DOCSLIB.ORG

Trust As a Decision. the Problems and Functions of Trust In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Trust as a Decision The Problems and Functions of Trust in Luhmannian Systems Theory Janne Jalava University of Helsinki, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Social Policy Research Reports 1/2006 Pre-Examiners Dr. Seppo Raiski Department of Social Studies University of Lapland Dr. Risto Kangas Department of Sociology University of Helsinki Copyright Janne Jalava 2006 Cover Design: Julius Westerberg Layout: Janne Jalava Published by the Department of Social Policy, University of Helsinki ISSN 1795-4703 ISBN 952-10-2854-8 (nid.) ISBN 952-10-2855-6 (pdf, http://ethesis.helsinki.fi) Printed by Yliopistopaino Helsinki 2006 Abstract This work examines Niklas Luhmann’s (1927-1998) concepts of trust, confidence and familiarity, and their functions in Luhmannian systems theory. Janne Jalava is especially interested in the way these concepts would function in the context of Luhmann’s advanced systems theory. This is because Luhmann wrote his principal work on trust, Vertrauen, as early as in 1968. Although Luhmann can be thought of as a system theorist already during that time, his magnum opus, Soziale Systeme, on advanced systems theory was not published until 1984. This work concentrates especially on five research problems. Firstly, it concerns Luhmann’s own theory of trust, confidence and familiarity. Secondly, Jalava studies the theoretical precursors (Talcott Parsons and Georg Simmel), who influenced Luhmann’s writings on the topics as well as analyse how Luhmann’s theory of trust, in turn, has affected the current theories on the topic (Anthony Giddens and Piotr Sztompka). Thirdly, Luhmann’s theory of trust is then examined in the context of advanced systems theory. Special emphasis is laid on the way the growing importance of risks has affected the validity of trust, confidence and familiarity. Fourthly, the connections between the advanced Luhmannian concepts of trust, confidence and familiarity and the concept of strangers are analysed. Fifthly, the analysis will move from personal level to systemic and organisational levels. The work concentrates on the problematic of trust and confidence in the context of the system of the welfare state, system of care and caring organisations. The most important result of this work, then, is to specify the history, position, and meaning of trust in Luhmann’s systems-theoretical thinking. Jalava will also show how it can be fruitful to examine the problems of ‘strangers’, the system of the welfare state, and the system of care and caring organisations in the context of Luhmannian trust and confidence. Tiivistelmä Työn tarkastelun kohteena on Niklas Luhmannin (1927-1998) luottamuksen käsite. Erityisesti Janne Jalava on kiinnostunut siitä, miten Luhmannin luottamuksen käsite toimii kehittyneen systeemiteorian kontekstissa. Tämä johtuu siitä, että Luhmann kirjoitti luottamusta käsittelevän pääteoksensa, Vertrauen, jo vuonna 1968 ja hänen systeemiteoriaa tarkasteleva pääteos, Soziale Systeme, ilmestyi vasta vuonna 1984. Jalava lähestyy luhmannilaista luottamuksen problematiikkaa viidestä eri näkökulmasta. Ensin hän tarkastelee Luhmannin omaa luottamusteoriaa. Vaikka työn pääongelmana on tarkastella luottamuksen käsitettä, jakaa Luhmann omissa kirjoituksissaan luottamusproblematiikan kolmeen käsitteeseen: luottamukseen (trust), luottavaisuuteen (confidence) ja tuttuutteen (familiarity). Jalava pohtii myös Luhmannin luottamusproblematiikan kannalta olennaisia teoreettisia vaikuttajia (Talcott Parsons ja Georg Simmel) sekä Luhmannin luottamusteorian nykyistä sosiologista merkitystä (erityisesti Anthony Giddensin ja Piotr Sztompkan tutkimusten teoreettisena innoittajana). Tämän jälkeen Jalava analysoi sitä, miten Luhmannin varhainen luottamusteoria toimii kehittyneen systeemiteorian kontekstissa. Erityisesti Jalava pohtii riskien ja kommunikaation vaikutusta luhmannilaisten luottamuskäsitteiden sosiologiseen käyttökelpoisuuteen. Neljänneksi keskitytään muukalaisuuden ja luottamuksen välisiin suhteisiin. Jälkimodernissa maailmassa olemme kaikki toisillemme enemmän tai vähemmän muukalaisia. Enää siis Georg Simmelin klassinen muukalaisuusteoria, jossa muukalaiset nähtiin yhteiskunnan toimivuuden kannalta positiivisina ja luotettavina henkilöinä, ei ole yhteiskunnan toimivuuden kannalta kovinkaan relevantti. Miten siis yleistynyt muukalaisuus ja terrorismi vaikuttavat luottamusproblematiikkaan? Seuraavaksi työssä tarkastellaan luottamusta systeemien ja organisaatioiden tasolla ja pohditaan luottamuksen ja luottavaisuuden problematiikkaa hyvinvointivaltion kontekstissa. Jalava näkee hyvinvointivaltion syklisenä kokonaisuutena, joka koostuu kansasta, politiikasta ja hallinnosta. Erityisesti hän pohtii sitä, miten luottavaisuus kansan ja politiikan