Luhmann's General Sociology Author(s): Dag sterberg Source: Acta Sociologica, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2000), pp.

15-25 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201179 Accessed: 20/07/2010 03:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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

ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 2000

Luhmann's

General

Sociology

Dag 0sterberg Department of Music and Theatre, University of Oslo, Norway

ABSTRACT The article deals with Niklas Luhmann's treatise Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, own criterion: plausibility. It is argued exposing it to a critique in terms of Luhmann's that both Parsons' general sociology and Marxism render more plausible accounts of modern society than does Luhmann's theory of autopoietic systems. It is asserted that mistake in Luhmann's theory is his conflation of the concepts of the fundamental differentiated social systems and autonomous social systems, a conflation that confers a ring of the imaginary to Luhmann's treatise. Dag 0sterberg, University of Oslo, Department of Music and Theatre, P.O. Box 1017, Blindem, N-0315 Oslo, Norway ? Scandinavian Sociological Association 2000

1. Introduction Ten years ago, in a book on general sociology, I book Soziale devoted a chapter to Luhmann's I concluded with a provisional Systeme (1984). epokj?, saying that it was too early for me to make up my mind as to the validity of this avantSince then, Luhmann has garde approach. carried out his entire programme. After publishon particular social ing a series of monographs he crowned his life work in 1997 institutions, with a huge treatise on society as a whole, world society - Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft (1997). to concentrate As an opportunity on Luhmann's work and take a stance towards it, the is favourable. Mainly, I shall present occasion comment upon Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft book contains much of (GdG). This voluminous and meta-sociological concern philosophical on non-Aristotelian considerations logic, on the 'old European' ontology and how to transcend of science, etc. I shall, it, on the constructivity of a however, limit myself here to questions more straightforward character. sociological But in the first two sections, I comment on some aspects of Luhmann's which writings, disturb the sociological somehow reading, before turning to the real subject matter, 'die Sache selbst'.

2. The aggressively Luhmann's writings writings

anti-left-wing

tone

of

Already in Soziale Systeme (1984), an anti-leftin spite of the wing attitude was discernible, or general abstract tone of the extremely in the book. The reason for this discussions was that left-wing political positions or activities were relatively often used as negative examples. attitude is sharper, as In GdG this anti-left-wing in others of his later writings. All over the thousand are sprinkled sarcastic or pages or condescending polemical anti-left-wing remarks, which go beyond the mere refutation of a different, adverse doctrine. It is hard to say whether this is inconto Luhmann, that he sequential considering all sorts of politics and purports to transcend moralizing. He poses as one who has pierced the who are stuck in illusions of his contemporaries, which does not suit an outdated 'semantics' what he calls 'modern society'. More than any other great sociologist of the past, Pareto is the one who comes to mind when reading GdG. He, too, liked or could not resist venting his political in the midst of a huge, learned and antipathies serious treatise on general sociology. As one example, Luhmann writes (p. 613 in.) about 'Marx's trick' of describing society as

16 ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 2000

VOLUME 43 subconscious slips of the pen; they reveal Luhmann's political stances, but, strictly speaknot occur within a sociological ing, should treatise on this level of abstraction and generality.

by two social classes. Now, as most will know, Marx himself stated (in sociologists Das Capital, III. ch. 52) that capitalist society in his time was constituted by three classes, the the wage-earners and the landcapitalists, This error raises the suspicion owners. that Luhmann's vast readings do not include Marx's Das Capital. But this is a minor point here. The issue is rather why Luhmann uses the word 'trick', thereby suggesting that Marx intended to deceive his readers. Another is Luhmann's section example - the ?T.) on 'protest movements' (pp. 847 is chilly, sarcastic, if not downright atmosphere hateful. By ingenious theological reasoning - he knows a lot about theology Luhmann to present the position of the protest manages as that of the Devil: just as the Devil movement pretends to observe God from an independent the participant position (which is 'impossible'), of a protest Luhmann movement, asserts, pretends to 'know better' than society, which is also impossible and at best ridiculous. Now, in do not protest movements my own experience, but pretend to 'know better' than 'society', 'better' than the political authorities, which is diabolic interquite another thing. Luhmann's of protest movements is therefore pretation But he also goes on to assert that unfounded. the assumption warrants that a 'nothing' movement knows better than the protest and their experts. Now, at least in authorities this has happened several exactly Norway, times. A third example is found in Die Kunst der Gesellschaft, wherein Luhmann refers in passing 'arro(p. 228) to Adorno's and Horkheimer's gant rejection' of mass culture. (It almost goes that there are many other without saying in his on the Frankfurter School attacks was - in addition Adorno to a writings.) - an outstanding philosopher professional and an expert on literature. He musicologist also wrote on film music together with Hans Eisler. Obviously he was entitled to have his own opinion on 'mass culture', which he disliked. Why does this dislike qualify as 'arrogance'? Why should we instead trust Luhmann's judgon ment on mass culture, and his judgment himself in selfAdorno? Luhmann entangles He states and repeats that one contradictions. not pose as a Besserwisser, as the should School did and does - so why Frankfurter should he himself pretend to know better than Adorno and Horkheimer? remarks like these may be Aggressive constituted

