Sociology without Societies

According to my opinion, the construction of the social theory needs to synthe-size the theory of action and the theory of social system.This view agrees with Parsons' conception. But the theory of Parsons fails to explain fully the interrelations of action and “Handlungszusammenhang” i.e. social order.This task is, however, the problem assigned to Parsons but also to the modern sociology as a whole. For the basic feature of the social theory lies in the attempt to set both “Subjektiv gemeinter Sinn” and the social structure into the view.N. Luhmann suggests that in order to explain actions, the theory of social system in general should be integrated with the conception of action, which pays attention to actors' “Subjektiv gemeinter Sinn”, and that at the same time the theory of action needs to be based on the theory of social system. Anyway, Luhmann thinks of “Konstitutionszusammenhang von Handlung and System” with the help of concepts of “Selbstreferenz” of the social system and “Basale Selbst-referenz” of actions.From this perspective, Luhmann thinks that the basic conception of the theory of social system makes a new approach to “actions” possible.In this thesis, an attempt is made to discuss the central point of Luhmann's theory.

Observing, describing, and analyzing journalism as part of society requires theories on a macro level. Unlike normative theories, which criticize journalism with respect to its achievements and failures within society, systems theory operates with the concept of function in a non-normative sense. Based on the groundwork of Talcott Parsons’ theory of social systems, Niklas Luhmann developed systems theory further and radicalized it by strictly avoiding any kind of structural conservatism. His approach is built on the assumption that social systems operate autonomously on the basis of the functional differentiation to their environment. Macro-level systems, i.e., societal systems, fulfill unique functions for and within society. Functional autonomy and singularity make a modern society highly efficient but force each system to rely on the functional performances of all other societal systems. Hence, societal systems are structurally coupled and interdependent. Epistemologically, systems do not exist as ontological units but are strictly observer-related, be the observer the system itself or an external observer, such as the scientific community is. In journalism research, Luhmann’s systems theory has been applied to journalism as a societal system. Several competing approaches with different perspectives on the system observed (journalism, the mass media, or the public sphere) have been developed with respect to identifying the basic characteristics on which the system operates. Despite their differences they have this in common: journalism is not considered the sum of individual journalists and their (individual) way of working, instead, the systems-theoretical perspective is holistic. However, compared to theories of professionalism, which is also a holistic concept, systems theory neither identifies journalism with the profession of journalism, nor commits it to professional journalism. Instead, the structure of journalism is flexible, i.e., functionally equivalent, as long as its function is fulfilled. This function can be specified: journalism provides society periodically with current, independent, factual, and relevant information. Empirically, systems theory helps defining the population of journalists by deducing it from its function. Unlike mere empirical approaches, which arbitrarily draw samples from an unknown population, it is possible to clearly draw distinctions between journalism and other forms of public communication, such as public relations, advertising, propaganda, or lay communication. Still, it is challenging to operationalize such an abstract theory, as it is not specially made for hypothesis-driven research.

As an introduction to this report I would like to cite two comments from the book MK Process and Stellar Classification (ed. by R.F. Garrison, 1984). The first is from the article by W.W. Morgan The MK system and the MK process: “The MK system furnishes a satisfactory frame of reference for stars of Population I in the solar neighborhood; but when we consider the variety of stellar spectra encountered in our galaxy and in other stellar systems we are unable to classify many stars satisfactorily from the MK standards alone. What we now require is a more general frame of reference – or frames of reference – that will accept with precision a greater variety of ‘specimens’ (stellar spectra).” The second is an excerpt from one of the conclusions in the article by D.L. Crawford The relationship between the MK system and photometric classification: “The future potential of all this classification work is great. Technological change is rampant, and most interesting. New and powerful 1(λ) machines will be with us soon, as well as direct CCD photometers. Their power is great and we’ll all end up using them. The opening of new wavelength regions is a fantastic advantage to classifiers. The challenges and opportunities are vast.”During the last three years there have been technical improvements in CCD detectors and as a result they are now much better adapted to the needs of photometry and spectroscopy. Signal processing by modern computers now permits rapid utilization of large quantities of information. Technical progress in detectors and computer science now provides us with powerful and relatively low-cost tools for computation, and leads us to view with optimism the development of the powerful 1(A) machines anticipated by Crawford.

