Luhmann

This article follows on the heels of one by Holly Watkins, who argues that music, “a subsystem of the social system of communication,” can evoke the organic (the bodily and the psychic) not by forming a self-contained unity of parts and whole but through the “internal recursiveness” of musical works, their external “recursiveness vis-à-vis other music,” and – crucially – “the knowingness that music displays toward its own operations.” I adopt the premise that music evokes the organic most vividly not through recursive processes in individual systems but through the as-if intentional integration of such processes in multiple systems, of which I concern myself particularly with the harmonic, contrapuntal, and formal domains (or, more precisely, the motivic). I offer correctives to the organicist theories of Arnold Schoenberg and Heinrich Schenker, which similarly concern these domains, and especially to their reception. And I explore this direction through an analysis of Bach’s Prelude No. 7 in E-flat major from book 1 of The Well-Tempered Clavier, BWV 852, a singular piece that billows forth like an unfathomable blossom.

Umwelt, Technik & Risiko – damit verbinden wir eine Symptomatik, die für die Moderne von bestandskritischer Bedeutung ist. Soweit herrscht Einigkeit. Kontrovers sind hingegen Diagnose und Therapie. Ist die industriegesellschaftliche Risikoproblematik auf die In- und Extensivierung der Inanspruchnahme der Natur zurückzuführen? Oder herrschen kulturelle Veränderungen in der Wahrnehmung von Unsicherheiten vor? Diesen Fragen folgend werden Probleme der Forschung, der Gesellschaftstheorie und des Risikomanagements erörtert.

O artigo discute a posição do sistema jurídico na modernidade
tardia, apresentando-o sob a ótica da teoria dos sistemas, na versão formulada por Niklas Luhmann. Discorre sobre pontos e conceitos fundamentais presentes na obra do sociólogo alemão, bem como aborda perspectivas que o tema abre. Trata-se de uma discussão central no âmbito da sociologia e da teoria do direito, uma vez que incide sobre a operatividade do sistema jurídico, realçando questões decorrentes de sua função socialmente diferenciada e da complexidade que enreda sua dinâmica interna e sua relação com o ambiente circundante. Nesse sentido, permite explorar possibilidades contingentes, relacionadas à capacidade de reconfiguração sistêmica na direção de um direito dotado de alternativas mais abrangentes e inclusivas. O texto, na medida em que conjuga um caráter introdutório e descritivo acerca de categorias luhmannianas a perspectivas que se abrem em um cenário marcado pela contingência e pelo risco, tem a pretensão de contribuir para a difusão e o aprofundamento dessa discussão.

This article introduces Luhmann’s theory of social systems as a prominent example of communication as constitutive of organization (CCO) thinking and argues that Luhmann’s perspective contributes to current conceptual debates on how communication constitutes organization. The theory of social systems highlights that organizations are fundamentally grounded in paradox because they are built on communicative events that are contingent by nature. Consequently, organizations are driven by the continuous need to deparadoxify their inherent contingency. In that respect, Luhmann’s approach fruitfully combines a processual, communicative conceptualization of organization with the notion of boundary and self-referentiality. Notwithstanding the merits of Luhmann’s approach, its accessibility tends to be limited due to the hermetic terminology that it employs and the fact that it neglects the role of material agency in the communicative construction of organizations.

Women's struggle for emancipation can be characterized, among other elements, as an ongoing process for, first, entering the legal system and second, attempting to change it. This, nonetheless, stirs up conflicts and certain perplexities, as appropriately summarized by Alejandra Ciriza under the label the Wollstonecraft dilemma: the politicization of sexual difference, which constitutes the center of feminist struggle in modernity, faces a twofold obstacle. On the one hand, the presentation of sexual difference in the public sphere leads to the transformation of any question related to it into a vindication of rights. On the other hand, the judicialization and institutionalization of such demands lead to the recognition of the limits and impossibilities of a politics of rights (Ciriza , 2004, p. 210). Given the fact that there is this uncontestable and paradoxical relationship between women's political struggle for equality and the legal system, this paper aims to evaluate a specific approach to law, that is, Luhmann's account of law as a social system from a feminist perspective. The question guiding the discussion proposed here is the following: is the theory of law as a social system able to incorporate feminist contentions to law? In order to do so, the Luhmaniann theoretical framework and its most important concepts is presented and discussed. Then, this framework is reviewed through a feminist perspective, particularly by the confrontation with a feminist agenda of law that is based primarily on feminist legal theory and theories of patriarchy. At the end, I hope to accomplish the twofold intention of thi s paper: first, to point the limits of Luhmann's approach to law from a feminist standpoint and, second, to show the relevance of gender analysis in the legal field.

