The problem of the differentiation of societies is at the core of the sociological imagination about the rise of modernity. In postwar sociology, T. Parsons developed the theory of generalized symbolic media in the mid-1960s to tackle, theoretically and historically, the issue of differentiation. Contemporary theorists such as Niklas Luhmann and Jurgen Habermas have developed and modied the Parsonian theory.
The problem of the differentiation of societies is at the core of the sociological imagination about the rise of modernity. In postwar sociology, T. Parsons developed the theory of generalized symbolic media in the mid-1960s to tackle, theoretically and historically, the issue of differentiation. Contemporary theorists such as Niklas Luhmann and Jurgen Habermas have developed and modied the Parsonian theory.
The problem of the differentiation of societies is at the core of the sociological imagination about the rise of modernity. In postwar sociology, T. Parsons developed the theory of generalized symbolic media in the mid-1960s to tackle, theoretically and historically, the issue of differentiation. Contemporary theorists such as Niklas Luhmann and Jurgen Habermas have developed and modied the Parsonian theory.
differentiated societies: the theory of generalized symbolic media in Parsons, Luhmann and Habermas* ABSTRACT The problem of the differentiation of societies is at the core of the sociological imagination about the rise of modernity. In postwar sociology, T. Parsons developed the theory of generalized symbolic media in the mid-1960s to tackle, theoretically and historically, the issue of differentiation. According to him, the interchange media are dened as resources oriented to exchange processes between the subsystems of the social system. Starting with money, Parsons argues that the remaining media (power, inuence, and value-commitments) have a set of characteristics dened as common properties for all media. After this rst formulation, contemporary theorists such as Niklas Luhmann and Jrgen Habermas have developed and modied the Parsonian theory: Luhmann rejects the idea of interchange and proposes the use of communication; Habermas distinguishes between steering and communication media. In all three cases, the focus of the theory is on the characterization of the strongest dynamics of social co-ordination present in differentiated societies. A major result of these develop- ments is the inclusion of new dimensions on which to conceive the properties of media, not only those of money but also language. Beyond differences, then, it is proposed that there is only one theory of generalized symbolic media which can be understood as a progressive research programme, in Lakatos terms. Finally, the hand-in-hand evolution between the theory of media and Habermas and Luhmanns re-conceptualizations on societal differentiation in contemporary societies will also be revealed. KEYWORDS: Differentiation; modernity; generalized symbolic media; Parsons; Luhmann; Habermas 1. INTRODUCTION. SOCIOLOGY AND THE DIFFERENTIATION OF SOCIETIES The understanding of modern societies in terms of processes of social differentiation is at the core of the sociological imagination about the rise British Journal of Sociology Vol. No. 53 Issue No. 3 (September 2002) pp. 431449 2002 London School of Economics and Political Science ISSN 0007-1315 print/1468-4446 online Published by Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Ltd on behalf of the LSE DOI: 10.1080/0007131022000000581 of modernity. In the early functionalist tradition, represented by H. Spencer and E. Durkheim, the concept of differentiation is utilized quite explicitly; they provided it with a high explanatory potential. The idea of differentiation of society (or social division of labour) is central for their understanding of society in both empirical and normative terms. Also at the turn of the twentieth century, in the German-speaking world, the thesis of the differentiation of modern societies is widely present. We found it in G. Simmels discussion on the processes of group formation, and it certainly underlines M. Webers understanding of the processes of social and cultural rationalization (Schluchter 1981). In postwar sociology, T. Parsons, J. Habermas and N. Luhmann represent key gures in bringing these traditions together, through their attempts at building a general sociological theory. In all these different versions, the conceptualization of the process of structural differentiation is at the core of the sociological diagnosis of the constitution and evolution of modern societies. While the reconstruction of the concept of differentiation in sociology can be undertaken in itself, it is my contention, however, that it is more fruitful to focus on specic developments in which the issue of the differ- entiation of society is placed along other contemporary sociological concerns. 1 Moreover, the general level at which the different notions of differentiation are formulated leaves the concept ambiguous; the notion of differentiation seems to represent the metaphysics of a good part of the sociological discourse on the rise of modern societies. In this paper I propose to analyse and reconstruct a major twentieth- century theoretical development within what one can call the paradigm of the differentiation of societies: the theory of generalized symbolic media. Originally developed by Parsons in the 1960s, the theory of generalized symbolic media has been followed through by Luhmann and Habermas as a privileged way of looking at how modern societies produce and handle their differentiation. The paper has three main claims. Firstly, it states how central the theory of media is in giving sociological content to the paradigm of differentia- tion. Hence, secondly, it shall be shown that the commonalities and differ- ences among the three authors in relation to the theory of media are related to their conceptualizations of the differentiation of modern societies. Thirdly, I have to prove that the theory of media has followed a progressive path in terms of its internal conceptual development. Quite surprisingly, one nds in the literature neither systematic research about the development of the theory of media in itself nor attempts to link the theory of media to any other major sociological issue. 2 What I offer here is the required account for the rst of these aims and, hopefully, some suggestions in relation to the second. 