Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
The problem of the differentiation of societies is at the core of the sociological
imagination about the rise of modernity. In postwar sociology, T. Parsons
developed the theor y of generalized symbolic media in the mid-1960s to tackle,
theoretically and historically, the issue of differentiation. According to him, the
interchange media are de ned as resources oriented to exchange processes
between the subsystems of the social system. Starting with money, Parsons argues
that the remaining media (power, in uence, and value-commitments) have a set
of characteristics de ned as common properties for all media. After this rst
formulation, contemporary theorists such as Niklas Luhmann and Jrgen
Habermas have developed and modi ed the Parsonian theor y: Luhmann rejects
the idea of interchange and proposes the use of communication; Habermas
distinguishes between steering and communication media. In all three cases, the
focus of the theor y is on the characterization of the strongest dynamics of social
co-ordination present in differentiated societies. A major result of these developments is the inclusion of new dimensions on which to conceive the properties of
media, not only those of money but also language. Beyond differences, then, it is
proposed that there is only one theor y of generalized symbolic media which can
be understood as a progressive research programme, in Lakatos terms. Finally,
the hand-in-hand evolution between the theory of media and Habermas and
Luhmanns re-conceptualizations on societal differentiation in contemporary
societies will also be revealed.
432
Daniel Chernilo
433
What are the media? What does the theory of generalized symbolic media
actually conceptualize? In brief, media are speci c forms of social coordination; they are the most constant dynamics of social co-ordination
present in modern societies. Money, power, love, truth, and the other media
are the way in which societal subsystems, rstly, regulate their internal functioning by contributing to its own differentiation and, secondly, nd the way
to interrelate with each other to produce co-ordinations between subsystems. While the former means that each subsystem becomes more ef cient
by being only concentrated in its speci c tasks; the latter refers to the
societal framework in which differentiation takes place. Social coordinations conceptualized as media give sociological content to the highly
abstract idea of the differentiation of modern societies.
One can say that social co-ordinations are necessary and unstable in
modern societies. They are necessar y, on the one hand, in the sense that
the complexity of modern social life makes unavoidable the interrelation
of different actors and logics in society. Either theorized as interpenetration (as in systems theory), or networks (as in Castells) or elds (as in
Bourdieu), interdependence is seen as a central feature of differentiated
societies. They are unstable, on the other hand, because social coordinations are also under a high pressure of being disrupted and therefore to fail. In Luhmanns words (1986: 4), what the generalized symbolic
media conceptualize is the non-random character of variations in social
relations.
In methodological terms, Lakatos (1978) notion of research programme provides the framework for ful lling the task of analysing and
reconstructing the development of the theory of media. I propose that the
theor y of media has followed a progressive path by looking at the commonalities and differences among the different versions of the theory. By
progressivity, I mean, rst, that the theor y becomes an autonomous eld of
theoretical research and second that the theory has evolved in the direction of providing better insights for the sociological characterization of the
differentiation of societies. Whilst this evolution is displayed step by step in
the following sections of the paper, I can straightaway summarize the main
path the theory has followed. Reconstructively, forty years after its rst
formulation, it can be seen that while Parsons originally talked of interchange media (that is, all media seen as an extension of the features of
money); Luhmann has proposed the concept of communication media (as
communication being the key element for the autopoiesis of the system);
and Habermas has distinguished between steering and communication media
(along the lines of his distinction between system and lifeworld). In spite
of these modi cations, however, it is proposed that there is only one theor y
of generalized symbolic media in the sense that the theor y has both maintained its focus the conceptualization of the strongest dynamics of social
434
Daniel Chernilo
co-ordination present in differentiated societies and improved its analytical insights for the observation of societal differentiation.
435
Parsons proposed that money is not the only medium in the social system
and de ned three more, each one especially related to one subsystem:
power (political system), in uence5 (societal community) and value
commitments ( duciar y system).6 Table I summarizes the major
components of the media in relation to the functional imperatives of a
differentiated social system.
It cannot be clear, at rst sight, what money has in common with the
other media. Hence the thesis that Parsons develops a real theory should be
supported by showing some properties which, as a generalization of the
characteristics of money, are adequate to the remaining media. In the
Parsonian version of the theory of interchange media, these properties can
be summarized as follows.7
1. Norms and codes: Each medium has a set of norms that rule its operations. As counterpart to its generalized and symbolic character, ever y
medium is institutionally anchored in its subsystem by norms. Media
have meaning-speci city referring to these norms, and they perform
effectively only within their subsystems. In the case of money, for
example, there are many exchanges that can be regulated by it, but
there are also several that cannot. The codes of the media represent
the institutional mechanisms that make their operations functionally
adequate in differentiated contexts.
