An Observation of Luhmann’s education

7/27/2019 An Observation of Luhmanns education

1/12

http://est.sagepub.com/European Journal of Social Theory

http://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1368431003006001420

2003 6: 133European Journal of Social TheoryRaf Vanderstraeten

An Observation of Luhmann's Observation of Education

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:European Journal of Social TheoryAdditional services and information for

http://est.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://est.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Feb 1, 2003Version of Record>>

at Univ of Education, Winneba on August 10, 2013est.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://est.sagepub.com/http://est.sagepub.com/http://est.sagepub.com/http://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133http://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133http://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133http://www.sagepublications.com/http://est.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://est.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://est.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133.refs.htmlhttp://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133.full.pdfhttp://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133.full.pdfhttp://est.sagepub.com/http://est.sagepub.com/http://est.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133.full.pdfhttp://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://est.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://est.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://est.sagepub.com/content/6/1/133http://est.sagepub.com/


2/12

R E V I E W E S S A Y

An Observation of Luhmanns

Observation of Education

Raf VanderstraetenUN I VERSI TY OF BIELEFELD, GERM ANY

Niklas Luhmann and Karl Eberhard Schorr, Problems of Reflection in theSystem of Education, trans. Rebecca A. Neuwirth. Mnster: Waxmann, 2000,412pp., 25.50, ISBN 3893258906 (pbk)

Niklas Luhmann, Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft, ed. Dieter Lenzen.Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2002, 236pp. inc. index, 25, ISBN3518583204 (hbk); 11, ISBN 3518291939 (pbk)

With the publication of Soziale Systemein 1984, Niklas Luhmann (192798)

provided us with what he himself later called the introductory chapter of ageneral theory of modern society. This book which consists of 675 pages became available in English in 1995 under the title Social Systems. It is presentedas an attempt to reformulate the theory of social systems via the current state ofthe art in general systems theory (p. 11). Its central aim is the application of theidea of autopoiesis (= self-production) to social systems. Soziale Systemewants toindicate the autonomy of social systems with regard to the production and repro-duction of their elemental units. Luhmann argues that social reality continuallyorganizes its own self-renewal by means of communicative acts.

In his following books, which appeared at a remarkably great pace, this generaltheory of social systems has been specified and applied to particular kinds of socialsystems. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, which is the grand finale of his work,appeared in 1997, at a moment when Luhmann was already terminally ill as aconsequence of a viral infection. This 1164-page book, bound in a black cover,focuses on society understood as the comprehensive social system. The otherchapters of his theory are devoted to analyses of the major function systemswhich have differentiated in modern society. During Luhmanns lifetime, volu-minous monographs by him appeared on the economy, science, law and art. In2000, this series was complemented by the posthumously published monographs

on politics and religion. As the last volume in this series, there has now appearedthe relatively short, uncompleted manuscript of Das Erziehungssystem derGesellschaftwhich has been edited by Dieter Lenzen.

A number of Luhmanns recent chapters on societys function systems draw

European Journal of Social Theory 6(1): 133143

Copyright 2003Sage Publications: London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi

1368-4310[200302]6:1;133143;033420

http://www.sagepublications.com/http://est.sagepub.com/http://est.sagepub.com/http://est.sagepub.com/http://est.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/


3/12

substantially on publications which appeared prior to the publication of SozialeSysteme i.e., in the so-called pre-autopoietic phase of his theory. This isparticularly the case for his monographs on the systems of law, religion andeducation. These books explore new issues, but, in some regards, they also merelyrecapitulate and reframe ideas which were already presented in his publicationsof the 1960s and 1970s. The monograph on education is the successor to Reflex-ionsprobleme im Erziehungssystem, which was jointly written by Niklas Luhmannand Karl Eberhard Schorr. This book, originally published in 1979 and reprintedwith a new postface in 1988, has recently been translated into English, and hencehas now become available to a much wider audience. The main theoretical differ-ence between both books is thatDas Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaftis based onthe concept of communication. This posthumously published manuscript is,much more than its predecessor, an attempt to conceive of education in terms of

communication and face-to-face interaction.It is well known that many of Luhmanns readers have been intimidated by

the abstract nature of his theoretical writings. Luhmann was aware of theseproblems. In fact, he discussed in a number of publications the often-voicedcomplaints about the incomprehensibility of science (e.g. 1981: 1707; 2000:4734). At the same time, it seems questionable whether he did care much aboutthese kinds of complaints. In the Preface to the English edition of SozialeSysteme,Luhmann wrote:

