Asian Journal of Communication

ISSN: 0129-2986 (Print) 1742-0911 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rajc20

Understanding systems theory: transition from

equilibrium to entropy

Shelton A. Gunaratne

To cite this article: Shelton A. Gunaratne (2008) Understanding systems theory: transition
from equilibrium to entropy, Asian Journal of Communication, 18:3, 175-192, DOI:
10.1080/01292980802207033

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01292980802207033

Published online: 14 Aug 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 918

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rajc20
Asian Journal of Communication
Vol. 18, No. 3, September 2008, 175
192

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Understanding systems theory: transition from equilibrium to entropy
Shelton A. Gunaratne*

Department of Mass Communications, Minnesota State University Moorhead, MN, USA

What we call systems theory is more a metatheory than a monolithic theory. It has
provided a set of common signposts for all systems theorists to follow. This paper,
written from the perspective of communications scholarship, examines the transition of
systems theory from the age of equilibrium to the age of entropy during the middle of
the twentieth century, and then to the age of emergence at the end of the century. It
distinguishes between the old equilibrium-based systems theory and the entropy-based
systems theory, as well as the ‘new’ emergence-centered social systems theory. It asserts
the existence of close similarities between the fundamental concepts of systems theory
and Asian philosophies, despite the cynical dismissal of these similarities by a Luhmann
disciple. It documents how media sociology has applied chaos theory to justify market-
driven journalism and claim the emergence of a global public sphere; and it looks at the
potential of network analysis, an offshoot of systems theory.
Keywords: communications research; entropy; equilibrium; nonlinear dynamics; systems
theory

Introduction
Although systems theory has proved valuable in many forms and applications, some
scholars are still unclear as to its true nature. One scholar has described systems theory as
‘more a perspective or general approach than a theory per se’ (Littlejohn, 1983, p. 29).
There is no one systems theory as such but several approaches that share the system
(however defined) as the unit of analysis. ‘Systems theory is not a monolithic logical
framework’ (Monge, 1977, p. 21). Nor is it a theory proper, ‘so much as a coherent set of
principles applying to all irreducible wholes’ (Macy, 1991, p. 3). Systems approaches can
vary from the ‘soft systems’ methodology of Peter Checkland to the postmodern
epistemology of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, so that ‘no one label or
criticism can embrace systems theory’ (Bailey, 1994, p. xiv). Jouko Seppänen (1998) says
the systems paradigm ‘is undergoing dramatic developments and is entering a new era
itself’ (p. 300). Baecker (2001) goes so far as to say: ‘perhaps, future sociological systems
theory will not look like systems theory at all’ (p. 71).
Because of the apparent confusion that prevails over systems ‘theory’ among scholars,
including communications researchers, this paper will first discuss the nature of systems
theory, and then focus on the signposts of general system theory (including cybernetics).
Thereafter, this paper will show how key social systems theorists have used the concept of
communication giving it different meanings; how network analysis, an offshoot of systems
theory, has become an important tool to explore communication issues; and how one can
use Asian philosophies to engender changes in communication theory and methods by

*Email: gunarat@mnstate.edu

ISSN 0129-2986 print/ISSN 1742-0911 online

# 2008 AMIC/SCI-NTU
DOI: 10.1080/01292980802207033
http://www.informaworld.com
176 S.A. Gunaratne

reviving two classical paradigms: the Yijing (or Classic of Changes) and the Paticca
Samuppāda (Dependent Co-arising).

Nature of systems theory

A system can be either closed/isolated or open. Closed systems, which are mostly physical
systems isolated from their environment, go through progressive internal chaos (or
entropy), disintegration, and death. Open systems, which are biological, psychological, and
social systems, exchange energy/matter and information with their environment. New (or
second-wave) systems approaches presume that all living systems are structurally and
cognitively open but operationally closed to their environment. Additionally, systems can
be identified as conceptual, concrete, abstracted, regulated, totipotential (self-sufficient),
autopoietic (self-reproducing), or hierarchical (Bailey, 1994; Miller, 1978).
Ervin Laszlo distinguished between artificial systems and natural systems, which are
those that do not owe their ‘existence to conscious human planning and execution’ (Laszlo,
1972, p. 23), Furthermore, Laszlo hypothesized that natural systems characterized four
organizational invariances: they were wholes with irreducible properties; they maintained
themselves in a changing environment; they created themselves in response to the challenge
of the environment; and they were coordinating interfaces in nature’s hierarchy. Laszlo
then looked at each of these invariances in natural systems associated with the physical
sciences (suborganic), the life sciences (organic), and the social sciences (supraorganic).
Laszlo (1972) surmised that the basic system in the physical realm was the atom, which
could be either unstable (open) or stable (closed); that organisms, including human beings,
remained open systems all their lives; that systems communicated with systems and jointly
formed supersystems; and that the systems view of nature was one of harmony and
dynamic balance (which is exactly the view of Asian philosophy). Comparing the
hierarchical setting of the cosmos with that of our planet (viz., the organic and
supraorganic systems of plants, animals, and human beings), Laszlo (1972) asserted that
the systems view of nature and mankind was clearly non-anthropocentric. The human
being was simply ‘one species of system in a complex and embracing hierarchy of nature’
(p. 118).
Sirgy (1988) classified general systems ‘theory’ into three knowledge categories: (1)
philosophy of science (i.e., epistemological/ontological/axiological), (2) behavioral phe-
nomena (physical/biological/social), and (3) methodological. Examples of the first category
include the works on the challenges to classical philosophies of science (Bunge, 1977),
science and the systems paradigm (Checkland, 1976), the Yijing model of bigrams,
trigrams, and hexagrams (Gunaratne, 2006a,b), systems approach (Jenkins, 1969), theory
of dependent co-arising (Macy, 1991), world hypotheses (Pepper, 1942), and world-systems
(Wallerstein, 1974, 2004).
Examples of the second category include social entropy theory (Bailey, 1990, 1994),
social systems theory (Berrien, 1968), social psychology of organizations (Katz & Kahn,
1978), general theory of systems (Laszlo, 1972), social autopoiesis theory (Luhmann,
1995), living systems theory (Miller, 1978), self-producing systems theory (Mingers, 1995),
structural-functionalism (Parsons & Shils, 1962), field theory (Rummel, 1977), theory of
development logic of social systems (Teune & Mlinar, 1978), open system theory (von
Bertalanffy, 1968), and cybernetic/control theory (Ashby, 1956; Weiner, 1948). Examples of
the third category include clustering theory and analysis, comparative systems analysis,
computational organizational theory, divergence mapping, input
output analysis, linear
 Asian Journal of Communication 177