2. Circulation: Media can move both between actors inside the subsystem
and beyond the systems boundaries (double-exchanges). This second
characteristic has special relevance in the explanation of the emergence of the subsystems of interpenetration and the thesis of integration through differentiation.
TABLE I:
Functional
imperatives of Media of
Value
social systems interchange principle
Mode of
communication
Coordination Basic
Security
standard
institutions base
Adaptation
(economic
system)
Money
Utility
Inducement Solvency
Goal
attainment
(political
system)
Power
Effectiveness
Integration
(societal
community)
In uence
Solidarity
Persuasion Consensus
Pattern
maintenance
( duciary
system)
Valuecommitments
Integrity
Moral
Pattern
Churches, Internalappellation consistency educational ized values,
institutions. guilt
Contract,
property,
labour.
Gold
(physical
needs)
Citizenship, Social
universalist bonds
legal system.
436
Daniel Chernilo
437
438
Daniel Chernilo
439
societies
System
Media
Function
(main
problem)
Economy
Money
Scarcity
Pay/no pay
Politics
Power
Consensus
Government/ Charisma
opposition
Physical force
Science
Truth
Knowledge
Truth/false
Paradigms,
theories
Perception
Family
Love
Intimacy
Loved/
unloved
Marriage
Sexuality
(reproduction)
Primar y
code
Secondary
code
Symbiotic
mechanism
Monetary
units
Basic needs
440
Daniel Chernilo
441
Media
Type of
motivation
Social
Relation with reproduction
ordinar y
in which is
language
involved
Empirical
Replace
Material
reproduction
of systems.
Systemic
integration.
Condense
Symbolic
reproduction
of lifeworld.
Social
integration
In uence,
Communicat- Towards
Rational
valueive. Actors
understanding
commitments orientation
towards the
achievement
of a
communicative
understanding
442
Daniel Chernilo
subsystem. This is because of the evolution of social structures that
come under monetary control. For Habermas, the emergence of
money as the medium of the economic system does not necessarily
imply the development of other subsystems and media. Furthermore,
he rejects the Parsonian presupposition that the interchanges
between the economy and the other subsystems must be conceptualized as reciprocal double-exchanges. Like Luhmann, Habermas
rejects Parsons thesis that media are the result of functional differentiation.
443
444
Daniel Chernilo
paradigmatic medium, but now through a sociological rather than a theoretical argumentation. Habermas asks about the possible conceptualization
of ultimate metalanguages: these would be media specialized in converting to a common semantic the different functionally specialized languages
represented by all the media. The function of these metalanguages is the
translation of different media, so as to make societally compatible the
specialized codes of all media. For Habermas (1996: 348), both ordinar y
languages and law are these metalanguages. Firstly, ordinary languages are
in fact the very background of the processes of communication, because
every communicative act presupposes a shared cultural horizon. As, for
him, media are the most stable communicative processes in contemporary
societies, they themselves must be co-ordinated through ordinar y languages. Secondly, law is normatively linked both to the lifeworld through
human rights and to the functional systems through legal codes. Habermas
concludes by saying that the actual conditions of functional differentiation
produce a kind of upper-level integration, and hence the hypothesis of the
existence of metalanguages becomes plausible.
The conclusion is that Habermas has made an implicit but very important change: to ground the theory of generalized symbolic media on both
money and language. He has been using an alternative strategy for the
understanding of media that is, however sociologically plausible, still
theoretically underdeveloped: the utilization of language as paradigmatic
medium and the re-de nition of the whole set of media (including money)
from the properties of language. Moreover, this use of language has analytical and normative consequences in terms of his understanding of modern
societies. Analytically, it states that a proper conceptualization of the social
must be at the level of intersubjectivity; and it also states that, regardless the
level of abstraction and self-reference achieved by the steering media, the
processes of symbolization and generalization cannot go beyond natural
languages.
Normatively, the democratic theory Habermas has recently put forward
requires the strongest possible location for language as the medium upon
which to build discursive procedures for guaranteeing the universal
applicability and compelling force of norms. In my view, this is how
Habermas explains sociologically an alternative strategy for understanding
the media. He does not, however, develop it explicitly at the theorybuilding level: i.e. the use of language as the paradigmatic medium and the
possibility of re-de ning all the properties starting from language.
Moreover, this also clari es that the Parsonian generalization of moneys
properties to the remaining media was not a necessar y theoretical development but rather resulted from the expansion of Parsons systemic framework.
In terms of Luhmanns work, I would like to emphasize two issues.
Firstly, Luhmanns different understanding concerning the rise of
modern society in relation to Parsons. As we have said, Luhmanns thesis
is that media appear before the functional differentiation of societies;
445
446
Daniel Chernilo
functional differentiation, but also the way in which one must look at those
processes in order to achieve a societal level of abstraction. If this is not an
empirical result as such yet, it is undeniably an empirically-oriented claim
arising directly from the core of this theoretical outlook.