The concept of meaning and communication is the core of the so-ciological conception of Niklas Luhmann. As he claims, “Meaning is co-present as a reference to the world in everything that is actualized... Society is a meaning constituting system” (Luhmann Niklas. Theory of Society. Stanford University Press, 2012, vol. 1). He considers the issue of a correlation of mean-ing with other concepts of his theory of social in almost all of his works. Obvi-ously, on this occasion the linguistic issues also became matters of considera-tion. Language, however, is associated by Luhmann not so much with the production of meaning as with communication. The concept of a linguistic sign as some fixed connection between the signified and the signifier is transformed by Luhmann into a dynamic operation of juxtaposing communicative and cogni-tive characteristics, as a medium between cognition and communication.
Понятие смысла является стержнем социологической кон-
цепции Никласа Лумана. «Общество – это система, конституирующая смысл», – утверждает он в работе «Общество как социальная система»(М., 2004, с. 54). Cоотнесению смысла с другими понятиями его теории социальных систем посвящены специальные разделы во всех его основных трудах. Разумеется, при этом затронута и проблематика, связанная с язы-
ком. Язык, однако, соотносится Луманом не столько с формированиемсмысла, сколько с коммуникацией. Понятие языкового знака как некоторой закрепленной связи между означаемым и означающим преобразуется Луманом в динамическую операцию соположения коммуникативных и когнитивных характеристик – как медиума между сознанием и коммуникацией.

El presente trabajo analiza comparativamente las contribuciones de la sociología sistémica de Niklas Luhmann al problema de la construcción general del objeto científico de la sociología. Nuestro objetivo es relevar, esquematizar y contrastar dos modelos de irreductibilidad social del autor (el primero intersubjetivista, el segundo comunicativo) e indagar las consecuencias teóricas de ambos. La hipótesis principal del trabajo afirma que Luhmann desplazó el umbral de la irreductibilidad social al pasar del primer modelo al segundo. En términos metodológicos contextualizamos los materiales luhmannianos en el campo sociológico de los años setenta y ochenta y los analizamos desde una perspectiva integrada por los enfoques exegético y comparativo.

At the heart of this article is a fairly straightforward assertion: that literature has a trans-verbal level at which it affects us as a work of art. Hence discussing a novel means bringing to the fore not only its overt narrative function but also its covert artistic function: a consideration of the work in light of its aesthetic intention. Following the phenomenological traditions of Roman Ingarden and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, I argue that aesthetic intention does not determine the significance of the art object, which is presumed to be dynamic within a spectrum of meanings. Rather, aesthetic intention takes into account the circumstance of the novel having been actuated into form by an " artistic gesture. " This " gesture " is not physical: it is a metaphorical motion referring to the artist's actuation of an aesthetic intention using one or another medium to give an artwork its perceivable form. In painting, this " gesture " can sometimes be traced through a work's visible brushstrokes or formal composition, but in literature such " gestures " can appear beyond the literal text and remain invisible even while they are experienced in the literary work. The conception of such a " gesture " is meant to incorporate the insights of literary and aesthetic theory, along with poststructuralism, in a critique that allows for structural analysis to also pursue a reconstituted significance. What appears below is more a program of the problem than a full treatment of its implications – a stretching of the canvas, so to speak. But I believe that the articulation of this kernel has a value in itself even if the full unraveling of the subject is yet to come.

‘Law and economics’ studies are considered to have given to legal doctrine and argumentation a powerful analytical apparatus, which helped to detail the empirical consequences of legislative and judicial decisions. The main body of thinking of an economic analysis of law has been the new institutional economics, and by its side a rising approach in economic thought. This chapter tests the hypothesis that social systems theory can provide an alternative approach to the interface between law and the economy. This approach is aimed at providing social systems theory with a conceptual framework able to detail the variety of institutions in the interface between the legal and economic systems, and to map and investigate the distinct legal modes of social ordering (within and beyond national law) and some of the flaws in the functioning of contemporary economy, such as problems of hyper-reflexivity (financialisation).