3. Platitudes

and cynicisms

Platitudes of 'gesunde Vernunft' In Luhmann's writings, extreme radicalism goes together with a strong conformity and establishment attitude. His books abound with extremely remarks in favour of the Estabcommon-sense lishment. Here follow a few examples to indicate what I have in mind. In GdG, Luhmann writes (p. 492): 'Whoever wants to abolish nuclear plants (Atomwill find himself conkraftwerke) therefore fronted by the question: How, then, do we otherwise produce electricity?'. One response is of electricity that the consumption seems boundless today. Norway, with all its waterfalls, imports electricity from Denmark. Examples of sheer waste can easily be given. Now, those who plants very often oppose oppose nuclear-driven of electricity, makthis boundless consumption of consumption ing a plea for a diminished electricity if necessary. This is not just a whim; surveys in Norway strongly indicate that the majority would prefer a simpler material life. Besides, surely there are other possible energy sources: wind, sea waves, the sun. (In Norway, research on sea waves had a promising start but was neglected around 1970, by the when the North Sea oil was disauthorities covered.) Luhmann's remark trivializes the deep concern about the danger of nuclear energy; he takes for granted that nobody will renounce warm showers and drawing rooms (where the has risen from 18? to 24 ?C on temperature in recent decades.) average On p. 531 we read: 'In the meantime, society has got habituated to technics', and on the next page we read that turning away from 'is practically out of question'. This technology is true, but a platitude, a very boring remark. This boredom may be intentional; Luhmann - a pretends sociologist of unlimited imagination to be confined within extremely narrow boundmust be accepted - why? aries. Technology it has become a habit. But habits, Because surely, can be changed? No, that is practically out of the question. But what does 'practically' mean in this context? Could it mean just that with the present feels comfortable Luhmann

Luhmann'sGeneralSociology 17 ^?mst?***^?; in his everyday life? A few level of technology pages earlier (p. 523), he states peremptorily: 'Since it is only too clear that life and survival depends on technics, it becomes implausible 'to make the true human the contrary of technics". This, also, is a platitude, almost a tautology: our Western way of life depends on present-day 'technics' for its survival. But that cannot mean that humanity as a whole cannot survive at any rate, this is not at without technology; all 'obvious' (?berdeutlich). On the other hand, what does seem obvious is that the population as a whole cannot adopt the Western level of without the technology ecological system down. For instance, not everybody breaking can have a car. A reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the West must considerably reduce its use of energy-consuming technology and chemical even if this change products, makes life materially less comfortable. Surely, Luhmann is acquainted with this simple reasoning; by ignoring it in his text, he tries to induce in the reader conformity to the Established order, which is still oriented towards technological growth (pace the Brundtland Report). In Goffmannian terms, Luhmann's framing of his texts, his context of plausibility, is very often that of the Establishment, of the liberalconservative politics and ideology prevailing within the ruling and dominating circles. His platitudes have this purpose: to make the reader take for granted the code of Establishment. and blas? attitude Cynicism To exemplify Luhmann's I shall cynicism, comment a passage from ?kologische upon Kommunikation The topic is the (pp. 212ff.). role of values in contemporary political discusare increasingly sions, how decisions underpinned by referring to 'values', which leads to an inflation of 'values'. Now, Luhmann has got an inkling ('man kann ahnen) that the discussions of ecology will contribute to this inflationary process. In the first place, he surmises, pure air and water, trees and animals will attain the dignity of entering the 'list of values' (in the idiom of laconic German: they will become He then goes on: 'And since it Wertkatalogfdfhig). is just a question of a list, one could extend it ad libitum: pandas, women . . . '. The Tamils, reader is prone to smile approvingly at this remark, but also feels that this kind of humour is an invitation to cynicism for several reasons. In the first place, one is supposed to endorse Luhmann's ('mitmachen) placement of animals and human on an equal beings footing. aniCertainly, pandas are darlings, cherished mals for campaigns of the World Wildlife Fund and similar organizations. But are we to think of Tamils as pandas? For one thing, Tamil Nadu is a state in India, with approximately 30 million inhabitants. To suggest that they should be included in a list of threatened species is to them. suggest the possibility of exterminating Luhmann had in mind merely the Perhaps Tamil refugees in Germany, but why suppose that they are more or less valuable than other human beings, candidates for a 'catalogue of values'? And then 'women': the suggestion seems to be that the various feminist movements, while claiming equality with men, will go on and claim that women are more valuable than men, or that they feel threatened with extermination like pandas, which portrays the feminist movement as hysterical or extremely unrealistic. It also suggests that a woman is a darling just like a panda, easily arousing our immediate which sort of suggescompassion, tion should be resisted by sensible sociologists. Turn and twist it as you like, this kind of wit is morally reproachable. is fed up with Luhmann, presumably, in the expected role as playing the sociologist a goodie-goodie, backing every conceivable Good Cause, speaking for the wretched of the for the oppressed, earth, for the underprivileged, for aboriginal for those who are populations, Different as such. Instead, he opts for a certain the modest role of cynicism, emphasizing sociology in social life today. On this last point he may be right, but the situation does not call for cynicism. The lawyer is committed to Justice, the medical doctor is committed to Health, the teacher is committed to the Youth, etc. These are ethical that impose moral professions on those who have chosen them. obligations The sociologist, too, may be under moral But a commitment to make society obligations. better is not sufficient. What matters is the achievement. The sociologists who professional make themselves for groups who spokesmen justly feel that their social rights are being violated may appear to be goodie-goodies, but only if they perform badly. If what they have to say in public comes out as mere trivial outbursts of indignation, are useless. Their sociologists is to underpin specific, professional contribution with better arguments the moral standpoint and research data than most non-sociologists could do, or to reformulate the moral protest within a more appropriate social context. In other words, the sociologist role is a moral or

