Systems Research and Behavioral Science

Syst. Res. 19, 599^602 (2002)

DOI:10.1002/sres.490

& Notes and Insights

In Response to Robert Kay: Luhmann’s

Ontology, Ontogeny, and Epistemology
Kenneth Bausch*
Executive Director, Institute for 21st Century Agoras

INTRODUCTION do not communicate with each other, but they do

structurally couple. Within this context, indivi-
Robert Kay (2001) has recently constructed a duals can communicate with other individuals
welcome ‘new frame’ for applying autopoiesis to but not with social systems and social systems
social theory. The focus and brevity of his can communicate with each other but not with
presentation unduly truncate consideration of individuals. Nevertheless, individuals do inter-
major contributions made by Niklas Luhmann in act with social systems and vice versa by way of
this area. the mutual adaptations that they make with each
There are two halves in Luhmann’s theory: other as they structurally couple; that is, as they
ontology and ontogeny. The ontology specifies adjust as system and environment to each other
three separate autopoietic systems: biological, in maintaining their autopoiesis.
psychological, and social. The social systems are Within this framework, he distinguishes
further divided into society as a whole and society as a whole and interactions as two
interactions. This is the half that is briefly autopoietic social systems, each with distinctive
discussed by Kay. The second half, barely boundaries. Society is the universe of discourse
mentioned by Kay, is an ontogeny that narrates and culture that is produced in communication.
how expectations develop social structures. Interactions arise between individuals and
In the realm of the ontogeny of knowledge, endure as long as the circle of communication
Luhmann justifies radical constructivism in strict is maintained.
accordance with autopoiesis by employing the
phenomenological concept of asymmetry.
Society

ONTOLOGY OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS Society is an autopoietic system based upon the

omnipresence and self-generation of communi-
In Social Systems, Luhmann (1995) melds two cation. Communication and communicative
dissonant theoretical perspectives: one global/ structures are the essence of society, according
ontological, the other phenomenological/ontogenic. to Luhmann. Society is a closed autopoietic
Within the global perspective, he posits system because every communication produces
three distinct autopoietic systems: biological, further communications in ever self-reproducing
psychological, and social. These distinct systems iterations. This part of Luhmann’s theory is often
characterized as being independent of human
* Correspondence to: Dr Kenneth Bausch, 2449 So. Barrington #202,
agency, value-free, and a meat-grinder (Kay,
Los Angeles, CA 90064, USA. E-mail: kennethbausch@mediaone.net for example, and Habermas, 1987). This global

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

NOTES AND INSIGHTS Syst. Res.

conception is very powerful in explaining how reproductive processes, make selections that
society differentiates into subsystems: monetary, maintain and expand their meaning (their
bureaucratic, legal, romantic, etc. organized complexity). They manage this selec-
tion process through a system of graduated
expectations that they develop in processes of
Interactions trial and error, memory, and adaptation.

Interactions are autopoietic systems consisting of

communications between other social systems. Double Contingency
We can consider the interacting social systems to
be individuals (for simplicity) because (as shown When humans are dealing with non-human
in the following section) persons are social entities, this process is relatively simple because
systems in Luhmann’s conception. Interaction such entities are rather predictable. In dealing
systems are closed by the theme that is proposed with other humans, however, the situation is
in a discussion and the members who participate complicated. With non-humans, ego can test
in the interaction. When the theme is dropped or what an entity will do and form solid predic-
the individuals disperse, the interaction ceases. tions: ‘An elevated rock will fall if it is not
Luhmann does not explore, to my knowledge, supported (gravity)’ or ‘It is best to stay away
the possible extension in time, space, and from rattlesnakes.’ In such cases, our predictions
complexity of interactions to become larger remove contingency from situations; as we no
organizations. In fact, he says precious little longer doubt that gravity exists. With humans,
about the kinds of associations, organizations, when ego tries to predict what alter will do, he or
and government that are actually at work in the she finds out that alter is also trying to predict
world. Because of this lack, commentators often what ego will do: a case of double contingency.
claim that Luhmann has little to say about the As ego finds out that alter is unpredictable, he
real world. Such characterizations generally or she recognizes that alter is intelligent and free.
ignore or play down the phenomenological side In the same recognition, he or she recognizes that
of Luhmann’s corpus. himself or herself is also contingent, intelligent,
and free. In this mutual recognition, ‘persons’ are
formed. Luhmann states that all culture and
ONTOGENY OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS civilization are built upon this recognition.

Luhmann unfolds a coherent narrative of the

origins and development of social systems. He Evolution of Society
tells the story of how ‘persons’ come into
existence as social systems in situations of Participants in this domain of double contin-
‘double contingency’, and how persons develop gency lessen their risk by making their expecta-
subsequent systems, such as roles, programs, tions ambiguous and tentative. In this way,
values, etc., by experimenting with expectations. they take some control of their situations. Social
systems (such as persons) increase their levels of
acceptable insecurity in order to progress and
Expectations increase the range of choice of their members.
They make the insecurity bearable by using
All self-organizing systems maintain themselves the expectations of person, role, program, and
by means of expectations. Kauffman (1993) even value. These expectations increase constraints on
conceives of polymeric ‘agents’ creating models individuals and give them freedom. In modern
of one another in an attempt to predict one society, freedom and constraint increase
another’s behavior. In a similar way, Luhmann together; the greater the type of constraints
states that autopoietic systems, in their ongoing (in the form of expectations), the more choice is

Copyright
2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res.19, 599^602 (2002)