Institutional theory is an important framework for various research fields. It gives a general frame of reference as to what constitutes an institution and what are the factors that affect it. However, the theory requires more than a general frame of reference because in today’s world the characteristics of the organizations are changing with the change in factors related as well as unrelated to the processes of organization. In this background, the paper attempts to provide a brief historical overview of institutions, institutionalisation, differences among institutions and institutional environment to unveil the development of institutional theory. It also looks at the application of institutional theory in the context of multinational enterprises. The findings indicate that emphasis of institutional theory has shifted from generalized system of social belief to appropriate means to become legitimate with the pressures.

The possibility of a science of the ‘intermediate zone’ between the individual and society – i.e. transindividual individuation – is elaborated by Simondon in direct confrontation with Norbert Wiener’s project of a cybernetic science of the social system. On the basis of Canguilhem’s definition of society as ‘machine and life’, he contrasts Wiener’s social theory, grounded on the concepts of homeostasis and self-regulation through feedback. Hence it is possible to question which kind of model is provided in Simondon’s theory of social systems, and, in particular, which kind of regulation do we face, according to Simondon, where society is concerned. He tends to abandon the ontological opposition tout court between artificial and natural structures, and rather to question the processes of regulation in order to ground his theory of the social system on a model for the understanding of all systems as internally discontinuous, and whose functioning exceeds the conservative dynamics typical of homeostatic processes.

The thesis discusses aspects of current Social Systems Theory, with the main attention devoted both to the level of the compassing social system society and to that of function systems, especially law. Throughout, I refer to the version of social systems theory developed and presented as theory of social autopoiesis in Niklas Luhmann's mature work, while a limited but important part of the thesis will explain this choice and serve as a comparative and genealogical guideline. Central will be the notion and idea of what Luhmann calls a Contingency Formula — term that both functions as a problem outline and that indicates how the problem can be solved, within the context of the Legal System. Equally centre-staged is the scientific, even the philosophical background the Contingency Formula is based upon. The reporting and explaining of this background, to which luhmannian Social System Theory is indebted in its initial inspirations as well as in its relentless efforts of ‘doing justice’ to every new empirical finding, involves, among others, elements of cybernetics, Boolean algebra, biology, and approaches to mathematics and topology - as well as of some pivotal concepts in philosophy (e.g. contingency). The Contingency Formula and the problematic of modern society in relation to Law and Justice of which it constitutes the pivot, constitute the focus of my PhD. They are approached through a comparison with traditional theories of justice and pre-systemic views of society; as it is generally the case of systems theory, the decisive difference-marker is provided by the notion of a function. The systemic narrative also involves the divide of coding and programming, and the claim that, in modern society, with its constant overproduction of complexity, these are part of its arsenal of modes of systemic reducing that complexity. It finally implies contingency formulas. These operate as system-immanent second-order observation devices that allow function systems to manage their steering dilemmas without unrealistically claiming to have access to a (function system transcending) first-order observation of its own interventions. I am addressing both the Contingency Formula as general concept and Luhmann's endorsement of Justice as Contingency Formula of the function system law (plus Teubner’s alternative offer of a Transcendence Formula Justice), up to a compared analysis of modernity and post-modernity according to the social-systemist approach of modern society.

Form of the quantum kinetic energy operator for relative motion of a group of particles in a general non-inertial reference frame

This paper offers new insights into gravitational interactions within a general non-inertial reference frame. By utilizing symbolic tensor calculus, the study establishes a unified framework that connects time derivatives in non-inertial frames to those in inertial frames. The research introduces new first integrals of motion for a system of many particles in arbitrary non-inertial and barycentric rotating reference frames. These first integrals provide a kinematic and geometric visualization of motion in non-inertial frames. Additionally, a generalized potential energy function is presented for broader applicability. For the gravitational two-body problem, the paper delivers a closed-form, coordinate-free solution for the motion of each body relative to the original frame. Consequently, sufficient conditions for stability against collisions are established within the context of the two-body problem in a non-inertial reference frame. Furthermore, the paper examines the relative orbital motion of spacecraft, presenting a closed-form and coordinate-free solution in the local vertical local horizontal (LVLH) non-inertial frame, which is centered on the center of mass of the main spacecraft.

