Systems Theory

Concepts in Complexity II: Emergence and the Difference Between Order and Organization

by Jon Lawhead

Still very much a draft. 

This paper would not have been possible without the help of Daniel Estrada and Tim Ignaffo.

There are a number of contemporary scientific problems that can benefit from good metaphysical analysis and... more There are a number of contemporary scientific problems that can benefit from good metaphysical analysis and philosophical clarification.  This paper examines one of these problems—explaining the nature of self-organized emergent behavior in dynamical physical systems.  While discussions of emergence have long been the province of metaphysicians, recent advances in network theory and complex systems theory have begun to suggest that there is both philosophical and metaphysical work to be done here, and that a rigorous, mathematically-grounded account of emergence might serve as the foundation upon which we can construct a tremendous number of other novel contributions to our understanding of the world. 

This paper explores the conceptual connection between this mathematically rigorous account of “strong emergence” (developed primarily by Yaneer Bar-Yam) and the still somewhat murky notion of self-organized systems.  I argue that a clear scientific understanding of emergence leads to a natural way of understanding the metaphysics of self-organization and (more generally) the difference between order and organization.  All three of these notions are central to the nascent field of complex systems theory, and getting a strong grasp on their conceptual relationships would represent not only a significant step toward developing a cohesive metaphysics of complex systems, but would also provide the theoretical tools necessary for continued philosophical and scientific work in that area. 

Given the sheer number (and diversity) of fields that stand to benefit from complexity-theoretic insights, this is work that urgently needs to be done.

Championing Ecosystem Sustainability and Health: Profile and Tribute to the Life and Work of James Kay (1954-2004)

by Martin Bunch

Waltner-Toews, D., M. J. Bunch, et al. (2004). "Championing Ecosystem Sustainability and Health: Profile and Tribute to the Life and Work of James Kay (1954–2004)." EcoHealth 1(4): 334-339.

The past decade has seen considerable developments in the integrated study of ecosystem sustainability and health.... more The past decade has seen considerable developments in the integrated study of ecosystem sustainability and health. Important developments in theory, methods, and application of this area have emerged from the work of key individuals and informal, multidisciplinary networks of peers working across continents and countries and based in governments, universities, and private organizations. This profile focuses in particular on the critical influence of James Kay as a key advocate and intellectual champion for incorporating complexity and uncertainty into the "Ecosystem approach." The intent is to provide an overview of an important era in the application of this approach to address health and sustainability concerns and to highlight the frameworks, methods, and networks that have emerged as collective acknowledgments to the life and work of James Kay (1954–2004).

New Religious Movements in Global Perspective: A Systems Theoretical Approach

by Moritz Klenk

2012, published in 'Zeitschrift für junge Religionswissenschaft', 7:40-58 (url: http://www.zjr-online.de)

This essay provides a systems theoretical perspective on the contentious debate on the term ›New Religious Movement‹... more This essay provides a systems theoretical perspective on the contentious debate on the term ›New Religious Movement‹ (NRM). Based on the systems theory, according to Niklas Luhmann amongst others, the essay analyses the general problems of defining NRMs. It identifies three different problems, in form of the indeterminacy of the three parts of the term, namely ›new‹, ›religious‹ and ›move­ ment‹. Seeking to solve these problems the essay argues in favour of a systems theoretical definition of NRM as a religious variation of a special type of social system, called New Social Movement. This definition solves the discussed issues of the term by re-defining NRM as a special type of communication system (Move­ ment) that gets its form by a particular form of mobilisation of communication for religious issues (Religious). Furthermore, NRMs must be seen as a product of the functional differentiated society evolving from the late 17th century (New). The last section, finally, puts the new definition into a wider context of globalisation by taking the theory of World Society (Niklas Luhmann/Rudolf Stichweh) into account. It discusses NRMs as ›globalised globalisers‹, which means as a product of the globalised World Society that at the same time re-affects the processes of globalisation themselves and thereby can be seen as a globalising driving force of a world religion system. With its analytical and theoretical analysis the essay seeks to outline new possibilities for further research and indicates the benefits of the sys­ tems theoretical approach for the scientific study of religion with special regard to NRMs.

