Man vs. System - PUREpure.au.dk/portal/files/45313588/Man_vs._System_A_Social_Systems... · Man vs. System A social systems- and visual discourse analysis ... Niklas Luhmann’s theory

Kristian Sørensen Bachelor Project May 3rd 2012

Exam no. 30112

1/49

Man vs. System A social systems- and visual discourse analysis

of the European 2012 Anti-ACTA protests

Kristian Sørensen

Bachelor Project, May 3rd 2012

Institut for Erhvervskommunikation (ISEK)

Aarhus University, Business and Social Sciences

Culture and Society

Supervisor: Carmen Daniela Maier

Number of characters (ex. abstract): 54.988


Exam no. 30112

2/49

Abstract In contemporary society, the mass media has become a major influence on practically

everything. Every day, we are presented with one spectacle after the other, and how

one is being presented in the mass media is now an essential aspect of running a

business. But does the constant emphasis on conflict reflect the ‘real’ world as it is?

Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems explains how the mass media and other

function systems (e.g. politics, law, the economy) construct reality through their own

operations and, correspondingly, how these different constructions affect each other.

It acknowledges that every phenomenon looks different according to which ‘lens’ one

uses to observe it.

In the first months of January, a controversial treaty against piracy and counter-

feiting, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, resulted in numerous international

protests. The way the protestors experience this treaty is visible in the protest material

they produce and an analysis of the material will, therefore, show useful in a

sociological understanding of why people protest and what effect they believe a

protest has.

By combining social systems theory and visual discourse analysis, this project seeks

to understand how taking a particular construction of reality as given will result in

conflict and how this implicit world view is represented in protest material. Due to the

growing influence of the mass media, some of the protestors use references to motion

pictures in their signs, banners, etc. and as the analysis will show, some of these

references are quite paradoxical in terms of the overall reason for protesting. Further,

according to social systems theory, the chance of a protest event resulting in the exact

effect on politics and society that one wishes for is highly unlikely.

Keywords: Niklas Luhmann, social systems theory, complexity, social differentiation,

construction, observation, social activism, irritation, mediatisation, protest material,

intertextuality, framing.

Characters: 1,709


Exam no. 30112

3/49

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................1

1.1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Scientific Approach ....................................................................................................... 2

1.2.1 Ontology .................................................................................................................. 3

1.2.2 Epistemology ........................................................................................................... 3

1.2.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Delimitations .................................................................................................................. 4

2.0 The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.........................................................5

3.0 Social Systems Theory ...........................................................................................7

3.1 Functional Differentiation ............................................................................................ 8

3.2 The Complex Society – Avoiding Chaos.................................................................... 10

3.2.1 Differentiation by Observation .............................................................................. 10

3.2.2 Operational Closure ............................................................................................... 14

3.2.3 Coding.................................................................................................................... 16

3.3 Structural Coupling and Irritation............................................................................ 17

3.4 The Mass Media as a Function System ..................................................................... 19

3.4.1 Function ................................................................................................................. 19

3.4.2 Code ....................................................................................................................... 20

3.4.3 Mediatisation.......................................................................................................... 21

4.0 Analysing a Construction of Reality ..................................................................23

4.1 Visual Protest Material as Empirical Data ............................................................... 23

4.2 Discourse Analysis and Social Semiotics ................................................................... 24

4.2.1 Intertextuality ......................................................................................................... 26

4.2.2 Framing .................................................................................................................. 26

5.0 Analysis .................................................................................................................27

5.1 Protesting in a Complex Society................................................................................. 27

5.2 Protest Material ........................................................................................................... 29

5.2.1 Sign ........................................................................................................................ 30

5.2.2 Banner .................................................................................................................... 34


Exam no. 30112

4/49

6.0 Discussion and Critique.......................................................................................36

7.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................38

8.0 Bibliography .........................................................................................................40

9.0 Appendix...............................................................................................................42

9.1 Anti-ACTA Protests .................................................................................................... 42

9.2 Segmentary and Centre/periphery Differentiation .................................................. 43

9.3 Characteristics of Six Social Function Systems ........................................................ 44

9.4 The Polish Government .............................................................................................. 45

9.5 Sample of Photographs ............................................................................................... 46


Exam no. 30112

1/49

1.0 Introduction In today’s society, the influence of the mass media on society is impossible to neglect;

it is even referred to as the fourth element in Montesquieu’s classic principle of the

separation of political power. Whether one is involved in communication research,

public relations, or any other aspect of business communication, a greater

understanding of the role of mass media in contemporary society will be useful both

theoretically and practically.

Researchers within the humanities are beginning to accept the premises of social

constructivism, lately with the field of journalism accepting that journalists cannot

present the ‘whole truth’ of the world objectively, because how they see the world is

just one construction among a vast number of possible constructions (Görke & Scholl

2006: 652).

Due to the variations in constructions and corresponding interpretations of society,

only a fraction of reality gets published in the mass media. One of these fractions, the

international protests against a multinational treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting

Trade Agreement (ACTA), which took place in the first months of 2012, was

portrayed in numerous ways in different mass media. Predominantly, the protestors

were seen wearing white masks and banners stating, that the government must not

regulate freedom on the Internet.

Whatever we know about our society, or indeed about the world in which we live, we

know through the mass media. (Luhmann 2000: 1)

Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems presents a hypothesis of why

constructions of reality differ. It looks at society as consisting of communication.

According to Luhmann, other sociological theories are too simple to describe the

complexity of today’s society (Moeller 2006: 62-3). He proposes some counter-

intuitive views for a student of communication, e.g. that “human beings do not and

cannot communicate – only communication can” (op.cit. 6).


Exam no. 30112

2/49

1.1 Problem Statement Based on the events caused by the conflict between protestors and the Anti-

Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, the purpose of this project is to understand and

explain the role of social activism and mass media in contemporary society. I will,

therefore, be answering the following questions:

How does social activism affect politics through the mass media in the perspective of

Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems?

How can a visual analysis of protest material contribute to an understanding of this

process?

1.2 Scientific Approach Graham and Thomas (2008) highlight the importance of establishing a philosophical

position towards one’s research, or in other words, to consider the research paradigm

(after Thomas Kuhn). They use Guba and Lincoln’s definition and understand a

paradigm as

“the basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigator, not only in choices

of method but in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways.” (Guba &

Lincoln 1994: 105, in: Graham & Thomas 2008: 116)

Therefore, the consideration of the research paradigm requires an investigation of

ontology, epistemology, and methodology. I will only give a brief introduction to the

paradigm, because all three aspects are essential to social systems theory. I will

elaborate on them in later sections.


Exam no. 30112

3/49

1.2.1 Ontology

Ontology deals with the nature of reality. It is a general theory of what exists and how

it exists (Graham & Thomas 2008: 116). In the perspective of social systems theory,

Luhmann mentions the concept of ‘operational constructivism’. In comparison with

more radical forms of (social) constructivism, this view does not deny, that the world

around us exists. Social systems theory sees the world, not as an object in the

phenomenological sense, but as an inaccessible horizon. Therefore, there is only the

option of constructing versions of it (Luhmann 2000a: 6, In: Moeller 2006: 151).

1.2.2 Epistemology

Epistemology deals with the relationship between the researcher and the knowledge

he/she produces: the nature of knowledge (Graham & Thomas 2008: 116). Because

this project deals with varying constructions of reality, the theoretical approach in

terms of scientific knowledge is hermeneutics, which is based on interpretation and

understanding. One important notion in regards to hermeneutics is that I become an

important part, as well as a point of critique, in terms of the results of the project. My

preconceptions, education, and knowledge will affect how I interpret (Langergaard et

al. 2006: 126).

