Profile THE LEGACY OF NIKLAS LUHMANN

Gotthard Bechmann and Nico Stehr n some of the many and extensive obituaries advance into new territory. However, a second, Ipublished in European newspapers and maga- reassuring look reveals much that had not been zines in 1999, Niklas Luhmann is remembered as said before—or at least not in this way. In contrast the most important social theorist of the 20th cen- to the essays, which are sometimes experimental tury. Yet in much of the Anglo-Saxon world he is and even playful in tone, and which occasionally virtually unknown among professional social sci- close on a question mark, the book format requires entists. Luhmann was born into a middle-class fam- a more systematic presentation. “The Society of ily in Lüneburg, on December 8, 1927. Society” is the final stone to his theoretical cathe- Following early graduation from high school dral and provides a map for, and a guide to, the (Notabitur), he was conscripted briefly in 1944 understanding of modern theory. and taken prisoner of war by the American Forces. Around this principal work are clustered ear- From 1946 to 1949, he studied in Freiburg, lier, individual analyses: “The Science of Society,” entered public administration and worked for ten “The Economics of Society,” “The Art of Society,” years as an administrative lawyer in Hanover. In “The Law of Society” and the two posthumously 1962 he received a scholarship to Harvard and published books: “The Politics of Society” and “The spent a year with . In 1968, he was Religion of Society.” The introduction to this se- appointed professor of at the newly ries of analyses took the form of a 674-page book established University of Bielefeld, where he bearing the title “Social Systems: The Outline of a worked until his retirement. Shortly before his General Theory.” This work is still the most con- appointment he was asked on what subject he centrated, abstract, and—if one takes the trouble wished to work at university. His reply was: “The to work through it—also most rewarding presen- theory of modern society. Duration 30 years; no tation of the theoretical core. costs.” He consequently realised exactly this theo- We now have a first overall picture at our dis- retical program. At the time of his death in De- posal. If one wishes to do Luhmann , one cember 1998, at the age of 70, he had published has to find one’s bearings within the architecture an oeuvre of over 14,000 printed pages. of his general approach. Apart from these systemic Luhmann’s journey toward a theory of mod- studies, Luhmann also published a slightly less ern society has taken a dual approach: first, in the voluminous series of sociological and historical- form of essays since the end of the 1960s; and semantic analyses. They consist of the four vol- second, in the form of monographs since the umes of “Societal Structure and Semantics” and 1980s, dealing with the individual function sys- the six volumes of “Sociological Enlightenment.” tems of society, such as law, science and art. These studies show Luhmann as a universal Luhmann’s intellectual evolution culminated in scholar, who locates his theory within the histori- 1997 with the publication of his magnum opus cal context of enlightenment and European phi- “The Society of Society.” Anyone suspecting redun- losophy. Apart from this far-reaching research, he dancy and repetition here might feel at first glance also produced a range of political and social analy- that their scepticism is confirmed. This two-vol- ses of modern society, commenting on pressing ume work contains no new subjects, let alone any public problems. We mention only his books “So- previously unpublished approach. To this extent ciology of Risk,” “Ecological ,” “The it is more a completion, a recapitulation, than an Reality of the ” and “The Political

THE LEGACY OF NIKLAS LUHMANN 67 Theory of the Welfare State.” In all, his work con- natural sciences, with their emphasis on causality sists of some 700 publications and countless trans- and the discovery of . lations into English, French, Italian, Japanese, Rus- The concept of society, however, retained its sian and Chinese. holistic claim; emphatically defended, for example, In almost all of his work, Luhmann makes ref- by and developed by Jürgen erence to the operative logic of George Spencer Habermas into a theory of communicative reason. Brown and radical constructivism. These are treated This claim clashed with the understanding of so- in summary fashion in order to sketch the layout ciology as a universal and independent theory of and the conceptual structure of his super-social sys- social entities. Would the mainstream perspective tems theory, endowed with a range of methodologi- within sociology turn society into a social cal instruments won in this way. The theory of like any , but at the same time an all-embrac- politics, sociology of religion, sociology of art, and ing and fundamental system? Sociology has been moral sociology are developed subsequently. unable to escape from this paradox, which it has In our brief intellectual portrait of Niklas countered by repression and historicisation: Social Luhmann, we first deliberately focus on the sub- theory, and particularly critical , has stance of his social theory, especially the ideas largely been left to the disciplinary concerns of found in his last publication; and we refrain from philosophy, which is believed to have the special- advancing a sociology of knowledge perspective ists in holistic claims for the ultimate, fundamen- that attempts to come to grips with—for ex- tal structures of thought and relationships with the ample—the reluctance of Anglo-Saxon social sci- world. If social scientists dealt with the theory of ence to engage Luhmann’s notions as vigorously society, then they