Introduction to Special Issue SI: Luhmann

Abstract

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the publication of Niklas Luhmann's (1927-1998) magnum opus Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie [14]. On the occasion, this Special Issue of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law celebrates the contribution of Luhmann's thinking to our understanding of law, justice, and society. Luhmann's work is wide open for argument. Some consider it the grand unified theory able to completely grasp social reality. Others see nothing but a substantially void conglomeration of analytical constructs and ''behaviouristic'' descriptions joined together with ''pseudo-empirism'' [24, pp. 310, 313] or a hermetic ensemble of ''self-mystifying semantics'' [7, p. 76] supported by sophisticated strategies of pure self-apology. It might seem that the ''giant'' [1] theorist of the social has encouraged such impressions with pretensions which were ''grandiose'' in more than one respect [9, 23]. Indeed, readers who encounter systems theory for the first time may find that an understanding of Luhmann's complex theory is complicated by a string of conceptual and semantic barriers as well as the hurdles of Luhmann's habitually ironic, sometimes authoritative, and sometimes counter intuitive style. An often shared reading experience is, as a German commentator notes, that ''texts appear convincing only after 300-500 pages'' [20, p. 13]. Another finds consolation with the difficulties of reading Luhmann in considering that, given that Luhmann's is a perfectly new theory, no previous experience is needed to access it [21, p. 522]. Possibly because of the combined effects of the difficulties of reading Luhmann and his writings not being widely translated, the reception of his oeuvre in the Englishspeaking world is still localised [4, 22], whereas it has a substantial following in Germany and continental Europe. Nonetheless, the interdisciplinary impact of

Organization and membership: Introduction to the Special Issue

“…We believe that in order to move forward, modern systems theory must allow for multiple legitimate readings of Luhmann's original works, as well as for multiple directions of further developing systems theory. As the introduction of a previous Special Issue on Luhmann's general theory of the social stated, ‘We don't need a scholasticism of Luhmann' (Messner, 2014, p. 314). We subscribe to this view and believe that the best way to take Luhmann's work seriously is to challenge it with empirical observations and to embrace the multiplicity of understandings it facilitates, in order to develop its ability to describe new forms of social complexities.…”

CuRbanIsME: A Photographic Self-Analysis to Evaluate the Likelihood of the Occurrence of Predatory Crimes in Downtown Hamburg

“…He, therefore, begins his work by seeking to build an organized world according to a rigid separation of roles; however, due to their inherent flexibility according to the author, these roles are also interchangeable [5]. For example, the actions carried out by an individual in his or her capacity as a judge will fall under the legal system, those carried out under the function of a father will fall under the family system, and so on [5][6][7][8]. In each of the systems surrounding the roles of agents, there are different and often irreconcilable logics of action and pre-established mechanisms for communication and decision-making.…”

“…Human history "remains conjectural", as C. Levy-Strauss emphasizes, because it remains in an unconscious phase in which concrete individual or collective experiences do not relate to each other considering the essential objectives of nature and sustainability [1] (pp. [5][6]. In this section, we specifically mention "sustainability" as a tribute both to the academic journal for which we are writing and because of the broad characteristics of this concept.…”

Observing Youth Punishment in the Social Systems of Law and Education

“…Rather, when I study punishment, the object of study is communication. 21 Core themes have been engaged in special issues (see introductory notes of Messner 2013, Seidl 2006, Wolf et al 2010, explained in some monographs and articles (Borch 2011, King and Thornhill 2005, Moeller 2006, Osterberg 2000, Viskovatoff 1999) and applied in specialized studies/domains/problems (Albert and Hilkermeier 2004, Bakken and Hernes 2003, Febbrajo and Harste 2013, King and Thornhill 2006, Lee and Brosziewski 2009, Mingers 2006, Nobles and Schiff 2013b (Luhmann 2012, 12-17). These questions open up empirical observations.…”