välillä rakentuu. Työssä tutkitaan myös vanhusten hoivasysteemiä, joka on Jalavan analyysin mukaan vähitellen kehittynyt hyvinvointivaltiollisen inkluusion myötä. Tässä yhteydessä Jalava tutkii hoivasysteemin systeemiteoreettisia ongelmia ja sitä, onko kuitenkin mielekkäämpää tarkastella hoivaa erilaisten organisaatioiden avulla ja täten kyseenalaistaa hoivan systeemiluonne. Työn lopussa analysoidaan myös hoivaajan ja hoivattavan välistä luottamusproblematiikkaa. Acknowledgements A journey, rewarding but sometimes tough, is about to finish. This journey can be divided into four periods. Because of the death of my loving father, the first period from 2000 to 2001 was the most painful time in my life and it was often more than difficult to concentrate on doing research. After this tragedy, in September 2001, I decided to leave to the University of Bielefeld to get the best Luhmann knowledge in the world. Looking back, this period was definitely the richest time of my university life. Without spending a half-year period in this scientifically inspirational environment under brilliant supervising, my understanding about Luhmann and his systems theory would still be in its infancy. After returning to Finland I continued writing the research. This third period, from 2002 to 2004, was also physically very painful because of a herniated disk in my back. Due to persistent training my back started to heal and also my research work started to look better. It was in October 2004 when I started to write the final version of this book. Now this last period of the journey is about to finish, and I am grateful to many for sharing this path with me. Numerous people have contributed to this fascinating journey. I will probably never be able to describe the amount of encouragement and insight I have received from one person. His support has been continuous. Risto Eräsaari deserves the most heartfelt thanks for his support that helped me to grow into an independent researcher. Thank you Risto for being my closest mentor during this journey. We certainly trust one another! Beside Risto, this journey has been blessed with guidance and inspiration of two other central figures whom I very highly respect. Keijo Rahkonen and Arto Noro have offered me time, consideration and crucial advice. Without your contribution this project might never have been finished. You both are inspiring and encouraging mentors! Special thanks go also to my pre- examiners, Seppo Raiski and Risto Kangas, who read the entire manuscript and provided valuable comments. Thank you for guiding me to the complex world of Luhmann’s systems theory. It is an honour to follow your Luhmannian footsteps! The journey would have been much more difficult without Tuomas Ylä-Anttila who has helped and inspired me on numerous occasions. I have shared countless interesting discussions with you and received much good advice. Without friends like you the world would be an empty place! The department of Social Policy, University of Helsinki, has been a warm-hearted and friendly place to work at. I have been lucky to have as my university room-mate not just a colleague but a very good and patient friend, Sampo Ruoppila. Thank you Sampo for sharing with me this journey! I would like to thank also Rudolf Stichweh and Raf Vanderstraeten who warmly welcomed me as a visiting researcher to the University of Bielefeld. Last but not least, my deepest thanks go to my four closest persons. Needless to say, without Jaakko Saari’s special contribution in the middle of 1990s, I would have never started to study social policy and Luhmann’s systems theory. Without you, this research would not exist. My big brother, Juha Jalava, has all along this journey reminded me that there is life also outside of University. Thank you for keeping my feet on the ground! I have been blessed with wonderful parents, Ritva and Touko Jalava. There are no words through which I could describe the amount of love and support I have gotten from you. Therefore, this book is dedicated to my dear mother Ritva and the memory of my loving father Touko. I have been entitled to work in SOVAKO (the Finnish Post-Graduate School of Social Sciences) during this research process, and I am very grateful for this position. Beside SOVAKO, this research has been funded by the Science Foundation of University of Helsinki, the Foundation of Emil Aaltonen, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. Sammatti, November 2005. Janne Jalava Contents 1. Introduction…1 The Research Problem…3 The Architecture of the Study…7 2. Luhmann’s Conception of Trust…13 From Familiarity to Trust…16 Trust and Take a Risk…19 The Four Conditions of Interpersonal Trust…22 ‘In Functions We Have System Trust’…24 Differences and Connections between Familiarity, Trust and
Recommended publications
  • Autopoiesis and Heidegger’S Phenomenology