did so typically through exegesis and prominently as has been the case not only in of the classics, as if the history of their own disci- his own country, but also in Italy, France, and many pline had the ability to preserve and recall claims. other non-English-speaking societies. This is a Today the exclusion of society from sociology story, and a challenge, that must be left open at seems to be exacting its revenge. Like ’s this time. Second, once we have outlined the ma- repressed world of the gods who celebrate their jor features of Luhmann’s novel system-theoreti- return to the modern world in the form of inces- cal approach, we offer various critical observa- sant conflicts of values, the concept of society is tions and reflections. returning today in a wide diversity of terms, such as “post-industrial society” (Bell), “society of risk” The Characteristics of Modern Society (Beck), “society of knowledge” (Stehr), and “post- For Luhmann, social differentiation and system modern society” (Lyotard); as if one aspect of so- formation are the basic characteristics of modern ciety is capable of standing in for the whole. Such society. This also means that and ad hoc fabrication of terminology reveals what is the theory of society are mutually dependent. In being suppressed: namely, the claim to compre- these terms, a society is not the sum of all current hend society in its totality. interactions, but rather a system of a higher order, So what exactly does this mean for sociology, of a different type, determined by the differentia- Luhmann asks, if we wish to avoid the trap of naïve tion between system and environment; and it is objectivism, which views society as a given ob- exactly this distinction which is the subject of ject that effectively precedes all scientific obser- Luhmann’s two-volume The Society of Society. vation? The implication of the objective point of Luhmann’s key message is this: sociology is ulti- view would be that we have to observe society mately a theory of society, or it is not a science. If from a point outside of society. There is no such we look back at the , this is by point. Science and society are both an expression no means self-evident. On the contrary, at the start of . This is precisely the point where of the last century—and particularly after 1945 classical sociology of knowledge, for example, has in Germany and elsewhere—sociology derived its broken down. It was forced to delegate the ob- identity by concealing its relationship with society. servation of knowledge to a hypothetical, free- It was mainly a theory of social entities, with such floating intelligence that was not subject to any categories as roles, interaction, intention and social distortion of perception due to interests or ide- action forming the basic conceptual framework for ologies. More recently, a number of perspectives a sociology which was increasingly empirical and have come to accept the idea that the act of cog- theoretically inclined to follow the model of the nition is always itself a moment in the totality of

68 SOCIETY • JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2002 cognition. Luhmann shares this approach—and at plies “that we are no longer speaking of objects, the same time pushes beyond it by arguing that but of differences and furthermore that differ- there cannot be an object “society” accessible to ences are not conceived as existing facts (distinc- independent observation. tions), going back instead to an imperative to ex- As soon as we cease to regard society as merely ecute them, since one could otherwise give another sociological object of research and in- nothing a name, thus having nothing to observe stead focus on its operational significance as a and would thus also not be able to continue any- condition for the possibility of sociological cog- thing” (Luhmann, 1997:60). nition itself, then sociology becomes a subject The text of “the social” (like all other texts) is dealing with itself in exactly the sense in which neither self-explanatory nor is it deposited in dis- the subject matter of philosophy speaks of reflec- crete . And it does not possess any consis- tion. Luhmann transfers the structure of the self- tent which is identical with itself, and referential mode of operation by the subject to which one could back to any specific in- the theory of social systems. At the same time, he stance of its creation. Sociology has to labor with- answers the question: How it is possible to prac- out conceiving its domain of objects as a conglom- tice sociology as a theory of society that does not erate of things, analogous to facts possessing a prematurely screen out the connection between fixed shape—whose inter-relationship, moreover, theory and subject? This, according to Luhmann, is ensured in an uniform principle (be it nature, requires a radical rejection of epistemological divine will, morals or a transcendental subject). positions based on the dichotomy of the subject- Under the metaphysical conditions of the mod- object paradigm. Sociology is confronted with ern, a meta-perspective that permits the recogni- society as a subject. Luhmann therefore argues tion of something resembling the natural as the that this requires research into characteristics that invariable essence or the totality of society is no it has always generated itself. Luhmann consis- longer available to the observer. tently posits a radically anti-humanist, non-onto- According to Luhmann’s system-theory ap- logical and radical-constructivist idea of society. proach, the world (as the horizon of possible de- The most radical assumption of Luhmann’s scriptions) is expressed by means of a network mature theoretical approach is his emphasis on of contingent distinctions and labels that always differences, more precisely