1.2.3 Methodology

Apart from the introduction and brief description of the motives for the protests, the

project consists of two sections. First, I intend to explain Niklas Luhmann’s theory of

social systems in depth and how the mass media functions in this perspective. The

second section is a visual analysis of two prototypes of protest material created by the

anti-ACTA movement that will show how the protestors experience the ACTA. In the

visual analysis, I will primarily use Axel Philipps’ method of using visual protest

material as empirical data, which I will explain in section 4 and 5.

In the theoretical section, I use a deductive method, by taking general principles as

valid in individual situations. In the visual analysis, I am using an inductive method;


Exam no. 30112

4/49

by analysing a few photographs, I am generalising the results as concerning all

protestors (Andersen 2010: 35).

Because of the complexity of my topic, I will complement Luhmann’s concepts

with other theories from media research, journalism, linguistics, sociology, semiotics,

etc. Some of the theoreticians I will use are, Pierre Bourdieu, Jean Baudrilliard,

Michel Foucault, George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, and Norman Fairclough. Later, I will

argue why this interdisciplinary approach is necessary.

I have deliberately chosen not to present any key terms in the introduction. Due to

the relative level of abstraction in social systems theory, I will present them during the

project.

1.3 Delimitations Because of my focus on culture and society, the purpose of this project is not to

evaluate the persuasiveness of the protest material or to explain the communicative

strategies of the protestors, journalists, or politicians communicating about the

protests.

Regarding the collection of empirical data in the form of e.g. interviews would have

been useful, but due to the scope of this project, I have chosen not to include

interviews or questionnaires.

I have limited the number of photographs in the analysis in order to focus on the

theoretical aspects. The project as a whole should be read as a theoretical analysis of

social activism in contemporary society. Confirming my conclusion empirically will

require a comparative analysis of data that goes beyond the scope of a bachelor

project.


Exam no. 30112

5/49

2.0 The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement In a political perspective, it is believed that counterfeiting (the process of imitating or

copying something with the intention to deceive or defraud) is a major threat against

sustainable growth and development of the world economy. Furthermore, in a

knowledge-based economy that relies on creativity, innovation, and quality, the

protection of intellectual property rights is emphasised by politicians (Lee 2012).

In 2006, The United States and Japan launched the idea of an international treaty

with the purpose of helping the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. The European

version of this treaty is called The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Its

aim is to bring together countries that are interested in minimising counterfeiting,

partly by proposing international standards for enforcing intellectual property rights

(Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2009).

Rights campaigners currently acclaim the ACTA for being highly controversial, and

that it stifles free expression on the Internet. This resulted in protests all over Europe1.

Because of these protests, some of the key European countries (e.g. Germany and

Poland) have backed away from signing the treaty, and the European Commission has

decided to ask the European Court of Justice for an evaluation of whether or not

ACTA and its implementation is compatible with freedom of expression on the

Internet (Lee 2012).

Karel De Gucht, head of EU trade, has declared his sympathy with the people’s

concern for freedom, but ads, that the purpose of the ACTA is to make sure the

creative economy is protected. He estimates the current value of counterfeited goods

within the EU at around 200bn Euros (ibid.).

According to the independent magazine Unelected (O’Doherty 2012), the ACTA

was deliberately kept secret to the public until Wikileaks unveiled several documents

about it. They claim that the treaty will surpass the domestic legislation of the signing

nations and thereby violate citizens’ civil liberties within those nations. This should,

in theory, for instance allow customs officials in airports to go through passengers’

laptops and MP3-players for illegally downloaded music and movies, or to make it

legal for Internet service providers to release individual web browsing records to both

international and domestic governments and corporations (ibid.) 1 See appendix 9.1 for a map of the EU protests


Exam no. 30112

6/49

The treaty will also change the level of violation from civil and monetary to

criminal, or in other words, change the punishment for illegal downloading from

paying a fine to going to prison (ibid.).

Aaron Shaw, research fellow of Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet

and Society has uttered that the

ACTA would create unduly harsh legal standards that do not reflect contemporary

principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties. (ibid.)

What we observe in the mass, then, media is a conflict between politicians and

protestors caused by different views of the same phenomenon. I will now present one

explanation of why this occurs.


Exam no. 30112

7/49

3.0 Social Systems Theory General systems theory is a term used to describe a set of principles that apply to all

irreducible wholes and is, therefore, not to be understood as a single theory, but rather

as several approaches that share the system as the object for analysis (Gunaratne

2008: 175).

When comparing the strengths of systems theory with those of other scientific

theories, we find superior abilities in the following aspects (Sirgy 1988, in: Gunaratne

2008: 179):

• connecting previously unconnected concepts and relationships

• converting elements of the theory from one discipline to another

• raising interesting questions and suggest new directions

The starting point of social systems theory is that contemporary society, according to

Luhmann, can no longer be analysed as being fundamentally humane. It rejects the

‘Old European’ idea that society consists of an assembly of human beings, even

though this is still the dominant description of society in public education and the

mass media (Moeller 2006: 5). This perspective is difficult to operate with in a society

where corporate social responsibility, ethics, and a general emergence of

‘humaneness’ are entering both academia and business (op.cit. 3). What social

systems theory attempts to do is to describe society, not on the basis of its members,

but by looking at what actually happens: by looking at events based on

communication (op.cit. 6).

Compared to other theories of society, social systems theory does not operate with a

predetermined order of society throughout history (op.cit. 28); society does not evolve

towards any predetermined, or in any way superior, form of structure (op.cit. 41).

First, we need to establish what social systems are and how they have emerged.


Exam no. 30112

8/49

3.1 Functional Differentiation Social systems theory proposes that society consists of various communication

systems. These systems are defined by their communicative function (Moeller 2006:

24): buying a car is economic communication, presenting an argument in a court of

law is legal communication, casting a vote is political communication, etc.:

In general, systems solve specific problems within and for societies. That is what we

call the function of a specific social system. (Görke & Scholl 2006: 646)

According to Luhmann, contemporary society has become too complex to be

analysed by using a vocabulary based on a single system perspective2 (Moeller 2006:

62-3). In order to understand this assertion, we must look at different types of social

differentiation.

For Luhmann, the last major sociological change in Europe happened between the

sixteenth and eighteenth centuries: the move from stratified to functional

differentiation3: the birth of modernity (op.cit. 45). Luhmann’s definition of stratified

differentiation is:

We only want to speak of stratification when society is represented as an order of

rank and when order without differences of rank can no longer be imagined. (Moeller

2006: 44-5)

The primary focus of personal identification then becomes which stratum (or ‘class’

in Marxist terms) one is born into. Both social inclusion and exclusion is, therefore,

based on households; the stratum you are born into defines which opportunities you

have in society (op.cit. 42-3).

Functional differentiation is quintessential to Luhmann’s theory. He mentions that

function systems are “equal in regard to their inequality” (ibid.). Function systems are

neither ordered in a particular rank nor oriented towards a central core of any kind.

2 Here Luhmann refers to the idea, that one function system (e.g. economy) controls all other aspects of society. 3 See appendix 9.2 for a description of the last two types of social differentiation (segmentary and centre/periphery) that Luhmann identifies.


Exam no. 30112

9/49

Whereas stratified differentiation is characterised by inequality, functional

differentiation is ‘equally unequal’ (op.cit. 46). This means, that an individual, in

principle, has access to all function systems (op.cit. 60). Social inclusion or exclusion

is no longer based on strata or households, because the function systems operate

beyond geographical location (op.cit. 54). This has severe consequences for the

individual identity, because one can no longer identify oneself with only one aspect of

society (op.cit. 47).

The lack of hierarchy between function systems does not entail, that people are now

equal. Even though the only prerequisite needed to spend money is to have some, not

having any easily leads to mass exclusion. Other examples could be exclusion from

legal procedures as a result of not having a passport, or exclusion from the

educational system by not being able to attend school. Again, there is in principle

nothing that excludes anyone from any of the function systems, no social stratum or

household that determines accessibility, but by being all-inclusive, functional

differentiation actually results in mass exclusion (op.cit. 62). This is one of the

numerous paradoxes we find in social systems theory.

