Page 113 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

96 A. Ziemann

with the diagnosis that the environment is unable to fulfil all the demands society
evokes and reproduce. And on the other is the highly specialised and functionally
differentiated order level of modern society with all of its achievements. At any rate
the fact is that no criticism of the risks and consequences of functional differentia-
tion can simply take one side without taking the other into account. “The criticism
of functional differentiation remains (…) a moral criticism that cannot account for
and cannot determine what otherwise could evolve. That much could be made better
is undeniable (…) the apotheosis of one’s own morality and the rather unconven-
tional stylistic devices of one’s own demeanour might suggest that one should be
prepared to revise the assessment. But that will happen anyway and in any case in
society and not against it. The secret to those who call themselves alternative is that
they do not have any alternatives to offer others. They have to hide this from them-
selves and others” (Luhmann 1987: 173; see also Rasch 2000).
In the middle of this process of functional differentiation, sustainability commu-
nication goes on – precisely because it can handle dissensus. The challenge remains
however for communication theory, as well as sociological research, to reflect on
ecology in general and sustainability in particular. One of its most important tasks
is to continually examine and revise its terminology and theoretical tools and to
improve them analytically, so that justice can be done to the complexity of the
subject matter – by all means in a fashion that is both critical and enlightening.

References

Brand, K. W. (2000). Kommunikation über nachhaltige Entwicklung, oder: Warum sich das
Leitbild der Nachhaltigkeit so schlecht popularisieren lässt. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from
www.sowionlinejournal.de/nachhaltigkeit/brand.htm.
Brand, K. W., Eder, K., & Poferl, A. (1997). Ökologische Kommunikation in Deutschland. Opladen:
Leske+Budrich.
Krallmann, D., & Ziemann, A. (2001). Grundkurs Kommunikationswissenschaft. München: Fink.
Lass, W., & Reusswig, F. (2001). Für eine Politik der differentiellen Kommunikation – Nachhaltige
Entwicklung als Problem gesellschaftlicher Kommunikationsprozesse und –verhältnisse. In
A. Fischer & G. Hahn (Eds.), Vom schwierigen Vergnügen einer Kommunikation über die Idee
der Nachhaltigkeit (pp. 150–174). Frankfurt am Main: VAS.
Luhmann, N. (1986). Ökologische Kommunikation. Kann die moderne Gesellschaft sich auf
ökologische Gefährdungen einstellen? Opladen: Westdt. Verlag.
Luhmann, N. (1987). Tautologie und Paradoxie in den Selbstbeschreibungen der modernen
Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 16(3), 161–174.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, N. (2000). Organisation und Entscheidung. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdt. Verlag.
Rasch, W. (2000). Niklas Luhmann’s modernity: The paradoxes of differentiation (Cultural
memory of the present). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Senge, P. M. (1999). The dance of change: the challenges of sustaining momentum in learning
organizations. New York: Currency/Doubleday.