FunctionalDifferentiationasaTestCase OntheComparisonofSystemsTheoryandNeoinstitutionalism1

RudolfStichweh,UniversityofLucerne,July2011

1.ParallelsandSimiliaritiesofNeoinstitutionalismandSystemsTheory Therearemanyparallelsandsimilaritiesofsystemstheoryandneoinstitutionalismas sociologicalparadigms.Bothofthemarefocussedonatheoryofworldsocietyasthemajor empiricaldiagnosistobederivedfromamoregeneraltheoreticalendeavour.Bothhavea phenomenologicalorsocialconstructivistbackground;theydonotbelieveinmethodological individualismandtheypracticeakindofdetachmenttowardsnormativestanceswhichin JohnW.MeyeraswellasinNiklasLuhmannfindsitsexpressioninastronglyironicalkindof writing. Buthowcanwechooseandhowcanwedecidebetweenthetwoparadigms?Asisalways thecaseinprocessesoftheorychoicetherearesomanydimensionsinvolvedthatno convergenceofdecisionsistobeexpected.Andthentheseprocessesmostlyarenotabout choice.Theyareaboutsocializationintoparadigms,processesofcognitivedriftwhich graduallychangeparadigmsandaboutslowprocessesofcognitivegrowthandintellectual decayoftheoreticalparadigms.ButneverthelesswehavetocompareandtoevaluateandI proposethetheoryandthephenomenonoffunctionaldifferentiationasonecasestudyfor doingcomparisonsandevaluations. 2.NotheoryoffunctionaldifferentiationinNeoinstitutionalism:Insteadanalysesofthe politicalcultureofworldsociety Insystemstheoryfunctionaldifferentiationisthemostimportanthypothesisinatheoryof worldsociety.ThestratifiedorderofestatesinearlymodernEuropeclearlywasaregional societalorderwhichwasbasedonknowledgeaboutsocietalstatuswhichneverwas globalizedandprobablycantbeglobalized.Withfunctionaldifferentiationitisdifferent fromthebeginning.Theguidingdistinctionsonwhichfunctionaldifferentiationisbased (true/false;transcendent/immanentetc.)donoteasilytolerateregionalrestrictionsoftheir

ContributionfortheWorkshop,IsomorphismandDifferentiation.FromGlobalization(s)toWorldSociety, HamburgerInstitutfrSozialforschung,July89,2011

validity.Thereforethepossibilityofaglobalcommunicativespaceisbuiltintotheprinciple offunctionaldifferentiation. Neoinstitutionalismdoesnothaveatheoryoffunctionaldifferentiation.InJohnMeyers WorldSocietyfrom2009,totakearepresentativeexample,thetermfunctional differentiationdoesneveroccurandwhatismuchmoreimportantthestructuralreality offunctionaldifferentiationisnotacknowledged.Ofcourse,thereisanimplicitacceptance offunctionaldifferentiationbythefactthattherearecasestudiesonscienceandlawbut thesecasestudiesarenotsubsumedunderamoregeneralideawhichprovidesforanidea offunctionaldifferentiationasthegeneratingprinciplebehindit. InsteadthereisaminimalclassificationinmanywritingsbyJohnW.Meyerandcoauthors whichonlyacceptstheeconomy,thepolityandthecultureasthreeconstitutivedimensions ofthesocial.WhatIdonotperceiveisanargumentwhichcouldfunctionasatheoretical justificationforprivilegingtwoofthefunctionsystemsofworldsocietyinthisway.Andthen somethinginterestinghappens.Neoinstitutionalismdoesnotcaremuchfortheeconomy.It israrelyanalysedinJohnMeyer.Andsomeofthemostinterestingremarksontheeconomy forexamplewhenMeyerdemonstratesthatjobstodayaremoreorganizedaround credentialsthanaboutmarketsdeflatetheclaimoftheeconomyforanespecially prominentstatus.Butthentheclassificationreducestotwosystemsthepolityandculture andtheunderstandingofworldsocietymainlyisaboutthepoliticalcultureofworldsociety. 3.PrefenceforactorsinNeoinstitutionalism:Perceptionoffunctionsystemsfromthe perspectiveofnationalstatesasobservers ThereisafurtherthreefoldclassificationinNeoinstitutionalismwhichismuchmore importantfortheintellectualprofileofNeoinstitutionalismandforitsrelationtofunctional differentiation.Thisisthedistinctionofindividuals,organizationsandnationstateswhich functionsasaclassificationofsystemlevelsonecouldcomparetotheversionSystems Theoryproposes:interaction,organization,society.Whatisinterestingregardingthesethree systemlevelsisthatallthreeentitiescanbedescribedasactors.Theyareactors circumscribedbyprocessesofculturalconstructionbuttheyareactorsnonethelessandby focussingonthemtheanalyticallanguageofneoinstitutionalismispushedintoadirection whichgivesitatendencytowardsanactionbasedexplicationofsocialrealities. FromthepointofviewofSystemsTheorythereisoneremarkwhichimmediatelycomesto mind.ThethreeentitiesprivilegedbyNeoinstitutionalismaretheonlyentitiesorsystem levelstowhichyoucouldmeaningfullyascribethecapabilitytoact.Ifyousubstitute interactionsforindividualsorsocietalsubsystemsfornationstatesthiscapabilityforactionis clearlynolongerapartoftheseentities.ThatistheontologyofNeoinstitutionalismimports akindofpoliticalactionviewintosocialdomainswhichprobablyshouldbedescribedina

