Luhmann defines communication as the synthesis of three selections or contingencies: information, utterance, and understanding. He views communication as an emergent event, rather than something that is transmitted between a sender and receiver. Conceptualizing communication in this way emphasizes its constructed, contingent nature and avoids implying that meanings are fully transmitted or shared between parties. It also highlights how communication constitutes social reality through the interactive selections that take place in the communication process.

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 labyrinth
more 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 to
unusually high levels of abstraction. Our flight
must take place above the clouds, and we must
reckon with a rather thick cloud cover. We must
rely on our instruments.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Preface p.lii, l.3

5. “Abstraction, however, should not be
misunderstood as pure artistry or as a retreat
to a "merely analytically" relevant, formal
science. ... abstraction is an epistemological
necessity.”
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

9. Social Systems Theory 2012
Mission-Driven Dialogue Book Reading

10. Understanding What does the concept “communication” mean?

11. Social Systems Theory 2012
Mission-Driven Dialogue Book Reading

12. Today’s First Dialogue
What do you think
when reading these books?

13. Social Systems Theory 2012
Mission-Driven Dialogue Book Reading

14. “How is social order possible?”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.3, p.116, l.22

15. Social Systems Theory 2012
Class #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

16. Double Contingency
（二重の偶有性）

17. Psychic System
the nexus of
consciousness

18. Each system is operationally closed
(Consciousness cannot be imported
/ exported to another system).
Psychic System
Psychic System
the nexus of
consciousness
the nexus of
consciousness

19. Double Contingency
Each Actor cannot make decision
because it is depend on the alter’ s decision.
Expectation of
Expectation of the decision
?
the decision of Actor A
of Actor B
? ?
?
Actor A Actor B

20. Talcott Parsons thought ...
Shared Norm / Culture
Shared Norm or Culture helps them to expect
the others decision.
Expectation of
Expectation of the decision
the decision of Actor A
of Actor B
Actor A Actor B

21. Niklas Luhmann thought ...
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

22. Contingency

23. “the concept of contingency ...
This concept results from excluding
necessity and impossibility.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.3, p.106, l.11

24. “Something is contingent insofar as it is neither
necessary nor impossible; it is just what it is (or
was or will be), though it could also be
otherwise.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.3, p.106, l.13

25. “It presupposes the world as it is given, yet it
does not describe the possible in general, but
what is otherwise possible from the viewpoint
of reality.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.3, p.106, l.19

26. “At first, alter tentatively determines his
behavior in a situation that is still unclear. He
begins with a friendly glance, a gesture, a gift and
waits to see whether and how ego receives the
proposed definition of the situation. In light of
this beginning, every subsequent step is an
action 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

27. “Highly complex meaning-using systems that are
opaque and incalculable to one another are part
of the infrastructure presupposed by the
theorem of double contingency.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.3, p.109, l.18

28. “They concentrate on what they can observe as
input and output in the other as a system in an
environment and learn self-referentially in their
own observer perspective. They can try to
influence what they observe by their own action
and can learn further from the feedback.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.3, p.110, l.11

29. “In this way an emergent order can arise that is
conditioned by the complexity of the systems
that make it possible but that does not depend on
this complexity’s being calculated or controlled. We
call this emergent order a social system.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.3, p.110, l.15

30. “Nothing forces one to seek the solution for
the problem of double contingency exclusively
in an already existing consensus, thus in the
social dimension. There are functional
equivalents for example, those in the temporal
dimension.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.3, p.104, l.32

31. “Nothing forces one to seek the solution for
the problem of double contingency exclusively
in an already existing consensus, thus in the
social dimension. There are functional
equivalents for example, those in the temporal
dimension.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.3, p.104, l.32

32. “How is social order possible?”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.3, p.116, l.22

33. 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

34. Communication

35. “The elementary process constituting the social
domain as a special reality is a process of
communication.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.138, l.39

36. Communication-Centered Viewpoint
(Not Human-Centered)

37. “If one begins with the concept of meaning, it is
clear from the start that communication is
always a selective occurrence.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.140, l.6

38. “Communication grasps something out of the
actual referential horizon that it itself
constitutes and leaves other things aside.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.140, l.9

39. “From now on we will treat communication as a
three-part unity. We will begin from the fact that
three selections must be synthesized in order
for communication to appear as an emergent
occurrence.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.141, l.38

40. “If one conceptualizes communication as the
synthesis of three selections, as the unity of
information, utterance, and understanding, then
communication is realized if and to the extent
that understanding comes about.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.147, l.19

41. Communication
as the synthesis of three selections:
information, utterance, and understanding
Communication
Utterance
Information Understanding
(contingent) (contingent) (contingent)

42. “communication constitutes what it chooses, by
virtue of that choice, as a selection, namely, as
information.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.140, l.15

43. “the selectivity of the information is itself an
aspect of the communication process.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.140, l.21

44. “What is uttered is not only selected, but also
already a selection - that is why it is uttered.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.140, l.21

45. “What is decisive is the fact that the third
selection can base itself on a distinction, namely,
the distinction between information and its
utterance.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.140, l.36

46. “Communication is made possible, so to speak,
from behind, contrary to the temporal course of
the process.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.143, l.14

47. “The fact that understanding is an indispensable
feature in how communication comes about has
far-reaching significance for comprehending
communication.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.143, l.20

48. The metaphor of transmission
Transferring Communication
the Information
Information
Sender Receiver

49. “The metaphor of transmission is unusable
because it implies too much ontology. It suggests
that the sender gives up something that the
receiver then acquires. This is already incorrect
because the sender does not give up anything in
the sense of losing it. The entire metaphor of
possessing, having, giving, and receiving, the
entire “thing metaphoric” is unsuitable for
understanding communication..”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.139, l.17

50. “Thus understanding normally includes more or
less extensive misunderstandings.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.141, l.34

51. “Viewed dynamically, the unity of an individual
communication is merely its connectivity.”
N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford University Press,
1996 Chap.4, p.148, l.19

54. 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