Abstract
General systems theory is based on functional differentiation and operational closure, which make autopoiesis possible. However, in the current complex framework, the model proposed by Luhmann seems to need some supplements in order to explain the evolutionary dynamics of world society. While adopting a systemic approach and using its related theoretical tools, the focus is shifted from the inside of a system to its boundaries.
The thesis proposed is the integration between the principle of functional differentiation and that of functional connectivity. To prove such an assumption and overcome the limitations of operational closure, the Luhmannian concept of ‘structural coupling’ is used, but theoretical tools borrowed from economics (trade-off, optimal point) are also employed. This interdisciplinary integration makes it possible to argue the shift of the sociological paradigm from ‘functionalism of differences’ towards ‘functionalism of links’. Constitutive and evolutionary dynamics seem to be connected with the optimum combination of the system’s openness and closure and the ability to establish intersystemic communication channels, where the latter determines resilience to the change factors of the environment. And it is this constant disposition to change that enables the reproduction of the social system.
Introduction
This article provides a theoretical contribution in the systemic framework of the general theory developed by Niklas Luhmann, at a high level of abstraction. It is assumed that functionally differentiated systems obey the same constitutive and evolutionary mechanisms. The prerequisite is the idea that there is a general matrix of factors that can combine in different ways according to various variables and relative contingency. Thus, different subsystems develop on the basis of a unique ‘mathematical’ model. On this basis, an analysis not of particular subsystems but of the entire societal system characterizing contemporary world society is carried out. A macro long-term approach which considers the system as a whole and investigates its general functioning dynamics is therefore adopted.
From a methodological point of view, the systemic approach developed by Niklas Luhmann is followed. However, the societal system is seen not only in its autopoietic process of self-reproduction but rather in its long-run evolution, which characterizes its potential sustainable development, resilient to environmental changes.
In particular, the article tries to integrate the sociological theoretical toolkit with the semantics and concepts that belong to economics. The creation of a univocal grammar and syntax could represent a kind of passe-partout for the reading of the abstract functionalism of differentiated systems. It highlights the substantial uniformity of evolutionary pathways and mechanisms that make them possible, rather than dwelling on the differences and the specific features of each system. Moreover, the interdisciplinary methodology of analysis makes it possible to try to overcome the paradox characterizing the global world society, which seems to be, at the same time, a closed and open system, characterized not only by complexity but also by not much differentiation.
In general, the attention focuses on the main feature of ‘functional differentiation’, that is, ‘operational closure’, to try to identify the limitations of the concept in contemporary world society. In particular, the analysis is aimed at supporting the importance of intersystemic communication for the survival and evolution of the system, through scientific argumentation. In fact, although the notion of ‘relationship between autopoietic systems’ is not present in the theory founded on operational closure, such closed systems are not isolated and autistic units. They are connected to each other by a constitutive link with their environmental conditions: in this sense, the concept of ‘structural coupling’ 1 is a pivotal concept. Moreover, referring to the legal system, Neves integrates the Luhmannian concept of ‘structural coupling’ with that of ‘transversal rationality’. 2 These tools allow a transnational ‘conversation’ through ‘bridges of transition’, which in turn allow mutual learning between systems, making use of strategies for the institutionalization of internal self-reflection and external communication that would activate conversation channels comparable to synapses. Now, the current debate between legal sociologists seems to be stuck on the ‘paradox’ regarding the need to combine conservation and change, normativity and cognitivity, closure and openness of the system, that is, identity and evolution. In other words, it is necessary to find the suitable combination of closure and openness.
This achievement can be extended to a generic subsystem as well as to the whole societal system, which, paradoxically, needs to be closed and open to maintain its identity and to adjust itself to the drivers of change of globalization.
With the aim of trying to find a logical solution, capable of overcoming the paradox, this article proposes the use of some theoretical tools borrowed from economics, not only to give a description using different words but also to test a different model of analysis. The notion of ‘paradox’ is juxtaposed to that of ‘trade-off’. This concept describes a situation that involves losing one quality or thing in return for another quality or thing. In simple words, if one thing increases, some other thing has to decrease. Thus, it can be identified as a trade-off relationship between openness and closure of the system; therefore, the problem is now to find the optimal combination of the two (equilibrium point) and to move towards higher levels of openness and closure at the same time, in other words, not only towards a globalization without loss of identity but also towards evolution without loss of stability.
