternative to Action Theory? The Rise of Communication as a Theoretical Option, Acta Sociologica 43: 513. Vanderstraeten, Raf (2000) Luhmann on Socialization and Education, Educational Theory 50: 123. (2002) Explorations in the Systems-theoretical Study of Education, in Carlos Alberto Torres and Ari Antikainen (eds) The International Handbook on the Sociology of Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleeld.
Raf Vanderstraeten Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Germany. [email: Raf.Vanderstraeten@uni-bielefeld.de]

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013