18 ACTASOCIOLOGICA 2000

VOLUME 43 social stratification to one constituted by funcWith him, the term tional differentiation. seems to denote a system 'stratification' of estates or St?nde. Modern society is not without but this is no longer an social stratification, trait. One's social origin (Herkunft) essential the 'hardly plays any longer a role within functional systems' (p. 734). (This recalls the Linton-Parsonian distinction 'ascribed statusachieved status', and is probably meant as an on that.) Within improvement functionally differentiated each 'function' corresociety, sponds to or defines an autopoietic system, each with a specific leitdifferenz, communicating with the environment according to its code. functionalism From Parsonian Luhmann makes a most important break - to him, 'the functional' is dissociated from all concerns with social 'integration' as I shall argue (though, on this point). With later, he is inconsequential differentiated instituParsons, the functionally tions contribute, each in its specific way, to the of society as a whole. Luhmann maintenance expressly denies this. In any case, one must give up the idea dominating the research on modernization after WWII, that is. the idea that modernization trends within the - political democparticular functional systems racy, rule of law. research unhampered by dogmas, non-censured mass media, schooling of the whole population according to their individual capacities etc. - will trigger off an impulse of development, where the achievement of each particular function system would reciprocally support and affirm the other, (p. 568) of Parsons. Precisely this was the presupposition adds: 'Rather, the contrast, Luhmann, by opposite is probable' (ibid.) That is to say. the of modern societies points towards evolution if it has any and disintegration, dissolution direction at all. Luhmann states that modern society is not predictable, nor does he think that sociology can tell the truth about social life. By what criteria are we to judge Luhmann's then general sociology? His own criterion is plausibility: 'The must be plausible and in question semantics to the structures of the appropriate (passen) social system' (p. 156). And: 'Every self-descripin the historical tion demands plausibility is in which the self-description situation as such' (p. 1137). regarded of the plausibility In order to evaluate Luhmann's sociology I begin by sketching two accounts of modern plausible pre-existing

moralist one, just like that of the lawyer or medical doctor. This may sometimes be tiresome or cause uneasy feelings of hypocrisy. But that is no reason for the sociologist to opt for cynicism. Let us leave all consideration of attitude and tone aside, since it disturbs the really work, subject matter of Luhmann's important i.e. his construction of an alternative to all sociology up till now, to which I now turn.

4. Two

basic

tenets are as follows:

Luhmann's

two basic tenets

1. 'Modern society' is above all characterized by ever-increasing 'differentiation' and 'complexity'; 2. 'Modern systems theory' is best suited to describe modern society in a scientific way. Luhmann means a proliferaBy 'differentiation' tion of 'autonomous' or 'autopoietic' social each of them defined or constituted systems, by its own specific code or 'leading difference'. Any social system deals with its surroundings its Umwelt solely in terms of its specific code. to say that Therefore, it would be misleading each social system is a Leibnizian 'monad', a 'world of its own', a solus ipse. On the contrary, communicates with its system any social precisely by virtue of its closedsurroundings ness. Only, it communicates through its own to Luhcode. Social systems are - according mann - a subclass of communication systems. Therefore, sociology should be transformed into - what a branch of communication theory, or comes to the same thing - a branch of modern systems theory. Modern to systems theory according - has made considerable Luhmann progress away from the systems thinking that influenced Parsons' and his school of functional sociology. described 'social systems' in While Parsons terms of 'adaptation', 'integration', 'equilithus brium' and 'maintenance mechanisms', social life as by and large preoccupresenting the pied with stability and self-preservation, recent systems theory of Maturana and others wholly different characteristics. emphasizes

5. Stratified societies

and functionally

differentiated

to Luh'The great transformation' according mann is the shift from a society constituted by

