Você está na página 1de 11

07 Vanderstraeten (jr/t) 1/9/03 12:19 PM Page 133

European Journal of Social Theory 6(1): 133–143


Copyright © 2003 Sage Publications: London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi

REVIEW E S S AY

An Observation of Luhmann’s
Observation of Education
Raf Vanderstraeten
UNIVERSITY OF BIELEFELD, GERMANY

Niklas Luhmann and Karl Eberhard Schorr, Problems of Reflection in the


System of Education, trans. Rebecca A. Neuwirth. Münster: Waxmann, 2000,
412pp., €25.50, ISBN 3893258906 (pbk)

Niklas Luhmann, Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft, ed. Dieter Lenzen.


Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2002, 236pp. inc. index, €25, ISBN
3518583204 (hbk); €11, ISBN 3518291939 (pbk)

With the publication of Soziale Systeme in 1984, Niklas Luhmann (1927–98)


provided us with what he himself later called the ‘introductory chapter’ of a
general theory of modern society. This book – which consists of 675 pages –
became available in English in 1995 under the title Social Systems. It is presented
as an attempt ‘to reformulate the theory of social systems via the current state of
the art in general systems theory’ (p. 11). Its central aim is the application of the
idea of autopoiesis (= self-production) to social systems. Soziale Systeme wants to
indicate the autonomy of social systems with regard to the production and repro-
duction of their elemental units. Luhmann argues that social reality continually
organizes its own self-renewal by means of communicative acts.
In his following books, which appeared at a remarkably great pace, this general
theory of social systems has been specified and applied to particular kinds of social
systems. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, which is the ‘grand finale’ of his work,
appeared in 1997, at a moment when Luhmann was already terminally ill as a
consequence of a viral infection. This 1164-page book, bound in a black cover,
focuses on society understood as the comprehensive social system. The other
‘chapters’ of his theory are devoted to analyses of the major function systems
which have differentiated in modern society. During Luhmann’s lifetime, volu-
minous monographs by him appeared on the economy, science, law and art. In
2000, this series was complemented by the posthumously published monographs
on politics and religion. As the last volume in this series, there has now appeared
the relatively short, uncompleted manuscript of Das Erziehungssystem der
Gesellschaft which has been edited by Dieter Lenzen.
A number of Luhmann’s recent ‘chapters’ on society’s function systems draw

1368-4310[200302]6:1;133–143;033420

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 11, 2015


07 Vanderstraeten (jr/t) 1/9/03 12:19 PM Page 134

134 European Journal of Social Theory 6(1)

substantially on publications which appeared prior to the publication of Soziale


Systeme – i.e., in the so-called pre-autopoietic phase of his theory. This is
particularly the case for his monographs on the systems of law, religion and
education. These books explore new issues, but, in some regards, they also merely
recapitulate and reframe ideas which were already presented in his publications
of the 1960s and 1970s. The monograph on education is the successor to Reflex-
ionsprobleme im Erziehungssystem, which was jointly written by Niklas Luhmann
and Karl Eberhard Schorr. This book, originally published in 1979 and reprinted
with a new postface in 1988, has recently been translated into English, and hence
has now become available to a much wider audience. The main theoretical differ-
ence between both books is that Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft is based on
the concept of communication. This posthumously published manuscript is,
much more than its predecessor, an attempt to conceive of education in terms of
communication and face-to-face interaction.
It is well known that many of Luhmann’s readers have been intimidated by
the abstract nature of his theoretical writings. Luhmann was aware of these
problems. In fact, he discussed in a number of publications the often-voiced
complaints about the ‘incomprehensibility of science’ (e.g. 1981: 170–7; 2000:
473–4). At the same time, it seems questionable whether he did care much about
these kinds of complaints. In the Preface to the English edition of Soziale Systeme,
Luhmann wrote:
If one seriously undertakes to work out a comprehensive theory of the social and strives
for sufficient conceptual precision, abstraction and complexity in the conceptual archi-
tecture are unavoidable. Among the classical authors, Parsons included, one finds a
regrettable carelessness in conceptual questions – as if ordinary language were all that
is needed to create ideas or even text. (1995: xxxvii)

