Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Social Systems Theory 2012 #2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Social Systems Theory 2012 #2

5,996

Published on

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
0 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
5,996
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
24
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
82
Comments
0
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Social Systems Theory#2 Emergence of Communication as an Event Takashi Iba Associate Professor Faculty of Policy Management Keio University
  • 2. http://www.mt-online.de/start/letzte_meldungen_aus_der_region/4219080_Bielefeld_Universitaet_Bielefeld_erwirbt_Nachlass_von_Luhmann.html Niklas Luhmann
  • 3. “Thus the theory’s design resembles a labyrinthmore than a freeway off into the sunset.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Preface p.lii, l.3
  • 4. “This theory design pushes the presentation tounusually high levels of abstraction. Our flightmust take place above the clouds, and we mustreckon with a rather thick cloud cover. We mustrely on our instruments.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Preface p.lii, l.3
  • 5. “Abstraction, however, should not bemisunderstood as pure artistry or as a retreatto a "merely analytically" relevant, formalscience. ... abstraction is an epistemologicalnecessity.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Preface p.lii, l.3
  • 6. Social Systems Theory Studying a sociological theory, Social Systems Theory,proposed by Niklas Luhmann Understanding what’s happening in the information society Learning about the media for social change
  • 7. Social Systems Theory (2012 Spring) #1 [Apr 9] Introduction #2 [Apr 16] Emergence of Communication as an Event #3 [Apr 23] Media and Code for Communication #4 [May 1] Modern Society #5 [May 7] Autopoiesis and Structural Coupling #6 [May 14] Voice and Exit for Social Change #7 [May 21] Scenario Planning: Learning by Making Stories of Future #8 [May 28] Pattern Language, part I: Media for User Participation #9 [Jun 4] Pattern Language, part II: Way of Organizational Change #10 [Jun 11] Creative Collaboration:Value Creation through Communication #11 [Jun 18] Open Collaboration, part I: Collaborative Innovation Networks #12 [Jun 25] Open Collaboration, part II: Open-Source Software Development #13 [Jul 2] Open Collaboration, part III: Wiki and Wikipedia #14 [Jul 9] Exploring Philosophy of Social Change
  • 8. Social Systems Theory 2012 Mission-Driven Dialogue Book Reading
  • 9. Understanding What does the concept “communication” mean?
  • 10. Social Systems Theory 2012 Mission-Driven Dialogue Book Reading
  • 11. Today’s First Dialogue What do you think when reading these books?
  • 12. Social Systems Theory 2012 Mission-Driven Dialogue Book Reading
  • 13. “How is social order possible?”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.3, p.116, l.22
  • 14. Social Systems Theory 2012Class #2 Keywords Double Contingency Communication Communication Perception of little movement of others help them Utterance to expect the other’ s decision. Expectation of Expectation of the decision the decision of Actor A of Actor B Information Understanding (contingent) (contingent) (contingent) Actor A Actor B
  • 15. Double Contingency (二重の偶有性)
  • 16. Psychic System the nexus of consciousness
  • 17. Each system is operationally closed (Consciousness cannot be imported / exported to another system). Psychic System Psychic System the nexus of consciousnessthe nexus ofconsciousness
  • 18. Double Contingency Each Actor cannot make decision because it is depend on the alter’ s decision. Expectation ofExpectation of the decision ?the decision of Actor Aof Actor B ? ? ? Actor A Actor B
  • 19. Talcott Parsons thought ... Shared Norm / Culture Shared Norm or Culture helps them to expect the others decision. Expectation ofExpectation of the decisionthe decision of Actor Aof Actor B Actor A Actor B
  • 20. Niklas Luhmann thought ... Perception of little movement of others help them to expect the other’ s decision. Expectation ofExpectation of the decisionthe decision of Actor Aof Actor B Actor A Actor B
  • 21. Contingency
  • 22. “the concept of contingency ...This concept results from excludingnecessity and impossibility.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.3, p.106, l.11
  • 23. “Something is contingent insofar as it is neithernecessary nor impossible; it is just what it is (orwas or will be), though it could also beotherwise.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.3, p.106, l.13
  • 24. “It presupposes the world as it is given, yet itdoes not describe the possible in general, butwhat is otherwise possible from the viewpointof reality.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.3, p.106, l.19
  • 25. “At first, alter tentatively determines hisbehavior in a situation that is still unclear. Hebegins with a friendly glance, a gesture, a gift andwaits to see whether and how ego receives theproposed definition of the situation. In light ofthis beginning, every subsequent step is anaction with a contingency-reducing,determining, effect —be it positive or negative.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.3, p.104, l.36
  • 26. “Highly complex meaning-using systems that areopaque and incalculable to one another are partof the infrastructure presupposed by thetheorem of double contingency.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.3, p.109, l.18