If one seriously undertakes to work out a comprehensive theory of the social and strivesfor sufficient conceptual precision, abstraction and complexity in the conceptual archi-tecture are unavoidable. Among the classical authors, Parsons included, one finds aregrettable carelessness in conceptual questions as if ordinary language were all thatis needed to create ideas or even text. (1995: xxxvii)

Abstraction and complexity indeed characterize Luhmanns work; they are thecounterpart of its wide-ranging scope. Moreover, Luhmann used to introduceconcepts and conceptual determinations that are fairly uncommon in the fieldof social theory (let alone ordinary language). These characteristics probably

explain the still rather marginal position of Luhmanns writings in the fieldof social theory especially outside Germany and outside the circle of theLuhmaniacs.

In my view, Luhmanns and Schorrs systems-theoretical observations andanalyses nevertheless deserve close attention from researchers in the field of socialtheory. With regard to education, Luhmanns analyses offer a clearly articulatedtheoretical approach that might stimulate further developments. After the demiseof the so-called new sociology of education, theoretical investigations have infact virtually disappeared from this fields research agenda (see Shain and Ozga,

2001; Vanderstraeten, 2002). Against this background, this review essay seeks toilluminate some of the central intuitions of Luhmanns observations of theeducational system of modern society. In line with Luhmanns general theory ofsocial systems, I will first focus on communication as the basic social unit and oneducation as a social system or communication system. In a second step, I will

European Journal of Social Theory 6(1)134

http://est.sagepub.com/http://est.sagepub.com/http://est.sagepub.com/http://est.sagepub.com/


4/12

briefly deal with Luhmanns theory of social differentiation and with the analysesof education as a function system of modern society. Given the rather enigmaticstyle of Luhmanns (and Schorrs) writings, this review first of all intends to clarifytheir main arguments.

Communication as the Basic Element of Social Systems

In the field of the social sciences, theorists have opted for different concepts torepresent the basic unit of social reality such as action, exchange, power or force.Niklas Luhmann, however, was the first major writer to consider communicationas the constitutive element of social reality. As Stichweh (2000) argues,Luhmanns writings seem to draw the consequences from a number of post-war

developments, which were, most of all, initiated by the new technologies of infor-mation processing. These developments seem to make founding a contemporarysocial theory upon the concept of communication nearly unavoidable. It wasLuhmann, in choosing communication theory over action theory, who took onthe role of the first major sociological communication theorist, a role which hadto be taken by someone anyway (p. 9).

From this perspective, communication is the constitutive element of socialsystems. This element can be described as an occurrence or event, which emergesfrom the processing of selections. According to Luhmann (1984/1995), the unit

of communication consists of the co-ordination or synthesis of three differentselections. These selections are: information, utterance (Mitteilung) and under-standing (Verstehen). Communication, thus, is an emergent, three-part unity.

For Luhmann, informationis a selection from a repertoire of possibilities. It isthe selection that is actualized in the communication. Without this selectivity ofinformation, no communication would emerge, however minimal the news valueof the exchanges (e.g., if communication is only engaged in to pass the time andavoid periods of silence). A communicative act, however, does not make a selec-tion in the same way in which one grabs one thing rather than another off the

rack. Pieces of information do not just exist out there, waiting to be picked upby the system. Communication is not just a two-part matter of sending andreceiving messages; the selection of information is one of its crucial components.The second selection concerns the choice of behaviour, an utterance, thatexpresses the information. Information should be provided in a form which thesender and the addressee are able to understand. Communication requires anadequate standardization of the utterance (e.g. linguistic forms). Certainly, thisutterance can occur intentionally or unintentionally. It is also possible withoutlanguage, e.g. through revealing looks, through dress or outfit, through absence,

etc. But the utterance must always be interpretable as selection, and not justappear as a sign of something else. In this sense, rushing about can be observedas a sign of urgency, just like dark clouds as a sign of rain. But it can also be inter-preted as a demonstration of urgency (Luhmann, 1995: 151). The differencebetween both interpretations underlines at the same time the importance of the

Raf Vanderstraeten Review Essay 135



5/12

last selection of communication. What is decisive with regard to understandingisthe fact that this third selection can base itself on a distinction, namely thedistinction between information and its utterance. Understanding thereforeimplies more than mere observation; it only takes place if the receiver construesthe information from the utterance. It does, on the other hand, not imply thatthe addressee understands the information as it was intended by the sender. Theinformation might mean something very different for both participants.

