Andersen, S Theory: Andersen's Social Systems Theory

1075 Words3 Pages

Andersen characterizes Luhmann’s social systems theory using the concept of observation as a starting point. Observation is “a specific operation of creating distinction: to observe is to indicate something within the boundaries of a distinction” (Andersen 2003:64). To use the words of Spencer-Brown: “We take as given the idea of distinction and the idea of indication, and that we cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction” (Spencer-Brown 1969:1). In particular, to demarcate is to indicate something in the world and to distinguish from something else. Therefore a distinction possesses an inner side (marked space) as well as an outer side (unmarked space); the inner side being the indicated side. Whenever these is an observation, …show more content…

The operation of observation establishes a distinction between self-reference and external reference, between what is observed and the observing system. The distinction actualised decides how the world appears to the system. The concept of paradox is central for social systems theory. Since the observer must distinguish without being able to choose its distinction, on the level of first-order observation, observations are paradoxical. “Conversersely, the observer of the second order sees that the observing observer can only see that which his distinction let him see. He is thus able to see how the first-order paradox is removed, becomes invisible, or, in Luhmannian terms, is de-paradoxified” (Andersen 2003:68). Anderson suggests some central guiding distinctions to observation of the second order in Luhmann’s systems theory. The first is form analysis. This analytical strategy “analyses the boundaries of communication and the paradoxes that communication unfolds when it connects with one particular distinction” (Andersen 2003:78). Two questions are central: (1) What must necessarily follow the shaping of this very distinction? and (2) What are the restrictions on communication due to this distinction? Ii is the precisely question of the unity of the distinction (Anderson

Open Document