systems theory lecture 1

8/4/2019 Systems Theory Lecture 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/systems-theory-lecture-1 1/4

Lecture Notes on Systems TheoryPart 1

This piece of writing is meant as substitute for the class lecture that I wassupposed to deliver and finish last Wednesday, September 29, 2010, but was cut

short because of lack of time. A strong caution is in order: this is just a SKETCHof my incomplete lecture; this should NOT be taken as a formal essay that couldbe cited in a properly academic writing. In fact, I shall spoil now the seeminglyformal presentation of this essay by saying that I will write in alternating Englishand Tagalog. Para siguradong maiintindihan, di ba?

As I have mentioned in our last meeting, my final lecture would be necessarilylong. Please have the patience to read, understand, and reflect on the ideasmentioned below not just for the purpose of review but for the sake of strengthening your fundamental knowledge in sociology. I shall discuss first theSystems Theory of Niklas Luhmann, one of the best (German) sociologists of thepast few decades. Next, I will outline a review of each of the social institutions

that we have taken up in class and relate them to the theoretical framework of Luhmann. Afterwards, I will juxtapose the ideas of Durkheim, Marx, and Weber,with Luhmann’s to demonstrate how Systems Theory explains the concepts andproblems of classical sociology in an innovative way. Ipipresenta ko ang isangframework kung saan ma-i-integrate ang una’y hiwa-hiwalay na talakayan natintungkol sa bawat isang social institution. Last word of caution: what I wrote heredoes not contain proper referencing because I took the liberty of explaining themwithout the bureaucratic requirement of bibliographical citation. Halo-halo atpatalon-talon ang order ng pagsusulat ko. Sa ganitong paraan lang akomakakapagsulat ng mabilis.

I. Niklas Luhmann is famous for his reference to and insistence on the terms“system” and “environment.” He accepts the label of systems theory asdesignating his distinct set of ideas. His new concepts about society and the taskof sociology challenge old notions such as the following.

1. Society is composed of human beings and their groupings andrelationships2. Society is held by a consensus among its members3. Society can be located within a particular (geographical) territory

Binasag ni Luhmann ang mga lumang kaisipang ito sa pamamagitan ng pagre-redefine ng lipunan o society bilang isang sistema—System of Communication.

Ang ideya na ang lipunan ay isang sistema ay hindi na bago sa ating mgaPilipino. Nasa bokabularyo na natin ang mga katagang “bulok ang sistema,”“maayos ang sistema,” “walang sistema,” na madalas sa hindi aypumapatungkol sa totality ng buhay natin dito sa Pilipinas. Madali sigurongtanggapin na ang lipunan ay isang sistema, pero bakit sistema ngkomunikasyon?

Alam na natin na ang tao ay isang social being. Likas na sa ating“pagkatao” ang makisalamuha sa kapwa tao. Think of socialization as theprocess of becoming a social being (human) as well as the action of mingling andINTERACTING with our fellows. Walang “social” life ang isang taong namumuhaybilang ermitanyo. Lahat tayo, one way or the other, ay kailangang makisalamuhaat makipag-interact sa kapwa tao.

Engels C. Del Rosario



Nangyayari ang interaction natin sa isa’t isa sa pamamagitan nglanguage. Dalawa ang uri ng language na ginagamit natin, ang verbal at non-verbal. Ano man ang gamitin natin sa dalawa, sa bawat interaction natin hindimaitatanggi na tayo ay nakikipag-communicate. Sa isang sitwasyon kung saannagkakatampuhan ang dalawang tao, kahit ang katahimikan ay may ikono-communicate (“giving the cold shoulder” – pang-iisnab para iparamdam na hindisiya komportable sa presence ng kasama niya.) Samakatuwid, lahat ng humaninteraction ay communication din. Madali itong maunawaan kung isi-situate satinatawag na face-to-face o “micro-level.” Ngunit paano sa macro level?Applicable pa rin ba ang konsepto ng interaction as communication dito?

Sa “macro level,” karaniwan na nating iniisip halimbawa na maynagaganap din sa pagitan ng simbahan at gobyerno, o kaya sa pagitan ng mgaeskwelahan at business sector. Nagpupunahan ang gobyerno at simbahan samga isyung may kinalaman sa sex at reproductive health. Nagbubuo ngpartnership ang mga paaralan at business community para sa educationalreform o para sa training at recruitment ng mga magiging empleyado. In both

examples, it can be said that the state and the church, for instance, are alsointeracting, although not in the same way with face-to-face or personalinteraction. We don’t need to specify who’s doing the talking on either sidebecause we take for granted that they really “talk” to one another. Asrepresentatives of particular social institutions (political and religious), thegovernment and the church also “communicate” with one another. This leads tothe point that all that happens in society is communication. Sa pagkakasundoman (business helping schools and vice versa) o sa pag-aalitan (the churchcriticizing the state and vice versa), parating ikino-communicate ang lahat. If weaccept this explanation, then we should conclude that society is indeed nothingbut communication.