432 Daniel Chernilo 2. THE SOCIOLOGICAL CONTENT OF THE THEORY OF MEDIA AND THE RESEARCH STRATEGY What are the media? What does the theory of generalized symbolic media actually conceptualize? In brief, media are specic forms of social co- ordination; they are the most constant dynamics of social co-ordination present in modern societies. Money, power, love, truth, and the other media are the way in which societal subsystems, rstly, regulate their internal func- tioning by contributing to its own differentiation and, secondly, nd the way to interrelate with each other to produce co-ordinations between subsys- tems. While the former means that each subsystem becomes more efcient by being only concentrated in its specic tasks; the latter refers to the societal framework in which differentiation takes place. Social co- ordinations conceptualized as media give sociological content to the highly abstract idea of the differentiation of modern societies. One can say that social co-ordinations are necessary and unstable in modern societies. They are necessary, on the one hand, in the sense that the complexity of modern social life makes unavoidable the interrelation of different actors and logics in society. Either theorized as interpenetra- tion (as in systems theory), or networks (as in Castells) or elds (as in Bourdieu), interdependence is seen as a central feature of differentiated societies. They are unstable, on the other hand, because social co- ordinations are also under a high pressure of being disrupted and there- fore to fail. In Luhmanns words (1986: 4), what the generalized symbolic media conceptualize is the non-random character of variations in social relations. In methodological terms, Lakatos (1978) notion of research pro- gramme provides the framework for fullling the task of analysing and reconstructing the development of the theory of media. I propose that the theory of media has followed a progressive path by looking at the common- alities and differences among the different versions of the theory. By progressivity, I mean, rst, that the theory becomes an autonomous eld of theoretical research and second that the theory has evolved in the direc- tion of providing better insights for the sociological characterization of the differentiation of societies. Whilst this evolution is displayed step by step in the following sections of the paper, I can straightaway summarize the main path the theory has followed. Reconstructively, forty years after its rst formulation, it can be seen that while Parsons originally talked of inter- change media (that is, all media seen as an extension of the features of money); Luhmann has proposed the concept of communication media (as communication being the key element for the autopoiesis of the system); and Habermas has distinguished between steering and communication media (along the lines of his distinction between system and lifeworld). In spite of these modications, however, it is proposed that there is only one theory of generalized symbolic media in the sense that the theory has both main- tained its focus the conceptualization of the strongest dynamics of social The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 433 co-ordination present in differentiated societies and improved its analyti- cal insights for the observation of societal differentiation. 3. PARSONS. THE FOUNDATION OF GENERALIZED SYMBOLIC MEDIA OF INTERCHANGE In a set of monographic papers during the 1960s, Parsons (1967b, c, 1969) proposed both the general framework for the theory of generalized symbolic media and the rst denition of each medium, based on the four- functions paradigm already mature at that time. 3 Generalized symbolic media of interchange were dened as resources oriented to exchange processes between the subsystems of the social system. Media let the subsys- tems full two different but linked processes. On the one hand, they increase each subsystems autonomy allowing higher efciency on its oper- ations, thus reinforcing Parsons thesis that differentiation processes are the main evolutionary tendency of modern societies (Parsons 1967d). On the other hand, each medium interpenetrates with the others, a tendency which solves the problem of the functional integration of the social system through six subsystems of interpenetration built as double-exchange processes. Simplistic interpretations on Parsons would just say that despite the level of institutionalization of each medium in its subsystem, the general tendency is towards the homeostasis of the systemic relations. Beyond that, however, one also nds in Parsons the much stronger thesis that social differentiation is a twofold process of increasing both autonomy and interdependence between subsystems. In theoretical terms, the problem is the constitution of a societal perspective to link differentiation and integration, or rather, that modern societies constitute themselves in a process of integration through differentiation. In spite of the fact that Parsons himself says that the theory was devel- oped as a generalization from the properties of money (Parsons 1977a: 198201; 1977b: 2058), the very name of the theory indicates a funda- mental tension running through it. The idea of media, rstly, refers to the necessity of building links between social relations already differentiated. The idea of interchange, secondly, refers to money being paradigmatic for conceptualizing the give-and-take relationships between subsystems, and for measuring the equivalence of those relations as well. In the case of the concepts of symbolization and generalization, thirdly, the former refers to the exchange-value of money as well as the symbolic utility of language (Parsons 1977b: 206); whereas the latter means that every medium can represent several objects in different contexts of interaction. The refer- ences to generalization and symbolization are also related to the anthropo- logical and sociological capacities of human beings to operate symbolically and to use these skills in a socially effective way. In that sense, language, as a set of generalized symbols, is the secondary source for the understanding of media. 4 434 Daniel Chernilo Parsons proposed that money is not the only medium in the social system and dened three more, each one especially related to one subsystem: power (political system), inuence 5 (societal community) and value commitments (duciary system). 6 Table I summarizes the major components of the media in relation to the functional imperatives of a differentiated social system. It cannot be clear, at rst sight, what money has in common with the other media. Hence the thesis that Parsons develops a real theory should be supported by showing some properties which, as a generalization of the characteristics of money, are adequate to the remaining media. In the Parsonian version of the theory of interchange media, these properties can be summarized as follows. 