Zusammenfassung Temporalisierte, aus Operationen bestehende Systeme sehen sich vor das Problem des Dauerzerfalls gestellt, das sie nur dadurch lösen können, dass die Auswahl nächster Ereignisse hoch selektiv, aber nicht beliebig erfolgt. Sie benötigen dafür ein Gedächtnis. Für den Fall der aus Kommunikation bestehenden Gesellschaft übernimmt die Semantik als bewahrenswerter Sinn diese Funktion. Die hier vorgestellte These lautet, dass die moderne Orientierung an „Werten“ mit der funktionalen Differenzierung der modernen Gesellschaft zusammenhängt, während ältere, vorwiegend hierarchisch stratifizierte Gesellschaften in ganz anderer Weise auf die Selektionszwänge ihrer eigenen Komplexität reagiert hatten. Die mit der funktionalen Differenzierung einhergehende zunehmende Kontingenz macht die Einführung neuer „inviolate levels“ nötig, diesem Bedarf trägt die Wertsemantik Rechnung. Kennzeichnend für die moderne Gesellschaft ist dann, dass Werte als implizites Wissen unterstellt werden und es keine Werthierarchie gibt. Abschließend wird die These der höheren strukturellen Komplexität der funktional differenzierten Gesellschaft auf einer zweiten, konkreteren Ebene noch einmal aufgenommen: der des Wechselspiels der generellen Inklusion der Gesamtbevölkerung in die Funktionssysteme und der nur selektiven Inklusion in Organisationen. Inwiefern unter diesen Bedingungen zunehmend kontingenter Identitäten die Semantik der nicht weiter begründungspflichtigen Werte noch ihre Funktion erfüllt, muss offen bleiben.
{"title":"Komplexität, strukturelle Kontingenzen und Wertkonflikte","authors":"N. Luhmann","doi":"10.1515/sosys-2019-0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2019-0015","url":null,"abstract":"Zusammenfassung Temporalisierte, aus Operationen bestehende Systeme sehen sich vor das Problem des Dauerzerfalls gestellt, das sie nur dadurch lösen können, dass die Auswahl nächster Ereignisse hoch selektiv, aber nicht beliebig erfolgt. Sie benötigen dafür ein Gedächtnis. Für den Fall der aus Kommunikation bestehenden Gesellschaft übernimmt die Semantik als bewahrenswerter Sinn diese Funktion. Die hier vorgestellte These lautet, dass die moderne Orientierung an „Werten“ mit der funktionalen Differenzierung der modernen Gesellschaft zusammenhängt, während ältere, vorwiegend hierarchisch stratifizierte Gesellschaften in ganz anderer Weise auf die Selektionszwänge ihrer eigenen Komplexität reagiert hatten. Die mit der funktionalen Differenzierung einhergehende zunehmende Kontingenz macht die Einführung neuer „inviolate levels“ nötig, diesem Bedarf trägt die Wertsemantik Rechnung. Kennzeichnend für die moderne Gesellschaft ist dann, dass Werte als implizites Wissen unterstellt werden und es keine Werthierarchie gibt. Abschließend wird die These der höheren strukturellen Komplexität der funktional differenzierten Gesellschaft auf einer zweiten, konkreteren Ebene noch einmal aufgenommen: der des Wechselspiels der generellen Inklusion der Gesamtbevölkerung in die Funktionssysteme und der nur selektiven Inklusion in Organisationen. Inwiefern unter diesen Bedingungen zunehmend kontingenter Identitäten die Semantik der nicht weiter begründungspflichtigen Werte noch ihre Funktion erfüllt, muss offen bleiben.","PeriodicalId":384994,"journal":{"name":"Soziale Systeme","volume":"127 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124614356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Zusammenfassung Bislang gibt es keine zufriedenstellende Soziologie der Rechtstheorie und damit auch keine Soziologie des Rechtssystems. Hier bieten die Theorie autopoietischer Systeme, die Beobachtungstheorie sowie das Konzept einer selbstreferentiellen Logik neue Möglichkeiten: Gesellschaftliche Funktionssysteme können als sich über binäre Codierungen ausdifferenzierende und insofern paradoxal begründete selbstreferentielle Kommunikationszusammenhänge beschrieben werden. Während die Selbstbeobachtung des Rechts in Form der Rechtstheorie und der Rechtsdogmatik die binäre Codierung ihres Funktionssystems mitvollziehen müssen, kann die Soziologie als wissenschaftlicher Fremdbeobachter die systemkonstituierende Paradoxie wiederum thematisieren. Dadurch können eine Reihe bekannter rechtstheoretischer und rechtssoziologischer Themenstellungen neu behandelt werden: Das Problem der Faktizität normativer Geltung, das der Positivität des Rechts sowie dessen zunehmende Folgenorientierung. Damit steht die soziologische Beobachtung letztlich in der Nähe zu solchen Traditionen des Rechtsdenkens, die sich mit den Unschärfen in der Selbstbeobachtung des Rechts, also den Problemen der Selbstbegründung beschäftigt haben: der Derogationstheorie und der Gewalttheorie. Die Selbstbeobachtung konzeptionell mitberücksichtigende Systemtheorie kann diese Theorien wiederum nach ihrer Funktion befragen.