A complex systems approach to the evolutionary dynamics of human history: the case of the Late Medieval World Crisis

by Johannes Preiser-Kapeller

Working Paper for the European Meetings on Cybernetics and Systems Research (EMCSR) 2012, Vienna, University Campus, April 10th 2012 (http://www.emcsr.net/symposium-b-evolution-throughout-the-sciences-and-humanities/) (Slides of the presentation here: http://oeaw.academia.edu/JohannesPreiserKapeller/Talks/78041/A_complex_systems_approach_to_the_evolutionary_dynamics_of_human_history_the_case_of_the_Late_Medieval_World_Crisis)

„There are few theoretical approaches to which historian respond so negatively as to the explanation of historical... more „There are few theoretical approaches to which historian respond so negatively as to the explanation of historical processes by such theories“, the German historian Rainer Waltz states most accurately in his study on „Theories of Social Evolution and History“; there he also presents two main causes for this rejection: a moral one, the perversion of evolutionary thinking in so-called Social Darwinist theories in the 19th and 20th centuries, and a scientific one, the fear of a biologistic interpretation of human history by adopting evolutionary models (Walz, 2004). This distinguishes historical studies from other social sciences and humanities such as anthropology or sociology and even other historical disciplines such as archaeology, where evolutionary models have become part of the methodological toolkit (Renfrew & Bahn, 2008; for a rare example from the field of history of literature cf. Moretti, 2009).
Although most historians are reluctant to adopt evolutionary models (yet alone in their mathematized or sociobiologist form) for the interpretation of human past (respectively the larger or smaller period of time they are specialised in), terms such as “evolution” and concepts of evolutionary thinking such as “adaption” or “selection” are used in numerous descriptions of historical events and processes, albeit often in a metaphorical way (Walz, 2004). At the same time it is evident that major developments in human history such as the emergence of the human kind itself, of human culture and of complex social structures such as states as well as phenomena of long duration (up to the scale of “Big History” from the Big Bang until present times as it has been attempted in the last decades, Spier 2010) cannot be explained without the help of evolutionary concepts (cf. Blute, 2010; Voland, 2009); but again, these subjects refer mainly to the fields of evolutionary biologists and psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists or (prehistoric) archaeologists (cf. Yoffee, 2004). Some specialists from these disciplines have also tried to adapt such concepts for the entire human history beyond its “beginnings”, but have equally found mixed reception among historians, especially if they try to demonstrate some kind of progress in the development of humanity as for instance Steven Pinker has done most recently in his study on “Why Violence has declined” (Pinker, 2011; see also Atran, 2002; Boyd & Richerson, 2005; Morris, 2010).
In contrast to this (non)-use of evolutionary concepts for historical studies, we intend to demonstrate the benefit of a complex evolutionary approach for the analysis of a specific period of late medieval/early modern history between 1200 and 1500 CE, which has been attributed central importance for the so-called “Rise of the West”, since it saw the beginning of European overseas expansion at its end (cf. Goldstone, 2009; Morris, 2010).
In the “calamitous” 14th century, as Barbara Tuchman called it (1978), the medieval world entered a period of severe crisis in demography, economy, politics and religion. This crisis took hold in all regions, ranging from China in the East to England in the West. Even before the catastrophic pandemic of the Black Death (1346-1352), deteriorating climatic conditions had ended the period of demographic and economic expansion that began in the 10th century (Behringer, 2007; Atwell, 2001; Benedictow, 2004; Brook, 2010).
The local and regional impacts and consequences of these general crisis-laden conditions may have differed; outcomes ranged from actual societal collapse to the emergence of powerful new polities. But these conditions provide a framework for global perspective on this period and allow us to use the 14th century-crisis as a field of “natural experiments of history”, as Jared Diamond and James A. Robinson have called them (Diamond & Robinson, 2011); accordingly, we analyse how similar crisis phenomena influenced the development of societies with different (or similar) traditions, religions, institutions, geographies or ecologies (cf. also Borsch, 2005). In particular, we will analyse and compare five polities in the “Old World”, England, Hungary, Byzantium, Egypt and China, of which three disappeared around the end of this period due to the expansion of the most successful newly emerged Ottoman Empire (Byzantium in 1453, Mamluk Egypt in 1517, Hungary in 1526/1541; cf. also Preiser-Kapeller, 2011).
In order to be able to capture variations and complexities within this sample, we adopt concepts and tools provided by the field of complexity science. We understand complex systems as large networks of individual components, whose interactions at the microscopic level produce “complex” changing patterns of behaviour of the whole system on the macroscopic level. In the last decades, historians and social scientists also tried to use concepts of complexity theory for the description of phenomena in their own fields, but again often only in a “metaphoric” way (Gaddis, 2002; Hatcher & Bailey, 2001). Less frequently, though, historians have tried to make use of the mathematical foundations of complexity theory or of quantitative tools provided by this field (Kiel & Elliott, 1997; Preiser-Kapeller, 2012). Recent scholarship has implemented some of these tools especially for the construction of macro-models of socio-economic development (Goldstone, 1991; Turchin, 2003; Turchin & Nefedov, 2009).
In addition, we combine complexity theory with the analytical framework of “systems theory” developed by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998) in order to capture the interdependencies between politics, economy and religion within a polity and with the political, economic and ecological environment (Luhmann, 1997; Becker & Reinhardt-Becker, 2001; Becker, 2004). Luhmann´s theory is valuable for our analysis in various aspects; it makes us aware of the reduction of environmental and social complexity which is reflected in our historical sources, and it provides a framework to approach complex mechanisms within and the dependencies between various social spheres and their environment. Its evolutionary aspects have also been analysed by Walz (2004). In addition, we employ methods and tools of network analysis, which allow us to capture, analyse and model linkages and cause-effect correlations in society, economy, politics and religion on the macro- and micro-level down to groups and individuals (Gould, 2003; Lemercier, 2005).
Overall, our analytical approach allows us to capture the “diversité véritable” without losing track of essential commonalities (the “strange parallels”, as Victor Liebermann has called them, 2009) with regard to the transformation of polities and societies and their adaption to this “first world crisis”. Thereby, the value of a framework of evolutionary dynamics for the exploration of human history will be demonstrated

