| Hypercommunication - Crash Courses - Second-order Systems Theory [ Hyper-Library ] [ Hyper-Lexicon ] [ back ] |
|
|
backward - Seite 4 - forward |
|
The term "system theory" is used in arbitrary contexts for arbitrary contexts. Of course, I use the term as I like it - not by chance, but decidedly the way I like it. I don't believe that the term "systems theory" can be used "correctly" in any sense, contingency seems to be without limitation and without core. I can only make myself aware of how I use the expression, i.e. make explicit what I call system theory, and above all, what I use system theory for and how. I see "my" systems theory in the tradition of cybernetics, it serves me - and this is how I interpret cybernetics - in relation to automata as a construction instruction and in relation to phenomena as a generalized basis for explanation. Therefore, in my systems theory I describe above all to what extent the construction of a machine functions as an explanation and to what extent I always describe constructions in explanations. I refer the construction of which radical constructivism speaks exclusively to explanations.
One of the reasons I attribute the multitude of so-called systems theories to the fact that these theories treat a multitude of very different objects, from computers to amoebas and hurricanes to society, anything and everything at will. Just look at how the social theorist N. Luhmann turned the autopoietic system theory of the biologist H. Maturana upside down in order to put a truly sociological concept of society in place of the supposedly biological understanding of society by H. Maturana. The system theory "autopoiesis", which was initially taken over by name, is transformed into its opposite, so to speak, by disciplinary conceptions of the object of society. With H. Maturana, society is a construction of a biologically describable observer, for which only a person is explicitly considered, whereas with N. Luhmann, society is a system in which concrete or biological people play no role at all. If I read one or the other system theory, the respective object seems to be determined by the theory, whereas if I read both (or even more) theories, these theories seem to fit together with objects that are founded beyond theories - for example in biology or sociology.
Probably against this background, systems theory is often interpreted as a language or method that can be used in different sciences - where it is not even intended to be a standard language for all sciences. However, by the term "theory" I mean something different than language or method. What I expect from a theory is that it has an object, which I do precisely not expect from language.
Certain system theories have an object in that they are applied to any object. The systems theory of N. Luhmann is often referred to as "sociological systems theory", whereby an object is indicated by reference to the one discipline. However, such terms are ambivalent: one can understand them - first of all, if one is not a representative of these theories - as proper names, or as terms of a certain kind of system theory. When I speak of the system theory of N. Luhmann, I speak of a personal system theory, as when I speak of "my" system theory. Then I use "N. Luhmann" as a proper name, which refers to the author, not to the object. And so I can also say "sociological" systems theory and mean that of N. Luhmann - which is quite common, as can easily be verified by Google. If, on the other hand, I use "sociological" as a determination of a kind of systems theory, I assume that different systems theories are determined differently by different objects - or that systems theory is "only applied" in each case, reflecting the difference between mathematics and calculate.
My systems theory has a specific object that has nothing to do with different disciplines, but can rather be used to describe what happens in the different disciplines. My systems theory is a theory of explanation (note 1).
* * *
The diversity of systems theories is productive in at least two ways. It provides different methods (note 2) and it provides quasi genuine criticism.
Every system theory shows, where it is special, exactly what every other theory does not show. In terms of dialogue, the various theories are the cause of misunderstandings, but also the result of productive misunderstandings. Misunderstandings lead me in the productive case to questions about the preconditions. I can ask myself which assumptions or beliefs are shown in different interpretations. The explication of such assumptions reveals itself as theory, as a description of the respective seeing. I see the goal of the dialogue in the suspension of these assumptions or beliefs. I can recognize my assumptions in my theory, especially where my theory produces further misunderstandings between myself and other people.
Since my argumentation is not only circular, but also changes perspective and object level, I try to maintain my orientation with some metacommunication.
I have already written in the preface that I use personalized formulations. But I will explain later why this is important to me. At the moment I am asking for a look back, if the hypertext structure allows a meaningful before and after at all. I am aware that "my systems theory" is an unusual formulation, but I cannot avoid it.
|
|
backward - Seite 4 - forward |