on distinctions that have to be understood in context. That an observer are no longer seen as objective differences but as may label this as this (and not as that) is due to a constructions. The substitution of the subject con- distinction in which both moments, separated cept and the transfer of the subject/object differ- from each other, can only be understood in rela- entiation into the distinction between system and tion to each other; the distinctive units only pos- environment take Luhmann to a post-ontological sessing their own identity in the to the theory of society, developed on a naturalistic and other. To be able to characterise something as empirical basis as a theory of observation. This fun- something, one has to have already distinguished damental questioning of the modern philosophy of it from its distinctive other: what deserves to be the subject and the resulting distinction between called true, for example, is measured by the dif- the natural sciences and the humanities (together ference from appearance; and to speak of the past with the associated rejection of a humanistic-an- makes sense only with reference to a present that thropocentric concept for defining society) have can be distinguished (constitutively) from it. Even attracted a great deal of criticism, and even more if it is not explicitly raised as an issue, this other incomprehension, of Luhmann’s approach. side of something termed as this or that is always present in every determination of or ges- The of Luhmann’s System Theory ture we make. It is a permanent horizon. It is pos- The concept of the system is Luhmann’s essen- sible to change sides at any time and to bring the tial starting point. In this respect he is exceptional distinguished moment of form (appearance for in German sociology, which at least since Max truth, or the present for the past) into the focus Weber has mainly been action theory. Luhmann’s of attention, making it the point of departure for proposal to describe social phenomena like in- further deliberations. In the interest of a deliber- teractions, organizations or societies as “systems,” ate treatment of self and world, it is inevitable possibly marks this categorical break most em- that we distinguish and label. Such operations are phatically. To think in terms of systems first im- the start of all perception and recognition.

THE LEGACY OF NIKLAS LUHMANN 69 Why distinctions and labels in different con- The complexity of the design of Luhmann’s texts are made in a certain way and not in others theory expresses itself not only through the di- is impossible to determine from the perspective versity of the sociological issues which he is able of systems theory. Distinguishing always takes to tackle with the help of the system-theory ap- place in a medium of lack of forethought and pre- proach, but also in the way that the perspectives vious indeterminacy, endowing each form with vary in their emphasis whenever he presents his the seal of indelible contingency: in principle one general theoretical approach. His Social Systems could have made completely different distinctions. is written primarily from the point of view of the To speak of systems thus means to establish a dif- distinction between system and environment, ference: that between system and environment. while The Science of Society takes the theory of By system, Luhmann means a chain of events observable systems as its starting point, leading related to each other, or of operations. In the case to more epistemological debates about observing of living creatures, for instance, these are physiologi- observation. If one had to choose such a central cal processes; for psychic systems, ideas; and in rela- point of view for The Society of Society, the focus tion to social relationships, . Systems would clearly be on the , in contrast are formed by distinguishing themselves from an to all social subsystems formed through social environment of such events and operations that operations within society. cannot be integrated into their internal structures. In contrast to his early mentor Talcott Parsons, The Difference of Differences who defined systems by means of the presence Luhmann distances himself from what he calls of collectively shared norms and value patterns, the “old European” ontological theoretical tradi- Luhmann proceeds from a system concept shaped tion, hopelessly outmoded in its potential for cap- in a strictly relational manner. His notion relies turing modern society in all its complexity. In on the idea of a constitutive boundary that per- doing so, he is trying to overcome two thousand mits the distinction between inside and outside. years of tradition that, in his view, have been tran- Each operation of a system (in the case of social scended by the process of functional differentia- systems: each communication) (re)produces this tion. He describes the old European style of boundary by embedding itself in a network of thought as concerned with the identification of further operations, in which it at the same time the unity underlying diversity. Society, in the clas- gains its own unity/identity. Therefore, such a con- sical view, consists of subjects of action whose cept of boundary—above all in relation to psy- fundamental unity is based on sharing a common chic and social systems—is not to be understood understanding. Ontology refers to a world exist- spatially, but rather operatively: “The boundary of ing objectively in separation from the subjects the system is nothing but the type and concre- aware of it, capable of unambiguous linguistic tion of its operations which individualise the sys- representation. tem. It is the form of the system whose other side Against this, Luhmann sets a view of a world thus becomes the environment” (Luhmann, that