programming techniques, network theory, and nonlinear modeling and multi-agent

systems.
Monge and Contractor (2003) have referred to ‘several variations of systems theory’ (p.
80) that developed during the last century. They have reviewed three of them (structural-
functionalism, cybernetics, and general systems theory) to provide a context for developing
a model of communication networks as complex adaptive self-organizing systems. ‘The
essential idea of complex systems is that rule-governed interaction among a set of
interconnected individuals can generate emergent structures’ (Monge and Contractor,
2003, p. 85).
The best known social systems theorist of the twentieth century was Niklas Luhmann,
who was a protégé of Parsons. Luhmann transferred his allegiance to the Santiago School’s
theory of autopoiesis around 1971, with the introduction of his concept of meaning (Sinn)
derived phenomenologically. Abandoning the first wave of systems theory, the structural-
functionalist approach (which had come under severe criticism because of its conservative
emphasis on equilibrium), Luhmann formulated his own self-referential, social systems
theory associated with the second wave of systems approaches derived from the general
system theory of the 1960s. The chaos theories also belonged to the second wave.
Luhmann theorized that modern societies were differentiated into functional sub-
systems, each of which had its own ‘communication medium’ that determined the way it
interacted with its environment. He twisted the biological concept of ‘autopoiesis’ (self-
making) to fit his abstract cluster of social systems (science, law, education, economy,
intimacy, mass media, and so on), comprising communication events only. Luhmann
defined a communication event as that which results from the tripartite process of
information
utterance
understanding. By Luhmann’s own admission, his social systems
were not living systems.
In Luhmann’s (1995, 2000) approach, each functional social system determined its
boundary by choosing only those communications (as defined above) pertinent to its
definitional binary code (e.g., the legal/illegal distinction demarcating law; profitable/
unprofitable for the economy; information/noninformation for the mass media, and so on).
The psychic systems (minds) and interactions (people) constituted the environment for
social systems, which were operationally closed but structurally and cognitively open to
their environment. Luhmann explained that social systems and psychic systems inter-
penetrated one another despite their operational closure. While psychic systems produced
themselves by producing thoughts, social systems did so by producing communications.
Because both thoughts and communications had meaning in exactly the same way, the
functional subsystems did not have to include social actors (Viskovatoff, 1999, p. 486).
Viskovatoff (1999), who asserts that Luhmann erred when he adopted the theory of
autopoiesis, points out that in contrast to the old system-theoretic paradigm, which first
distinguished a system from its environment and then proceeded to describe system
processes by relating them to functions the researcher attributed to them, Luhmann’s
autopoietic systems theory has radically dismissed all such talk on the grounds that the old
theory employed an observer-relative viewpoint that did not necessarily correspond to the
‘phenomenology’ of the system, taken as a unified entity ‘for itself’ (p. 484). However,
those who erroneously equate systems theory with the Luhmannian ‘autopoietic’ approach
should become aware of the existence of other systems approaches applicable to social
systems such as neofunctionalism (Alexander & Colomy, 1990), living systems theory
(Miller, 1978), theory of living systems incorporating nonlinear dynamics with the theories
of cognition and autopoiesis (Capra, 1996, 2005; Gunaratne, 2005a, 2007), and social
entropy theory (Bailey, 1990, 1994). One may argue that complexity theory (nonlinear
178 S.A. Gunaratne

dynamics) has enriched these and other new systems approaches (Urry, 2005). World-
systems analysis (Wallerstein, 1974, 2004) can be viewed as a new systems approach
because it has much in common with the theory of dissipative structures (Prigogine &
Stengers, 1984).
Gunaratne (2003, 2004a) has already outlined the impact of nonlinear dynamics on
systems theory. In behavioral science, the age of entropy replaced the century-long age of
equilibrium (reflected in the works of Rudolf Clausius, Herbert Spencer, J. Willard Gibbs,
Vilfredo Pareto, Alfred J. Lotka, L.J. Henderson, Paul Samuelson, and Parsons) in the
mid-twentieth century when cybernetics (Weiner, 1948), general system theory (von
Bertalanffy, 1962, 1968), and information theory (Shannon & Weaver, 1948) impelled
social scientists to question the conservative premise of equilibrium (incorrectly confused
with homeostasis) in the early Parsonian structural-functionalist systems approach. The
Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics in 1929 also gave a boost to nonlinear
dynamics (i.e., Bohr and Heisenberg’s interpretation based on the concept of probability
and the principles of uncertainty, complementarity, correspondence, and the inseparability
of the quantum system and its measuring apparatus).
In thermodynamics, equilibrium meant maximum entropy (spent energy or disorder) in
a closed system. The second law, which asserts that the energy of the universe is constant
while the entropy of the universe is increasing to a maximum, would interpret such a
system to have undergone heat death. All other forms of equilibrium defined in physics ‘are
subsumed under thermodynamic equilibrium and the second law’ (Bailey, 1994, p. 105).
Equilibrium is synchronic because it does not accommodate change or movement over
space-time in comparison to homeostasis, which is diachronic. Thus, equilibrium is
applicable only to closed/isolated systems, which have reached maximum entropy.
Parsons spearheaded the application of systems theory in the USA. He developed an
abstracted theory of action comprising three basic systems*personality (individual/
psychological), social (relationships), and cultural (values)*to which he later added
another*organismic (biological). He posited that these systems were related intricately to
one another, exhibiting both independence and interdependence. He defined the system
boundaries as what separated members from non-members: a purely analytical distinction
that also applied to the links or interactions between systems. He explained that the actions
of the four system components interpenetrated one another and caused the problem of
‘double contingency’ (a situation where ego makes its decision based on the expected
action of alter), which he solved by postulating a cultural consensus about action inherited
by ego and alter. Equilibrium meant the ability of the social system’s four components to
maintain the status quo by converging to the same fixed point from any deviations. Thus,
the Parsonian model was flawed: a system that is open to its environment cannot be in
equilibrium. The concept of homeostasis, however, allowed for change within a limited
range (as in the case of a thermostat). The cybernetic aspect of general system theory
allowed for this possibility associated with negative feedback loops.
The first wave of systems theory (viz., the old Parsonian ‘systems’ approach, which
Jürgen Habermas adapted to derive his quasi-system/lifeworld framework of his commu-
nicative action theory) lost its eminence with the much-delayed publication of Ludwig von
Bertalanffy’s general system theory in 1968. Merton (1949), who rejected ‘grand’ theory in
favor of middle-range theory, influenced American social scientists to downplay structural-
functionalism, as well as the new approaches to systems theory engendered by nonlinear
dynamics: variously identified as complexity theory, chaos theory, catastrophe theory,
dissipative-structures theory, self-organized criticality, etc.
 Asian Journal of Communication 179