Luhmann'sGeneralSociology 19 i.e. Parsonian and Marxist around the turn of the last century, the USA became the lead society. It had become as democratic as France and as industrially advanced as England, these two combining features on a new level of integration and differentiation. What makes the USA so markedly modern is first its absence of nobility and aristocratic culture. American culture is egalitarian, based upon the value of work and individual achievement. it is the absence of religious Next, life in the USA is pluralpersecution. Religious ist; indeed, the emigration to America began as an escape from the horrors of religious intolerance in Europe. In the USA, religion is not part of the political constitution, but differentiated as part of civil society. Third, the differentiation between life and the legal daily community the legal system institution is marked; is for integrating important society as a whole, conflicts to universalist regulating according is Fourth, the political institution principles. from the economy, maksharply differentiated ing charges of 'corruption' very serious. was characterized Early America by a multitude of different ethnic and religious Their integration, and culgroups. socially turally, has been going on by and large unThe evolutionary trend has been interrupted. towards ever more widespread commitment to the dominant value system. Ethnic and other differences have been overcome through 'adaptive upgrading' of the cultural and social systems, through a parallel process of generalization and differentiation. The functionality of this most modern of societies is shown by its from the capacity to adapt to new challenges environment. The conflicts within this modern society but they do not challenge may be considerable, the dominant cultural pattern as such. Leftcomment wing opponents harshly upon the glaring inequalities and injustices of the system, but in doing so, they presuppose that very value system. No alternative cultural and social model has been important in the USA. True, the Soviet Union has been a 'counterpart' model since the Cold War, at least. But closer scrutiny reveals that on many points, the Soviet Union repeats the modernization process of Western countries, and thus does not proffer an essentially different between type of society. Its lack of differentiation the economy and the polity is a pre-modern the system less flexible and trait, making adaptive than that of the USA. The prospect is that the Soviet Union will get more and more

society, tions.

interpreta-

6. The plausibility

of Parsons'

'semantics'

In many ways, Luhmann's construction endeavours to improve upon and supersede that of his former teacher, Parsons. One may therefore with good reason reflect on the plausibility of of the contemporary Parsons' interpretation world, especially as presented in his The System of Modern Societies from 1971. (This book, volume, together with its preceding companion is an overview published when Parsons was 68 years old, and thus is a pendant to Luhmann's when he was 70 years old.) GdG, published Parsons describes modern society in terms of his action theory and its specification of various of action, chosen from a number of types structural variables-universalism-particularetc. The modern ism, specificity-diffuseness, world is characterized by the paramount of the universalism-performanceimportance affect neutrality pattern-foreshadowed by the Calvinist type of the Reformation age. This pattern is internalized as a prevalent personality as a cultural pattern. type and institutionalized But this value pattern, while dominant, is not the only one. On the contrary, it stands in a relation to other patterns, such complementary as the pattern dominating within the family and within institutions like science institution, and art. Generally, modern society is characterized by advanced functional differentiation: each differentiated has its function subsystem within the system as a whole, which makes the system as such highly flexible and adaptive. This is so, provided there is sufficient of the system; i.e. the subsystems integration - while and their institutions having their own 'logic' or specific value pattern - must at the same time be functional to the system as a whole. The subsystems must be subordinated to the system, through value integration. This is what by and large has gone on over the centuries. Thus, one can follow the double of differentiation and evolutionary process since the age of the renaissance integration and reformation in Europe. The first stage was the differentiation of political and religious the next was the differentiation of institutions; the third institutions; economy and household was the differentiation of professional life and culture. The leading societies of this educational were and Holland, evolution but England

20 ACTASOCIOLOGICA 2000

VOLUME 43 the heyday of Marcues's Eros to the 'sex-and-work' philosophy (opposed Further, the USA's engagement in pattern). Vietnam was becoming more and more alarmviolent and amodern ing, demonstrating aggression as an aspect of American modernity, an aspect Parsons played down in his account. In addition, Third World countries had liberation movements, important fighting against capitalist imperialism, making a deep impression upon public opinion in the West. Also, the cultural revolution in China had many famous From this perspective, proponents. Parsons appeared as a model of the Apologist of his own society. Today, Parsons' anticipations have been confirmed to a large extent. Norwehas become more gian society, for instance, similar to the USA in recent decades. The modernization of Asia also goes on in an 'American way'. Even the core of the former the Soviet Union, has developed a 'counterpart', 'market economy' - and so on. The system of modern societies appears to be as well integrated as ever, under the leadership of the USA at least from the viewpoint of a sociology social integration and differentiation. of ture. This was