temporalizes, differentiates and decentralizes 1997:76-77.). This operative understanding re- all identities. Identities are products of past events. quires the insight that systems are unable to tran- Unity is no longer the ultimate point of reference scend their own boundaries. of the theory. By relativizing even the ontological Such a research strategy is due to an elemen- scheme of existence/non-existence as but one of tary conviction of the improbability of the emer- many observational schemata, Luhmann attacks gence of social order. Everything could in prin- the foundations of powerful traditions of thought. ciple be different. From Luhmann’s perspective, The paradox, according to Luhmann, is that the social structures have nothing self-evident to old European tradition emerged in a society that them: they require permanent new social con- no longer exists today, either in terms of the sys- struction from the view of their existence and of tem of communication or in terms of forms of their determined shape. In contrast to the func- differentiation. Even so, this tradition remains part tionalism of the Parsonian persuasion, Luhmann and parcel of our historical heritage, and in this is not committed to the preservation of social sense a part of the culture that is relevant for ori- systems. On the contrary, the contingency and entation. It cannot disappear because it no longer complexity of the social is the starting point of fits; it is constantly negated, and has to be avail- all of his theoretical efforts. able for this purpose.

70 SOCIETY • JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2002 Another fundamental distinction emerges here, society. Only after a clear separation has been which Luhmann uses to structure his theory of made between society and humanity is it possible society: namely, the distinction between social struc- to see what belongs to society and what has to ture and semantics. It is characteristic that this dis- be allocated to humanity. This opens up the pos- tinction includes itself, is itself a semantic distinc- sibility of research into humanity, human con- tion, and the problem is precisely to disentangle this sciousness and the functioning of the human mind paradox in a fruitful way. The theory of society is on the basis of empirical-natural measurement. located at two levels: on the semantic level it is dis- The thesis of the separation of social systems (or tinguished from the old European tradition, while systems of society) and physical systems makes on the social structural level reference is made to it possible to understand clearly the relationships evolution, differentiation and media development. between society and humanity and follow them over their historical course. Both are in this sense Societies without People autopoietic systems, one operating on the basis Luhmann introduces three premises into his of consciousness and the other on the basis of analysis of society that have produced not only communication. But what is society? vigorous criticism but also extensive misunder- Society, in an initial approximation, is the com- standing, to the point that accusations of anti- prehensive social system, including everything humanist and cynical reasoning have been raised that is social, and aware of nothing social outside against him: (1) Society does not consist of people. itself. However, everything that is social is identi- Persons belong to the environment of society. (2) fied as communication. Communication “is a genu- Society is an autopoietic system consisting of inely social (and the only jointly social) operation. communication and nothing else. (3) Society can It is genuinely social in that it presupposes a major- only be adequately understood as world society. ity of collaborating systems of consciousness while Banishing people to the environment of soci- (for this very reason) it cannot be assigned as a unity ety completes the decentralization of the human- to any individual consciousness.” Conversely, it is also ist cosmology. Having been evicted from the cen- true that anything practising communication is a ter of the universe in the Renaissance, deprived society. This involves far-reaching definitions. of its unique origin by being placed in the con- text of evolution by Darwin, and stripped of au- Society as Communication tonomy and self-control by Freud, that humanity First, communication is a reality sui generis should now be freed from the bonds of society that can no longer be attributed to something else. by Luhmann appears to be a consistent extension Second, communication is the mechanism that of this trend. Whereas the classical European tra- constitutes society as an autopoietic system and dition, with its distinction between humans and processes it in these terms. The negation of com- animals, ascribed sense, reason, will, conscious- munication is itself communication, and hence the ness and feelings to humans, the inexorable sepa- expression of society. Third, if communication ration of mental and social systems that Luhmann means autopoietic reproduction, this means that substitutes for homo socialis makes it clear that society is a self-substitutive order that can only society is a distinct emerging order sui generis, change in itself and through itself. Communica- which cannot be described in anthropological tion becomes the basic structure of society, where terms. Society does not have the character of a the relationship between communication and subject—even in the emphatic transcendental society is circular: no communication without sense, as a condition of the possibility of ultimate society, no society without communication. But underlying ideas or mechanisms of human quali- what is communication? Or is it no longer pos- ties. It is not an address for human appeals for sible to pose such questions in a post-ontological action, and certainly not a venue for claiming period? equality and justice in the name of an autonomous The simplest answer is that communication is subject. Society is the ultimately attainable com- an operation in precisely the sense that a distinc- municative reduction that divides the indetermi- tion is made. Communicative acts say nothing nate from what is determinable, or processable about the world, and communication reflects from unprocessable complexity. nothing about the world, which is not reflected In a detailed analysis Luhmann traces the in- by communication but rather classified by it. The creasing distinction between the individual and purpose of communication is to create differences

