Mächtige Kommunikation in Niklas Luhmanns Theorie sozialer Systeme

Brodocz, André

doi:10.1007/978-3-663-10691-3_11

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…for the assertion, "A has power over B", we can substitute the assertion, "A's behavior causes B's behavior"' (Luhmann, 1969: 150, n. 3). The central implication -not only in Simon, but in the entire classical theory of power -is that power is conceived as the decisive event that makes the power subordinate act the way s/he does and that s/he would have acted differently had s/he not been subject to the exercise of power (Luhmann, 1969;Brodocz, 1998).…”

Section: Common Starting-pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…autopoiesis, self-reference, operational closure, etc. Only rarely, however, has Luhmann's theory of power been scrutinized, although he did publish one book and several articles and chapters on the subject (a few exceptions include Brodocz, 1998;Esposito, 1999; Sand, 2000;Guzzini, 2004). In this article, I propose a critical examination of Luhmann's theory of power, in particular of what I take to be its two fundamental pillars.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systemic Power

Borch

2005

Acta Sociologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Niklas Luhmann’s theory of power is based on two fundamental pillars. First, he analyzes power functionally as a symbolically generalized medium of communication, which endows his conception of power with a strong evolutionary foundation. Second, he claims that power is constitutively tied to negative sanctions. Drawing upon Michel Foucault’s analytics of power, the article is a critical examination of Luhmann’s theory of power. In particular, Foucault’s critique of the so-called discourse of sovereignty is transformed into an immanent critique of the second pillar in Luhmann’s theory of power. The argument is that this pillar is converse to Luhmann’s evolutionary theoretical objectives, as it reinstalls an Old-European semantics of power. The article contends that systems theory would better redeem its historical goals if it focused primarily upon the functional dimension of power. It is argued that this conceptual revision endows systems theory with a more flexible perspective on power that is both attentive to historical transformations of how power is exercised, and which still carries a strong link to a general theory of society and its evolution. In the article, this openness is demonstrated through a systemic reconstruction of Foucault’s notion of subjectification which, in its Luhmannian version, is coined semantic intrusion.

show abstract

Section: Common Starting-pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%