Functional Systems: A Historical Overview
Before analyzing the theoretical paradigm of the general theory of functional systems, with the aim of proposing developments consistent with the contemporary social context, it is useful to provide an overview of sociological thought on the subject of ‘specialization/differentiation’.
The first concept of differentiation, which one could define as a sort of proto-differentiation, can be found in early modern Europe, especially in Protestant Germany, in the concept of vocation, which was referred to professional specialization. The first explicit differentiation theory was developed in Scotland during the Enlightenment by Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson. It was just a theory of division of labour, but this differentiation was perceived as a sort of loss of collective consciousness and not as a macrosocietal property (Stichweh, 2012). Between the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, the above idea of division of labour was adopted in Germany, but the important theoretical novelty was that to be an individual, to concentrate one’s forces on some specific tasks, was now perceived as a normative expectation and an ethical demand addressed to everyone (Ibid.). In short, there was an interesting interrelation among specialization, individualization and ethics. More than a hundred years later, we find the first great sociological theorist of functional differentiation: Georg Simmel. The German sociologist located the cause of fragmentation and individualism of social life in the division of labour, but he pointed out that it was a novel world historical idea that not only the equality of men but also the differences between men represented a demand of equal ethical dignity (Simmel, 1982). At the same time, it seems appropriate to consider the parallel developments of some precursor theories of globalization by Immanuel Kant, Georg Foster, Carl Gottlieb Suarez, Johann Wolfgang Goethe and, finally, Karl Marx. All these authors made use of functional abstractions such as ‘the art’, ‘learning’, ‘science’, ‘trade’, ‘industries’ and ‘literature’. This interrelation between functional differentiation and globalization makes us able to speak about a sort of proto-functional system (Stichweh, 2012).
A big boost towards a new concept of functional differentiation came from biological sciences in early nineteenth century, especially from the new scientific findings in embryology. In particular, Herbert Spencer coined the formula that became the core metaphor of his differentiation theory: differentiation as the transition from ‘indefinite incoherent homogeneity to definite heterogeneity’. In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, where populations of individuals are described as individuals on the basis of their differences and diversity. In 1893, Émile Durkheim published De la division du travail social. According to his opinion, specialization took the place of religion as the main foundation for a social system, which can be defined, in a holistic sense, as a complex organism. His theory of functional differentiation was very much based on the idea of the corporation as the basic building block of society (Durkheim, 1999).
With Max Weber, the focus shifts from the whole society to the individual; thus, the division of labour was justified by the analysis of rational individual behaviours. The latter, according to the arguments contained in ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’, were subject to a process of rationalization that was rooted in religion. In particular, Weber identified in Calvinist beliefs a primary role in the methodical determination of the attitude of the capitalist, who pursued profit through a continuous series of small steps which gradually lead to a mass production economy. But could the relation be reversed? One could assume that it is not religion to guide economic behaviour, but rather that religious doctrine is called to provide a justification to the economic needs that drive human behaviour, to avoid friction between the economic and the religious systems, consistently ‘programmed’ to pursue the same objective. Then, the functional separation between the two systems seems to become less marked. On closer inspection, even the ‘Weberian charismatic leader’, who embodies political and religious power, could be a de facto de-differentiation between religion and politics (Appignanesi, 2015a). Thus, in one’s opinion, an intersystemic communication and embryos of the conceptual connections later defined by Luhmann as ‘structural couplings’ between different functional systems can already be traced in Weber’s thought.
Going back to the historical overview leading to the modern theory of functional differentiation, we come across the American sociologist Talcott Parsons. He followed Weber and Durkheim, and, in the middle of the last century, he suggested a general ‘structural-functionalist’ theory. Such a theory integrates the two approaches by describing the social system as a set of interacting parts, each of which performs a function necessary for the reproduction of the entire system. Basically, the structure of society was identified through the functions undertaken by its parts (Parsons, 1949).