THE LEGACY OF NIKLAS LUHMANN 71 that can then be attached to further communica- boundaries of society with the frontiers of nation tion, forming and stabilising system boundaries. states. Global interdependencies, and the dissolu- But even communication itself is not original, no tion of temporal and spatial constraints by mod- ultimate element, but a synthesis of processing ern and transport technologies, are selections which Luhmann designates informa- steadily depriving a territorially limited definition tion, transmission and comprehension. These three of society of its plausibility. The alternative con- discriminatory operations are binary in structure. cepts of an international system or a transnational Information is selected from shared meaning, society fail, because for all the cultural differen- a reservoir from which things are selected as rel- tiation they stress, they do not arrive at a unity of evant for transmission or forgetting. Completing the resulting differentiation and hence are unable the act of communication is a matter of deciding to explain the “inter” or “trans.” Instead of being a what is represented or accepted or rejected, not successor to the tradition of the societas civilis understood. Transferred to the social system, it findet they merely describe the growing diver- could be said that information can be seen as ex- sity, the complexity and the growth in available ternal reference, transmission as self-reference and options. If the world is no longer understood as comprehension as a condition for the transfer of the collection of all visible and direct objects, as the meaning in further communication. The syn- the aggregatio corporum, what is left of the com- thesis of these three selections is a self-referen- mon sense that makes it possible to speak of a tial, closed event. This enables Luhmann to make world society? clear the self-constitution of what is social. If what Luhmann bases his conception on an essen- is social is nothing more than communication, this tially commonplace observation. The final explo- also implies that it consists of this autopoietic ration of the earth, and perhaps the exploration process which has its own inherent dynamic. The of space, has made it evident that the world is a environment is then only a stimulus, not a real closed, communicative complex. In principle, any source of information. Comprehension accord- point on the globe is accessible to communica- ingly means a not arbitrary networking of com- tion, despite all the technical, political or geo- municative events by the self-referential commu- graphical obstacles. World society is the self- nication process. Repeated discussion forms eventuation of the world in communication. identities that constitute boundaries. This definition acquires plausibility if we in- Society, or what had previously been under- clude the vital future focus of modern society stood as society in sociology, is now liberated from within our view. Historically, there may be a all substantial determinations. It is not a moral distinction between the individual territories, unity, not based on consensus or any rational in- but one thing they all share now is that the tegration (of whatever kind); it is formed solely future can only be regarded as a unity. “World” by ongoing communication. Accordingly it makes then means exactly this reference in the com- no sense to talk of such distinctions as economy/ munication structure of the fully differentiated society or science/society, since politics, econom- functional systems, so that “world” as the total ics, and law cannot be regarded as something horizon of sensory experience is not an aggre- outside and separate from society, but are acts of gate, but rather a correlate, of the communicative society in their communicative operations. For operations occurring in it. Luhmann, society therefore consists of the total- Epistemologically speaking, this shift has far- ity of those operations, which do not make a dis- reaching implications. Society is only observable tinction by virtue of the fact that they make a within itself, and can be regarded as a unity in distinction. This relegates to secondary theoreti- different ways without being able, through decom- cal status all assumptions about understanding, position, to arrive at a “genuine” jointly observ- progress, rationality and other goals. able world. We will always end up with new dis- tinctions, with constructions. For Luhmann the Society as World Society social-structural location of the theory of obser- In his third determination of society—namely, vation is secondary. Second-order observation the definition of society as world society— means locating an observer in the world who Luhmann again deliberately places himself in con- observes others and generating the various ver- trast to the old European tradition. He avoids a sions of the world (including our observer)—al- territorial definition of society that identifies the though we can only do so in one world.

