Can Civil Society Be Described with Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory?

Abstract

This paper exposes three weaknesses of the social systems theory, proposed by Niklas Luhmann, in describing our civil society. These weaknesses are: (a) the relationship between institutionalization and fiction, (b) the application of the autopoietic theory in biology to his social systems theory, and (c) the disregarding of physical body and irrationality. First, Luhmann calls the generalization of expectations of human actions in the social dimension “institutionalization.” Although he recognizes the relationship between institutionalization and fiction, he merely analyzes the process of institutionalization from the point of social interaction, and not from the point of mental construction of fiction; therefore, he cannot properly describe the relationship between institutionalization and the protest against institution. Second, Luhmann applies the autopoietic theory proposed by Maturana and Varela to his social systems theory. However, in the process the theory becomes static and unvital, while our civil society is very dynamic and varies widely. We should pay attention to Maturana’s original model, which focuses on the dynamic process of living systems. Third, Luhmann defines communication as the synthesis of three choices, information, utterance, and understanding. Additionally, he argues that a social system is composed of communication, not of physical bodies or social actors. Therefore, according to his theory, incomprehensible utterances or physical activities are not regarded as communication, unless they are understood by society. However, in our daily life, we sometimes talk to those who suffer from mental illnesses or are faced with their death. Lingis views communication not only from the perspective of understanding of information, but also from that of actions or practices. Therefore, we should stretch Luhmann’s concept of communication to cover various ways of communication in our everyday life.