7 1. Norms and codes: Each medium has a set of norms that rule its opera- tions. As counterpart to its generalized and symbolic character, every medium is institutionally anchored in its subsystem by norms. Media have meaning-specicity referring to these norms, and they perform effectively only within their subsystems. In the case of money, for example, there are many exchanges that can be regulated by it, but there are also several that cannot. The codes of the media represent the institutional mechanisms that make their operations functionally adequate in differentiated contexts. 2. Circulation: Media can move both between actors inside the subsystem and beyond the systems boundaries (double-exchanges). This second characteristic has special relevance in the explanation of the emerg- ence of the subsystems of interpenetration and the thesis of inte- gration through differentiation. The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 435 TABLE I: Interchange media and the main structural categories 8 Functional Mode of Co- imperatives of Media of Value communi- ordination Basic Security social systems interchange principle cation standard institutions base Adaptation Money Utility Inducement Solvency Contract, Gold (economic property, (physical system) labour. needs) Goal Power Effective- Command- Sovereignty Political Means of attainment ness ment leadership, coercion (political authority. (physical system) force) Integration Inuence Solidarity Persuasion Consensus Citizenship, Social (societal universalist bonds community) legal system. Pattern Value- Integrity Moral Pattern Churches, Internal- maintenance commit- appellation consistency educational ized values, (duciary ments institutions. guilt system) 3. Scarcity: The highly efcient performances of media are related to this property. The norms which rule the acquisition of each medium make it a scarce good, scarcity being related, then, to the base that secures the operations of each medium. Scarcity, at the same time, produces constraints as to how media circulate, and reinforces their efciency. 4. Non zero-sum condition: This property means that no xed quantity of a medium exists either within its subsystem or within the social system as a whole. Their ination or deation processes are linked to the credibility and efciency of each mediums performance. Medias value could either increase or decrease depending on the perform- ance of the different subsystems. Furthermore, gains in individual possession of one medium do not imply a corresponding decrease in the possession other actors might have of the same medium. 9 5. Value principle: Each subsystem has a value principle that rules its performances. It can be said that each medium has its own rationality, complementary with the rationality of the other media and subsystems. The sociological conclusion of this discussion on Parsons theory of media is that they are achievements of modern societies. Only modern societies have institutionalized conditions (that is, a high and successful degree of differentiation) that make possible the emergence and functioning of media. Technically speaking, generalized symbolic media of interchange are a function of the degree of differentiation of social structures; the media are consequence of such processes of differentiation (Parsons 1977a: 199). 10 This is the key thesis that media are the result of the processes of structural differentiation of societies. As we shall see, this thesis is a major issue in the development of the theory in relation to an historical and sociological understanding of the differentiation of modern societies. At the level of theory building one can say that Parsons himself was aware of that, in some cases the properties would be more appropriate to money than to the whole set of media. However, it was also said that this is the case because it is a model still in progress (Baum 1977), a statement that converges with the thesis about the constitution of the theory of media as a research programme. In the following pages, I suggest that the develop- ment of the theory of media has produced a clear path, but one different from Parsons idea of interchange media based on the properties of money. 4. LUHMANNS THEORY OF GENERALIZED SYMBOLIC MEDIA OF COMMUNICATION After the Parsonian founding step, Luhmann continued the development of the theory of generalized symbolic media. In this section, I will only stress the main differences between Parsons and Luhmanns at the level of theory building. A broader sociological reection upon the consequences of the changes Luhmann introduces to the theory is attempted in section 6. 436 Daniel Chernilo Evolutionarily, Luhmann theorizes three kinds of media. Firstly, there are oral languages. As limited to face-to-face interactions between Ego and Alter, oral languages have a low capacity to reduce complexity. The second media are mass or diffusion media: writing, printing and telecommuni- cations. The main characteristic of these media is the great expansion of communication possibilities through the development of new technologies that uncouple communication from co-presence contexts. Finally, and this characterizes the advent of the functionally differentiated (that is, modern) society, generalized symbolic media of communication come into being. Luhmann (1995: 15763) says that there is one type of medium linked to each stage of social evolution: oral languages correspond to segmented societies; mass media to stratied societies, and generalized symbolic media to functionally differentiated societies. More than the disappearance of previous forms of differentiation, Luhmann argues that what changes is the key principle of differentiation. For Luhmann (1977: 51820), then, new forms of systemic differentiation are the result, not the cause, of the emergence of media. Luhmann turns Parsons thesis that symbolic media come after the rise of functional differ- entiation upside down. He rather links the rise of media to the problem of contingency and maintains that functional differentiation is the outcome of this process. Differentiation is for Luhmann the result of the functional specialization already achieved by the media and not its previous condition. In this way, the theory of generalized symbolic media starts to obtain autonomy from the rst Parsonian formulation at two levels. First, because the research on the development of media can be undertaken in itself. As politics or economy became differentiated because of the functioning of power and money, the differentiation of politics from economy has to be researched by looking at the actual development of power and money. The research on the differentiation of society becomes historically and analytically subordi- nated to the research on the media. The deductions from the Parsonian frame of reference are abandoned, the theory of generalized symbolic media begins to follow its own path. The Parsonian scheme of four (and only four) media is discarded, as being a mere consequence of the tetrafunc- tional paradigm. By putting, as Luhmann does, contingency at the