I repeatedly have struggled to talk about the differences between "Schicht", "Klasse" and "Stand" with English people, words that are extremely important in the discourse about society in the German language. Yet, strangely absent in the English language. I recognize these struggles in this explanation.
This blew my mind. I have been looking for older alternatives to memetic theory and Luhmann's work has surpassed my expectations. Thank you so much for your work and bringing this to our attention!
The systems Luhmann talks about are different environments that memes evolve in, with different environmental pressures. Of course the systems themselves are also memes, so we have memes evolving inside of memes.
I stopped watching live TV, listening to the radio and reading newspapers years ago. Within just a couple of months my perspective reset. If I see live tv now, for example the BBC, it's impossible to take seriously. It's like peeking into a very strange cult and to a degree repulsive.
@@matthewmelange because of the places I lived and worked that get misrepresented, and the fact they pretty much get away with anything. For example Jimmy Saville
Watching RT years ago weaned me off western press. Once the West banned RT, I stopped consuming western mass media entirely. I listen to media "normies" now and alternate between anger and sorrow.
Yes, very clever but is it helpful? His conclusion is that of an evolutionary model beyond control. The problem is that you can apply an evolutionary model to just about everything even cosmology. This is why his later writing, i.e. his recommendations are incomprehensible and self contradictory. Let's bear in mind the he is describing a model. That fact that it matches observation is neither here or there. Once you surrender to chaos then that is the end of it. The conclusion to it is the same as fatalism. The problem with letting go of control is that it creates anxiety and you get into a vicious circle. It is not even new. This is how the concept of god came about until our modern world in the famous words of Nietzsche killed it. Beyond that, it won't change anything. Human nature is to seek control. At least on that issue I think there is overwhelming consensus around the world.
@@ExiledGypsy lol, soooo?... since that's exactly what the vessay said, you are agreeing with all 3 of his statements? And we just watched the video,..... Sorry, I must be lost, I'm back to, sooooo? .... I'll agree with one thing you did not say, Luhmann is an average thinker at best, and will only make the soup thicker for the, .... carefree wanderer. peace
@@blackopal3138 No, that is not what I said. My point was that you can describe any system inevolutionary terms. The problem with this is that evolutionary model is descriptive and passive. It's mathematics is that of chaos theory and chaos is by definition out of control. This can be said about any thinker including Darwin. I was not grading any thinker. I was saying that we need better models and not good desriptions of a system where the mathmatics of the model have solutions. Luhunsk's later writings do include solutions but they are not really viable or cohesive because he has trapped himself by this evolutionary model with unknown number variables. It is a bit like hidden variables in QM that no one has yet managed find and if anything experiements keep indicating towards absence of any hidden variable and indeed towards spooky action at a distance. Quantum theory is not even understood and yet these equations have given birth to the most fantastic technologies. The same could be said about Newtonian physics. Even Newton knew that it didn't reveal anything about the nature of gravity but they are still being used in ordbital mathematics. So, a pefect discriptive model that matches observation doesn't say anyrthing about the value of the model. However, in order to find better models we need to 1st accept these are just models and not the exact representation of reality.
@@ExiledGypsy Yes, but the 'vessay' said all that. So, what this gent said, is correct. Plus he enjoyed it. ... I'll help you out. No one said it was a great theory. You're just taking exception to him enjoying a well made video and complimenting the producer. Follow? .... I didn't even read your science... cz I just watched a video on it, lol Also, I knew that all anyway, also, I don't care...because math is the Logic of the primitive, contained mind. It is limited to physical understanding, but the answers we seek are metaphysical. Peace
@@blackopal3138 I am sorry about the mess. For some bizarre reason I seemed to be responding to you under your user handle. This is probably because I was doing something else at the same time and I must have made a mistake. So, I have deleted the last two responses to your last comment, and replaced them with this shorter and cohesive one: I don't understand why you keep saying that the "vessay" as you call it is saying the same thing. I watched it again and at no point it says that Luhmann's model is passive, and it is useless. In fact, it claims it to be optimistic with which I totally disagree. For example, it claims that the code within the Law subsystem leads to better Laws. I don't see any evidence for such claims. As theory claims they evolve, and evolution has no concept of good or bad. It is low level mutation in response to constraints in the environment. In general, these codes lead to better self-preservation that are often in opposition to other subsystems. The Laws get better for Lawyers and Banking gets better for bankers. Policing code protects policemen better and interventions by outsiders or arbiters give rise to even more complex inner codes. This growing complexity makes them even more fragile. This interplay usually leads to corruption and actually endangers the whole for the sake of the subsystem. One can easily argue that climate crisis in an example of it. As I said Lihmann's model confirms observations and as Wolfgang Pauli pointed out when confronted with an explanation for Spin in QM; It is not even wrong. He meant that the analysis was correct, but it was useless and led to impossibilities. Such models have no currency and again I never heard the narrator say anything remotely similar. As for your claim of the primitive nature of mathematics, I can only deduce that you are not aware of how many complex models have a mathematical basis. As Max Tegmark from MIT claims the whole nature is mathematical. Evolutionary mathematics is one kind that you can see everywhere because at its basic level, it is indeed very simple. But as for example Steven Wolfrom demonstrated very simple rules can give birth to extremely complex systems. Fractal mathematics is the basis of Mandelbrot set from which the "Finger of God" was revealed as a geometric shape. So, I would say creating a mathematical model for social behaviour is small potato by comparison. Indeed, there are many of them in use as in stock market. They are also using it to catch criminals. Donald Hoffman's work and even neural networks are mathematical models simulating evolution. The challenge is efficiency and the number of variables (known and unknown). The whole universe is simulated from the notion of big bang to current time and the similarities are remarkable. As to your categorization of social systems as metaphysical, again I am not sure what you mean. Indeed, I looked up "metaphysics" in the dictionary and I couldn't see how that would fit your argument. Please believe me when I say that I am not trying to be condescending and I certainly welcome your attempt to help me understand but nothing is your writing seem cohesive. I think people get so convinced by theories that certainly sound cohesive and match observations so closely that they get invested in them too much that they keep seeing things through the same perspective even when what they see is clearly not there. In this way you seem to be seeing something that is not there because I didn’t say it. They destroy imagination and that in itself is dangerous. If it is just a matter of entertainment for you and you just enjoyed the narration, well we all like good stories but for that story is dangerous and people shouldn't get invested in it.
Wonderful! This is my favorite subject. I love complexity/systems and I absolutely adore that you mention that everything works like different functional systems in the body -- all too true! Chaos theory in all forms is the most under-studied subject in all of academia and should be required for all people who inevitably will participate in society within those bespoke functions. What I would posit is that the evolution of society in this way actually WILL inevitably mean that the "sovereign individual" AND the whole of society become more prominent and interesting. As you said, "there is no best system for ALL" and I think that through gradual evolution of technologies, ourselves, and our surrounding systems that that will become more evident, meaning that people can live more genuine and authentic lifestyles without having to unduly follow mainstream outlets as much. I believe the reason humans did this early on in our civilizations is that the cost of differentiation was merely too high at that point. To use the biological metaphor, our growing cell wasn't prepared yet with the right resources to allow individual cells to differentiate themselves from the others. Yet, as progress and systems march on, you get an increase in the ability of our individual cells to do so since there is now enough excess energy and resources to do so. The example I see in modernity is the rise and fall of celebrity. We create a sub-class called "celebrities" who are attractive, talented, and charismatic individuals for others to imitate and adore. They get paid by the millions to do so. A century later, we have so many more celebrities that the meaning of the word begins to change and evolve -- not because there are less interesting and attractive people, but because our ability to produce more of them is now possible. Now they're merely "influencers" who all carry some niche amount of information that anyone can access through their own personal channels. It's an evolution!
Great lecture as always. While reading a book called "Eurocetrism"(1989.) written by a Marxist economist and scholar Samir Amin I stumbled upon this paragraph: "Historical materialism is not an economic determinism. The concept of overdetermination proceeds direcdy from the structuralist concept of social systems. It suggests, at least implicitly if not explicit- ly, that the determinisms that operate at the same time in the different instances of social reality are convergent because they all contribute simultaneously to the reproduction of the system, its adaptation to the requirements of its evolution, and the crisis that necessitates its sur- passing. Economic determinism and the determinisms that govern the political, ideological, and cultural realms all converge and, conse- quendy, "overdetermine" the movement. Thus, if a transformation has become necessary economically, it is also necessary politically, ideo- logically, and culturally, and vice versa. Further, if one accepts that the economic is determinant in the last instance, overdetermination can easily lead to an economistic reading of history in which the other instances adjust themselves to the demands of the economic. This is not my understanding of historical materialism for two reasons. First, I do not believe that it is correct to pose the question of the relations among the different instances in analogous terms for all stages of history. The autonomy of the economic instance is specific to capitalism, whereas in the tributary systems it is subordinated to the political instance, as I pointed out above. Second, my understanding of historical materialism is completely incompatible with structuralism and the concept of overdetermina- tion. In my view, each of the instances is governed by its own specific logic. The status of each is either determinant in the last instance (the economic) or dominant (the political in tributary systems, the eco- nomic in capitalism, the cultural in the communist future). The logic of each instance is autonomous from the logic in each of the others and not necessarily, still less spontaneously, complementary to them. Hence, the instances are frequendy in conflict and, a priori, it is not possible to predict which will win out over the others. In my opinion, Marx completely analyzed the economic logic of capitalism (accumu- lation) as its dominant character, that is, the channels through which the economic generally succeeds in asserting its dominance over the logics of the political, ideological, and cultural. I have said, on the other hand, that neither Marx nor historical Marxisms have offered analyses as powerful concerning the logics of the other instances, and I do not think that any progress has been made in these areas outside of Marxism. The specific logic of each instance is expressed by a particular determinism. The conflict among these determinisms gives history a distinctive degree of uncertainty and, hence, distinguishes it from areas governed by the laws of nature. Neither the history of societies nor that of individuals is programmed. Freedom is precisely defined by this conflict between the logics of the different instances, which makes it possible to choose among various alternatives. Hence, in opposition to the concept of overdetermination, I propose the con- cept of under-determination. Does this mean that societies are chaotic and irrational? Not at all; they are always orderly and rational in the sense that the conflict between the different logics of the instances (the under-determination) always finds a solution through the subjection of some logics to others. However, this solution is but one among several possible solutions. Social, political, ideological, and cultural struggles thus shape societies by imposing one choice of order and rationality over other ones." It seems very similiar to what you were talking about in this video, except with the edition where he singles out a social instance(system) that can impose its logic on other systems. In capitalism that would be the economy, or the drive for endless accumulation of capital. It is interesting to note that he singles out the 16. century(the begining of capitalism in Europe), as moment of transition when the political instance start "losing out" against the economic one, while you say Luhman takes 16. century as a transition from stratified to functional differentiation. My guess is their theories are not the same but have some similiar kernels, with Aimns ofcourse being much less developed, he was a predominantly a Marxist theorist of unequal exhange and dependency. Do you think they are writing about the same or similiar social theory and what are your thoughts on the ability of a single system to impose its logic on others?
“The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.” - Theodore K.