References
Atran, S. (2002). In Gods We Trust. The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atwell, W. S. (2001). Volcanism and Short-Term Climatic Change in East Asian and World History, c. 1200–1699. Journal of World History 12/1, 29-98.
Becker, F. & Reinhardt-Becker, E. (2001). Systemtheorie. Eine Einführung für die Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt, New York: Campus Verlag.
Becker, F. (Ed.). (2004). Geschichte und Systemtheorie. Exemplarische Fallstudien. Frankfurt, New York: Campus Verlag.
Behringer, W. (2007). Kulturgeschichte des Klimas. Von der Eiszeit bis zur globalen Erwärmung. Munich: C. H. Beck.
Benedictow, O. J. (2004). The Black Death 1346–1353. The Complete History. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer Inc.
Blute, M. (2010). Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution. Solutions to Dilemmas in Cultural and Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Borsch, St. J. (2005). The Black Death in Egypt and England. A Comparative Study. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (2005). The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brook, T. (2010). The troubled Empire. China in the Yuan and Ming Dynasties. Cambridge (Mass.), London: Harvard University Press.
Diamond, J. & Robinson, J. A. (Eds.). (2011). Natural Experiments of History. Cambridge (Mass.), London: Harvard University Press.
Gaddis, J. L. (2002). The Landscape of History. How Historians map the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldstone, J. A. (1991). Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goldstone, J. A. (2009). Why Europe? The Rise of the West in World History, 1500–1850. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Higher Education.
Gould, R. V. (2003). Uses of Network Tools in Comparative Historical Research. In: J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.). Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (p. 241-269). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatcher, J. & Bailey, M. (2001). Modelling the Middle Ages. The History and Theory of England´s Economic Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kiel, L. D. & Elliott, E. (Eds.). (1997). Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences. Foundations and Applications. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Lemercier, Cl. (2005). Analyse de réseaux et histoire. Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 52/2, 88-112.
Lieberman, L. (2009). Strange Parallels. Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800–1830. Vol. 2: Mainland Mirrors: Europe, Japan, China, South Asia, and the Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. 2 Vols., Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Moretti, F. (2009). Kurven, Karten, Stammbäume. Abstrakte Modelle für die Literaturgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Morris, I. (2010). Why The West Rules For Now: The Patterns of History and what they reveal about the Future. London: Profile Books.
Pinker, S. (2011). The Better Angels of our Nature. Why Violence has declined. London: Viking.
Preiser-Kapeller, J. (2012). Complex historical dynamics of crisis: the case of Byzantium. In: A. Suppan (Ed.). Krise und Transformation (in print). Vienna: Austrian Academy Press (pre-print online: http://oeaw.academia.edu/JohannesPreiserKapeller/Papers/506625/Complex_historical_dynamics_of_crisis_the_case_of_Byzantium).
Preiser-Kapeller, J. (2011). (Not so) Distant Mirrors: a complex macro-comparison of polities and political, economic and religious systems in the crisis of the 14th century. In: A. Simon (Ed.). Proceedings of the International Conference "The Angevin Dynasty (14th Century)" in Târgoviște (Romania), October 21st-23rd 2011 (forthcoming). Vienna: Peter Lang (working Paper online: http://oeaw.academia.edu/JohannesPreiserKapeller/Papers/506595/_Not_so_Distant_Mirrors_a_complex_macro-comparison_of_polities_and_political_economic_and_religious_systems_in_the_crisis_of_the_14th_century)
Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. (2008). Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London: Thames & Hudson.
Spier, F. (2010). Big History and the Future of Humanity. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Tuchman, B. (1978). A Distant Mirror. The calamitous 14th Century. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Turchin, P. & Nefedov, S. A. (2010). Secular cycles. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Turchin, P. (2003). Historical Dynamics. Why States Rise and Fall (Princeton Studies in Complexity). Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Voland, E. (2009). Soziobiologie. Die Evolution von Kooperation und Konkurrenz. 3rd ed., Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Walz, R. (2004). Theorien sozialer Evolution und Geschichte. In: F. Becker (Ed.), Geschichte und Systemtheorie. Exemplarische Fallstudien (p. 29-75). Frankfurt, New York: Campus Verlag.
Yoffee, N. (2004). Myths of the Archaic State. Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Luhmann in Byzantium. A systems theory approach for historical network analysis

