Discussion
Luhmann’s ideas are comprehensive and far reaching, and often stated in opaque phrases, which makes it difficult to get into his social theory. Obviously, a body of work of this breadth arouses criticisms, of which a few are discussed here.
Can we really assume that there are social systems whose sole purpose is to reproduce? Although autopoietic systems remained an undercurrent in all his work, the observation turn shifted the emphasis to second-order observations. This marked a shift from ontology to epistemology, which will be further discussed in Expertise Management Methodology.
There is not much room for space in which social systems are embedded. Spatial considerations are part of the environment and are hardly taken into account because the emphasis lies on the self-production of the system. This is not to say that Luhmann’s social theory is broken in this regard, it just does not get much attention.
Social systems and psychic systems interpenetrate to produce communications and thoughts as their autopoietic elements to sustain. This is a rather impoverished way to look at human beings in the sense that it stresses rationality and omits interaction aspects, such as affection and emotions, that make us human in a co-dependent society. This drawback has been remedied in cybersemiotics by adding biosemiotics to second-order cybernetics and Luhmann's communication theory.
The adherence to one binary code seems overly strict. Why can a social system not have multiple binary codes? And for that matter, is a binary code (true or false) a useful distinction in the first place, or is it better to discern shades between the two opposites? All in all, the concept of a single binary code seems to complicate matters rather than providing the means to reduce complexity.
In conclusion, Luhmann’s social theory is highly influential, but also highly theoretical and abstract. This is an asset as well as a shortage. It is a comprehensive theory with which social intricacies can be analyzed. However, because of its abstractness, the theory is not easy to put in practice. For instance, there are no methods and tools provided to make progress in specific situations. Also, the terminology used is very remote from everyday practice, e.g., a social system communicates in order to reproduce itself as opposed to a more natural notion of people performing activities and interacting with each other. But still, the appliance of the ideas put forward by Luhmann give deep insights in what constitutes a society. If only these ideas could be applied in everyday practice would make them even more valuable. And this is the subject matter discussed in the Expertise Management Methodology (EMM).
- Lees hiervoor:
- Lees hierna: