NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Philosophy Niklas Luhmann's social theory suggests a dialogue through the analysis of power, a concept which is often considered vital in IR theory. Given the frequently tautological use of power in social theory, many scholars have tried to circumscribe the role of power in their theories. But Niklas Luhmann is one of the few non-individualist theoreticians who, in the end, finishes his work, having a very reduced role for power in his social theory. Therefore, in our analysis, it might rather difficult to consider the chosen written work from only one point of power. This marginalisation of power in Luhmann's theory is the result of two theoretical decisions made in the direction to autopoiesis. First, Luhmann links power to one and only one social system, politics.
We will consider politics as to the family and see how it will work out. Second, the political systems is considered equal to others, and hence the theory allows for a very different conceptualization of hierarchy or stratification. Such a marginalisation is, however, not innocent. Whereas there are ample examples in IR of how one can fruitfully use his communicative concept, his autopoietic theory displays a perhaps unnecessarily technocratic and conservative bias.
For the concept of power appears as an indicator of 'the art of the possible' and of responsibility. By defining power and politics as narrowly as he does, by its radical anti-'humanism', Luhmann's theory defines issues out of the reach of agency and politics and, by the same token, de-legitimates many attempts to question the status quo. 1 At the same time, however, Luhmann's theory has attracted an ever wider audience across sociological traditions, where it is simply something no social theoretician can afford to ignore. Hence, that it took so long for Luhmann to be discovered in IR has perhaps more to do with the rather difficult language and the sheer complexity of the theory than with a foregone judgment of its usefulness. For there are good reasons for IR theoreticians to have a closer look at Luhmann's theory.
First, Luhmann's theory very consciously and fundamentally deals with the question of reflexivity. His theory is based on operationally open, but self-referring social systems. As such, his theorising of self-reference and 'reflexivity' cuts across nearly all his theory in an extent unparalleled by another social theory. Second, Luhmann insists in a parallel treatment of psychic and social systems.
Hence, when analyzing science, his theory will necessarily include a parallel treatment of knowledge and knowledge production, a sociological epistemology besides analyzing how science has become, and functions as, a social system. His theory is perhaps the most extreme version of a sociological turn in social theory. We will apply his theory to written work. 2 For our consideration, we will take Veronica Decides to Die by Paulo Koelyo. It is a realistic story about a thirst of life at the face of death, which calls to perceive every day as a miracle.
The story starts with the moment when Veronica decides to commit a suicide. She considered herself to be a normal person and made this decision because of two reasons. The first reason was that it seamed to her that life had lost its colors. She was already twenty four; her youth passed away and everything would change now. Time would lay its traces on her face, illnesses would not leave her in peace, friends would go away. What would she gain in the end if she stayed alive?
With every year, the life would become more unbearable and torturous. The second reason was that Veronica was much influenced by the external world and did not find a proper place their. She read newspapers, watched TV, and was aware of all the current news and events. In her opinion, everything that happened in the world was wrong, and she did not know what was possible to change. It led Veronica to confusion and frustration. She felt alone, useless and alien.
Therefore she chose a suicide freedom from everything, eternal oblivion. She drank four packs of mortal pills. In a few hours, Veronica fell unconscious. Comma continued for two weeks. But she woke up in the place called Vellete a well known hospital for mentally ill people. The doctor said that her heart was seriously damaged, and she was to live maximum for one week.
On the following day, she already walked in the garden. There, she began getting acquainted with the patients, some of them were sane people who were just escaping from the reality. Verona still wanted to shorten the time that was left for her as she was afraid that she would regain the passion for life. That is why Veronica began trying to get the pills form the patients. But she failed.
Vellete turned to be the place where people were not ashamed to say they were crazy. It was the place where nobody stopped doing things he or she liked. Nobody put himself into the frames of the social rules. Every night, Veronica played the piano. Her only listener was young man named Edward. He was a schizophrenic.
He did not talked to anybody. Every night he just came to listen to her music and looked charmed by her play. I think this short information will be enough to consider the human phenomenon from the two points, using Bateson's and Luhmann approaches. In the case with Edward, The trap of the double bind takes place. It is derived from Gregory Bateson's psychiatric work.