Other authors have stressed the effects caused by the change from stratified to

functional differentiation. The American historian Christopher Lasch wrote in 1979 in

The Culture of Narcissism, about how the shift in cultural authority from family to

society/institutions has created a whole generation of narcissists, who were

characterised by being shallow, frightened of commitment, and disliking being

dependent on anyone, followed by an incapacity for loyalty and gratitude (Lasch

1991: 238-9). This lack of commitment, even though in this example described as an

American phenomenon, is an observation I will return to later.

At this point, we find ourselves in a very complex society. As we shall see, an

understanding of complexity is necessary, because when society becomes more

complex, our corresponding reflexions of it become more complex. This, in turn,

makes the communication about our reflexions more complex (Moeller 2006: 20).


Exam no. 30112

10/49

3.2 The Complex Society – Avoiding Chaos In connection with the ontology presented earlier, social systems theory sees the

entire environment as an infinitely complex horizon that is inaccessible to our

perceptions. The function of social systems is to reduce the complexity of the

environment; we simply cannot grasp all the available information in the entire

environment, therefore, we let systems solve problems for us.

We can look at human perception as an explanation for why a system4 cannot

comprehend all the available information in its environment. It is estimated that a

human being’s consciousness is able to process seven bits of information at any one

moment. Bits of information could be different colours, sounds, emotions, thoughts,

etc. (Csikszentmihalyi 1990: 28-9). The number itself it not of particular interest in

this case, but it does explain why we cannot observe the environment in its entirety;

because of the cognitive limitation of perception, we can only reduce the complexity

of the environment and thereby construct our version of reality.

The process of reduction of complexity results in yet another paradox: by reducing

the complexity of the environment, the complexity within the function system itself

increases. We shall now see how complexity is reduced.

3.2.1 Differentiation by Observation

In a constructivist paradigm, constructions of reality, and their corresponding

interpretations, become the main focus of research, and how people observe reality

determines how they perform the corresponding construction of it (Moeller 2006: 71).

This entails that the observation itself becomes an integral part of the construction of

reality (ibid.):

A structured and non-chaotic reality is based on the reduction of complexity, on

selection, on systemic observation. (Moeller 2006: 150)

Observation is key in Luhmann’s theory, or rather the observation of observations,

which he calls ‘second-order observations’. At this point, the researcher becomes him/

4 See section 3.2.2. for an elaboration of human minds as systems.


Exam no. 30112

11/49

herself “a rat in the labyrinth and has to reflect on the position from which he/she

observes the other rats” (op.cit. 72). For instance: X can look at a book lying on a

table and observe that it is black, but Y is standing closer to the table and observes the

book as being dark blue. Z observes how X and Y observe and concludes that their

respective constructions of reality are different. This realisation entails that there is no

single point of observation that can claim to see the ‘true’ reality; there is no one

reality only realities (op.cit. 71). Because of the importance of observation, we need

to define what an observation is.

One of the main differences between Luhmann’s theory and other theories of

society is that it is based on difference and not similarity (op.cit. 40). This is exactly

what an observation is: the drawing of a distinction, or the observation of a difference

(op.cit. 69). When I make an observation, I draw a distinction between what I observe

and what I do not observe (I only select a fraction of the available information).

Therefore, I focus on a part of what is observable and leave the rest of the

environment as unobserved and in this process I reduce the complexity of the

environment. This, in turn, entails that I observe what I observe as being different

from myself5 (ibid.). The result is construction of reality through systemic

observations (op.cit. 71).

Social systems also construct their own reality through second-order observations

and, like when you and I observe, strive towards making sense (op.cit. 67).

In order to make sense of something we need to distinguish between actual and

possible. The actual location of a ship does not make sense without its surrounding

environment; in order to navigate, the sailor must be aware of the environment that

surrounds him (ibid.). Mark Johnson and George Lakoff mention the same process of

creating meaning in the field of cognitive linguistics:

Meaning comes, not just from ‘internal’ inputs (the ‘object’), but rather from

recurring patterns of engagement between organism and environment”. (Johnson &

Lakoff 2002: 248)

5 This process is called ‘self-reference’ and will be accounted for on page 13.


Exam no. 30112

12/49

All systems make sense through this process6, on the basis of a distinction between

what is and what could be. Through second-order observations, systems observe

communications. They observe how reality differs within various perspectives (Görke

& Scholl 2006: 647). This leads us to defining communication.

Luhmann describes communication as a two-fold process of selections between 1)

information: the selection of all the available information in the environment, and 2)

utterance: the selection of numerous modes of expressions. What is required in order

to say that communication has taken place is comprehension (Görke & Scholl 2006:

648). Since communication happens between function systems, we end up with an

expanded view of communication in general. It is not only what happens between

people in dialogue, or the interpretation of cultural objects like pictures or texts, but as

a macro-level mechanism that constitutes and makes social order possible (ibid.).

If we return to the example of the black/dark blue book, a first-order observation

simply states the fact that the book has a certain colour. A second-order observation

observes how the eyes of individuals construct the book as having a certain colour

(op.cit. 72). Second-order observation is what most researchers do. When making a

scientific publication, the purpose is not to present a brand new first-order

observation, but to present one’s knowledge about other people’s publications. In

Luhmann’s words, the researcher must “demonstrate in the medium of publications

that he has considered the state of research, that is, that he has observed what others

have observed.” (Moeller 2006: 76). A modest example is what I did in the section on

functional differentiation. Both Luhmann and Christopher Lasch (among many

others) have observed the effects of the change from stratified to functional social

differentiation, but because they are observing from different ‘locations’, what they

observe and how they construct their respective reality is different.

When you are looking at a scene, you have to be looking at it from some location.

From a given location, you can only see certain things. (Johnson & Lakoff 2002: 255)

In addition to observations, Luhmann also emphasises the difference between

‘reflexivity’ and ‘reflection’. The former is a mono-contextual view (first-order 6 In hermeneutics, the creation of meaning through the constant interaction between subject (part) and context (whole) is illustrated through the ‘hermeneutic circle’ (Andersen 2010: 197).


Exam no. 30112

13/49

observation) from within, in which a certain construction of reality is taken for given

and the latter rises to the level of second-order observation, which entails a poly-

contextual view. Now, the construction of reality becomes contingent; one realises

that things could be different (Holmström 2007: 256).

A note regarding the hierarchy between observations is needed at this point. On the

basis of the section above, one is easily led to believe that second-order observations

are superior to, or more ‘truthful’ than, first-order observations. In fact, second-order

observations are also first-order observations. When making an observation, one’s

focus is directed towards something, which entails that simultaneously, there are other

“somethings” which one’s focus is not directed at. Luhmann uses the term ‘blind

spot’ to explain this phenomenon. Any observation happens at the expense of creating

a blind spot, and reality, therefore, depends on blind spots (Moeller 2006: 74). Again,

we cannot observe reality in its entirety, which is why we construct reality through

observations.

After the observation of a difference, the difference itself re-enters the system as

being a difference that makes a difference for the system. It is transformed from

chaotic information from the environment into valuable information within the

system. Therefore, when it comes to creating indicators of reality, the system can only

do this performance on the level of its own operations, it simply has no other choice

(Luhmann 2000: 89). Therefore, Luhmann treats social systems as being ‘auto-

poeietic’: they create, regulate, and replicate themselves by observing both them-

selves and their environment, or what Luhmann calls ‘self-reference’ and ‘other-

reference’:


Exam no. 30112

14/49

Through this autopoeietic process, systems create a ‘membrane’ between themselves

and the environment, and become operationally closed. I will now look further into

operational closure and the effects it has on society and the idea of a ‘human being’.

3.2.2 Operational Closure The major function systems of contemporary society have reached the point of

operational closure. This means that the autopoiesis of a particular communicative

function system can only continue with communication from the same system:

economic transactions require further economic transactions, and one cannot, for

example, pay for goods with law, or truth (Moeller 2006: 32-3).