morenuancedway.Togiveasufficientlydiversifiedanalysisoffunctionaldifferentiationone needsmoredistancefromsuchanaffinityforaquasipoliticalvocabulary. Tothisonefurtherconsiderationhastobeadded.Themostremarkableamongthethree entitiesisthenationalstate.SystemsTheoryandNeoinstitutionalismagreeintheirhistorical analysisofthenationalstate.Itisalatecomerinthehistoryofworldsocietyanditonly becametheuniversalformoftheregionalizationoftheworldpolityinthelastfiftyyears(as aresultofdecolonization).AtthispointSystemsTheoryandNeoinstitutionalismpartways. ForSystemsTheorythenationalstateisonlythemaininventionintheformationof subsystemsofaglobalWorldPolity.Neoinstitutionalismperceivesalltheotherfunction systemsfromtheperspectiveofthenationalstatewhoisconceivedasanobserverwho observestheothernationalstatesinthewaytheydealwiththedifferentfunctionalspheres oftheirsocieties.Onthisbasisofmutualobservationsofnationalstatesintheirprocessesof observingfunctionalspheresprocessesofcopyinganddiffusionsarise.Thisisavery consequentiallimitationoftheabilitytounderstandthedifferentiationprocessesofthe multiplefunctionsystemsofworldsociety.Functionsystemssuchastheartsorthesystem ofworldreligionsareneveranalysedintheirowninternallogicofdifferentiationforwhich nationalstatesareonlyoneamongmanyenvironments.Theseotherfunctionsystemsof worldsocietyareinsteadalwaysunderstoodonthebasisofprocessesofcopyingand diffusiongoingoninthesystemofnationalstates.

4.StandardisationinNeoinstitutionalismvs.complexityanddiversityinSystemsTheory ThepoliticalbiasbuiltintoNeoinstitutionalismisthemainfactorbehindthetendencyof seeingglobalisationprocessesasprocessesofstandardisation.Thishypothesishasacertain plausibilityaslongasonelooksatglobalizationfromtheperspectiveof(standardised) nationalstateswhichobserveoneotherandthenmainlyhavetwooptions.Theycancopy whatisdonebyothersortheycandecidetogointoanotherdirectionoreventheopposite direction.AndNeoinstitutionalismshareswithothersociologiesbutnotwithSystems Theorytheideathatthisdistinctionisonewithaninbuiltpreferenceforcopyingwhatis donebyothers. Ifonelooksatfunctionsystemsnotfromnationalstatesasobserversbutfromtheirown processesoffindinganautonomousplaceinthesocialworldonewillnotexpectandone willnotperceivestandardisation.Insteadonewillseethebuildupofcomplexityand diversityandbothterms,complexityanddiversity,arenotamongthetermsonwhichone willfindsignificantinformationinneoinstitutionalistwritings.Ofcourse,therearestandards infunctionsystems.Forexample,thelearnedorscientificpaperhasbasicformalsimilarities betweenthethousandsofpagespublishedeachyearintheProceedingsoftheNational AcademyofSciences(22.750in2010)andtheapproximatelysixhundredpagesofa successfulandglobalartsjournallikeOctober.Butifyoubegintoreadthesetwojournals (anditisinterestingenoughthatitwillnotbeeasytofindreaderswhoareabletoreadand
3