72 SOCIETY • JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2002 Theories of Theories inherent in traditional terminology. Luhmann’s But how can society document itself without terminology in the theoretically most demanding coming into contradiction with itself, and particu- part of this works is devoid of classical associa- larly without recourse to transcendental refer- tions and connotations. If the of ences outside itself? In the last chapter of The Luhmann’s studies is not be abandoned due to Society of Society, under the title “Self-descrip- sheer resignation, frustration or even anger, then tions,” Luhmann deals with the intricate relation- his terminology requires considerable tolerance ship between theory and subject. Can theory ex- from readers not familiar with the terminology plain its own location within the process of of systems theory. society? And if it can, does it not regard society to Luhmann’s strict, austere artificial language is a certain extent from without, although this is not due to any affectation but rather to the strin- possible within society in the capacity of com- gency of his theoretical program—and this pro- munication? Here, we are reminded (not entirely gram has to keep its distance from the implica- inappropriately) of Escher’s hand drawing itself, tions of the semantics of traditional European generating itself and its own image in the course social theory. In this respect one should take seri- of its own operation. Luhmann follows a similar ously the penultimate sentence of the “Society of line: “Just like self-observations, self-descriptions Societies,” according to which an adequate mod- (generation of texts) are individual operations of ern theory of society requires the sacrifice of the the system. In fact, descriptions and what is de- mere pleasure of recognition and the judging of scribed are not two separate objects which are theory construction on its own merits. only externally linked—with a self-description, This does not imply that reading Luhmann’s what is described is always part of what it is de- theory is simply a struggle with nominal construc- scribing and it changes it simply by the fact that tions and cascades of abstract terms; in between it appears and subjects itself to observation.” one finds analyses of traditional European seman- Sociology, then, is always the construction of tics, in which Luhmann attempts to clarify why the unity of the system within the system itself, they are no longer adequate for the structural facts never reaching an end to this process. This insight of modern society. Again and again there are prompts Luhmann to avoid any conclusions for pointed and paradoxical formulations, in which his own theory. Although there is a particularly the fruits of the switch in theory formation from close relationship here with Hegel, who also gave first-order observation to second-order observa- the absolute a self-referential character by regard- tion are bundled as under a magnifying glass. An ing the system as entirely self-referential—where example of this would be when Luhmann says of nothing can be external because everything ex- memory that its true function for society consists ternal has become an aspect of its self-differen- not of storage, but rather of forgetting; or when tial—Luhmann leaves this tradition exactly at this he conceives of information as a product of de- point by translating it into a cybernetic vocabu- cay that disappears by being updated. lary and hence overcoming it. Nor is society a Such paradoxes are more than skilful plays on subject in the anthropological-interactive sense, words: they provide entry points to the as Adorno still viewed it despite all his criticism constructivist core of Luhmann’s societal theory, of philosophy: Society is “a coagulated relation- which consists of the fact that all observation is ship between people.” Humanity is not the ulti- based on paradox to the extent that it relies on mate element in society, nor can society still be distinctions upon which it cannot reflect as a described within the classical cognitive model of uniform whole. The unity of the world as the unity subject-object; because the self-referentiality of of society, according to Luhmann, cannot be as- society itself causes this duality to collapse, since serted as a principle but simply as a paradox— cognition seeks intersubjective certainty on the this too is a consequence of the loss of meaning part of the subject and presupposes stable objects. of traditional semantics. Society is in any case not such a stable object. But is the loss of meaning of old European se- mantics truly compelling in the face of the four Critical Reflections volumes by Luhmann on the subject of “structure According to Luhmann’s approach, only radi- of society and semantics”? Or, is it at least rein- cal constructive semantics provide sufficient dis- forced well by methodology? One can doubt that tance to prevent succumbing to the suggestions this is so, since Luhmann is forced to fall back on