La complessità dell’ambiente sociale e di business ha reso ormai evidente l’imprescindibile necessità, per le organizzazioni complesse (tra cui le imprese) del XXI secolo, di miglioramento della capacità di gestione dei necessari mutamenti al fine di mantenere la vitalità e garantirne la sopravvivenza. L’approccio sistemico si è rivelato cruciale per l’apertura di nuove prospettive di studio e di comprensione delle dinamiche dei sistemi viventi. La comprensione di tali fenomeni si è rivelata di fondamentale importanza per il governo delle organizzazioni complesse.
Negli ultimi decenni si è potuto assistere alla crescita della rilevanza strategica della comunicazione per la governance delle organizzazioni complesse di ogni tipo. A partire dagli anni ottanta dello scorso secolo si è verificato un cambiamento di paradigma nell’approccio manageriale: dal modello tutto/parti all’approccio sistemico-ambientale. Questo cambiamento ha generato il quadro epistemologico dell’approccio sistemico nelle scienze sociali nei campi della sociologia, dell’economia e delle science manageriali.
Dal punto di vista sociologico il cambiamento di paradigma è significativamente rappresentato dall’evoluzione del pensiero sistemico da Parsons a Luhmann. Tale nuovo paradigma implica un cambiamento della concezione delle organizzazioni complesse da “strutture” a “flussi di comunicazione”, dunque uno spostamento di prospettiva dagli asset tangibili a quelli intangibili.
Nella sociologia sistemica tale cambiamento del ruolo della comunicazione è rientrato nel paradigma dominante da più di vent’anni.
La pietra miliare dell’approccio sistemico nelle scienze manageriali è rappresentata dal lavoro di Stafford Beer con il Viable System Model (VSM). Il VSM ha avuto un’importante influenza in Italia ed è stato oggetto di una rilevante rivisitazione per opera di Gaetano Golinelli e della sua scuola sull’Approccio sistemico Vitale (ASV).
Tuttavia, nonostante la rilevanza dei progressi negli studi sistemici, il cambiamento di paradigma nelle scienze manageriali è stato meno netto rispetto a quello avvenuto in sociologia e non ha comportato l’abbandono del concetto tradizionale di “struttura”. Il motivo di ciò appare evidente, poiché l’azienda come struttura organizzata rappresenta l’oggetto di studio delle discipline aziendali e gestionali. Ciò nondimeno, in questo lavoro dimostreremo che è possibile conciliare queste diverse visioni considerando l’intera azienda come una struttura dematerializzata creata dalla strutturazione di flussi di informazioni.
La nostra domanda di ricerca è “se e come nelle scienze aziendali-gestionali sia possibile applicare i concetti fondamentali che hanno portato al cambiamento di paradigma in sociologia”. Per rispondere a questa domanda discutiamo circa l’ontologia del valore e dell’impresa, per comprendere cosa sia oggi l’impresa.
Ci proponiamo di indicare le direttrici per l’inclusione negli studi aziendali delle teorie sistemiche dominanti nell’ambito della sociologia sistemica (basata sull’approccio di Luhmann). Attraverso un confronto teorico, ci si prefigge di integrare il paradigma sistemico vitale con quello luhmaniano per lo studio delle organizzazioni complesse. Ci soffermeremo sul perché e sul come le organizzazioni complesse debbano essere considerate costellazioni di valore di asset intangibili (secondo la definizione di Richard Normann). Oggi l’esistenza stessa dell’impresa dipende più che in passato dal suo portafoglio di asset intangibili. Il valore degli “intangibili” è strettamente dipendente dalla comunicazione, che dunque diviene cruciale per l’esistenza e la vitalità dell’organizzazione.
Partendo da una concezione strutturale-culturale dell’organizzazione fino alla sua riconfigurazione come “costellazione”, caratterizzata da un flusso continuo di ricombinazioni memetiche, esamineremo, in chiave teorica, come i flussi comunicativi intangibili vengono inclusi nella definizione di struttura per trovare un punto di contatto tra la visione luhmaniana e l’ASV.

En el presente trabajo abordamos el concepto de sistema social elaborado por la Teoría General de Sistemas Sociales (TGSS) de Niklas Luhmann. Proponemos precisar su especificidad mediante una comparación con otras concepciones de sistema social vigentes en la tradición sistémica de la sociología. El objetivo del trabajo es deslindar la originalidad de la posición sistémica del autor a través de dicha reconstrucción. Este deslindamiento permitirá, primero, precisar la postura luhmanniana y evitar confundirla con aquellas posiciones sistémicas de las que el autor se diferenció; y segundo, establecer su contribución desde un programa sistémico al problema general de la unidad de análisis de la disciplina.

In this book, Anastasia Marinopoulou conducts a systematic comparison of modern epistemology and the epistemological concerns of the Frankfurt School, addressing phenomenology, structuralism and poststructuralism, modernism and postmodernism, systems theory and critical realism. Beginning with an examination of twentieth-century epistemology, particularly the concept of lifeworld (Lebenswelt), Marinopoulou traces the development of the field up to the present day, considering basic conceptions such as dialectics, theory and practice in science, and the potential for a political epistemology based on the arguments of critical theory. Throughout this, she provides a concrete analysis of the work of leading Frankfurt School figures, including Horkheimer, Adorno and Habermas, and raises key questions on methodology in science and research. The book contains previously unpublished commentary from Jürgen Habermas (on systems theory), William Outhwaite (on critical realism) and Stefan Müller-Doohm (on the Frankfurt School), provided to the author in recent interviews. It is organized to be of practical use for undergraduate and postgraduate students, and each chapter includes graphs and schemata that condense the basic argument for the area of modern epistemology and methodology under examination.