by Johannes Preiser-Kapeller

Working Paper for the Conference "The Connected Past: people, networks and complexity in archaeology and history", March 24-25th 2012, University of Southampton, GB; http://connectedpast.soton.ac.uk/schedule/
The slides of the presentation you will find here: http://oeaw.academia.edu/JohannesPreiserKapeller/Talks/74834/Luhmann_in_Byzantium._A_systems_theory_approach_for_historical_network_analysis

While Social Network Analysis (SNA) has become an accepted research tool in historical studies in the last decades,... more While Social Network Analysis (SNA) has become an accepted research tool in historical studies in the last decades, actual theoretical foundations for the approach to depict and analyse past social realities in the form of nodes and ties have remained as many-voiced and sometimes under-determined as in other fields of network analysis. A theoretical framework from which historical network analysis may benefit is the systems theory established by the sociologist Niklas LUHMANN (1927–1998). In Luhmann´s theory, social systems are systems of communication; in modern society, Luhmann identified several differentiated communication systems such as politics, religion or economy. For the analysis of Byzantine society, we combine Luhmannʼs framework with the concepts of SNA: we understand ties between nodes as potential channels of communication which can pertain to any communication system. And while communications between individuals in a specific institutional framework such as state administration or the church may primarily pertain to one system, we have to account for “multiplex” ties of communication and an overlap of various communication systems on the same set of nodes (who, in Luhmannʼs theory, are not per se part of any of these social systems, which only consist of communications). This approach also enables us either to examine communication ties (their density, distribution patterns, etc.) of one system separately or to concentrate on the structural position of individuals within the general social framework. Thus, we demonstrate that Luhmann can provide a coherent and at the same time flexible framework for historical network analysis.

Introducción: Luhmann para qué?

by Ignacio Farías

(2011) co-authrored with José Ossandón, published in Farías & Ossandon Comunicaciones, Semánticas y Redes. Usos y Desviaciones de la Sociología de Luhmann

Ningún teórico sistémico, ni siquiera el propio Luhmann, negaría que tales son algunos de los costos de utilizar la... more Ningún teórico sistémico, ni siquiera el propio Luhmann, negaría que tales son algunos de los costos de utilizar la teoría de sistemas sociales. Nada es gratis, parecen decirnos, y la decisión es nuestra: aceptar tales costos o abandonar la teoría, la sociología, incluso la ciencia. Frente a tal disyuntiva hay, a su vez, dos alternativas. O bien uno entra en el juego y comienza a evaluar los costos y beneficios de quedarse con Luhmann o abandonarlo para siempre, o bien no se aceptan sus términos y nos embarcamos en la tarea de redefinir los términos del desafío. Buena parte de los autores del libro Observando Sistemas 2 siguen el segundo camino. Ya los mencionaremos, uno tras otro, pero de momento es preciso problematizar el dilema al que nos enfrentamos. En primer lugar será necesario reflexionar sobre la naturaleza precisa de las ganancias asociadas al programa luhmanniano: ¿nos permite esta teoría conocer fenómenos y procesos que otras desconocen? Estamos convencidos que la respuesta es positiva y que es preciso definir el aporte específico de la teoría de sistemas sociales al conocimiento sociológico. Una vez hecho esto, el paso a seguir no será contrapesar tales ganancias con los costos de abandonar otros desarrollos sociológicos, a fin de tomar una decisión. Lo que proponemos es más bien buscar la cuadratura del círculo: pensar algunos caminos para disfrutar de las ganancias cognoscitivas de la teoría de sistemas sociales pero sorteando al mismo tiempo los obstáculos epistemológicos que se derivan de la misma.