Abstraction and complexity indeed characterize Luhmann’s work; they are the
counterpart of its wide-ranging scope. Moreover, Luhmann used to introduce
concepts and conceptual determinations that are fairly uncommon in the field
of social theory (let alone ordinary language). These characteristics probably
explain the still rather marginal position of Luhmann’s writings in the field
of social theory – especially outside Germany and outside the circle of the
‘Luhmaniacs’.
In my view, Luhmann’s and Schorr’s systems-theoretical observations and
analyses nevertheless deserve close attention from researchers in the field of social
theory. With regard to education, Luhmann’s analyses offer a clearly articulated
theoretical approach that might stimulate further developments. After the demise
of the so-called ‘new sociology of education’, theoretical investigations have in
fact virtually disappeared from this field’s research agenda (see Shain and Ozga,
2001; Vanderstraeten, 2002). Against this background, this review essay seeks to
illuminate some of the central intuitions of Luhmann’s observations of the
educational system of modern society. In line with Luhmann’s general theory of
social systems, I will first focus on communication as the basic social unit and on
education as a social system or communication system. In a second step, I will

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 11, 2015


07 Vanderstraeten (jr/t) 1/9/03 12:19 PM Page 135

Raf Vanderstraeten Review Essay 135

briefly deal with Luhmann’s theory of social differentiation and with the analyses
of education as a function system of modern society. Given the rather ‘enigmatic’
style of Luhmann’s (and Schorr’s) writings, this review first of all intends to clarify
their main arguments.

Communication as the Basic Element of Social Systems

In the field of the social sciences, theorists have opted for different concepts to
represent the basic unit of social reality – such as action, exchange, power or force.
Niklas Luhmann, however, was the first major writer to consider communication
as the constitutive element of social reality. As Stichweh (2000) argues,
Luhmann’s writings seem to draw the consequences from a number of post-war
developments, which were, most of all, initiated by the new technologies of infor-
mation processing. These developments seem to make founding a contemporary
social theory upon the concept of communication nearly unavoidable. ‘It was
Luhmann, in choosing communication theory over action theory, who took on
the role of the first major sociological communication theorist, a role which had
to be taken by someone anyway’ (p. 9).
From this perspective, communication is the constitutive element of social
systems. This element can be described as an occurrence or event, which emerges
from the processing of selections. According to Luhmann (1984/1995), the unit
of communication consists of the co-ordination or synthesis of three different
selections. These selections are: information, utterance (Mitteilung) and under-
standing (Verstehen). Communication, thus, is an emergent, three-part unity.
For Luhmann, information is a selection from a repertoire of possibilities. It is
the selection that is actualized in the communication. Without this selectivity of
information, no communication would emerge, however minimal the news value
of the exchanges (e.g., if communication is only engaged in to pass the time and
avoid periods of silence). A communicative act, however, does not make a selec-
tion in the same way in which one grabs one thing rather than another off the
rack. Pieces of information do not just exist ‘out there’, waiting to be picked up
by the system. Communication is not just a two-part matter of sending and
receiving messages; the selection of information is one of its crucial components.
The second selection concerns the choice of behaviour, an utterance, that
expresses the information. Information should be provided in a form which the
sender and the addressee are able to understand. Communication requires an
adequate standardization of the utterance (e.g. linguistic forms). Certainly, this
utterance can occur intentionally or unintentionally. It is also possible without
language, e.g. through ‘revealing’ looks, through dress or outfit, through absence,
etc. But the utterance must always be interpretable as selection, and not just
appear as a sign of something else. ‘In this sense, rushing about can be observed
as a sign of urgency, just like dark clouds as a sign of rain. But it can also be inter-
preted as a demonstration of urgency’ (Luhmann, 1995: 151). The difference
between both interpretations underlines at the same time the importance of the

