Economics of gift - positivity of justice : the mutual paranoia of Jacques Derrida and Niklas Luhmann

S.a. Deutsche Fassung: Ökonomie der Gabe - Positivität der Gerechtigkeit: Gegenseitige Heimsuchungen von System und différance. In: Albrecht Koschorke und Cornelia Vismann (Hg.) System - Macht - Kultur: Probleme der Systemtheorie. Akademie, Berlin 1999, 199-212. Auch auf unserem Server vorhanden. * Italienische Fassung: Economia del dono, positività della giustizia: la reciproca paranoia di Jacques Derrida e Niklas Luhmann. Sociologia e politiche sociali 6, 2003, 113-130. Portugiesische Fassung: Economia da dádiva ? posividade da rustica; ?assombracao?? mutua entre sistema e différance. In: Gunther Teubner, Direito, Sistema, Policontexturalidade, Editora Unimep, Piracicaba Sao Paolo, Brasil 2005, 55-78

‘Blinded Me with Science’: Motifs of Observation and Temporality in Lacan and Luhmann

All Rights ReservedIn taking up the topic of cybernetics in 1955, a field then exerting influence on everything from telecommunications to public health management (see Heims), Jacques Lacan proposed the rubric of "conjectural sciences" for all those sciences of combination, where "[w]hat's at issue is the place, and what does or doesn't come to fill it, something then which is strictly equivalent to its own inexistence" (Seminar, Book II 299). This "science of the combination of places as such" is, to be sure, distinct from the exact sciences, which always focus on "what is found at the same place" (299). The exact sciences, in other words, deal with positivities, the conjectural sciences with probabilities. It is, indeed, to Pascal's arithmetic triangle that Lacan turns when he wishes to trace the origins of this science of combinations: "If this is how we locate cybernetics, we will easily find it ancestors, Condorcet, for instance, with his theory of votes and coalitions, of parties, as he says, and further back again Pascal, who would be its father, and its true point of origin" (296)

Communicative Competencies and the Structuration of Expectations: The creative tension between Habermas' critical theory and Luhmann's social systems theory

I elaborate on the tension between Luhmann's social systems theory and Habermas' theory of communicative action, and argue that this tension can be resolved by focusing on language as the interhuman medium of the communication which enables us to develop symbolically generalized media of communication such as truth, love, power, etc. Following Luhmann, the layers of self-organization among the differently codified subsystems of communication versus organization of meaning at contingent interfaces can analytically be distinguished as compatible, yet empirically researchable alternatives to Habermas' distinction between "system" and "lifeworld." Mediation by a facilitator can then be considered as a special case of organizing historically contingent translations among the evolutionarily developing fluxes of intentions and expectations. Accordingly, I suggest modifying Giddens' terminology into "a theory of the structuration of expectations.

Towards a sociology of ethics and morality: a comparison between Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann.