The normative theory of citing considers citations as rewarding tools to acknowledge the influence of scientific works, while the social constructivist theory of citing considers citations, for example, as persuasion tools used by authors to support their claims, and convince the scientific community that those claims are valid. Other citation theories and models have been proposed in recent years to overcome the limitations of the normative and social constructivist theories. Nevertheless, they have not been able to fully explain all citation motives of scientists (but have a certain focus). This study proposes a new theory (which we call “social systems citation theory”, SSCT) that integrates previous theories and models on publications and their citation links and is mainly based on Niklas Luhmann’s “social systems theory”. Luhmann’s social systems theory focuses on “communications” as the basic constituting elements of a social science system and not on humans and their motives. Humans are not part of social systems but are connected with them and irritate them. Thus, the social systems theory does not have the problem of integrating various and different motives of humans to cite in the science system. In the SSCT, authors’ motives to cite belong to psychic systems while publications and their citation links belong to the social science system. The systems operate autonomously but interact with each other: the social system operates recursively with publications and citation links. Although psychic systems stimulate or irritate the science system, they do not determine communications in the science system. In this study, we explain the SSCT and demonstrate how the theory can be used to underlie empirical bibliometric studies.

Discourse about smart algorithms and digital social agents still refers primarily to the construction of artificial intelligence that reproduces the faculties of individuals. Recent developments, however, show that algorithms are more efficient when they abandon this goal and try instead to reproduce the ability to communicate. Algorithms that do not “think” like people can affect the ability to obtain and process information in society. Referring to the concept of communication in Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems, this paper critically reconstructs the debate on the computational turn of big data as the artificial reproduction not of intelligence but of communication. Self-learning algorithms parasitically take advantage – be it consciously or unaware – of the contribution of web users to a “virtual double contingency.” This provides society with information that is not part of the thoughts of anyone, but, nevertheless, enters the communication circuit and raises its complexity. The concept of communication should be reconsidered to take account of these developments, including (or not) the possibility of communicating with algorithms.

The huge progress made in recent decades in the medical-health field, together with the large-scale introduction of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and other emergency techniques and procedures, has made it possible to save a growing number of human lives. Also because of this, the testimonies classified as Near Death Experiences (NDEs) have increased exponentially, mostly in Western countries. The present work aims at first to identify six basic inclusion-exclusion clinical criteria to be adopted for the definition of a Near Death State (NDS), distinguishing between an objective NDS and a subjectiveNear Death Like State (NDLS). This classification leads to having NDEs split into two distinct groups: Near Death Experiences associated to NDS and Near Death Like Experiences (NDLEs) associated to NDLS. A general frame of reference, namely Tenso-Relational Model, within which consciousness and the mind-body system (MBS) can be located, is discussed. In conclusion it is introduced a bio-physical frame of reference to be adopted for a possible explanation 1) of the so called Out of Body Experience (OBE), which can occur while experiencing an NDS or an NDLS, 2) of the so-called Electromagnetic After-Effects (EAEs), namely electro-sensitivity, which can be caused both by an NDS or by an NDLS, and 3) of other NDS-NDLS aftereffects such as the so-called Energy Healing Abilities (EHA) and the psi abilities, i.e. psychokinesis, telekinesis and psychic-teleportation, and Extra-Sensory Perceptions (ESPs) such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychometry.

Luhmann, Niklas (1927–98)

In this paper, we study Open Dialogue, a psychiatric programme developed in Western Lapland, Finland, with the theory of autopoietic systems. Although originally developed as a psychiatric programme, we anticipate that the approach can be applied to not only psychotherapy but also educational and organisational situations as a way of “collaborative problem dissolution,” because it is based on the philosophy of dialogism, which is not limited to psychotherapy. In an attempt to apply it in a more general context, we study the function of Open Dialogue in a higher level of abstraction with concepts of systems theories, i.e. the Social Systems Theory and Creative Systems Theory. Our consideration implies that Open Dialogue can be understood well through a combination of chain of consciousness in the psychic system, chain of communication in the social system and chain of discovery in the creative system.