    Autopoiesis and Heidegger’S Phenomenology

    A Biological Basis for Being-in-the-World Autopoiesis and Heidegger’s Phenomenology Jon R. Lindsay Senior Honors Thesis Symbolic Systems Program Stanford University June 10, 1995 To Picacho Del Diablo, the Middle Fork of the Eel, and other wild philosophers who helped me through this project TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 THE METAPHYSICS OF THE SUBJECT 1 TOWARDS AN ALTERNATIVE ONTOLOGY 6 DASEIN AND THE HUMAN ORGANISM 8 HOW TO GET THERE 11 CHAPTER 1: DASEIN 12 HUSSERL’S PHENOMENOLOGICAL REDUCTION 13 ONTOLOGICAL AND ONTIC DESCRIPTION 16 BEING-IN-THE-WORLD 19 THE WORLD 22 THE ANYONE 27 BEING-IN 29 A HEIDEGGERIAN CRITIQUE OF COGNITIVISM 32 CARE 37 CHAPTER 2: AUTOPOIESIS 42 ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE 43 THE OBSERVER’S DESCRIPTION 45 ONTOLOGY AND ORGANIZATION 46 AUTOPOIETIC ORGANIZATION 47 LIVING SYSTEMS 49 AUTOPOIESIS AND ALLOPOIESIS 50 THE COGNITIVE DOMAIN 53 STRUCTURAL COUPLING 55 ORGANIZATIONAL CLOSURE 56 THE NERVOUS SYSTEM 57 THE NEURON 58 THE NERVOUS SYSTEM AS A CLOSED NETWORK. 58 AN AUTOPOIETIC CRITIQUE OF COGNITIVISM 60 HIGHER ORDER ENTITIES 64 LANGUAGE 67 THE OBSERVER AS ORGANISM 69 CHAPTER 3: AUTOPOIETIC MACHINES ARE CARING MACHINES! 71 PHENOMENOLOGICAL UNITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL CLOSURE 73 PROJECTION AND THE COGNITIVE DOMAIN 75 THROWNNESS AND STRUCTURAL COUPLING 78 EXISTENZ AND LIVING 85 FURTHER PROBLEMS 89 APPENDIX: AUTOPOIESIS, DASEIN, AND SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY 97 WORKS CITED 103 Introduction This introduction is rather long, even though the thesis that it introduces can be stated in a single sentence: Dasein is an autopoietic organism. The general problem, however, is not as compact: the problem of human subjectivity. What is it that we are— this subjectivity—that is at all times closest to us, and yet seems to elude any consensus as to what it is? Part of the difficulty with “subjectivity” lies in the fact that we can hardly think of it without thinking of its counterpart, objectivity.
  • Helmut Schelsky

