Social work and social problems: A contribution from systems theory and constructionism

Social work builds its identity on social problems. The goal is to generate knowledge about causes, consequences and solutions. However, there is a lack of theory of social problems. We suggest that research on social problems can benefit by ‘bringing the observer in’: Loseke's constructionist framework and Luhmann's systems theory. According to Loseke, social problems appear differently when constructed by different observers. Constructions vary in terms of morality, conditions, victims/villains and solutions. From Luhmann we learn that modern society consists of a multitude of social systems (e.g. politics, science, economy etc.), each operating with their own communicative codes. Combining both approaches, we hypothesise that any social system constructs its own (version of) social problems. Illustrating with the empirical case ‘suicide among mentally ill people’, we examine how a phenomenon is constructed differently as a social problem by four different social systems: the disability movement, politics, medicine and social work.     

The theorization of social co-ordinations in differentiated societies: the theory of generalized symbolic media in Parsons,Luhmann and Habermas

The problem of the differentiation of societies is at the core of the sociological imagination about the rise of modernity. In postwar sociology, T. Parsons developed the theory of generalized symbolic media in the mid-1960s to tackle, theoretically and historically, the issue of differentiation. According to him, the interchange media are defined as resources oriented to exchange processes between the subsystems of the social system. Starting with money, Parsons argues that the remaining media (power, influence, and value-commitments) have a set of characteristics defined as common properties for all media. After this first formulation, contemporary theorists such as Niklas Luhmann and Jürgen Habermas have developed and modified the Parsonian theory: Luhmann rejects the idea of interchange and proposes the use of communication; Habermas distinguishes between steering and communication media. In all three cases, the focus of the theory is on the characterization of the strongest dynamics of social co-ordination present in differentiated societies. A major result of these developments is the inclusion of new dimensions on which to conceive the properties of media, not only those of money but also language. Beyond differences, then, it is proposed that there is only one theory of generalized symbolic media which can be understood as a progressive research programme, in Lakatos' terms. Finally, the hand-in-hand evolution between the theory of media and Habermas' and Luhmann's re-conceptualizations on societal differentiation in contemporary societies will also be revealed.     

Autopoiesis and socialization: on Luhmann's reconceptualization of communication and socialization

In 1984, Niklas Luhmann published Soziale Systeme in which he applies the idea of autopoiesis (= self-production) to social systems. Abstracted from its biological connotations, the concept of autopoiesis leads to a sharp distinction between different kinds of autopoietic organization, i.e. between life, consciousness and communication. According to Luhmann, the relationship between social systems and human beings cannot be adequately analysed except by taking into account that they are environments for one another. If this theoretical background is accepted, the concepts and theory of socialization need to be revised. Luhmann takes issues with classical notions such as internalization, inculcation, or 'socialization to the grounds of consensus' (Talcott Parsons). After a historical overview of social systems research and general systems theory, it is indicated how communications trigger further communications and realize the autopoiesis of social systems. In the second part of the article, the distinction between social systems and psychic systems is used to discuss issues crucial to socialization theory. Both a revision of the concept of socialization, and lines for an empirical research programme are proposed in accordance with Luhmann's theory of social systems.     

Trust in the face of uncertainty: a qualitative study of intersubjective trust and risk

Contemporary trust research regards trust as a way of dealing with uncertainty and risk. Predominantly, it suggests that trust reduces uncertainty by means of risk assessment and rational calculation. However, phenomenological research proposes that trust is an alternative way of relating to uncertainty rather than a way to reduced uncertainty. This paper investigates these propositions in an interview study on intersubjective trust. The study focuses on the modes of uncertainty management employed in trust and risk, and particularly on how knowledge, experience, familiarity, and decision-making are combined in the act of trusting. The main finding is that trust and risk are better characterised as different ways of perceiving the social and managing uncertainty, than as different elements of the same decision process. The concept of ‘risk compartmentalisation’ is developed to describe the different ways people work to contain risk and maintain trust by combining adaptation and familiarity.     

地方政府合作中政治与法律结构耦合的生成——基于社会系统论的视角

随着我国区域发展战略的提出与城市群建设的发展,地方政府之间必须就公共事务展开横向合作。当前,地方政府合作面临着跨区域行政权行使缺乏法律依据、区域协同立法受权力配置制约、权力有效性缺失、政策执行不力等问题,根本原因在于政治与法律之间的相互掣肘。在系统与环境的解释框架下,政治与法律是各自以权力与立法为核心的功能分化的社会子系统,彼此之间以政府间行政协议为耦合渠道,在维持界分的同时又形成特定的联系,为解决系统内部的矛盾提供方法与途径。地方政府合作中政治与法律结构耦合关系的生成,为地方政府合作中行政权的运行提供了合理性依据,可以促进法制功能不断完善。     

The future of universities in a global risk society

This contribution concurs with Mittelman and also considers the quest for truth a core purpose of universities. However, it rejects the idea that there is one panoptical view of the world, one single truth that could guide such a quest. Drawing on a systems-theoretical perspective and its emphasis on specialization and fragmentation, I rather explore the role of universities in a world that can only partially be known. Such a perspective sheds fresh light on the rise of external quality assurances agencies as a second-order observation that enables further specialization of universities. The study of the rise of this remote steering mechanism reminds us of the limits of a country comparison that does not account of the multiscalarity of policy making, particularly in Europe. However, I will also highlight how most recent changes in higher education policy are characterized by a return to a stronger governmental oversight, undoing some of the liberalization steps taken in the late 1990s, early 2000s. This transformation not only indicates that we are moving towards an end of globalization as we know it. It can, but does not have to, undermine the universities capacity to deal with complexity, as I will show.     

Resurrecting organization without renouncing society: A response to Ahrne,Brunsson and Seidl

In a recent article in this journal, Ahrne, Brunsson, and Seidl (2016) suggest a definition of organization as a ‘decided social order’ composed of five elements (membership, rules, hierarchies, monitoring, and sanctions) which rest on decisions. ‘Partial organization’ uses only one or a few of these decidable elements while ‘complete organization’ uses them all. Such decided orders may also occur outside formal organizations, as the authors observe. Although we appreciate the idea of improving our understanding of organization(s) in modern society, we believe that Ahrne, Brunsson, and Seidl's suggestion jeopardizes the concept of organization by blurring its specific meaning. As the authors already draw on the work of Niklas Luhmann, we propose taking this exploration a step further and the potential of systems theory more seriously. Organizational analysis would then be able to retain a distinctive notion of formal organization on the one hand while benefiting from an encompassing theory of modern society on the other. With this extended conceptual framework, we would expect to gain a deeper understanding of how organizations implement and shape different societal realms as well as mediate between their particular logics, and, not least, how they are related to non-organizational social forms (e.g. families).     

Bruno Latour and Niklas Luhmann as organization theorists

Bruno Latour and Niklas Luhmann are two authors who, not being management and organization scholars, have had a significant impact on MOS studies. Their works are even more appreciated in time, yet their influence has not crossed the Atlantic. The texts of the two authors, and the predecessor they evoke, demarcate a truly European development of management and organization theory.     

On the fruitfulness of the concept of partial organization: A rejoinder to Apelt et al.

This short paper responds to Apelt et al.’s (2017) comments on Ahrne et al.'s (2016) proposal of extending the concept of organization to any decided social orders and thereby putting organization studies at the centre of the social sciences. We highlight some misunderstandings about the aims of this proposal and discuss Apelt et al.’s own proposal of re-focusing organization studies on formal organizations based on Niklas Luhmann's systems theory.