Niklas Luhmann

Niklas Luhmann (December 8, 1927 – November 11, 1998) was a German sociologist, philosopher of social science, and a prominent thinker in systems theory.

Luhmann was born in Lüneburg, Free State of Prussia, where his father's family had been running a brewery for several generations.

He entered the Gymnasium Johanneum at Luneburg in 1937.

In 1943, he was conscripted as a Luftwaffenhelfer in World War II and served for two years until, at the age of 17, he was taken prisoner of war by American troops in 1945.

After the war Luhmann studied law at the University of Freiburg from 1946 to 1949, where he obtained a law degree, and then began a career in Lüneburg's public administration.

During a sabbatical in 1961, he went to Harvard, where he met and studied under Talcott Parsons, then the world's most influential social systems theorist.

In later days, Luhmann dismissed Parsons' theory, developing a rival approach of his own.

Leaving the civil service in 1962, he lectured at the national Deutsche Hochschule für Verwaltungswissenschaften (University for Administrative Sciences) in Speyer, Germany.

In 1965, he was offered a position at the (Social Research Centre of the University of Münster), led by Helmut Schelsky.

From 1965/66 he studied one semester of sociology at the University of Münster.

Two earlier books were retroactively accepted as a PhD thesis and habilitation at the University of Münster in 1966, qualifying him for a university professorship.

In 1968/1969, he briefly served as a lecturer at Theodor Adorno's former chair at the University of Frankfurt and then was appointed full professor of sociology at the newly founded University of Bielefeld, Germany (until 1993).

(p. xxvii Social Systems 1995)

Much of Luhmann's work directly deals with the operations of the legal system and his autopoietic theory of law is regarded as one of the more influential contributions to the sociology of law and socio-legal studies.

Luhmann is probably best known to North Americans for his debate with the critical theorist Jürgen Habermas over the potential of social systems theory.

Like his erstwhile mentor Talcott Parsons, Luhmann is an advocate of "grand theory", although neither in the sense of philosophical foundationalism nor in the sense of "meta-narrative" as often invoked in the critical works of post-modernist writers.

Rather, Luhmann's work tracks closer to complexity theory, broadly speaking, in that it aims to address any aspect of social life within a universal theoretical framework—as the diversity of subjects he wrote on indicates.

Luhmann's theory is sometimes dismissed as highly abstract and complex, particularly within the Anglophone world, whereas his work has had a more lasting influence on scholars from German-speaking countries, Scandinavia and Italy.

Luhmann himself described his theory as "labyrinthine" or "non-linear", and claimed he was deliberately keeping his prose enigmatic to prevent it from being understood "too quickly", which would only produce simplistic misunderstandings.

Luhmann's systems theory focuses on three topics, which are interconnected in his entire work.

The core element of Luhmann's theory pivots around the problem of the contingency of meaning, and thereby it becomes a theory of communication.

Social systems are systems of communication, and society is the most encompassing social system.

Being the social system that comprises all (and only) communication, today's society is a world society.

A system is defined by a boundary between itself and its environment, dividing it from an infinitely complex, or (colloquially) chaotic, exterior.

The interior of the system is thus a zone of reduced complexity: communication within a system operates by selecting only a limited amount of all information available outside.

This process is also called "reduction of complexity".

The criterion according to which information is selected and processed is meaning (in German, Sinn).

Meaning being thereby referral from one set of potential space to another set of potential space.

Both social systems and psychic systems (see below for an explanation of this distinction) operate by processing meaning.

Furthermore, each system has a distinctive identity that is constantly reproduced in its communication and depends on what is considered meaningful and what is not.

If a system fails to maintain that identity, it ceases to exist as a system and dissolves back into the environment it emerged from.

Luhmann called this process of reproduction from elements previously filtered from an over-complex environment autopoiesis (pronounced "auto-poy-E-sis"; literally: self-creation), using a term coined in cognitive biology by Chilean thinkers Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela.

Social systems are operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems' operation.

Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for communication, but neither appears in communication as such.

Maturana, however, argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of communications from actual persons.

He continued to publish after his retirement, when he finally found the time to complete his magnum opus, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft (literally, "The Society of Society"), which was published in 1997, and has been translated into English as Theory of Society (volume I in 2012 and volume II in 2013).

This work describes segmented societies where territory is a dividing line.

Luhmann wrote prolifically, with more than 70 books and nearly 400 scholarly articles published on a variety of subjects, including law, economy, politics, art, religion, ecology, mass media, and love.

While his theories have yet to make a major mark in American sociology, his theory is currently well known and popular in German sociology, and has also been rather intensively received in Japan, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe, including in Russia.

His relatively low profile elsewhere is partly due to the fact that translating his work is a difficult task, since his writing presents a challenge even to readers of German, including many sociologists.