understandbothjournals)youwillfindaculturaldistanceandreciprocalstrangenessof perspectivesyouneverwouldhavefoundinearliersocieties,andthesejournalsareonly twoofthethousandsofscientificandlearnedjournalsofglobalrelevance.Tounderstand scienceandscholarshipyouhavetounderstandthismultiplicationofculturalworldsinternal tothisfunctionsystemaswellastoalltheotherfunctionsystemsofsociety. 5.Othersandactors:AbsenceofcommunicationtheoryinNeoinstitutionalism Neoinstitutionalisminthelastfewyearshasdevelopedaveryinterestingandfruitful distinctionofothersandactors.Thisisaclearparalleltothedistinctionofobservationand operationinSystemsTheoryanditisawayofaccommodatingthestrategicrelevanceof observationsandsecondorderobservationsandobservationsbythirdpartiesinthe theoreticalunderpinningsofNeoinstitutionalism.Butstillthereisnotheoryof communicationaddedtoNeoinstitutionalismwhichoneprobablyneedsasabackgroundfor anunderstandingwhichisfocussedonthestrategicroleofobservations.Thereductionon actionsandreductiontoactorsisverymuchasimplificationoftheselforganizedcomplexity ofworldsociety.Anditisincommunicationprocesseswhichareoftentoofasttoidentify actorsthatthevariationanddiversityariseswhichischaracteristicofpresentdaysociety. 6.Theprofessionalizationofeveryone:Theinternaldivisionoflaborinfunctionsystems OnewayinwhichNeoinstitutionalismpointstotheincreasingcomplexityofWorldSocietyis inanalysingthenumerousprofessionswithaglobalhorizonwhichariseinthelastfew decades.Againthisdoesnotgiveusaconvincingpictureoffunctionaldifferentiation.Ifone looksattheinterrelationofprofessionsandthedifferentiationofworldwidefunction systemsinahistoricalperspectiveoneperceivesthattheperiodofthegreatestprominence oftheprofessionsinthehistoryofEuropeansocietywastheperiodfrom1200to1800in whichthelearnedprofessionsoflatemedievalandearlymodernEuropefunctionedasa kindoffunctionallydefinedestatesinaworldwhichstillmadeuseofstrataasitsprimary principleofdifferentiation.Fromthishistoricalstartingpointcamethemonoprofessional functionsystemof19thcenturysocietyinwhichonecoreprofession(thelawyers,the physicians,theclerics)controlledtheinternaldivisionoflaborinawholefunctionsystem. Butthatisnolongertheworldinwhichwelive.FiftyyearsagoHaroldWilenskyalready diagnosedtheprofessionalizationofeveryoneandthisisanaptdescriptionofasituation whereprofessionalsnolongerareabletocontrolwholefunctionsystemsbutinsteadare onlypartofadivisionofprofessionallaborinternaltoallofthefunctionsystemsofWorld Society.
4

7.Individualsandtheascendancyoftheobjectivecultureoffunctionsystems ThenextcoreunitinthesocialontologyofNeoinstitutionalismistheindividual.Therecan benodoubtthatthisisoneofthecentralinventionsofmodernity:anindividualwhichvery muchdiffersfromalltheotherindividualsintheworldbutsharesthispropertywithofallof them.JohnMeyeranalysesthisinstitutionofindividualityanditsparadoxeswithconceptual figuresfromTocqueville.IfonelookstotheearlierandmuchmoredetailedGerman romantictraditionespeciallybetween1790and1810onediscoversonefurthercentral point.InauthorssuchasSchleiermacher,Humboldt,Schiller,Novalis,Schlegelandmany otherstheindividualisrichlydescribedviainfinity,incessantselfcultivation,internalization ofevernewcontentsoftheworld,intimateexchangewithfewotherindividualswhoare involvedinthesameprocessesandvianumerousotherdescriptors.Buttheworldof individualinfinitydetailedforthefirsttimeinhistoryinthistraditionisaworldwhichhas insufficientsupportindifferentiatedfunctionsystems.Theselfcultivationoftheindividual atthistimearound1800isaricherworldthantheworldoftradeorpoliticsorcontemporary religionandthatisthereasonwhyitispreferredtothesedomains.Ahundredyearslater whensociologytakesupthisromantictheoryofindividualityitisalreadytheotherway around.WhenMaxWeberandGeorgSimmelcomebacktothetheoryofindividualityinthe early20thcenturyitiseasilyperceivedbythemthatthedifferentiatedmeaningworldsof scienceandpoliticsandofalltheotherfunctionaldomainsareonlyverypartiallyknownto individuals.InGeorgSimmelwhoreallyisalateinstantiationofthisromanticculturethe tragedyofmodernculturepreciselyconsistsinthefactthattheobjectivecultureofthe functionaldomainsofsocietyismuchmorecomplexanddiversethanthesubjectiveculture ofindividuals.ThequirksandodditiesofmodernindividualismtowhichmanyofJohn Meyersironicalremarksaredirectedareclearlyaresultofthissituationeasilytobe identifiedintheearly20thcenturysituationandthereforeitbecomesevermoreimportant tobeabletoanalysethediverginganddiversifyingculturesofthefunctionsystemsofworld societyassomethingwhichcantbereducedtothecultureofitsindividuals.Youneeda theoryoffunctionaldifferentiationwhichcantbewrittenasatheoryofindividualsinworld society. 8.Organizationandnetworks:Orthogonalitytofunctionsystems NeoinstitutionalismandSystemsTheoryagreeinpointingtotherelevanceoforganizations asacoreunitinprocessesofstructureformationinthesystemofWorldSociety.Butthereis atleastonesignificantdifference.WhenonelooksatWorldSocietyfromthepointofview ofatheoryoffunctionaldifferentiationonehastoarguethattheformalorganization representsaprinciplewhichisorthogonaltofunctionaldifferentiation.Operationswhich belongtomanydifferentfunctionsystemscanbepartoftheongoingprocessesin organizations.Andthenfunctionsystemscanworkasattractorsfororganizationsthatis theycaninduceselfsimplificationsinorganizationswhichpushorganizationsindirectionsin
5