THE LEGACY OF NIKLAS LUHMANN 73 socio-structural developments to be able to es- communication, as described by Luhmann, really tablish the loss of significance of socio-political plausible? Unfortunately, Luhmann at no point semantics. This circularity is probably the weak makes reference to ’s concept of point in Luhmann’s theory of society. Of course, spheres of justice: Within this concept, what this did not escape Luhmann, but the solutions Luhmann has described as the appropriate self- he suggested were not particularly consistent. description of modern societies is described as They stretch from the admittance of circularity as their permanently-to-be-achieved norm, as the an inevitable pre-requisite of theory formation— measure of justness that is permanently threat- which traditional European semantics were only ened by the domination of—to use Luhmann’s able to avoid by recourse to metaphysical construc- term—component systems. tions, such as God, nature or reason—to the claim This closes the circle for a major train of that semantic changes were subject to structural thought, so that what initially appeared a para- change at considerable distance, as a result of dox—namely, that the self is at the same time what which semantics are suddenly again in the posi- is different—emerges as a complete theory of tion of verbally depicting facts. But is it really true society that also includes reflection on its own that social change precedes cognitive change, or location in society, and regards society in this are there also cases where the opposite is true? sense as a unity capable of self-modification. If Luhmann analysed the change from traditional we take this strictly intra-social perspective seri- European society to modern society by using ously, accepting that any communication about three dimensions, to each of which he dedicates society can only take place within society, then three main chapters of his societal theory (“The there is no location for critical reflection on soci- Society of Society”): first, the social dimension, ety external to society, where society can be re- which Luhmann conceives as that of communi- garded as an object. This description of society in cation and media, constituted only by the distinc- society is no longer based on the concept of the tion between Ego and Alter (deliberately avoid- subject or seen from the standpoint of transcen- ing the traditional European semantics of person dental rationality. It is the tautological operation and subject); second, the temporal dimension, in of communication itself. Society is society’s for- which past and future are separated, and which mula for the self-description of social unity. An Luhmann terms evolution—definitely not emphatic definition of sociology would here seek progress, since there is no guiding medium among the unity of this difference in order to distinguish the various media and the functional differentia- what is actual, what is essential. The unity of soci- tion of society has no guiding system; and third ety would then be a society that has arrived at and finally, the factual dimension, which Luhmann itself, corresponding to its ideal. Tradition has re- comprehends as functional differentiation, and in served the label “enlightenment” for this, and which we are concerned with determining the measured existing society against this claim. So- system and the environment. These are not, how- ciological explanation of enlightenment must ever, stable distinctions, that which constitutes abandon these claims, since this position can still environment depending instead on the compo- be observed, even if only from the point of view nent system concerned, on science or the of second-order observation. The contingency of economy, law or education. And this also changes the world cannot be reversed in this sense, be- during the evolution of the component systems. cause belongs to the very Decisive for Luhmann’s theory of society is the thing that it is analysing, namely society. assertion that there is no dominance of any com- The true meaning of sociology would hence ponent system in the dimension of functional dif- be that it is set free to engage in this type of self- ferentiation, for instance of politics; that in the di- description in order to modify the semantic lega- mension of communication, no dominant medium cies of tradition to the changed social structural may be recognised; and furthermore, that the lack relationships in the process of “re-description.” of guiding systems and dominant media is the de- This bridges the second major distinction be- finitive characteristic of modern society. This is also tween semantics and . Modern the reason why traditional European semantics can society, through functional differentiation, gener- no longer adequately describe a modern society. ates the compulsion to self-observation and so But is the loss of measure due to the conver- changes all the thematic elements. This brings sion of norms and values into forms of societal to the point where the past be-

