38 research outputs found
The Non-linear Dynamics of Meaning-Processing in Social Systems
Social order cannot be considered as a stable phenomenon because it contains
an order of reproduced expectations. When the expectations operate upon one
another, they generate a non-linear dynamics that processes meaning. Specific
meaning can be stabilized, for example, in social institutions, but all meaning
arises from a horizon of possible meanings. Using Luhmann's (1984) social
systems theory and Rosen's (1985) theory of anticipatory systems, I submit
equations for modeling the processing of meaning in inter-human communication.
First, a self-referential system can use a model of itself for the
anticipation. Under the condition of functional differentiation, the social
system can be expected to entertain a set of models; each model can also
contain a model of the other models. Two anticipatory mechanisms are then
possible: one transversal between the models, and a longitudinal one providing
the modeled systems with meaning from the perspective of hindsight. A system
containing two anticipatory mechanisms can become hyper-incursive. Without
making decisions, however, a hyper-incursive system would be overloaded with
uncertainty. Under this pressure, informed decisions tend to replace the
"natural preferences" of agents and an order of cultural expectations can
increasingly be shaped
Exhumation and uplift of the Sierras Pampeanas: preliminary implications from K–Ar fault gouge dating and low-T thermochronology in the Sierra de Comechingones (Argentina)
Alfred Schutz and ethnomethodology: Origins and departures
The work of Alfred Schutz was an important early influence on Harold Garfinkel and therefore on the development of ethnomethodology. In this article, I try to clarify what Garfinkel drew from Schutz, as well as what he did not take from him, specifically as regards the task of social inquiry. This is done by focusing in detail on one of Schutz’s key articles: ‘Concept and Theory Formation in the Social Sciences’. The aim is thereby to illuminate the relationship between Schutz’s views on the character of social science and Garfinkel’s radical proposal for a re-specified focus of investigation. This is further pursued by examining an important debate about the link between Schutz and ethnomethodology