7. SUMMARY
As the paper has different lines of argumentation, in these last few words I
will simply tr y to clarify what these lines are and why I claim they form a
coherent framework.
1. I began with the broad sociological thesis about the rise of modern
societies in terms of a process of differentiation by doing two things
at once. First, I brought the issue of differentiation into the contemporar y debate, by relating it with the work of Parsons, Luhmann and
Habermas. Second, it was claimed that the theory of media as developed by these authors represents a sort of middle-range approach to
substantiate sociologically the problem of differentiation, which
remains at a paradigmatic level. The sociological relevance of looking
at the theor y of media is based not only in its intrinsic interest as a
contemporar y theoretical development, but also on its relation to the
general disciplinar y problem of the differentiation of societies.
2. The object of the theory was de ned by the formula that media represent the most stable dynamics of social co-ordinations present in
differentiated societies. In order to undertake the research, Lakatos
proposal to the reconstruction of research programmes was chosen.
3. The reconstruction of the theory of media was done by looking at how
the three authors developed it within their own general analytical
frameworks. In those sections (3, 4 and 5) the accent was placed on
the elucidation of the set of properties that allowed us to understand
the different media as an identi able theor y, as a coherent corpus of
knowledge. Two were the main results of the reconstruction: rst,
money looses its position as paradigmatic medium, language being to
take that place. Second, the relation between media and differentiation is rede ned by reversing Parsons thesis: media are now seen as
a causal component of the functional differentiation of societies, they
come before and not after the differentiation. Whilst Habermas
advanced the former development, Luhmann has the authorship for
the latter.
4. Finally, I undertook the substantiation of the theory of media, by
looking at Lakatos two clauses to prove the progressivity of the
programme. Firstly, it is clear that the theory of media is now an
independent analytical framework in relation to the rst Parsonian
formulation. Secondly, and arguably harder to prove, I put forward
the claim that there are further topics of research which are logically
447
Daniel Chernilo
Department of Sociology
The University of Warwick
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
NOTES
448
8. This table is based on Baum (1977:
467) and Habermas (1987: 274). Methodologically I follow Mnch (1987: 220n)
when he writes we should be concerned
less with the individual formulations than
with the interpretation of the paradigms
perspective.
9. A critique of the zero-sum model is
found in Giddens (1995).
10. I owe this precise reference to
Almarazs (1981: 5046) comprehensive
work on Parsons.
11. See also Arnold and Rodrguez
(1991: 167).
12. Value-commitments also tends to
the application of sanctions, in this case
not through physical but by social and
psychological sanctions. See above, Table
I.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Daniel Chernilo
Habermas, J. 1987 The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 2. Lifeworld and System: a
Critique of Functionalist Reason, UK: Beacon
Press.
1996 Between Facts and Norms, New
Baskerville: MIT Press.
Johnson, H. 1992 The Generalized Symbolic Media in Parsons Theor y in P.
Hamilton (ed.) Talcott Parsons. Critical
Essays IV, London: Routledge.
Lakatos, I. 1978 The Methodology of Scientic
Research Programmes. Philosophical Papers
Vol.1, J. Worral and G. Currie (eds), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lidz, V. 1991 In uence and Solidarity:
De ning a Conceptual Core for Sociology
in R. Robertson and B. Turner (eds)
Talcott Parsons. Theorist of Modernity, GB:
Sage.
2001 Language and the Family of
Generalized Symbolic Media in A. J.
Trevio (ed.) Talcott Parsons Today. His
Theor y and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology,
USA: Rowman & Little eld Publishers.
Luhmann, N. 1977 Generalized Media
and the Problem of Contingency in J.
Loubser, R. Baum, A. Effrat, and V. Lidz
(eds) Explorations in the General Theory in
Social Science. Essays in honour of Talcott
Parsons, Vol. Two, NY: Free Press.
1986 Love as Passion. The codication of
Intimacy, GB: Polity Press.
1995 Social Systems, Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
1998 Complejidad y Modernidad, Spain:
Trota.
McCarthy, T. 1991 On Reconstruction and
Deconstruction in Contemporar y Critical
Theor y, New Baskerville: MIT Press.
Mnch, R. 1987 Theory of Action: Towards a
New Synthesis Going Beyond Parsons,
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
1994 Sociological Theory II: From the
1920s to the 1960s, Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Parsons, T. 1967a Durkheims Contribution to the Theor y of Integration of
Social Systems in T. Parsons Sociological
Theor y and Modern Society, NY: Free Press.
1967b On the Concept of Political
Power in T. Parsons Sociological Theor y and
Modern Society, NY: Free Press.
1967c On the Concept of In uence
in T. Parsons Sociological Theory and Modern
Society, NY: Free Press.
1967d Evolutionar y Universals in
449