similar to the USA in the future. The same goes for other non-Western societies - Japan, China, etc. of Durkheimian Thus, a synthesis and Weberian sociology is attained. With Durkheim, Parsons approaches modern society from the of social and cultural integration. perspective and psychotherDrawing on recent psychology of how the apy, he gives a better understanding individual internalizes and adapts to his or her society, and how personality conflicts have to do with conflicts and disintegrative features of the social groups to which the individual belongs. On the basis of recent, neo-evolutionary biology, he develops Durkheim's sociology of differentiation and integration, the 'cultural taking of the symbol' as the sociological equivalent biological 'gene', and stressing 'adaptive upthus meeting the objection that his grading', sociological theory is static. With Weber, Parsons stresses the importance of Western Rationality. He shows how the in modern life professional organizational within etc. - has business, science, politics, the value pattern that originated internalized within English and Dutch Reformed Christian'innerity, stressing self-control, individuality, asceticism'. Parsons combines neoworldly Freudian psychology with (neo)-Weberianism: the paramount role of the universalismachievement-affect neutrality pattern entails strain on the personality, threatenconsiderable and mental disturbance. The ing neurosis function of modern family life is to counteract the value pattern these tendencies; of the modern family differs strongly from, say, that of the Wilhelmine era. In the modern American relations are all-important, family, affectionate and the significance of marital sexual relations The much-derided paramount. 'money/sex' is therefore a case of adaptive preoccupation of counteracting upgrading, by disintegration differentiation. Similar considerations pertain to of the scientific subsystem in the differentiation relation to religion, or the subsystem of art in relation to science, etc. By an elaborate system of 'pattern variwith a refined combined of ables', theory and differentiation, integration, functionality in giving a highly conflict, Parsons succeeds account of modern societies. In fact, his plausible interpretation appears more plausible today than at the time it was published. For at that time, the Student and Counterculture movements had the achievement started, protesting against of the dominant orientation middle-class cui-

7. The plausibility

of 'Marxism'

There has been a widespread flight away from Marxist in the last two decades, doctrines of the Union of especially after the dissolution Socialist Soviet Republics, and the reunion (Wiedervereinigung) of East and West Germany. These two momentous political events are often as the reasons for a turning away presented from Marxist stances. This may hold true in some arenas, but from the standpoint of general of the world sociology, Marxist interpretations have not weakened and during the 1980s 1990s. The mode of production characterizing Western is capitalist societies in the strict sense: it is defined by private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and this property is administered as capital, i.e. as value to be augmented in the form of 'profit'. The to capital is wage labour and the complement The market as an instituwage labour-market. tion makes for competition and non-co-operation, thus making prices appear as the outcome of supply and demand. For this reason, the capitalist mode of production and distribution is also called the 'market economy'. The main cultural code defending and

Luhmann'sGeneralSociology 21 this mode of production is Liberallegitimating ism. It may be advocated in more or less good Liberalism faith, more or less hypocritically. as celebrates the capitalist mode of production the bulwark of Freedom for all, and also as conducive to economic or material Progress for all. Liberalism defends the unalienable right of each individual to property and freedom, in the of Locke. Its blindness has been tradition and Socialist out by both Conservative pointed it must thinkers, countless times. Sociologically, as a refuted doctrine. Notwithbe considered Liberal thought constanding this refutation, tinues to dominate the cultural world of Capital, On the philosowith its cult of individualism. level the prestige of neophical or ideological liberal economic theory and its ramifications economic theory of marriage, (game theory, etc.) underpin the capitalist mode of production. its 'materialist of Through conception History' Marxist thought points out how the artefacts of human activities become a kind of 'actor' in social life, in addition to its human the role of Capital By generalizing participants. as an acting historical force, one obtains the field' (Sartre 1960) or notion of a 'practico-inert a 'socio-material field', which makes possible a doctrine of social action, thus non-intellectualist the Liberal doctrine. contradicting Capitalist production and distribution tend to expand unceasingly, more and transforming more products and activities into 'commodities' and 'services', thus making money the general medium and mediator of relationships between human are transbeings. Working activities formed into wage labour and profit-seeking, into consumption leisure time transformed of entertainment such as 'tourist capitalized packages' or the products of 'pop industry'. As in the Manifesto, stated Marx and Engels nothing is 'holy' for Capital. The capitalist mode of production and entails the division of society into distribution two major classes - the capitalist class and the wage labour class, or 'proletariat'. Owing to the 'permanent revolution' of the means of producthere exists at any time a tion ('technology'), 'reserve army' of wage labourers. This reserve army tends to exert pressure on the wage level, level. making it descend towards a subsistence Hence, it is impossible for most wage labourers to accumulate capital and leave the wage labour class. On the contrary, the historical tendency is to transform small peasants, shopkeepers, etc. The 'relative pauperizainto wage labourers. tion' (Verarmung) of the wage labour class is a historical trend: the wealth of the great capital the condition of the owners being vertiginous, labourer becomes wage relatively ordinary worsened. Social life revolves around the capitalist mode of production and distribution and its inherent conflicts. The State charges itself with the task of ensuring 'peace in working life', discontented pacifying and neutralizing groups, for welfare and social schemes implementing the regime of private security and protecting property through the police apparatus and the prison system. On the cultural level, legitimation of the capitalist economy goes on unceasingly in the mass media, as testified by soap operas and the TV series of crime and action. is only intelligible This kind of entertainment the capitalist or market economy is provided taken for granted. The so-called 'globalization' process implies all over the speeding up of capitalist expansion tendencies of the the world. The semi-corporate since postwar period have been counteracted like Egypt, Indonesia the 1980s for countries and India as well for Western In Europe. is sought the market economy in addition, Eastern Europe, even in the People's Republic of entails China. This globalization unfettered world markets - a process that considerably weakens the collective bargaining strength of trade unions and other wage labour interest A world proletariat arises of organizations. - millions hitherto unseen and magnitude millions of wage earners working on or below level. They are badly organized, subsistence even disorganized - a condition upheld in many cases by the State's armed forces. Precisely because Eastern Europe failed to Marx and an alternative construct economy, accords better with plain Engels' interpretation facts than it has done for many decades. In order to defend Marxist doctrines in the period 195080, one had to be subtler, one had to point out latent structures of oppression and domination, capitalshowing that, contrary to appearances, ist class society was still with us. Today, the basic traits of a society based upon a capitalist are quite manifest, mode of production even proopenly declared and hailed as historical gress. This, I presume, is one of the reasons why has lost its spell for a Marxist interpretation Since it accords ('stimmt) so many sociologists. well with facts, it does not pose the same intellectual challenge as before; it cannot satisfy and brilliant; a the need to be sophisticated