The concept of ‘functional differentiation’ was elaborated by Niklas Luhmann (Luhmann, 1977, 2012; Luhmann & De Giorgi, 1992), who gave it a central role in the construction of his social systems theory. The German sociologist developed a conceptual framework based on the definition of operatively closed system, whose autopoietic self-reproduction is made possible by communication, while the human subject is, so to speak, ousted from the social system, since it would itself constitute an autonomous (psychic) system. On this basis, Luhmann came to define the concept of ‘differentiation’ under two points of view: the first distinguished between system and environment, and the second between the various subsystems belonging to the environment of a given system. The respective boundaries are drawn by the same self-referential operations determined by operational closure, that is, without intervention from external inputs.
‘World Society’ and Intersystemic Communication
In brief, it could be said that the ‘differentiation’ proposed by Luhmann decomposes the complex polynomial of social reality into ‘prime factors’, to allow a speculative analysis highlighting its framework and functioning mechanisms. Closed systems relate to environmental conditions, which in turn consist of operatively closed systems. The respective connections are defined by Luhmann as ‘structural coupling’: it is a sociological concept that refers to a connection capable of favouring and filtering mutual influences and pressures among the different autonomous systems, connecting them in a durable and stable manner, but without each individual system losing its autonomy (Baraldi et al., 2002).
Nowadays, we can observe a transition towards a ‘world society’. In other words, an increasingly worldwide hyperconnection, both in economic–financial aspects and in sociocultural ones, is visible. This means that society is characterized by not much differentiation (Luhmann would say: it is an ‘over-integrated’ society). It could be politicization or economization, for instance. According to Luhmann, modern society was born as a ‘world society’, that means a social formation detached from territorial political organizations. This implies that the horizon of communication transcends the territorial frontiers of the state. Religion, politics, economics, art and education make their observation of society as a whole, and this context describes the ‘polycentricity’ of social modernity (Neves, 2013). A world society is constituted as a unitary connection of a plurality of spheres of communication in competitive and simultaneously complementary relations. But the concept of ‘world society’ must not to be confused with the concept of globalization, that should be seen as the result of an intensification of world society, concerning the growing intensification of social relations and their standardization.
Now, although acknowledging the theoretical frame based on system differentiation and functional specialization, the question is how the systems theory can be integrated with new concepts and new interpretative models, in an evolutionary phase where the boundaries among different social spheres seem to be crumbling. In particular, in this context characterized by systems that are less and less closed and less and less autopoietic, the concept of Strukturelle Kopplung (structural couplings) seems to become of fundamental importance. Thanks to it, in fact, it is possible to explore the boundaries of social systems and the connections that make up the relational weave of the multisystem galaxy (Febbrajo and Harste, 2013).
Luhmann’s concept of ‘structural coupling’ can be enhanced through the integration with the concept of ‘transversal rationality’, which Neves (2013) developed with reference to the legal system. For his theoretical work, Neves borrowed Wolfgang Welsch’s concept of ‘transversal reason’, 3 which was conceived in the context of a polycentric society and was developed with reference to language games. 4 This concept consists of ‘an ability not to impose decrees but to make transitions’ (Welsch, 1996, p. 759). Thus, it is a reason that is not incorporated in the language games but, on the contrary, is involved in the bonds that operate as ‘bridges of transition’ among heterogeneous groups of languages (Welsch, 1996, p. 754). Neves focuses on the development of stable mechanisms of mutual learning and mutual influence between spheres of communication. From Welsch’s thought, he develops the concept of ‘partial transversal rationalities’, which is able to support constructive relationships between the rationalities of each system of language games. Each partial transversal rationality is structurally coupled with the corresponding particular rationality and it acts as a specific ‘bridge of transition’ (Neves, 2013, p. 30).
According to Neves, the existence of structural couplings between subsystems is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of a ‘transversal rationality’, which thus constitutes an additional concept, and not a substitute. Transversal rationality, by integrating the concept of structural coupling, seems to express the cognitive aspect of the legal system in a polycentric society. In the context of legal system, the integration of the concept of structural coupling developed by Luhmann with the concept developed by Neves leads to the construction of a theoretical tool which is able to convey the cognitive aspect of law, which must necessarily be associated to the normative aspect. This allows a sort of genetic structural crossing over that can generate not just a ‘living law’ 5 but also a socially sustainable and resilient law, able to alter according to the drivers of change of world society.
