ShortCutstvwww.shortcutstv.com

Updating Functionalism:Luhmann’s System Theory

ChrisLivesey

Teaching Notes

1

shortcutstv.com 1

Sociological Theory Updating Functionalism

When students are first introduced to the idea ofa “functionalist perspective” it’s usually throughan “organismic” - or organic if you prefer -analogy; the idea human societies can belikened, in term of their broad characteristics,features and development, to physicalorganisms (normally, but not necessarily,considered in terms of the human individual).

As a way of introducing the perspective there’snothing particularly wrong with this analogy; onthe contrary, it can be a useful way to helpstudents understand the basic principlesunderpinning this general approach.

However, we need to ask whether the analogyhas long-term utility in terms of how studentsare encouraged to approach and evaluate thisperspective, in terms of two questions:

1. Is a worldview rooted in the ideas andassumptions of 19th century science applicableto our understanding of how societies work in21st century Britain?

2. In terms of teaching and learning do we needto develop how students understand thisgeneral approach? In other words, are students,at the end of a two-year course, in exactly thesame theoretical space as when they began?

One answer to both of these questions is toexamine a contemporary example of structuralfunctionalist thinking, Luhmann’s SystemTheory.

Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903)

The “organic analogy”, as far as sociologyis concerned, can be attributed to HerbertSpencer, the 19th century biologist andphilosopher and now largely-ignoredfather of English sociology.

Spencer’s biological background led himto argue human societies were analogousto biological organisms in terms of theirphysical and social charcateristics andevolution.

Government

Family

Economy

Functionalism…

Don’t ask…

2

shortcutstv.com 2

Sociological Theory Updating Functionalism

Luhmann’s systems theory begins from the ideaof a ‘world system’ - the idea that all societies inthe world are in some way connected - andeffectively works backwards to an explanation ofindividual social action. To understand how thisworks we need to think about societies ascomplex systems.

Luhmann assumes human behaviour isgenerally characterised by complexity,considered in terms, for example, of the numberand range of possible relational combinationsthat now exist across the social world.

You can think about these relational ties in bothindividual terms - tracing, for example, both thedirect (face-to-face) ties you have with people,such as family and friends, and the vast numberof indirect ties you have (think, for example,about how you are connected to others throughsocial media) - and wider social terms. Theseinvolve thinking about the various connectionsbetween different societies - economic, politicaland cultural - that impact on our behaviour insome way.

Systems TheoryInteractionism

An alternative perspective onstructural development...

Luhmann’s persepctive is also an explicitcritique of Interactionist approaches and,in particular the idea complex systems arecreated through the purposeful actions ofIndividuals,

The question, from an Interactionistperspective is, to paraphrase Heise(1996), how do the ‘minute-by-minutebehaviour inventions of millions ofindividuals culminate in the machine-likedaily order’ that, to take only oneexample, educates us in schools andcolleges across the country?

How, in other words, is social orderpossible if ‘society’ consists of people‘going about their individual lives’?

Network Theory

The answer, Heise suggests, is ‘societyemerges from the creative activities ofenculturated individuals’. In other words,patterns of behaviour – how they originateand develop in terms of social groups –can be understood in terms of socialnetworks based, according to Cook(2001), on two features:

1. Nodes – defined as people (individualsor groups) in a particular network. ‘Theonly requirement for a node,’ according toCook, ‘is that it must be able to relate insome manner to other nodes’. This relatesto the concept of:

2. Ties – or the relationships between twonodes (that can be many and varied –think about the range of relationshipswithin your sociology class, for example).

3

shortcutstv.com 3

Sociological Theory Updating Functionalism

One feature of complexity in late-modernity forLuhmann is the potential for chaos.

If social life is (essentially) based on consciousindividuals making behavioural choices across arange of groups and social networks (asInteractionists’ argue), it’s difficult to see howsocial order can be created and maintained; inother words, if we focus on the idea thatnetworks are built upwards – from individuals atthe bottom to systems at the top – it’s difficult toexplain how individual behaviours (in terms ofthe possible behavioural choices people canmake in any given situation) can produce arelatively orderly and predictable social system.

Luhmann suggests this is possible only if wethink in terms of systems (such as a politicalsystem of government, a legal system and thelike) imposing an order and stability onindividual behaviour that is, in turn, sufficientlyflexible to accommodate individual choice anddeviation. A simple way to envisage this idea isto think in terms of a social network likeFacebook.

In this example Facebook provides the networkinfrastructure within which social interaction (theeveryday posts, connections and the like) takesplace. Facebook itself is simply a system whichallows individuals to engage in different forms ofsocial interaction. In one way, therefore, the“everyday interaction” between these disparateindividuals “creates” the network - but suchinteraction cannot take place withoutFacebook’s network structure; the one needsthe other to function (a symbiotic networkstructure) that grows organically.