System Society And Religion Niklas Luhmann’s Sociological TheoryrnSociological theory is a crucial scientific necessity for the disciplines of sociology and the sociology of religion. In this context, various theories have been developed in both classical and contemporary sociology to explain society and religion. Among the most prominent sociologists of recent times, Niklas Luhmann stands out for developing one of the most comprehensive and systematic theories in sociology through his general systems theory. Drawing on multiple disciplines, Luhmann constructed a radical “super theory” that challenges traditional sociological approaches, aiming to explain society and social phenomena. Luhmann conceptualized the global society as a system and sought to analyze all social phenomena associated with this world society. He produced a universal theory applicable to all societies by developing conceptual abstractions and cognitive frameworks. According to Luhmann, modern society possesses a highly complex structure, and this hyper-complex society can only be explained through an equally complex theory. In this framework, modern society consists of functional subsystems forming the social system branches. Luhmann analyzed various social phenomena—such as education, economy, science, art, health, and law—within the context of these functional subsystems. Religion, by specializing in a specific function and gaining autonomy, has found its place in modern society. Luhmann examined the phenomenon of religion within the framework of systems theory and evaluated it from a systemic perspective. However, it can be argued that Luhmann has not yet received the recognition he deserves in academic circles. While the significance of his general systems theory has been acknowledged in some countries and various studies have been conducted for this purpose, the existing body of work is still not considered satisfactory. Similarly, the general systems theory remains relatively unknown in Turkey, which is seen as a shortcoming for Turkish sociology and the sociology of religion. This study aims to contribute to addressing this gap in Turkish sociology and sociology of religion literature.rnKeywords: Sociology of Religion; Niklas Luhman; General Systems Theory; Social Systems Theory; Theory of Religio;, Sociological Theory.

The modern stage of the development of the technosocial reality of the 21st century is increasingly characterized as a period of sharp complexity increase in systems, heightened turbulence, and unpredictability, accompanied by the emergence of unprecedented global threats and risks. A key factor generating this increased complexity, uncertainty, and loss of traditional predictability is the deep process of interdependent development of humans, society, and technological systems, which encompasses our entire civilization. The hybridity, nonlinearity, dynamism, and global scale of these issues make traditional disciplinary approaches (social constructivism, technological determinism) inadequate for their analysis and resolution, requiring a fundamentally new methodological optic. The theoretical foundation for overcoming this dichotomy is based on the concepts of G. Simondon (transduction and individuation), N. Luhmann (theory of social systems), and M. Castells (network society). Their complementary integration forms the core of the proposed methodology. The research methodology is based on the sequential application of four complementary methods that ensure analytical depth and systematic comparison of the concepts of Luhmann, Simondon, and Castells: the comparative-analytical method, the hermeneutic method (deep interpretation), the method of theoretical synthesis and conceptual integration, and historical-philosophical reconstruction and contextualization. The methods are chosen to not only conduct a detailed comparison but also to adequately work with very different types of theories (the highly abstract systemic theory of Luhmann, Simondon's ontology of technology, and Castells' sociological theory). In response to this need, a transductive systemic-network methodology (TSNM) is proposed, representing a new class of complementary research strategies. Its novelty lies in the synergistic application of three perspectives: transduction (G. Simondon) for analyzing the emergence and materiality of technosocial hybrids, systemic theory (N. Luhmann) for understanding autopoiesis and unintended consequences in complex systems, and network analysis (M. Castells) for identifying power relations and inequality in the "space of flows." The practical value of TSNM lies in its ability to: 1) provide a comprehensive analysis of complex technosocial issues; 2) identify points of risk and opportunity; 3) inform ethical technology design (Ethics by Design) and lead the development of adaptive regulation and strategies for ensuring safe and equitable development. TSNM serves as an indispensable tool for navigating and consciously shaping the technosocial future.