Kenneth Bailey (1994) argues that the second-wave systems approaches dealt with
important societal processes more effectively than the first-wave approaches because social
scientists paid attention to concepts such as entropy, autopoiesis, matter
energy proces-
sing, information processing, and control processes (sociocybernetics). Whereas ‘classical
sociology and [first-wave] systems theory dealt extensively with equilibrium, the new
[second-wave] systems theory emphasizes nonequilibrium approaches, framed largely in
terms of entropy processes’ (Bailey, 1994, p. 5). Bailey adds: ‘The recognition of the
problems with equilibrium and the emphasis on material rather than idealist factors are
exceedingly important reconstructions for the new systems theory’ (Bailey, 1994, p. 9).
R. Keith Sawyer (2005) points out that the third-wave systems approaches began in the
mid-1990s when ‘computer power advanced to the point where societies could be simulated
using a distinct computational agent for every individual in the society through a
computational technique known as multi-agent systems’ (p. 2). This technique, which made
it possible for researchers to do simulations of artificial societies and run ‘virtual
experiments,’ has enabled the third-wave [systems] complexity theorists to focus on
emergence, ‘the processes whereby the global behavior of a system results from the actions
and interactions of agents’ (Sawyer, 2005, p. 2).1

Systems theory signposts

Sirgy (1988) clarified that general systems theories differed from conventional scientific
theories inasmuch as the former possessed greater unifying power, isomorphism, and
heuristic value. He defined unifying power as the extent to which the theory has the ability
to connect previously unconnected concepts and relationships. Isomorphism meant the
ability to map elements or theories from one discipline to another (i.e., generalizability
across system levels or levels of analysis). Heuristic power referred to the ability of a theory
to suggest new directions and raise interesting questions for further inquiry. Monge (1973,
1977), a pioneer advocate for applying systems concept to communication research,
explained to communication scholars the nature of general systems theory: the multi-
disciplinary framework conceptualized by biologist von Bertalanffy (1962, 1968) in the
early 1920s. Von Bertalanffy presumed that the GST would be applicable to biological,
psychological, and social systems. The GST approach heavily influenced Parsons’ general
theory of action (Baert, 1998), a version of structural-functionalism, the origin of which
has been traced by some scholars to Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, Malinowski, and
Radcliffe-Brown (DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989).
What do systems theorists mean by a system? Von Bertalanffy defined a system as a set
of elements standing in interaction. Hall and Fagen (1956) explained that a system should
possess physical or abstract objects (i.e., parts or elements), attributes, relationships among
its objects (i.e., interdependence), and an environment. Stephen Littlejohn observed the
commonalities among the various definitions, and offered the following elaboration:
An open system is a set of objects [or events] with attributes that interrelate in an environment.
The system possesses qualities of wholeness, interdependence, hierarchy, self-regulation [or
autopoiesis], environmental interchange, equilibrium [or homeostasis], adaptability, and
equifinality. (Littlejohn, 1983, p. 32)
The square brackets contain the revisions I have inserted to incorporate the concepts
that divide the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ systems approaches. Bailey has provided a more concise
definition of a social system:
180 S.A. Gunaratne

A system is a bounded set of interrelated components that has an entropy value of below the
maximum. (Bailey, 1994, p. 44)

Bailey’s definition separates social systems from isolated/closed systems, which have
reached maximum entropy (viz., thermodynamic equilibrium). It fits into Ilya Prigogine’s
concept of a far-from-equilibrium dissipative structure, which is what a social system
invariably is. It also fits into Miller’s (1978) concept of a living system, which can vary from
a cell to a supranational system. However, because Bailey’s concise definition hides some
of the essential signposts of systems theory, this paper shall elaborate on the overlapping
qualities explicitly mentioned in Littlejohn’s definition.

Wholeness
Joanna Macy (1991) has pointed out that von Bertalanffy directed his attention ‘not to
parts, but to wholes and the way they function, not to substance but to organization . . .
[These] wholes, be they animal or vegetable, cell, organ, or organism, could best be
described as systems’ (p. 72). Thus, a system is a ‘non-summative’ and irreducible pattern
of interacting events. Wholeness applies to all systems approaches, including world-systems
analysis (Wallerstein, 1974, 2004) that superseded dependency theory (Frank, 1979). The
world-system as a whole is its unit of analysis. Moreover, if we are to be consistent,
wholeness is applicable ‘at the scale of the cosmos as a whole, the galactic level, the solar
system, the earth’s biosphere, all the way down to the ecology of a small pond’ (Clark,
2005, p. 176). This is a clear deviation from the atomistic approach of the Newtonian

Cartesian model.

Interdependence
Littlejohn (1983) states that the reason for looking at a system as a whole ‘is that its parts
interrelate and affect one another’ (p. 30). A system is more than the sum of its parts
because ‘the character of a system as a pattern of organization is altered with the addition,
subtraction or modification of any piece. This ‘more’ is not something extra, like a vitalist
principle or an élan vital, but a new level of operation which the interdependence of its
parts permits’ (Macy, 1991, p. 72). It is the attribute called emergence in complexity science
or nonlinear dynamics, the ‘new’ systems approach in vogue (Capra, 2005; Urry, 2005).
Network theories (Monge & Contractor, 2003) also owe much to the concept of system
interdependence. Bailey (1994, p. 193) has coined the term transformational emergence to
describe a phenomenon that exists at all levels, but is transformed or emerges into newer
forms at higher levels. On the cosmic scale, one can easily see the interdependence of our
planet with our solar system, our galaxy, and the entire galactic system.2

Hierarchy
As Littlejohn (1983) has elucidated, every complex system consists of a number of
subsystems: ‘The system therefore is a series of levels of increasing complexity’ (p. 31).
System (hierarchy) is also known as a holon. ‘The individual in society is a social holon,
consisting hierarchically of cells, organs, organ systems, and body and is part of the larger
group, culture, and society’ (Littlejohn, 1983, p. 31). In his attempt to interpret the world-
systems hierarchy of center, semiperiphery, and periphery in terms of complexity theory,
Baker (1993) conceptualized a centriphery holon as the dynamic attractor that created the
 Asian Journal of Communication 181

turbulence and re-created the order in social systems. It is a holon because ‘insofar as the
center creates the periphery, part of the center is in the periphery, and vice versa’ (Baker,
1993, p. 136). Miller (1978), in his living systems theory, identified a hierarchy of eight
concrete systems: cell, organ, organism, group, organization, community, society, and
supranational system. This hierarchy, Miller claimed, showed the evolutionary principle of
‘shred-out.’ (In systems theory, hierarchy refers to larger and smaller units of organization
rather than to higher and lower levels.) In further elaboration, Macy (1991) says: ‘Systems
enclose and are enclosed by other systems with which they are in constant communication,
in a natural hierarchical order’ (p. 72). Although social systems culminate with Miller’s
supranational system or Wallerstein’s world system, physical systems hierarchy must
extend to the solar system and the intergalactic system.