[O]perational closure… means that the system can only reproduce its own structures

and operations with its own operations, that is, from its own products. (Luhmann

2000: 118)

We now return to one of the most difficult aspects to work with when it comes to

social systems theory: the rejection of an ethnocentric society.

Meaning/ Autopoeiesis

Context/ Other-reference

Subject/ Self-reference


Exam no. 30112

15/49

Luhmann differentiates between systems of 1) communication, systems of 2) life,

and systems of 3) consciousness or in other words 1) social systems, 2) bodies, the

brain etc., and 3) minds:

Self-Referential Autopoeietic Systems

1) Living Systems 2) Psychic

Systems

3) Social Systems

Cells Brains Organisms Minds Function

Systems

Organisations Interactions

Types of Systems after Moeller 2006: 9

The three types of systems are operationally closed and autopoeietic systems that

create their own structures through self-reference and other-reference. Just like the

example with economic transactions and law, X cannot, by processes of his

consciousness operate within Y’s mind. We can never connect to other people’s

minds or brains. We can only connect to their communication with our own

communication (op.cit. 9). This is a prominent paradox of systems theory, because

even though communication cannot occur without human beings, we are still

inaccessible to each other; human beings (and their minds) are located ‘outside’

communication (ibid.).

In the perspective of social systems theory, the traditional term of a ‘human being’

is too simple to describe the entire existence of humans (op.cit. 11). The brain (as a

living system) cannot operate within the mind and vice versa. I cannot say how the

neurons in my brain fire and how my corresponding brainwaves oscillate (ibid.), and

when I write this text, the communication (the project itself) will never be equal to

what goes on in my mind when thinking about social systems theory. The sentences

and words are, therefore, a reduction of the complexity of how I understand systems

theory.

Because psychic and communication systems are operationally separate, the ‘human

being’ cannot be reduced to only one of them. This entails that in order to understand

the functions and operations of society, one cannot reduce it to the much too broad

notion of the ‘human being’ (ibid.). Systems theory acknowledges, that a human


Exam no. 30112

16/49

being is not a single entity but a complex combination of (at least) physical functions

of the body, psychic operations by the mind, and communication (Moeller 2006: 80).

3.2.3 Coding As we saw in the section above, systems observe differences and thereby reduce the

complexity of the environment, and what makes a difference varies from system to

system. In science, what makes a difference is whatever contributes to the production

of knowledge. In politics, whatever contributes to making collectively binding

decisions possible makes a difference, etc7. The various systems therefore end up with

different ‘codes’ of what makes a difference:

[E]ach functional social system determines its boundary by choosing only those

communications… pertinent to its definitional binary code. (Gunaratne 2008: 177)

At this point, it is time to turn to yet another paradox of social systems theory,

because even though function systems are operationally closed and perform their

autopoeiesis by their own operations and on the premise of their own codes, they are

also affected by other functions systems; they are both independent and

interdependent of other function systems at the same time (Holmström 2007: 258).

7 See appendix 9.3 for a schematisation of the characteristics of the six major social function systems in Luhmann’s work.


Exam no. 30112

17/49

3.3 Structural Coupling and Irritation It seems that, now as we have established an understanding of social function systems

as performing their reduction of complexity without being affected by other systems.

It is true, that they construct their own version of reality by performing second-order

observations and thereby operate with their own codes, but because a system’s

respective environment partly consists of other systems, they can become

interdependent or, as Luhmann calls it, ‘structurally coupled’. If two function systems

reach a stage where they create the required environment for each of them to continue

their respective autopoeiesis, they have become structurally coupled (Moeller 2006:

19). For example politics and the economy (see the example of taxes on the next

page):

When this happens, the structurally coupled systems continuously ‘irritate’ each other

and are forced to react or ‘resonate’ with each other. An important consequence is,

that irritation is not unidirectional: if one system is able to irritate another, the process

will also enable the latter to irritate the former (op.cit. 38-9).

As with the lack of hierarchy between first- and second-order observations, a note

on the hierarchy between function systems is required. Social systems theory neither

believes in, nor desires, any form of domination between function systems. According

to Luhmann, believing that society is dominated by a single function system is a

theoretical pitfall. Marxism is one of those theories. Social systems theory

Economy

Politics


Exam no. 30112

18/49

acknowledges that the economy affects e.g. politics, but because of this structural

coupling, the process goes both ways (Moeller 2006: 39). As an example one could

think of taxes. The political system irritates the economic system by creating taxes

due to political decisions. The economic system then resonates by adding the taxes to

sales prices. Both systems are required when it comes to taxes. Therefore, there is,

theoretically, no dominance (op.cit. 38).

Luhmann introduces the concept of a ‘cybernetic circle’ to explain the phenomenon

of structural coupling (op.cit. 146-7). One way of understanding this concept is to ask

whether it is the horizontal or the vertical line of a square that contributes the most to

the surface area? The answer is, of course, neither. They are interdependent. And as

for the example with taxes, the same perspective is needed. Neither an observation

from the economic nor the political system alone is sufficient, because they are

structurally coupled.

Another example of structural coupling can be illustrated by returning to the

problem of the ‘human being’ as being a singular entity. Moeller notes, that human

beings should instead be understood as “… historically contingent semantic

constructs that emerge from the structural coupling of psychic and social systems…”

(op.cit. 85). The reason for this redefinition is rooted in the previously mentioned

change from stratified to functional differentiation. In a society based on social strata,

the individual becomes an individual in the household (op.cit. 86), through inclusion.

In a society based on functional differentiation, the individual becomes an individual

by being different from everybody else, by being unique; in order to belong to the

overall category of individuals, one must be different from them. Again, we find a

paradox. The semantics of individuality has changed from “social inclusion” to

“social inclusion-by-exclusion” (op.cit. 88-9).

I will now turn to the characteristics of the mass media as a function system.


Exam no. 30112

19/49

3.4 The Mass Media as a Function System The essence of Luhmann’s (2000) The Reality of the Mass Media is expressed in the

following question:

[H]ow is it possible to accept information about the world and about society as

information about reality when one knows how it is produced? (Luhmann 2000: 122)

Based on the concepts of social systems theory presented above, I will briefly explain

how the mass media is characterised as an autopoeietic and self-referential function

system. The consequences of ‘mediatisation’ will also be discussed.

Luhmann defines mass media as “all those institutions of society, which make use

of copying technologies to disseminate communication” (Luhmann 2000: 2). He

mentions technology in the form of the printing press (books, magazines,

newspapers), photographic and electronic copying technologies, broadcasting, etc.

(ibid.).

3.4.1 Function The function of the mass media is to provide background knowledge “as a starting

point for communication” (Luhmann 2000: 65-6). This background knowledge can

also be seen as a ‘collective memory’ from which one can chose information for

backing up other communication (Hjarvard 2008: 115).

As both Luhmann notes, most of our general knowledge about society comes from

the mass media. This general knowledge is not a description of the entire reality, but it

is still neither more nor less of a construction of reality than the reality of other

function systems (Moeller 2006: 150). In relation to other function systems, the mass

media is a source of constant irritation (Luhmann 2000: 98).


Exam no. 30112

20/49

3.4.2 Code

As with the other function systems, the mass media operates with its own binary code

for what makes a difference. In order for information from the environment to be

considered as making a difference from the perspective of the mass media, the

information must have informational value. The code of the mass media is therefore

information/ non-information (Luhmann 2000: 17). Here we find yet another paradox,

because ‘no information’ can be transformed into information when it comes to the

mass media (ibid.). When the nuclear disaster in Japan was being presented in the

news, the fact that the government of Japan had, after some time, still not given any

official statement was also presented as news/ information.

