For much of my life, or at least my life since the introduction of smart phones, iPhones, social media and dizzying broadband speeds, I have heard the opinion about how the world has changed. The ways in which we communicate present-day is vastly different the ways in which my parents, and even their parents before them communicated. The world has changed, this much is true. In order to fully understand change, it is important to understand the theory of how society actually communicates. Widely regarded as one of the most prominent social thinkers of the twentieth century, Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems sees various modes of communication forming subsystems of society. Whilst it is not my intention to make this notebook an architectural one, it is still important to acknowledge that architecture is a major autopoietic system with a very unique societal function. Unique, in that it creates a provision of spaces that frame communication, to order and adapt as a complex system. The spaces we create can be seen as our contribution to society, or framing devices.
As framing is in itself a form of communication, it becomes a necessary precondition for direct interaction. The spaces we create around and within buildings establish important communications that cross the boundaries of architecture and enter other forms of social communication systems. Architecture’s service to society can only prime participants for consequent communicative encounters by setting the scene. Scenes of a pre-constrained range of possible scenarios and conjured anticipations about what is likely to be expected from the likely participants. Architectural spaces are occupied and utilised by social systems and operate as devices that frame communication within those social systems. They may also be used to circulate communication, such as when a building is visited, photographed, or critiqued. As such, buildings and spaces live double lives, as they both participate in the daily communications of its users and in the following discourse.
Luhmann reworked the understanding of communication. This concept, along with the concept of autopoiesis are what have drawn me to study these theories on a deeper level. His ambition was to apply the principles of autopoiesis, which by definition refers to a system of self-making or regeneration, to that of social systems. The theory, which stipulates that the overall societal life-process (understood as a communication process) is no longer integrated vertically via the unitary hierarchy of a stratified social order. Instead, modern society is seen as being distinguished into certain modes of differentiation, specifically: segmentation, centre-periphery differentiation, stratification and functional differentiation. Despite the fact that all modes of societal differentiation occur across all history, Luhmann believed that the major instances of societal development could be marked and identified by their own respective primary mode of differentiation. For example, ancient societies can be identified by segmentation, the first cities demonstrated centre-periphery differentiation, and until the arrival of modernity, stratification was the primary mode of differentiation for all civilisations. Modern society on the other hand is characterised by functional differentiation, but this does not mean the complete disappearance of stratification or older modes of differentiation which still play a subordinate role in many aspects of contemporary social life. Luhmann observes that whilst modern society is primarily differentiated functionally, internal function systems may remain differentiated into segments. Luhmann proposes that we search for new ways of coping with the conditions of this functionally differentiated modern society. The system provides the basis for concepts of modern society in line with a new understanding of the world, whilst also having implications on many other disciplines. As Luhmann admits, there is no longer a binding representation of society within society.
We are living at a time of a functionally different modern society, a world society. The process of communication and interaction is something that we both practice and experience every day and in truth, we would not exist without it. Despite the complex nature of Luhmann’s theories on society, they are still abstract enough for contrasting opinions between individuals. The premises of these theories are bound by an open-mindedness on behalf of Luhmann, rather than a fixed framework for social thinking. His writings open the doors that allow new ways of thinking about society. The notion of a world society, where everything that is social generates society, differs considerably from classical sociology. For Luhmann, the definition of social does not exist outside of society. The paradox of his thoughts, is that modern society can only be described as being functionally differentiated, rather than being held up by societal norms or values. His writings consist of the specific aspects of society, as far as the philosophical studies.
Luhmann pointed out, that if we identify the main systems of everyday life such as politics, economy, science, law, technology, family, education, sports, etc., then we can understand modern society and maintain its complexity. Each of these subsystems operate according to their own logic and are major autonomous systems. Therefore, one system cannot direct or guide the operations of another. Each is a distinct system of communication which has differentiated due to the indispensable societal functions they perform. According to Luhmann “we live in a society which cannot represent its unity within itself, because this would contradict the logic of functional differentiation. We live in a society without a top and without a centre. The unity of society no longer appears within this society”.
These societal functions are the result of an evolutionary process and have not been allocated to their respective function systems through rational decisions. Luhmann’s theory asks the question of each subsystem: which important societal function lies at the heart of each societal subsystem and what is the most important aspect of the emergence of each, as a distinct subsystem and its continuous autonomous existence?