Self-regulation and control

Systems are goal-oriented (teleological) organisms governed by their purposes. ‘The parts
of a system must behave in accordance with its rules or canons and must adapt to the
environment on the basis of feedback’ (Littlejohn, 1983, p. 31). This is the aspect of
systems theory associated with cybernetics, which explains the ways systems, together with
their subsystems, ‘use their own output to gauge effect and make necessary adjustments’
(Littlejohn, 1983, p. 33). The system adjusts to two types of feedback loops: ‘Negative
feedback loops stabilize the system within its current trajectory [because] they reduce
deviation between goal and performance . . . Positive feedback loops reinforce or amplify
the deviations, each change adding to the next’ (Macy, 1991, p. 75). Moreover, open
systems are self-governing or autonomous (but not ‘independent’ inasmuch as they are
conditioned by the environment and its inputs). This attribute is better known as
‘autopoiesis,’ a term popularized by Maturana and Varela (1980). It refers to the
intrasystemic dynamics of self-making: the recursive reproduction of the system’s
operational elements. From the perspective of sociocybernetics, an autopoietic system is
‘a network of interrelated component-producing processes such that the components in
interaction generate the same network that produced them’ (Geyer & van der Zouwen,
2001, pp. 6
7). Because humankind is ‘a tiny and unessential part of the Gaian system’
(Sagan & Margulis, 1984, p. 71), our scientific theories also invite a similar description. We
pay scarce attention to the hierarchy of interplanetary and intergalactic systems comprising
our planet’s environment. Our planet is an autopoietic unit of the entire cosmological
system, which has a bearing on us. Although we can reproduce ourselves recursively under
self-regulation and control, we are not independent of the cosmos.3

Equilibrium/homeostasis
As already pointed out, equilibrium is a misnomer associated with ‘old’ systems theory. An
open system ‘must be capable of sensing deviations from the ‘‘assigned’’ norm and of
correcting these tendencies’ (Littlejohn, 1983, p. 32) thereby maintaining a degree of
balance or homeostasis. A primary function of the interacting subsystems is to help
maintain system homeostasis. Parsonian social systems are presumed to be equilibrium-
maintaining. General systems theory, however, allows for homeostasis. Complexity science,
conversely, asserts that open systems are in a steady state at far from equilibrium (a phase
space signifying minimum entropy). Theoretically, an open/living system cannot reach
near-equilibrium or equilibrium (i.e., the point of near-maximum or maximum entropy
[heat death]) because its trajectory is determined by a far-from-equilibrium attractor in
182 S.A. Gunaratne

every phase space. A strange attractor, at a particular phase space of the system’s
trajectory, may destabilize the system by amplifying the effect of the slightest perturbation
(positive feedback) to its initial conditions. This is known as the ‘butterfly effect,’
illustrated by the famous Lorenz attractor (Mackenzie, 2005). This could happen when
thermodynamic forces cause the system to exceed the linear region. The nonlinear (fractal)
amplification of positive feedback loops would cause the system to bifurcate: either
disintegrate itself or self-organize into a more complex system governed by another
attractor in phase space. This is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, which
equates maximum entropy with ‘heat death.’ The ‘new’ systems approaches emphasize the
system’s steady state at far from equilibrium: a very different view from the change-
resistant equilibrium in Parsonian functionalism. On the cosmological level, our planet’s
interconnectivities and feedback loops with the cosmic system caused the Earth to
reorganize itself well beyond the level of homeostasis on two occasions: first, some 250
million years ago, when a periodic dynamical transition in planetary orbits resulted in a
cataclysmic dying-off; and second, some 65 million years ago, when a massive meteorite
caused the dying-off of dinosaurs and numerous other groups of animals and plants
(Clark, 2005).

Environmental interchange and adaptability

An open system takes in (inputs) energy
matter
information from its environment and
releases (outputs) the resulting entropy to its environment. Thus, the environment affects
the system while the system affects the environment. Moreover, because the environment is
in a state of flux, the system must be adaptable. This adaptability should go well beyond
homeostasis to accommodate self-organization into a new phase space following a
bifurcation. At the solar-system level, our planet must adjust itself to ‘occasional chaotic
outbursts in the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter [that] could trigger changes in the path of
asteroids, catapulting them into earth-crossing orbits’ (Clark, 2005, p. 175). Continuous
showering of cosmic dust delivers some 40,000 metric tons of extraterrestrial matter to our
planet every year. Clark (2005) admonishes us ‘to keep in mind the element of
incalculability inherent in extra-terrestrial forces’ (p. 161).

Equifinality
This is the term von Bertalanffy used to convey the idea that open systems can reach a
particular final state (or goal) from different starting conditions and in spite of differing
perturbations. It appears to contradict the classical laws of physics because equifinality
asserts that the ‘system is not solely subject to initial conditions or external forces, because
its component parts interact to stabilize and support each other’ (Macy, 1991, p. 94). The
preceding signposts of systems theory bear a remarkable resemblance to several
fundamental concepts of Buddhist and Daoist philosophies in particular. Because these
similarities are documented in detail elsewhere (Gunaratne, 2005a, 2008; Macy, 1991), this
paper shall highlight only the most remarkable: Buddhist philosophy makes it very clear
that everything and everyone in the universe is interconnected and interdependent.
Therefore, only mutual causality is possible. Buddhism does not admit a first cause. Every
outcome is conditioned by all co-arising factors (in a network), not determined by
independent (control) variables. (Luhmann asserts the same in his social systems theory.)
Systems theory also asserts that structurally and cognitively a living system is open to
its environment, but operationally closed. Such closure allows the system a degree of
 Asian Journal of Communication 183

freedom for self-steering. This view allows for the operation of nonlinear dynamics.
Because everything is impermanent (anicca), ‘chaos’ principles apply. Autopoiesis and self-
regulation apply to every living system. The actions of an organism are conditioned by its
environment; and the interplay between these two factors engender a hybrid emergence,
which guides the trajectory of the ever-changing organism.

Communication and systems theory

We shall now turn to the importance attached to the concept of communication in systems
theory to show the potential of applying systems approaches for interdisciplinary studies.
Systems theorists have interpreted communication differently to suit their specific theories.
Bausch (2001) says systems theory ‘is the science of relationships between wholes and
parts, processes and structures’ (p. 392). As an integrative science, systems theory has been
applied to multiple disciplines. This explains the multiple meanings attached to the concept
of communication.
As we already noted, the core element of Luhmann’s ‘grand theory’ of social systems is
communication. Social systems are systems of communication (or events, the raw materials
for which are communications), and society is the most encompassing social system. That
being the case, today’s society is a world society. Communications in turn are actions,
which represent, as it were, disorder within the system. Each social system, as well as each
psychical or personal system, operates by ‘reduction of complexity’ because it selects only
a limited amount of all information available in the environment on the basis of meaning
(Sinn). Moreover, each system maintains its distinctive identity through autopoiesis
(constant reproduction of communication meaningful to itself). A social system disappears
if it fails to maintain its identity. A defining binary code is the supreme criterion guiding
autopoiesis.4 The critical theorist Habermas (1984, 1987) also used communication as the
centerpiece of his theory of society. Reluctant to accept systems theory in toto, he envisaged
a lifeworld, where people undertook communicative action through rational discourse in
the public sphere aimed at reaching agreement. Both Luhmann and Habermas owed much
to Parsons, who made the distinction between lifeworld and system, and highlighted the
importance of communication. Luhmann incorporated the communication-related con-
cepts of interpenetration, double contingency, etc., while Habermas incorporated the idea
of consensus, which as posited by Parsons coalesced around accepted values and norms of
behavior in the face of deviant behavior, and helped achieve social equilibrium.

