An Explorative Potential and Limits of N. Luhmann’s Systems Theory for Studying Interplay Online

  • Andrey Vladimirovich Rezaev Saint-Petersburg State University
  • Natalya Damirovna Tregubova Saint-Petersburg State University
Keywords: Niklas Luhmann, Online, social intercourse, communication, artificial sociality

Abstract

The paper deals with the questions regarding possibilities to exploit cognitive arrangements of Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory in studying online interplay in comparison with social intercourse (obschenie) of human beings. The authors have examined explorative potential and the limits of the systems theory for analysis of interplay and interactions Online.

They start their reasoning with a justification of an argument about what they call ‘de-problematization’ of social intercourse in Luhmann’s theoretical constructions. The argument is based on Luhmann’s interpretation of interrelations between physical coercion and power as “symbiotic relationship” and on his comments on “hydraulics of interpenetration” in interaction systems. Further the authors have sketched a framework to examine online interplay. They underline two basic characteristics of interplay and interactions Online: a) remoteness, and b) phenomenon of ‘artificial sociality’. The authors show that Luhmann’s systems theory has great explorative potential as well as cognitive limits in studying interplay and interactions Online. The limits of the Luhmann’s theory are rooted in its failure to regard social intercourse (obschenie) as both a social phenomenon and as a research problem. In conclusion the authors suggest, in order to overcome the limits of systems theory, to engage in studying online interactions new theoretical perspectives that come with sociological inquiry of social intercourse (obschenie), critical analysis of artificial intelligence, and philosophical anthropology.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Andrey Vladimirovich Rezaev, Saint-Petersburg State University

Doctor of Sciences, Head of the Department of Comparative Sociology, Saint-Petersburg State University

Natalya Damirovna Tregubova, Saint-Petersburg State University

Candidate of Sciences, Assiatant of the Department of Comparative Sociology

References

Антоновский А.Ю., Бараш Р.Э. (2018) Коммуникативная философия радикального протеста. Генезис радикализма и позитивная программа его исследований. Вопросы философии, 9: 27-38.

Гофман И. (2000) Представление себя другим в повседневной жизни, М.: Канон-Пресс-Ц / Кучково Поле.

Гофман Э. (2009) Ритуал взаимодействия. Очерки поведения лицом к лицу, М.: Смысл.

Дрейфус Х. (1978) Чего не могут вычислительные машины? Критика искусственного разума, М.: Издательство «Прогресс».

Лоскутникова В.М. (2004) Хабермас и Луман: два подхода к исследованию процессов коммуникации в современном обществе. Гуманитарная информатика, 1: 81-96.

Луман Н. (2000) Невероятность коммуникации. А.О. БОРОНОЕВ (ред.) Проблемы теоретической социологии. Вып 3., СПб.: Издательство СПбГУ.

Луман Н. (2001) Власть, М.: Праксис.

Луман Н. (2007) Социальные системы. Очерк общей теории, СПб.: Наука.

Луман Н. (1995) Что такое коммуникация? Социологический журнал, 3: 114-125.

Назарчук А.В. (2011) Идея коммуникации и новые философские понятия XX. Вопросы философии, 5: C. 157-165.

Резаев А.В., Трегубова Н.Д. (2015) Коммуникация и общение в системной теории Никласа Лумана. Социологические исследования, 11: 148-155.

Резаев А.В., Трегубова Н.Д. (2017) Мир общения в социологическом измерении, М.: Университетская книга.

Рот С., Трофимов Н.А., Мкртичян А.Е (2018) Был ли капитализм? Анализ русской языковой среды в XIX и XX веках с помощью больших данных. Южно-российский журнал социальных исследований, 19(2): 6-26.

Филиппов А.Ф. (1995) Элементарная социология пространства. Социологический журнал, 1: 45-69.

Хабермас Ю. (2003) Философский дискурс о модерне, М.: Изд-во «Весь мир».

Collins H., Kusch M. (1998) The shape of actions: what humans and machines can do, Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.

Collins R. (2008) Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Collins R. (2004) Interaction Ritual Chains, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Dreyfus H.L. (2012) A History of First Step Fallacies. Minds & Machines, 22: 87-99.

Esposito E. (2017a) Algorithmic memory and the right to be forgotten on the web. Big Data & Society, 4(1): 1-11.

Esposito E. (2017b) Artificial Communication? The Production of Contingency by Algorithms. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 46(4): 249-265.

Malsch T. (2005) Kommunikationsanschlüsse. Zur Soziologischen Differenz von Realer und Künstlicher Sozialität, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.

Malsch T. (ed.) (1998) Sozionik: Soziologische Ansichten über Künstlicher Sozialität, Berlin: Edituin Sigma.

Midgley M. (2002) Beast and Man. The Roots of Human Nature, London and New York: Routledge Classics.

Nussbaum M. (2001) Upheavals of Thought. The Intelligence of Emotions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pariser E. (2011) The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think, New York: Penguin.

Rawls A.W. (1987) The Interaction Order Sui Generis: Goffman's Contribution to Social Theory. Sociological Theory. 5(2): 136-149.

Rezaev A.V., Tregubova N.D. (2018) Are sociologists ready for ‘artificial sociality’? Current issues and future prospects for studying artificial intelligence in the social sciences. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 5: 91-108.

Published
2019-11-08
How to Cite
RezaevA. V., & TregubovaN. D. (2019). An Explorative Potential and Limits of N. Luhmann’s Systems Theory for Studying Interplay Online. Communications. Media. Design, 3(4), 5-21. Retrieved from https://cmd-journal.hse.ru/article/view/9845