{"title":"Die soziologische Beobachtung der Theorie und der Praxis des Rechts","authors":"N. Luhmann","doi":"10.1515/sosys-2019-0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2019-0008","url":null,"abstract":"Zusammenfassung Bislang gibt es keine zufriedenstellende Soziologie der Rechtstheorie und damit auch keine Soziologie des Rechtssystems. Hier bieten die Theorie autopoietischer Systeme, die Beobachtungstheorie sowie das Konzept einer selbstreferentiellen Logik neue Möglichkeiten: Gesellschaftliche Funktionssysteme können als sich über binäre Codierungen ausdifferenzierende und insofern paradoxal begründete selbstreferentielle Kommunikationszusammenhänge beschrieben werden. Während die Selbstbeobachtung des Rechts in Form der Rechtstheorie und der Rechtsdogmatik die binäre Codierung ihres Funktionssystems mitvollziehen müssen, kann die Soziologie als wissenschaftlicher Fremdbeobachter die systemkonstituierende Paradoxie wiederum thematisieren. Dadurch können eine Reihe bekannter rechtstheoretischer und rechtssoziologischer Themenstellungen neu behandelt werden: Das Problem der Faktizität normativer Geltung, das der Positivität des Rechts sowie dessen zunehmende Folgenorientierung. Damit steht die soziologische Beobachtung letztlich in der Nähe zu solchen Traditionen des Rechtsdenkens, die sich mit den Unschärfen in der Selbstbeobachtung des Rechts, also den Problemen der Selbstbegründung beschäftigt haben: der Derogationstheorie und der Gewalttheorie. Die Selbstbeobachtung konzeptionell mitberücksichtigende Systemtheorie kann diese Theorien wiederum nach ihrer Funktion befragen.","PeriodicalId":384994,"journal":{"name":"Soziale Systeme","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134046247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Zusammenfassung Der Beitrag skizziert die Entwicklung und den Stand der Systemtheorie bis Anfang der 1980er Jahre unter der Prämisse, dass mit diesem Ansatz „humanistische“ und „technologische“ Theorietraditionen, die sich auf Kontrastierung festgelegt haben, obwohl sie identische Kernprobleme behandeln, mithilfe entsprechender Uminterpretationen zusammengeschlossen und zu neuen Lösungsmöglichkeiten geführt werden können. Dies gilt unter anderem für die Konzepte Sinn, Komplexität und Selbstreferenz. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird dann gefragt, wie die Systemtheorie als Theorie sozialer Systeme Verwendung finden kann. Ausgehend vom Konzept der doppelten Kontingenz als komplexitätsreduzierendem und systembildendem Mechanismus zeigt sich dabei, dass als Element sozialer Systeme nicht mehr Handlung, sondern Kommunikation angenommen werden muss. Auf diese Weise können Anschlüsse zwischen einer allgemeinen Theorie selbstreferentieller Systeme, einer Erkenntnistheorie, einer Gesellschaftstheorie und einer Wissenschaftstheorie hergestellt werden.