Luhmann
Habermas debate
The Luhmann
Habermas debate in the early 1970s enabled both men to understand the
pros and cons of systems versus lifeworld. Their debate centered on two issues:
. the theoretical: can systemic terms explain all social processes?
. the ethical: how does reliance upon systems theory affect an advanced industrial
society? (Bausch, 2001, p. 61)
On the theoretical issue, Habermas argued that social processes required consensual
decision-making (as illustrated by the operational procedure of the lifeworld in his theory
of communicative action). Luhmann contended that social processes required impersonal
systemic regulation because they were too complex for consensual bartering. On the ethical
issue, Habermas claimed that the application of systems theory, which attributed
irreducible emergence to systems, tended to repress personal agency, democratic discourse,
184 S.A. Gunaratne

and social justice.5 Luhmann countered that the complexities of advanced industrialized
societies precluded normative consensus on the details of contested matter. In such
societies, impersonal, positive laws were the safeguards of individual and community
rights.
Habermas criticized Luhmann’s sociology as ‘anti-humanistic’ because it excluded
human beings from any social system. With ‘pure communication’ making up each social
system, human consciousnesses (personal or psychical systems) could serve only as an
environmental resource. The difference in levels between the disorder of communications
and the order of actions is central to the understanding of Luhmann’s systems theory, and
it is at this point that Luhmann purposely differs from the classics of sociology.
Schwanitz (1996) points out the two different ways the concept of communication is
used by Luhmann and Habermas:
Unlike Habermas, Luhmann does not see communication as communicative activity, but
rather as the reproduction of the necessity of attribution by constantly supplying the social
structure with a surplus of social meaning through the constant change of perspective between
information and utterance (Schwanitz, 1996, p. 490).
Habermas disagreed with the systems approach of Luhmann on three aspects:
meaning, technocracy, and norms. Luhmann held that meanings were a construction of
past selections made in the course of a system’s survival. Habermas held that meanings
were created through interpersonal communication or intersubjectivity, and that they
rested on interpersonally accepted norms. Luhmann argued that one’s actions had
meaning because of a history of selections in complex situations.
Habermas held that Luhmann’s concept of meaning reduced all values to the
technocratic one of how to make existing social systems function better; it ignored the
legitimate claims of people who are victims of technological systems. Luhmann responded
that the modern world had become too complex for Habermas’s ideal speech situation to
ever happen and, under such complexity, rationality has ceased to be a means of
communication. Habermas argued that human communication would be impossible
without the acceptance of norms*particularly propositional truth, rightfulness, and
sincerity. Luhmann countered that cognitive expectations would be easily modified in the
face of contrary experience whereas normative or value expectations would not be
modified by contrary facts because the latter demanded conformity; furthermore,
normative expectations tended to blind us to the differences existing in situations (Bausch,
1997; Gunaratne, 2005a).

New systems approaches

The communication issues arising from the Luhmann
Habermas debate provide remark-
able opportunities for communication scientists to analyze the contemporary world system
from the perspective of complexity science, the third wave of systems theory focusing on
emergence*a systemic property that sociologists and economists interpret as irreducible
and reducible respectively. These two views, in general, coincide with the philosophical
divide between the non-West, which emphasizes social responsibility over individual rights,
and the West, which emphasizes the reverse order (Gunaratne, 2004b, 2005a, 2007). Asian
philosophies and African Ubuntuism6 (Fourie, 2007) predominantly take the collectivist
view, also associated with socialism and communism.7
Communication scholars can revive systems analysis with the benefit of advanced
computer technology (Sawyer, 2005) by developing social scientific theories based on the
 Asian Journal of Communication 185

metaphors of systems theories associated with natural science, e.g., Prigogine’s theory of
dissipative structures, Miller’s living systems theory, Maturana and Varela’s theories of
cognition and autopoiesis, Bailey’s social entropy theory, sociocybernetics theory, etc.
(Gunaratne, 2007) or based on the specifics related to a complex system that crosses
disciplinary boundaries to allow for reality. Asian communication scholars could take
particular interest in exploring communication issues using the Chinese Yijing paradigm8
(Gunaratne, 2006a) and the Buddhist Paticca Samuppāda paradigm9 (Gunaratne, 2008),
both of which can be regarded as forerunners of non-linear dynamics. They can enrich our
understanding of network theory and complexity science (see Figure 1).
McNair (2006) has set the ball rolling by using the framework of chaos theory to
interpret today’s network society. Critiquing the dominant (or control) paradigm as
inadequate for the contemporary challenges facing media sociology, McNair used the
chaos metaphors to examine ‘the emerging relationship between journalism and power in a
globalized world’ (2006, p. vii). His qualitative study evaluated the main constituents of

Carryover to Ignorance Carryover from

future life previous births

Old age and Impulses to

death action

Birth
Birth Consciousness

Becoming Name and

form

Entanglements
Six senses

Desire Sense
impressions

Perception

Figure 1. The Paticca Samuppāda model. As explanation of the Bhavacakra (Wheel of Becoming).
186 S.A. Gunaratne

control paradigm (information scarcity, closure, opacity, exclusivity, homogeneity,

hierarchy, passivity, and dominance) against those of the chaos paradigm (information
surplus, openness, transparency, accessibility, heterogeneity [diversity], networks, [inter]ac-
tivity, and competition). In his Luhmannian-like conclusion, McNair found support for
the prevailing, market-oriented capitalist media system:
To the extent that capitalist societies are open systems, in which communication and
information flow freely in and out, they are more likely to evolve in a progressive and
sustainable manner, notwithstanding the tendencies of hyper-democracy and ‘mediated mob
rule’ . . . Power flows up, down and along the extended networks of communication which
straddle the globe and render boundaries increasingly porous . . . If dominant ideology, bias
and dumbing-down are . . . the ‘three stooges’ of critical media scholarship, [they are] now due
for a dignified retirement. (McNair, 2006, pp. 203
204)
Thus, whereas Wallerstein (1974, 2004) used world-systems analysis to pronounce the
imminent demise of the modern capitalist system, McNair has pronounced the healthy
survival of the competitive, market-oriented capitalist world-system interdependent on and
interconnected by communication networks of computers, cables, and satellites. This
enormous network of networks has given some visible credence to the invisible reality
asserted by quantum physics that everything in the universe is interconnected (Gunaratne,
2005a), a cardinal Buddhist belief as well.
Science moves forward through falsification of theories. Another researcher may use
the chaos paradigm to reach different conclusions from those of McNair. As already
mentioned, contemporary researchers can employ multi-agent systems to model individual
agents and their interactions and run that simulation on computer to see what
macropatterns and processes emerge as the agents interact with one another. Then, using
the three-level model10 (Bailey, 2006), the researcher can compare the emergent
(conceptual) macropatterns with the empirically observed patterns and the documented
patterns of the society. Modeling and computer simulations associated with advanced
computer technology would eventually make it possible for systems researchers to
determine whether the system emergence is reducible or irreducible or a hybrid of both
(Sawyer, 2005).
Finally, let us briefly look at communication network analysis, an offshoot of systems
theory, popularized by Castells (1996, 2004), Monge and Contractor (2003), and others.
This model focuses on issues in the context of multimodal communication, which describes
the deeply interconnected communication system in the world today. Castells says:
‘Communication technology, media, television, [and] the Internet are the most important
part of our life.’ Communication analysis, he says, requires the perspective of inter-
thematicity, which entails interdisciplinary, interactive, and cooperative research. In
Castells’ view: ‘disciplinary boundaries are extremely damaging’ (quoted in Rantanen,
2005, pp. 140
141).
Castells (2004) explains that the concept of the network society enables one to define
the terms of the fundamental dilemma facing the contemporary world:
the dominance of the programs of a global network of power without social control or,
alternatively, the emergence of a network of interacting cultures, unified by a common belief in
the value of sharing. (Castells, 2004, p. 43)