Prácticamente desde los primeros pasos de la sociología del Derecho se acepta que uno de sus temas principales habrá de consistir en el examen de la repercusión de las normas jurídicas sobre la sociedad . Pero en los últimos tiempos la cuestión ha cobrado matices nuevos, que complican la investigación : el Estado tiene una participación cada más activa en la configuración de la sociedad, los poderes públicos aparecen comprometidos, incluso por imperativo constitucional, en la empresa de hacer operativos ciertos derechos sociales, impensables bajo la óptica del Estado liberal, el número de las normas de todo rango crece en proporción sólo comparable al aumento de la burocracia y de las necesidades fiscales, las instancias mediadoras entre los sujetos particulares y la maquinaria estatal van en aumento constante, movimientos corporativos y grupos de influencia de todo tipo condicionan en medida cada vez mayor la producción de normas y su aplicación, especialmente en el nivel administrativo, las investigaciones empíricas ponen de relieve la creciente inaplicación de las normas y los constantes atentados contra el principio de legalidad y la jerarquía normativa, las experiencias de algunos países muestran el fracaso de políticas reformistas que únicamente se expresan en las páginas de la Gaceta oficial, crece el número de disposiciones legales que sólo muestran eso que los sociólogos llaman la función simbólica de la ley en las normas la tipificación de supuestos, o programación condicional, cede cada vez más terreno a la proclamación de objetivos, o programación teleológica, etc .

Uno de los conceptos con los cuales ha sido posible establecer un diálogo entre las ciencias jurídicas y las Ciencias Sociales ha sido el concepto de cultura jurídica. El profesor Edmundo Fuenzalida, a quien está dedicado el presente volumen, es probablemente uno de los más destacados exponentes de esta línea de investigación. Sus reflexiones en torno al concepto de cultura jurídica se cuentan entre las más clarificadoras y motivantes dentro del campo de la Sociología del Derecho en Chile.

On November 4th, 2019, Hans-Georg Moeller delivered a presentation on systems theory at the Law School of the University of São Paulo and was interviewed about Niklas Luhmann’s theory of society, with emphasis on issues such as law, politics, and the history of philosophy. Professor Moeller is the author of important books such as Luhmann explained: From souls to systems (Moeller, 2006) and The radical Luhmann (Moeller, 2011), the latter also translated to Japanese and Italian. He also works on Chinese philosophy and is currently Full Professor at the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Macau, China.
Throughout the interview, professor Moeller situated Luhmann in the philosophical tradition of German idealism and presented the shift to second-order observation as a crucial aspect of contemporary society, in religion and politics, science, economy and law. The interview was conducted partly in writing and partly in the form of a recorded and transcribed debate

Viene qui proposto il tentativo di considerare il terzo settore come un sistema di funzione autonomo e capace di autoriprodursi. Più in particolare si è tentato di leggere il TS inscrivendolo all'interno dell'evoluzione dei vari sistemi di welfare, e più in generale del processo di differenziazione funzionale della società. Del TS si è dunque tentato di individuare il suo medium, la funzione, il codice, le organizzazioni, ecc....

The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 put extreme pressures on the relations between the American defense and decision-making apparatuses. While the military pushed for a military intervention, President Kennedy and his advisors wished to safeguard nonmilitary options. The tensions between the two systems can be analyzed in terms of communication systems with different rationalities: whereas the political discussion proceeds in terms of deliberations which provisionally represent the various perspectives and interests, the military discourse needs clear objectives based on policy conclusions. Several incidents can with hindsight be considered as provocations by the military to trigger war, but others were a consequence of the failure of the political system to make itself clearly understood. Using Luhmann's sociology of communication, the tension between these two power-wielding communication systems can be considered as structural. Some implications of the model for civilian control are specified.