consti- tutive level of the social it becomes impossible to keep a frame of reference that deduces the existence of some media based only on Parsons AGIL scheme. On the contrary, the determination of the processes of differenti- ation and their media should now be supported by the results of historical researches focused on the development of different institutional settings. Hence, in terms of which media are actually present in the societal system, Luhmann maintains the media money and power and introduces via historical research new media such as truth in the scientic system and love in the system of intimate relations. Second, according to Luhmann, media also gain autonomy by being uncoupled from the problem of systemic exchanges and becoming linked The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 437 to the inducement of communications for the reproduction of the societal system. In that sense, Luhmann moves from a theory of exchange media to a theory of communication media. In this transition, money loses its privileged status as the paradigmatic medium from which the properties of the remaining media are derived. Now communicative processes perform this role. Taking this step towards the idea of communication media, Luhmann reinforces on the one hand his thesis that communication is the only element that really fulls the conditions to produce the systems autopoiesis, and on the other the idea that between the subsystems controlled by the media there is no interchange of goods or decisions. Instead, these relationships must be understood as complementary ways of reducing complexity. One can see again that it is not necessary to suppose full reciprocity between the subsystems: it could be found that some subsys- tems are more differentiated than others. I can now show the properties of Luhmanns theory of symbolic media. 1. Self-reference: Systemic operations are self-referential, that is, media cannot circulate between subsystems as processes of reciprocal exchanges (inputs/outputs). What does occur is that a medium reinforces some choices beyond its realm, inciting those patterns of action that are socially preferred. The code of one medium cannot be dissolved into the codes of others (Luhmann 1998: 1201). 2. Disjunction codes: Codes are no longer symbolic codes as in Parsons, each medium offers two (and only two) options. The yes side signi- es the expected social value of the medium (pay, truth, justice). The no position (no pay, untruth, injustice) species the reexive moment of the medium, showing the contingency of the positive side. Media are distinguished by their capacity to codify preferences and to induce the production of certain choices over others and their codes are useful as structures that simplify information-processing and motivate the acceptance of choices. Through this performance, media develop both secondary codes, which are less abstract than the base-code, and programmes, which are strategies that give empirical specicity to the medium. 3. Production of paradoxes: Media cannot use their disjunctions on them- selves. For example, the legal/illegal distinction cannot by itself ground the legality of its existence. However, the systems autopoiesis does not stop even during these paradoxes because this detention would produce the end of the system. 4. Symbiotic dimension: The co-ordination achieved by the media is not only symbolically produced but also externally reinforced through the symbiotic dimension of the media: the physical world human beings share (Luhmann 1995: 24454). The relevance of this symbiotic dimension rests in the hypothesis that part of the evolutionary success of some media, that is, their faster and better institutionalization, depends on the range of compatibility between the symbolic and the 438 Daniel Chernilo organic dimension of the media: the higher the capacity of utilization of the symbiotic mechanism, the better the performance of the subsystem. Table II summarizes the main elements of Luhmanns theory of communi- cation media. 11 In concluding this section, it is worth keeping in mind two issues. Firstly, money has denitively lost the monopoly for the determination of the properties for all media. The change from the idea of interchange to that of communication is a clear sign that language is now taking the paradig- matic position within the theory of media. Secondly, by avoiding the schematism of Parsons AGIL model, Luhmann opens to empirically- oriented research the determination of: [1] the number of existing media at the societal level and [2] different degrees of institutionalization for each medium. 5. HABERMAS DISTINCTION BETWEEN STEERING AND COMMUNICATION MEDIA In Habermas (1987) two-levels theory of society, the differentiation between system and lifeworld refers to how the problem of integration is solved in modern societies, or in Habermas own words, the problem of the co-ordination of actions. In modern societies, integration is not just social integration, that is, it does not occur only through interactions oriented to mutual understanding. The participants in interactions also co-ordinate themselves by means of causal-chains over which they have neither full control nor full consciousness in their everyday life. There are restrictions produced by the exigencies of functional subsystems that permeate into the lifeworld which are most of the time invisible to the actors. That is what Habermas calls systemic integration. The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 439 TABLE II: Communication media and partial social systems in differentiated societies Function (main Primary Secondary Symbiotic System Media problem) code code mechanism Economy Money Scarcity Pay/no pay Monetary Basic needs units Politics Power Consensus Government/ Charisma Physical force opposition Science Truth Knowledge Truth/false Paradigms, Perception theories Family Love Intimacy Loved/ Marriage Sexuality unloved (reproduction) This distinction, which refers to the differentiation of two distinct strategies of social co-ordination, constitutes the core of Habermas position about the theory of generalized symbolic media. If actions are co- ordinated in domains beyond the control of the actors, that is, if co- ordinations are pre-dened by the exigencies of functional systems, then co-ordinations are based on an empirical motivation relative to the actors achievement of goals. However, there are also other kinds of social relation- ships that are never fully uncoupled from the actors will to achieve an understanding. In these cases, the actors motivation for co-ordinating their actions is not empirical but rational. This is what Habermas calls communicative rationality a form of co-operation based on free consent. Thus the rationalization of the lifeworld is conceptualized as a reexive