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 11, 2015


07 Vanderstraeten (jr/t) 1/9/03 12:19 PM Page 136

136 European Journal of Social Theory 6(1)

last selection of communication. What is decisive with regard to understanding is


the fact that this third selection can base itself on a distinction, namely the
distinction between information and its utterance. Understanding therefore
implies more than mere observation; it only takes place if the receiver construes
the information from the utterance. It does, on the other hand, not imply that
the addressee understands the information as it was intended by the sender. The
information might mean something very different for both participants.
As a three-part unity, communication does not come about if the addressee
does not fix his or her own state on the basis of uttered information. It does not
come about without understanding. Seen from this perspective, one could say
that communication is made possible ‘from behind’. Understanding (and under-
standing will almost inevitably contain some misunderstanding) concludes the
communicative act. An understanding, however, needs to manifest itself. The
receiver needs to show understanding, by addressing him or herself to the infor-
mation component (e.g., question what is said) or to the utterance (e.g., question
the way something is said). A communication necessitates a new communication.
Each communication ‘is an element only as an element of a process, however
minimal or ephemeral that process may be’ (Luhmann, 1995: 144). Communi-
cations conclude preceding communications and allow them to be connected.
These elements of social systems organize their own renewal; they operate, as
Luhmann says, autopoietically. They enact the autonomy of social reality.
The wide-ranging implications of this view can already be seen in Luhmann’s
essays from the late 1960s and early 1970s, in which he presented the foundations
of his version of social systems theory for the first time. But they have come more
to the fore since the publication of the ‘introductory chapter’ of Luhmann’s
theory of society, viz. Soziale Systeme (1984/1995). The publications on
education are also informed by this perspective. Especially in Das Erziehungssys-
tem der Gesellschaft, one finds attempts to conceive of education in terms of
communication and face-to-face interaction. In the following sections, I will try
to present a systematic account of this perspective. First, the focus is on the
concepts of socialization and education; second, a systems-theoretical account of
the basic structure of interaction in classrooms is presented.

Socialization and Education

As indicated, Luhmann argues that social systems are emergent realities that use
communication to process meaning. They consist of communications, not of
individual human beings. From Luhmann’s perspective, human beings are part
of the social environment. This certainly does not mean that the human being
or actor is estimated as less important than in traditional theory. On the contrary,
the distinction between social system and environment offers the possibility of
conceiving human beings in a way that is both more complex and less restrict-
ing than if they had to be interpreted as parts of the social order. It is because
they are part of the environment of the societal system that human beings are

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 11, 2015


07 Vanderstraeten (jr/t) 1/9/03 12:19 PM Page 137

Raf Vanderstraeten Review Essay 137

conceded greater freedom (greater complexity) than concepts of social roles,


norms and structures would allow.
Luhmann’s argument is based on the idea that social and personal systems are
characterized by a fundamental instability. The elements, out of which they exist,
have the character of occurrences or events, i.e. they vanish immediately after
their appearance. They are continually replaced by other elements (different
thoughts, different communications). They are radically temporalized systems.
This characteristic allows for a high degree of congruence between both system
types. Communications can be at the same time conscious events; thoughts can
be communicated. But even if personal and social systems use the same elements,
they give each of them a different selectivity and connectivity, different pasts and
futures. The elements signify different things in the participating systems; they
select among different possibilities and lead to different consequences. Thus, the
congruence of social systems and personal systems is only temporary and vanishes
time and time again. For the individual participants, the so-called turn-taking of
active and passive participation in communication almost inevitably re-estab-
lishes the difference between personal and social systems. The mind might, for
example, wander, think of something incommunicable, interrupt or pause, while
the burden of communicating passes to somebody else. Communication can also
be rejected. Human beings do not have to accept what is communicated, or how
it is communicated.
This theoretical approach entails important consequences for the
conceptualization of socialization and education. In classical socialization
research, as displayed in the writings of Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, Pierre
Bourdieu and others, socialization fulfils a fairly unambiguous societal function.
Socialization refers to the internalization or inculcation of social expectations.
Luhmann’s system/environment perspective, which is spelled out in the second
chapter of Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft, questions these assumptions.
Participation in communication cannot result in the transfer of knowledge, nor
in the internalization of the norms and value orientations of a social group. The
meaning of norms, rules, habits, etc. which are transmitted does not remain the
same. In the different participating systems, these elements have different
meanings. There is always the possibility of rejecting the instruction or infor-
mation which a communication contains. The interaction between a human
being and its social environment might or might not provoke particular struc-
tural changes in the ‘inner sphere’ of the individual; a human being might or
might not adapt to particular aspects of its environment. Socialization is there-
fore defined as the process, steered by communication that influences the psycho-
logical development and the bodily behaviour of human beings. It refers to
changes that take place in society’s environment. It is only this way, Luhmann
argues (and rightly I think), that the possibilities which human beings have to
travel a certain distance, to use their individual degrees of freedom, can be
adequately taken into account (see Vanderstraeten, 2000).
While socialization is limited by/to the stimuli of the socializing context,
education strives for specific outputs. It aims to attain something that cannot be