Luhmann thought that systems are systems because they distinguishthemselves from things that are not systems. He called the “not-systems” asEnvironment. He said that every system distinguishes itself from anenvironment. There is another twist in his concept of system here. The system isnot contained by the environment like a fish inside an aquarium or like acommunity in the middle of a forest. We can only see that there is a system andthere is an environment once the system establishes itself against anenvironment. Ibig sabihin, nalalaman mo lang na may sistema kapag nalikha na-establish na ang pagkakaiba ng sistema at kapaligiran nito. Kung ikukumparahalimbawa sa identification ng kulay/shade/tint (warning: this is a naïve analogyused for the sake of simplifying the idea), hindi mo malalaman na may black

letters dito kung puro white lang ang nakikita mo, at vice versa. May nai-specifytayong kulay dahil ang kulay na yon ay distinct sa iba na hindi pareho ng kulay.Ang lipunan bilang isang sistema ay parang ganito rin. Ito ay may unique nacharacter/feature/trait na nag-a-identify na ito ay lipunan at hindi pagkain(halimbawa). Natural, iba ang pagkain sa lipunan. Ang pagkain ay nakakain anglipunan ay hindi.

In an analogous manner, we can appreciate Luhmann’s concept of society as system of communication by following through and through theidentity of society as a communication system. It is where communication takesplace. Communication does not take place in a cup of coffee or in a bowl of noodles. In the same way, humans are not communication. Humans can

participate in communication because we are capable of linguistic activity, BUTthey are NOT communication itself (just like the enrolment system, for example,




is different and not identical with the enrollees or students). Luhmann,therefore, assigns human beings (the physical, conscious, thinking and feelinghuman being) outside of society. Human beings are the environment of society.

This has a significant implication that I will discuss later on.

Sa pangalawang ideya naman, na ang lipunan ay name-maintain dahil sasimilarity ng paniniwala ng mga tao kung ano ang tama o mali (consensus,solidarity, moral bond, collective conscience), itinanong ni Luhmann kung paanoba naging posible at gaano ba kalawak ang sinasabing consensus? Isang basamo lang sa kahit anong conflict theory ay makikita mo na ang consensus aymahirap i-maintain dahil sa magkakaibang paniniwala at direct o indirect napagsasalungat ng kanilang mga interes. Nandyan na ang ideya ng coercion,domination at social control na nagpapakitang hindi madali ma-maintain angsolidarity. In fact, conflict is also a major feature of social living. So how can wesay that consensus is the foundation of society? Luhmann mentioned thatagreements as well as disagreements (whether in peaceful or violent forms) bothtake place in society and in society only. One cannot argue and fight with a

broken TV or curse nature for the disastrous floods. When humans love and hate,they communicate love and hate in society because it is only in society wherecommunicate takes place. Neither the broken TV nor the forest will ever talkback to us. From this we can argue that society is maintained also bycommunication. As long as communication between human beings takes placesociety is “alive.” We can endlessly shout invectives in protest rallies orcommunicate our interest in destroying capitalism by firing guns at its defenders,but at the end of the day, on an abstract level, what took place was acommunication of dissatisfaction or anger. Still—communication. Dalawa langang naisip kong paraan para mawala ang lipunan: ang matulog tayong lahat ngsabay-sabay (kung saan walang pagkakataon para sa verbal at non-verbalcommunication) o malipol ang lahat ng tao. Otherwise, magpapatuloy ang

lipunan sa pag-iral habang may nag-uusap na mga tao, pareho man sila ng wikao hindi, magkabati man sila o magka-away.

The third proposal, that society occupies a territory, is also dubious as faras systems theory is concerned. A system (such as society) remains a systembecause it works as a system wherever and whenever. We have noted beforethat society can be broken down into particular social institutions (family,economy, religion, law, etc.). It is quite easy to accept the idea that in today’s(modern) world, everywhere you go there are institutions that enable and restrictyour social behavior. In general, any country would have the same basic set of institutions. Our OFWs who go to, for instance, in the Middle East would have a

hard time talking to Arabs because of language barrier, but they would find iteasy to communicate that they want to use their money to buy things(economy), that they want to pray at their own churches (religion), that they canpresent valid travel documents to the host country (law), or that they can alsofall in love (family). Sa madaling salita, kahit saan ka magpunta sa mundo maymga institutionalized behavior na ikino-communicate tayo na maiintindihan moreor less ng mga dayuhan. Universal sa ganitong paraan ang mga institutions atsyempre ang lipunan. Isa pang example (na nabanggit ko na sa klase)halimbawa ang edukasyon. May mga school buildings na nakalaan para saeducational at academic activities pero hindi totally necessary ang mgainfrastructures na ito para mangyari ang teaching at learning. Alam na natin nakahit “sa ilalim ng puno ng manga” ay pwedeng magklase si teacher. Ang

mahalaga lamang ay may gagampan ng role na teacher at role ng student.




In summary, Luhmann proposes that we think of society as a system (of communication) whose environment are human beings; that (on an abstractlevel) communication is what keeps society going; and that society iseverywhere and cannot be located in any particular place.


systems theory lecture 1

Documents