600 Kenneth Bausch

Syst. Res. NOTES AND INSIGHTS

had by societal members about how to respond be so even though we do not know that they are,
to them. thus creating asymmetries (things outside of our
In dealing with their many expectations, autopoietic circle). Then we test whether they
societies and individuals develop generalized account for our experience. If an asymmetry is
contingency plans that enable them to harbor confirmed in our experience, it is incorporated
improbable expectations. Using cognitive and into an enlarged autopoietic circle. Then the
normative strategies for dealing with disappoint- process begins again. In academic psychology,
ment, they create social structures that intertwine this process is dubbed the ‘theory-theory’ of
risk and security. Their cognitive openness to learning.
new information embodies their acceptance of
risk. Their normative rejection of unacceptable
and dangerous information expresses their Redundancy
regard for security. Normative behavior reflects
the necessary circularity of living systems. Risky As hypotheses prove themselves to work time
behavior reflects the asymmetry that is necessary and time again, they become redundant and
for growth. attain practical certainty. The more redundant
In this ontogenic manner, Luhmann builds the the hypothesis, the greater is its certainty and the
major parts of his thought in Social Systems. likelihood that it is a ‘fact’.
It seems that Luhmann has the ontology and Facts have degrees of redundancy and cer-
ontogeny of society correct in large measure. In tainty based upon the number and variety of
the domain of ontology, he has it right on both trials to which they are subjected. Some facts—
extremes—global (society as a whole) and such as ‘We need to eat to stay alive’—approach
particular (interactions)—a great accomplish- absolute certainty because of organic evolution-
ment. He does not, however, deal extensively ary experience over millions of years and our
with the messy in-between of pragmatic histor- own personal experience. Many physical and
ical reality. Everyday reality escapes his clear biological laws fall into this category.
formulations. It is likely that autopoiesis is a too Other ‘facts’—such as ‘Johnny has ADHD’—
narrow theoretic basis for pragmatic social have infinitely less redundancy and certainty
theory. because the concept ‘ADHD’ is ill defined and the
In the area of ontogeny, he offers a convincing diagnosis is only an opinion. Social statements
narrative. He presents a methodology that can be generally fall into this less redundant category.
employed to deal with real-world theory and
practice.
Ways to Assure Greater Certainty

ONTOGENY OF KNOWLEDGE The ‘facts’ and ‘laws’ of social science and

philosophy receive varying degrees of testing
Luhmann develops his epistemology on the and have corresponding degrees of certainty. In
basis of his ontogeny. He is a radical systemic addition to the testing of human evolutionary
constructivist. He recognizes the utter circularity experience, several formal methods of verifica-
of autopoietic knowledge and fights his way out tion are available.
of the circle. Luhmann offers several ways that we use to
assure ourselves that our knowledge is true. First
of all, one supplies reasons for knowledge. Then
Asymmetries since these reasons ‘merely transform the circle
into an infinite regress’, one places one’s hopes in
In Luhmann’s account, we escape from circularity, approximating reality evermore closely. ‘If one in
while not destroying it, by creating asymmetries turn justifies the reasons and keeps every step of
(hypotheses). In other words, we posit things to this process open to critique and ready for

Copyright
2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res.19, 599^602 (2002)

In Response to Robert Kay 601

NOTES AND INSIGHTS Syst. Res.

revision, it becomes more improbable that such testing one’s ideas in dialogue with other
an edifice could have been constructed without thinkers and cultures.
reference to reality. The circularity is not elimi- Luhmann’s epistemology, therefore, seems to
nated. It is used, unfolded, de-tautologized’ provide a solid basis for more detailed episte-
(Luhmann, 1995, p. 479). mological elaboration. The bases of certainty that
Luhmann also answers a similar question: he lays down are not merely the best that are
‘How can one guarantee that observation main- available to autopoietic animals, but are very fine
tains contact with reality when it claims to be indeed. For a more complete explanation, see
knowledge, even scientific knowledge?’ Bausch (2001).
First, one can move the site of knowledge I believe that this exposition of Luhmann’s
claims from psychic systems to social systems. thought fits comfortably within Kay’s autopoie-
Social systems can be made independent of tic framework.
individual motives and reputations. The knowl-
edge of social systems ‘‘can be subjected to its
own conditionings, perhaps in the form of REFERENCES
‘theories’ and ‘methods.’ ’’ Knowledge can also
be evaluated on its productivity and its ability to Bausch K. 2001. The Emerging Consensus in Social
generate new knowledge. Second . . . One could Systems Theory. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press:
force global theories ‘‘to test on themselves New York.
everything that they determine about their object’’ Habermas J. 1987. The Philosophical Discourse of
Modernity (Lawrence FG, trans.). MIT Press:
(Luhmann, 1995, pp. 484–485). Cambridge, MA (original work published 1985).
In these passages, Luhmann offers reasons for Kauffman SA. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-Organiza-
certainty that are consonant with his own tion and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University
thought and the general wisdom of philoso- Press: New York.
phers. One offers reasons, tests them, and hopes Kay R. 2001. Are organizations autopoietic? A call for a
new debate. Systems Research and Behavioral Science
to approximate reality ever more closely. As this 18: 461–477.
process goes on, one has good reason to believe Luhmann N. 1995. Social Systems (Bednarz J, Baecker
that one’s cognitive edifice is constructed with D, trans.). Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA
reference to reality. One enlarges certainty by (original work published 1984).

Copyright
2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res.19, 599^602 (2002)

602 Kenneth Bausch