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 11, 2015


07 Vanderstraeten (jr/t) 1/9/03 12:19 PM Page 138

138 European Journal of Social Theory 6(1)

left to chance socializing events. Education is a form of action that is attributable


to intentions; it is a form of intentional socialization. But is it able to eliminate
the shortcomings of socialization? As indicated, socialization presupposes the
possibility of reading the behaviour of others as selected information, e.g. about
dangers or social expectations. The meaning of this communication can be
rejected if the addressee finds the information unsatisfactory or unacceptable.
Education cannot eliminate this possibility of resistance. It cannot be conceived
of as the rational form of socialization, as effective action. On the contrary, inten-
tional communications with educational goals will double the motives for rejec-
tion. The addressee now also has the opportunity to reject the communication
because it is aimed at his or her education, if he or she refuses the role of someone
who needs to be educated. In other words, intentional communication enables
the addressee to oppose both the information component and the utterance. It is
against this background that the overly pessimistic attitude of Luhmann and
Schorr vis-à-vis education needs to be understood.

Educational Interaction in Schools

As is well known, education relies heavily on face-to-face interaction. Education


takes place in family households or in classrooms, where the physical presence of
parent and child, teacher and student is guaranteed. While societal sub-systems
such as politics, the economy, law or science have become less dependent on
interaction situations and on the existence of personal bonds between the
partners, education has evolved into another direction. This exceptional evol-
ution is related to the fact that educational interventions aim to alter or amelio-
rate the student’s inner world, and that the results of this effort can best be
recorded in the course of face-to-face interaction. To enable the success of
education – and of other forms of ‘people processing’ (e.g. therapy, conversion)
– personal contact is vital (see Stichweh, 1997). Luhmann and Schorr devote a
number of scattered remarks to this particular form of communication in
Problems of Reflections in the System of Education. A more systematic theoretical
account is provided in the fourth chapter of Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft.
Luhmann and Schorr focus on the idea that educational interaction often
takes the form of organized interaction. At school, students are prepared for
entirely different situations; they learn things that might be of use in another
context and at another moment in time (e.g. in professional life). Decisions about
what is to be learned and how something is to be learned there are made without
consulting the family of the students. There is, however, no immediate access to
the results of educational interventions. Nobody can look in the heads or souls
of other human beings. A teacher can only record the patterns of external, visible
behaviour of the students. The teacher has to deduce the results of his or her own
action from these external characteristics. What can be done in the interaction
to resolve this problem? What kind of Ersatz is available if immediate observation
is not possible? With regard to these questions, Luhmann argues that educational