Bateson developed the notion of double-bind as a general description of escalating schizophrenic behaviour in families. Bateson spotted schizophrenics' inability to respond to other persons' words or other signals in a fashion appropriate to the context. He found that as children, their attempts at interpreting their parents's ideals of affection or its withdrawal were systematically frustrated. Hence, the children lost the ability to decide when a signal meant, "I like you, " and when it meant, "I like you but this was a bad thing you did. " The result is that the child eventually lost (or never developed) the ability to distinguish when words mean what they say and when they don't (as in jokes or at the theatre). This is especially important when the child's use of words rather than actions referred to by words are an issue.
According to the book, Edward was brought up in the family of diplomats and was put in a strict social and behavioral boundaries. He always had to follow the rules of the family and found himself in a great internal conflict of his own will and the will of others. He finally became schizophrenic to escape pressure, or the application of power and authority executed by his parents. This case of power application we will consider later with Luhmann's approach. But now, we will authority to Bateson to apply his approach in analyzing this phenomenon. In this case, an interesting thing about Bateson's description is that it explains schizophrenia as a syndrome.
It is the systematization, not the occasional occurrence, of frustration which leads to schizophrenia: we are all frequently unsure of "how to take" remarks in everyday life. As self-replicative, the double-bind syndrome has much in common with self-fulfilling prophecy and non-falsification symptoms already explored. All three can be self-sustaining to the point where either the institution itself or its context is destroyed. As it can be seen later, Edward is found totally healthy in appropriate conditions when the burden of power is eliminated. The double-bind syndrome appears in early childhood and ceases to exist almost in a twinkling of an eye. 3 This is a particularly cruel example of the double-bind syndrome that affected a young man. For whatever reason - and the reason must lie with the family definition of what their son has to be, regardless of his own will.
There is a tension connected with creativity and productivity in sense of what he had to accomplish (meet family demands) and, at the same time, he had to find and express his own self. The important feature of the syndrome, or it is rather to say, the reasons for the syndrome, was that parents also wanted him to self and be creative. But the difference was that they saw it in a different way, leaving him no space for his own actions. Being put in impossible conditions and escaping pressure and punishment together with inter-parent problems, he hides himself in another reality.
It can be compared to Bateson's explication of the double-bind as it occurs in families: The "double-bind, " which is central to the etiological half of hypothesis, may now simply summarized by saying that it is the experience of being punished precisely for being right in one's view of the context. Our hypothesis assumes that repeated experience of punishment in sequences of this kind will lead the individual to behave habitually as if he expected such punishment. (1). Bateson describes a conversation between a husband and wife, parents of psychotic son. He says of their dialogue about family finances: The pattern of such a sequence is simply the successive disqualification of each of the father's contributions to the relationship, here a conversation.
He is continuously being told that the messages are not valid. They are received as if they were in some way different from that which he thought he intended. We may say that he is penalized either for being right about his views of his intentions, or he is penalized whenever his reply is appropriate to what she [his wife] said. But, per contra, from her viewpoint, it seems that he is endlessly misinterpreting her, and this is one of the most peculiar characteristics of the dynamic system which surrounds - or is - schizophrenia. Every therapist who has dealt with schizophrenia will recognize the recurrent trap. The patient endeavors to put the therapist in the wrong by his interpretation of what the therapist said, and the patient does this because he expects the therapist to misinterpret what he [the patient] said.
The bind becomes mutual. (2). Bateson goes further in explanation of the syndrome: How often are we tempted to say of a parent, child or spouse: "I can't seem to get anywhere with you!" The most telling consequence for us is that black professionals are put in the position where none of their choices of behavior can possibly be interpreted sympathetically. From on group or the other - or both - any action brings on punishment, even non-professional action. The misinterpretation is endless and apparently inevitable, and in...
Free research essays on topics related to: double bind, bind, social systems, young man, social theory
Research essay sample on Double Bind Social Theory