Just plain wrong. You cannot understand the drastic technological development that occured, and is still occuring, during capitalism without realizing that this was due to the bourgeoisie gaining enough power to the point of having the control of the state. Historically they started with manual labour, liberal professions, and ended up having workers in their charge. All their power comes from being able to produce and commerce, and with that they end up being able to actually determine the laws of the state. And here is when ideology comes in, because liberalism justifies capitalism and wants the state to interfere the least amount possible on the market. So technological improvement was the consequence of the bourgeoisie gaining power and imposing the ideology which interests them. In a colectivistic system technological improvement would still be a need, and it wouldn't have issues like consumerism or excessive rates of pollution because the main objective wouldn't be anymore to compete and have private gainings in the market, the main objective would be to actually satisfy the needs of society, without any dirty tricks, manipulation, corruption, excessive pollution for the sake of individual gainings, etc.
@@adley5755 A worker in a collective socialist factory maybe would be less exploited by a burgeois capitalist owner class but he would still be a factory worker, a clog in a machine not a self determined being. I read an interesting article once how humans were slowly psychologically changed to be able to serve a machine and that people from merieval times for example would psychologically not be able to stand the predetermined monotonous steps one has to do to work with a computer because most tools they had required some personal artisanal skill and they would immediately get "computer rage"
13:38 these all feel so arbitrary. There’s a apriori assumption about what systems to include and what their boundaries are (eg separating law from politics). There’s also very little acknowledgment give to technology. Distally speaking, the opioid epidemic exists because we have the technology to synthesize and mass produce opioids. Systems respond to it differently, but also have a hand in creating them.
The systems theory distinction between law and politics, as an example, is one of the clearest to illustrate. Politics is concerned with elections - Luhmann’s proposed code is government/opposition (there may be issues to raise with this binary). Elected politicians may externally influence law, but they do not control it. Law constructs the distinction: legal vs. illegal. To understand why Luhmann constructs these boundaries as he does it’s necessary to understand the foundational importance of codes (of distinction, difference) in his theory.
@@absolutelynada I'm not opposed to reading more about his media philosophy. Prima facie it just looks like most theories/frameworks where you start with the things you care about and work form there.
@@CraigTalbert Well, since Luhmann’s theory is at least firstly a social theory of modernity, we should say it starts with the “things” modernity “cares about.” If we say modernity approaches its encompassing of the globe, we mean that the distinctions defined by these function systems (economy is perhaps the best example) proliferate.
This is the mirror of the question 'How can we address the Sub-Conscious?'. All communication is a creation of inherent effect. Disregarding it is still a forced action. There are many examples of people being manipulated into the choice of disregarding communications, as much as there are manipulations into regarding communications. This evidences the reality of media as discussed in this great video. Luhmann, McLuhan...all necessary reading to preface any deep dive into reading Philosophy. It provides the context through which you can maintain objectivity in the face of influence.
Thanks for the series! It's much appreciated. Wish I could have a long conversation with you about this. I have so many questions. So to be upfront, I'm a socialist organizer; I do tenant organizing, labor organizing, and community organizing in a small city in Oklahoma. The truth of what luhman is describing seems absolutely obvious and inescapable, based on what I've seen in my town. It definitely is interacting functional systems, there definitely is closure in each of them, it definitely did evolve, it definitely is not controllable in some extremely precise way. What struck me though is that the theory is meant to *replace class*, and *replace stratum*? But at least in my city they absolutely appear to co-exist. Also in spite of the complexity of these systems one class absolutely does maintain control, and they are always by hook or by crook able to reproduce their own power. In fact, when I think of the way the marxist geographer David Harvey talks about the world it is at the same time absolutely harmonious with this account, but with different conclusions about class and control. There are highly complex systems, their complexity does constrain the ability of anyone to control them, and yet they still more or less function at the benefit of an owning class. Probably because I'm a socialist, I learned about cybernetics via system control. Stafford Beer, and Norbert Weiner. I learned systems theory from people who accepted and wanted to manage the complexity of society, through things like the recursive VSM. Each of these systems does very much seem to be exactly what was described in the video, but it doesn't seem impossible or unlikely that they are controlled. In fact Beer says the viability of systems IMPLIES control in the viable system model. A system that couldn't "control itself" would stop existing, in his vocabulary: a system without systems 3,4, and 5 wouldn't be viable. It's done through incentive, and algedonic loops. But *like a human body* there is a rough structure of control, the brain does not need to tell every cell what to do to be in control. Much of the complexity of control is left to smaller autonomic systems, according to the systems theory I know that are actually governable *because* they reduce the "variety" (a form of quantified complexity) for the regulators of their meta systems to regulate. To be concrete: the media can be a complex system interested in its own reproduction of itself, and still be controlled by a ruling and owning class. Not directly, but in the ways chomsky mentioned. The owning class, because it has the money do things to the media system that control it. True, of course, it's a management-by-exception but it is still management. They only crack the whip (cut ads, withdraw funding, lobby against, send censorship requests, ask network to take off air, organize against, etc...) when the institution starts to veer off course. They only need to keep it on the path, they don't need to control each broadcast. The political system too, is imperfectly controlled by the monied class. As is the law enforcement system. In my town i've been able to see it happen in front of me in fairly intricate detail. LEOs were denied a raise in 2020, because of protests against the police budget, and developers, chamber of commerce, political consultants, the state republican party, etc... all coordinated to create an enormous counter-campaign. It is, for sure, loose control. But they are very consciously controlling and preserving their power by preserving these systems. I do believe that modern society evolves just as was described, but it seems very much that at every point the embedded control systems evolve right along with it. And those control systems seems loosely federated with each other, and those federations seem to be a source of stratification.
I'm at work so this might be a mess, I just had to fire this out there, but I really feel the need to have a longer think about this, and a longer conversation. I would just read Luhman's book, and try and synthesize it with my own thinking a bit, but It sounds like, since he apparently doesn't explain well, that that might not be a good idea? Or is it worth the time?
The kind of stratification exhibited within these structural organizations, including poltical organizations that are audacious enough to attempt to shape the whole society, is something what Turchin would probably call a group of individuals with credentials, often but not always lawyers. They are not hereditary and in my opinion are primarily meant for survival of the organization. Two examples and both are somewhat outsiders from rather humble origins, one even from a different racial backround. Putin in Kremlin. Sundar Pichai at Google.
Thanks a lot for your reflections and for sharing your experiences. . As to control: The point is that there is no "sovereign individuality." Those who "control" can only do so in line with control mechanisms provided by the system. In a sense, the more you control, the more you accept being controlled by the system. That's why people who got very rich often decide to quit their jobs: the more control/power they have in the system, the more they feel the system is controlling them.. Please excuse that I copy a comment I just wrote in response to another viewer who brought up a similar point about strata/classes. : Luhmann doesn't say at all that strata disappeared or that there is equality. To the contrary: The economy system, for instance, creates huge differences between rich and poor. Luhmann acknowledges very much that modern society produces lots of differences--all systems do this, not just the economy. Briefly put, the huge differences in society, for Luhmann, are best understood as resulting from how the multiple systems operate rather than on the basis of which stratum/class people are born into. But this is, of course, not to say that it doesn't matter for an individual if their parents a poor or rich. It does. In the education system, for instance, it matters a lot if your parents can pay for you to go to Stanford or not (because of the coupling between economy/education). But, at the same time, if you want to understand how the education system or the academic system works, you have to understand the difference between good grades/bad grades or peer-reviewd paper/not peer-reviewed paper, and these differences are not produced in the economy but, respectively, in education and academia. Each system produces its own differences according to their own "logic" (codes) You can't understand the codes of education, law, academia, etc. by reducing them to "money.". But again, of course it helps a lot if you have money if you want good grades, stay out of prison, or become a scientist.
I think one important thing to remember about evolution, though, is that there's no trajectory, or goal, towards the "better". It simply explains the concept of change over time. This is a hard thing to swallow for some. Another thing is science does not extract truth, it extracts degrees of confidence around specific questions. We can use that collective information to create systems theories that are then testable or repeatable - but as indicated in constructivist theories - what is considered true is often just a point of view. The question of whether light is a particle or a wave is the wrong question. There's a deeper observation there that no one is getting at - the observer, the perspective, is the crux. If a tree falls in the woods and nothing is around to hear it, it doesn't make a sound. It might create waves of energy through the air, but a sound is a relationship between that physical phenomena and the mind that receives those waves as electrically encoded information. The sound is the relationship. This does not make it not real, it simply is real in a specific context. Light is neither a particle or a wave - those are just the two ways in which humans can view it, based on the types of tools we've used to measure it in 3D space. We're asking the wrong questions. Going back to social theory - they always say history repeats itself, but actually people repeat themselves and never learn the lessons of history - which is mostly story, sometimes based on physical evidence. Our most humanistic groups today use us-versus-them tactics to gain an audience, and promote policies that further divide people, and falsely attribute all of the problems in society to homogeneous boogie-men, instead of understanding society as a vastly complicated network of different systems interacting. Basically, even the best intentioned have a simplistic view of society, and therefore their efforts will always miss the mark because they're simply playing the same game as before. I want to play the game where there are no winners and losers. We simply just take care of each other because we can. And that will require most of humanity to get beyond identitarian games. That doesn't require other people to change, that requires you to change. Changing individual ideas changes collective ideas. You don't need to enforce change on the system, it's already changing over time. All we can do is attempt to steer its course over the long term by focusing on what we can control. A billion small ripples a waveth make.
Really relevant topic, as always, very clearly presented. So much here to unpack and it links to previous videos on Carefree Wandering. Ed: I particularly liked the idea that something is real Because it is constructed. As an Architect this has a mundane truth to it but more importantly in use a building is subject to further selection by those who use it, pay for or trade it, demolish it, modify and convert it to new uses, read it symbolically. I like the fact that in constructing anything - material or abstract - we select one form out of an infinite palate depending on judgements and constraints, though what comes to mind is socially informed. Then, for better or worse, we are forced to run with it, bring it into being and use, suffer the consequences. It all rings true for me. I can also see Existential and psychological dimensions to this subject - the, ‘in the world’, the interface with personality, manipulation of needs and desires, collusion and self deception.
...sorry, but rather opus magnum...To understand Luhmann, I can only recommend his early books! I am not so sure if this lecture represents Luhmann well enough...It can only be an introduction to get on with it. You will have to spend time to understand his approach of observation!...unbeobachtbare Welt!
Nice to see a fairly in-depth video on Luhmann in English that's still more or less aimed towards the layperson. For whatever reason he doesn't have a lot of adherents in the US, but it seems like that's beginning to change.
