Niklas Luhmann’s path in conceptualizing the phenomenon of power

The article attempts to define Niklas Luhmann’s paradigmatic position regarding the phenomenon of power. This may help clarify the essence of his disagreements with contemporary thinkers, which, in turn, allows for a better understanding of the socio-theoretical issues of modern society. The differences in Luhmann’s views on power are systematised in comparison with its interpretation within the systemic (Talcott Parsons) and constructivist (Jurgen Habermas and Pierre Bourdieu) paradigms. The distinctions are drawn along the following grounds: initial ontological and epistemological postulates; the nature of power; the functions of power; and the mechanisms of power. Since the differences between Luhmann’s views and those of Parsons and Habermas have been analysed in sufficient detail, the emphasis is placed on comparing Luhmann's understanding of power with Bourdieu’s position. While their interpretations of the nature of power as symbolic nomination are quite similar, they diverge in defining its functions. For Bourdieu, power serves an ideological and worldview-related role. Luhmann, proceeding from the understanding of social systems as autopoietic, emphasises its selective function - the selection of events and actions - and its role as a catalyst for events and processes. The perspective on power thus shifts: the discourse of struggle is replaced by the discourse of selection of events and actions. An important question that arises is that of violence. According to Luhmann, the influence of power on members of society lies not in coercion but in the creation of alternative courses of action. Another key theme in constructivism, the development of which largely constitutes the content of the postmodern paradigm, is the relationship between knowledge and power. For Michel Foucault, power establishes knowledge, which, in turn, serves as a guarantor of power. For Luhmann, knowledge forms the basis of power, but it is understood not as “rules” or epistemes (as in Foucault’s framework) but as the state of communicative systems at a given time - as their structural coupling, i.e. operationally. Departing from constructivist ideas, Luhmann did not fully embrace postmodernist thought either. He seeks a third path -between constructivism and postmodernism. Luhmann’s interest shifts from political issues to managerial ones. He moves away from the problematics of reality construction by power and raises questions of system governance and self-governance. The alternative to existing paradigms, in Luhmann’s view, lies in the emerging synergetic paradigm. Luhmann’s conception of the system is constructed from the outset in accordance with the logic of Humberto Maturana. The foundational postulate about the self-organising nature of systems inevitably leads Luhmann to conclusions about the delocalisation and depersonalisation of power, about its subjectless nature. Power appears to him as a switch of systemic operations, as a “regulator of communication” - the ability to manage contingency rather than impose any particular decisions. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References