The consequence of operating by this code is ‘social redundancy’, or in other words:

a constant need for new information. Like the economy, which is based on payments,

which in turn generates a need to replace money spent, the mass media generates a

need to replace old information with new information (Luhmann 2000: 20-1).

The Norwegian sociologist Gudmund Hernes was one of the first to observe this

phenomenon, which he defined as ‘the media-twisted society’:

the media have transformed society from a situation of information scarcity to one of

information abundance, which has rendered attention a strategic resource, for which

anyone with a message must compete. (Hjarvard 2008: 107)

The characteristics of the mass media as a function system are summarised in

appendix 9.3.


Exam no. 30112

21/49

3.4.3 Mediatisation

Another view, which can contribute to the understanding of the mass media, is the

concept of ‘mediatisation’:

the process whereby society to an increasing degree is submitted to, or becomes

dependent on, the media and their logic. (Hjarvard 2008: 113)

In the terms of social systems theory, mediatisation describes the increasing structural

coupling between the mass media and the other function systems. Numerous theorists

have commented on this phenomenon. In terms of semiotics, Jacques Derrida asserted

that the relationship between the signifier (the concept/idea) and the signified (the

object) has become completely arbitrary (Longhurst et al. 2008: 42). Drawing on

Derrida, Jean Baudrilliard observed, that the mass media displays a reality that seems

more “real” than the physical and social world “outside” the media: a ‘hyperreality’.

The signs used in the mass media have been turned into ‘simulacra’: free floating

signs that do not refer to the physical or social world. This does not entail that we live

in a reality that seems more real than it ‘should’, that there is no reality outside of the

media, but that the way in which the media construct reality has become the primary

‘lens’ through which we construct reality (op.cit. 111). The other function systems

have become so structurally coupled with the mass media that they seem to operate

exclusively via the code, or logic, of the mass media.

Hjarvard distinguishes between the relative levels of mediatisation. ‘Direct’

mediatisation is when a previously non-mediated action becomes mediated, e.g.

purchasing clothes online, which, prior to the development of the Internet, required

face-to-face interaction. ‘Indirect’ mediatisation is when an action becomes

increasingly influenced on a deeper organisational level by the symbols and

mechanisms of the media (op.cit. 114-5), e.g. when parents buy a specific box of

cereal for their children because of the popular cartoon figure it contains.

A very useful notion regarding the analysis of the anti-ACTA protests is “the

development of ‘intertextual discourse’ between media and other institutions in

society” as a result of indirect mediatisation. Hjarvard mentions the example of


Exam no. 30112

22/49

Danes’ knowledge about America from the mass media when it comes to political

discussions (ibid.). I will elaborate on intertextuality and discourse in section 4.

Hjarvard also uses Pierre Bourdieu’s concept ‘field’ to describe the connection

between social institutions. A field is a social area in which an internal structure

regulates people’s behaviour (op.cit. 126), e.g. the protestors’ behaviour in terms of

appearance and messages of their protest material when they enter the area of

protesting.

Bourdieu distinguishes between the ‘autonomous pole’, which is when the actors

behave according to the internal logic of the field, and the ‘heteronomous pole’,

which is when actors behave according to the logic of those fields that are connected

to the field in question. One way to measure the relative level of mediatisation, or the

structural coupling between the media and other function systems, is to see how much

the autonomous pole of a specific field has weakened (ibid.). I will provide an

example of this in section 5.4.

A note on the difference between mediatisation and ‘medium theory’ is necessary at

this point. Both theories focus on the impact the mass media has (had) on society, but

whereas proponents of medium theory, like Marshall McLuhan and Joshua

Meyrowitz, emphasise the internal characteristics of a specific type of medium (e.g.

TV, printing technology, or social media, etc.), mediatisation includes the impact of

culture on technology and thereby avoids technological determinism (op.cit. 109).


Exam no. 30112

23/49

4.0 Analysing a Construction of Reality At this point, we have established an understanding of how the mass media constructs

its own version of reality, which affects the other function systems through structural

coupling, or mediatisation.

I will move from a macro level analysis to a micro level analysis, because one way

of observing irritation between function systems is by looking at concrete

communication material. First, I will outline a strategy that fits with the epistemology

of social systems theory. In terms of methodology, I will specifically use Axel

Philipps’ approach to analysing protest material in a sociological context, discourse

analysis, intertextuality, and framing.

4.1 Visual Protest Material as Empirical Data Philipps recently published an article on how to use visual protest material as

empirical data (Philipps 2012). As he mentions in the article, when it comes to “the

sociology of media and communication, images are analysed in terms of how they

influence the understanding, presentation or construction of reality.” (op.cit. 3). When

keeping the constructivist approach and terminology of social systems theory in mind,

this methodology is an appropriate fit.

The author’s approach is partly based on Bourdieu’s study of amateur photography.

He notes that taking a photograph requires the selection from a variety of objects,

genres, and compositions and therefore becomes a representation of how the

photographer sees the world; taking a photograph involves reducing complexity. This

notion entails that when we can observe similarities in numerous photographs, these

similarities can be analysed as being relatively representative (op.cit. 9). In this case,

they are representative of the protestors’ view of the ACTA.

Philipps writes, that the empirical data must first be put into context (op.cit. 4),

which I did in section 2.0 when describing the political conflict, which led to the

protests.

The approach Philipps uses is Ralf Bohnsack’s method, which is based on a triad of

visual theorists: 1) Erwin Panofsky’s view on iconology, 2) Max Imdahl’s iconic

interpretation, and 3) Karl Mannheim’s documentary method. This way of making


Exam no. 30112

24/49

visual analysis should both answer which meaning a social phenomenon has and how

it is produced (op.cit 10). The purpose of this approach is to gain access to the ‘space

of experience’ of the producers of the pictures; to analyse how the social practice of

protesting creates a certain kind of knowledge, in other words: a discourse analysis

(op.cit. 8).

4.2 Discourse Analysis and Social Semiotics Social semiotics looks a two interconnected parts of communication: 1) the material

itself, and 2) the way the use of the material is regulated through social interaction.

The focus is on how we use material in communication and how this material is able

to create meaning (van Leeuwen 2005: 93). As previously mentioned, meaning

happens in the constant interaction between subject and environment, which is why

we also need to investigate the social practice, or discourse, of the communication

material.

We always experience society and the various social institutions within which we

operate as divided up and demarcated, structured into different spheres of action,

different types of situation, each of which has its associated type of practice.

(Fairclough 2001: 24)

Theo van Leeuwen uses Michel Foucault’s definition of discourses and sees them as

“socially constructed knowledges of some aspect of reality” (van Leeuwen 2005: 94).

When keeping the terminology of social systems theory in mind, I feel no need for a

full elaboration regarding why I have chosen a discourse approach in this project. The

main point of Foucault’s definition lies within the plurality of the word knowledges.

Thereby, he acknowledges the presence of various constructions of knowledge of the

same object (ibid.). Again, observations will differ according to where the observer is

located. This also goes for which social context, or practice, the observer is observing

from.


Exam no. 30112

25/49

In order to establish whether a particular discourse has emerged, we need to look at

similarities in various texts8 about the same topic (op.cit. 95), or in the vocabulary of

social systems theory, we need to make second-order observations of how others have

observed the anti-ACTA protests.

Just like we can never construct reality in its entirety, neither can we analyse

everything within a single discourse. We can find fragments and groupings and

thereby try to construct our version of the reality of a particular discourse (op.cit.

115).

Whereas Luhmann analyses constructions of reality in terms of the large function

systems, proponents of discourse analysis use some of the same ideas in micro-level

analysis. Norman Fairclough mentions the dialectical relationship between social

structures and social practice that states, that a social structure is not only determined

by social practice, it is also a product of social practice. In other words, a social

structure is both determined by discourse and a product of discourse at the same time

(Fairclough 2001: 30-2). A discourse therefore contains the elements needed to

reproduce itself: it is autopoeietic. He also mentions, that a discourse does not simply

‘reflect’ an independent reality ‘outside’ of itself. It is itself a part of the construction

of reality (ibid.). Therefore, a discourse recognises the consequences of being one

observer among many.