In summary, the mechanism consisting of ‘structural couplings’ and ‘transversal rationalities’ enables intersystemic communication. At an abstract level, this can be true for other subsystems and in general for social system and its environment. In fact, intersystemic communication would be ensured by a sort of structural synapses that would allow an exchange between different (closed) systems. Through synaptic transmission, the nerve impulse can travel from one neuron to another or from one neuron to a fibre, for example, a muscle fibre, with different effects depending on the physical characteristics of the structures of both the transmitting system and the receiving one, with a range of effects albeit the same potential start pulse.
Thus, at this stage, the important question is to identify the optimal combination of openness and closure of the system, in other words to investigate the intensity and frequency of nerve impulse transmission as well as to diagnose connective tissue diseases.
Openness and Closure: The Systemic Diamond
Before dealing with the optimal combination between openness and closure of the system, it seems appropriate to dwell on the consequences that these two extreme states of the system (total closure, total openness) may have at the level of interrelation between systems, which are autonomous by definition in our theoretical perspective (Appignanesi and Finco, 2015).
Marcelo Neves speaks about ‘the two sides of the coin’ of structural coupling and ‘transversal rationality’. In a strictly Luhmannian reasoning, based on operational closure, total system openness would lead, through the mechanism of structural coupling, to ‘systemic corruption’ (Neves, 2013, p. 32), which implies the prevailing of a system over another, which would prevent the autopoiesis of the latter. Neves identifies the two faces, the ‘downsides’ of transversal rationality, calling them ‘atomization’ and ‘imperialist expansion’ (Neves, 2013, pp. 32–33) of the system. The atomization resulting from closure could lead to ‘autism’ or ‘idiot specialization’, 6 whose antidote would be simply to build some functional links. In fact, while internal consistency becomes something of absolute, harmonization with the environment fails. 7 It would be as if to preserve the integrity of a noble family, only consanguineous marriages were celebrated, eliminating genetic exchange which in the long run would ensure the family’s survival.
On the other hand, according to Neves, transversal rationality could lead to ‘imperialist expansion’, that is, the weakening of the system code of communication because of the excessive strength of another system, which does not necessarily coincide with systemic corruption, that is, with a rupture of internal communication within a given system due to external blocks.
Therefore, there may exist an intersystemic communication mechanism based on strong communication codes which tend to prevail over those of other systems. This finding could provide an explanation of the prevailing of the political system, as argued, for example, by neo-institutionalist theories. The primary role of politics in the evolution of the overall system can represent an ‘imperialistic expansion’ of this system with respect to the communication codes of the others. The same can be said for the orientation that considers the pre-eminence of economy (but also of religion, for instance). Then, in this perspective, institutionalist theories present themselves not as alternatives to the systems theory but as special cases that could be included in the general theory of functional systems integrated with intersystemic communication mechanisms.
A single overall system is therefore composed of subsystems that are equivalent from a functional point of view but have potential connection mechanisms, which are modulated in their intensity. Such systems represent the different facets of the complex reality of world society.
To provide a graphical representation of this theoretical construction, it can be proposed the figure elaborated by Roth (2012, pp. 5–7): ‘A functional profile of organization’. In this article, I call it ‘systemic diamond’: it is a representation of the various functional systems in a non-hierarchical order and where each system is capable of positioning itself on different levels of openness and closure. The centre of the graph is the situation of total closure and the outer points of the perimeter are the quantification of the system’s full openness (Figure 1). Of course, this is just an attempt to give a static and simple visualization of a dynamic and complex reality. What is relevant here is rather the exemplification of a theoretical model that can be applied to a general system constituted of different functional subsystems.