Die Soziologie der Mitgliedschaft legt einen besonderen Anschnitt bei der Untersuchung der klassischen soziologischen Grundbegriffe Rolle, Status, Erwartungen und soziale Gruppe. Er besteht darin, dass sie im Hinblick auf die Strukturbestandteile sozialer Systeme zu untersuchen sind. Der Begriff der sozialen Gruppe wird in die Problemstufenordnung der Mitgliedschaftssoziologie Gesellschaft, Organisation und Interaktion eingeordnet. Sie ist jedoch keine eigene Ebene der Anordnung der Mitgliedschaft in sozialen Systemen auf der Problemstufenordnung. Gruppen bilden sich sozialsystem-, teilsystem- und organisationssystemtypisch. Sie können die sozialen Systeme, die Teilsysteme und das Organisationssystem auch übergreifen. Die Gruppensoziologie motivierte zu einer mitgliedschaftstheoretische Reinterpretation, da soziale Gruppen durch besondere Mitgliedschaftsbedingungen selbstdeterminiert sind.
Der Band führt in zentrale Grundbegriffe der Soziologie ein, die dem Soziologiestudenten eine Orientierung für die Beobachtung von Kommunikation und Mitgliedschaft bereitstellen. Er wertet soziologisches Wissen aus und führt die Kommunikation mit der Tradition des Faches fort.

The book makes a critical comparison of fundamental trends in modern epistemology with the epistemological concerns of critical theory of the Frankfurt School. It comprises five chapters, which refer to phenomenology, structuralism and poststructuralism, modernism and postmodernism, systems’ theory and critical realism.
It follows the course of development of modern epistemology, considering basic conceptions such as dialectics, theory and practice in science, and the potential for a political epistemology based on the arguments of critical theory. It can certainly be used as a textbook because each chapter tallies with a major trend in modern epistemology, and provides a concrete analysis of the comparison it draws with the work of leading figures of the Frankfurt School such as Horkheimer, Adorno and Habermas.
The present volume addresses the reader of political theory, epistemology, social theory and it also raises key questions on methodology in science and research. Therefore, it can prove beneficial for students, researchers and academics that deal with issues of theory, practice, and method in science. The contents of the volume were meticulously constructed in order to be of practical use both for undergraduate and postgraduate students, and each chapter includes basic graphs  that condense the basic argument for each thematic circle on modern epistemology and methodology.
The book contains unpublished critique and information provided to the writer in recent interviews she conducted with Jürgen Habermas (providing analysis on systems theory), William Outhwaite and Stefan Müller-Doohm (both the latter clarified issues and contributed valuable information on critical realism and the Frankfurt School, respectively).

El presente texto propone una conceptualización de las políticas públicas como decisiones del sistema político de la sociedad respecto de problemas que son reconocidos por éste como temas de interés público. Junto con lo anterior, propone un modelo de análisis para las políticas públicas. Finalmente se entrega una conclusión general a partir de lo expuesto. El objetivo del presente modelo es proporcionar un marco interpretativo para el análisis de cualquier política pública.

This article provides a theoretical conceptualization of the role of public relations in society based on the 'organic theory' of public relations and on Luhmann's system theory as well as on the concept of trust. In a postmodern, hypercomplex society, we claim that the main role of public relations is to to strengthen system interactions through the creation of trust among systems. To enhance, maintain and ensure trust, public relations practitioners must think, not only strategically, but "metastrategically", beginning with a normative theory of society that is built on the foundation of existing social theory, e.g. Luhmann, but also on contemporary social theory that must be built within a framework of communication technology

Am 13. Juli 1994 hält Niklas Luhmann, 1968 bis 1993 Professor für Soziologie (ohne Bindestrich, also ohne jede Einschränkung auf einen Bereich der Gesellschaft wie etwa Wirtschaft, Kunst oder Religion) an der Universität Bielefeld, einen Vortrag an der Nordrhein-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, der den Titel „Die Realität der Massenmedien“ trägt (Luhmann 1996, S. 7). Luhmann ist kein „Medien-Soziologe“. Jeder seiner Texte leistet vielmehr einen Beitrag zu einer „Theorie der Gesellschaft“ (Luhmann 1997, S. 11).

In questo articolo verranno discusse le principali coordinate teorico epistemologiche che caratterizzano la sociologia luhmanniana, in particolare a riguardo della questione della cosiddetta 'complessità', termine chiave per l'autore. Nella seconda parte invece verranno analizzati singolarmente i vari sistemi di funzione individuati da Luhmann, cercando per ognuno di individuare i relativi: medium, funzione, codice, prestazione, simboli simbiotici, costellazione eg \ alter.