2000 22 ACTASOCIOLOGICA

VOLUME 43 economie, political, etc. power has apparently become stronger recently. The notion of an acentric world can be found in anarchist thinking, such as in Deleuze's philosophy of Difference. But this philosophical notion cannot support the statement that today world society is acentric. That statement is simply wrong. Whoever goes outside the will have the experience Western hemisphere that people are, whether they want to be or not, oriented towards the Western 'other-directed', It is almost world and under its domination. to point out this fact. embarrassing World society does not become ever more differentiated functionally One may venture the assertion that there exist few, if any, autopoietic systems in social life. Again, modern systems theory, imported from biology this into sociology, leads astray. To demonstrate trivial, all the more so as may be embarrassingly himself addresses a list of weighty Luhmann I to his own thesis. Nevertheless, objections make an attempt to point out the obvious, upon a couple of beginning by commenting quotations. Luhmann states: 'We have already emphasized that those who possess do not deserve more esteem (Achtung) than those who do not' Luhmann's (p. 406). This does not demonstrate attitude, but that of modern society. personal But as such it is plainly wrong. High income and wealth do in fact serve or function as status This was pointed out long ago by symbols. Parsons functionalists 1940; 1927; (Sorokin Davis & Moore 1945). Thus, one of the main for income differentiation within justifications is that those who fill the most organizations important positions should earn more than the rest as a kind of 'reward' and sign of esteem. states: 'Not even the very rich Luhmann have for that reason political power or better or better chances to be artistic understanding of loved' (p. 767). Once more, the incorrectness this as a statement of fact is palpable. As for 'the that very chances to be loved', it is documented even if the few rich men are not married, proverb says that love may befall upon dirt as well as upon a lily. That being rich does not influence social standards of art may perhaps be such as those defended, though investigations by Bourdieu clearly indicate that the opposite is true. As for the political power of rich people as such, this is almost true by definition. To be very rich cannot but have political consequences. Therefore the political and economic systems

has become in Marxist description plainly with facts, and hence banal. accordance True, on one essential point, the Marxist doctrine is not plausible, on the topic of the class does not evolve The class struggle struggle. to Marxist The according interpretations. in the West are weak at labour movements present, and the huge masses of wage labourers like South Korea, Thailand, the in countries Small Tigers, etc. seem at least to live under the If there is class sway of capitalist domination. struggle, it seems that the rising class is rather the capitalists, not the proletariat. Despite this, taken as a whole, the Marxist of doctrine is quite plausible as an interpretation world society today. This is so because it does - base itself upon what Weber just like Parsons' termed 'central cultural values'. Marxist docnotions trine bases itself upon the fundamental of Modernity - Reason, individual liberty and of Liberhistorical Progress. The shortcomings alism cannot simply be regarded with forbearance, since Liberal thought, too, is committed to Modernity. Marxism, as the internal critique of as is plausible and important Liberal thought, long as and in so far as Liberalism prevails in our culture.

8. The implausibility semantics

of Luhmann's

it has one or The world is not acentric; more centres 'Functional society', Luhmann states, Operates without a top and a center' (p. 803). This is, he thinks, one of the main reasons the protest and doomed to are ill-conceived movements failure. But the statement is implausible; it even Luhmann experience. goes against widespread of of 'premature (vorzeitige) fixation speaks ideas' (p. 540), which in fact applies in the of to the theory case. According present should be an 'society' systems, autopoietic But world society certainly acentric system. The has a centre, or at least, it is polycentric. centre of the world is the leading strata of the the world economically, USA - it dominates and militarily. Several of politically, culturally of the world - New York, the mega-cities London, Paris, Tokyo - exert a strong influence upon the rest of the world, an influence which is not reciprocated by the lesser agglomerations. in an acentric There is not even a tendency of direction; on the contrary, the concentration