{"title":"Probleme der Systemtheorie in der soziologischen Diskussion","authors":"N. Luhmann","doi":"10.1515/sosys-2019-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2019-0001","url":null,"abstract":"Zusammenfassung Der Beitrag skizziert die Entwicklung und den Stand der Systemtheorie bis Anfang der 1980er Jahre unter der Prämisse, dass mit diesem Ansatz „humanistische“ und „technologische“ Theorietraditionen, die sich auf Kontrastierung festgelegt haben, obwohl sie identische Kernprobleme behandeln, mithilfe entsprechender Uminterpretationen zusammengeschlossen und zu neuen Lösungsmöglichkeiten geführt werden können. Dies gilt unter anderem für die Konzepte Sinn, Komplexität und Selbstreferenz. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird dann gefragt, wie die Systemtheorie als Theorie sozialer Systeme Verwendung finden kann. Ausgehend vom Konzept der doppelten Kontingenz als komplexitätsreduzierendem und systembildendem Mechanismus zeigt sich dabei, dass als Element sozialer Systeme nicht mehr Handlung, sondern Kommunikation angenommen werden muss. Auf diese Weise können Anschlüsse zwischen einer allgemeinen Theorie selbstreferentieller Systeme, einer Erkenntnistheorie, einer Gesellschaftstheorie und einer Wissenschaftstheorie hergestellt werden.","PeriodicalId":384994,"journal":{"name":"Soziale Systeme","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134212977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article highlights the differences in the civilizing process in China by examining the development of sport. Focusing on the problem of violence, it shows how the evolution of forms of differentiation caused the decline of the violent game jiju and the rise of the elegant game chuiwan as China transformed from a strictly stratified mendi rank society to an open gentry society of greater functional differentiation. The development of the entertainment industry of cuju rather than a function system of sport documented an idiosyncratic literatization. This resulted from the structure of the first post-aristocratic society as a meritocratic commoner society. The unique yin/yang dual structure as a compromise of functional differentiation with hierarchical order brought about a paradoxical domestication of violence.
{"title":"Literatization vs. Civilization: A Preliminary Comparison of the Development of Sport in China and the West with a Focus on Violence","authors":"Chih-Chieh Tang","doi":"10.1515/sosys-2018-0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2018-0010","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article highlights the differences in the civilizing process in China by examining the development of sport. Focusing on the problem of violence, it shows how the evolution of forms of differentiation caused the decline of the violent game jiju and the rise of the elegant game chuiwan as China transformed from a strictly stratified mendi rank society to an open gentry society of greater functional differentiation. The development of the entertainment industry of cuju rather than a function system of sport documented an idiosyncratic literatization. This resulted from the structure of the first post-aristocratic society as a meritocratic commoner society. The unique yin/yang dual structure as a compromise of functional differentiation with hierarchical order brought about a paradoxical domestication of violence.","PeriodicalId":384994,"journal":{"name":"Soziale Systeme","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124965600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article highlights the territorial and functional embedding of world regions within a functionally differentiated world society, as well as the heterogeneity between different (local) practices of functional differentiation within world regions. Its argument proceeds in two steps. In a first step, it discusses the distinction between regional variations of functional differentiation versus regional variations within functional differentiation as an important tool in order to characterize specific variations of structural patterns. In a second step it turns to the Middle Eastern case, arguing that while at first glance this may be a candidate for a regional variation of functional differentiation, a closer look reveals that it has been characterized by a very specific variation within functional differentiation for quite a while. The article concludes by using these observations for some thoughts on the functional differentiation of world society more generally.
{"title":"Regional Variations of and Regional Variations within Functional Differentiation – The Middle East and World Society","authors":"M. Albert, S. Stetter","doi":"10.1515/sosys-2018-0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2018-0008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article highlights the territorial and functional embedding of world regions within a functionally differentiated world society, as well as the heterogeneity between different (local) practices of functional differentiation within world regions. Its argument proceeds in two steps. In a first step, it discusses the distinction between regional variations of functional differentiation versus regional variations within functional differentiation as an important tool in order to characterize specific variations of structural patterns. In a second step it turns to the Middle Eastern case, arguing that while at first glance this may be a candidate for a regional variation of functional differentiation, a closer look reveals that it has been characterized by a very specific variation within functional differentiation for quite a while. The article concludes by using these observations for some thoughts on the functional differentiation of world society more generally.","PeriodicalId":384994,"journal":{"name":"Soziale Systeme","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124537506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Clientelism as a structure of political expectations is relevant for understanding both the development of states and present-day politics in many segments of the world-political system. It is a solution to three general problems that modern political systems face: the affirmation of central authority over a territory, the mobilization of voters in democratic elections, and the need to provide political careers for individuals. The article illustrates these problems and their clientelistic solution by drawing on the examples of Russia, Greece and Japan. In these cases, patron-client ties function as equivalents to solutions on which systems theory has mostly focused when describing modern political systems: autonomous bureaucratic administration, electoral campaigns based on political programs, and party organizations based on formal membership and ideology.