appropriation of its symbolic reproduction. At this stage, then, Habermas rejects as an overgeneralization Parsons thesis of money as the paradigmatic medium and the conceptualization of inuence and value-commitments from this source, because they are struc- turally linked to linguistic understanding and to the symbolic reproduction of the lifeworld. For Habermas, the key point is that the four media described by Parsons are not quite the same. As media are mechanisms for improving opportunities for a successful co-ordination of actions, Habermas afrms that they either replace or condense the formation of linguistic consent. Those media that replace linguistic consent (i.e. money and power, the steering media) are characterized by their progressive uncoupling from the lifeworld, which becomes increasingly unnecessary as the meaning-frame for actors action orientations. The subsystems constituted in this way (economy and politics) are ruled by the media producing a sort of system/ environment relationship with the lifeworld. By contrast, media that only condense the achievement of linguistic consent (inuence and value- commitments, the so-called communication media) remain closely linked to the reproduction of lifeworld through the actors orientation towards understanding. Habermas realizes that these only appear as media because there are no institutions like contract or property for them. Table III summarizes Habermas position on the theory of media so far. Then, Habermas asks if there are some structural properties which, as derived from money, can be generalized to the set of media as a whole. He says that the difculties related to the Parsonian schematism are not contin- gent but systematic, because in taking money as paradigmatic medium it is only possible the formation of action systems based on a strategic way of achieving consensus. This would not be an empirical difculty concerning whether the economy is the rst or best subsystem to become differentiated (as Parsons could argue), but rather an analytical inaccuracy. In beginning with the distinction between a communicative and a strategic way of co- ordinating actions, Habermas (1987: 2647) makes his own evaluation of the structural properties of Parsons media. 440 Daniel Chernilo 1. Structural features: The symbolic and generalized character of media means that the co-ordination of actions cannot be based on criticiz- able validity claims, because there is a consensus pre-dened by the functional requirements of the subsystems. There are only some realms (functional subsystem) where the media can properly operate. From this external point of view it is expected that actors adopt an objectifying attitude and rationalizing orientation towards the conse- quences of their actions. Interactions ruled by the media lack binding capacity in the lifeworld but are efcient in the rational subsystems. 2. Qualitative properties: Media (based on money) can be measured, accumulated, and alienated. They must reect a specic amount of value towards which actors might refer independently of specic contexts of interaction. Media should be apportioned exclusively and in variable quantities to specic actors, and this marks their difference from linguistic expressions which cannot be xed in this way. 3. The structure of claim and redemption: As an object, money does not have an intrinsic amount of value, but requires laws for its operation. Power acquires its empirical motivation force externally, through the physical force acting as its security base. By contrast with both money and power, trust in ordinary language is bound to the symbolic reproduction of the lifeworld and no additional institutions are required for its operation. Language develops a different kind of compelling force which motivates rationally through propositions that can be argumentatively sustained. 4. System-building effect: The historical emergence of money is the main force that produces the differentiation of economy as a functional The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 441 TABLE III: Generalized symbolic media in a two-level theory of society Social Dynamic of Relation with reproduction co-ordination Actors Type of ordinary in which is Media of actions orientation motivation language involved Money, power Strategic. Towards Empirical Replace Material Functional success reproduction chains of of systems. consequences Systemic integration. Inuence, Communicat- Towards Rational Condense Symbolic value- ive. Actors understanding reproduction commitments orientation of lifeworld. towards the Social achievement integration of a communicative understanding subsystem. This is because of the evolution of social structures that come under monetary control. For Habermas, the emergence of money as the medium of the economic system does not necessarily imply the development of other subsystems and media. Furthermore, he rejects the Parsonian presupposition that the interchanges between the economy and the other subsystems must be conceptual- ized as reciprocal double-exchanges. Like Luhmann, Habermas rejects Parsons thesis that media are the result of functional differ- entiation. Habermas systematic attempt to criticize Parsons theory of media is based on the difculties of deriving the set of common properties using only money as paradigmatic medium, and he demonstrated these problems by explaining that there are two different dynamics of action co-ordinations which are irreducible among them. As a corollary of his discussion of Parsons theory of interchange media, Habermas shows that even a comparison within the steering media (money and power) is rather odd. Power needs a stronger institutional ground than money in the lifeworld, because it requires additional trust for its legitimate use, which in modern societies makes reference to some sort of common- wealth. Furthermore, it is supposed that exchanges mediated by money do not harm any of the participants, since they are conceived as equal exchanges of goods with the same value. But since in modern societies the application of power through physical force has to be legitimated, power is closer than money to linguistic strategies of achieving understanding. This is a second line of Habermas critique of Parsons theory of media. His argument is based on the negative consequences for the participants if they do not continue their actions in the way established by the power-holders. Habermas says that to be intimidated by the possibility of being sanctioned is not the route for the continuation of co-ordinations achieved through a free and mutual understanding. 