whichtheyprefertoadoptfunctionalprimaciesaslogicsoftheirevolution.This orthogonalityoforganizationsisanimportantandattractiveanalyticaloption.Buttomake useofitonehastohaveasufficientlyclearunderstandingoftheconceptoffunctional differentiation.Thesameargumentcanofcourseberepeatedinlookingatsocialnetworks, especiallysmallworldnetworksasinfrastructuresofworldsociety. 9.Lossofcontacttoevolutionarythinking:Populationandvariation OneofthemostremarkableintellectualpropertiesofNeoinstitutionalismisthatitseemsto havelostthecontacttoevolutionarythinkingwhichsinceThorsteinVeblenalwayswasone ofthestrongestpointsintherepertoireofinstitutionalisttheories.AsmuchasIseethereis nopopulationistthinkinginpresentdayNeoinstitutionalism.Systemsarenotunderstoodas diversedistributionsofpropertieswhichtheyselectivelyreinforceintheirprocessesofself organization.Andthereseemstobenoconceptualinterestinmechanismsofvariation,i.e. inprocessesofvariationwhichfeednoveltiesintoasystem. 10.Lossofsmalldifferences:Thecostsofisomorphism Mylastremarkisrelatedtothisobservationoftheabsenceofevolutionarythinking.My impressionisthatneoinstitutionalismoftenoperatesonaveryhighlevelofgeneralization. Processesofinclusionintosecondaryeducationandintohighereducationmainlygointothe samedirectionandthisistrueinaworldwidesense.Thisisthekindofargumentyouget usedtohearfromaneoinstitutionalistauthor.Butthisshouldnotmeanthatoneisno longerinterestedinthehistoricalandcausalrelevanceofsmalldifferencesbetween systems.TheriseoftheUnitedStatesastheleadingnationof20thcenturyWorldSociety wasclearlypreparedbyprocessesofinclusioninsecondaryandhighereducationgoingon significantlyearlierthaninotherregionsofWorldSociety.Andtodayitisexactlytheother wayaround.TherelativelossofstrengthoftheUnitedStatestobeobservedinmany functionaldomainsisoncemorepreparedbyitslossofitsleadingpositionintermsof secondaryandtertiaryeducation(qualityofschools,slowingofinclusionprocesses, dramaticdeclineofgraduationratesinhighereducation,costproblemsandnumerousother factors).Butthiskindofanalysiswhichlooksininstructivewaysatinterrelationsbetween (small)differencesinonefunctionaldomainanditsconsequencesinotherfunctional domainsisrarelydoneinneoinstitutionalismandthisseemstobeduetoitsconceptual preferenceforcentraltendenciesandstandardisationprocesses.Butifthatisthe intellectualoptionchosenbyNeoinstitutionalismthiswouldmeanalossofanalyticaland empiricalrelevance.