    Helmut Schelsky

    16 | 17 Universitätsarchiv Helmut Schelsky 03 Helmut Schelsky Denker der „skeptischen Generation“, „Stichwortgeber des Zeitgeistes“ Helmut Schelsky, 1912 in Chemnitz geboren, gilt als der 14. Okt. 1912 Helmut Wilhelm Friedrich Schelsky wurde in Chemnitz geboren. erfolg- und einflussreichste Soziologe der frühen Bun- ab 1931 Studium der Philosophie, Germanistik desrepublik. Sozialisiert in der Weimarer Republik setzte und Geschichte in Leipzig, zuvor an der er jugendbewegt und idealistisch 1933 auf die „Revo- Universität Königsberg. lution von rechts“. Dem anfänglich starken Engagement ab 1932 Mitglied der SA. für den Nationalsozialismus und dem Erklimmen der ab 1933 Arbeit für den Nationalsozialistischen ersten Stufen der akademischen Karriereleiter folgten Studentenbund. Desillusionierung und die Teilnahme an den Kämpfen 1935 Promotion mit Dissertation über „Die an der Ostfront. Nach 1945 verabschiedete sich Schels- Theorie der Gemeinschaft nach Fichtes „Naturrecht“ von 1796“. ky von jedwedem Idealismus und entwickelte sich als Eintritt in die NSDAP. geläuterter Demokrat zum nüchternen, sachlichen Be- 1938 gleiter der jungen Bundesrepublik. Helmut Schelsky 1938-1940 Assistent Gehlens in Königsberg. – mal als neokonservativ, mal als progressiv bezeich- 1939 Habilitation über „Die politische Lehre net – wurde mit seinen Veröffentlichungen zu aktuellen von Thomas Hobbes“. Problemen der Bundesrepublik zum „Stichwortgeber 1939 Kurzfristig Dozent in Königsberg. des Zeitgeistes“ (Ludolf Hermann). Zu nennen sind ins- 1940/1941 Assistent Freyers in Budapest. besondere „Wandlungen der deutschen Familie in der 1941-1945 Als Soldat der Wehrmacht eingezogen. Gegenwart“ (1953), „Soziologie der Sexualität“ (1955) Mehrmals zum Teil schwer verwundet. und „Die skeptische Generation. Eine Soziologie der 1942 Lehrstuhlvertretung in Leipzig. deutschen Jugend“ (1957). 1943 Außerordentlicher Professor an der Mit der Berufung auf eine Soziologieprofessur an der Uni- Reichsuniversität Straßburg.
  • Humboldt and the Modern German University

    Humboldt and the Modern German University

    5 Tradition under debate During the final years of the 1950s, the period of actual reconstruction came to an end. Material standards had risen considerably, and the sombre, anxious atmosphere that was typical of the first half of the decade had given way to confidence in a brighter future. An artistic avant-garde broke with prevalent aesthetic principles; a public reckoning with Nazism gradually got under way; and a younger generation began to make itself heard in social debate. Many said farewell to the Adenauer era even before the ageing Federal Chancellor left his post in 1963. These years, c. 1957–1965, stand out as a comparatively distinct phase in West German post-war history, a phase that can be separated from the preceding and ensuing ones. ‘Dynamic times’ is a label given by historians to this period of just under ten years.1 In spite of the growth and spread of prosperity, there was a simmering discontent in many circles. One underlying cause was the incomplete democratisation. True, the parliamentary system had taken hold and been consolidated; but West German society was not seen as entirely democratic. More and more people made more and more insistent demands for reform – a keyword for the 1960s. Especially the younger generation did not feel at home in an order where older men held all the important positions of power. As an 1 Dynamische Zeiten: Die 60er Jahre in den beiden deutschen Gesellschaften, ed. by Axel Schildt, Detlef Siegfried & Karl Christian Lammers (Hamburg, 2000); Schildt & Siegfried, Deutsche Kulturgeschichte, pp. 179–244. Other important interpreters of the history of the Federal Republic use a similar vocabulary: In Die geglückte Demokratie: Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland von ihren Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Stuttgart, 2006), Edgar Wolfrum speaks of the 1960s in terms of ‘dynamism and liberalisation’ while ‘transformation’ and ‘the euphoria of modernity’ are keywords in Ulrich Herbert, Geschichte Deutschlands im 20.
  • I690/H699 Cybernetics and Revolution: International Histories of Science, Technology, and Political Change

    I690/H699 Cybernetics and Revolution: International Histories of Science, Technology, and Political Change