As a three-part unity, communication does not come about if the addresseedoes not fix his or her own state on the basis of uttered information. It does notcome about without understanding. Seen from this perspective, one could saythat communication is made possible from behind. Understanding (and under-standing will almost inevitably contain some misunderstanding) concludes thecommunicative act. An understanding, however, needs to manifest itself. The

receiver needs to show understanding, by addressing him or herself to the infor-mation component (e.g., question what is said) or to the utterance (e.g., questionthe way something is said). A communication necessitates a new communication.Each communication is an element only as an element of a process, howeverminimal or ephemeral that process may be (Luhmann, 1995: 144). Communi-cations conclude preceding communications and allow them to be connected.These elements of social systems organize their own renewal; they operate, asLuhmann says, autopoietically. They enact the autonomy of social reality.

The wide-ranging implications of this view can already be seen in Luhmanns

essays from the late 1960s and early 1970s, in which he presented the foundationsof his version of social systems theory for the first time. But they have come moreto the fore since the publication of the introductory chapter of Luhmannstheory of society, viz. Soziale Systeme(1984/1995). The publications oneducation are also informed by this perspective. Especially in Das Erziehungssys-tem der Gesellschaft, one finds attempts to conceive of education in terms ofcommunication and face-to-face interaction. In the following sections, I will tryto present a systematic account of this perspective. First, the focus is on theconcepts of socialization and education; second, a systems-theoretical account of

the basic structure of interaction in classrooms is presented.

Socialization and Education

As indicated, Luhmann argues that social systems are emergent realities that usecommunication to process meaning. They consist of communications, not ofindividual human beings. From Luhmanns perspective, human beings are partof the social environment. This certainly does not mean that the human being

or actor is estimated as less important than in traditional theory. On the contrary,the distinction between social system and environment offers the possibility ofconceiving human beings in a way that is both more complex and less restrict-ing than if they had to be interpreted as parts of the social order. It is becausethey are part of the environment of the societal system that human beings are




6/12

conceded greater freedom (greater complexity) than concepts of social roles,norms and structures would allow.

Luhmanns argument is based on the idea that social and personal systems arecharacterized by a fundamental instability. The elements, out of which they exist,have the character of occurrences or events, i.e. they vanish immediately aftertheir appearance. They are continually replaced by other elements (differentthoughts, different communications). They are radically temporalizedsystems.This characteristic allows for a high degree of congruence between both systemtypes. Communications can be at the same time conscious events; thoughts canbe communicated. But even if personal and social systems use the same elements,they give each of them a different selectivity and connectivity, different pasts andfutures. The elements signify different things in the participating systems; theyselect among different possibilities and lead to different consequences. Thus, the

congruence of social systems and personal systems is only temporary and vanishestime and time again. For the individual participants, the so-called turn-taking ofactive and passive participation in communication almost inevitably re-estab-lishes the difference between personal and social systems. The mind might, forexample, wander, think of something incommunicable, interrupt or pause, whilethe burden of communicating passes to somebody else. Communication can alsobe rejected. Human beings do not have to accept what is communicated, or howit is communicated.

This theoretical approach entails important consequences for the

conceptualization of socialization and education. In classical socializationresearch, as displayed in the writings of Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, PierreBourdieu and others, socializationfulfils a fairly unambiguous societal function.Socialization refers to the internalization or inculcation of social expectations.Luhmanns system/environment perspective, which is spelled out in the secondchapter of Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft, questions these assumptions.Participation in communication cannot result in the transfer of knowledge, norin the internalization of the norms and value orientations of a social group. Themeaning of norms, rules, habits, etc. which are transmitted does not remain the

same. In the different participating systems, these elements have differentmeanings. There is always the possibility of rejecting the instruction or infor-mation which a communication contains. The interaction between a humanbeing and its social environment might or might not provoke particular struc-tural changes in the inner sphere of the individual; a human being might ormight not adapt to particular aspects of its environment. Socialization is there-fore defined as the process, steered by communicationthat influences the psycho-logical development and the bodily behaviour of human beings. It refers tochanges that take place in societys environment. It is only this way, Luhmann

argues (and rightly I think), that the possibilities which human beings have totravel a certain distance, to use their individual degrees of freedom, can beadequately taken into account (see Vanderstraeten, 2000).