Social system theory seems to focus on how an organic system arises through these modern media technologies, a perspective that comes across as amoral and primarily descriptive in its character. However, what if one's goal is to anticipate how a forthcoming technology will impact society, or even one's own life? In such cases, the need for judgment and hypothesis-building seems necessary to me at least. Is, according to Luhmann, that just an unattainable task, considering that I receive information through the filter of my own atomized perspective within this intricate system? And is theorizing about the unfalsifiable system-an-sich, which we are never able to truly comprehend, just one big feedback-loop on which the system feeds itself? For example mobile phones and their addictive nature. First a descriptive notion can be theorized of how this new technology mediates our attention/conciousness within a media environment. The second part - and maybe according to Luhmann this is outside the scope of philosophy - would be to understand this theorized model enough to present some possible interventions by which we can limit the addictiveness of smartphones. Because, if we're honest to ourselves, we want knowledge (of a system) so we can use it to our own benefits.
no, you just have to make adjustments, taking all those biases into account, particularly cooperatively by people influenced by different systems. we're not in a completely closed vacuum where everyone is enclosed exactly the same, so every person can see a different "crack" in the closure, and together try to build a composite picture autonomously accurate observations in this case are indeed not enough, but they're still a starting point for creating that composite. this also means ppl from different subject positions (seeing different "cracks") have to cultivate trust despite their differences, which is where conflict comes into play and requires different modes of communication that don't always match (superficially) your own individual outlooks but have to at least signal awareness and respect of this
Very nice to see Luhmann content in English. Massively underappreciated theory imo. I really liked how you explained things, especially the differentiation of functional sub-systems and the examples. Looking forward to more content! As a former Luhmann nerd, I have a couple of comments: - When speaking about "The Wire" you call the subject of the first season - crime and police - a "system". That might be a bit confusing in the context of an explanation of functional systems. In functional systems terms I'd loosely say that the events of the show's first season deal with the intersection of the functional systems economy, legal system and political system. The relationship between those systems is shown through the interaction of different organizations: police organizations, courts, other government bodies and the drug trade organizations. One of the heuristical values of the theory for me is how clear the distinction between different system types (functional systems, organizational systems, interaction systems) is. One cannot just call anything a system but has to specify in which way it qualifies as such. That has the downside that some phenomena that aren't easily described as autopoetic systems (e.g. economic class) are more marginalized within the sociological systems theory discourse. But it provides a good basis for clarity when trying to analyze messy reality and fictional work as the wire. - Another minor nitpick: Towards the end you label Luhmann's epistemological perspective "radical constructivism". It is definitely fair to say that his approach is not far removed from that. Yet, as far as I remember he (along with other people like Heinz von Foerster and Maturana and Varela) labeled his perspective "operativer Konstruktivismus", stressing (I believe) that the existence of an external reality is not denied (as is often attributed to radical constructivism) and that the theory is about how reality is created through systems operations. Keep up the good work!
🇨🇱 24:09 As a Chilean citycien I felt very proud when the concept of AUTOPOIESIS was brought up. Being Humberto Maturana who coined the term 👍. As well as you mentioning Varela & Maturana ‼️ Saludos orgullosos de 🇨🇱
I think it can be argued that police constitutes a functionally differentiated system for Luhmann, as it satisfies the condition of "specific universalism" which he inherited from Parsons. I think any attempt of describing the police system as, let''s say, part of the legal system would fail to capture some of its peculiarities (including the fact that policemen often break the law themselves >:) )
Thank you Fay, I enjoyed my observations of your observations of Hans-Georg Moeller observations of Luhmann's observations of society (or Fai, or Fey, or Phi, Phy no idea ???)
I have observed your observation of the video of professor Han's observation of Luhmann's observation, and I'm here to give you a feedback of my observation that the name is spelled Fai.
Brilliant! Thank you and a question: I have been fascinated by this theory ever since I have heard you first speaking about it, and therefore have read your two great books about Luhman's perspective (was hard to read Luhmman himself...:) With one thing I seem to either not understand or disagree. To me, the premodern world seems to function in the same way that systemed society functions . Why can't social stratas (peasants, aristocracy, clergy...) be described as functioning in the same way as systems do? They are operationally closed, function each by their own code, irritate one another, observe one another, differentiate themselves from one another... Would love an answer if you find a slot for it
I had the same question as well while hearing this. I was initally excited to hear how he would distinguish between these societies but was left feeling they weren't all that different.
Many thanks. Just briefly: Luhmann doesn't talk much about how premodern societies actually worked. But one major difference is that people were often born into strata (or: access to stratum was dependent on birth), and their life was in a considerable degree defined by their stratum, and they (normally) belonged to only one. Let's take the example of religion. Under conditions of stratified differentiation as what you are born (e.g. aristocrat/peasant, man/woman) defines your options regarding your way of being religious. Under conditions of functional differentiation, however, the religious system provides the options under which and in which way anyone can be religious, more or less independent of their stratum. One concrete example: under fully-fledged functional differentiation, everyone has the option not to be religious--that was hardly possible under conditions of stratified differentiation where the stratum was typically tied to specific religious expectations. Or, more concretely: Today, when you meet a stranger, you have often no clue about their religion--they'd need to explain for you to know. In the middle ages, when you met a stranger, you could often guess their religion (in a social, not spiritual sense) basically at first sight, there was no need to explain.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Thank you for taking time to answer! Yes, this leads neatly into your reading of identity construction theory I find so iluminating. Waiting for more!
Both in this and a lot of the other media theories covered, there's a strong notion that modernity represents a radical break from pre-modern conditions. What do you think of the idea proposed by Latour that the division between the modern and the pre-modern is chiefly rhetorical, and that the great failure of most post-modernist philosophies is that they essentially "take modernism's word for" it, assuming that modernism is different and wrong about the ways in which it assigns values, etc.? I would be curious what the potential implications for these theories are; especially since many of them are so focused specifically on *mass media*, something that is to a degree technology dependent, rather than a greater umbrella concept such as for instance social communication. As an example, I could see much of the social system theory discussed in this video as being functionally quite similar even if you took away the division between the pre-modern and the modern, and in fact it would allow for a fascinating look into past societies and their social systems if you were to do that. That said, I am an archaeologist and as such biased towards theories that allow greater understanding of past peoples so I grant that I may be too caught on the potential represented than the validity of the theory itself.
Thanks. I was not aware of his work. It's both fascinating and scary to contemplate the fact that such systems seem quite capable of acting in ways that are contrary not only to what any sane individual might want, but contrary to the wants - and needs - of humanity as a whole. I've said for many years now that people are no longer in control; the 'rules & systems' we built are. One could almost become nihilistic enough to sit back with some popcorn and wonder which system(s) will win. It gives every indication that humanity will not; not unless we find a way to make these "meta-agents" (or some other set of them) act more on our behalf, and less on their own. tavi.
Every socially constructed system is in direct correlations and emerges from the systems of our own underlying realities of biology, psychology etc. in order for social systems to sustain themselves they have to serve a purpose for us, otherwise they would just perish. Incentives of systems contradictory to their purpose in society do arise and is something that must forever be improved on but in general each of those systems serves us more than it harms us, it's exactly because its serves us that we are in its power and also suffer consequences of aspects of it which hurt us.
@@lukasmolcic5143 I don't think it's a given that all systems need to be net positives to survive*, especially when you take into account how the systems (and our roles in them), over time, shape us, as well as the fact that people can have widely different interests as it relates to any given system. Like, to make a couple of crude, extreme analogies, some people kill themselves. That surely doesn't help their cells. Contraceptives in general also don't help cells or genes. *of course, given enough time nothing survives. Also, there's probably a point to be made about how one quantifies that.
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p not necessarily net positive, but useful enough that we decide to keep participating in them, the entire oil industry is an interesting example, it served us so much, we use so much energy from it every day to keep our society running in the way we do, but ultimately it could be the end us as a species if we don't change course soon enough. As I said in the first comment, the size and power of that industry was created out of the enormous interests that it served us and that is exactly why we are now so powerless to replace it even when it threatens our survival.
I think my only two gripes are that "not under direct and complete control" is not the same as "impervious to any intentional steering at all" (same as "chaotic" doesn't mean "impossible to make any sense of"), and that it's fine to identify the systems level as the more important abstraction for a given analysis, but it's wrong to ignore how "leaky" this abstraction is. Ignoring these two points impoverishes the tool a lot when thinking about deep, systemic, intentional change, while the system view itself as described, as a tool, actually looks a lot like stuff discussed by anarchists, for example. (just to make it clear: I've only ever heard of Luhmann here, so I"m only talking about this exposition)
Thank you so much for you outstanding channel! I appreciate your style, gnosis and concise commentary. I look forward to engaging in more of your content in the days ahead:)
I was once a mod on Reddit trying to enforce a rule of making a critique before judging the source, to support a certain type of debate. A lot of social media users insisted on judging he source before reading, because of morality. And a part of them insisted on protecting the population against fake truths. Without going too deep here, this is result of a human who became citizen. The citizen is siding with his nation. The abstraction citizen is pointing towards what is happening with a human having subsumed the common values of society. This is the case for subs like philosophy and comments from academics on X and YT too. They interpret the none fitting messages as hostile to the state and not as a subject which should be examined. As a result the mods on Reddit and the user of X are the cheapest available censors by mass denouncing messages as anti-humanistic. My point is Chomsky is wrong about manipulation as an end in itself. It's a dogmatism in the sense he is ignoring that people have reasons and media is not an island. In an age where the enforced competition is accepted by almost everyone is every aspect of life put under the lens of competition and the weapons are only limited by law, every fake win grows self esteem and removes assumed enemies from the public. Journalists aren't an exception doing this. And more important media has the purpose to make money. Its the reason social media becomes relative fast streamlined because advertisers need a positive world view for their products. When Luhman writes media is a self-reinforcing configuration he is tautological describing media. In the first place media has the purpose to make money. Already this is reason enough to doubt such an dogmatism. And media has the right of free speech. This includes everything not hostile to a nation. When Bezos bought the WP he streamlined the WP and tried to make the WP to a money earning company. Even he is enforced to be considerate to advertisers. The structure of media can't be separated from the political structure of society. Anyway: One person’s extremist fabulist is another’s brave truth-teller, just as one’s promotion of valid information is another’s weaponization of the same. (Mikah Zenko)
What "was created" was the "system" that allows matter, energy and time to exist and interact and give rise to every other sub-systems of various scales and magnitudes in infinite possible ways of which "biological evolution" is just one aspect or branch. A reasonable observation can conclude that this "system" was "finely tuned" somehow to produce the result that we are all experiencing here right now.
Does Luhmanns system explain why there are transitions to and from different systems? I ask, because I assume the larger societal systems are emergent from underlying rules that are more static. Eg we didn’t explicitly choose the current system, but it evolved implicitly. I don’t mean to say people weren’t vocal or taking actions to bring about change at those times, but rather, like you said, they were making choices based on their contexts within society, it was the system itself that enabled that change. Much like the media argument at the start.
Our actions are best understood not as free expressions of "sovereign individuals," but as conditioned by the options we have with regard to the systems we are part of. I like this idea. Many have pointed out how we behave according to the "spirit" of some institution. For instance, if we become prison guards we might rapidly become abusive. But if instead we are assigned to work as nurses in a hospital, we might pick up the helpful, life saving spirit of the hospital environment. But in society in general we behave as part of many such systems and institutions all at the same time. Who needs the pitiful explanatory power of the "sovereign individual" anymore? I will NOT read Luhmann, though, after what I heard about his writing in this video. 😄
every person is institutionalized, even the ones who believe they aren't, because "bucking" (going against) whichever institutions you don't want to align with is already something enough people do, so institutions have been created to accommodate that. Every institution is both its own thing and a counter‐institution now, except the kinds of things ppl can't get away with resisting publicly, but then they technically have an underground institution for that too, which doesn't even mean it's completely separate, just functions different due to differences of what the more socially acceptable institutions allow in order to save face. Someone who goes completely underground is still institutionalized, so people who don't like what they go through everyday build notions of a time before any of this was fully enclosed, but all such resistances have already been captured or they never \\*were*\\ uncaptured, and basically amount to hubristic escape fantasies either way, because we can't go back (if something "back then" were truly non‐institutional) without building numbers, which would require building a counter institution anyway, which is still an institution.