Systems theorists in the developing world could apply Asian philosophies and African
Ubuntuism to deal with this dilemma.
 Asian Journal of Communication 187

Controversy and revival

Systems theory has engendered much controversy primarily based on ideological grounds.
Whereas Campbell and Mickelson (1975), Fisher (1975), Kim (1975), Krippendorf (1975),
Ruben (1975, 1979), and Thayer (1975) enthusiastically explained the applicability of the
general systems theory to human communication systems at the individual, multi-person,
and mass communication levels, Lilienfeld (1978) condemned system theory as ‘the latest
attempt to create a world myth based on the prestige of science’ (p. 249). Lilienfeld claimed
that systems theory offered ‘nothing new to epistemology’; contained ‘authoritarian
implications’ (p. 250); and looked like ‘a new variant of organic or ‘‘organismic’’
approaches to society,’ which one could trace back ‘to Hindu religious thought’ (p. 263);
Viskovatoff (1999) argued that ‘the role of systems theory is rather like that of
mathematics’ because ‘by working on a purely conjectural abstract realm, it is left free
to explore conceptual models without concern for their immediate applicability’ (p. 493).
Viskovatoff found fault with the ‘liberal-humanistic and ecological values’ infused into the
theory of autopoiesis ‘both by the authors [Maturana & Varela] and their commentators’
(p. 491).
Dirk Baecker, a German systems theorist of the Luhmann school, cautioned against
the possible contamination of the scientific framework of systems theory by Oriental
mysticism. He referred to an ecology of non-knowledge (perhaps to deprecate the Daoist
concept of no-knowledge or ideational truth relating to all of nature) to describe the
situation that would arise if we had to plot the depending co-arising of everything
observable (to vindicate the Buddhist doctrine of Paticca Samuppāda). He was specifically
referring to the infusion of Spencer-Brown’s (1977) laws of form, as well as Eastern
wisdom, into ‘modern science’:
Of course, by entertaining such mathematics of self-reference, modern science is slowly re-
approaching a wisdom already shared, for instance, by Indian shamanism, German
Romanticism and Far Eastern Buddhism. Yet this should not be a reason to shy away from
a sociology which is its own epistemology. Being able to [. . .] plot the [Buddhist doctrine of]
‘dependent arising’ . . . of everything we are able to observe in the world including ourselves, is
nothing less than a condition for the emergence of [what Luhmann calls] an ‘ecology of non-
knowledge’. (Baecker, 2001, p. 69)

Baecker (2001) denounced the system theory’s accommodation of two types of

causality (indeterminate and circular), neither of which ‘existed previously, except in
some kind of mystical thinking’ (p. 64), clearly a rebuff to the central Buddhist doctrine of
dependent co-arising. Although himself a systems theorist, Baecker would not be happy
about the array of ‘nonsensical’ principles in quantum physics that challenge classical
science: complementarity, uncertainty, nonlocality, duplex universe, wholeness of the
universe, etc. (Gunaratne, 2005b).
Urry (2005) says that the new systems approaches of the age of entropy/emergence
provide useful metaphors, concepts and theories essential for investigating the intractable
disorderliness of the contemporary world. He suggests that we can conceptualize
globalization as a series of adapting and co-evolving global systems, each characterized
by unpredictability, irreversibility and co-evolution. Urry explains that Marx’s analysis of
capitalism ‘is the best example of complexity analysis within the social sciences’ (p. 240).
He calls for the linear metaphor of scales to be replaced by analyses of multiple systems
and multiple connections. He points out the existence of hybrid systems in two main forms:
global networks (multinational corporations) and global fluids (world money, automobi-
lity, social movements, digitized information, the Internet, international terrorism, smart
188 S.A. Gunaratne

mobs, etc.). Furthermore, he maintains that through iteration societies are becoming more
like empires; ‘each society as empire produces its opposite, its co-evolving other, its
rebellious multitude’ (Urry, 2005, p. 250).
Urry’s analysis bodes well for the revival of systems theory following its peak in the
1980s. Empiricists, however, may be dismayed by the metaphorical application of
complexity concepts to interpret social systems inasmuch as complexity science claims a
literal, non-metaphysical applicability to physical, economic, social, and cultural events.
Mackenzie (2005) has examined the attempts of three researchers
Manuel De Landa
(2002), Brian Massumi (2002), and Isabelle Stengers (2000)
to treat complexity non-
metaphorically. Contrary to Baecker’s (2001) view, the wisdom of the East gained through
the power of the mind (e.g., Buddha’s doctrine of dependent co-arising; the Yijing model of
Chinese sages) may have much to offer to guide the direction of material science.
Dealing with the whole may be a frustrating exercise for those who repose their faith in
nomothetic empiricism, which studies parts under unrealistic ceteris paribus presumptions.
They are like the legendary blind men who analyzed different parts of an elephant and
derived different conclusions about the elephant’s shape. In a complementary essay,
Gunaratne (2007) has described a cluster of ‘new’ systems approaches and drawn parallels
between them and the basic principles of Eastern philosophy.
Philosopher Hegel and sociologist Weber saw no merit in Eastern philosophies because
these philosophies failed to inculcate Spirit (Geist) or the Protestant ethic in their
adherents. Both Buddhism and Daoism place supreme emphasis on change or imperma-
nence (anicca). Everything, including stars and planets, and everyone has to go through the
evolutionary cycle of birth, growth, and death. Nothing can stay the same. What we
determine to be conventional truth or norms are no exception. Systems analysis is more
appropriate to detect these ongoing changes that affect all components than nomothetic
empiricism of the Newtonian kind.