Recontextualizando Luhmann. Lineamientos Para Una Lectura Contemporánea

by Ignacio Farías

(2006) coautoreado con Jose Ossandon, publicado en Farías & Ossandon. Observando Sistemas. Usos y apropiaciones de la teoria de Niklas Luhmann

Este artículo surge de la convicción de que, si bien la empresa luhmanniana es un caso de alcances excepcionales, no... more Este artículo surge de la convicción de que, si bien la empresa luhmanniana es un caso de alcances excepcionales, no se encuentra tan aislada ni es tan diferente de la producción teórica contemporánea. La raíz de esta diferencia radicaría en que la forma de comprender la teoría ha sido principalmente mediante su diferenciación con la sociología tradicional, destacándose ante todo las raíces sistémicas y cibernéticas que la diferenciarían, sin prestar mayor atención a las múltiples empresas contem-oráneas orientadas en dirección similar. Creemos que, con el fin de comprender la forma en que la teoría de Luhmann hoy se entiende y utiliza –como también para ampliar sus posibles audiencias, y con ello potenciales desarrollos–, es muy importante iniciar un proceso de recontextualización. Este texto es un esbozo para el desarrollo de este ejercicio, pues las conexiones propuestas constituyen hipótesis de trabajo y no pretenden cubrir el marco de relaciones entre la teoría de sistemas y sus contextos teóricos.

Cultura: La Distinción De 'Unidades Societales'

by Ignacio Farías

(2006) publicado en Farías & Ossandon. Observando Sistemas

Este trabajo busca contribuir a la discusión del concepto de cultura sugerido por Niklas Luhmann en el ámbito de la... more Este trabajo busca contribuir a la discusión del concepto de cultura sugerido por Niklas Luhmann en el ámbito de la teoría de sistemas autopoiéticos. Mis argumentos serán presentados en tres partes. En primer lugar, y recurriendo al teorema de la doble contingencia, describiré el concepto parsoniano de cultura, el cual ha tenido una decisiva influencia sobre buena parte de las ciencias sociales de la segunda mitad del siglo xx. Junto a ello revisaré brevemente la crítica luhmanniana a tal concepto de cultura, así como las principales líneas de análisis sugeridas por Luhmann y desarrolladas en extenso por otros autores sistémicos. En la segunda parte, propondré que el principal rendimiento de la observación cultural de la sociedad consiste en la distinción de ‘unidades societales’, cuya forma es ortogonal a la diferenciación sistémica, pues introduce una distinción entre zonas de comunicación, no entre tipos de comunicación. En concreto, discutiré la forma y las dimensiones de la observación cultural de la sociedad e introduciré como ejemplo la forma de observación nacional de la sociedad. Al final, volveré a la pregunta relativa a la relación entre cultura y modernidad, para proponer que la distinción de ‘unidades societales’ constituye tanto una respuesta moderna al declive de la experiencia de familiaridad como una consecuencia de la diferenciación funcional.

Das Verfahren als Rollenspiel? Englische Hochverratsprozesse im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, in: Herstellung und Darstellung verbindlicher Entscheidungen. Verhandeln, Verfahren und Verwalten in der Vormoderne, hrsg. zusammen mit Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, Berlin 2010, S. 211-251.

by Andre Krischer

Sociological and Cultural Approaches to Pre-Modern Decision-Making, in: Débates Antiques, hrsg. v. Marie-Joséphine Coquin / Fabian Schulz, Nanterre 2012.

by Andre Krischer

The Actions of Mahabharat (an Indian Epic): An Analysis from Action Science Perspective

by madhu ranjan kumar

Las literaturas medievales como provocación de la Literatura Comparada. Reflexiones sobre las formaciones culturales no-nacionales

by Cesar Dominguez

Revista de Poética Medieval 20 (2008): 99-126.