In anarchist* theory (and practice), it is understood that what and how we do is a crucial ingredient to shaping ourselves. It takes the position that neither nature nor nurture are enough to explain human action. So we absolutely are conditioned by the world, systems and institutions we live under, but there is in fact some room to shape how. Crucially, from this anarchist theory derives what could be called a principle of unity between means and ends, the idea being that the process of achieving a goal should use means which are not just in line with the goal, but which help shape the people who can achieve that goal. The people who can achieve and an anarchist society, and their institutions and systems, are shaped in the struggle for this society. In this sense, the "sovereign individual" takes some power back by deciding how they interact with the current systems and institutions and what kinds of systems and institutions they try to build, with an eye to how this very interaction will shape the individual (and their collectives). I like this line of thinking a lot because it's not blinded by one level of thinking or abstraction. It doesn't deny the importance of systems, but also doesn't take them to be external entities. It understands the limitations of the individual, but doesn't deny the individual as the active material of the collective. It sees the world to be built as a world which affirms both the individual and the collective while negating the contradiction between them. *I'm mostly talking about anarchists social anarchists here, the individualists might see the interaction with the collective a little differently
Manipulation starts with the question asked and then answered. I check several sources. Then I run the media contribution through my filter. Is this shared mainly for profit? Out of military enthusiasm? True conviction? Or is it a blatant effort to deceive? Is it helpful?
UA-cam is always watching. I noticed that it started highlighting the like button when someone asks for the audience to like the video. But much later on, when the phrase "like this video was used" 22:36, it was used in a different sense and yet UA-cam still picked up on it and highlighted the button.
22:38 And the French theorist Bruno Latour claims that social sciences role is not to work on truth, but on knowledge. Truth is assigned to the religions.
@@Barklord I dont mean to offend in any way, but what you just wrote was just a long winded platitude and did not even adress the difference between knowledge and truth. My comment was about what was said in the video -- that this autopoethical systems theory consider the role of science to be about truth, which Bruno Latour seem to disagree with.
@z0uLess You didn't explain the argument though, you just said some French fella said that truth's reserved for religion. Considering most religious truths involve a priori reasoning, why isn't the above comment doubting the truthfulness of unfalsifiable statements a legitimate response?
@@monkeykingeater I've added a timestamp to my original comment so as to point to what exactly in the video I was commenting on. The context of my comment was self-explanatory and the response to my comment was about something being untruthful or not when what I pointed to was the claim about something not being about truth at all.
@z0uLess Fair enough. EDIT: I hadn't seen that the other poster had returned when I posted this comment. I originally had some other questions about your or Latour's views on truth and knowledge, but theres no need to have two people arguing with you.
It's pleasantly surprising how similar this discourse on Systems in Media Theory is so similar to Control Theory and Systems discourse in Engineering Luhmann's description of Society as overdetermined, functionally differentiated, functionally coupled, etc. is applicable to Self Driving vehicles too.
Hope you analysis of Francis Fukuyama's End of History and his more recent additions. Is it still relevant with war in Ukraine against Russia and restart of the Cold war?
Yeah. When I read his theory of society I just can't comprehent how brilliant, innovative and cohesive his construction of a theory is, especially considering what has been there before him in sociology.
@@bjornrie I do remember picking "Soziale System" up in the library. I didn't get a single word but I was electrified. Took me 7 years to understand it but I would never claim to be an expert. It does help a lot when you find out, he has a really goofy sense of humor. "Katzen und Schlangen können keine Schlatzen zeugen." (Cats and snakes cannot bread snats.) and then he riffs on forty pages on the impossibility of the interpenetration of systems. Probably gave him a good chuckle.
Luhmann isn't the progenitor of structural differentiation, of course, and the arguments against remain are pertinent as they were sixty years ago: namely, the generalized accord given within each system, and how they interact. I would suggest both Luhmann and Chomsky are both disciples of functionalism - the latter concerned with adaptive evolutionism from outside the systemic tools of media. Obviously what's missing here is signification and continental schools more generally. I would still uphold Stuart Hall/Birmingham School's Representaton Theory as more salient and getting beyond issues that are as old as Horkheimer.
I suppose the real question is why this American pragmatic (fairly dull) tradition of theory is making a comeback. Parsons was very much a part of the 50s and the scentistic sense adapting learning from other quarters: a form of positivism that nations often fall back on during unstable epochs, when a charge calls for a strong bureacracy over a previous vitalistic populism. I wonder whether investment in academic departments is focused in a similar direction, hence your own interest.
Of the manipulative media, I think we start with language. All philosophical arguments are manipulative in that they are trying to sway the way you think about things. I think humans are used to manipulation after what looks like at least ten millennia of it. So maybe manipulation isn't the issue?
So, from Luhmanns' perspective, this idea of "the swarm" in Berardi and Han is too optimistic, in the sense of their faith in human agency, am I right?
One needs to show some care with the social construction theorists when they venture outside of their domain. This is particularly the case when words, symbols, etc. are conflated with an item or phenomenon in physical actuality that is being described. For example, the physical phenomenon of gravity did not exist until the term gravity was socially constructed.
Oh wow you’ve just articulated what I’ve intuitively understood for the last few years, I always found the “ fake news” manipulation theory to be simplistic and naive but I didn’t have the language to articulate a sophisticated attack or alternative, I just sensed it was cynical and simplistic. My brain is having a firework party listening to this 😂
Excellent video! Thank you! Question: when you say that, according to Luhmann, truths are constructed but not necessarily valid. But how does one assert validity?
So it's kinda like it's accidental and purposeful manipulation are built in together, and media literacy that only looks at one side (accidental, purposeful) is tied together systemically by the realism in Luhmann's work?
I would be interested to hear your idea of second order observation in relation to vicarious learning in children. It seems to me that children observe behaviour and then reenact the same behaviour, and this translates to behaving as if the behaviour was being supervised (somewhat Freudian). In terms of capitalism, it seems that the repetition of history, whether it being Disney remakes of Disney classics, or previous fashion trends being recycled, or music hits of the past being remade as popular covers. It is almost as if the culture itself is vicariously acting from its successful predecessor.
Maybe went a little far on the "relevant" graphics[1], but I'm intrigued, looking forward to the next in the series. [1] For example, in the "owning a house, illegally occupying a house" section, I'm not making any ridiculous scolding point, I just found myself thinking "I could be looking at a rock and it would be just as visually informative", which is to say, not at all informative. This, ironically, distracted me from the actually informative audio content. The snap zoom on child custody was funny though.
I genuinely enjoyed this video. Although, I do think the emphasis of Luhmann as a "radical" anti-humanist is much overblown. Furthermore, I wish you would have broken Luhmann down into 3 parts is generally done when discussing Luhmann. But thank you for the great video!
So how does he explain social change? If society functions on its own and every decision is limited by the position of the decider, then how does that account for things like the russian or french revolutions? Systems becoming unclosed?
I wonder what Mr. Moeller would have to say about Luhmans autopoiesis and second-hand observation and Heidegger's notion of Ge-stell or positioning that Modern Technology gives rise too.
I don't think this theory is incompatible with Chomsky's. I'm interested to know what is supposed to give rise to the perspective of each individual system. I understand that there is an analogy with evoution, however, "the point of view of the economy" can be understood to be the point of view of an economic elite, as can "the point of view of the mass media". I'm curious to know what Luhmann and professor Moeller's thoughs are on this. I look forward o the next episode.
It reminds me of Freudian "Unconscious" it talks/says a lot about a person/people's minds But you must believe that there is something called "Unconscious"
Great video! I'm one of those who came in the Peterson era and spent my time railing against your take on him, but I have to say, this is you at your best and something I actually think I can actually benefit from even if I don't agree sometimes (unlike the Peterson videos where it felt more like a battle). Again, great video, looking forward to more!
Do you think social media is a new system or is included within mass media? Maybe it could be analysed as a system with the goal of others attention and self-preserving by sharing.
Hey hans, you make great interesting videos about multiple perspectives which could increase our sensmaking and understanding thank you for that! Can you maybe make a video about alan watts or manly p hall? That would be awesome. Keep up the great work!
What insightful analysis... sweeping assumptions about the status quo and nothing but "almost intuitive" feelings and pop culture to support it. The definition of "manipulation" being deployed here is basically meaningless. All media is manipulation because it is necessarily influenced by subjective individuals.... What a revelation... If systems necessarily act in the interest of self preservation (because... well just because you say so i guess), then wouldn't the clashing systems to which you refer instead cooperate to address existential threats? Or are systems resistent to change, and instead preserve status quo? In that case, how do systems evolve? After that you basically just repeat that things have context, consequences, and influence each other. Additionally, how do you determine where one system ends and another begins? How do you reconcile people's alleged hyperindividualism with their alleged hyperconformity?
Amaranthine further postulates that this bias explains civilization’s cyclical pattern of emergence and collapse. It proposes that artificial intelligence can be designed to interactively compensate for this bias across the full spectrum of social relationships
A follow up video: ua-cam.com/video/6Bw1PY0jUzg/v-deo.html
I repeatedly have struggled to talk about the differences between "Schicht", "Klasse" and "Stand" with English people, words that are extremely important in the discourse about society in the German language. Yet, strangely absent in the English language. I recognize these struggles in this explanation.
This blew my mind. I have been looking for older alternatives to memetic theory and Luhmann's work has surpassed my expectations. Thank you so much for your work and bringing this to our attention!
The systems Luhmann talks about are different environments that memes evolve in, with different environmental pressures. Of course the systems themselves are also memes, so we have memes evolving inside of memes.
@@user-yl7kl7sl1g is your explanation a synthesis/liberty between both concepts?
I stopped watching live TV, listening to the radio and reading newspapers years ago. Within just a couple of months my perspective reset. If I see live tv now, for example the BBC, it's impossible to take seriously. It's like peeking into a very strange cult and to a degree repulsive.
Why do you find it impossible to take the BBC seriously? Do you feel the story you are shown is fabricated?
@@matthewmelange because of the places I lived and worked that get misrepresented, and the fact they pretty much get away with anything. For example Jimmy Saville
And because there’s very little I want to see for the bbc that I care about and can’t see on UA-cam. Makes it massively overpriced from my perspective
The BBC is, indeed, ridiculous.
Watching RT years ago weaned me off western press. Once the West banned RT, I stopped consuming western mass media entirely.
I listen to media "normies" now and alternate between anger and sorrow.
Niklas Luhman's theory is still widely underestimated, esp in the anglophone world.
Keep going.
Another fantastic video essay. Clear and easy to understand. Thank you for the good work
Yes, very clever but is it helpful? His conclusion is that of an evolutionary model beyond control. The problem is that you can apply an evolutionary model to just about everything even cosmology.
This is why his later writing, i.e. his recommendations are incomprehensible and self contradictory. Let's bear in mind the he is describing a model. That fact that it matches observation is neither here or there.
Once you surrender to chaos then that is the end of it. The conclusion to it is the same as fatalism. The problem with letting go of control is that it creates anxiety and you get into a vicious circle. It is not even new. This is how the concept of god came about until our modern world in the famous words of Nietzsche killed it.
Beyond that, it won't change anything. Human nature is to seek control. At least on that issue I think there is overwhelming consensus around the world.
@@ExiledGypsy lol, soooo?... since that's exactly what the vessay said, you are agreeing with all 3 of his statements? And we just watched the video,..... Sorry, I must be lost, I'm back to, sooooo? .... I'll agree with one thing you did not say, Luhmann is an average thinker at best, and will only make the soup thicker for the, .... carefree wanderer. peace
@@blackopal3138 No, that is not what I said. My point was that you can describe any system inevolutionary terms.