    I690/H699 Cybernetics and Revolution: International Histories of Science, Technology, and Political Change Prof. Eden Medina Office: Informatics 305 Email: [email protected] Class Times: W 1:00-3:30 Room: Info 001 Class Description Norbert Wiener used the term cybernetics for studies of communication and control in the animal and the machine. Cybernetics brought together ideas from biology, psychology, math, computation, and engineering and looked for underlying commonalities in areas as diverse as neurology, electronics, and the study of social systems. Historical studies of cybernetics often cite the research activity that took place in the United States during 1940s and 1950s as the peak moment of this interdisciplinary field. However, these ideas also took root in other parts of the world, where they intertwined with other national histories and political ideologies. This class will bring an international perspective to the study of cybernetics. Different geographical, political, and cultural contexts shaped the language, content, and application of cybernetic science outside of the United States. Cybernetics also offered new ways for imagining social and political change. The class will study individuals such as Norbert Wiener, Ross Ashby, Stafford Beer, Humberto Maturana, and Viktor Glushkov, among others. Since most histories of cybernetics are set in the United States and Western Europe, special attention will be given to the evolution and application of cybernetic ideas in Latin America. Required Reading Paul Edwards, The Closed
  • Systems Theory and Complexity: a Potential Tool for Radical Analysis Or the Emerging Social Paradigm for the Internationalised Market Economy?

    Systems Theory and Complexity: a Potential Tool for Radical Analysis Or the Emerging Social Paradigm for the Internationalised Market Economy?

    DEMOCRACY & NATURE: The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY Vol. 6, No. 3 (November 2000) Systems theory and complexity: a potential tool for radical analysis or the emerging social paradigm for the internationalised market economy? TAKIS FOTOPOULOS Abstract: The aim of this paper is to critically assess the claims of systems theory and complexity in the analysis of social change and particularly to examine the view that ―if certain conditions are met― both could potentially be useful tools for radical analysis. The conclusion drawn from this analysis is that, although systems theory and complexity are useful tools in the natural sciences in which they offer many useful insights, they are much less useful in social sciences and indeed are incompatible, both from the epistemological point of view and that of their content, with a radical analysis aiming to systemic change towards an inclusive democracy. Introduction It was almost inevitable that the present demise of Marxism would bring about a revised form of functionalism/evolutionism, which had almost eclipsed in the sixties and the seventies, particularly in areas like the sociology of development where it had been replaced by neo-Marxist and dependency theories. The new version of functionalism/evolutionism is much more sophisticated than the original Parsonian functionalist paradigm and incorporates recent developments in “hard” sciences to produce a new “general” theory of social systems. A primary example of such an attempt is Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems[1] which we
  • Biology of Love

    Biology of Love

    BIOLOGY OF LOVE By Humberto Maturana Romesin and Gerda Verden-Zoller, Opp, G.: Peterander, F. (Hrsg.): Focus Heilpadagogik, Ernst Reinhardt, Munchen/Basel 1996. We human beings are love dependent animals. This is apparent in that we become ill when we are deprived of love at whatever age. No doubt we live a culture in which we are frequently in war and kill each other on different rational grounds that justify our mutual total denial as human beings. But doing that does not bring to us happiness, or spiritual comfort and harmony. Love and aggression - are they polar features of our biology or, of our cultural human existence? Are we genetically aggressive animals that love occassionally, or are we loving animals that cultivate aggression culturally? Our purpose in this article is to maintain that we are loving animals that cultivate aggression in a cultural alienation that may eventually change our biology. To this end we shall speak about the following themes in short but basic statements: A) the systemic constitution and conservation of human identity; B) the origin and development of the self in the mother/child relations; C) the evolutionary origin of humanness in the conservation of neoteny and the expansion of the female sexuality; D) the biology of love. A) That we are living systems means that we are structure determined systems, that we operate at every moment according to our structure at that moment, and that nothing external to us can specify what happens in us as a result of our interactions in a medium. External agents can only trigger in us structural changes determined in us.
  • Systems Theory

    Systems Theory

    1 Systems Theory BRUCE D. FRIEDMAN AND KAREN NEUMAN ALLEN iopsychosocial assessment and the develop - nature of the clinical enterprise, others have chal - Bment of appropriate intervention strategies for lenged the suitability of systems theory as an orga - a particular client require consideration of the indi - nizing framework for clinical practice (Fook, Ryan, vidual in relation to a larger social context. To & Hawkins, 1997; Wakefield, 1996a, 1996b). accomplish this, we use principles and concepts The term system emerged from Émile Durkheim’s derived from systems theory. Systems theory is a early study of social systems (Robbins, Chatterjee, way of elaborating increasingly complex systems & Canda, 2006), as well as from the work of across a continuum that encompasses the person-in- Talcott Parsons. However, within social work, sys - environment (Anderson, Carter, & Lowe, 1999). tems thinking has been more heavily influenced by Systems theory also enables us to understand the the work of the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy components and dynamics of client systems in order and later adaptations by the social psychologist Uri to interpret problems and develop balanced inter - Bronfenbrenner, who examined human biological vention strategies, with the goal of enhancing the systems within an ecological environment. With “goodness of fit” between individuals and their its roots in von Bertalanffy’s systems theory and environments. Systems theory does not specify par - Bronfenbrenner’s ecological environment, the ticular theoretical frameworks for understanding ecosys tems perspective provides a framework that problems, and it does not direct the social worker to permits users to draw on theories from different dis - specific intervention strategies.
  • Review of Niklas Luhmann, Ecological Communiaction