Luhmann'sGeneralSociology 2 3 must be taken as one politico-economic system. the economy To conceive as an autopoietic not', system, the code of which is 'pays/pays Luhmann makes the distinction between the 'achievement' (Leistung) of the economy and its function, to 'secure future subsistence (k?nftige Versorgung)' (p. 758). Even so, the construction is awkward. Luhmann the 'money praises as the most spiritual achievement of economy' modern the world (ibid.). However, society is not about but about economy money, and distribution of 'use values', production about the 'metabolism with nature' (Marx), whereby humanity transforms the environment itself. Even within and thereby a capitalist where financial economy, capital plays an role, as is the case today, where important all over the world can threaten speculators - even national economies today business are preoccupied with 'real capital' as people distinct from 'money assets'. Institutional economics has shown over and over again that the - what, then, is is not autonomous economy gained by characterizing economy as autopoietic? Mutatis mutandis, one could show that the other institutions of society, too, do not qualify as 'autopoietic' systems. As for the institution of Art, the autopoietic thesis may, at the very least, hold for a segment of the modern art institution, but not for the institution of art as a whole. inclusion distinction - but by class conflicts similar interest group conflicts. and

The notion of progress9 is not obsolete Luhmann discards the notion of 'progress' he asserts many times in GdG. For instance, that 'since the end of the 19th century one dares no longer (traut man sich nicht) presuppose progress' (p. 567). Luhmann may be thinking of Nietzsche or Georges Sorel, Max Weber, Spen- all of gler, etc., even the Dada movement whom rejected the notion of Progress. But even so, there can be no doubt that the notion of is still important within modern progress of scientific prosociety. Thus, the semantics gress, or economic progress (Allianza para el progreso, etc.) has permeated public discourse since 1945 until this very day. Those who follow, or have even heard of names like Koyr?, Kuhn, Foucault, or who know anything about a dwindling minor'paradigm shifts' constitute ity.

9. The imaginary sociology

character

of Luhmann's

The class distinction is not replaced by an inclusion/exclusion distinction Luhmann himself emphasizes that 'social stratification is by no means abolished' in presentBut he thinks that day society (p. 772). - and a stratification fortiori social class - is than the distinction less important between those who are included in society and those who are excluded. The inclusion/exclusion distinction recalls that of the '2/3 society' image. Most of the population is integrated, they have jobs, family or other primary relations, satisfactory they take an interest in public matters, etc. A and excluded - the minority is marginalized the junkies, the criminals, the hopehomeless, induces lessly poor, etc. This conceptualization one to think and feel that wage earners have more in common with the great capitalists than with the 'excluded' - 'after all, I have a home, a job, I am included'. This is a comforting thought for 'the little man'. Der kleine Mann should not ask for too much, but must be content with little. In fact, the conflicts in modern society are still not constituted mainly by the exclusion/

Parsons' Empiricist and Positivist-minded adversaries used to dismiss his general sociology as with empty verbiage, as words and utterances no 'empirical as mere thoughts. reference', Parts of Luhmann's doctrine may provoke similar responses. But - except in the specific sense of Heidegger and Sartre -1 for my part do not accept that it is possible to think about in the nothing. All thinking is about something world. Therefore, even if there may not be many autopoietic systems in the world, and world society may not be structured by functional Luhmann's differentiation, general sociology cannot for that reason be rejected tout court. It remains to account for the delight of his texts, what makes them so fascinating and brilliant. The answer proffered here, is twofold. First, Luhmann's erudition makes his books highly valuable. In themselves all the bibliographical references make his books treasures for anybody occupied with the history of ideas and cultural history. Also, his style of writing is fluent, light and elegant. Secondly, and more importantly, the fascination of a work like Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft is one of the imaginary. Luhmann's sociology is about society in an imaginary mode of being, as contrasted with society in the modus of the real. Here, as on many occasions before, I take the distinction between the real

2000 24 ACTASOCIOLOGICA

VOLUME 43

and the imaginary in the sense of Sartre, in his study from 1940, L'imagiphenomenological naire (Sartre 1940, published in English as The While the real is of Imagination). Psychology a general causality, the imacharacterized by ginary is not. Therefore, dreams are so hard to retell; they seem to dissolve when we tell others about them, since they do not obey the general law of cause and effect. The imaginary is unreal, towards the a specific attitude of consciousness world. often take on this Luhmann's writings character. One sometimes gets the imaginary that he is 'playing' at being a impression when he writes about for instance, scientist, stratebetween different 'theoretical choosing that are not gies' or sets forth 'hypotheses' subsequently put to any test. The imaginary of the treatise also stems from his character While use of biological metaphors. slippery asserts that one should not think of Luhmann society in terms of biology, he time and again vein. Thus, he tells us writes in a biological the word introduced (p. 504) that Lamarck 'irritabilit?' into biology. But he himself writes about modern society letting itself be 'irritated' and this time, he does not by the environment, mean 'irritation' in the sense that a person gets irritated with another. He suggests 'irritability' in the sense of Lamarck, that is, the capacity of to a stimulus. By this perpetual responding quidproquo and Vexierbild our image of modern i.e. flimmery and dreamlike, society becomes imaginary.