12 At the stage of theory building, then, Habermas criticizes the conse- quences of not distinguishing steering from communication media. Certainly, this is nothing else but an application of his system-and-lifeworld distinction to the Parsonian theory of media. Although, we shall see how at the sociological level Habermas understanding of the theory of media changes and how these changes occur rather implicitly in theoretical terms, even to the point of modifying major issues for the understanding of recent trends in modern societies. 6. THE SUBSTANTIATION OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAMME. THE PARADIGMATIC POSITION OF LANGUAGE AND THE SOCIETAL PERSPECTIVE So far I have shown the development of the theory at a theory-building level of argumentation. The paper presented and compared the different versions of the set of properties upon which theory is laid down; made clear 442 Daniel Chernilo how the theory of media is related to the general frameworks of the different authors and linked it to their understanding of the differentiation of societies. Thus, in terms of the conceptualization of the theory of media as a research programme, we are now in a position to prove the hypothesis of the progressivity of the programme. For so doing, Lakatos proposed two clauses, the rst one being that: the programme must show usefulness indepen- dently of the general framework in which it was created. This rst condition looks fullled by taking into account how Luhmann and Habermas have redened and utilized the theory of media. There has been an increase in the autonomy of the theory of media from the general framework of the rst Parsonian version, within his systems theory, through the inclusion of different kinds of communicative processes with their own rationality. My own reconstruction shows that one can distinguish between media that are a generalization from money (Parsons) and media that are an extension of the features of language (Luhmann and Habermas). The presentation done in the previous three sections argues for the relevance of the theory of media as an autonomous eld of sociological research. Before moving to the second clause proposed by Lakatos, that the theory must theoretically provide topics for further research, I still have to show the most recent developments in the theory of media. We will do so by looking at how Habermas and Luhmann themselves used the theory, but now with a much stronger sociological orientation, that is, how they have utilized the theory of media at the level of neither paradigm presuppositions nor theory building. Rather, the issue now is how the theory of generalized symbolic media is located at the core of the their sociological understand- ing of the differentiation of modern societies. In his writing on Habermas concepts of power and politics, T. McCarthy (1991: 16072) has shown that in The Theory of Communicative Action Habermas mixed the concepts of political system and of bureaucratic- administrative system. By so doing, politics is implicitly theorized as an action-system concerned only with technical problem-solving instead of normative issues. In a later work Habermas (1996: 34859) cleared up this confusion by saying that the political system cannot be adequately concep- tualized just as a rational system and that it had to be split. On the one side, he dened the already mentioned bureaucratic-administrative system. Its operations are ruled no longer by political power but by a new medium called administrative power, which is highly technicized and governed by legal regulations (this is, strictly speaking, a steering medium). On the other side, there is the substantive political system, which resting on fundamental rights is institutionalized as the contemporary rule-of-law state. Habermas says that the operations of this new subsystem are also ruled by a medium, a new ad hoc power, the communicative power. This is a medium as efcient as any other media, but it is directly linked to the normative grounds of the lifeworld. More importantly, in the same work Habermas gives us another suggestion about the relevance of language (instead of money) as the The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 443 paradigmatic medium, but now through a sociological rather than a theor- etical argumentation. Habermas asks about the possible conceptualization of ultimate metalanguages: these would be media specialized in convert- ing to a common semantic the different functionally specialized languages represented by all the media. The function of these metalanguages is the translation of different media, so as to make societally compatible the specialized codes of all media. For Habermas (1996: 348), both ordinar y languages and law are these metalanguages. Firstly, ordinary languages are in fact the very background of the processes of communication, because every communicative act presupposes a shared cultural horizon. As, for him, media are the most stable communicative processes in contemporary societies, they themselves must be co-ordinated through ordinary lan- guages. Secondly, law is normatively linked both to the lifeworld through human rights and to the functional systems through legal codes. Habermas concludes by saying that the actual conditions of functional differentiation produce a kind of upper-level integration, and hence the hypothesis of the existence of metalanguages becomes plausible. The conclusion is that Habermas has made an implicit but very import- ant change: to ground the theory of generalized symbolic media on both money and language. He has been using an alternative strategy for the understanding of media that is, however sociologically plausible, still theoretically underdeveloped: the utilization of language as paradigmatic medium and the re-denition of the whole set of media (including money) from the properties of language. Moreover, this use of language has analyti- cal and normative consequences in terms of his understanding of modern societies. Analytically, it states that a proper conceptualization of the social must be at the level of intersubjectivity; and it also states that, regardless the level of abstraction and self-reference achieved by the steering media, the processes of symbolization and generalization cannot go beyond natural languages. Normatively, the democratic theory Habermas has recently put forward requires the strongest possible location for language as the medium upon which to build discursive procedures for guaranteeing the universal applicability and compelling force of norms. In my view, this is how Habermas explains sociologically an alternative strategy for understanding the media. He does not, however, develop it explicitly at the theory- building level: i.e. the use of language as the paradigmatic medium and the possibility of re-dening all the properties starting from language. Moreover, this also claries that the Parsonian generalization of moneys properties to the remaining media was not a necessary theoretical develop- ment but rather resulted