luhmann on pomo's structural modernity

[lorentzen-nicklaus]

 first of all, let's draw a distinction between pomo as a research style and the 
 assumption that there is, in fact, something like "postmodernity" in the sense 
 of a "postmodern society" which differs from modern society to the same (or a  
 similar) degree as modernity differs from earlier societies. with pomo as a 
 research style, luhmann had no problem; in contrary: in his writings there are 
 relatively often references to thinkers like deleuze or foucault. & in his 
 later years luhmann named similarities between his own observing of observing 
 and derrida's deconstruction (see, for example, niklas luhmann: deconstruction 
 as second-order observing. in: new literary history 24, 1993, pp. 763-782).  
 note also that habermas finishes his (bad) anti-pomo book "der philosophische 
 diskurs der moderne" [1985] with a luhmann-diss. pynchonesque about luhmann's 
 theory of social systems is the disturbing thesis that the modern world-society 
 cannot be directed effectfully anymore. it's operative self-referentiality has 
 gone beyond a point of no return ... "society has, although largely consisting 
 of interactions, become unreachable for interactions", as old nick writes on 
 page 585 (here like with this mail's other quotes it's again my own foolish 
 translation)of "soziale systeme". this gloomy view is, btw, not too far away   
 from adorno's (see stefan breuer: adorno, luhmann: konvergenzen und divergenzen 
 von kritischer theorie und systemtheorie. in: leviathan 15, 1987, pp. 91-125). 
 (but of course you can do something with this complex theory in many ways;   
 myself i am, actually, taking part in a research project where we try to put   
 the theories of luhmann on the one and george herbert mead on the other side 
 into working multi-agent-systems.) back to the pomo-issue. from structuralism 
 the theory of social systems differs by integrating the concept of "structure" 
 (in the sense of a system-memory that 'condensates' with the present event)  
 into a larger theoretical framework where especially the notions of 
 "communication" (understood as a self-selective synthesis of information, way  
 of telling, and understanding)and "meaning" (see my earlier postings) are at   
 least as important as the one of "structure"; furthermore luhmann's  
 temporalization of social (and mental) structures via the concept of 
 "autopoiesis" (maturana/varela) is, as nl sez himself in "autopoiesis des  
 bewußtseins" from 1985, "definitely of post-structuralist character". in the  
 explained sense that is, not as a label. & then - recently there's been again 
 some list-talk about snow's "two cultures" - luhmann's mixing of things like 
 second-order cybernetics (à la von foerster or glanville) or spencer brown's  
 "laws of form" [1969] with the german traditions of phenomenology, hermeneutics 
 and speculative philosophy is itself in its fresh syncretism somehow pomo. 
 however, concerning the notion of "postmodernity" in the sense of "post-modern 
 society", luhmann was very critical. i'll give you two passages which make this 
 point clear. some pomo thinkers - take baudrillard or virilio - seem to be 
 aiming just at an alternative description of modernity, others, like derrida  
 (but then i do not know his later writings) are not in the first or second 
 place interested in a theory of society. the only pomo thinker, i am aware of  
 right now, who's actually kickin' the issue is gilles deleuze who wrote an  
 article about the transformation of the "surveying society" (in the sense of  
 foucault's "surveiller et punir") into the "control society", which was  
 discussed among left criminalists in the mid 90s; unfortunately i have neither 
 a copy nor the bibliographical data around (anyone?). this could perhaps be  
 another starting point if someone out there is interested to debate this whole 
 thing. and yes, in the field of the social sciences we have since the 70s an  
 ongoing debate on notions like "postindustrialism", "postfordism" or "the  
 information age", but most of these approaches, however, do not consider the  
 perceived change to be as fundamental as the one from pre-modernity to  
 modernity (in this sense someone like peter glotz speaks of "digital  
 capitalism"), and, furthermore, they certainly cannot be called "pomo" in the  
 emphatic sense of post-structuralism or "cultural studies". so, anyone for the 
 true pomo notion of "postmodern society"? here's what old nick has to say:

 "on the structural level one cannot speak of such a divide (between modernity 
 and post-modernity). one can at best say that the evolutionary achievements 
 that characterize the modern society in contrast to all its predecessors, 
 namely fully developed communication media [like money, power, or scientific 
 truth.kfl] and functional differentiation, grew out of poor beginnings into 
 proportions which bind modern society to irreversibility. today society is 
 hopelessly dependant upon itself.
 there is, thus, on the semantic level a pent-up demand. if one defines 
 postmodernity as the lack of a homogenous description of the world, an 
 obligatory reason for all or also just a shared correct attitude towards world 
 and society, then this precisely is the result of the structural conditions 
 the modern society gives itself up to. it cannot stand closing thoughts, it 
 thus also cannot stand authority. it does not know positions where from society 
 could, inside society, be described in a way obligatory to others. thus this is 
 not about emancipation in the favor of reason, but about emancipation from  
 reason, and this emancipation is nothing to go for, but has already happened.  
 whoever considers himself to be reasonable and says so, gets observed and  
 deconstructed. but also a sociology, that formulates this, will make similar 
 experiences. and the question can only be whether in the course of such 
 second-order observing stabile eigenvalues do emerge which do not change 
 anymore under given conditions."

                         --- beobachtungen der moderne [1992], pp. 42f. --- 

       
 "there are lots of remarkable structural changes inside the single functional 
 systems [like science, economy, politics or art.kfl], especially as an effect 
 of globalization-tendencies and mutual incriminations of the single functional 
 systems. yet now as before all the achievements of modernity (age classes in 
 the school-systems, parlamentaristic democracy as the paradigmatic state-form, 
 unrestricted marriage practice, 'positive' law, economic activities focussed on 
 capital and credit, to name just some things)are still in use; only their 
 consequences become more visible now. even in the art-system (perhaps with the 
 exception of architecture)there are no sharp periodical boundaries between 
 modern and postmodern art. of 'postmodernity' one thus can speak at best in 
 relation to the self-descriptions of the society-system."     

                    --- die gesellschaft der gesellschaft [1997], p. 1143 --- 


 
                                           in an interview from the mid 80s     
                                          luhmann sez that modernity has more   
                                         advantages  a n d  more disadvantages  
                                            than any other society before ...   



 
    ... the demons are out of the box ... kfl