Ties (a relationship people recognise) aregenerated through shared meaningsbased around role-play – for example, thetie between a teacher and a student in aneducational network. Group networks arealso not self-contained; they involve linksto other social networks, which leads tothe development of larger networks and,ultimately, a sense of social structure.

Cook refers to the connections betweennetworks as bridging ties – a relationshipthat ‘connects two otherwise distantportions of a network’.

Continuing the educational theme, a classteacher plays a bridging role herebecause they link a specific class intothe wider structure of the educationalnetwork. Individual students may alsorepresent bridging ties by, for example,linking a school into a parental network. Inthis way we can see how, according toHeise and Durig (1997):

• Micro-actions, or the actions ofindividuals, lead to:

• Macro-actions – routines that shape thebehaviour and structure of largeorganisational networks.

In Heise’s (1996) formulation, networktheory – what he terms Affect ControlTheory (ACT) – can be used toexplain how ‘the majestic order of societyemerges from repetitive application ofevolved cultural resources to frame andsolve recurrent problems’ – socialstructures result from people’s repeated,meaningful actions within social networks.

Complexity and Chaos

4

shortcutstv.com 4

Sociological Theory Updating Functionalism

This “organic relationship” goes some waytowards understanding how, according toVandenberghe (1998), ‘the social ordering ofchaos’ comes about - through what Luhmann,argues is a process of autopoiesis(pronounced ‘auto-poe-ee-sis’).

For Maturana and Varela (1980), autopoiesisinvolves an organisation (such as a socialsystem or social network in this example) beingself-reproductive. Social systems, from thisviewpoint, are not simply reproduced, asInteractionists’ argue, because of the everydayinteractions of their members.

Rather, the fact we are all born into an existingsociety means the system reproduces us; inorder to engage in social interaction, forexample, we have to be socialised into a varietyof pre-existing social structures (involving roles,norms, values and the like) that, in effect, leadus to “reproduce the system” through oureveryday behaviours. in this respect, Luhmannargues social systems are both:

• Autonomous – systems effectively operate‘independently’ of people - something they areable to do because, for Luhmann, societies arenot ‘things’ or ‘structures’, as such, butcommunication networks. That is, systems oflinked individuals who, while being a necessaryreproductive part of the network do notconstitute the network itself. Imagine, forexample, a social system as if it were theInternet; whenever you connect to the networkyour actions help to reproduce it but you are notthe network itself.

• Self-maintaining: As in the above example,through their involvement ‘in’ and use of ‘thesystem’, people effectively contribute to itsreproduction.

To put this another way, think about society as,in Maturana and Varela’s evocative description,‘a living machine’ - one that, as Krippendorff(1986) argues ‘produces its own organisationand maintains and constitutes itself”.

We can clarify these ideas with a couple ofexamples:

1. While social networks such as Facebook orTwitter exist “in cyberspace” they only “comealive” through the actions of their users as theyinteract with others (Google+ anyone?). Whiletheir users clearly reproduce the system theycan only do so on the system’s terms - and ifyou leave Facebook the system still functionshappily without you.

2. For a more-concrete example, everySociology class in England is structured by arange of exterior factors – some formal anddirect (the Specification, for example), othersinformal and indirect – your personal reasons forbeing in class perhaps.

On a systems level the behaviour is much thesame. Each class is a network contributing tothe continued functioning of the educationalsystem without the conscious efforts of thepeople involved. When you arrive for yoursociology class you don’t think, ‘How does thisbehaviour help to reproduce social relationshipsat the structural level of society?’ - and even ifyou did you’d have no way of knowing exactlywhat behaviour is required to ‘reproduce theeducation system’.

Structure, therefore, is imposed from outsideand reproduced within (the class), whicheffectively means structure is the mostsignificant variable involved in understandinghuman behaviour; as with our Facebookexample, without the initial sense of structure, asocial network could not form.

References

Luhmann, N, 1995, Social Systems: SUPLuhmann, N, 1997, ‘Globalization or World Society?: Howto conceive of modern society’: International Review ofSociology, Vol. 7, No. 1Heise, D., 1996, ‘Social order through macroactions: AnInteractionist approach’: Presentation at Panel on Micro-Macro Processes and Social Order.Heise, D and Durig A, 1997, ‘A frame for organizationalactions and macroactions’: Journal of MathematicalSociology, Vol. 22 (2)Cook, J, 2001, Social Networks: Duke UniversityMaturana, H, and Varela, F, 1980, Autopoiesis andCognition: D. ReidelVandenberghe, F, 1998, ‘Niklas Luhmann, 1927–1998’:Radical Philosophy.Krippendorff, K, 1986, A Dictionary of Cybernetics:University of Pennsylvania

Autopoiesis

www.shortcutstv.com/blog

ShortCutstvwww.shortcutstv.com