from the expansion of Parsons systemic frame- work. In terms of Luhmanns work, I would like to emphasize two issues. Firstly, Luhmanns different understanding concerning the rise of modern society in relation to Parsons. As we have said, Luhmanns thesis is that media appear before the functional differentiation of societies; 444 Daniel Chernilo media themselves are catalysts of such process. By so doing, he goes for a more historically open-ended strategy for researching the structural conditions of differentiation. For example, in the research about the func- tional differentiation of science one must begin by looking at the develop- ment of the cognitive relations which end up constituting a self-referential environment where only the medium truth can regulate the internal communications of the scientic subsystem and also mediate the relations with other equally self-referential subsystems. Luhmanns theory of the rise of functional differentiation is redened by the way he discusses Parsons theory of media. Secondly, and this can only be understood as a direct result of the previous step, Luhmann is the author who has most clearly made the claim that the theory of media provides a societal approach towards the under- standing of the development of modern society. What is original in Luhmanns Love as Passion (1986) is not that feelings and sentiments are seen sociologically (this is anyway a rising eld of research in sociology), but rather that he offers a societal point of view for the study of love as a social phenomenon. What Luhmann argues is that a truly sociological understanding of love is achieved by undertaking the research on the trans- formation of intimacy as part of the more general problem of the rise of modern societies, by taking into account its interrelations with the societal differentiation as a whole. As he explicitly recognized, this would not be possible without the paradigmatic framework offered by the theory of media. In this context, it might look as if the second of Lakatos conditions, that the theory has to provide topics for further research, is not adequately satised. In this possible (and I think restrictive) interpretation, further research can be understood as empirical research in a, let me put it bluntly, traditional sense. In this approach, the results I have shown could be considered insufciently empirical or, at the very least, insufciently empirically-oriented. Furthermore, one has to recognize that the theory of generalized symbolic media played little role as yet in this kind of empiri- cal research. However, I certainly take a different position and sustain that there are good reasons to consider this second clause, and hence the thesis of the progressivity of the whole programme, as reasonably supported. Firstly, the rise of different dynamics of social co-ordination represented by media such as love and truth, and by metalanguages such as law and ordinary languages was revealed. This openness of the theory towards more historical determinations of new media is a step forward in relation to the empirical possibilities produced by theoretical improvements. Secondly, it was also argued that there are dynamics of social co-ordination that could only be theorized as societally relevant through the conceptual frame- work set up by the theory of media. It seems to me that this is a very strong methodological point made by Luhmann, by claiming that the theory of media offers not only the analytical framework to conceptualize the The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 445 functional differentiation, but also the way in which one must look at those processes in order to achieve a societal level of abstraction. If this is not an empirical result as such yet, it is undeniably an empirically-oriented claim arising directly from the core of this theoretical outlook. 7. SUMMARY As the paper has different lines of argumentation, in these last few words I will simply try to clarify what these lines are and why I claim they form a coherent framework. 1. I began with the broad sociological thesis about the rise of modern societies in terms of a process of differentiation by doing two things at once. First, I brought the issue of differentiation into the contem- porary debate, by relating it with the work of Parsons, Luhmann and Habermas. Second, it was claimed that the theory of media as devel- oped by these authors represents a sort of middle-range approach to substantiate sociologically the problem of differentiation, which remains at a paradigmatic level. The sociological relevance of looking at the theory of media is based not only in its intrinsic interest as a contemporary theoretical development, but also on its relation to the general disciplinary problem of the differentiation of societies. 2. The object of the theory was dened by the formula that media repre- sent the most stable dynamics of social co-ordinations present in differentiated societies. In order to undertake the research, Lakatos proposal to the reconstruction of research programmes was chosen. 3. The reconstruction of the theory of media was done by looking at how the three authors developed it within their own general analytical frameworks. In those sections (3, 4 and 5) the accent was placed on the elucidation of the set of properties that allowed us to understand the different media as an identiable theory, as a coherent corpus of knowledge. Two were the main results of the reconstruction: rst, money looses its position as paradigmatic medium, language being to take that place. Second, the relation between media and differentia- tion is redened by reversing Parsons thesis: media are now seen as a causal component of the functional differentiation of societies, they come before and not after the differentiation. Whilst Habermas advanced the former development, Luhmann has the authorship for the latter. 