For it is evident enough, that words have no effect, but on those that understand them« (Hobbes 1996(Hobbes [1651: 294) Mit dem Thema soziale Macht soll hier eine Form des Phänomens Macht analysiert werden, die ein Pendant zu den geläufigen Interpretationen ist. Denn der Begriff Macht wird zumeist in einem politischen Rahmen verwendet: nämlich als jene Befähigung, das Handeln eines Einzelnen oder einer Gruppe in einer bestimmten Weise zu beeinflussen oder zu bewirken. Dies setzt nicht nur voraus, Macht als ein Phänomen zu betrachten, das sich in Personen, Gruppen oder Institutionen verdichten kann, sondern auch sie als etwas zu sehen, dessen Verteilung sich -wie die eines seltenen Rohstoffs -beschränkt und die durch ihre Knappheit überhaupt erst eine überzeugende Wirkung entfaltet. Im Unterschied zur politischen Macht beschreibt der Begriff der sozialen Macht jedoch gerade jene Form des Phänomens, der keine eindeutige Quelle zugeschrieben werden kann und die durch ihre Omnipräsenz auch keine Einschränkungen in der Verteilung kennt. Der Begriff Macht impliziert das Thema Befreiung (vgl. Foucault 2005: 250; 1992: 15). Denn die Idee der Beherrschung -in welcher Form auch immer -ist eine, die die moderne Gesellschaft im Zuge ihrer eigenen Befreiung von Monarchie und Absolutismus mit aufgegeben hat. Doch implizieren neue Formen der Macht auch neue Formen der Befreiung. Der Hauptunterschied zu alten Befreiungsbestrebungen besteht darin, nicht länger politische Freiheit im klassischen Sinne zu fordern. Diese haben wir mit der Aufklärung bereits erlangt -bzw. haben wir mit ihr zumindest die Richtigkeit dieser Entwicklung angenommen. In einer bereits politisch befreiten Gesellschaft kann Befreiung dann nur soziale Befreiung sein und ------* Ich möchte Fabian Freyenhagen, Manuel Knoll und Werner Stegmaier für wertvolle Anmerkungen danken.

Aproximações teóricas, sem embargo, são, na maioria das vezes, difíceis de realizar. Quase sempre os autores, em suas premissa teóricas principais, não concordam, ou partem de referenciais metodológicos totalmente distintos e opostos. Neste sentido, é sempre um desafio realizar tais conjugações. Assim, seguindo a interdisciplinaridade da pragmática sistêmica, pretende-se, no presente artigo, sugerir, ao menos inicialmente, proximidades possíveis entre à pragmática sistêmica de Luhmann e de Teubner para com os escritos da indeterminação e indiferença em Giorgio Agamben. Intenta-se problematizar e analisar a seguinte questão, tendo em vista tal paralelo e uma partida do sistema jurídico: como os sistemas permitem decidir fora de seus códigos estruturais? Qual a condição de possibilidade da mesma? Assim sendo, com base em uma metodologia revisional bibliográfica, a pesquisa permite explicitar uma releitura de conceitos centrais da pragmática sistêmica e da perspectiva de Agamben, sobretudo, de paradoxo e decisão, de modo a destacar certa presença constante de uma indeterminação paradoxal como paradigma hodierno da decisão e de funcionamento organizacional dos sistemas sociais autopoiéticos.

This work aims to introduce the reader to Pierre Bourdieu's theory of fields, to evaluate it critically and, through case studies, to test its implementation in the analysis of new objects. While the use of Bourdieu's concept of the habitus has given rise to countless discussions, the literature strangely remains more silent on the theory of fields, although it lies at the heart of his work. A series published by Editions du Seuil, started and initially edited by Bourdieu, includes a number of monographs that apply the theory of fields;r some journals have devoted whole issues to explicitly mobilizing the theory in order to study specific areas, and a growing number of works make use of it. However, critical discussions that seek to give an account of this theory both in general terms and in particular areas remain rare. The aim of this work is to fill that gap. One of the hypotheses put forward in this book is that the theory of fields constitutes an adequate tool for explaining and understanding the social world but that its use must be rigorously circumscribed and correspond to certain methodological principles.

In vorliegender Arbeit geht es um die Frage worin man eigentlich genau vertraut, wenn man in Bitcoin vertraut. Das Problem wird aus einer Organisationen in den Fokus nehmenden Perspektive aufgerollt und es wird versucht ein Vergleich zwischen den Bezugspunkten des Vertrauens bei herkömmlichen Währungen und bei Bitcoin herauszuarbeiten. Im Zentrum der Argumentation steht die systemtheoretische Formalisierung des Vertrauensbegriffes und die damit einhegende Fokussierung der Folgen von Vertrauensbeziehungen (Risiken).

(Keferstein Caballero, L. (2018). Educación en el poder: el papel de las instituciones y los sistemas de comunicación en la imposición de realidades subjetivas según Michel Foucault y Niklas Luhmann. In A. Ortiz Soriano, A. Cruz Cedillo, V. Bello Montalvo & N. Hernández García, De la realidad compleja a la construcción del conocimiento educativo (1st ed., pp. 212 - 223). México, México: The Pillow Books. ISBN: 978-607-9064-17-4.)

