A Brief History of Systems Theory

In the current academic context, there are several theories under the name of "systems theory". In this post, I shall overview a history of the systems theory. We adopt, here, a categorization suggested by Hideo Kawamoto (1995), where the development of the systems theory is divided into three generation (See the Table below).

First generation is summarized as the theories for dynamic equilibrium systems, and their key concept is "homeostatis". They focused on the mechanism how a system maintains itself under the fluctuation from the environment. Leading scholars in this generation are Walter Bradford Cannon of "homeostasis" (Cannon 1932), Ludwig von Bertalanffy of "general systems theory" (Bertalanffy 1968), Norbert Wiener and W. Ross Ashby of "cybernetics" (Wiener 1948; Ashby 1956). The sociologist who applies this generation theory is Talcott Parsons as "social systems theory" (Parsons 1951).

Second generation is the theories for dynamic nonequilibrium systems, and their key concept is "self-organization". They focused on the mechanism how a structure of system is crystallized from disorders. Leading scholars in this generation are Ilya Prigogine of "dissipative structure" (Prigogine & Nicolis 1977), Manfred Eigen of "hypercycle" (Eigen & Schuster 1979), and Hermann Haken of "synergetics" (Haken 1977).

Third generation is the theories for self-production system, and their key concept is "autopoiesis". They focused on the mechanism how a system itself is realized over time. Autopoietic system means a unity whose organization is defined by a particular network of production processes of elements. Leading scholars in this generation are Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela of "autopoiesis" (Maturana & Varela 1972, 1980; Varela & Maturana, 1974). The sociologist who applies this generation theory is Niklas Luhmann as "social systems theory" (Luhmann 1984).

Note that there is a clear distinction between "self-organization" and "autopoiesis" after the revolution caused by third generation. In this context, self-organization is focused on structural formation, but autopoiesis is focused on system formation. Luhmann emphasizes this distinction as follows:

"Autopoietic systems, then, are not only self-organizing systems, they not only produce and eventually change their own structures; their self-reference applies to the production of other components as well. This is the decisive conceptual innovation. […] Thus, everything that is used as a unit by the system is produced as a unit by the system itself. This applies to elements, processes, boundaries, and other structures and, last but not least, to the unity of the system itself." (Luhmann 1990: p.3)

"In order to clarify how much this concept of basal self-reference differs from an earlier discussion of "self-organization", Maturana and Varela have proposed the designation `autopoiesis’ for it." (Luhmann 1984: p.34).

As just quoted, the difference between "self-organization" and "autopoiesis" is of decisive importance for understanding the conceptual innovation of the systems theory.

References

Ashby W. R. (1956). Introduction to Cybernetics, Methuen.

Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, George Braziller

Cannon, W. B. (1932). The Wisdom of the Body, W. W. Norton.

Eigen M. & Schuster P.(1979) The Hypercycle: A principle of natural self-organization, Springer

Haken, H. (1977). Synagetics, An Introduction. Nonequilibrium Phase-Transitions and Self-Organization in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Springer.

Kawamoto, H. (1995) Autopoiesis: The Third Generation System (in Japanese), Seido-sha Publishers.

Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie, Suhrkamp. (English translation: Social Systems, John Bednarz Jr., Dirk Baecker (translator), Stanford University Press, 1995)

Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on Self-Reference, Columbia University Press.

Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1972). De Maquinas y Seres Vivos, Editorial Universitaria S.A.

Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The realization of The Living, D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System, Free Press.

Prigogine, I. & Nicolis, G. (1977). Self-Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems, Wiley.

Varela, F.J., Maturana, H.R. & Uribe, R. (1974). "Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems, its characterization and a model", Biosystems, Vol.5, No.4, pp.187-196.

Wiener, N. (1948; 1965). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 2nd edition, MIT Press.

A New Map for Social System Theory

I would like to start overviewing the world of social system theory.

In my view, the theory can provide a new fundamental framework to understand the principle of collaboration, however it is almost unknown among the researchers of collaboration studies. It is not only because the theory is proposed in a discipline of sociology but also because the theory is quite difficult to understand.

But don't be afraid. I've drawn a map to walk around much easier!

So, let's start with my map.

Social system theory, which I want to take, was proposed by Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998), a German sociologist. Luhmann suggested a new framework for considering a society as an "autopoietic system" in his book Soziale Systeme (1984). English translation of this book was published under the title of Social Systems from Stanford University Press in 1995.

* Niklas Luhmann, Social Systems, Translated by John Bednarz, Jr. with Dirk Baecker, Stanford University Press, 1995

The theory design by Luhmann is highly abstract and complex. Although some sociologists criticize this abstract and complex theorization, we should know the abstraction is caused just by strictly employing a system theory and the complexity is caused by applying lots of concepts that related one another. This abstraction and complexity is unavoidable and necessary for the breakthrough to the situation in which "Sociology is stuck in a theory crisis" (Luhmann 1984/1995, p.xlv).

Luhmann himself confess "This is not easy book" and metaphorically "Thus the theory's design resembles a labyrinth more than freeway off into the sunset."(ibid, p.lii). In fact, it is quite tough to read a whole book. Especially, in most cases, you will be confused in the first several chapters, which introduce the fundamental concepts of system theory such as "system", "environment", "selection", "function", "autopoiesis", "operation", "meaning", and "dimension". These chapters are indeed great literature as a general system theory, but it is easy for readers who seek a sociological theory to lose their way.

So I want to choose the different path from Luhmann's. It must be permissible in light of Luhmann's accounts; "The sequence of chapters chosen for this book is surely not the only one possible"(ibid, p.lii) and then "The theory could have been presented in a different sequence"(ibid, p.li).

In my strategy, the first step is grasping Luhmann's viewpoint about society, and next is understanding communication. Well, then we'll take the first steps.

Society as Nexus of Communication

I would like to start overviewing the social system theory proposed by Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998), a German sociologist.

Luhmann suggested a new framework for considering a society as an "autopoietic system" in his book Soziale Systeme (1984)*.

* English translation was published as Social Systems from Stanford University Press in 1995.

The novel point of his suggestion is that the element of the society is communication, not human, actor nor action. In the social system theory, a society is regarded as a system which reproduces communication by communication. In other words, which I prefer, a society is nexus of communication. Since the viewpoint may look not so strange at a glance, and it is difficult to understand the novelty. So I shall explain it by comparing some viewpoints which we are familiar with.

In a naive viewpoint, a society is regarded as the group of people. For example, Oxford Dictionary of Sociology begins their explanation of the term "society" with this kind of naive viewpoint as follows;

Generally, a group of people who share a common culture, occupy a particular territorial area, and feel themselves to constitute a unified and distinct entity.

*from John Scott and Gordon Marshall (eds.), Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd edition revised, Oxford University Press, 2009

Of course, this viewpoint is rather daily-use than sociological definition. On the other hand, the typical viewpoint in sociology seems to be that society is regarded as relations or a structure among actors.

This viewpoint is necessary to understand the freedom and autonomy of individuals, otherwise the individuals must lose the freedom and autonomy if the individuals would be just parts of the society.

Based on this framework, Luhmann built a general theory of society and had applied the theory into a wide variety of social phenomena, including economy, law, politics, art, religion, education, science, mess media, family, and so on.