4. Finally, I undertook the substantiation of the theory of media, by looking at Lakatos two clauses to prove the progressivity of the programme. Firstly, it is clear that the theory of media is now an independent analytical framework in relation to the rst Parsonian formulation. Secondly, and arguably harder to prove, I put forward the claim that there are further topics of research which are logically 446 Daniel Chernilo derived from the developments of the theory. In that case, I took Habermas discussion of the rise of metalanguages and Luhmanns conceptualization of love as direct results of the path followed by the theory of media. In these cases, it is suggested, there is a sociological- research interest rather than an attempt at the theory-building level. By stating the necessity of conducing deeper research through the theory of media, this paper sought to reinstate in the agenda the interest of continuing this line of theoretically informed sociological research. The clarication of the basic lines of the discussion was the necessary rst step in that direction. (Date accepted: April 2002) Daniel Chernilo Department of Sociology The University of Warwick ACKNOWLEDGMENTS *A previous version of this paper was presented at the 5th Conference of the European Sociological Association in Helsinki, AugustSeptember 2001. My thanks to Dr. Marcelo Arnold, Omar Aguilar, Andrs Haye, Marcus Taylor and two anonymous BJS reviewers for their comments at different stages of this research. I am especially indebted to Dr. Robert Fine for his help through the nalization of the paper. NOTES The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 447 1. This claim seems to be shared by the representatives of the neo-functionalist project (Alexander 1990). A similar thesis about the recent developments in relation to the differentiation theory, but quite critical of the neo-functionalists, can be found in Schwinn (1998: 7782). 2. Garcias (1997) account is interest- ing, but he fulls neither of these tasks. 3. In the following years, Parsons gen- eralizes the theory of media to the general system of action and later on to the human condition. Nevertheless, this paper is only concerned with the media of the social system because: (a) these media are particularly relevant towards the theorization of the dynamics of social co- ordination, and (b) Luhmann and Haber- mas focus their works mainly on the media of the societal subsystems. 4. On this issue, Dodds (1994: 602) and Lidzs (2001: 14252) claims are relevant. Whilst the former argues that Parsons main movement was from lan- guage to money, the latter (whose interpretation I endorse) claims that Parsons media are derived from money but recognizes that there is the tension as to whether money or language is the para- digmatic medium. My central claim is different from both in that, beyond Parsons intentions, Habermas and Luhmann reconstructed the theory of media by explicitly dealing with that original tension. 5 Further developments of the Par- sonian concept of inuence are found in Lidz (1991) and Cohen and Arato (1992: 138). 6. For a summary, see Johnson (1992). 7. For a different version of these properties see Mnch (1994: 4758). 8. This table is based on Baum (1977: 467) and Habermas (1987: 274). Method- ologically I follow Mnch (1987: 220n) when he writes we should be concerned less with the individual formulations than with the interpretation of the paradigms perspective. 9. A critique of the zero-sum model is found in Giddens (1995). 10. I owe this precise reference to Almarazs (1981: 5046) comprehensive work on Parsons. 11. See also Arnold and Rodrguez (1991: 167). 12.
Value-commitments also tends to
the application of sanctions, in this case not through physical but by social and psychological sanctions. See above, Table I. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, J. 1990 Introduction. Differen- tiation Theory: Problems and Prospects in J. Alexander and P. Colomy (eds) Differen- tiation Theor y and Social Change. Comparative and Historical Perspectives, NY: Columbia University Press. Almaraz, J. 1981 La Teora Sociolgica de Talcott Parsons, Madrid: CIS. Arnold, M. and Rodrguez, D. 1991 Sociedad y Teora de Sistemas, Santiago: Ed. Universitaria. Baum, R. 1977 Introduction to part IV. Generalized Media in Action in J. Loubser, R. Baum, A. Effrat, and V. Lidz (eds) Explorations in the General Theory in Social Science. Essays in honour of Talcott Parsons, Vol. Two, NY: Free Press. Cohen, J. and Arato, A. 1992 Civil Society and Political Theory, New Baskerville: MIT Press. Dodd, N. 1994 The Sociology of Money. Economics, Reason and Contemporary Society, Cambridge: Polity Press. Garca, P. 1997 Los Medios Simblicos De Comunicacin o de Intercambio?: El Legado Parsoniano en Luhmann, Revista Anthropos 173/174: 10011. Giddens, A. 1995 Power in the Writings of Talcott Parsons, in A. Giddens Politics, Sociology and Social Theory, California: Stan- ford University Press. Habermas, J. 1987 The Theory of Communi- cative Action Vol. 2. Lifeworld and System: a Critique of Functionalist Reason, UK: Beacon Press. 1996 Between Facts and Norms, New Baskerville: MIT Press. Johnson, H. 1992 The Generalized Sym- bolic Media in Parsons Theory in P. Hamilton (ed.) Talcott Parsons. Critical Essays IV, London: Routledge. Lakatos, I. 1978 The Methodology of Scientic Research Programmes. Philosophical Papers Vol.1, J. Worral and G. Currie (eds), Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Lidz, V. 1991 Inuence and Solidarity: Dening a Conceptual Core for Sociology in R. Robertson and B. Turner (eds) Talcott Parsons. Theorist of Modernity, GB: Sage. 2001 Language and the Family of Generalized Symbolic Media in A. J. Trevi o (ed.) Talcott Parsons Today. His Theor y and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology, USA: Rowman & Littleeld Publishers. Luhmann, N. 1977 Generalized Media and the Problem of Contingency in J. Loubser, R. Baum, A. Effrat, and V. Lidz (eds) Explorations in the General Theory in Social Science. Essays in honour of Talcott Parsons, Vol. Two, NY: Free Press. 1986 Love as Passion. The codication of Intimacy, GB: Polity Press. 1995 Social Systems, Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1998 Complejidad y Modernidad, Spain: Trota. McCarthy, T. 1991 On Reconstruction and Deconstruction in Contemporar y Critical Theor y, New Baskerville: MIT Press. Mnch, R. 1987 Theory of Action: Towards a New Synthesis Going Beyond Parsons, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1994 Sociological Theory II: From the 1920s to the 1960s, Chicago: Nelson Hall. Parsons, T. 1967a Durkheims Contri- bution to the Theory of Integration of Social Systems in T. Parsons Sociological Theor y and Modern Society, NY: Free Press. 1967b On the Concept of Political Power in T. Parsons Sociological Theor y and Modern Society, NY: Free Press. 1967c On the Concept of Inuence in T. Parsons Sociological Theory and Modern Society, NY: Free Press. 1967d Evolutionary Universals in 448 Daniel Chernilo Society in T. Parsons Sociological Theor y and Modern Society, NY: Free Press. 1969 On the Concept of Value- Commitments in T. Parsons Politics and Social Structure, NY: Free Press. 1977a The Social Systems in T. Parsons Social Systems and the Evolution of Action Theory, NY: Free Press. 1977b Social Structure and the Sym- bolic Media of Interchange in T. Parsons Social Systems and the Evolution of Action Theor y, NY: Free Press. Schluchter, W. 1981 The Rise of Western Rationalism, California: University of Cali- fornia Press. Schwinn, T. 1998 False Connections: Systems and Action Theories in Neo- functionalism and in Jrgen Habermas, Sociological Theory 16(1): 7595. The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 449