Lo, Kai Ching.Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2007.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 214-221).Abstracts in English and Chinese.Acknowledgement --- p.viAbstract --- p.viiiINTRODUCTION --- p.1Chapter I. --- The Problem: A Brief Introduction --- p.1Chapter I.a. --- Research Problems --- p.1Chapter I.b. --- The Subject Matters --- p.2Chapter I.e. --- Conceptualization of the Subject Matters --- p.3Chapter I.d. --- "The Orientation of the Research: Habermas, Luhmann, and Theory" --- p.6Chapter I.e. --- Outline of the Research Result --- p.13Chapter II. --- The Context --- p.17Chapter II.a. --- Ethics and Morality in Modern Society --- p.17Chapter II.b. --- Ethics and Morality in Sociology --- p.19Chapter II.b.l. --- Durkheim and Weber: Conception of Ethics and Morality --- p.20Chapter II.b.2. --- Successions and Revisions of Durkheim's and Weber's Perspectives --- p.25Chapter II.b.3. --- Habermas's and Luhmann's Breakthrough --- p.29Chapter III. --- The Framework --- p.31Chapter III.a. --- The Use of Metatheory --- p.31Chapter III.b. --- The Limitation of this thesis --- p.33Chapter PART I. --- HABERMAS AND LUHMANN AS THE EXEMPLARS OF SOCIOLOGICAL INQUIRIES OF ETHICS AND MORALITY --- p.35Chapter Chapter 1: --- Habermas's Discourse Ethics and The Theory of Communicative Action --- p.37Chapter 1.1. --- Discourse Ethics --- p.38Chapter 1.1.1. --- Discourse Ethics as the Sociology of Ethics and Morality --- p.40Chapter 1.1.2. --- The Logic of Discourse Ethics --- p.46Chapter 1.1.3. --- Morality and Ethical Life: From Philosophy and Politics to Sociology --- p.53Chapter 1.2. --- The Theory of Communicative Action: The Sociological Foundation of Discourse Ethics --- p.61Chapter 1.2.1. --- The Paradox of Rationalization and the Paradigmatic Change --- p.63Chapter 1.2.2. --- Universal Pragmatics: The Foundation of Moral Order --- p.65Chapter 1.2.3. --- Communicative Rationality and the Life world: The Redemption of Moral Order --- p.71Chapter 1.2.4. --- Communicative Action and Strategic Action: The Possibility of Immorality --- p.75Chapter 1.2.5. --- Ideal Speech Situation: The Unavoidable Cognitive and Normative Condition of Social Life --- p.78Chapter 1.3. --- Concluding Remarks --- p.81Chapter Chapter 2 --- : Luhmann's The Code of the Moral and Systems Theory --- p.84Chapter 2.1. --- The Code of the Moral --- p.84Chapter 2.1.1. --- The Code of the Moral as the Sociology of Ethics and Morality --- p.86Chapter 2.1.2. --- Features of the Code of the Moral --- p.91Chapter 2.2. --- Systems Theory: Approaching a Non-normative Social Order --- p.100Chapter 2.2.1. --- Complexity and Binary Schematism: The Basic Settings of the World --- p.101Chapter 2.2.2. --- The Theory of Observation and Self-Reference: The Epistemological and Ontological Foundation of Systems Theory --- p.107Chapter 2.2.3. --- System/Environment Distinction and Autopoiesis: A New Conception of System --- p.117Chapter 2.2.4. --- Communication and Action: An Amoral Interpretation --- p.122Chapter 2.2.5. --- Double Contingency and Interpenetration: From Patterned Moral Order to Reflexive Amoral Order --- p.130Chapter 2.3. --- Concluding Remarks --- p.139Chapter PART II. --- FORMATION OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF ETHICS AND MORALITY: A METATHEORETICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN HABERMAS AND LUHMANN --- p.142Chapter Chapter 3: --- A Comparison between Habermas and Luhmann --- p.144Chapter 3.1. --- On Subject and the Individual --- p.144Chapter 3.1.1. --- On Subject --- p.144Chapter 3.1.2. --- On Human Individual --- p.146Chapter 3.2. --- On Communication and Action --- p.151Chapter 3.2.1. --- The Role of Language in Communication and Action --- p.154Chapter 3.2.2. --- The Meaning of Understanding in Communication and Action --- p.156Chapter 3.3. --- On Meaning and Value --- p.160Chapter 3.3.1. --- On Meaning --- p.160Chapter 3.3.2. --- On Value --- p.163Chapter 3.4. --- On Ethics and Morality --- p.169Chapter 3.4.1. --- Presuppositions --- p.170Chapter 3.4.2. --- Methodologies --- p.174Chapter 3.4.3. --- The Subject Matters and Their Level of Analysis --- p.179Chapter 3.4.4. --- Concluding Remarks --- p.183Chapter 3.5. --- On Humanism and Enlightenment --- p.184Chapter 3.6. --- On Society --- p.189Chapter 3.6.1. --- Identity and Difference --- p.189Chapter 3.6.2. --- The Constitution of Social Order --- p.191Chapter 3.6.3. --- Lifeworld and System --- p.192Chapter 3.6.4. --- "Rationality, Morality, and Normality" --- p.193Chapter 3.6.5. --- Descriptions of Modern Society --- p.196Chapter 3.7. --- The Nature of Sociology --- p.200Chapter 3.7.1. --- Methodology --- p.200Chapter 3.7.2. --- Sociology and Society --- p.201Chapter 3.8. --- Social Implications --- p.203Chapter 3.9. --- Concluding Remarks: Metatheoretical Reflections on the Sociology of Ethics and Morality --- p.206Concluding Reflections: Prospects for the Sociology of Ethics and Morality --- p.210Bibliography --- p.21