While socialization is limited by/to the stimuli of the socializing context,education strives for specific outputs. It aims to attain something that cannot be




7/12

left to chance socializing events. Education is a form of action that is attributableto intentions; it is a form of intentional socialization. But is it able to eliminatethe shortcomings of socialization? As indicated, socialization presupposes thepossibility of reading the behaviour of others as

selected information, e.g. about

dangers or social expectations. The meaning of this communication can berejected if the addressee finds the information unsatisfactory or unacceptable.Education cannot eliminate this possibility of resistance. It cannot be conceivedof as the rational form of socialization, as effective action. On the contrary, inten-tional communications with educational goals will double the motives for rejec-tion. The addressee now also has the opportunity to reject the communicationbecause it is aimed at his or her education, if he or she refuses the role of someonewho needs to be educated. In other words, intentional communication enablesthe addressee to oppose both the informationcomponent and the utterance. It is

against this background that the overly pessimistic attitude of Luhmann andSchorr vis--vis education needs to be understood.

Educational Interaction in Schools

As is well known, education relies heavily on face-to-face interaction. Educationtakes place in family households or in classrooms, where the physical presence ofparent and child, teacher and student is guaranteed. While societal sub-systems

such as politics, the economy, law or science have become less dependent oninteraction situations and on the existence of personal bonds between thepartners, education has evolved into another direction. This exceptional evol-ution is related to the fact that educational interventions aim to alter or amelio-rate the students inner world, and that the results of this effort can best berecorded in the course of face-to-face interaction. To enable the success ofeducation and of other forms of people processing (e.g. therapy, conversion) personal contact is vital (see Stichweh, 1997). Luhmann and Schorr devote anumber of scattered remarks to this particular form of communication in

Problems of Reflections in the System of Education. A more systematic theoreticalaccount is provided in the fourth chapter ofDas Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft.

Luhmann and Schorr focus on the idea that educational interaction oftentakes the form of organized interaction. At school, students are prepared forentirely different situations; they learn things that might be of use in anothercontext and at another moment in time (e.g. in professional life). Decisions aboutwhat is to be learned and how something is to be learned there are made withoutconsulting the family of the students. There is, however, no immediate access tothe results of educational interventions. Nobody can look in the heads or souls

of other human beings. A teacher can only record the patterns of external, visiblebehaviour of the students. The teacher has to deduce the results of his or her ownaction from these external characteristics. What can be done in the interactionto resolve this problem?What kind of Ersatzis available if immediate observationis not possible?With regard to these questions, Luhmann argues that educational




8/12

initiatives automatically produce a situation within which particular patterns ofbehaviour are acceptable, while others are not. What occurs is compared withwhat is expected. Students are continually confronted with questions, remarks,tests, exams, and other kinds of communicated expectations (Luhmann andSchorr, 2000: 31825). Seen this way, it can be argued that the educational inten-tion produces its own characteristic distinction (Luhmann, 2002: 10210). Thedifference between acceptable and unacceptable patterns of behaviour, betweenapproval and disapproval, between good and wrong, etc., develops within theschool system.

It is worthwhile exploring this line of thought in more detail, and linkingLuhmanns theoretical insights with ethnographical research in classrooms. I willbriefly point to some potential directions for further research, which may allowus to bring Luhmanns theory down to earth and stimulate a theoretical reflec-

tion on so-called empirical facts. For example, selection forms can be specifiedin a number of ways in classrooms. Teachers can observe that one group ofstudents lives up to the norm and that the other group does not, or that onestudent is more diligent in a particular course with a particular teacher thanduring another course with another teacher. Students can also observe each otherand assess particular differences. Moreover, students can anticipate the evalu-ations. As a consequence, there thus emerges a situation within which studentshave to reckon with new alternatives for action, and within which the conse-quences of their behaviour are multiplied. In his famousLife in Classrooms, Philip

Jackson makes similar comments:

In fact, he has three jobs. The first, and most obvious, is to behave in such a way asto enhance the likelihood of praise and reduce the likelihood of punishment . . . Asecond job . . . consists of trying to publicize positive evaluations and conceal negativeones . . . A third job . . . consists of trying to win the approval of two audiences at thesame time. The problem, for some, is how to become a good student while remaininga good guy, how to be at the head of the class while still being in the center of thegroup. (1990: 26)

The theoretical point which needs to be stressed is that classroom educationcreates these conditions itself. Educational intentions elicit a form of selectionwhich would not emerge without these intentions. The distinctions that areintroduced (such as good/wrong, positive/negative, praise/punishment,succeed/fail) are internal constructions. Educational decisions are taken in theeducational setting itself.