{"title":"Functions of Clientelism in Modern Politics","authors":"Isabel Kusche","doi":"10.1515/sosys-2018-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2018-0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Clientelism as a structure of political expectations is relevant for understanding both the development of states and present-day politics in many segments of the world-political system. It is a solution to three general problems that modern political systems face: the affirmation of central authority over a territory, the mobilization of voters in democratic elections, and the need to provide political careers for individuals. The article illustrates these problems and their clientelistic solution by drawing on the examples of Russia, Greece and Japan. In these cases, patron-client ties function as equivalents to solutions on which systems theory has mostly focused when describing modern political systems: autonomous bureaucratic administration, electoral campaigns based on political programs, and party organizations based on formal membership and ideology.","PeriodicalId":384994,"journal":{"name":"Soziale Systeme","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125165433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Policy development planning using legal and monetary mechanisms has proved to have little success. Due to this experience, resistance to modernisation has been explained by factors such as “tradition”, “culture”, “mentalities”. But such explanations have remained more or less tautological. It is therefore proposed to replace them with a single factor that could be called a “social construction” of causality. After decades of research on causal attribution and perception of causal relations, it can no longer be assumed that relations between causes and effects are objective facts of the world, on which true or untrue judgements are then possible. Rather, it is about an infinity of possible combinations of causes and effects, which can only be used extremely selectively if a connection of certain causes with certain effects is to give some cognitive or practical meaning. In other words: causality is a medium of loosely coupled possibilities, the use of which requires the formation of relational forms, i. e. a firm coupling of certain causes and certain effects. Prospects of successful action as well as observing the intentions of others depend on such a selection of forms. These are social constructs, but their construction is not included in the causal scheme like a meta-cause, as it were, as the cause of causality itself. Rather, the creation of form serves as a “blind spot” which makes it possible to see and use causality. If a society is accustomed to locating causality in personalised social networks and to expect success or failure from the use of this specific form of causality, it will be very difficult to change these conditions if equally handy causal forms cannot be provided as a substitute. More money and more legal norms will only serve to test and confirm the effectiveness of the network’s contacts.
{"title":"Causality in the South","authors":"N. Luhmann","doi":"10.1515/sosys-2018-0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2018-0009","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Policy development planning using legal and monetary mechanisms has proved to have little success. Due to this experience, resistance to modernisation has been explained by factors such as “tradition”, “culture”, “mentalities”. But such explanations have remained more or less tautological. It is therefore proposed to replace them with a single factor that could be called a “social construction” of causality. After decades of research on causal attribution and perception of causal relations, it can no longer be assumed that relations between causes and effects are objective facts of the world, on which true or untrue judgements are then possible. Rather, it is about an infinity of possible combinations of causes and effects, which can only be used extremely selectively if a connection of certain causes with certain effects is to give some cognitive or practical meaning. In other words: causality is a medium of loosely coupled possibilities, the use of which requires the formation of relational forms, i. e. a firm coupling of certain causes and certain effects. Prospects of successful action as well as observing the intentions of others depend on such a selection of forms. These are social constructs, but their construction is not included in the causal scheme like a meta-cause, as it were, as the cause of causality itself. Rather, the creation of form serves as a “blind spot” which makes it possible to see and use causality. If a society is accustomed to locating causality in personalised social networks and to expect success or failure from the use of this specific form of causality, it will be very difficult to change these conditions if equally handy causal forms cannot be provided as a substitute. More money and more legal norms will only serve to test and confirm the effectiveness of the network’s contacts.","PeriodicalId":384994,"journal":{"name":"Soziale Systeme","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133242417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Populism has been one of the most outstanding features of Latin American politics throughout the 20th century. By controlling political and economic operations and appealing to the semantic construction of pueblo (the people), populism has succeeded in shaping a regional variant of functional differentiation. This process is analyzed along three phases of Latin American history, the pre-populist age of caudillos, the classic populism in the 20th century, and the neo-populist period in the 21st century. The article concludes with a reflection on the consequences of populism for the institutional framework in Latin America.