Strafpredigten: Eine Fallstudie zur Differenzierung von Recht und Religion in England, 1600–1800, in: Umstrittene Säkularisierung: Soziologische und historische Analysen zur Differenzierung von Religion und Politik, hrsg. v. Karl Gabriel / Christel Gärtner / Detlef Pollack, Berlin 2012, S. 252 - 279.

by Andre Krischer

Safety and Hazard Analysis in Concurrent Systems

by Shrisha Rao

Ph.D. thesis, University of Iowa, 2005.

Safety is a well-known and important class of property of software programs, and of systems in general. The basic... more Safety is a well-known and important class of property of software programs, and of systems in general. The basic notion that informs this work is that the time to think about safety is when it still exists but could be lost. The notion is not just to analyse safety as existing or not with a given system state, but also in the sense that a system is presently safe but becoming less so. Safety as considered here is not restricted to one type of property, and indeed for much of the discussion it does not matter what types of measures are used to assess safety.

The work done here is for the purpose of laying a theoretical and
mathematical foundation for allowing static analyses of systems to further safety. This is done using tools from lattice theory applied to the poset of system states partially ordered by reachability. Such analyses are common (e.g., with abstract interpretations of software functioning) with respect to other kinds of systems, but there does not seem to exist a formalism that permits them specifically for safety.

Using the basic analytical tools developed, a study is made of the problem of composing systems from components. Three types of composition: direct sum, direct product, and exponentiation---are noted, and the first two are treated in some depth. It is shown that the set of all systems formed with the direct sum and direct product operators can be specified by a BNF grammar. A three-valued ``safety logic'' is specified, using which the safety and fault-tolerance of composed systems can be computed given the system composition. It is
also shown that the set of all systems also forms separate monoids (in the sense familiar to mathematicians), and that other monoids can be derived based on equivalence classes of systems.

The example of a train approaching a railroad crossing, where a gate
must be closed prior to the train's arrival and opened after its exit,
is considered and analysed as an example.

Are Academic Spin-offs Really Doing Science? <2008>

by Joerg Potthast

WZB discussion paper, 32 pages

together with Michael Guggenheim

Organizations make an indispensable contribution to reproducing functional systems. Can this also be said of... more Organizations make an indispensable contribution to reproducing functional systems. Can this also be said of organizations with multiple systemic ties? In considering this issue, this paper looks at the example of academic spin-offs. On the basis of qualitative interviews with people involved in founding spin-offs from non-university research institutes in Germany, the authors investigate the extent to which such firms help reproduce the structural characteristics of science. The theoretical yield of this study is the linkage of systems-theoretical and practice-theoretical perspectives.

Systems Intelligence as a trait: A meta-model for a systemic understanding of personality

by John Rauthmann

Psychological Aspects of Systems Intelligence: Conceptualisations of a New Intelligence Form

by John Rauthmann

Measuring Trait Systems Intelligence: First steps towards a Trait-SI scale (TSIS)

by John Rauthmann

Seeing Like a System: Luhmann for Anthropologists

by Ilana M. Gershon

Anthropological Theory, 2005 vol. 5: 99-116.

In this essay, I discuss how Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory might be useful for anthropologists. After providing a... more In this essay, I discuss how Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory might be useful for anthropologists. After providing a summary of Luhmann’s theory, I address the quandaries anthropologists might face when deploying a theory that presumes systems without selves. I also recount how other anthropologists have made use of Luhmann’s systems theory to analyze auditing, legal pluralism, and biosecurity hazards.

DOI: 10.1177/1463499605053993

The good, the bad and the self- referential: Heritage planning and the productivity of difference

by Kristof Van Assche

Published in International Journal of Heritage Studies

Heritage planning, as an integrated approach to dealing with traces of the past in the ongoing organisation of the... more Heritage planning, as an integrated approach to dealing with traces of the past in the ongoing organisation of the landscape, must be a trans-disciplinary endeavour. Bridging differences between scientific disciplines, as well as sciences and the law, administration, politics and economy, is a continuous challenge. We argue that Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory, with its sophisticated understanding of society as an evolving population of social systems, is very useful in understanding the value and difficulty of trespassing boundaries in heritage planning, and in understanding the value of conflict and cultivated difference in the planning process. We reflect on the mechanisms of self-reference and self-reproduction that are at play within the scientific disciplines addressing ‘heritage’, and analyse similar mechanisms within planning administrations. These mechanisms are not in essence negative; they are necessary for the production of the kind of knowledge that is specific for the system or organisation. However, in planning, some form of coordination of interests and types of knowledge is seen as desirable. We argue for an approach to heritage planning that avoids self-reference in the planning system as a whole, while accepting and cherishing the self-reference of the actors.