Page 127 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

110 H. Siebert

relatively independent fashion and make its own contribution to the stability of
the system. 1
Systems are distinguished by meaningful operative distinctions, which can be
defined as binary codes (e.g. true/not true for the science system). They are opera-
tionally closed, that is they do not have any direct contact with the outer world, but
they are structurally coupled with the environment. Subsystems provide services for
society. For example, the educational system allows individuals to earn occupa-
tional qualifications.
Luhmann’s systems theory is a sociological super theory that describes and explains
all social areas with the same conceptual tools – structure, function, operation, differ-
entiation, medium, operative distinction etc. Luhmann analyses how society processes
complexity and how subsystems must be structured if they are to fulfil their functions.
This theory does without such constructs as ‘rational behaviour’ and without normative
settings – which does not at all mean that Luhmann is indifferent to injustice, exploita-
tion or environmental destruction. Luhmann achieves a theoretical shift in perspective
that is also inspired by constructivism. We no longer look for the ontological essence
of things, but for the epistemic limits to knowledge. Luhmann links systems theory
with epistemology with his system-environment model: “It has long been known that
the mind has no qualitative and very little quantitative contact with the environment.
The whole nervous system simply observes the changing states of its organism and not
what happens outside it” (Luhmann 1990: 36ff). The system-theoretical point of this
finding of brain physiological research is an apparent paradox: “Only closed systems
can understand (…). We can only see because we cannot see (…). The effect of this
intervention from systems theory can be described as a de-ontologisation of reality. It
does not mean that reality is denied (…) It is the epistemological relevance of an onto-
logical representation of reality that is contested (…) A further consequence is that no
system can complete operations outside of its own boundaries” (Luhmann 1990).
At the same time the concept of society is ‘deontologised’. Luhmann’s most gen-
eral description of society is that society – including global society – is communica-
tion. The individual subsystems are differentiated according to their specific (and
changeable) communication code. ‘Sustainability’ has become the meaningful opera-
tional distinction of the ‘ecological subsystem’. (Whereas it remains to be determined
whether ecology – similar to education – has the characteristics of an independent
‘system’ or whether the construct ‘sustainability’ is contributing to the disintegration
of the ‘ecosystem’ by de-differentiation.) At any rate the medium of ecological
communication is no longer ‘conservation’ but ‘sustainable development’.

Systemic Thinking

It is good practice to distinguish ‘system-theoretical’ and ‘systemic’, even though
both are related. Relatively uninfluenced by Luhmann’s theoretical structure, Vesta,
Capra, Dörner et al. have pleaded for a systemic thinking. Their argumentation – much

1 The following anecdote may help to clarify this. A balloonist is lost when he sees a farmer in a
field below. He calls out to him: ‘Where am I?’ The farmer shouts back, ‘In a balloon’.