Las relaciones de poder entre humanos, tal y como queda implicado tanto en Foucault como en Luhmann, son intrincadas y complejas, se despliegan en el interior de la vida en tan variadas maneras y diferentes niveles que parecieran camuflarse, volverse imperceptibles, y, en caso de ser descubiertas, inocuas o hasta prescriptivas y recomendables. Mientras que Foucault encuentra esto último sospechoso, Luhmann lo entiende como una situación neutra. Con la gran capacidad de abstracción de la que Luhmann goza ve la transmisión de selecciones como lo que es: una forma de transformación de la realidad ajena no necesariamente violenta, lo cual en Foucault es en sí dominación. Para cada autor, el poder encuentra diferentes medios de diseminación de discursos e imposición. Mientras que para Foucault son las instituciones que educan al sujeto las principales encargadas de dar vida al sistema de poder, para Luhman es la comunicación en sí misma la que establece relaciones de transmisión de decisiones a tomar en la cotidianidad.

Palabras clave: Instituciones de poder, Sistemas de comunicación, Educación del sujeto y poder, Michel Foucault, Niklas Luhman.

In the “calamitous” 14th century, as Barbara Tuchman called it in her classic „A Distant Mirror“ (1978) , the medieval world entered a period of severe crisis in demography, economy, politics and religion. This crisis took hold in all regions, ranging from China in the East to England in the West. Even before the catastrophic pandemic of the Black Death (1346-1352), deteriorating climatic conditions had ended the period of demographic and economic expansion that began in the 10th century.
The local and regional impacts and consequences of these general potentially crisis-laden conditions may have differed; outcomes ranged from actual societal collapse to the emergence of powerful new polities – while Byzantium´s power dwindled away, Hungary entered a period of strong rulership and external power in the reign of Louis I of Anjou (1342-1382), for instance. But these conditions provide a framework for global perspective on this period and allow us to use the 14th century-crisis as a field of “natural experiments of history”, as Jared Diamond and James A. Robinson have called them ; accordingly, we analyse how similar crisis phenomena influenced the development of societies with different (or similar) traditions, religions, institutions, geographies or ecologies.
In order to be able to capture the local variations and complexities, we adopt concepts and tools provided by the field of complexity science. Mono-causal or linear explanations are inadequate for the analysis and the description of crisis, transformation or collapse of pre-modern polities. Within this framework, complex systems are understood as large networks of individual components, whose interactions at the microscopic level produce “complex” changing patterns of behaviour of the whole system on the macroscopic level. In the last decades, historians and social scientists who became interested in complexity theory tried to use its concepts and terminology for the conceptualisation and description of phenomena in their own fields, but often only in a “metaphoric” way. Less frequently, though, historians have tried to make use of the mathematical foundations of complexity theory or of quantitative tools provided by this field. Recent scholarship has implemented some of these tools especially for the construction of macro-models of socio-economic development. While these studies help us construct analytical tools for the macro-level of our own research, they run the same risk as earlier scholarship of neglecting complex variations at the local and regional levels.
Therefore, we combine complexity theory with the analytical framework of „systems theory“ developed by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann in order to capture the interveawements between politics, economy and religion within a polity and with the political, economic and ecological environment. In addition, we employ the methods and tools of network analysis, which allow us to capture, analyse and model linkages and cause-effect correlations in society, economy, politics and religion on the macro- and micro-level down to groups and individuals.
Overall, as a complement to earlier studies our analytical
approach shall allow us to capture the “diversité véritable” of our period without losing track of essential commonalities (the “strange parallels”, as Victor Liebermann has called them in his remarkable study on Southeast Asia in Global Context, 2009 ) of this “first world crisis” across all cultures and societies. The scientic value of this approach will be demonstrated for some specific cases.

"Half a century ago Jürgen Habermas published his seminal work Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit (1962–2012), in which he formalized his ideal-typical model of the public sphere.

The influence of the Habermasian paradigm in the following decades has been such that it has given rise to an autonomous interdisciplinary field of study, bringing together historians, literary scholars, political scientists, and philosophers.

For fifty years Habermas's theory has been the catalyst for the historiographical debate about public opinion and has been recognized as an interpretative paradigm of the development of Western modernity.

Despite the heralding of a post-Habermas era; despite the fact that some historians have mused over a possible – and in the minds of a few even desirable – total eclipse of the Habermasian doctrine; Habermas's model still boasts a significant scholarly vitality. Many answers that the German philosopher supplied have turned out to be inaccurate, but for historians the bigger questions that he posed remain relevant: how – and when – was the critical power of public discussion born? How are «the public» and «public spaces» defined? What is the relationship between public discourse and authority? What, ultimately, is the power of communication?

Inspired by the fundamental question of the relationship between power and communication, the current research paths explored by historians of the Ancien régime have consolidated the critical dialectic with this analytical paradigm, but at the same time have led in a direction that goes beyond the public sphere.

