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
Water Science Luhmann's theory of autopoietic systems appears to be described as politically reactionary. It happens in the strength of fact that it negates any possibility of social change. It might be a proof though for Luhmann's theory that this very critique made him a famous and influential thinker. While Luhmann was a sociologist indeed, it appears to me that also the non-Luhmannian attempts to employ systems theory as a literary theory always boiled down to sociology. Systems theory helps to analyze how art and literature work as social systems.
There might be, however, an exception: namely those artworks which are autopoietic systems themselves. ''System Theory'' is a descriptor for structural parallels in social / biological /technical systems on the one hand and art on the other. (Mingers, 1995: 38). In our case, we will take Matrix movie to analysis the phenomenon of self of the main character of the film. Though it is rather a science-fictional story, it can give a vivid picture of communication of social systems and clearly explores the phenomenon of self. The main character, Neo, encounters a great internal conflict connected with the perception of the reality, which appears to be totally different from his expectations of the reality. He is also found on the edge of the question of power, expressed in the physical strength in the movie. This power brings out a basic tension of the identity, as it does not coincide with the perception or again expectation from his physical abilities.
More than that, I think, his physical power must be perceived more as the power of communication, which gives us another advantage for discussing the case in term of Luhmannian theory of systems. In the movie, we also have a conflict of self-determination within the external environment. Such a communicative twist occurs through a small, but very consequential move: power does not only ensure asymmetrical coordination of action, but also regulates the communicatively generated attribution of causality. Thus power is present only when the participants define their behavior in correspondence to a corresponding medium of communication. Power is not only permitting a certain type of communication, but is itself in fact socially constructed through communication. Luhmann argues that the process of the causal attribution of power has an effect on the actual relationships of power.
In other words, despite the apparently technical functionalism, Luhmann's interest in communicative theory leads us to develop a strong vision of the social construction of reality. Such a resolute re-entry of power into power-steered communication, produces very interesting research avenues. According to Luhmann, communication develops substitutes for the medium (with the same function of stabilizing expectations) which, in turn, become a symbolically generated code of power. There are substitutes in the form of reductions like hierarchies (presupposing already a ranking); history (attributing power through past events), related to status and the example of previous significant events. Such reductions we can easily trace in the Matrix. In our case the direct communicative recourse to power is replaced by a reference to symbols, that oblige normatively all parties and take account of the presupposed power ranking.
Luhmann's approach resembles conventional organizational studies in its focus on the enterprise as the primary object of concern. But his ideas can be found problematical with respect to autopoietic theory itself. For example, a system can be considered autopoietic to the extent it realizes the necessary relations in a given space. Luhmann has not provided a comprehensive definition of the space in which his 'communications' are manifested. Like in Matrix changing environment, Neo can not determine himself and which reality is true reality.
The process of coupling between selection and functional or real social system is disturbed and run out of control. Neo finds himself to be simple resource that produces power for a certain institution or organization. He considered himself to be a human, but it goes in an opposite direction with his visions and assumes as to the system he lived in. Now he finds himself a human by realizing he used to be a non-human. Such a phenomenon fits apprehension about Luhmann's having effectively filtered humans out of his model. This is a kind of logical parallel between the Luhmann's theory and the movies idea, which can help in our further elaboration. (Maturana, 1980: 14).
Luhmann tries to work with concept of communicative acts rather than people. This involves him in working under two alternative ontologies and leads to a presentation which is less clear and satisfying than much of his earlier work. His attention is on the relationship between 'information' and 'meaning'. He begins by re articulating a proposed typology of organizationally closed or self-referential systems. This typology terminates at level seven with a consideration of the relational characteristic. This distinguishes human agents and hence acts as a starting point for the examination into social systems and communication that follows.
Lets see what kind of systems we have in matrix and compare them with other social systems that can be found in our reality. We have the system of the Matrix which lives by its own, usual rules, giving its workers / resources all the human needs like stifling physical needs, security, social arrangements, self-actualization in the terms of carries. Everything is organized in the way to provide the comfort and terminates any other kind of reasoning, which could lead to leaving the frames of the institutional social system. At the same time space, another social system creates the fatal virus only by the fact of its existence, putting the reality of the other reality under doubt and total collapse. The power of communication in the movie is expressed in physical strength and superficial abilities, just to make the film more attractive. But the idea of system communication stays, giving us a bright picture and food for our thinking, like comparing this with the institutional systems of family and external social environment.
