Workshop: Systems Theory as Social Critique Kevin W. Gray, Ph.D.

American University of Sharjah This session asks the question whether or not there are better versions of systems theory available for critical theory than the neo-Parsonian model adopted by Habermas and if those versions are more useful for critical theory and for political philosophy for the diagnosis of social pathology. Papers that investigate the relationship in any way between systems theory and critical theory and in particular the usefulness of systems theory for diagnosing social pathology are welcome. The session will take place as part of this years MANCEPT Workshops in Political theory, to be held at the University of Manchester from September 5th to 7th, 2012. Those interested in participating should send a short abstract (300-500 words) to kgray@aus.edu by May 15th. The conference website is: http://manceptworkshops2012.wordpress.com/. Summary: In his debate with Niklas Luhmann, Habermas attacked system theorists for trying to separate social theory from its normative foundation (Habermas et al. 1971). Since the publication of that book, both Luhmann and Habermas positions have evolved. Habermas adopted a non-communicative version of systems theory based on the model developed by Talcott Parsons (Habermas 1984a; Habermas 1984b). Luhmann, for his part, developed, a theory of social systems based on the model of autopoiesis developed in the life sciences by Maturana and others (Luhmann 1995). The evolution of their respective positions did nothing to soften their dispute. In the Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Habermas again dismissed Luhmanns model of social systems (Habermas 1987). Since its founding, critical theory has contended that the rationalization of society has lead to pathological changes in the lifeworld. The final section of Habermas Theory of Communicative Action is devoted to an attempt to diagnose the origin of social pathology in the colonization of the lifeworld by non-communicative media. Several theorists have argued, against Habermas, that any attempt to use non-communicative systems theory to diagnose the problems of modernity is ultimately prone to failure. (Cooke 1994; Honneth 1991; Honneth 1995; McCarthy 1985; Misgeld 1985). First, by relying so heavily on Parsons, Habermas ignored the ubiquity of communication inside social systems, and the extent to which so-called non-communicative media actually rely on underlying norms (Boltanski 2005; Misgeld 1985; Hartmann et al. 2006, 46). Second, Habermas advanced a model of the origin of social pathology that is wholly incompatible with the observed emergence of lifeworld pathologies in late capitalist society (Honneth 1991; Hartmann et al. 2006). Recently, several theorists have argued that Habermas was wrong to dismiss the work of systems theorists working with models of communicative social systems and that social systems theory can serve as the foundation for a radical critique of society (Moeller 2012; King et al. 2003). Several theorists have argued that either Luhmanns version of systems theory or Foucaults work on discourse might actually be better able to diagnose social pathology (Teubner 1987; Teubner 1989; Baxter 1987; Baxter 2002a; Baxter 2002b Hartmann et al. 2006; Luhmann 1982a; Luhmann 1995; Baxter 2002a; Baxter 2002b; Leydesdorff 2000; Honneth 1995b). Several critical theorists, Honneth included,

argue that Foucault is actually engaged in a systems theoretic reconstruction of lifeworld pathologies. Foucaults project, Honneth writes, is: [t]o describe the genesis of systems of thought as an anonymous process of knowledge formation, as a subjectless appearance and disappearance of scientific discourses (Honneth 1995b: 124). Ultimately Foucaults account of knowledge is designed to produce a systems theoretic account of power (Honneth 1995b: 125). Unlike other descriptions of social power, for Foucault representative instances of power emerge in these systems, for instance punishment build on systems of knowledge that repose on other micro-disciplines (Foucault 1995: 122). In Foucaults theory, discourse relates to the development of fields of knowledge in the lifeworld by, first and foremost, delimiting a field of objects about which we can speak: it defines the limits of a social object or practice. For Foucault, discourse emerges with the development of autonomous complexes of knowledge that develop in the 19th century including, for instance, bureaucratic rationality (Posner 1987: 14). Through their development, discourses and practices are created at and constitute the social field for varying modes of domination in different fields (Posner 1987; Williams 1962; Donzelot 1979). These discourses and social systems, on this telling, lead to the development of social pathologies, the diagnosis of which critical theory should engage in. Workshop References: Baxter, Hugh (2002a). Habermass Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Buffalo Law Review. Vol. 50. Baxter, Hugh (2002b) System and Lifeworld in Habermass Theory of Law, Cardozo Law Review. Vol. 23. Boltanski, Luc and ve Chiapello (2005). The New Spirit of Capitalism. London & New York: Verso. Cooke, Maeve (1994). Language and Reason: A Study of Habermass Pragmatics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Donzelot, Jacques (1979). The Policing of Families. New York: Pantheon. Foucault, Michel (1978). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon. Habermas, Jrgen (1987). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Habermas, Jrgen & Niklas Luhmann (1971). Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. Habermas, Jrgen. The Theory of Communicative Action Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984a. Habermas, Jrgen. The Theory of Communicative Action Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984b. Hartmann, Martin and Axel Honneth (2006). Paradoxes of Capitalism. Constellations. Vol. 13, No. 1. Honneth, Axel (1991). The Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press. Honneth, Axel. (1995). Desintegration: Bruchstcke einer Soziologischen zeit diagnose. Frankfurt am Main: Fisher Taschenbuch Verlag.

Honneth, Axel (2000). Das Ander der Gerechtigkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Honneth, Axel and Hans Joas, editors (1991). Communicative Action: Essays on Habermas Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: MIT Press. Honneth, Axel. The Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991. Honneth, Axel. Desintegration: Bruchstcke einer Soziologischen zeit diagnose. Frankfurt am Main: Fisher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1995a. Honneth, Axel. The Fragmented World of the Social: Essays in Social and Political Philosophy. Albany: SUNY Press, 1995b. Honneth, Axel (2000). Das Ander der Gerechtigkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. King, Michael and Chris Thornhill (2003). Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Politics and Law. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Leydesdorff, Loet (2000). Luhmann, Habermas, and the Theory of Communication, Systems Research and Behavioral Science 17(3). Luhmann, Niklas (1995). Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press, Stanford. Luhmann, Niklas (2004). Law as a Social System, Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCarthy, Thomas (1985). Complexity and Democracy, or The Seducements of Systems Theory, New German Critique. No. 35. Misgeld, Dieter (1985). Critical Hermeneutics vs. NeoParsonianism, New German Critique. No. 35. Parsons, Talcott (1951). The Social System, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Taylor, Charles (1984). Foucault on Freedom and Truth, Political Theory, 12 (2). Teubner, Gunther (1987). Juridification of Social Spheres: A Compartitive Analysis in the Area of Labor, Corporate, Antitrust and Social Welfare Law. Berlin: de Gruyter. Teubner, Gunther, editor (1988). Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society. Berlin: de Gruyter. Teubner, Gunther (1989). Rechts als autopoietisches System. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Williams, Raymond (1962). Communications. London: Penguin.