{"title":"The Limits of Functional Differentiation under Populist Rule in Latin America","authors":"Dr. Aldo Mascareño","doi":"10.1515/sosys-2018-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2018-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Populism has been one of the most outstanding features of Latin American politics throughout the 20th century. By controlling political and economic operations and appealing to the semantic construction of pueblo (the people), populism has succeeded in shaping a regional variant of functional differentiation. This process is analyzed along three phases of Latin American history, the pre-populist age of caudillos, the classic populism in the 20th century, and the neo-populist period in the 21st century. The article concludes with a reflection on the consequences of populism for the institutional framework in Latin America.","PeriodicalId":384994,"journal":{"name":"Soziale Systeme","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115164374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The existence of religious diversity is mostly taken for granted in today’s world society. Despite all apparent differences, however, world society theory proposes the hypothesis of a single function system of religion. At the same time, in the case of religion a process of semantic unification is highly disputed. Until recently, such debates had not paid much attention to the “translingual practice” (Liu) that has produced “religion” as a global category over the last two hundred years. Drawing on recent studies, this article traces some semantic transformations in regard to “religion” in 19th and early 20th century Asia and highlights the importance of three contested distinctions connected with “religion”. It also relates these semantic changes to recent debates about the differentiation of religion in theories of secularization. Any visibility of regional differences in the religious system of modern world society should be understood as the result of the emergence of this global category. Such a focus on semantics highlights the way in which speaking of “religion” as a specific instance of “culture” in world society becomes possible and “religion” becomes observable to itself and from the outside only as a result of these transformations.
{"title":"Distinguishing “Religion”. Variants of Differentiation and the Emergence of “Religion” as a Global Category in Modern Asia","authors":"A. Hermann","doi":"10.1515/sosys-2018-0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2018-0012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The existence of religious diversity is mostly taken for granted in today’s world society. Despite all apparent differences, however, world society theory proposes the hypothesis of a single function system of religion. At the same time, in the case of religion a process of semantic unification is highly disputed. Until recently, such debates had not paid much attention to the “translingual practice” (Liu) that has produced “religion” as a global category over the last two hundred years. Drawing on recent studies, this article traces some semantic transformations in regard to “religion” in 19th and early 20th century Asia and highlights the importance of three contested distinctions connected with “religion”. It also relates these semantic changes to recent debates about the differentiation of religion in theories of secularization. Any visibility of regional differences in the religious system of modern world society should be understood as the result of the emergence of this global category. Such a focus on semantics highlights the way in which speaking of “religion” as a specific instance of “culture” in world society becomes possible and “religion” becomes observable to itself and from the outside only as a result of these transformations.","PeriodicalId":384994,"journal":{"name":"Soziale Systeme","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127053374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The study of “Modern authoritarians” This part of the title is inspired by Arch Puddington’s Freedom House report on modern authoritarians (Puddington 2017). has become for understandable reasons a fashionable topic, particularly in political science. Authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China are of course a challenge for democracies. A more sociological perspective could focus rather on the question to what extent such modern authoritarian powers have realized on a regional level of world society a variant of differentiation which could challenge or even undermine functional differentiation as the main type of differentiation in modern society. The empire could be a candidate for such a variant. But this paper prefers to look rather at how authoritarian regimes are using and misusing organizations and networks to protect their grip on power and to control society, particularly politics. Such power structures may be considered as parasitical differentiation. What in the political world looks like a kind of competition between autocracies and democracies could also be considered as a regional, more or less successful attempt to control and instrumentalise politically functional differentiation, its performance and its effects.
{"title":"“Modern Authoritarians” Coping with the Challenge of Modern Society","authors":"Nicolas Hayoz","doi":"10.1515/sosys-2018-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2018-0005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The study of “Modern authoritarians” This part of the title is inspired by Arch Puddington’s Freedom House report on modern authoritarians (Puddington 2017). has become for understandable reasons a fashionable topic, particularly in political science. Authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China are of course a challenge for democracies. A more sociological perspective could focus rather on the question to what extent such modern authoritarian powers have realized on a regional level of world society a variant of differentiation which could challenge or even undermine functional differentiation as the main type of differentiation in modern society. The empire could be a candidate for such a variant. But this paper prefers to look rather at how authoritarian regimes are using and misusing organizations and networks to protect their grip on power and to control society, particularly politics. Such power structures may be considered as parasitical differentiation. What in the political world looks like a kind of competition between autocracies and democracies could also be considered as a regional, more or less successful attempt to control and instrumentalise politically functional differentiation, its performance and its effects.","PeriodicalId":384994,"journal":{"name":"Soziale Systeme","volume":"319 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115279153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：