The behavioral rules of the systems appear to be somewhat different, characterized by values and expectations, and go in conflict, struggling for existence and preservation. To continue our discussion, we have to take a profound look into the nature of Luhmann's theory and compare the theory with the works of other philosophers, which will give us understanding the process (mental and physical) of determination and understanding of self, both: in the movie and in life. The question of the influence of information on the persons selection process become importance. Maturana and Varela, theories of whom are often compared with the one of Luhmann's, state that information can only act as a trigger for any individual and hence cannot determine the state of their nervous system. He introduces a distinction between 'information' and 'meaning' arguing that a sign constitutes a "complex analogue stimulus" to the nervous system which is then "progressively transformed through a process of digitalis ation" generating meaning for a particular individual. Information, they argue, is ever present while "human consciousness only ever exists in a domain of meaning." This meaning is captured in the physical structures of the body and nervous system.
It does not exist as "pure thought." While trying to stay clear of the minefield of self-referential systems concepts, Varela draws on Luhmann's concepts of society as communicative action to discuss the social individual. Invoking these concepts invariably leads to a potential for confusion between the subject and object of the discussion. To discuss 'meaning' in this context, for example, immediately risks reification or leaves unclear who or what is making the attribution of 'meaning'. (Maturana, 1980: 15). Luhmann's approach to understanding structuration as follows: "Whereas Parsons defines a social system to consist of socially structured actions, Luhmann defines it to consist of conceptually structured meanings." In his mature phase, Luhmann bases his system theory on the idea of autopoiesis. It is usually considered a very consequent and also consequential move in his theory. Before the exploration the medium of communication (power), that is very brightly represented in our movie, we have to understand the basic idea of Luhmann's late system theory.
As we already know, Luhmann social theory is a theory of systems. He distinguishes physical, psychic and social systems. Systems have an internal side and an external environment, consisting of other systems. Between social systems, there can be predetermined relations, which Luhmann's theory calls 'structural coupling', in our case the system of matrix and the team of rebels, representing the true reality. Psychic and social systems are conceptualized in an isomorphic way. It is considered that systems come to exist when they reproduce themselves, and by following an internal logic driven by a system-specific binary code.
For instance, the social system science which has become autonomous in well differentiated societies, functions according to the code 'true / untrue ' or one and zero. The system builds up certain expectations about its environment which it then sees confirmed or not, in a binary way. It puts Luhmann's approach in a very comfortable position, giving an opportunity to explain everything in the sense duality. (Boulding, 1996: 26). Luhmann's concept of power was to be heavily reduced in its reach by combining two theoretical decisions.
Luhmann ties power increasingly to one system, politics, which, in turn, is no longer given prominence among the subsystems of society. The turn to his biology-inspired autopoiesis, and not a kind of hermeneutic reproduction, might require both. In 1975, Luhmann started with a very wide concept of power, which, as all generated media of communication, is omnipresent in society. The move to autopoiesis as a central concept of systems implied for Luhmann, that every reference to humans had to be replaced by physical, psychic or social systems. That move which is perfectly coherent within his theory has, however, rather profound consequences for the conceptualization of the media of communication. In particular, it does exactly what Luhmann admonishes in this early quote: it ties specific media closer to 'their's ub-systems.
This results, first, from the need to have a code-steered autopoiesis which occurs in operative closure. This code, in turn, is a binary expression of the media of communication. Second, dissolving the human behind systems means that the link from one subsystem to another can no longer be made by communicative interactions which might carry several media of communication at the same time. Power is such a medium of communication. (Boulding, 1996: 27). Media of communication, like power or money, (in our case the power is demonstrated in application of physical strength) are seen to have developed as a response to the rising complexity of modern societies. As in his entire theorizing, Luhmann is interested in the ways systems have been able to cope with increasing complexity.