The systemic diamond refers to the ‘10 systems’ analyzed by Roth and Schütz (2015): politics, economy, science, art, religion, legal system, sport, health, education and mass media. 8 This list does consider neither family nor intimate relationships, but it includes the sport system and keeps the functional system of art, which, otherwise, could be seen not as an autopoietic system but rather as structural coupling (Appignanesi, 2015b).
The 10 systems are arranged clockwise in the Kiviat graph, so as to clear the field of the temptation to identify a system prevailing over the others and graphically represent a heterarchy which does not imply relationships of subordination among systems. The problem, in fact, is not centrality/periphery, hierarchy or the hegemony of a particular system, but rather the degree of openness or closure of the system, therefore the level of intersystemic communication.
In the diamond, it is possible to indicate the levels of openness/closure in different moments in time (phases 1 and 2 in Figure 1), along a hypothetical ‘continuum’ (Febbrajo & Harste, 2013). In the graph, the values for the degree of openness/closure assigned to each system were made-up, but quantitative indicators could be identified. For instance, in a given economic system, it is possible to find how many prices depend on political decisions; in a given educational system, it is possible to identify how many issues depend on religious principles; in a given legal system, it is possible to recognize how may rules depend on economic objectives; and so on.
By distinguishing two phases in the graph, the aim is to highlight the trend of the world society towards an ‘explosion’ of the system, that is, the transition to a level of intersystemic communication that is more intense and interconnected, also among several systems simultaneously. The level of openness/closure, in fact, can also be interpreted as the transition from local to global, from identity to standardization, from stability to evolution or change.
An overall system settled at the centre of the diamond implies potential necrosis, since it does not appear to be resilient to the drivers of change from the environment. On the other hand, an expansion towards the outer edge of the graph would mean loss of the identity necessary for the reproduction and the stability of the system.
But what is of interest now is not a static picture or a mere comparison between two snapshots. It is necessary to understand the dynamic mechanisms that drive the ‘facets’ towards the implosion or the disintegration of the diamond. For this reason, additional analysis tools need to be created. The systemic diamond, in fact, allows the carrying out of an in-depth analysis of the whole social system with the possibility to compare different situations in different moments in time to extrapolate the trend of the world society. But we are still talking about static pictures. What isneeded is a new analysis for a new interpretation.
The Trade-off between Closure and Openness
Rather than two sides of the same coin, it seems appropriate to connote ‘atomization’ and ‘imperialist expansion’ as the endpoints of a continuum representing a range of intermediate situations between the total openness and total closure of the system (Febbrajo & Harste, 2013). In this article, this interpretation might be further developed to identify a trade-off relationship between openness and closure. Trade-off is an economic concept that describes a situation which involves losing one quality or thing in return for another quality or thing. The best-known example is the inverse relationship between rates of unemployment and corresponding rates of inflation, described by the Phillips curve. A trade-off relationship could imply, for instance, that increasing globalization leads to loss of local identity; or that if there is more change, there is a corresponding loss of stability, and vice versa.
For example, in the case of the legal system, total closure would mean a completely self-referential production of law which, over time, would be no longer adequate to the real needs of society. In turn, total openness of the system would imply control and manipulation of the law—for example, by politics or economy—at the expense of the necessary autonomy of the normative sources and their application. Thus, an optimal combination of openness/closure could enable law to adapt to the needs of the economy and to political objectives while maintaining the required autonomy. In fact, the normative production should regulate society by learning from it—that is, be resilient to changes that occur in subsystems belonging to the environment.
Moreover, in the long run, the system could reach higher levels of openness and closure at the same time—that is, faster evolution but also more stability—with the consequent shifting of the trade-off relationship. The orthogonal positioning for overcoming the trade-off requires a change in a given assumption. In the above example of the legal system, it can be the construction of ‘structural couplings’ linking different subsystems—for instance, types of contract linking law and economics, or constitutional rules linking law and politics. In addition, flexible procedures for changing laws could be a key factor to maintain the autonomy of the legal system (closure) and meet new social needs (openness). The quantitative and qualitative modification of the structural couplings at the same time increases the institutionalization of instances from differentiated subsystems (openness) and self-reference (closure), which reinforces system autonomy.