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 11, 2015


07 Vanderstraeten (jr/t) 1/9/03 12:19 PM Page 139

Raf Vanderstraeten Review Essay 139

initiatives automatically produce a situation within which particular patterns of


behaviour are acceptable, while others are not. What occurs is compared with
what is expected. Students are continually confronted with questions, remarks,
tests, exams, and other kinds of communicated expectations (Luhmann and
Schorr, 2000: 318–25). Seen this way, it can be argued that the educational inten-
tion produces its own characteristic distinction (Luhmann, 2002: 102–10). The
difference between acceptable and unacceptable patterns of behaviour, between
approval and disapproval, between good and wrong, etc., develops within the
school system.
It is worthwhile exploring this line of thought in more detail, and linking
Luhmann’s theoretical insights with ethnographical research in classrooms. I will
briefly point to some potential directions for further research, which may allow
us to bring Luhmann’s theory ‘down to earth’ and stimulate a theoretical reflec-
tion on so-called ‘empirical facts.’ For example, selection forms can be specified
in a number of ways in classrooms. Teachers can observe that one group of
students lives up to the norm and that the other group does not, or that one
student is more diligent in a particular course with a particular teacher than
during another course with another teacher. Students can also observe each other
and assess particular differences. Moreover, students can anticipate the evalu-
ations. As a consequence, there thus emerges a situation within which students
have to reckon with new alternatives for action, and within which the conse-
quences of their behaviour are multiplied. In his famous Life in Classrooms, Philip
Jackson makes similar comments:
In fact, he has three jobs. The first, and most obvious, is to behave in such a way as
to enhance the likelihood of praise and reduce the likelihood of punishment . . . A
second job . . . consists of trying to publicize positive evaluations and conceal negative
ones . . . A third job . . . consists of trying to win the approval of two audiences at the
same time. The problem, for some, is how to become a good student while remaining
a good guy, how to be at the head of the class while still being in the center of the
group. (1990: 26)

The theoretical point which needs to be stressed is that classroom education


creates these conditions itself. Educational intentions elicit a form of selection
which would not emerge without these intentions. The distinctions that are
introduced (such as good/wrong, positive/negative, praise/punishment,
succeed/fail) are internal constructions. Educational decisions are taken in the
educational setting itself.
Thus, one can say that the meaning of evaluations is defined in the educational
system itself – following an internal scale. For example, satisfactory is better than
unsatisfactory but less than excellent. A report mark indicates how much one
can/could do better or worse. The autonomy of educational organizations depends
upon this self-referential closure. Certainly, it does not depend upon true inde-
pendency vis-à-vis the environment. Its autonomy does not deny that school
organizations import knowledge from their environment, as well as the differ-
ences which are of importance in this context. Thus, the distinction between sine

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 11, 2015


07 Vanderstraeten (jr/t) 1/9/03 12:19 PM Page 140

140 European Journal of Social Theory 6(1)

and cosine is not invented within education itself. But education determines who
has to be able to use this distinction, and when, and what difference it makes
when one does or does not know the distinction at that particular moment.
Education does not distinguish between sine and cosine, but between those who
are able to use the distinction and those who are not. It is only the latter distinc-
tion which determines the course of further decision-making in the educational
system. Only with regard to this distinction, there can be no input or output (see
also Luhmann, 1990). In my view, this systems-theoretical line of thought
provides particularly fruitful perspectives for further research – both in a theor-
etical and an empirical direction.