In terms of the mass media, Fairclough also sees “the constant doses of ‘news’

which most people receive each day” as a major contributor to people’s general

association with discourse (op.cit. 30).

There are, however, major differences between Luhmann and Fairclough’s views of

society. Whereas the latter emphasises the struggle of power within society as based

on economic differences (Fairclough 2001: 27), the former denies the superiority of

the economic function system.

8 Texts are here understood as “any cultural item that can be ‘read’ or interpreted” (Longhurst et al. 2008: 26).


Exam no. 30112

26/49

4.2.1 Intertextuality

As mentioned in section 3.4.3, intertextual discourses emerge because of indirect

mediatisation. Originally developed by Julia Kristeva, intertextuality argues that any

text “can be analysed in terms of the other texts that it has absorbed and transformed“

(Longhurst et al. 2008: 41).

Fairclough mentions intertextuality when explaining the relationship between a

single text and what he calls the ‘world of texts’: how one text refers to what has been

written, said, or thought in other texts (Fairclough 2003: 39-40). In terms of analysing

the protest material, one can, therefore, look for references to other texts. This will

uncover were the protestors’ knowledge comes from.

When it comes to knowledge about a certain topic, the concept of ‘framing’ is also

useful.

4.2.2 Framing Framing is a concept used in cognitive linguistics to define the, often unconscious,

structures we use to think. A frame includes combinations of semantics, roles, and the

relations amongst them as well as relations to other frames (Lakoff 2010: 71). A

frame of protesting contains rules of how to act, what to write on protest material,

appearance, etc. In other words, a frame contains the elements of the social practice or

discourse.

In an article from 2010, George Lakoff argues that, because of the fact that environ-

mental issues are “intimately tied up with other issue areas”, our leaders, politicians,

journalists, and we as citizens, lack the frames that are required in order to understand

the reality of such a complex problem (Lakoff 2010: 76). Later, I will argue that this

exact problem corresponds with the situation of the ACTA.


Exam no. 30112

27/49

5.0 Analysis I will begin with ‘locating’ the anti-ACTA protests in a functionally differentiated

society. Second, I will analyse some visual protest material in order to understand the

discourse of the protestors and gain access to their ‘space of experience’.

When possible, I will apply the concepts of social systems theory in order to show,

that many of the ideas and concepts correlate with those of discourse analysis and its

sub-disciplines, here with focus on social and visual semiotics.

5.1 Protesting in a Complex Society If we put the anti-ACTA protests into the macro framework of social systems theory,

we find them located between all function systems. From a political perspective, the

protests have resulted in e.g. the Polish government refusing to sign the ACTA9. From

an economic perspective, they have affected the protestors’ purchasing behaviour in

terms of buying the Guy Fawkes caricature masks (see section 5.3). From a legal

perspective, they have questioned the validity of the ACTA as a legal proposal, and

from the perspective of the mass media, they have been a spectacle with huge

informational value. The various systems observe the protest events from their own

perspective and thereby create their own reality of them by their own operations:

9 See appendix 9.3 for a photograph of the Polish government wearing Guy Fawkes masks.


Exam no. 30112

28/49

Social systems theory proposes that social activism, e.g. in the form of protests,

cannot do anything to change society towards any certain goal. This would require

some sort of ‘meta-system’, which transcends the other function systems and thereby

would be able to operate directly within the other functions systems. Social systems

theory does not deny that social activism has an effect, but the belief that protesting

will result in the exact resonance one aims for is highly unlikely. In this perspective,

neither theory nor activism is able to predict or determine the outcome, or resonance,

by the function systems (Moeller 2006: 100-1).

Luhmann sees social activists as people complaining about the present state of

society and asking for change. They believe that change is possible “if only people

would start to think and act better” (op.cit. 102). He proposes that social activists lack

understanding of society and of the limitations of their own actions (ibid.). This “lack

of understanding” should, then, be observable in the protest material.

Protests

Law

Economy

Politics

Mass Media


Exam no. 30112

29/49

5.2 Protest Material Philipps first uses a ‘summarizing content analysis’ in his research (Mayring 2004, In:

Phillips 2012: 6). This is done by rephrasing and condensing the messages of the

protest material on a higher level of abstraction (ibid.).

After having observed more than a hundred photographs10, I have summarised the

overall content of the anti-ACTA protest material by the following abstract assertion:

freedom on the Internet should not be compromised through political regulations.

The analysis itself consists of three levels. The ‘pre-iconographic’ level (Panofsky)

includes depicting objectively what is in the photograph (persons, objects, colours,

etc.). At the ‘iconographic level’ (Imdahl), the analyst uses his knowledge about

society in general to interpret the meaning of the symbols. The last level, ‘reflexive

interpretation’ (Mannheim), is based solely on the composition of the photograph

without any form of connotation, in order to determine which actions has led to the

particular layout of a given piece of protest material (Phillips 2012: 11).

Among the hundreds of photographs available online with anti-ACTA protest

material, I have chosen two prototypes, which I will now analyse.

10 See appendix 9.5 for a sample of other photographs of protest material.


Exam no. 30112

30/49

5.2.1 Sign

Pre-iconographic description: a preliminary look at the photograph shows a man

holding a sign. The man is dressed in a black hooded jacket, wearing gloves and a red

backpack. He is also wearing a white mask that covers his face.

The sign seems to be made of blue cardboard with five lines of white cut out pieces

of text glued to it. The text says: YOU CANNOT CONTROLL 500 Million People


Exam no. 30112

31/49

without making a few enemies. In the top right corner we also see an illustration of a

similar mask to the one the man is wearing.

After the photograph was taken, three additional lines of text have been added to the

picture stating: WIR STOPPEN ACTA! STARTE DEINEN PROTEST MIT EINEM

KLICK AUF “GEFÄLLT MIR”11.

Iconographic interpretation: regarding symbolism, the white mask, which we observe

twice, is a caricature of the 17th century British terrorist Guy Fawkes. This is one of

the main characteristics of the way the protestors identify themselves, and the way the

mass media portray them. As Foucault mentions, investigating the history of a

particular discourse contributes to an understanding of how it has emerged and has

become ‘common sense’ (Van Leeuwen 2005: 98).

The history of Guy Fawkes goes back to November 5th 1605. Fawkes attempted to

destroy the parliament of London and kill King James I. He did not succeed his plot,

but was convicted and executed nevertheless. Each year, Guy Fawkes Night, or

Bonfire Night, is celebrated on November 5th in Great Britain to remember the failed

terrorist attempt (McCready 2011).

Guy Fawkes as a symbol has changed from representing a terrorist to representing

anti-capitalist movements such as the anti-ACTA protestors, the hackers group

Anonymous, and the Occupy Movement (O’Brien 2011). The idea of using these

masks began with the hackers group Anonymous wearing them at various occasions

in 2008, and a rough estimate states that around 100,000 official Guy Fawkes masks

were sold in 2010 (ibid.). This change in semantics can be traced back to the 2006

movie V for Vendetta, which is a clear example of intertextuality.

V for Vendetta is a futuristic depiction of a comic book by the same title. The hero

“V” wears a Guy Fawkes mask while battling the monarchy of a fascist, post-nuclear

England where “V” represents the voice of the people. The movie contains some very

profound and memorable statements, such as: “There is something very wrong with

this country.” and “People should not be afraid of their government. Governments

should be afraid of their people.” (McCready 2011). It would have been quite

11 Translation: We will stop ACTA! Start your protest with a click on “Like”.


Exam no. 30112

32/49

interesting to interview some of the protestors in order to see if they agree (perhaps

more implicitly) with these assertions.