This volume combines empirical research on early modern Europe with the most recent theoretical approaches in the historiography of political communication. Leading North American and European scholars in the field engage critically with this fundamental concept of political modernity and present a new way of thinking about early modern politics."

Reviewed in American Historical Review; Cromhos; Francia; European History Quarterly; European Review of History; Historische Zeitschrift; Journal of Early Modern History; Renaissance Quarterly; Renaissance Studies; Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine; Revue Historique; Storicamente.

Der Beitrag behandelt das Verhältnis zwischen funktionaler Differenzierung und Humandifferenzierung aus systemtheoretischer Perspektive anhand von Stanisław Lems Beschreibung des fiktiven Planeten Panta. Er gelangt zur Schlussfolgerung, dass die bislang vorherrschende systemtheoretische Auffassung der gesellschaftlichen Relevanz von Humandifferenzierung allenfalls auf dieses fiktive Beispiel, nicht aber auf die irdische Weltgesellschaft zutrifft, und plädiert für eine gesellschaftstheoretische Neubewertung der Humandifferenzierung.

In this paper we discuss the strengths and limitations of Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory as a theoretical lens for studying organisations. We outline the main contributions of his work to contemporary organisation studies: the differentiation between social and psychological logics, the differentiation between different social systems, the radical process character of organisations, and the embeddedness of his organisation theory into a larger theory of society. Based on a discussion of the main limitations of Luhmann’s theory we propose an agenda for the future development of his theory.

"This is the first book to consider German sociologist Niklas Luhmann's social theory in a critical legal context.

Niklas Luhmann: Law, Society, Justice is a critical description, and at the same time a performative inversion, of the theory of legal autopoiesis as developed by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann. This theory is introduced here both in terms of society at large and the legal system specifically. As the basic operations and mechanisms of Luhmannian sociological analysis of the law are used as a platform on which the critical analysis of the book is erected, the work reveals the aporetic structure of autopoiesis. This aligns it with postmodern approaches to law as influenced by post-structuralism, deconstruction, feminist theories, contemporary philosophy and political theory. The main epistemological inversion is that, here, the systemic environment - whatever is not 'of the system' - becomes a space of critique and negation of the existing systemic structures, but only after its prior internalization by the system itself. Thus, through autopoietic processes, the environment advances from outside in, and in this transgressive performance, an autopoietic critique of the structure emerges. The book builds on this transgression and reconstructs the theory malgré soi on the basis of a paradox, where the observer is required to look outside the law in order to find an adequate description of the law.

Niklas Luhmann: Law, Society, Justice thus operates both as an introduction to the relevance of Luhmann's social theory for law, as well as a critical response to autopoiesis. "

Resumo: A constituição é um importante instrumento para a sedimentação dos direitos fundamentais em benefício de todos os grupos sociais que fazem parte da subjacente comunidade, dentre os quais se incluem os estrangeiros, migrantes ou refugiados. Assim, o reconhecimento jurídico deste grupo, a partir da teoria do reconhecimento de Axel Honneth, ainda que pela via jurisdicional, é de extrema importância para a manutenção da ideia de uma constituição pluralista, na concepção de Gustavo Zagrebelsky, e para que os integrantes deste grupo social possam manter e/ou desenvolver a sua identidade e o seu autorrespeito frente aos demais integrantes da comunidade, sob pena da institucionalização das relações de subintegração em desfavor deles (Marcelo Neves). Como exemplo do reconhecimento jurídico do estrangeiro é a decisão do Supremo Tribunal nos autos do RE 587.970, de relatoria do Ministro Marco Aurélio, em que restou assegurada a uma estrangeira italiana e idosa residente no Brasil há mais de 54 anos o benefício assistencial previsto no art. 203, inc. V, da Constituição Federal de 1988.


Abstract: The constitution is an important instrument for settling fundamental rights for the benefit of all social groups that are part of the underlying community, including foreigners, migrants, or refugees. Thus, the legal recognition of this group, based on Axel Honneth's theory of recognition, albeit through the jurisdictional way, is extremely important for the maintenance of the idea of a pluralist constitution, with the creation of Gustavo Zagrebelsky, and so the members of that social group can maintain and/or develop its identity and self-respect towards the other members of the community, under penalty of institutionalizing subintegration relations to their detriment (Marcelo Neves). As an example of legal recognition of foreign, the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice in the case of RE 587.970, by the rapporteur of Justice Marco Aurélio, in which remained an Italian and elderly foreigner resident in Brazil for over 54 years or assistance provided for in art. 203, inc. V, of the Federal Constitution of 1988. Palavras-Chaves: Constituição, Reconhecimento, Estrangeiros.