Self-descriptions in the Educational System

The final theme, which I would like to discuss, has its origins in the theory of
social differentiation. In modern society, Luhmann convincingly argues, each of
the primary sub-systems accentuates the primacy of its own function. Each estab-
lishes a highly selective set of system/environment relations; each distinguishes
itself from its environment by means of particular procedures, concepts, criteria,
and operations. All other sub-systems belong to its internal environment and vice
versa. Modern society is differentiated into the political sub-system and its
environment, the legal system and its environment, the economic sub-system and
its environment, the scientific sub-system and its environment, the educational
sub-system and its environment, and so on. This kind of system/environment
distinction provokes function systems to observe their own identity – as distinct
from their environment. It provokes them to reflect on the specificity of their
own function. The last chapter of Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft is devoted
to a discussion of the ‘self-descriptions’ and ‘reflections’ (i.e. elaborated self-
descriptions) that have emerged in the educational system in the modern era.
This chapter reiterates and slightly revises the analyses and critical commentaries
of Problems of Reflection in the System of Education.
This theme has a rather long tradition in sociological theory. Although
Luhmann and Schorr do not give credit to Emile Durkheim, they certainly rely
on Durkheim’s analyses of ‘practical theories’ and ‘reflections’. Following
Durkheim, the increasing complexity and differentiation of social labour call for
the elaboration of new value patterns, which give direction to specific fields of
action. In Education and Sociology, Durkheim writes: ‘Their object is not to
describe or to explain what is or what has been, but to determine what should
be’ (1956: 99). Furthermore:
These reflections take the form of theories: they are combinations of ideas, not combi-
nations of acts . . . But the ideas which are so combined have, as their object, not to
express the nature of things as given, but to direct action. They are not actions, but
are closely related to actions which it is their function to orient. If they are not actions
they are at least programmes of action. (1956: 101–2)

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 11, 2015


07 Vanderstraeten (jr/t) 1/9/03 12:19 PM Page 141

Raf Vanderstraeten Review Essay 141

It is in line with Durkheim’s observations, that Luhmann stresses that functional


differentiation provokes wide-ranging symbolic or cultural changes. Luhmann sees
‘reflections’ as concepts or theories developed within a function system for that
function system. These reflections articulate the sub-system’s main objectives.
They thus lead to the appropriation of the world from a particular functional point
of view, e.g. economic, political, religious, artistic, legal, educational, etc.
The background of this perspective on self-descriptions can also be
approached from another angle. In the field of the history of ideas, it has been
clearly outlined that the conceptual apparatus used in the Western world trans-
formed in fundamental ways in the second half of the eighteenth century. The
period 1750–1850 was an epoch of radical conceptual transformations.
Numerous key social concepts, that are characteristic of modernity, were coined
in this epoch, such as tolerance, authority, ideology, civil society, peace, culture,
state and sovereignty, revolution, factory, history or progress. These new basic
concepts indicate how the social and political reality is comprehended in the
modern era. They record the dissolution of the ‘old’ world and the emergence of
a ‘new’ one (Koselleck, 1972; 2000) and are not only the expression of changes
within contemporary orientations, but also contribute to changing contemporary
patterns of action and reflection. Luhmann – as a sociologist – argues that struc-
tural transformations, i.e. the emergence of function systems, provoke these
conceptual changes. Self-descriptions and reflections are one of the most salient
results of this ‘great transformation’. Their analysis allows studying the co-
evolution of structural and cultural changes in modern society.
It is against this background in sociology and history that Luhmann and
Schorr analyse at great length pedagogical modes of reflection on educational
realities, an analysis which forms the core of their book. English-speaking readers,
however, should be aware of the fact that the discussions in the major parts of
this book – on the autonomy of education, on controlling prolonged processes
via instruction technology, and on social selection – are embedded within a
predominantly German context. Luhmann and Schorr sharply criticize the ideal-
istic articulation of the structural conditions of education in the ‘reflection
theory’ of the educational system. In comparison, the analysis in Luhmann’s Das
Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft is less critical about the reflections developed in
and by the educational establishment. But the bottom line of the observations
remains the same. It is that education’s self-descriptions focus too much on
subjects (teachers/parents, pupils/children) and too little on communication and
social interaction. As can be expected, the alternative suggestions of Luhmann
and Schorr go in the direction of the themes which I discussed in the preceding
sections. Luhmann and Schorr make a plea for a social re-conceptualization of
the reflection theories, for a re-conceptualization which takes its point of depar-
ture in educational communication.