Thus, one can say that the meaning of evaluations is defined in the educationalsystem itself following an internal scale. For example, satisfactory is better thanunsatisfactory but less than excellent. A report mark indicates how much one

can/could do better or worse. Theautonomyof educational organizations dependsupon this self-referential closure. Certainly, it does not depend upon true inde-pendency vis--vis the environment. Its autonomy does not deny that schoolorganizations import knowledge from their environment, as well as the differ-ences which are of importance in this context. Thus, the distinction between sine




9/12

and cosine is not invented within education itself. But education determines whohas to be able to use this distinction, and when, and what difference it makeswhen one does or does not know the distinction at that particular moment.Education does not distinguish between sine and cosine, but between those whoare able to use the distinction and those who are not. It is only the latter distinc-tion which determines the course of further decision-making in the educationalsystem. Only with regard to this distinction, there can be no input or output (seealso Luhmann, 1990). In my view, this systems-theoretical line of thoughtprovides particularly fruitful perspectives for further research both in a theor-etical and an empirical direction.

Self-descriptions in the Educational System

The final theme, which I would like to discuss, has its origins in the theory ofsocial differentiation. In modern society, Luhmann convincingly argues, each ofthe primary sub-systems accentuates the primacy of its own function. Each estab-lishes a highly selective set of system/environment relations; each distinguishesitself from its environment by means of particular procedures, concepts, criteria,and operations. All other sub-systems belong to its internal environment and viceversa. Modern society is differentiated into the political sub-system and itsenvironment, the legal system and its environment, the economic sub-system and

its environment, the scientific sub-system and its environment, the educationalsub-system and its environment, and so on. This kind of system/environmentdistinction provokes function systems to observe their own identity as distinctfrom their environment. It provokes them to reflect on the specificity of theirown function. The last chapter ofDas Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaftis devotedto a discussion of the self-descriptions and reflections (i.e. elaborated self-descriptions) that have emerged in the educational system in the modern era.This chapter reiterates and slightly revises the analyses and critical commentariesof Problems of Reflection in the System of Education.

This theme has a rather long tradition in sociological theory. AlthoughLuhmann and Schorr do not give credit to Emile Durkheim, they certainly relyon Durkheims analyses of practical theories and reflections. FollowingDurkheim, the increasing complexity and differentiation of social labour call forthe elaboration of new value patterns, which give direction to specific fields ofaction. In Education and Sociology, Durkheim writes: Their object is not todescribe or to explain what is or what has been, but to determine what shouldbe (1956: 99). Furthermore:

These reflections take the form of theories: they are combinations of ideas, not combi-

nations of acts . . . But the ideas which are so combined have, as their object, not toexpress the nature of things as given, but to direct action. They are not actions, butare closely related to actions which it is their function to orient. If they are not actionsthey are at least programmes of action. (1956: 1012)




10/12

It is in line with Durkheims observations, that Luhmann stresses that functionaldifferentiation provokes wide-ranging symbolic or cultural changes. Luhmann seesreflections as concepts or theories developed within a function system for thatfunction system. These reflections articulate the sub-systems main objectives.They thus lead to the appropriation of the world from a particular functional pointof view, e.g. economic, political, religious, artistic, legal, educational, etc.

The background of this perspective on self-descriptions can also beapproached from another angle. In the field of the history of ideas, it has beenclearly outlined that the conceptual apparatus used in the Western world trans-formed in fundamental ways in the second half of the eighteenth century. Theperiod 17501850 was an epoch of radical conceptual transformations.Numerous key social concepts, that are characteristic of modernity, were coinedin this epoch, such as tolerance, authority, ideology, civil society, peace, culture,

state and sovereignty, revolution, factory, history or progress. These new basicconcepts indicate how the social and political reality is comprehended in themodern era. They record the dissolution of the old world and the emergence ofa new one (Koselleck, 1972; 2000) and are not only the expression of changeswithin contemporary orientations, but also contribute to changing contemporarypatterns of action and reflection. Luhmann as a sociologist argues that struc-tural transformations, i.e. the emergence of function systems, provoke theseconceptual changes. Self-descriptions and reflections are one of the most salientresults of this great transformation. Their analysis allows studying the co-

evolution of structural and cultural changes in modern society.It is against this background in sociology and history that Luhmann and

Schorr analyse at great length pedagogical modes of reflection on educationalrealities, an analysis which forms the core of their book. English-speaking readers,however, should be aware of the fact that the discussions in the major parts ofthis book on the autonomy of education, on controlling prolonged processesvia instruction technology, and on social selection are embedded within apredominantly German context. Luhmann and Schorr sharply criticize the ideal-istic articulation of the structural conditions of education in the reflection

theory of the educational system. In comparison, the analysis in Luhmanns DasErziehungssystem der Gesellschaftis less critical about the reflections developed inand by the educational establishment. But the bottom line of the observationsremains the same. It is that educations self-descriptions focus too much onsubjects (teachers/parents, pupils/children) and too little on communication andsocial interaction. As can be expected, the alternative suggestions of Luhmannand Schorr go in the direction of the themes which I discussed in the precedingsections. Luhmann and Schorr make a plea for a socialre-conceptualization ofthe reflection theories, for a re-conceptualization which takes its point of depar-

ture in educational communication.