A paradox regarding the use of these masks is, that the media company Time

Warner Inc. owns the rights to the official Guy Fawkes masks, which means that

every time a protestor buys a mask and wears it to protest events, money is deposited

into Time Warner’s bank account (O’Brien 2011). When used specifically in anti-

capitalist protests, the protestors actually contribute to capitalism by protesting against

it. One explanation of how this can occur is structural coupling. By using Guy Fawkes

as a symbol, the protestors are not only acting towards the autonomous pole within

the field of protesting. The legal system determines the copyrights of the masks and

the economy determines where the money of purchasing a mask goes. According to

CNN counterfeiting of these masks is currently performed in Asia (ibid.).

With reference to the previously mentioned complete arbitrariness of the

relationship between the signifier and the signified, the meaning of Guy Fawkes as a

symbol has changed from representing the historical event of his attempted terrorist

attack to represent the agenda of social activist movements.

In terms of connotations towards the written text of the sign, we find another

example of intertextuality in the form of a direct reference to the 2010 movie The

Social Network. The plot of the movie is the history of how Mark Zuckerberg founded

Facebook. In the introduction of the movie we see a black screen with the text: “You

don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.” It seems quite

paradoxical to refer to a man who has gained great wealth from capitalism in a protest

against capitalist control over the Internet. In general, it seems that indirect

mediatisation has resulted in referring to movies when protesting.

With regards to the typography of the text, the theme of being anonymous is

followed through. By using cut out text bits, the protestor leaves out any traces of

recognition. One can make a reference to movies in which the kidnapper sends a

characteristic note, made out of text bits from magazines, to the parents in order

become unidentifiable via his handwriting.


Exam no. 30112

33/49

Reflexive interpretation: the sign is rectangular and in landscape form. The black

writing is a clear contrast to the white and blue background, which increases

visibility.

Even though the sign is relatively well made, compared to e.g. other protest material

consisting of just a piece of paper with simple hand writing, it is fair to say, that this

sign was made in a hurry. It is not easy to store and save for further protest events,

and the wrong spelling of the words “CANT” and “CONTROLL” add detail to the

hypothesis, that it was most likely made in a hurry.


Exam no. 30112

34/49

5.2.2 Banner

Pre-iconographic description: a first look of the photograph shows two men hanging a

large banner out of a window. The men are wearing black hooded sweatshirts, and


Exam no. 30112

35/49

one of them is wearing black gloves. They are both wearing a white mask covering

their faces.

The banner contains eleven lines of text: “Protection System Security Alert. (Same

line repeated). The system encountered a problem with internet freedom. Installing

ACTA and removing freedom. Status… Stop ACTA and install new system? YES.” It

also contains various coloured symbols.

Iconographic interpretation: the layout of the banner resembles a warning message

from a computer with the corresponding icons one is usually presented with in the

situation of a system malfunction. The green bar shows that the ‘installing’ of ACTA

is in progress and is thereby “removing freedom”. The ‘user’ (observer of the banner)

is then asked whether he/she wishes to stop ACTA and install another system. In the

bottom we see a button with the word “YES” and a modified version of the usual

mouse cursor with all fingers but the forefinger clenched together. In this version, it is

the middle finger of the cursor that is not clenched.

By using a computer as a metaphor, the ACTA is seen as a virus, which has been

spread through the system of computers and thereby creating damage in the form of

loss of freedom. The user is presented with the option to secure his/her computer by

actively installing another system. This shows a strong belief in the power and effect

of individual choice.

The general symbolic meaning of the masks has been accounted for in the section

above.

Reflexive interpretation: the banner is several meters long and in vertical form. Com-

pared to the sign, it is quite professionally designed and its size provides the

possibility of long sentences. Due to the longer sentences, though, the writing is

relatively small, which will probably decrease visibility.

The banner is mounted on a round bar, which provides for easy storage and use in

further protest events. Therefore, it seems that the designer of the banner has spent

more time making it than the average protestor. A disadvantage regarding the format

of the banner is that the protestors are forced to find an elevated position in order for


Exam no. 30112

36/49

people to see it. This also excludes the possibility of moving while showing the

banner.

Through the reflexive interpretations, we can conclude that the protestors differ

according to levels of engagement in the protests. One explanation is the previously

mentioned (section 3.1) general lack of commitment as a result of functional

differentiation. This leads me to the overall discussion in this project.

6.0 Discussion and Critique Because social differentiation is no longer based on strata, people need to relate to all

the various institutions/function systems of society. Therefore, people simply do not

have the mental capacity to become deeply committed in every single one of them.

Accordingly, in order for the function systems to continue their autopoeiesis, people

need to trust that the systems solve societal problems efficiently. Social activism in

general could be seen as a lack of trust in the efficacy of the function systems.

The visual analysis showed a general lack of reflection by the anti-ACTA

protestors. Their frame of ACTA contains, in terms of semantics, the understanding of

Internet freedom as being more important than the stability of the knowledge-based

economy. This sole focus on freedom on the Internet shows a high level of reflexivity.

They take their worldview as given and do not acknowledge the contingency of the

ACTA. If the purpose of the ACTA is to secure the intellectual rights of online

material, and we assume that the economic progress of our society is based on

knowledge and creativity, then the protestors are, in the end, protesting against an

improvement and securitisation of their own jobs. Their frame of society is based on

stratified differentiation, and the abstract concept of ‘freedom’ is more important than

everything else.

If social systems theory carries with it any applicable truth, then there is no single

point from which one can observe (or predict) how a protest will affect politics or

society in general. It is impossible to determine how the ACTA (signed or not) will

irritate the function systems and how they, in turn, will resonate. The result could be,

that the next time you are to travel by plane, a customs official will search your iPod


Exam no. 30112

37/49

or laptop for illegally downloaded music or movies, but it could also be a security-

sation of rights over online material, which in turn could stabilise the economy.

The most obvious way to criticise the results of this project is to use social systems

theory and point it towards itself. The construction of reality proposed by social

systems theory is also a first-order observation, which entails the presence of blind

spots. Even when one emphasises second-order observations, reflection, etc. the

corresponding construction is still contingent; other approaches to analyse social

activism, the mass media, or protest material will create different results. Likewise,

interviewing some of the protestors might have resulted in other reasons for protesting

than simply freedom on the Internet.

In terms of collecting data about the ACTA it is also notable, that the knowledge I

present about the treaty is based on how it is constructed in the mass media. But this

does not change the fact that this is how the majority of people experience it. The

mass media operates through informational value and not necessarily truth. What I did

was to present two radically different constructions of the same phenomena: a ‘good’

one and a ‘bad’ one and as always with the mass media, “bad” is easier to transform

into ‘good news’.

Another point worth mentioning is that functional differentiation is not a global

phenomenon. Most societies are still based on other types of social differentiation.

Therefore, due to the level of mediatisation emphasised in this project, the results are

only relevant for societies that are relatively very complex with large levels of

structural coupling.


Exam no. 30112

38/49

7.0 Conclusion In this project, I wanted to explain how social activism affects politics through the

mass media, with specific attention to Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems. In

this perspective, social activism, here in the form of the anti-ACTA protests, has high

informational value and, therefore, is often published in the mass media. This, in turn,

results in constant irritation towards the other function systems, including politics.

Because of mediatisation, political decisions are dependent on relating to the code of

the mass media.

In this process, I used the strength of a systems approach and converted elements of

the theory from a sociological discipline into a more practical approach in the visual

analysis.

The visual analysis contributed to an understanding of the way the protestors

construct the reality of ACTA. It showed that the protestors’ focus on Internet

freedom creates blind spots: they lack reflection of the entire situation. Their way of

framing society and politics is too simple, at least according to social systems theory.

A particularly interesting factor for further investigation is the general use of

anonymity in social activism. An analysis of identity and presentation of the self

could contribute to an understanding of why people participate in protests.