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 11, 2015


07 Vanderstraeten (jr/t) 1/9/03 12:19 PM Page 142

142 European Journal of Social Theory 6(1)

Conclusion

A final observation concerns a classical theme in the literature on sociology of


education, viz. the so-called ‘hidden curriculum’ of schools. Several authors
consider the demand on behaviour within school classes to be representative of
the demands of life in modern society – not (only) on the level of the official
curriculum and its goals but (also) on the level of latent structures within an
universalistic, affect-neutral, and performance-oriented modernity. Emile
Durkheim already spoke of ‘that social microcosm that the school is’ (1956: 131).
However, it should have become clear by now that the school socializes for the
school, not for society. At school, it becomes important to be a good student. Its
way of working generates its own, special side-effects. It promotes attitudes that
make it possible to handle educational problems in special ways via educators,
teachers, and schools. As previously indicated, Luhmann’s own sceptical
conclusions about education should in my view be interpreted against this back-
ground: ‘A system that is structured too improbably and that tries to identify itself
entirely with the transformation of input into output ends up having to deal with
the problems resulting from its own increase-directed reductions’ (1995: 207).
Seen in this perspective, most of the prevailing concerns in the educational system
are consequences of its own differentiation in modern society.
In my view, Luhmann and Schorr offer a rich sociological theory of education
which is also able to stimulate further research. The preceding observation
provides some hints for further inquiry. Other research perspectives can be added
– as a number of (mainly) German authors have demonstrated in the past years.
But it remains doubtful whether Luhmann’s and Schorr’s writings will attract a
wide audience outside Germany. The singular vocabulary and condensed style of
these publications create a number of problems. Moreover, Luhmann (and
Schorr) had the German reader and thus a specific social and intellectual context
in mind. Many notions in the reviewed books retain a local colouring. An
English-speaking audience places these texts in a different setting, thus adding to
the difficulties of trying to understand highly demanding theoretical arguments.
In this regard, I have tried to focus on the backgrounds of the more general
aspects of these books and thus contribute to a well-considered reception of this
work. This is something which these books certainly deserve.

Acknowledgement

The author acknowledges funding by the European Commission (HPMF-CT-


2000–00835).

References

Durkheim, Emile (1956) Education and Sociology. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 11, 2015


07 Vanderstraeten (jr/t) 1/9/03 12:19 PM Page 143

Raf Vanderstraeten Review Essay 143

Jackson, Philip (1990/1968) Life in Classrooms. New York and London: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Koselleck, Reinhardt (1972) ‘Einleitung’, in Otto Brunner, Werner Conze and Reinhardt
Koselleck (eds) Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen
Sprache in Deutschland, Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
—— (2000) Zeitschichten. Studien zur Historik. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, Niklas (1981) Soziologische Aufklärung 3. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
—— (1982) The Differentiation of Society. New York: Columbia University Press.
—— (1984) Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp (English translation, Social
Systems, trans. John Bednarz, Jr, with Dirk Baecker, 1995, Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press).
—— (1990) ‘Die Homogenisierung des Anfangs: zur Ausdifferenzierung der
Schulerziehung’, in Niklas Luhmann and Karl Eberhard Schorr (eds) Zwischen Anfang
und Ende: Fragen an die Pädagogik. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
—— (1997) Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
—— (2000) Organisation und Entscheidung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Shain, Farzana and Ozga, Jenny (2001) ‘Identity Crisis? Problems and Issues in the
Sociology of Education’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 22: 109–20.
Stichweh, Rudolf (1997) ‘Professions in Modern Society’, International Review of Sociology
7: 95–102.
—— (2000) ‘Systems Theory as an Alternative to Action Theory? The Rise of
“Communication” as a Theoretical Option’, Acta Sociologica 43: 5–13.
Vanderstraeten, Raf (2000) ‘Luhmann on Socialization and Education’, Educational
Theory 50: 1–23.
—— (2002) ‘Explorations in the Systems-theoretical Study of Education’, in Carlos
Alberto Torres and Ari Antikainen (eds) The International Handbook on the Sociology
of Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

■ Raf Vanderstraeten Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Germany.


[email: Raf.Vanderstraeten@uni-bielefeld.de]

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 11, 2015