Conclusion
This paper has attempted to clear the misunderstandings that still persist about systems
theory as a monolithic theory. The general systems theory has provided the functionally
related concepts that make up a metatheoretical framework for various theories of social
systems to emerge. Systems theory is embedded in the onto-cosmology and epistemology
of the major Asian philosophies, although its empirical scientific elucidation and
methodological strides emerged only in the mid-twentieth century. The advent of advanced
computing technology provides hope for the ‘scientific’ analysis of the complex interaction
of co-arising factors that engender various outcomes. Communications researchers should
engage systems theory as a complementary approach to their micro-level and meso-level
approaches.
Seppänen (1998) says that advanced computer technology will ‘allow precise
conceptual, experimental and theoretical analysis and study of highly complex systems
including living, cognitive, social and cultural systems’ (p. 300). Therefore, communication
scholarship should pay more attention to the study of:
computational solution, experimentation and simulation of complex dynamical, discrete and
evolutionary systems and processes by means of iterative mappings, visualization of phase
space trajectories, strange attractors, genetic algorithms, artificial life, artificial neural
networks, artificial intelligence and cognition, etc. (Seppänen, 1998, p. 300)
 Asian Journal of Communication 189

These procedures refer to what Sawyer (2005) calls ‘simulating social emergence with
artificial societies’ (p. 145) or multi-agent systems. Sociocybernetics has already discarded
the application of linear statistical models in systems analysis because they cannot fathom
the adaptation of a system to its environment (Bailey, 2006).

Notes
1. Sawyer (2005) says that the first- and second-wave systems theories failed to address the
fundamental questions relating to emergence, a concept invoked by methodological individualists
in sociology and economics, as well as by collectivists, to draw opposed conclusions. Collectivists
in sociology argue that emergent properties are irreducible to individual properties whereas the
individualists in economics say they are reducible (pp. 10
11).
2. Laszlo (1975) provides a hypothetical identification of the principal levels and interrelation of the
micro- and macro-hierarchies (p. 75). In his view, the hierarchies above the world system are
stars/planets, stellar clusters, galaxies, galaxy aggregations, and the metagalaxy. Asteroids
provide a paradoxical example of our relationship with the universe. Experts say that about 1100
comets and asteroids, which are at least a half-mile across, exist in the immediate environment of
Earth, within the inner solar system, in addition to some 100,000 smaller heavenly bodies. The
trajectory of any of these can head toward Earth killing millions in a flash. In 1908, an asteroid
struck remote central Siberia wiping out 60 million trees. Moreover, black holes and gamma ray
bursts have the capability to destroy Earth even though the probability of such an eventuality is
very low.
3. Most scientists today recognize that Earth’s lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere
are dynamically interdependent systems: self-organizing and inseparably interconnected (Love-
lock, 1995).
4. Some of this material is from the Wikipedia.
5. Habermas’s (1989) critical theory of modernity and society, which he developed by reconstruct-
ing the concepts of public sphere/civil society and rationality, centers on a lifeworld and two
systems (state and economy) created by the lifeworld to reduce complexity. The lifeworld
functioned on the basis of communicative rationality, achieved through discourses in the public
sphere, to maintain cultural values and agree on social norms whereas the system components it
consensually created functioned on the basis of instrumental rationality, which focused on
efficiency alone. Habermas attributed the pathologies of advanced industrial society to the
‘colonization of the lifeworld’ by the media of money and power associated with the system
components (Gunaratne, 2006c).
6. Fourie (2007) says: ‘Ubuntuism moves beyond an emphasis on the individual and individual
rights, and places the emphasis on sharing and on individual participation in a collective life.
Community is the context in which personhood is defined’ (p. 10).
7. The reason for downgrading systems theory in the US academy during the Cold War era may
have little to do with its scientific merits or demerits than with civilizational or political ideology.
Luhmann’s de-humanizing of systems theory may also have been a reason.
8. The Yijing (Classic of Changes) paradigm can be used as a complexity theory that shows the co-
existence and compatibility of unity with diversity, the systematic bifurcation of systems at the
edge of chaos into more complex hierarchical levels in binomial or exponential progression,
nonlinear dynamics and strange attractors, the interdependence and interconnection of parts and
the whole, etc. (Gunaratne, 2006a).
9. The Paticca Samuppāda (Dependent Co-arising) paradigm can be used as a complexity theory
that shows the emergence of networks of several factors similar to the 12 factors
ignorance,
action, consciousness, name and form, six senses, sense impressions, perception, desire,
entanglements, becoming, birth, old age and death
associated with the Bhavacakra (the Wheel
of Becoming) producing a multitude of outcomes. The paradigm contains no first or final cause
because each factor is conditioned, not determined by all other factors through feedback loops.
In the context of mutual interdependence of all factors, it removes the false façade of
independent and dependent variables (Gunaratne, 2008).
10. The three levels, according to Bailey (2006), are the conceptual, the empirical, and the
documentary.
190 S.A. Gunaratne

Notes on contributor
Shelton Gunaratne is Professor Emeritus in Mass Communications at Minnesota State University
Moorhead. After completing a special degree in economics at the University of Ceylon, he worked
for 5 years as a full-time journalist in Sri Lanka. Having completed a fellowship at the World Press
Institute in 1967, he went to the University of Oregon and the University of Minnesota to do
graduate studies in journalism and mass communication. Thereafter, he became a pioneer journalism
educator in Malaysia (3 years) and Australia (10 years). He is the editor of the Handbook of the media
in Asia (Sage, 2000) and the author of The Dao of the press: A humanocentric theory (Hampton Press,
2005) and numerous journal articles.

References
Alexander, J., & Colomy, P. (1990). Neofunctionalism today: Reconstructing a theoretical tradition.
In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Frontiers of social theory: The new synthesis (pp. 33
67). Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Ashby, W.R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
Baecker, D. (2001). Why systems? Theory, Culture & Society, 18, 59
74.
Baert, P. (1998). Social theory in the twentieth century. New York: New York University Press.
Bailey, K.D. (1990). Social entropy theory. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Bailey, K.D. (1994). Sociology and the new systems theory: Toward a theoretical synthesis. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Bailey, K.D. (2006) Sociocybernetics and social entropy theory. Kybernetes: The International Journal
of Systems & Cybernetics, 35, 375
384.
Baker, P.L. (1993). Chaos, order, and sociological theory. Sociological Inquiry, 63, 123
149.
Bausch, K.C. (1997). The Habermas/Luhmann debate and the subsequent Habermasian perspectives
on systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14, 315
330.
Bausch, K.C. (2001). The emerging consensus in social systems theory. New York: Springer.
Berrien, K. (1968). General and social systems. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Bunge, M. (1977). The GST challenge to the classic philosophies of science. International Journal of
General Systems, 4, 29
37.
Campbell, J.H., & Mickelson, J.S. (1975). Organic communication systems: Speculation on the study,
birth, life, and death of systems. In B.D. Ruben & J.Y. Kim (Eds.), General systems theory and
human communication (pp. 222
236). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book Co.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York:
Doubleday.
Capra, F. (2005). Complexity and life. Theory, Culture & Society, 22, 33
44.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (Ed.). (2004). The network society: A cross-cultural perspective. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Checkland, P.B. (1976). Science and the systems paradigm. International Journal of General Systems,
3, 127
134.
Clark, N. (2005). Ex-orbitant globality. Theory, Culture & Society, 22, 165
185.
DeFleur, M.L., & Ball-Rokeach, S.J. (1989). Theories of mass communication (5th ed.). White Plains,
NY: Longman.
De Landa, M. (2002). Intensive science and virtual philosophy. London: Continuum.
Fisher, B.A. (1975). Communication study in system perspective. In B.D. Ruben & J.Y. Kim (Eds.),
General systems theory and human communication (pp. 191
206). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book
Co.
Fourie, P.J. (2007). Moral philosophy as the foundation of normative media theory: The case of
African Ubuntuism. Communications, 32, 1
29.
Frank, A.G. (1979). Dependent accumulation and underdevelopment. New York: Monthly Review
Press.
Geyer, F., & van der Zouwen, J. (Eds.). (2001). Sociocybernetics: Complexity, autopoiesis, and
observation of social systems. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Gunaratne, S.A. (2003). Thank you Newton, welcome Prigogine: ‘Unthinking old paradigms and
embracing new directions.’ Part 1: Theoretical distinctions. Communications, 29, 435
455.
 Asian Journal of Communication 191