The next step in doing this type of research is reframing. Because society has become

so complex, as Luhmann claims, we cannot describe it through a mono-contextual

approach. The general understanding of society is still based on a single-perspective

vocabulary of exploitation, capitalism, freedom, etc.

If we take social evolution into account, we end up with more conflicts. If the

access to function systems spreads, we will see even more governmental attempts to

control how the function systems operate. If the claim on the sign is true, that “you

can’t control 500 million people without making a few enemies” it will be interesting

to see what will happen when this number grows and the function systems become

even more structurally coupled.

The essence of this analysis is the necessity to move from reflexivity to reflection.

Whenever a worldview is taken for granted, as the only possible construction of

reality, blind spots will result in conflict. Therefore, when doing any sort of research


Exam no. 30112

39/49

concerning complex problems, an interdisciplinary approach is completely necessary,

and as the old Japanese saying goes: “When the only tool you have is a hammer,

every problem begins to look like a nail.” This is also the case with the ACTA. If one

observes from the position that Internet freedom should not be regulated in any way,

one cannot see the other possibly beneficiary impacts of the treaty.

Just like Gutenberg could not possibly have predicted the long-term impact of

copying technologies, resulting in a mediatised society, neither can anyone predict the

precise impacts (resonance by other function systems) of the ACTA in a functionally

differentiated society.


Exam no. 30112

40/49

8.0 Bibliography 8.1 Articles Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2009). ACTA:

Summary of Key Elements Under Discussion. < http://www.dfat.gov.au/

trade/acta/summary_of_discussions.html > (08.03.2012)

Görke, Alexander & Armin Scholl (2006). Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Social

Systems and Journalism Research. Journalism Studies. Vol. 7/4. Routledge.

644-652.

Gunaratne, Shelton A. (2008). Understanding Systems Theory: transition from

equilibrium to entropy. Asian Journal of Communication. Vol. 18/3,

September 2008. Routledge. 175-192.

Graham, Brian & Ken Thomas (2008). Building Knowledge – Developing a

Grounded Theory of Knowledge Management for Construction. The

Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. Vol. 6, no. 2. Academic

Conferences Ltd. 115-122.

Hjarvard, Stig (2008). The Mediatization of Society: A Theory of the Media as

Agents of Social and Cultural Change. Nordicom Review. Vol. 29/2. 105-134.

Holmström, Susanne (2007). Niklas Luhmann. Contingency, risk, trust and reflection.

Public Relations Review. Vol. 33, May 2007. Elsevier. 255-262.

Johnson, Mark & George Lakoff (2002). Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied

realism. Cognitive Linguistics. Vol. 13/3. De Gruyter. 245-263.

Lakoff, George (2010). Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment.

Environmental Communication. Vol. 4/1. March 2010. Routledge. 70-81.

Lee, David (2012). Acta: EU court to rule on anti-piracy agreement.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17125469 > (08.03.2012)

McCready, Weston (2011). Guy Fawkes’ Masks Symbol of Protest. <http://technorati

.com/politics/article/guy-fawkes-masks-symbol-of-protest/ > (08.04.2012)

O’Brien, Mike (2011). How Guy Fawkes, the man who tried to murder a king and a

government became a symbol of anti-capitalist protestors across the globe. <

http://www. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058020/How-Guy-Fawkes-masks-

symbol-anti-greed-protests-globe.html > (08.04.2012)

O’Doherty, Glen (2012). ACTA Explained: The treaty that lets Customs search your


Exam no. 30112

41/49

iPod. Unelected. January 2012. < http://www.unelected.org/acta-explained-

the-treaty-that-lets-customs-search-your-ipod> (08.03.2012)

Phillips, Axel (2012). Visual protest material as empirical data. Visual

Communication. Vol. 11/3. Sage Publications.

8.2 Monographs and Collected Works

Andersen, Ib (2010). Den Skinbarlige Virkelighed – vidensproduktion inden for

samfundsvisenskaberne. 4th ed. Frederiksberg C: Samfundslitteratur.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1990). Flow – The Psychology of Optimal Experience.

New York: Harper Perennial.

Fairclough, Norman (2001). Language and Power. 2nd ed. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson.

Fairclough, Norman (2003). Analysing Discourse – Textual Analysis for Social

Research. New York: Routledge.

Langergaard, Luise Li, Søren Barlebo Rasmussen & Asger Sørensen (2006). Viden,

videnskab og virkelighed. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Lasch, Christopher (1991). The Culture of Narcissism – American Life in An Age of

Diminishing Expectations. New York: Norton.

Longhurst, Brian, Greg Smith, Gaynor Bagnall, Gary Crawford, Miles Ogborn, Elaine

Baldwin & Scott McCracken (2008). Introducing Cultural Studies. 2nd ed.

Edinbourgh Gate: Pearson.

Luhmann, Niklas (2000). The Reality of the Mass Media. Translated by Kathleen

Cross. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Moeller, Hans-Georg (2006). Luhmann Explained – From Souls to Systems. Peru,

Illinois: Open Court.

van Leeuwen, Theo (2005). Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.


Exam no. 30112

42/49

9.0 Appendix 9.1 Anti-ACTA Protests <http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=2121205587

76447282985.0004b7b33e16f13c710c7 > (08.03.2012)


Exam no. 30112

43/49

9.2 Segmentary and Centre/periphery Differentiation Luhmann identifies four different types of social differentiation: 1) segmentary, 2)

centre/ periphery, 3) stratified, and 4) functional differentiation (Moeller 2006: 42).

The first type is defined through kinship and communal living. Societies known as

‘primitive’, ‘archaic’, or ‘tribal’ are based on segmentary differentiation. In a society

strictly based on segmentary differentiation, there is no centre when it comes to social

power; one segment is not perceived to be the core of society (Moeller 2006: 42-3).

The second type of differentiation is based on structural inequality and emerges

when one segment becomes increasingly powerful and wealthy and thereby becomes

able to identify itself as the centre or core of society, e.g. Ancient Rome (Moeller

2006: 43-4).

It is important to note, that a society based solely on one type of social

differentiation will hardly ever exist. Luhmann even notes that the coexistence of

several types of differentiation is necessary for social evolution; one system can only

dominate another when more than one type exists (ibid.). He defines this sort of

dominance or primacy as “when one type can be identified as regulating the

applicability of others”(ibid.).


Exam no. 30112

44/49

9.3 Characteristics of Six Social Function Systems System Function Efficacy Code Program Medium Law Elimination

of the contin-gency of norm expec-tations

Regulation of conflict

Legal/illegal Laws, constitutions, etc.

Jurisdiction

Politics Making collectively binding decisions possible

Practical application of collec-tively binding decisions

Government/ opposition

Programs of political parties, ideologies

Power

Science Production of knowledge

Supply of knowledge

True/false Theories, methods

Truth

Religion Elimination of con-tingency

Spiritual and social services

Immanence/ tran-scendence

Holy scriptures, dogmas

Faith

Economy Reduction of shortages

Satisfaction of needs

Payment/ non-payment

Budgets Money

The Mass Media

Creation of back-ground knowledge

Provide means for further communi-cation

Information/ non-information

In-depth reporting, advertising, entertain-ment

Communi-cation technology

After figure 1.2. Social Systems (Moeller 2006: 29)


Exam no. 30112

45/49

9.4 The Polish Government < http://gearnyt.dk/hvad-er-acta-vil-det-pavirke-os-og-hvad-betyder-det-vi-forklarer-

det-hele/ > (03.04.2012)


Exam no. 30112

46/49

9.5 Sample of Photographs < https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anti-ACTA/106175812744911?sk=photos >

(20.04.2012)


Exam no. 30112

47/49


Exam no. 30112

48/49


Exam no. 30112

49/49

Documents

Man vs. System - PUREpure.au.dk/portal/files/45313588/Man_vs._System_A_Social_Systems... · Man vs. System A social systems- and visual discourse analysis ... Niklas Luhmann’s theory