  • 27. “They concentrate on what they can observe asinput and output in the other as a system in anenvironment and learn self-referentially in theirown observer perspective. They can try toinfluence what they observe by their own actionand can learn further from the feedback.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.3, p.110, l.11
  • 28. “In this way an emergent order can arise that isconditioned by the complexity of the systemsthat make it possible but that does not depend onthis complexity’s being calculated or controlled. Wecall this emergent order a social system.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.3, p.110, l.15
  • 29. “Nothing forces one to seek the solution forthe problem of double contingency exclusivelyin an already existing consensus, thus in thesocial dimension. There are functionalequivalents for example, those in the temporaldimension.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.3, p.104, l.32
  • 30. “Nothing forces one to seek the solution forthe problem of double contingency exclusivelyin an already existing consensus, thus in thesocial dimension. There are functionalequivalents for example, those in the temporaldimension.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.3, p.104, l.32
  • 31. “How is social order possible?”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.3, p.116, l.22
  • 32. Today’s Second Dialogue What is Double Contingency? What is Luhmann’s understanding how to overcome the situation of double contingency? Perception of little movement of others help them to expect the other’ s decision. Expectation of Expectation of the decision the decision of Actor A of Actor B Actor A Actor B
  • 33. Communication
  • 34. “The elementary process constituting the socialdomain as a special reality is a process ofcommunication.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.138, l.39
  • 35. Communication-Centered Viewpoint (Not Human-Centered)
  • 36. “If one begins with the concept of meaning, it isclear from the start that communication isalways a selective occurrence.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.140, l.6
  • 37. “Communication grasps something out of theactual referential horizon that it itselfconstitutes and leaves other things aside.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.140, l.9
  • 38. “From now on we will treat communication as athree-part unity. We will begin from the fact thatthree selections must be synthesized in orderfor communication to appear as an emergentoccurrence.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.141, l.38
  • 39. “If one conceptualizes communication as thesynthesis of three selections, as the unity ofinformation, utterance, and understanding, thencommunication is realized if and to the extentthat understanding comes about.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.147, l.19
  • 40. Communicationas the synthesis of three selections:information, utterance, and understanding Communication Utterance Information Understanding (contingent) (contingent) (contingent)
  • 41. “communication constitutes what it chooses, byvirtue of that choice, as a selection, namely, asinformation.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.140, l.15
  • 42. “the selectivity of the information is itself anaspect of the communication process.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.140, l.21
  • 43. “What is uttered is not only selected, but alsoalready a selection - that is why it is uttered.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.140, l.21
  • 44. “What is decisive is the fact that the thirdselection can base itself on a distinction, namely,the distinction between information and itsutterance.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.140, l.36
  • 45. “Communication is made possible, so to speak,from behind, contrary to the temporal course ofthe process.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.143, l.14
  • 46. “The fact that understanding is an indispensablefeature in how communication comes about hasfar-reaching significance for comprehendingcommunication.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.143, l.20
  • 47. The metaphor of transmission Transferring Communication the Information Information Sender Receiver
  • 48. “The metaphor of transmission is unusablebecause it implies too much ontology. It suggeststhat the sender gives up something that thereceiver then acquires. This is already incorrectbecause the sender does not give up anything inthe sense of losing it. The entire metaphor ofpossessing, having, giving, and receiving, theentire “thing metaphoric” is unsuitable forunderstanding communication..”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.139, l.17
  • 49. “Thus understanding normally includes more orless extensive misunderstandings.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.141, l.34
  • 50. “Viewed dynamically, the unity of an individualcommunication is merely its connectivity.”N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,1996 Chap.4, p.148, l.19
  • 51. Today’s Third Dialogue What is Luhmann’s definition of “communication”? What is the advantage for conceptualizing communication as such? Perception of little movement of others help them to expect the other’ s decision. Expectation of Expectation of the decision the decision of Actor A of Actor B Actor A Actor B

×