Gunaratne, S.A. (2004a). Thank you Newton, welcome Prigogine: ‘Unthinking old paradigms and
embracing new directions.’ Part 2: The pragmatics. Communications, 29, 113
132.
Gunaratne, S.A. (2004b). A Daoist perspective of normative media practice [Interview with Eric
Loo]. Asia-Pacific Media Educator, 15, 213
220.
Gunaratne, S.A. (2005a). The Dao of the press: A humanocentric theory. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press
Inc.
Gunaratne, S.A. (2005b). Public diplomacy, global communication, and world order: An analysis
based on theory of living systems. Current Sociology, 53, 749
772.
Gunaratne, S.A. (2006a). A Yijing view of world-system and democracy. Journal of Chinese
Philosophy, 33, 191
211.
Gunaratne, S.A. (2006b). Globalization, interdependence, and anthropocentrism: An Eastern
philosophical perspective. (Revised paper submitted to Communication, Culture & Critique)
Gunaratne, S.A. (2006c). Public sphere and communicative rationality: Interrogating Habermas’s
Eurocentrism. Journalism & Communication Monographs, 8, 93
156.
Gunaratne S.A. (2007). Systems approaches and communication research: The age of entropy.
Communications, 32, 79
96.
Gunaratne, S.A. (2008). Falsifying two Asian paradigms and de-Westernizing science. Communica-
tion, Culture & Critique, 1.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society:
Vol. 1 (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system
a critique of
functionalist reason: Vol. 2 (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of
bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hall, A.D., & Fagen, R.E. (1956). Definition of system. General Systems, 1, 18
28.
Jenkins, G.M. (1969). A systems approach. Journal of Systems Engineering, 1, 3
49.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kim, J.Y. (1975). Feedback in social sciences: Toward a reconceptualization of morphogeneses. In
B.D. Ruben & J.Y. Kim (Eds.), General systems theory and human communication (pp. 207
221).
Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book Co.
Krippendorf, K. (1975). The systems approach to communication. In B.D. Ruben & J.Y. Kim (Eds.),
General systems theory and human communication (pp. 138
163). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book
Co.
Laszlo, E. (1972). The systems view of the world: The natural philosophy of the new developments in the
sciences. New York: George Braziller.
Laszlo, E. (1975). Basic constructs of systems philosophy. In B.D. Ruben & J.Y. Kim (Eds.), General
systems theory and human communication (pp. 66
77). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book Co.
Lilienfeld, R. (1978). The rise of systems theory: An ideological analysis. New York: Wiley.
Littlejohn, S.W. (1983). Theories of human communication (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Co.
Lovelock, J. (1995). Gaia: A new look at life on earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems (J. Bednarz Jr., with D. Baecker, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Luhmann, N. (2000). The reality of the mass media (K. Cross, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Mackenzie, A. (2005). The problem of the attractor: A singular generality between sciences and social
theory. Theory, Culture & Society, 22, 45
65.
Macy, J. (1991). Mutual causality in Buddhism and general systems theory: The dharma of natural
systems. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Maturana, H.R., & Varela, F.J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living.
Dordrecht, Germany: Reidel.
McNair, B. (2006). Cultural chaos: Journalism, news and power in a globalized world. London:
Routledge.
Merton, R.K. (1949). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Miller, J.G. (1978). Living systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mingers, J. (1995). Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis. New York:
Plenum Press.
192 S.A. Gunaratne

Monge, P. (1973). Theory construction in the study of communication: The system paradigm. Journal
of Communication, 23, 5
16.
Monge, P. (1977). The system perspective as a theoretical basis for the study of human
communication. Communication Quarterly, 25, 19
29.
Monge, P.R., & Contractor, N.S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Parsons, T., & Shils, E.A. (1962). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Pepper, S.C. (1942). World hypotheses. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. Toronto:
Bantam Books.
Rantanen, T. (2005). The message is the medium: An interview with Manuel Castells. Global Media
and Communication, 1, 135
147.
Ruben, B.D. (1975). Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and mass communications processes in individual
and multi-person systems. In B.D. Ruben & J.Y. Kim (Eds.), General systems theory and human
communication (pp. 164
190). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book Co.
Ruben, B.D. (1979). General systems theory. In R.W. Budd & B.D. Ruben (Eds.), Interdisciplinary
approaches to human communication (pp. 95
118). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book Co.
Rummel, R.J. (1977). Field theory evolving. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Sagan, D., & Margulis, L. (1984). Gaia and philosophy. In L.S. Rouner (Ed.), On nature. Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Sawyer, R.K. (2005). Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schwanitz, D. (1996). Systems theory and the difference between communication and consciousness:
An introduction to a problem and its context. Modern Language Notes, 111, 488
505.
Seppänen, J.J. (1998). Systems ideology in human and social sciences. In G. Altmann & W.A. Koch
(Eds.), Systems: New paradigms for the human sciences (pp. 180
302). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1948). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Sirgy, M.J. (1988). Strategies for developing general systems theories. Behavioral Science, 33, 25
37.
Spencer-Brown, G. (1977). Laws of form. New York: Julian. (Originally published 1969)
Stengers, I. (2000). Power and invention: Situating science, theory out of bounds. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Teune, H., & Mlinar, Z. (1978). The development logic of social systems. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Thayer, L. (1975). Knowledge, order, and communication. In B.D. Ruben & J.Y. Kim (Eds.), General
systems theory and human communication (pp. 237
245). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book Co.
Urry, J. (2005). The complexities of the global. Theory, Culture & Society, 22, 235
254.
Viskovatoff, A. (1999). Foundations of Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems. Philosophy of the
Social Sciences, 29, 481
516.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1962). General systems theory: A critical review. General Systems, 7, 1
20.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: George Braziller.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world system I. New York: Academic Press.
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Weiner, N. (1948). Cybernetics. Cambridge, MA: Technology Press.