    Review of Niklas Luhmann, Ecological Communiaction

    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (ASC) Annenberg School for Communication 1991 Review of Niklas Luhmann, Ecological Communiaction Klaus Krippendorff University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers Part of the Communication Commons Recommended Citation Krippendorff, K. (1991). Review of Niklas Luhmann, Ecological Communiaction. Journal of Communication, 41 (1), 136-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02297.x Krippendorff, K. (1991). Review of "Ecological Communication, by Niklas Luhmann. Chicago. IL: University of Chicago Press, 1989." Journal of Communication, 41(1), 136-140. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02297.x This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/527 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Review of Niklas Luhmann, Ecological Communiaction Disciplines Communication | Social and Behavioral Sciences Comments Krippendorff, K. (1991). Review of "Ecological Communication, by Niklas Luhmann. Chicago. IL: University of Chicago Press, 1989." Journal of Communication, 41(1), 136-140. doi: 10.1111/ j.1460-2466.1991.tb02297.x This review is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/527 Society as self-referential Ecological Communication by Niklas Luhmann. Translated by John Bednarz, Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. xviii + 187 pages. $34.95 (hard). A review by Klaus Krippendorff University of Pennsylvania Ecological Communication is important, especially for sociologically oriented communication scholars. The book, published in German in 1986, is one of Niklas Luhmann’s later works, most of which are not available in English. It incorporates many of the more recent developments along the author’s intellectual path and therefore can serve as an introduction to his current thinking.
  • El Pensamiento Filosófico De Humberto Maturana: La Autopoiesis Como Fundamento De La Ciencia

    El Pensamiento Filosófico De Humberto Maturana: La Autopoiesis Como Fundamento De La Ciencia

    ISSN 0798 1015 HOME Revista ESPACIOS ! ÍNDICES ! A LOS AUTORES ! Vol. 38 (Nº 46) Año 2017. Pág. 31 El pensamiento filosófico de Humberto Maturana: La autopoiesis como fundamento de la ciencia The philosophical thinking of Humberto Maturana: Autopoiesis as the foundation of science Alexander ORTIZ Ocaña 1 Recibido: 20/05/2017 • Aprobado: 13/06/2017 Contenido Introducción 1. ¿Quién es Humberto Maturana y cuáles son sus aportaciones epistémicas? 2. Autopoiesis 3. Conclusiones Referencias bibliográficas RESUMEN: ABSTRACT: Este artículo muestra mi reflexión originada por la This article shows my reflection caused by the impact repercusión que tuvo en mi concepción científica, that had on my scientific, epistemological and epistemológica y pedagógica, la lectura de la obra del pedagogical, design the reading of the work of the prestigioso biólogo, filósofo y epistemólogo chileno prestigious biologist, philosopher and epistemologist Humberto Maturana. Se esboza el pensamiento de Chilean Humberto Maturana. Outlines the thinking of Maturana y sus implicaciones para la ciencia, la Maturana and its implications for science, epistemology, epistemología, y sobre todo para la educación. En este and above all for education. In this article I reveal the artículo revelo la ontología, la epistemología y la teoría ontology, epistemology, and the living systems theory de los sistemas vivos propuesta por Maturana. Se proposed by Maturana. The main concepts, proposals analizan de manera detallada las principales and scientific categories that underlie its research, concepciones, propuestas y categorías científicas que mainly the autopoiesis are analyzed in detail. That is subyacen en su investigación, principalmente la why in this article discusses his way of dealing with the autopoiesis.
  • Chinese Public Diplomacy: the Rise of the Confucius Institute / Falk Hartig