In Matrix, this complexity is simplified, responding to the need of visual perception. With the development of accrued distance between information, understanding and acceptance / refusal , symbolically generated media of communication become necessary for their function of reducing complexity, of reducing the uncertainty of selection processes. They create motivations for the acceptance of communication. They thus avoid this distance to make communication too complicated, or even impossible. These media are hence a supplementary institution of language. They represent a "code of generalized symbols" that steer communication and, through this, the transmission of "selection impulses." Coming back to the social systems and institutions of our movie discussed before, we will take Luhmann's theory of self-organizing and self-reproducing social systems as our point of departure, taking the elements in the social system to be the representing actors, and understanding the relations that constitute the system as relations of representation.
What could make the process of organizational representation different from other processes of representation? But maybe the question is wrongly put, as it postulates a organizational representation. How does the representation process relate to organizations? In what sense are organizations the result of representation processes and how does an organization influence the process of representation? Taking the semiotic perspective as our point of departure, we can safely assume that social organization is an important prerequisite for the development of conceptual, coded representations. These signs consist of the unity of a signifier and a signified, and this unity is based upon conventions.
Conventions, however, presuppose organization. In turn, they make it easier to build and maintain complex organizations. The two, therefore, strongly reinforce each other. The concrete image is primarily the result of the construction of the perceptual apparatus, whereas the logical argument depends on the structure or logic of reality. (Kelvey, 1997: 251). In all its complexity, the representation process thus functions on the basis of the structure of the human organism, the social organization and the structure of reality.
But for the time being, we can state that the coded sign, the unity of signifier and signified (or form and meaning), is first and foremost a social fact. No codes without organizations. If codes presuppose organization, and if organizations presuppose codes, we should ask ourselves whether organizations will emphasize coded representations. Probably they will, but for the moment this is an open question. (Boulding, 1996: 32).
Matrix appears to be a very complex system and organization, and it becomes interesting how a personal perception system like an individual can determine himself and communicate with the external system through power. The functional system of Matrix and the its complexity / differentiation must be seen as a feature of every social formation. Now, we will consider how an organization can influence the semiotic process of pattern- problem-solving or how it can deal with its constitutive part / elements like people in Matrix? First of all by forcing upon its members interpretation patterns, as well as pattern-problem-solving strategies.
This is done through learning, and socialization, like it is stated: our behavior is learned behavior. Secondly, by being an actuality that requires representation and interpretation, leaving place for our imagination, which, in its turn, derives from our experience. And thirdly, by constituting an environment in which all sorts of representations are at stake, emerging and changing due to the organizational interaction. The process then becomes increasingly complex. (Kelvey, 1997: 252). In organizations an interaction develops regarding representations (of goals, structure, mission) and this interaction is determined, at least in part, by the second-order representation, people have of themselves and their interaction.
One can distinguish a restricted number of basic representations people have of organizations. These derive from basic representational patterns. They reflect the logic of representation. If the one-dimensional representation dominates, then actors will understand their organization as a concrete individual or object, and all the members are seen as reflections of this single individual or object. This organization form is that of the clan (agents and rebels). All members of the clan-like organization are basically equal, the only difference being their nearness to the totem (the result, for instance, of experience).
When the two-dimensional, conceptual or coded representation dominates, the organization is understood as being a collective whole, with an inside and an outside, and with parts that can have various functions, - as in an organism - but always participate in the whole. The collective has a clear hierarchy, it has vital parts (the head, for instance) as well as parts that are dispensable (the limbs). The only way to overcome tension in communication between the social systems and organization is to determine the rules of communication, putting it in frames. It can give the interactive systems opportunity for realistic expectations of possible dual outcomes, like yet and no, one and zero. It will make it work like an algorithm. Our society function like that, relations are determined by contractual agreements.
Bibliography: Boulding K. Evolution, Order and Complexity. Routledge, London, 1996. Kelvey B. Natural organization science. Complexity theory.
Organization Science, 8: 251 - 284, 1997. Maturana H. and F. Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. D.
Reidel, Boston, MA, 1980. Mingers J. Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis. Plenum, New York, NY, 1995.
Free research essays on topics related to: external environment, problem solving, social systems, true reality, physical strength
Research essay sample on Social Systems Physical Strength