Technology, science, mass media and art are all forms of global systems, every operation that occurs within these systems must take into consideration the fact that what happens in one place on earth is affected by what may happen in another. Certain systems of law and politics can be confined within national borders, and while there are of course international and global examples, the medium of power is somewhat closely linked to their place of origin. The political system is an important feature of society. In Luhmann’s theory it is just one of a list of function systems, but what it does provide is the ability to create collective decisions. However, this does not place the political system at the centre of society or mean that it is above other forms of function systems. This view is in many ways inconsistent with the idea of functional differentiation and the autopoiesis of function systems.
Luhmann’s contribution to society has changed our understanding and meaning of communication. He proposed that we search for new ways of coping under the conditions of modern society. In the search for the potential to recapture the meaning and value of everyday life in its depth, a crack can always be found even in apparently closed systems. Perhaps in order to fully understand the concept of communication it must first be viewed as a problem. Luhmann’s view was that the world of communication could only relate to communication, a move that excludes society from social systems. He provides the thought that the production of social value is dependant on the societal understanding of these values. Social systems created a shift in the perception of the social world as a place of meaning. In the case of classical sociological theories, the question was always about what holds society together, whereas Luhmann asks how this communication continues. Specifically, how communication becomes the basis for complex social structures to evolve, conditioning acceptance and connectivity of communication. Luhmann uses three different forms of social systems to answer these questions and characterise society; interaction systems, organisations and function systems.
There is uncertainty within all social encounters, and social systems can be seen as a way of handling this complexity through the interdependence of choice. After all, communication is the basic operation of all social systems and its nature and complexity is not something that we should endure but welcome. Luhmann’s theory is in relation to the role of social systems in society rather than social differentiation or evolution. All social interaction assumes that a situation has been defined for cooperation. Beyond the possibility of conflict with a given situation, there is also the possibility of conflicting definitions of that particular situation. That is to say that as long as these definitions remain constant, orderly behaviour can be deemed as the result. However, when definitions of interactions or situations are rivalled they can be attributed to an imbalance of social codes.
When a perceived feeling is directed from one person to another, one of the fundamental problems of interaction is encountered and most likely solved, almost everyday. The deeper underlying problem, as highlighted by Luhmann, is that the basic sequence of interaction between ego and alter is as follows: “It is the fact that expectations operate on both sides of the relation between a given actor and the object of his orientation which distinguishes social interaction from orientation to nonsocial objects. The complementarity of expectations, the action of each is oriented to the expectations of the other.” The ‘ego’s’ satisfactions and the humility shown by the ‘alter’ create the double possibility that is fundamental in interaction. The ego’s satisfaction is dependant on its own selection, and the alters reaction dependant on the ego’s selection. Because of this, the communication that is essential to these cultural patterns, would not exist without generalisations from specific situations and the stability of meaning that has been observed by both. This double possibility requires a course of action, and creates the benchmark for a shared symbolic system to act as a means of solving the issue of these double possibilities.
Society has established itself on many interaction systems, but unlike other social systems interaction is one that require presence. A lecture, a meeting, even a short conversation, at one point all these things end. Interaction systems can be remembered but not recreated, they can be referred to in the future, but the likelihood is that they will simply be forgotten. If an interaction system produces specific communications, about money, legal or political situations, then it is possible for these systems to contribute to the continuation of function systems. In contrast to interaction systems, organisations are defined by their longevity and not their presence. Identifying themselves in a formal environment through methods like memberships and other criteria, organisations make it possible to generate huge numbers of interactions.
Modern society is defined as a society of formal organisation. An increased supply of synchronisation is required due to the condition of functional differentiation, and organisations can fulfil this demand throughout society. They do not form “parts” of function systems but to a large degree, their communication is actually function specific. Political parties may use a lot of political communication, but as organisations it is inevitable that they will at some point have to use other modes of communication such as legal or economic methods. The result is the continuation of these individual systems, which illustrates that function systems operate as a different type of social system. One of the characteristics of modern society through functional differentiation is that it can distinguish itself on the basis of communication.
As they are autopoietic, these systems can produce elements from themselves. That is not to say that there will be no communication outside of a particular system as in truth, these systems may discover any other system within their own environment. Despite these links however, it would be quite ambiguous to treat the relationship of each social system as some sort of metaphor for any other. Luhmann’s concepts of functions systems, interaction systems and organisations share little more than mutual observations, and it is only in the case of interaction systems where there is a crossover, in both organisations and function systems.
