Emergence and Communication in Computational Sociology

Computational sociology models social phenomena using the concepts of emergence and downward causation. However, the theoretical status of these concepts is ambiguous; they suppose too much ontology and are invoked by two opposed sociological interpretations of social reality: the individualistic and the holistic. This paper aims to clarify those concepts and argue in favour of their heuristic value for social simulation. It does so by proposing a link between the concept of emergence and Luhmann's theory of communication. For Luhmann, society emerges from the bottom‐up as communication and he describes the process by which society limits the possible selections of individuals as downward causation. It is argued that this theory is well positioned to overcome some epistemological drawbacks in computational sociology.     

Niklas Luhmann: Contingency,risk, trust and reflection

The hurdle of Niklas Luhmann's extensive theories is their complexity and level of abstraction. These qualities are, however, exactly what constitute their empirical sensitivity to the interrelation between organization and society in today's hyper-complex society. Luhmann never theorized on public relations; yet his theories enable identification of frames for understanding public relations in interrelation to society's overall coordination processes. Contemporary society apparently tries to solve problems activated by the blind reflexivity of modernization by activating reflective forms of coordination. Correspondingly, practice ideals of public relations can be reconstructed as reflection—the specific worldview which facilitates self-insight in relation to the social context.     

法律系统的自治——论卢曼对法律自治理论的重建

法律自治是西方法律传统的重要组成部分，但是对它的理论解说却是远不够充分的，特别是那种将其相对化的做法，不仅无助于对这一概念的澄清，反而使其变得更加模糊。德国社会学家尼克拉斯·卢曼从一个全新的角度重新阐释了法律的自治性，他的这一理论不仅克服了相对自治理论在解释这一问题上的不确定性，同时也避免了在强调法律自治性的同时将法律与社会隔离开来的弊病，对于我们理解法律自治、乃至于理解法律本身都具有很强的启发意义。     

Repeated Reinterpretation of Civil Society: On the Intellectual Context of Niklas Luhmann's Sociological Theory

This article explains the intellectual context of Niklas Luhmann's sociological theory. Although Luhmann's theory is well known for its highly abstract features, this does not mean that the theory results from his references to the latest general systems theory, which has been the primary focus of previous literature. That said, no social theory is produced in a vacuum. Even if a theorist attempts to construct a general sociological theory to explain every social phenomenon, that theory is necessarily influenced by the theorist's prejudices. Therefore, social theory must be contextualized both to estimate its biases and to limit its scope. This study shows that Luhmann's systems theory is constructed through a struggle with the issues of his day. First, it notes that the question of how to conceptualize modern civil society was widely shared by German intellectuals from the late 1950s to the 1970s and that the question created a certain discourse field. Second, Luhmann's theoretical conception is contextualized in that field of discourse, and the central role of both the concept of functional differentiation and the concern with border maintenance in his theory-building is explained in comparison with the work of contemporary intellectuals. To deepen our analysis, this article reconstructs Schmitt's interpretation and criticism of civil liberalism and describes Luhmann's struggle with it. Finally, by analyzing the Gesellschaftswissenschaften of Robert von Mohl, one of the founders of civil liberalism, this article argues that Luhmann's sociology can be characterized as an attempt to rehabilitate civil liberalism.     

THE POPULAR IN THE POLITICAL SYSTEM

This paper suggests a systems theoretical re-reading of popular communication and the Popular in the political system. Luhmann' anti-humanist notion of communication helps to reframe the discussion of the Popular: it is not defined by an en- or decoding instance, but by a particular mode of ‘connectivity'. Drawing from heterogeneous material (Mars Attacks!, crowd psychology, theory of democracy), it is argued that the problem of the Popular arises when a functional system has to represent something that transgresses the system' universality. That which the system has to exclude to become a system re-emerges as ‘grotesque hybrid’, thus pointing at a universality that is, on the one hand, an opportunity for a further universalization and, on the other, a threat to the very universality of the system. The ‘Popular’ thus acquires a hybrid position by articulating these two dimensions.     

对公共领域结构转型批判的批判

哈贝马斯的《公共领域结构转型》自刊出至今引起广泛争议,包括欧洲的社会历史学家和非欧洲的社会历史学家都参与到讨论之中,德国特里尔大学Andreas Gestrich在总结各种争端的基础上从五个方面对哈氏的理论展开批判,并以卢曼的社会分化理论作为可替代方案整合各种哈氏理论中存在的困难,这一替代方案在解释公共领域时也存在深刻的问题,因此运用社会建构主义视角对Andreas Gestrich的观点加以批判和建构是必要的。     

Playful organisations: Undecidability as a scarce resource

This article explores how organisational play becomes a managerial tool to increase and benefit from undecidability. The article draws on Niklas Luhmann's concept of decision and on Gregory Bateson's theory of play to create a conceptual framework for analysing the relation between decision and undecidability. With an empirical point of departure in Danish public school policy and two concrete examples of games utilised in school development, the article analyses how play is a way for organisations to simultaneously decide and also avoid making a decision, thus keeping flexibility and possibilities intact. In its final sections, the article discusses what happens to conditions of decision-making when organisations do not just see undecidability as a given condition, but as a limited resource indispensable for change and renewal. The article advances discussions of organisational play by exploring the consequences play has for the very conditions of organising and for key concepts in organisation theory.     

"软法"概念何以成立? ——卢曼系统论视野内的软法

“软法”是缺乏“国家法”的拘束力,但却意图产生一定的规范效果的成文规范。在复杂、多元和速变的当代社会,“软法”是公共治理的主要凭借。“软法”概念是可以成立的。卢曼的系统论及其法理论可以为它提供理论基础。     

The Blind Spots of Quasi-market Regulators

While quasi-markets should be regulated, in practice regulation may be problematic for market designers because of the competing interests and values involved. This article outlines and problematizes the regulatory process for quasi-markets by focusing on the choices and actions of the regulator (i.e., the public organization). The article concludes that market designers act in different ways based on their different points of reference. These reference points may differ, not only between quasi-market designers but also for the individual quasi-market designer over time. The quasi-market designer may therefore exhibit blind spots because some aspects of operations are in focus in the regulation process, but others may be neglected.