The problem with this is that evolutionary model is descriptive and passive.
It's mathematics is that of chaos theory and chaos is by definition out of control.
This can be said about any thinker including Darwin.
I was not grading any thinker. I was saying that we need better models and not good desriptions of a system where the mathmatics of the model have solutions.
Luhunsk's later writings do include solutions but they are not really viable or cohesive because he has trapped himself by this evolutionary model with unknown number variables.
It is a bit like hidden variables in QM that no one has yet managed find and if anything experiements keep indicating towards absence of any hidden variable and indeed towards spooky action at a distance.
Quantum theory is not even understood and yet these equations have given birth to the most fantastic technologies. The same could be said about Newtonian physics. Even Newton knew that it didn't reveal anything about the nature of gravity but they are still being used in ordbital mathematics.
So, a pefect discriptive model that matches observation doesn't say anyrthing about the value of the model.
However, in order to find better models we need to 1st accept these are just models and not the exact representation of reality.
@@ExiledGypsy Yes, but the 'vessay' said all that. So, what this gent said, is correct. Plus he enjoyed it. ... I'll help you out. No one said it was a great theory. You're just taking exception to him enjoying a well made video and complimenting the producer. Follow? .... I didn't even read your science... cz I just watched a video on it, lol Also, I knew that all anyway, also, I don't care...because math is the Logic of the primitive, contained mind. It is limited to physical understanding, but the answers we seek are metaphysical.
Peace
@@blackopal3138 I am sorry about the mess. For some bizarre reason I seemed to be responding to you under your user handle. This is probably because I was doing something else at the same time and I must have made a mistake. So, I have deleted the last two responses to your last comment, and replaced them with this shorter and cohesive one:
I don't understand why you keep saying that the "vessay" as you call it is saying the same thing.
I watched it again and at no point it says that Luhmann's model is passive, and it is useless.
In fact, it claims it to be optimistic with which I totally disagree. For example, it claims that the code within the Law subsystem leads to better Laws. I don't see any evidence for such claims. As theory claims they evolve, and evolution has no concept of good or bad. It is low level mutation in response to constraints in the environment. In general, these codes lead to better self-preservation that are often in opposition to other subsystems. The Laws get better for Lawyers and Banking gets better for bankers. Policing code protects policemen better and interventions by outsiders or arbiters give rise to even more complex inner codes. This growing complexity makes them even more fragile. This interplay usually leads to corruption and actually endangers the whole for the sake of the subsystem. One can easily argue that climate crisis in an example of it.
As I said Lihmann's model confirms observations and as Wolfgang Pauli pointed out when confronted with an explanation for Spin in QM; It is not even wrong.
He meant that the analysis was correct, but it was useless and led to impossibilities.
Such models have no currency and again I never heard the narrator say anything remotely similar.
As for your claim of the primitive nature of mathematics, I can only deduce that you are not aware of how many complex models have a mathematical basis. As Max Tegmark from MIT claims the whole nature is mathematical. Evolutionary mathematics is one kind that you can see everywhere because at its basic level, it is indeed very simple. But as for example Steven Wolfrom demonstrated very simple rules can give birth to extremely complex systems.
Fractal mathematics is the basis of Mandelbrot set from which the "Finger of God" was revealed as a geometric shape.
So, I would say creating a mathematical model for social behaviour is small potato by comparison. Indeed, there are many of them in use as in stock market. They are also using it to catch criminals. Donald Hoffman's work and even neural networks are mathematical models simulating evolution. The challenge is efficiency and the number of variables (known and unknown). The whole universe is simulated from the notion of big bang to current time and the similarities are remarkable.
As to your categorization of social systems as metaphysical, again I am not sure what you mean. Indeed, I looked up "metaphysics" in the dictionary and I couldn't see how that would fit your argument.
Please believe me when I say that I am not trying to be condescending and I certainly welcome your attempt to help me understand but nothing is your writing seem cohesive.
I think people get so convinced by theories that certainly sound cohesive and match observations so closely that they get invested in them too much that they keep seeing things through the same perspective even when what they see is clearly not there. In this way you seem to be seeing something that is not there because I didn’t say it. They destroy imagination and that in itself is dangerous. If it is just a matter of entertainment for you and you just enjoyed the narration, well we all like good stories but for that story is dangerous and people shouldn't get invested in it.
Wonderful! This is my favorite subject. I love complexity/systems and I absolutely adore that you mention that everything works like different functional systems in the body -- all too true!
Chaos theory in all forms is the most under-studied subject in all of academia and should be required for all people who inevitably will participate in society within those bespoke functions.
What I would posit is that the evolution of society in this way actually WILL inevitably mean that the "sovereign individual" AND the whole of society become more prominent and interesting.
As you said, "there is no best system for ALL" and I think that through gradual evolution of technologies, ourselves, and our surrounding systems that that will become more evident, meaning that people can live more genuine and authentic lifestyles without having to unduly follow mainstream outlets as much.
I believe the reason humans did this early on in our civilizations is that the cost of differentiation was merely too high at that point.
To use the biological metaphor, our growing cell wasn't prepared yet with the right resources to allow individual cells to differentiate themselves from the others.
Yet, as progress and systems march on, you get an increase in the ability of our individual cells to do so since there is now enough excess energy and resources to do so.
The example I see in modernity is the rise and fall of celebrity.
We create a sub-class called "celebrities" who are attractive, talented, and charismatic individuals for others to imitate and adore. They get paid by the millions to do so.
A century later, we have so many more celebrities that the meaning of the word begins to change and evolve -- not because there are less interesting and attractive people, but because our ability to produce more of them is now possible.
Now they're merely "influencers" who all carry some niche amount of information that anyone can access through their own personal channels.
It's an evolution!
Great lecture as always.
While reading a book called "Eurocetrism"(1989.) written by a Marxist economist and scholar Samir Amin I stumbled upon this paragraph:
"Historical materialism is not an economic determinism. The concept
of overdetermination proceeds direcdy from the structuralist
concept of social systems. It suggests, at least implicitly if not explicit-
ly, that the determinisms that operate at the same time in the different
instances of social reality are convergent because they all contribute
simultaneously to the reproduction of the system, its adaptation to the
requirements of its evolution, and the crisis that necessitates its sur-
passing. Economic determinism and the determinisms that govern the
political, ideological, and cultural realms all converge and, conse-
quendy, "overdetermine" the movement. Thus, if a transformation has
become necessary economically, it is also necessary politically, ideo-
logically, and culturally, and vice versa. Further, if one accepts that the
economic is determinant in the last instance, overdetermination can
easily lead to an economistic reading of history in which the other
instances adjust themselves to the demands of the economic. This is
not my understanding of historical materialism for two reasons.
First, I do not believe that it is correct to pose the question of the
relations among the different instances in analogous terms for all
stages of history. The autonomy of the economic instance is specific to
capitalism, whereas in the tributary systems it is subordinated to the
political instance, as I pointed out above.
Second, my understanding of historical materialism is completely
incompatible with structuralism and the concept of overdetermina-
tion. In my view, each of the instances is governed by its own specific
logic. The status of each is either determinant in the last instance (the
economic) or dominant (the political in tributary systems, the eco-
nomic in capitalism, the cultural in the communist future). The logic
of each instance is autonomous from the logic in each of the others
and not necessarily, still less spontaneously, complementary to them.
Hence, the instances are frequendy in conflict and, a priori, it is not
possible to predict which will win out over the others. In my opinion,
Marx completely analyzed the economic logic of capitalism (accumu-
lation) as its dominant character, that is, the channels through which
the economic generally succeeds in asserting its dominance over the
logics of the political, ideological, and cultural. I have said, on the
other hand, that neither Marx nor historical Marxisms have offered
analyses as powerful concerning the logics of the other instances, and
I do not think that any progress has been made in these areas outside
of Marxism.
The specific logic of each instance is expressed by a particular
determinism. The conflict among these determinisms gives history a
distinctive degree of uncertainty and, hence, distinguishes it from
areas governed by the laws of nature. Neither the history of societies
nor that of individuals is programmed. Freedom is precisely defined
by this conflict between the logics of the different instances, which
makes it possible to choose among various alternatives. Hence, in
opposition to the concept of overdetermination, I propose the con-
cept of under-determination.
Does this mean that societies are chaotic and irrational? Not at all;
they are always orderly and rational in the sense that the conflict
between the different logics of the instances (the under-determination)
always finds a solution through the subjection of some logics to others.
However, this solution is but one among several possible solutions.
Social, political, ideological, and cultural struggles thus shape societies
by imposing one choice of order and rationality over other ones."
It seems very similiar to what you were talking about in this video, except with the edition where he singles out a social instance(system) that can impose its logic on other
systems. In capitalism that would be the economy, or the drive for endless accumulation of capital.
It is interesting to note that he singles out the 16. century(the begining of capitalism in Europe), as moment of transition when the political instance start "losing out" against the economic one, while you say Luhman takes 16. century as a transition from stratified to functional differentiation. My guess is their theories are not the same but have some similiar kernels, with Aimns ofcourse being much less developed, he was a predominantly a Marxist theorist of unequal exhange and dependency.
Do you think they are writing about the same or similiar social theory and what are your thoughts on the ability of a single system to impose its logic on others?
31:23 what a great quote! “The reality of the mass media - this is the reality of second-order observation”.
@25:30: Luhmann theory does not remind of the chaos theory, it is a chaos theory (or rather complex system theory).
“The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.”
- Theodore K.
Just plain wrong. You cannot understand the drastic technological development that occured, and is still occuring, during capitalism without realizing that this was due to the bourgeoisie gaining enough power to the point of having the control of the state. Historically they started with manual labour, liberal professions, and ended up having workers in their charge. All their power comes from being able to produce and commerce, and with that they end up being able to actually determine the laws of the state. And here is when ideology comes in, because liberalism justifies capitalism and wants the state to interfere the least amount possible on the market. So technological improvement was the consequence of the bourgeoisie gaining power and imposing the ideology which interests them. In a colectivistic system technological improvement would still be a need, and it wouldn't have issues like consumerism or excessive rates of pollution because the main objective wouldn't be anymore to compete and have private gainings in the market, the main objective would be to actually satisfy the needs of society, without any dirty tricks, manipulation, corruption, excessive pollution for the sake of individual gainings, etc.
@@adley5755 A worker in a collective socialist factory maybe would be less exploited by a burgeois capitalist owner class but he would still be a factory worker, a clog in a machine not a self determined being. I read an interesting article once how humans were slowly psychologically changed to be able to serve a machine and that people from merieval times for example would psychologically not be able to stand the predetermined monotonous steps one has to do to work with a computer because most tools they had required some personal artisanal skill and they would immediately get "computer rage"
13:38 these all feel so arbitrary. There’s a apriori assumption about what systems to include and what their boundaries are (eg separating law from politics). There’s also very little acknowledgment give to technology. Distally speaking, the opioid epidemic exists because we have the technology to synthesize and mass produce opioids. Systems respond to it differently, but also have a hand in creating them.
The systems theory distinction between law and politics, as an example, is one of the clearest to illustrate. Politics is concerned with elections - Luhmann’s proposed code is government/opposition (there may be issues to raise with this binary). Elected politicians may externally influence law, but they do not control it. Law constructs the distinction: legal vs. illegal. To understand why Luhmann constructs these boundaries as he does it’s necessary to understand the foundational importance of codes (of distinction, difference) in his theory.