conflation 10. A fundamental objection: and autonomization differentiation

of

The most serious error, it seems to me, is Luhmann's abuse of, or an imaginary, equivocal use of the term functional differentiation. This term has a clear meaning within the Durkheim/ where it generSorokin/Parsons perspective, alizes the notion of 'division of labour'. The is to what is connected socially functional and social differentiation is condifferentiated, to social integration, just as ceptually connected the differential and the integral belong together writes Luhmann Sometimes in Mathematics. in the above-mentioned, about the functional that serves as something sense traditional in a (dient) general society, that is, contributes He also someto its preservation. specific way of the Durkheimian concern times partakes as when he uses his with social preservation,

'so geht es nicht weiter, it favourite phrase, cannot go on like this any longer. Then he as perpetually to describes striving society in a world of ever-increasing obtain integration Luhmann confers But elsewhere, complexity. another meaning upon the term 'functional' every social system is functional by virtue of its according to its specific code. Now, performance he describes society as a multitude of systems, each acting according to its own code. What he aims at is to generalize Weber's notion of mutually value spheres (the political, the irreconcilable moral, the erotic, the religious, etc.). Weber tends to present modern society as (1922) interest spheres constituted by autonomous where art challenges morality (instead of supporting it, as in Kant's Critique of Judgment and where the other idealist aesthetic doctrines); erotic challenges the political, and so on, in the famous 'demonic struggle' between value commitments. Weber's value spheres, owing to their may serve as examples of supposed autonomy, systems'. Moreover, Weber himself 'autopoietic of very seldom writes about 'differentiation' refers to the these spheres, since 'differentiation' twin concept of 'integration'. It seems to me that Habermas was the first between Durkheim/ to blur the opposition Parsons and Weber, imputing to Weber a notion which is foreign to his of modern differentiation 1981). Luhmann appears (Habermas thought to make the same mistake. This mistake is at the same time obvious and grave - differentiation are opposite processes. They and autonomization directions: differentiation in opposite point towards autonomization towards integration, and conflict. disintegration of the perspectives conflates Luhmann more and Weber. But he leans Durkheim towards Weber than Durkheim. His autopoietic its of modern society emphasizes conception character, consisting of a multitude fragmented contexts and groups trying to of autonomous a Within such their maintain autonomy. picture, there is no place for the term 'functional differentiation'. Society, as described by Luhitself; therefore it is mann, is not differentiating the social systems as to designate misleading of Luhmann's The fascination 'functional'. partly stems from this congeneral writings ceptual conflation; his synthesis is not real, but A possible rejoinder may be that, imaginary. after all, the proliferation of autopoietic systems the may 'serve' modern society by augmenting mass of alternatives to select from. To cope with then has at its modern society complexity,

Luhmann'sGeneralSociology 25 of alternacomplexity disposal an increasing the functional contives - and to Luhmann, notes alternatives. Possibly, this may be granted, of modern society but since the evolution to Luhmann, with by contrast according - has no direction, this functional Parsons of autopoietic systems adds little interpretation of world society - it to our understanding reminds me of the mild optimism of classical Deism. References Davis,?. &Moore.W.E. 1945. Some Principlesof Stratification. American Review. Sociological Handelns. Habermas, j. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Frankfurtam Main:SuhrkampVerlag. Luhmann, N. 1984. Soziale System. Frankfurt am Main: SuhrkampVerlag. Luhmann, N. 1986. ?kologisch Kommunikation. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Frankfurtam Luhmann, N. 1995. Die Kunstder Gesellschaft. Main:SuhrkampVerlag. der Frankfurt Luhmann, N. 1997. Die Gesellschaft Gesellschaft. am Main:SuhrkampVerlag. Book ??. Mane,K. 1895. Das Kapital. Marx,K, & Engels,F. 1848. Communist Manifesto. Parsons,T. 1940. An analyticalapproachto the theoryof social stratification. Essaysin Sociological In Glencoe,IL:Free Theory. Press. Parsons, T. 1971. TheSystem of ModernSocieties.New Jersey: Inc. Prentice-Hall, Paris:Gallimard. Sartre,J. P. 1940. L'imaginaire. Sartre, J.-P. 1960. Critique de la raison dialectique.Paris: Gallimard. Sorokin, P. A. 1927. Social mobility.New York:Harper and Brothers. M. der Weber, 1922. DerSinn der 'Wertfreit' soziologischenund ?konomischen Wissenschaften.In Gesammelte Aufs?tzezur Wissenschaftslehre. T?bingen:JCBMohr. an into and 0sterberg,D. 1988. Metasociology: Inquiry the Origins Oslo:NorwegianUniversityPress. of Validity SocialThought.

11. Final

remark

By no means does this 'critical critique' intend to reject everything in Luhmann's sociology. His book on intimacy is an important contribution, as is much of his sociology of the art institution. do However, these and other fine contributions not depend for their validity on the general of autopoietic the specific systems, theory etc. What I oppose, in doctrine of evolution, is Luhmann's most general this comment, tenets, as presented in Soziale Systeme and Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. First version received May 1999 Final version accepted August 1999