11/12

Conclusion

A final observation concerns a classical theme in the literature on sociology ofeducation, viz. the so-called hidden curriculum of schools. Several authorsconsider the demand on behaviour within school classes to be representative ofthe demands of life in modern society not (only) on the level of the officialcurriculum and its goals but (also) on the level of latent structures within anuniversalistic, affect-neutral, and performance-oriented modernity. EmileDurkheim already spoke of that social microcosm that the school is (1956: 131).However, it should have become clear by now that the school socializes for theschool, not for society. At school, it becomes important to be a good student. Itsway of working generates its own, special side-effects. It promotes attitudes thatmake it possible to handle educational problems in special ways via educators,

teachers, and schools. As previously indicated, Luhmanns own scepticalconclusions about education should in my view be interpreted against this back-ground: A system that is structured too improbably and that tries to identify itselfentirely with the transformation of input into output ends up having to deal withthe problems resulting from its own increase-directed reductions (1995: 207).Seen in this perspective, most of the prevailing concerns in the educational systemare consequences of its own differentiation in modern society.

In my view, Luhmann and Schorr offer a rich sociological theory of educationwhich is also able to stimulate further research. The preceding observation

provides some hints for further inquiry. Other research perspectives can be added as a number of (mainly) German authors have demonstrated in the past years.But it remains doubtful whether Luhmanns and Schorrs writings will attract awide audience outside Germany. The singular vocabulary and condensed style ofthese publications create a number of problems. Moreover, Luhmann (andSchorr) had the German reader and thus a specific social and intellectual contextin mind. Many notions in the reviewed books retain a local colouring. AnEnglish-speaking audience places these texts in a different setting, thus adding tothe difficulties of trying to understand highly demanding theoretical arguments.

In this regard, I have tried to focus on the backgrounds of the more generalaspects of these books and thus contribute to a well-considered reception of thiswork. This is something which these books certainly deserve.

Acknowledgement

The author acknowledges funding by the European Commission (HPMF-CT-200000835).

References

Durkheim, Emile (1956) Education and Sociology. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.




12/12

Jackson, Philip (1990/1968) Life in Classrooms. New York and London: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.

Koselleck, Reinhardt (1972) Einleitung, in Otto Brunner, Werner Conze and ReinhardtKoselleck (eds) Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: historisches Lexikon zur poli tisch-sozialenSprache in Deutschland, Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

(2000) Zeitschichten. Studien zur H istori k. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Luhmann, Niklas (1981) Soziologische Aufklrung 3. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. (1982) The Differentiation of Society. New York: Columbia University Press. (1984) Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp (English translation, Social

Systems, trans. John Bednarz, Jr, with Dirk Baecker, 1995, Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press).

(1990) Die Homogenisierung des Anfangs: zur Ausdifferenzierung derSchulerziehung, in Niklas Luhmann and Karl Eberhard Schorr (eds)Zwischen Anfangund Ende: Fragen an die Pdagogik. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

(1997) Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. (2000) Organisati on und Entscheidung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Shain, Farzana and Ozga, Jenny (2001) Identity Crisis? Problems and Issues in the

Sociology of Education, British Journal of Sociology of Educati on22: 10920.Stichweh, Rudolf (1997) Professions in Modern Society, Internati onal Review of Sociology

7: 95102. (2000) Systems Theory as an Alternative to Action Theory? The Rise of

Communication as a Theoretical Option, Acta Sociologica43: 513.Vanderstraeten, Raf (2000) Luhmann on Socialization and Education, Educational

Theory 50: 123.

(2002) Explorations in the Systems-theoretical Study of Education, in CarlosAlberto Torres and Ari Antikainen (eds) The International Handbook on the Sociologyof Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Raf Vanderstraeten Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Germany.

[ema il: Ra f.Va nde rstra et [email protected] ]


An Observation of Luhmann’s education

Documents

Transcript of An Observation of Luhmann’s education