74 SOCIETY • JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2002 comes material for present descriptions that cre- observe all previous forms of reflection, such as ate new forms through re-description and thus religion, philosophy and science. become self-perpetuating constructions. However, Luhmann’s theory of society, it could be argued, it is not a question of looking back nostalgically offers a way that leads, through the latest scien- on what has passed, but rather of awareness of tific methods and on a strictly theoretical basis, semantics, which is permanently renewing itself. to a rich theory of modern society. Luhmann The decisive thing is the difference, and not the opens up links for sociology with other sciences, unity of an all-seeing observer. In this sense and this enables him to integrate a flow of new Luhmann’s theory is a post-ontological theory that research into his theory. Two groups of problems proceeds in an empirical and operational manner, might be examined in further pursuit of a theory and is still facing its practical test. of society. First, we can ask if we share Luhmann’s At the same time, the question remains: How description of the problem of proceeding consis- far does the merciless of the con- tently from an intra-social constitution of theory. cept of the subject and its replacement by the This will already settle a great deal. Second, we concept of the self-referential, closed, autopoietic need to review his solution of regarding a theory system—which is no longer a special object but of society as a theory of social systems, or replace instead perceived as the difference between sys- it by a reasonable alternative. As we are in any event tem and environment—create a distance from the no longer required to reach final conclusions, it is old European tradition and its contradictions? Does now a matter of finding usable continuations, since the emphasis on the category of difference as the it is clear that even after Luhmann there will still be key sociological concept constitute a suitable reac- sociological and other descriptions of society. The tion to the antinomies of an ultimately still anthro- question is merely whether they will reach the pological configuration of sociology, based on the level and degree of complexity displayed in fundamental notion of an unresolved subject and Luhmann’s work, especially in his last monograph. using humanity, its and freedom as As Adorno said: “Only a mature theory of society the ultimate decisive principles of orientation? can say what society is.” Perhaps Luhmann’s ap- Further discussion will show how far the radi- proach has taken us a step closer to this. cal shift in theory from identity to difference con- stitutes a replacement for the tradition of think- SUGGESTED FURTHER ing in terms of unity or totality. In its place Luhmann sets the theory of second-order obser- Luhmann, Niklas Observations on Modernity. Stanford, vation, which is intended to eliminate all transcen- California: Stanford University Press, 1998. dental premises and leaves as the ultimate refer- Luhmann, Niklas Social Systems. Stanford, California: ences descriptions of descriptions and Stanford University Press, 1995. observations of observations, which abolish privi- Luhmann, Niklas Risk: A Sociological Theory. N ew Yo rk : leged standpoints and conclusions. In this sense Aldine de Gruyter, 1993. sociology organises itself as research. The fertil- Luhmann, Niklas Essays on Self Reference. N ew Yo rk: ity of the present theoretical design will have to Columbia University Press, 1990. prove itself in terms of how far it helps us to trans- Luhmann, Niklas Ecological Communication. Chicago: form the traditional legacies into contingencies, University of Chicago Press, 1989. so that they can be reused “as a medium for shap- ing new forms gained through reconstruction” Gotthard Bechmann is senior research associate (Luhmann, 1998:1148). At this point Luhmann in the Institute for Technology Assessment and Sys- remains linked to the old European tradition— tems Analysis in the Karlsruhe Research Center, Ger- only the degree of distance is still in dispute. many. Among his recent publications are Risiko und Luhmann returns an issue to sociology that it Gesellschaft and Interdisziplinäre Risikoforschung has almost forgotten: scientific and reflected dis- (with Gerhard Banse). Nico Stehr is professor emeri- cussion of society. Just as biology and physics do tus of sociology, University of Alberta, Canada and not depend on their basic concepts alone, so so- a fellow in the Center for Advanced Cultural Studies ciology is not just social theory. However, if it in Essen, Germany. Among his recent book publica- wants to provide information on its foundations tions are The Fragility of Modern Societies: Knowl- and its position in society, it can hardly avoid so- edge and Risk in the Information Age and Knowl- cial theoretical reflections; if only because it is edge and Economic Conduct: The Social Foundations able, by virtue of its function within society, to of the Modern Economy.

THE LEGACY OF NIKLAS LUHMANN 75