One can say that by means of the trade-off relationship, it is possible to overcome the paradox of the need for closure and openness at the same time. The answer of social systems theory seems to combine closure and openness of a system, making use of complex strategies of institutionalization of internal self-reflection and external intersystemic communication (Febbrajo & Harste, 2013).
Therefore, the core issue is to find the optimal combination in the trade-off between closure and openness of the system, and the solution might lie in the study of the mechanisms of connection and intersystemic or intrasystemic communication.
For example, referring again to the legal system, the transnationality of fundamental rights would acquire meaning through the exchange between different national legal systems. For this reason, it is desirable to have a ‘trans-constitutional conversation’ (Neves, 2013), that is, exchanges between constitutions of different countries, and this can be possible through ‘bridges of transition’, which allow mutual learning of the legal systems involved. This could lead to the optimal combination between closure and openness of national legal systems (intrasystemic communication).
With reference to the economic system, statism could be seen as a total openness towards politics and Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ as a total self-referential closure of the economic system; combining these two extreme models to different extents could give rise to different economic forms which are the best solution depending on the space–time context.
In the systemic approach, the possible combinations between closure and openness are dependent on communication codes, and the level of intersystemic communication is dependent on structural couplings and transversal rationalities; thus, a social system can obtain different combinations of openness/closure depending on the given level of intersystemic communication, the intensity and power of the communication codes that, at the extremes, can lead to the complete self-referential and autopoietic reproduction of the system or to the complete absorption of the system by the environment. The connections may build or destroy the identity of the system: It is therefore necessary to find the optimum point.
In this sense, working on intersystemic communication may help overcome the paradox of a necessary evolution in conditions of stability.
The intensification of intersystemic communication causes the openness/ closure trade-off curve to shift to the right, making it possible to have greater openness and greater closure of the system at the same time—that is, both the reproduction and the stability of the system—thanks to resilience 9 to the environment, which is composed of other separate systems which are connected, or may be connected, by means of structural coupling. Such structural couplings, enhanced by transversal rationality, allow an autonomous change in the system, a change that is induced by external factors and is necessary for the system’s very identity survival—that is, they make the resilience of the functional system possible.
In a few words, it can be said that a system described in systemic terms has to combine openness and closure, making use of strategies to institutionalize internal self-reflection and external communication. Therefore, at a structural level, the transition from ‘functionalism of differences’ to ‘functionalism of links’ (Febbrajo & Harste, 2013, p. 14) can be postulated, because the real fulfilment of the typical functions of differentiated systems is dependent not just on structures but also on several intersystemic overlappings. This complex mechanism can be concretely registered using the model of systems theory, together with some economic theoretical concepts, to build a new, very abstract lens for looking at complexity.
Conclusions: From a ‘Functionalism of Differences’ towards a ‘Functionalism of Links’
Alberto Febbrajo and Harste (2013, p. 2) state that ‘autopoiesis appears to be an amphibious concept which as such combines, in variable degrees, the ability of social systems to change in order to properly react to external impulses (openness) and the ability to save their own identity and to remain recognizable in spite of the changes occurred (closure)’, assuming that between the two extremes, total closure and total openness, there is a continuum given by a differentiated range of intermediate situations.
Thus, the functionalism of links could be modulated along a scale that starts from the atrophy and ends with the hypertrophy of the links themselves. In general, the concept of ‘autopoiesis’ seems to fade to the advantage of the concept of resilience. By the integration of a term that comes from biology (autopoiesis) with one that originates from environmental sciences (resilience), it can be possible to demonstrate a change in sociological paradigm.
In particular, the theoretical answer might lie in the study of the mechanisms of connection, which, potentially, are capable of providing a solution for overcoming the paradox of the simultaneous need of operative closure and constructive openness. The problem seems to be to establish adequate bridges between the various systems, bridges that are flexible to change, not rigid and yet susceptible to breakage. The conceptual instrument generated by the integration of ‘structural coupling’ with ‘transversal rationality’ could provide a plausible solution. That is, it could be a mechanism to solve the problem of the optimal combination of openness and closure in a complex system where the subsystems are incorporated into a framework of relationships that make up a new scenario no longer, or not only, based on autopoietic communication, but also on intersystemic communication.