The domination of functional differentiation simply means the typical order of principles of this differentiation, take order over the likes of stratification. In relation to society, Luhmann instigates that this simply means that various modes of differentiation such as segmentation and stratification are most present within specific function systems. Whilst he indicates that certain function systems can be primarily differentiated into segments, his work does not allow for segmentation, stratification and functional differentiation to be present at the scale of modern society. Although with the warning that society cannot be thought of independently from functional differentiation. The emergence of functionally differentiated systems is not instantaneous and did not happen over night. Instead, functional differentiation builds on and transforms pre-existing structures of society. Historically, society has always established specialised political roles and structures within segmented societies. However, function systems of politics are dependant on clear forms of power-serving to operate as a specific societal function. This function bases itself on the ability to provide society with the opportunity to make conclusive decisions as a collective and does not require any form of bias towards these decisions. However, as it is not defined in a normal sense, this system creates an allowance for a high range of possibilities of decisions. These possibilities include the ability to both endure and also process conflict through communication.
Classical sociology was mainly concerned with how society is actually held together, despite the tendencies of functional differentiation. For Luhmann, this made little or no sense. This question relies on some form of an integrated society that was in fact pre-existing that has deteriorated in the age of Modernity. If however, the question is asked about how all this communication can actually continue, then we can make the assumption that modern society does in fact emerge from functional differentiation. The question of how the historical transition from stratification to functional differentiation occurred can be associated with how society has begun to stabilise over time and process the value of meaning. Functional differentiation did not just appear and lead to the demise of any historical form of society, rather it highlights the arrival of modern society, through the decline of other modes of differentiation, such as stratification. The basic constituents fo Luhmann's theory are consequential and are also the fundamental aspects that differentiate his theories from previous social theories.
These consequences, such as his identification of society as being primarily differentiated functionally, but also as being a closed system that processes communication, and that there is in fact no ranked order between function systems. As there is no hierarchical relationship between function systems, it doesn’t make sense for us to assume that one is more important than the other. In truth, we could not imagine a society without any of these established function systems such as law, politics, art, religion and so on. Another of these consequences is that if society is established by communication, and that this communication cannot occur outside of society, then we can only ever view society as being a “world society”. The reason for this, is that every communication could in essence be connected to any other communication that we may ever have.
Luhmann’s theory of how society can continue communication forms part of other theories of social evolution. This evolution presents itself in the form of connectivity and may in fact say more about the actual developments through which specific forms of differentiation and systems began to emerge. Social differentiation and systems theories establish an important environment for social evolution and are identified by Luhmann as a three step process, this evolution happens within an also through communication. The three steps being variation, selection and re-stabilisation. However, integrating these theories of evolution into society does have implications. Firstly, we are provided with a powerful method that can account for historical change and other possibilities without having to rely on other forms of reductionist ideas. Secondly, by allowing the fundamental possibilities of both positive and negative selections, the theory will provide a shield against society being viewed as some form of device to make predictions with. According to Luhmann, within the materialistic framework of modern society there still remains a significant gap between the present and the future.
Luhmann offers both theory and perspective on how each function system situates itself within modern society. His theory offers a vastly different way to think about society in comparison to traditional sociology and perhaps that is why so many have difficulty in giving an account of his work. His work offers an opportunity to be able to reflect on the particular context of each functionally defined system, whereas in most cases, social sciences tend to generalise their theories. It also provides the opportunity to think about other ways to think about each of these systems both historically and theoretically. The range of potential solutions for the advancement of his theories is far from exhaustion and the abundance of written content that build on his thoughts confirms that. Social communication is the situation of all social relationships, no matter what form that may take. The main theoretical framework of Luhmann’s theories is based around the concept of social differentiation and provide extremely thorough ways of thinking about society. I feel that it is important for us to use, but also to go beyond his theories of social systems in order to analyse individual function systems. Modern society has changed and it is fair to say that we are living at a time of a functionally different, world society. In order to fully understand the complexities of this society however, we must first understand and also appreciate the complexities of communication. Despite the complexity of his writings, they still remain abstract enough to allow for a contrast of opinions. Luhmann’s theories about how specific societal functions operate translate across a number of disciplines, or function systems. His contribution to the field of social science in my opinion, sets him aside from other social thinkers. He reworked our understanding of communication and of the world, whilst providing a theoretical basis for concepts of modern society.