Functionalism and theoretical humanism: a comparison between Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann.

Chen Hon-fai.Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2001.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 256-261).Abstracts in English and Chinese.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS --- p.iiiABSTRACT --- p.ivINTRODUCTION: PARSONIANISM IN CONTEXTChapter I. --- The Context: Parsons Revival and the Reading of Parsons --- p.1Chapter II. --- The Problem: Relationship between Parsons' Structural-Functionalism and Luhmann's Neo-Functionalism --- p.13Chapter III. --- "Interpretive Perspective: Theory, Methodology and Presupposition" --- p.31Chapter CHAPTER 1 --- ANALYTICAL REALISM AND VOLUNTARISM: PARSONS´ة ACTION THEORY IN THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL ACTIONChapter 1.1 --- Analytical Realism --- p.49Chapter 1.2 --- Action Frame of Reference --- p.62Chapter CHAPTER 2 --- EMERGENCE AND FUNCTIONALISM: PARSONS´ة SYSTEM THEORY IN THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL ACTION --- p.90INTERLUDE PARSONS̐ơ THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT AFTER THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL ACTIONChapter I. --- From Voluntarism to Structural-Functionalism --- p.116Chapter II. --- From Structural-Functionalism to Systems Functionalism --- p.131Chapter CHAPTER 3 --- SELF-REFERENCE AND FUNCTIONALISM: LUHMANN̐ơS SYSTEM THEORY IN SOCIAL SYSTEMSChapter 3.1 --- Introduction --- p.147Chapter 3.2 --- The Methodological Principle of Self-Reference --- p.150Chapter 3.3 --- Double Contingency and the Formation of Self-Referential Social System --- p.165Chapter CHAPTER 4 --- SELF-REFERENCE AND ANTI-HUMANISM: LUHMANN'S ACTION THEORY IN SOCIAL SYSTEMSChapter 4.1 --- Self-Reference of Communication and its Attribution to Voluntaristic Action --- p.195Chapter 4.2 --- Interpenetration and Anti-Humanism --- p.218CONCLUSION: LUHMANNIANISM ON TRIAL --- p.239BIBLIOGRAPHY --- p.25

The evolution of the public sphere

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to rethink the issue of publicity from a cross-cultural and evolutionary perspective. Design/methodology/approach: Assuming that there is a dominant paradigm in the studies of the public sphere centered on Habermas’ ideas, media theory (and especially Luhmann who is considered as a media theorist) is selected as a new context that provides different concepts, ideas, language games and metaphors that allow the re-foundation of the study of publicity. Findings: Publicity as a social structure emerges – and acquires different forms during history – out of the complex dynamics resulting from the interaction between success media, such as power, and different kinds of dissemination media. Originality/value: A research into the forms of publicity not only promotes awareness of the ubiquity of the phenomenon across cultural evolution, but also offers tools to make new discoveries and systematize what is already known about the subject and its ramifications.Fil: Blanco Rivero, José Javier. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Departamento de Ciencias Sociales. Centro de Historia Intelectual; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in postmodernity : a grounded systemic analysis of children's rights educational policies in Scotland and Canada