@@absolutelynada I'm not opposed to reading more about his media philosophy. Prima facie it just looks like most theories/frameworks where you start with the things you care about and work form there.
@@CraigTalbert Well, since Luhmann’s theory is at least firstly a social theory of modernity, we should say it starts with the “things” modernity “cares about.” If we say modernity approaches its encompassing of the globe, we mean that the distinctions defined by these function systems (economy is perhaps the best example) proliferate.
simply one of the best explanations of luhmann i have found.
This is the mirror of the question 'How can we address the Sub-Conscious?'. All communication is a creation of inherent effect. Disregarding it is still a forced action. There are many examples of people being manipulated into the choice of disregarding communications, as much as there are manipulations into regarding communications. This evidences the reality of media as discussed in this great video. Luhmann, McLuhan...all necessary reading to preface any deep dive into reading Philosophy. It provides the context through which you can maintain objectivity in the face of influence.
Have been looking forward to this, Luhmann was so hyped up in your previous videos
Thanks for the series! It's much appreciated.
Wish I could have a long conversation with you about this. I have so many questions.
So to be upfront, I'm a socialist organizer; I do tenant organizing, labor organizing, and community organizing in a small city in Oklahoma. The truth of what luhman is describing seems absolutely obvious and inescapable, based on what I've seen in my town. It definitely is interacting functional systems, there definitely is closure in each of them, it definitely did evolve, it definitely is not controllable in some extremely precise way.
What struck me though is that the theory is meant to *replace class*, and *replace stratum*? But at least in my city they absolutely appear to co-exist.
Also in spite of the complexity of these systems one class absolutely does maintain control, and they are always by hook or by crook able to reproduce their own power.
In fact, when I think of the way the marxist geographer David Harvey talks about the world it is at the same time absolutely harmonious with this account, but with different conclusions about class and control. There are highly complex systems, their complexity does constrain the ability of anyone to control them, and yet they still more or less function at the benefit of an owning class.
Probably because I'm a socialist, I learned about cybernetics via system control. Stafford Beer, and Norbert Weiner. I learned systems theory from people who accepted and wanted to manage the complexity of society, through things like the recursive VSM. Each of these systems does very much seem to be exactly what was described in the video, but it doesn't seem impossible or unlikely that they are controlled. In fact Beer says the viability of systems IMPLIES control in the viable system model. A system that couldn't "control itself" would stop existing, in his vocabulary: a system without systems 3,4, and 5 wouldn't be viable.
It's done through incentive, and algedonic loops. But *like a human body* there is a rough structure of control, the brain does not need to tell every cell what to do to be in control. Much of the complexity of control is left to smaller autonomic systems, according to the systems theory I know that are actually governable *because* they reduce the "variety" (a form of quantified complexity) for the regulators of their meta systems to regulate.
To be concrete: the media can be a complex system interested in its own reproduction of itself, and still be controlled by a ruling and owning class. Not directly, but in the ways chomsky mentioned. The owning class, because it has the money do things to the media system that control it. True, of course, it's a management-by-exception but it is still management. They only crack the whip (cut ads, withdraw funding, lobby against, send censorship requests, ask network to take off air, organize against, etc...) when the institution starts to veer off course. They only need to keep it on the path, they don't need to control each broadcast.
The political system too, is imperfectly controlled by the monied class. As is the law enforcement system. In my town i've been able to see it happen in front of me in fairly intricate detail. LEOs were denied a raise in 2020, because of protests against the police budget, and developers, chamber of commerce, political consultants, the state republican party, etc... all coordinated to create an enormous counter-campaign.
It is, for sure, loose control. But they are very consciously controlling and preserving their power by preserving these systems.
I do believe that modern society evolves just as was described, but it seems very much that at every point the embedded control systems evolve right along with it. And those control systems seems loosely federated with each other, and those federations seem to be a source of stratification.
I'm at work so this might be a mess, I just had to fire this out there, but I really feel the need to have a longer think about this, and a longer conversation. I would just read Luhman's book, and try and synthesize it with my own thinking a bit, but It sounds like, since he apparently doesn't explain well, that that might not be a good idea? Or is it worth the time?
Oh, and thank you for the video. Very helpful.
@@thirdcreedsolidarity, comrade ✊🏾
The kind of stratification exhibited within these structural organizations, including poltical organizations that are audacious enough to attempt to shape the whole society, is something what Turchin would probably call a group of individuals with credentials, often but not always lawyers. They are not hereditary and in my opinion are primarily meant for survival of the organization.
Two examples and both are somewhat outsiders from rather humble origins, one even from a different racial backround.
Putin in Kremlin.
Sundar Pichai at Google.
Thanks a lot for your reflections and for sharing your experiences. . As to control: The point is that there is no "sovereign individuality." Those who "control" can only do so in line with control mechanisms provided by the system. In a sense, the more you control, the more you accept being controlled by the system. That's why people who got very rich often decide to quit their jobs: the more control/power they have in the system, the more they feel the system is controlling them.. Please excuse that I copy a comment I just wrote in response to another viewer who brought up a similar point about strata/classes. : Luhmann doesn't say at all that strata disappeared or that there is equality. To the contrary: The economy system, for instance, creates huge differences between rich and poor. Luhmann acknowledges very much that modern society produces lots of differences--all systems do this, not just the economy. Briefly put, the huge differences in society, for Luhmann, are best understood as resulting from how the multiple systems operate rather than on the basis of which stratum/class people are born into. But this is, of course, not to say that it doesn't matter for an individual if their parents a poor or rich. It does. In the education system, for instance, it matters a lot if your parents can pay for you to go to Stanford or not (because of the coupling between economy/education). But, at the same time, if you want to understand how the education system or the academic system works, you have to understand the difference between good grades/bad grades or peer-reviewd paper/not peer-reviewed paper, and these differences are not produced in the economy but, respectively, in education and academia. Each system produces its own differences according to their own "logic" (codes) You can't understand the codes of education, law, academia, etc. by reducing them to "money.". But again, of course it helps a lot if you have money if you want good grades, stay out of prison, or become a scientist.
Thank you for Promoting Luhmann's Super Theory on UA-cam .❤❤❤ !!!
thank you for your calm pace in explaining concepts. It gives me the opportunity to grasp some of them.
I think one important thing to remember about evolution, though, is that there's no trajectory, or goal, towards the "better". It simply explains the concept of change over time. This is a hard thing to swallow for some.
Another thing is science does not extract truth, it extracts degrees of confidence around specific questions. We can use that collective information to create systems theories that are then testable or repeatable - but as indicated in constructivist theories - what is considered true is often just a point of view. The question of whether light is a particle or a wave is the wrong question. There's a deeper observation there that no one is getting at - the observer, the perspective, is the crux.
If a tree falls in the woods and nothing is around to hear it, it doesn't make a sound. It might create waves of energy through the air, but a sound is a relationship between that physical phenomena and the mind that receives those waves as electrically encoded information. The sound is the relationship. This does not make it not real, it simply is real in a specific context. Light is neither a particle or a wave - those are just the two ways in which humans can view it, based on the types of tools we've used to measure it in 3D space. We're asking the wrong questions.
Going back to social theory - they always say history repeats itself, but actually people repeat themselves and never learn the lessons of history - which is mostly story, sometimes based on physical evidence. Our most humanistic groups today use us-versus-them tactics to gain an audience, and promote policies that further divide people, and falsely attribute all of the problems in society to homogeneous boogie-men, instead of understanding society as a vastly complicated network of different systems interacting.
Basically, even the best intentioned have a simplistic view of society, and therefore their efforts will always miss the mark because they're simply playing the same game as before.
I want to play the game where there are no winners and losers. We simply just take care of each other because we can. And that will require most of humanity to get beyond identitarian games.
That doesn't require other people to change, that requires you to change. Changing individual ideas changes collective ideas. You don't need to enforce change on the system, it's already changing over time. All we can do is attempt to steer its course over the long term by focusing on what we can control. A billion small ripples a waveth make.
Really relevant topic, as always, very clearly presented. So much here to unpack and it links to previous videos on Carefree Wandering.
Ed: I particularly liked the idea that something is real Because it is constructed. As an Architect this has a mundane truth to it but more importantly in use a building is subject to further selection by those who use it, pay for or trade it, demolish it, modify and convert it to new uses, read it symbolically. I like the fact that in constructing anything - material or abstract - we select one form out of an infinite palate depending on judgements and constraints, though what comes to mind is socially informed. Then, for better or worse, we are forced to run with it, bring it into being and use, suffer the consequences. It all rings true for me. I can also see Existential and psychological dimensions to this subject - the, ‘in the world’, the interface with personality, manipulation of needs and desires, collusion and self deception.
This definitely helped me think about and understand the media in a deeper, more complex way.
This is your best and most comprehensive video so far, a bit of a magnus opus.
...sorry, but rather opus magnum...To understand Luhmann, I can only recommend his early books! I am not so sure if this lecture represents Luhmann well enough...It can only be an introduction to get on with it. You will have to spend time to understand his approach of observation!...unbeobachtbare Welt!
Nice to see a fairly in-depth video on Luhmann in English that's still more or less aimed towards the layperson. For whatever reason he doesn't have a lot of adherents in the US, but it seems like that's beginning to change.
The US sociologists still seem to equate system theory with Parsons
Social system theory seems to focus on how an organic system arises through these modern media technologies, a perspective that comes across as amoral and primarily descriptive in its character. However, what if one's goal is to anticipate how a forthcoming technology will impact society, or even one's own life? In such cases, the need for judgment and hypothesis-building seems necessary to me at least. Is, according to Luhmann, that just an unattainable task, considering that I receive information through the filter of my own atomized perspective within this intricate system? And is theorizing about the unfalsifiable system-an-sich, which we are never able to truly comprehend, just one big feedback-loop on which the system feeds itself?
For example mobile phones and their addictive nature. First a descriptive notion can be theorized of how this new technology mediates our attention/conciousness within a media environment. The second part - and maybe according to Luhmann this is outside the scope of philosophy - would be to understand this theorized model enough to present some possible interventions by which we can limit the addictiveness of smartphones. Because, if we're honest to ourselves, we want knowledge (of a system) so we can use it to our own benefits.
Sorry for this incoherent babbling, it's late
no, you just have to make adjustments, taking all those biases into account, particularly cooperatively by people influenced by different systems. we're not in a completely closed vacuum where everyone is enclosed exactly the same, so every person can see a different "crack" in the closure, and together try to build a composite picture
autonomously accurate observations in this case are indeed not enough, but they're still a starting point for creating that composite.
this also means ppl from different subject positions (seeing different "cracks") have to cultivate trust despite their differences, which is where conflict comes into play and requires different modes of communication that don't always match (superficially) your own individual outlooks but have to at least signal awareness and respect of this
That's a really good anwser, thank you!
Very nice to see Luhmann content in English. Massively underappreciated theory imo. I really liked how you explained things, especially the differentiation of functional sub-systems and the examples. Looking forward to more content!
As a former Luhmann nerd, I have a couple of comments:
- When speaking about "The Wire" you call the subject of the first season - crime and police - a "system". That might be a bit confusing in the context of an explanation of functional systems. In functional systems terms I'd loosely say that the events of the show's first season deal with the intersection of the functional systems economy, legal system and political system. The relationship between those systems is shown through the interaction of different organizations: police organizations, courts, other government bodies and the drug trade organizations.
