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.
View full abstract