‘Functionalism of differences’ and ‘functionalism of links’ cannot be considered as alternatives but as potentially complementary hypotheses, since the first refers to the analysis of the coherence and internal characteristics of individual systems, while the latter refers to the study of the ‘bridges’ that connect them (Febbrajo & Harste, 2013). There are structural couplings that work within the system and others that connect the system to external social systems. Then, in a sort of social urban planning, the focus shifts from the centre to the periphery, from the inner roads to the ‘infrastructures’ that integrate the system with the external environment, through identifiable linguistic codes. In other words, it can be said that, albeit moving within the functionalist and systemic tradition, the problem to be addressed is not so much that of the reproduction of the social order, but rather that of its inevitable transformation. The multisystem environment is dynamic and therefore the single systems change: from autopoietic entities that reproduce themselves in a self-referential way they evolve into systems capable of establishing increasingly dense communication channels, up to the network of networks. As if to continue with the urban metaphor, many fortified towns evolved into one sprawling metropolis.
Nowadays, we can observe a transition towards a ‘world society’, that is, a complex polycentric societal system. Hence, a rethinking of the general theory of functional systems seems to be inevitable. If, for instance, we look at the legal system, the difficulty of placing the cross-border issues in the context of a system or close to its borders could already be a sign of obsolescence of the theoretical foundations of the theory itself.
In this context, the article tries to provide a theoretical contribution in the framework of the systemic approach, starting by using the semantics and the conceptual tools developed by Niklas Luhmann: ‘operational closure’, ‘functional differentiation’ and ‘structural couplings’ enabling links between different systems. Such intersystemic communication seems to have a constructivist role for the survival of the system in a changing environment.
In fact, in a complex multisystem organism, the single organs seem to be enclosed by permeable membranes, through which the organs establish an osmotic relationship with the environment. More and more numerous bonds innervate the macro-system, forming the diverse connective tissue that can transmit vital impulses: Bidirectional relationships and links, that allow reproduction and development, are established between the systems. Consequently, the functioning law is based on the principle that the evolution of functional systems is dependent not on the hierarchy of systemic structures but on the numerous intersystemic overlaps (Febbrajo and Corsi, 2016). The single systems interact and influence each other and produce new combinations of rationality that determine their evolution and organic variety. It is this very constant disposition to change that makes the preservation and evolution of the social system possible.
To demonstrate this thesis, the article integrated the conceptual kit provided by systems theory with concepts belonging to economics and mathematics (trade-off, optimum point,) and to environmental sciences (resilience). Such theoretical tools made it possible to identify, in the general evolutionary process, the possible translation of the social system towards contextual higher levels of openness and closure (but also of local identity and globalization, of stability and change).
Here, communication represents at the same time the glue and the solvent of intersystemic boundaries. In fact, if structural couplings enable connections by implementing the transition from ‘functionalism of differences’ to ‘functionalism of links’, it is plausible to say that the specialization of skills, namely, differentiation, is no longer an adequate theoretical parameter of reference. There is a continuous connection among politics, legal system, economics, religion, science, etc. All exchanges pass through the border and make sense precisely because there is a border. Communication between the inside and outside takes place through the filter of each culture, and each internal systemic culture reflects another culture; for example, the legal culture may reflect the economic culture, which in turn may reflect the political culture, which in turn could reflect the religious culture, as in a mirror effect.
The same assimilation of the Protestant ethic by the economy that was theorized by Weber could be seen as proto-intersystemic communication. While, in some respects, isomorphist and institutionalist theories could be considered as special cases of intersystemic communication set up within the evolutionary process of variation/selection/restabilization (Luhmann, 2012), within which models belonging to other systems can be selected, through linking and learning mechanisms.
At a theoretical level, the concept of systemic resilience can be introduced, with the consequent emerging importance of ‘functionalism of links’ in the evolutionary process of the system. Of course, the approach presented needs further analysis and insights. However, the development of a sociological paradigm where active conversation channels between systems, comparable to synapses, play an important constructivist role has been envisaged. And the integration of the concept of ‘functional differentiation’ with that of functional connectivity can already be proposed.