One of the heuristical values of the theory for me is how clear the distinction between different system types (functional systems, organizational systems, interaction systems) is. One cannot just call anything a system but has to specify in which way it qualifies as such. That has the downside that some phenomena that aren't easily described as autopoetic systems (e.g. economic class) are more marginalized within the sociological systems theory discourse. But it provides a good basis for clarity when trying to analyze messy reality and fictional work as the wire.
- Another minor nitpick: Towards the end you label Luhmann's epistemological perspective "radical constructivism". It is definitely fair to say that his approach is not far removed from that. Yet, as far as I remember he (along with other people like Heinz von Foerster and Maturana and Varela) labeled his perspective "operativer Konstruktivismus", stressing (I believe) that the existence of an external reality is not denied (as is often attributed to radical constructivism) and that the theory is about how reality is created through systems operations.
Keep up the good work!
🇨🇱
24:09 As a Chilean citycien I felt very proud when the concept of AUTOPOIESIS was brought up. Being Humberto Maturana who coined the term 👍.
As well as you mentioning Varela & Maturana ‼️
Saludos orgullosos de 🇨🇱
I think it can be argued that police constitutes a functionally differentiated system for Luhmann, as it satisfies the condition of "specific universalism" which he inherited from Parsons. I think any attempt of describing the police system as, let''s say, part of the legal system would fail to capture some of its peculiarities (including the fact that policemen often break the law themselves >:) )
Thank you Fay, I enjoyed my observations of your observations of Hans-Georg Moeller observations of Luhmann's observations of society (or Fai, or Fey, or Phi, Phy no idea ???)
I have observed your observation of the video of professor Han's observation of Luhmann's observation, and I'm here to give you a feedback of my observation that the name is spelled Fai.
Oh my goodness, these videos broadened and deepened my mind. God bless you, man 🙌🏽
Brilliant! Thank you and a question:
I have been fascinated by this theory ever since I have heard you first speaking about it, and therefore have read your two great books about Luhman's perspective (was hard to read Luhmman himself...:)
With one thing I seem to either not understand or disagree. To me, the premodern world seems to function in the same way that systemed society functions . Why can't social stratas (peasants, aristocracy, clergy...) be described as functioning in the same way as systems do? They are operationally closed, function each by their own code, irritate one another, observe one another, differentiate themselves from one another...
Would love an answer if you find a slot for it
I had the same question as well while hearing this. I was initally excited to hear how he would distinguish between these societies but was left feeling they weren't all that different.
@jeremyn4397 thanks Jeremy! Nice to hear you share this question
Many thanks. Just briefly: Luhmann doesn't talk much about how premodern societies actually worked. But one major difference is that people were often born into strata (or: access to stratum was dependent on birth), and their life was in a considerable degree defined by their stratum, and they (normally) belonged to only one. Let's take the example of religion. Under conditions of stratified differentiation as what you are born (e.g. aristocrat/peasant, man/woman) defines your options regarding your way of being religious. Under conditions of functional differentiation, however, the religious system provides the options under which and in which way anyone can be religious, more or less independent of their stratum. One concrete example: under fully-fledged functional differentiation, everyone has the option not to be religious--that was hardly possible under conditions of stratified differentiation where the stratum was typically tied to specific religious expectations. Or, more concretely: Today, when you meet a stranger, you have often no clue about their religion--they'd need to explain for you to know. In the middle ages, when you met a stranger, you could often guess their religion (in a social, not spiritual sense) basically at first sight, there was no need to explain.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Thank you, this was insightful.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Thank you for taking time to answer!
Yes, this leads neatly into your reading of identity construction theory I find so iluminating. Waiting for more!
Both in this and a lot of the other media theories covered, there's a strong notion that modernity represents a radical break from pre-modern conditions. What do you think of the idea proposed by Latour that the division between the modern and the pre-modern is chiefly rhetorical, and that the great failure of most post-modernist philosophies is that they essentially "take modernism's word for" it, assuming that modernism is different and wrong about the ways in which it assigns values, etc.? I would be curious what the potential implications for these theories are; especially since many of them are so focused specifically on *mass media*, something that is to a degree technology dependent, rather than a greater umbrella concept such as for instance social communication. As an example, I could see much of the social system theory discussed in this video as being functionally quite similar even if you took away the division between the pre-modern and the modern, and in fact it would allow for a fascinating look into past societies and their social systems if you were to do that. That said, I am an archaeologist and as such biased towards theories that allow greater understanding of past peoples so I grant that I may be too caught on the potential represented than the validity of the theory itself.
Thanks. I was not aware of his work. It's both fascinating and scary to contemplate the fact that such systems seem quite capable of acting in ways that are contrary not only to what any sane individual might want, but contrary to the wants - and needs - of humanity as a whole. I've said for many years now that people are no longer in control; the 'rules & systems' we built are. One could almost become nihilistic enough to sit back with some popcorn and wonder which system(s) will win. It gives every indication that humanity will not; not unless we find a way to make these "meta-agents" (or some other set of them) act more on our behalf, and less on their own. tavi.
Every socially constructed system is in direct correlations and emerges from the systems of our own underlying realities of biology, psychology etc. in order for social systems to sustain themselves they have to serve a purpose for us, otherwise they would just perish. Incentives of systems contradictory to their purpose in society do arise and is something that must forever be improved on but in general each of those systems serves us more than it harms us, it's exactly because its serves us that we are in its power and also suffer consequences of aspects of it which hurt us.
@@lukasmolcic5143 I don't think it's a given that all systems need to be net positives to survive*, especially when you take into account how the systems (and our roles in them), over time, shape us, as well as the fact that people can have widely different interests as it relates to any given system.
Like, to make a couple of crude, extreme analogies, some people kill themselves. That surely doesn't help their cells. Contraceptives in general also don't help cells or genes.
*of course, given enough time nothing survives. Also, there's probably a point to be made about how one quantifies that.
I think anarchist though grapples well with these complexities while still keeping some level of agency, so that's one alternative to going nihilistic
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p not necessarily net positive, but useful enough that we decide to keep participating in them, the entire oil industry is an interesting example, it served us so much, we use so much energy from it every day to keep our society running in the way we do, but ultimately it could be the end us as a species if we don't change course soon enough. As I said in the first comment, the size and power of that industry was created out of the enormous interests that it served us and that is exactly why we are now so powerless to replace it even when it threatens our survival.
exactly. from the world-view standpoint, it is the theory of how we lose control (and how it is not NECESSARILY a bad thing).
As per usual , another great well explained in depth video ! High quality informative content
Thanks! I keep coming back to Luhmann hoping I'll finally understand him. Watching this helped me get a step closer to that dream.
I think my only two gripes are that "not under direct and complete control" is not the same as "impervious to any intentional steering at all" (same as "chaotic" doesn't mean "impossible to make any sense of"), and that it's fine to identify the systems level as the more important abstraction for a given analysis, but it's wrong to ignore how "leaky" this abstraction is.
Ignoring these two points impoverishes the tool a lot when thinking about deep, systemic, intentional change, while the system view itself as described, as a tool, actually looks a lot like stuff discussed by anarchists, for example.
(just to make it clear: I've only ever heard of Luhmann here, so I"m only talking about this exposition)
This was really incredible. Where can I find more examples of complex systems theory applied to society? I'm hyped for part 2!
Google is your friend.
CyberSyn
Thank you so much for you outstanding channel! I appreciate your style, gnosis and concise commentary. I look forward to engaging in more of your content in the days ahead:)
I was once a mod on Reddit trying to enforce a rule of making a critique before judging the source, to support a certain type of debate. A lot of social media users insisted on judging he source before reading, because of morality. And a part of them insisted on protecting the population against fake truths. Without going too deep here, this is result of a human who became citizen. The citizen is siding with his nation. The abstraction citizen is pointing towards what is happening with a human having subsumed the common values of society. This is the case for subs like philosophy and comments from academics on X and YT too. They interpret the none fitting messages as hostile to the state and not as a subject which should be examined. As a result the mods on Reddit and the user of X are the cheapest available censors by mass denouncing messages as anti-humanistic. My point is Chomsky is wrong about manipulation as an end in itself. It's a dogmatism in the sense he is ignoring that people have reasons and media is not an island. In an age where the enforced competition is accepted by almost everyone is every aspect of life put under the lens of competition and the weapons are only limited by law, every fake win grows self esteem and removes assumed enemies from the public. Journalists aren't an exception doing this. And more important media has the purpose to make money. Its the reason social media becomes relative fast streamlined because advertisers need a positive world view for their products.
When Luhman writes media is a self-reinforcing configuration he is tautological describing media. In the first place media has the purpose to make money. Already this is reason enough to doubt such an dogmatism. And media has the right of free speech. This includes everything not hostile to a nation. When Bezos bought the WP he streamlined the WP and tried to make the WP to a money earning company. Even he is enforced to be considerate to advertisers. The structure of media can't be separated from the political structure of society.
Anyway:
One person’s extremist fabulist is another’s brave truth-teller, just as one’s promotion of valid information is another’s weaponization of the same. (Mikah Zenko)
One of your best videos
Dr. Moeller, is there a good introductory text to Luhmann's work that you would recommend?
What "was created" was the "system" that allows matter, energy and time to exist and interact and give rise to every other sub-systems of various scales and magnitudes in infinite possible ways of which "biological evolution" is just one aspect or branch. A reasonable observation can conclude that this "system" was "finely tuned" somehow to produce the result that we are all experiencing here right now.
Thank you, this is so inspiring and clarifying. Brings many things together for me.
Does Luhmanns system explain why there are transitions to and from different systems? I ask, because I assume the larger societal systems are emergent from underlying rules that are more static. Eg we didn’t explicitly choose the current system, but it evolved implicitly. I don’t mean to say people weren’t vocal or taking actions to bring about change at those times, but rather, like you said, they were making choices based on their contexts within society, it was the system itself that enabled that change. Much like the media argument at the start.
Luhmann’s Theory and function-oriented engineering (iec-81346, meant) resonate harmoniously to me.
very interesting, I should look more into Luhmann.
his idea reminds me a lot of Hegel's understanding of the state
30 minutes felt like 5. Thanks and well done.
Our actions are best understood not as free expressions of "sovereign individuals," but as conditioned by the options we have with regard to the systems we are part of.
I like this idea. Many have pointed out how we behave according to the "spirit" of some institution. For instance, if we become prison guards we might rapidly become abusive. But if instead we are assigned to work as nurses in a hospital, we might pick up the helpful, life saving spirit of the hospital environment.
But in society in general we behave as part of many such systems and institutions all at the same time. Who needs the pitiful explanatory power of the "sovereign individual" anymore?
I will NOT read Luhmann, though, after what I heard about his writing in this video. 😄
every person is institutionalized, even the ones who believe they aren't, because "bucking" (going against) whichever institutions you don't want to align with is already something enough people do, so institutions have been created to accommodate that. Every institution is both its own thing and a counter‐institution now, except the kinds of things ppl can't get away with resisting publicly, but then they technically have an underground institution for that too, which doesn't even mean it's completely separate, just functions different due to differences of what the more socially acceptable institutions allow in order to save face.
Someone who goes completely underground is still institutionalized, so people who don't like what they go through everyday build notions of a time before any of this was fully enclosed, but all such resistances have already been captured or they never \\*were*\\ uncaptured, and basically amount to hubristic escape fantasies either way, because we can't go back (if something "back then" were truly non‐institutional) without building numbers, which would require building a counter institution anyway, which is still an institution.