    Chinese Public Diplomacy: the Rise of the Confucius Institute / Falk Hartig

    Chinese Public Diplomacy This book presents the first comprehensive analysis of Confucius Institutes (CIs), situating them as a tool of public diplomacy in the broader context of China’s foreign affairs. The study establishes the concept of public diplomacy as the theoretical framework for analysing CIs. By applying this frame to in- depth case studies of CIs in Europe and Oceania, it provides in-depth knowledge of the structure and organisation of CIs, their activities and audiences, as well as problems, chal- lenges and potentials. In addition to examining CIs as the most prominent and most controversial tool of China’s charm offensive, this book also explains what the structural configuration of these Institutes can tell us about China’s under- standing of and approaches towards public diplomacy. The study demonstrates that, in contrast to their international counterparts, CIs are normally organised as joint ventures between international and Chinese partners in the field of educa- tion or cultural exchange. From this unique setting a more fundamental observa- tion can be made, namely China’s willingness to engage and cooperate with foreigners in the context of public diplomacy. Overall, the author argues that by utilising the current global fascination with Chinese language and culture, the Chinese government has found interested and willing international partners to co- finance the CIs and thus partially fund China’s international charm offensive. This book will be of much interest to students of public diplomacy, Chinese politics, foreign policy and international relations in general. Falk Hartig is a post-doctoral researcher at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, and has a PhD in Media & Communication from Queensland Univer- sity of Technology, Australia.
  • Unlocking Luhmann

    Unlocking Luhmann

    Claudio Baraldi, Giancarlo Corsi, Elena Esposito Unlocking Luhmann BiUP General Claudio Baraldi published several works in international books and journals on communication systems. His research concerns interaction systems related to fa- cilitation of children's participation, interlinguistic and intercultural mediation, conflict management. Giancarlo Corsi worked and published intensely on the theory of social systems, public opinion and communication media, education, career and social inclusion. His current research deals with the relationship between public sphere, mass me- dia, and new communication technologies. Elena Esposito published many works on the theory of social systems, media the- ory, memory theory, and sociology of financial markets. Her current research on algorithmic prediction is supported by a five-year Advanced Grant from the Euro- pean Research Council. Claudio Baraldi, Giancarlo Corsi, Elena Esposito Unlocking Luhmann A Keyword Introduction to Systems Theory Translation by Katherine Walker Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche National- bibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http:// dnb.d-nb.de This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 (BY- ND) license, which means that the text may be shared and redistributed, provided credit is given to the author, but may not be remixed, transformed or build upon. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ To create an adaptation, translation, or derivative of the original work, further permis- sion is required and can be obtained by contacting [email protected] Creative Commons license terms for re-use do not apply to any content (such as graphs, figures, photos, excerpts, etc.) not original to the Open Access publication and further permission may be required from the rights holder.
  • 82 Chapter IV Niklas Luhmann's Communicative Systems Theory

    82 Chapter IV Niklas Luhmann's Communicative Systems Theory

    Chapter IV Niklas Luhmann’s Communicative Systems Theory Framework With his concentrated formulations in Ecological Communication (1989), Luhmann deals with ecological communication far more directly than Bateson. In principle, that must make it easier to introduce his framework, especially given the additional facility his highly systematic approach to both writing and composing was supposed to impart. In reality, however, it is no less difficult introducing Luhmann in the current context because of the following factors: One, he has been no less lucky than was Bateson at having been “discovered” and had his general thought introduced by the excellent introducers to his individual books that have been translated into English.1 Two, the temptation to introduce Luhmann’s overall social theory, instead of focusing strictly on his theory of EC, is enormous: The temptation is only transformed into a treacherous pressure because of his systematic style of writing and conceptualization in which each one of his individual philosophical forays is to a great extent a specific replay of his overall philosophy. For example, his theory of EC is, in most ways, a tightly- designed and shortened localization of his larger philosophy of social systems. Three, and in relation to the above, it is also very tempting to introduce the history of systems theory as a whole (part of which I have done already in the earlier part of this essay), make a comprehensive gesture at placing Luhmann’s particular interventions within it (constitutive of his overall systems philosophy), and then to place his theory of EC within the above two. And, four, Luhmann’s work is highly self-referential, obtuse, abstract, and frightfully repetitive! What follows below does not completely resolve the above technical difficulties of introducing—some of which translate, on the whole, into the age-old problem of detecting and managing avoidable detail.