As a contribution towards the UN Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004), this qualitative, comparative policy study investigated the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) within the Scottish and Canadian educational systems. The researcher adopted an inductive, grounded methodology which is argued to be most congruent when building theory is the chief aim (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 2005). During 20 months of fieldwork, 50 key informant interviews were obtained in Geneva, New York, Scotland and Canada. The author contends that postmodern thinking has contributed much towards contemporary childhood research, yet an underlying deconstruction of the CRC constrains theoretical development. To address this breakdown of overarching leitmotifs within the social sciences (Esping-Andersen, 2000), the sociology of human rights is utilised as a conceptual framework (Luhmann, 1965, 1982, 1997; Q'Byrne, 2003; Verschraegen, 2002). Furthermore, through the integration of grounded and autopoietic coding (Glaser, 2005), the interview texts revealed six thematic categories that contradict dominant theoretical approaches in the child rights literature. While descriptive and comparative analyses revealed the study's core category of participation, an interpretive analysis further yielded its core distinction of power. The author argues that Scottish efforts to implement the CRC within educational policies are more widespread than any of those currently underway within Canadian jurisdictions (Mitchell, 2002, 2003a, b). Finally, a grounded systemic child rights model developed from the study's methodological and epistemological integration illustrates how CRC knowledge and power are balanced within and across educational systems (Mitchell, 2005)

System and Lifeworld in Habermas\u27s Theory of Law

Jürgen Habermas\u27s recent work on law and democracy divides into two parts. With his discourse theory of law and democracy, Habermas seeks to explain the conditions under which modern constitutional legal and political orders may claim legitimacy. Here Habermas\u27s method is primarily philosophical and legal-theoretical. The second part of the project – the part on which this article focuses – develops what Habermas calls his communication theory of society. Here Habermas seeks to translate the normative conclusions of his discourse theory into a substantive social-theoretical model. The idea is to determine whether the ambitious normative theory of democracy is plausible under contemporary conditions of social complexity. Habermas\u27s presentation of the communication theory of society is difficult to understand, partly because he invokes, without much explanation, the two-level theory of society that he developed in his work of the 1970s and 1980s. I return to that work to excavate the basic concepts of communicative action, system, and lifeworld. I discuss the model of society developed in that earlier body of work – a model of interchange between the normatively rich lifeworld and the money- and power-driven economic and administrative systems. My account is critical. Each distinction on which Habermas relies to construct the interchange model is drawn too sharply, and the resulting model makes the normative ideal Habermas consistently has defended – radical democracy – literally inconceivable. The more recent work on law professes continued loyalty to the system/lifeworld conception of society. But at the same time, it develops a different model – the model of the circulation of power – that is designed to show the possibilities for, and resistances, to radical democracy. I argue that the new model is irreconcilable with Habermas\u27s earlier and unretracted conceptions of system and system/lifeworld interchange. The unacknowledged amendments are significant improvements, I argue, but one effect is to leave the notion of social systems unclearly theorized. I suggest in the final part of the article that Habermas could shore up his system conception by selectively and critically appropriating insights from a more recent version of social systems theory – the autopoietic theory of Habermas\u27s longtime theoretical sparring partner, Niklas Luhmann

Problems with the system-lifeworld binary in Habermas's thought

Dès l'apparition de la Théorie de l'agir communicationnel, les philosophes critiquent le modèle système/monde vécu. Cette théorie de la société repose sur la nouvelle théorie habermassienne de la pragmatique universelle et de son appropriation à la théorie des systèmes de Talcott Parsons. La plupart de ces critiques doutent de la viabilité théorique de d'un modèle binaire de la société. Toutefois, dans cette thèse, je constate l'impossibilité de réconcilier cette nouvelle conception de la société avec les positions politiques antérieures d'Habermas. Il est improbable qu'Habermas aurait pu participer à ces débats tout en défendant sa théorie binaire de la société. Finalement, je constate l'impossibilité de réconcilier ce nouveau modèle théorique avec la théorie du droit développée dans Droit et démocratie. J'arrive à la conclusion suivante : le modèle système/monde vécu doit être modifié ou abandonné