In anarchist* theory (and practice), it is understood that what and how we do is a crucial ingredient to shaping ourselves. It takes the position that neither nature nor nurture are enough to explain human action. So we absolutely are conditioned by the world, systems and institutions we live under, but there is in fact some room to shape how.
Crucially, from this anarchist theory derives what could be called a principle of unity between means and ends, the idea being that the process of achieving a goal should use means which are not just in line with the goal, but which help shape the people who can achieve that goal. The people who can achieve and an anarchist society, and their institutions and systems, are shaped in the struggle for this society.
In this sense, the "sovereign individual" takes some power back by deciding how they interact with the current systems and institutions and what kinds of systems and institutions they try to build, with an eye to how this very interaction will shape the individual (and their collectives).
I like this line of thinking a lot because it's not blinded by one level of thinking or abstraction. It doesn't deny the importance of systems, but also doesn't take them to be external entities. It understands the limitations of the individual, but doesn't deny the individual as the active material of the collective. It sees the world to be built as a world which affirms both the individual and the collective while negating the contradiction between them.
*I'm mostly talking about anarchists social anarchists here, the individualists might see the interaction with the collective a little differently
Manipulation starts with the question asked and then answered. I check several sources. Then I run the media contribution through my filter. Is this shared mainly for profit? Out of military enthusiasm? True conviction? Or is it a blatant effort to deceive? Is it helpful?
UA-cam is always watching.
I noticed that it started highlighting the like button when someone asks for the audience to like the video. But much later on, when the phrase "like this video was used" 22:36, it was used in a different sense and yet UA-cam still picked up on it and highlighted the button.
As always brilliant work Hans-Georg!
Very interesting essay! I learnt a lot. I would like to read more about this topic now. Looking forward to the next video!
Now, a video about Michael Parenti’s “Inventing Reality” would be awesome!
Thank you, this makes a a wonderful discovery, you have a great channel there
I recently finished watching the latest season of Foundation. Are the stories in that show about the social systems model discussed here?
22:38 And the French theorist Bruno Latour claims that social sciences role is not to work on truth, but on knowledge. Truth is assigned to the religions.
@@Barklord I dont mean to offend in any way, but what you just wrote was just a long winded platitude and did not even adress the difference between knowledge and truth. My comment was about what was said in the video -- that this autopoethical systems theory consider the role of science to be about truth, which Bruno Latour seem to disagree with.
@z0uLess You didn't explain the argument though, you just said some French fella said that truth's reserved for religion. Considering most religious truths involve a priori reasoning, why isn't the above comment doubting the truthfulness of unfalsifiable statements a legitimate response?
@@monkeykingeater I've added a timestamp to my original comment so as to point to what exactly in the video I was commenting on. The context of my comment was self-explanatory and the response to my comment was about something being untruthful or not when what I pointed to was the claim about something not being about truth at all.
@z0uLess Fair enough.
EDIT: I hadn't seen that the other poster had returned when I posted this comment. I originally had some other questions about your or Latour's views on truth and knowledge, but theres no need to have two people arguing with you.
@@Barklord I have no idea what you are talking about.
Is there a distinction between education and manipulation? Is it divided by what is perceived to be good and the other not good?
It's pleasantly surprising how similar this discourse on Systems in Media Theory is so similar to Control Theory and Systems discourse in Engineering
Luhmann's description of Society as overdetermined, functionally differentiated, functionally coupled, etc. is applicable to Self Driving vehicles too.
"overdetermined" - where did it say that? And what do you mean by that?
Hope you analysis of Francis Fukuyama's End of History and his more recent additions.
Is it still relevant with war in Ukraine against Russia and restart of the Cold war?
Restart of the Cold War? Is it just me or is this war HOT?
Yayy was hoping a lecture explaining social systems theory would come up. Super interesting and I tend to follow this theory.
Finally someone who does a good explanation of Luhmann in English!
In my opinion one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century.
Yeah. When I read his theory of society I just can't comprehent how brilliant, innovative and cohesive his construction of a theory is, especially considering what has been there before him in sociology.
@@bjornrie I do remember picking "Soziale System" up in the library. I didn't get a single word but I was electrified. Took me 7 years to understand it but I would never claim to be an expert. It does help a lot when you find out, he has a really goofy sense of humor. "Katzen und Schlangen können keine Schlatzen zeugen." (Cats and snakes cannot bread snats.) and then he riffs on forty pages on the impossibility of the interpenetration of systems. Probably gave him a good chuckle.
This video inspired me to buy your book "the radical Luhmann", look forward to reading it. No promo code for ebooks?
Luhmann isn't the progenitor of structural differentiation, of course, and the arguments against remain are pertinent as they were sixty years ago: namely, the generalized accord given within each system, and how they interact. I would suggest both Luhmann and Chomsky are both disciples of functionalism - the latter concerned with adaptive evolutionism from outside the systemic tools of media. Obviously what's missing here is signification and continental schools more generally. I would still uphold Stuart Hall/Birmingham School's Representaton Theory as more salient and getting beyond issues that are as old as Horkheimer.
I suppose the real question is why this American pragmatic (fairly dull) tradition of theory is making a comeback. Parsons was very much a part of the 50s and the scentistic sense adapting learning from other quarters: a form of positivism that nations often fall back on during unstable epochs, when a charge calls for a strong bureacracy over a previous vitalistic populism. I wonder whether investment in academic departments is focused in a similar direction, hence your own interest.
You are a blessing, my man. An absolute blessing.
Assemblage Theory by Manuel DeLanda is SUPER cool. Also a kind of “systems” approach.
Of the manipulative media, I think we start with language. All philosophical arguments are manipulative in that they are trying to sway the way you think about things. I think humans are used to manipulation after what looks like at least ten millennia of it. So maybe manipulation isn't the issue?
Love to see Luhmann get some love. Far too overlooked Social Theorist.
Dude, the thumbnail is kick ass!
What is the footage at around 0:50 from?
So, from Luhmanns' perspective, this idea of "the swarm" in Berardi and Han is too optimistic, in the sense of their faith in human agency, am I right?
One needs to show some care with the social construction theorists when they venture outside of their domain. This is particularly the case when words, symbols, etc. are conflated with an item or phenomenon in physical actuality that is being described. For example, the physical phenomenon of gravity did not exist until the term gravity was socially constructed.
Thanks for your time. Very nice video. I watched this video without observing the comments of other, to say the observation about it. 😅
Thank you for these fantastic videos. I'm learning so much! I'd never heard of Luhmann.
Oh wow you’ve just articulated what I’ve intuitively understood for the last few years, I always found the “ fake news” manipulation theory to be simplistic and naive but I didn’t have the language to articulate a sophisticated attack or alternative, I just sensed it was cynical and simplistic.
My brain is having a firework party listening to this 😂
Excellent video! Thank you! Question: when you say that, according to Luhmann, truths are constructed but not necessarily valid. But how does one assert validity?
Test their function
So it's kinda like it's accidental and purposeful manipulation are built in together, and media literacy that only looks at one side (accidental, purposeful) is tied together systemically by the realism in Luhmann's work?
I would be interested to hear your idea of second order observation in relation to vicarious learning in children. It seems to me that children observe behaviour and then reenact the same behaviour, and this translates to behaving as if the behaviour was being supervised (somewhat Freudian). In terms of capitalism, it seems that the repetition of history, whether it being Disney remakes of Disney classics, or previous fashion trends being recycled, or music hits of the past being remade as popular covers. It is almost as if the culture itself is vicariously acting from its successful predecessor.
Maybe went a little far on the "relevant" graphics[1], but I'm intrigued, looking forward to the next in the series.
[1] For example, in the "owning a house, illegally occupying a house" section, I'm not making any ridiculous scolding point, I just found myself thinking "I could be looking at a rock and it would be just as visually informative", which is to say, not at all informative. This, ironically, distracted me from the actually informative audio content. The snap zoom on child custody was funny though.
How does the philosophy of Bruno Latour compare to Luhmann?
I genuinely enjoyed this video. Although, I do think the emphasis of Luhmann as a "radical" anti-humanist is much overblown. Furthermore, I wish you would have broken Luhmann down into 3 parts is generally done when discussing Luhmann. But thank you for the great video!
Cool. I was wondering when you were going to make this video
Thanks for doing this! Until now, I've only heard about Luhmann in relation to his zettelkasten...
I think Hans-Georg Moeller means here that
mass media cannot not manipulate.
2:37
this deserve million sub and view
unreal im glad i was curious subed
So how does he explain social change? If society functions on its own and every decision is limited by the position of the decider, then how does that account for things like the russian or french revolutions? Systems becoming unclosed?
I wonder what Mr. Moeller would have to say about Luhmans autopoiesis and second-hand observation and Heidegger's notion of Ge-stell or positioning that Modern Technology gives rise too.
Great video. Sounds very similar to a complex adaptive systems approach.
Amazing. Thank you.
Could it be argued that Luhmann is essentially constructing a complex defence of social darwinism amd that's a bit of a bad thing?
I don't think this theory is incompatible with Chomsky's. I'm interested to know what is supposed to give rise to the perspective of each individual system. I understand that there is an analogy with evoution, however, "the point of view of the economy" can be understood to be the point of view of an economic elite, as can "the point of view of the mass media". I'm curious to know what Luhmann and professor Moeller's thoughs are on this. I look forward o the next episode.
Simply excellent!
It reminds me of Freudian "Unconscious" it talks/says a lot about a person/people's minds But you must believe that there is something called "Unconscious"
That this video can currently have 3990 views and 3100 likes says something about its quality
31:17 Structural coupling by Hans-Georg and Fai between Academia and new media production
25:15 holy shit i was not prepared for this lmao
Well done.
🎉❤ Wow. Just amazing. Finally, good content on Luhmann
Great video! I'm one of those who came in the Peterson era and spent my time railing against your take on him, but I have to say, this is you at your best and something I actually think I can actually benefit from even if I don't agree sometimes (unlike the Peterson videos where it felt more like a battle).
Again, great video, looking forward to more!
peterson got consumed by ideology, believing it to be more important to defeat his enemy than to practise the Christian teaching he preaches
@@joshc5727 sure thing, hater.
Do you think social media is a new system or is included within mass media? Maybe it could be analysed as a system with the goal of others attention and self-preserving by sharing.
Hey hans, you make great interesting videos about multiple perspectives which could increase our sensmaking and understanding thank you for that! Can you maybe make a video about alan watts or manly p hall? That would be awesome. Keep up the great work!
What insightful analysis... sweeping assumptions about the status quo and nothing but "almost intuitive" feelings and pop culture to support it.
The definition of "manipulation" being deployed here is basically meaningless. All media is manipulation because it is necessarily influenced by subjective individuals.... What a revelation...
If systems necessarily act in the interest of self preservation (because... well just because you say so i guess), then wouldn't the clashing systems to which you refer instead cooperate to address existential threats? Or are systems resistent to change, and instead preserve status quo? In that case, how do systems evolve?
After that you basically just repeat that things have context, consequences, and influence each other.
Additionally, how do you determine where one system ends and another begins? How do you reconcile people's alleged hyperindividualism with their alleged hyperconformity?
Isn't autopoiesis just the same as emergent but harder to spell?
Yes, and the self-reinforcing being the same as self-organising.
Amaranthine further postulates that this bias explains civilization’s cyclical pattern of emergence and collapse. It proposes that artificial intelligence can be designed to interactively compensate for this bias across the full spectrum of social relationships