Daniel Chernilo

The theorization of social co-ordinations in

differentiated societies: the theory of generalized
symbolic media in Parsons, Luhmann and
Habermas*

ABSTRACT

The problem of the differentiation of societies is at the core of the sociological

imagination about the rise of modernity. In postwar sociology, T. Parsons
developed the theor y of generalized symbolic media in the mid-1960s to tackle,
theoretically and historically, the issue of differentiation. According to him, the
interchange media are deŽ ned as resources oriented to exchange processes
between the subsystems of the social system. Starting with money, Parsons argues
that the remaining media (power, in uence, and value-commitments) have a set
of characteristics deŽ ned as common properties for all media. After this Ž rst
formulation, contemporary theorists such as Niklas Luhmann and Jürgen
Habermas have developed and modiŽ ed the Parsonian theor y: Luhmann rejects
the idea of interchange and proposes the use of communication; Habermas
distinguishes between steering and communication media. In all three cases, the
focus of the theor y is on the characterization of the strongest dynamics of social
co-ordination present in differentiated societies. A major result of these develop-
ments is the inclusion of new dimensions on which to conceive the properties of
media, not only those of money but also language. Beyond differences, then, it is
proposed that there is only one theor y of generalized symbolic media which can
be understood as a progressive research programme, in Lakatos’ terms. Finally,
the hand-in-hand evolution between the theory of media and Habermas’ and
Luhmann’s re-conceptualizations on societal differentiation in contemporary
societies will also be revealed.

KEYWORDS: Differentiation; modernity; generalized symbolic media;

Parsons; Luhmann; Habermas

1. INTRODUCTION. SOCIOLOGY AND THE DIFFERENTIATION OF SOCIETIES

The understanding of modern societies in terms of processes of social

differentiation is at the core of the sociological imagination about the rise
British Journal of Sociology Vol. No. 53 Issue No. 3 (September 2002) pp. 431–449
© 2002 London School of Economics and Political Science ISSN 0007-1315 print/1468-4446 online
Published by Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Ltd on behalf of the LSE
DOI: 10.1080/0007131022000000581
432 Daniel Chernilo

of modernity. In the early functionalist tradition, represented by H.

Spencer and E. Durkheim, the concept of differentiation is utilized quite
explicitly; they provided it with a high explanatory potential. The idea of
differentiation of society (or social division of labour) is central for their
understanding of society in both empirical and normative terms. Also at
the turn of the twentieth centur y, in the German-speaking world, the thesis
of the differentiation of modern societies is widely present. We found it in
G. Simmel’s discussion on the processes of group formation, and it
certainly underlines M. Weber’s understanding of the processes of social
and cultural rationalization (Schluchter 1981). In postwar sociology, T.
Parsons, J. Habermas and N. Luhmann represent key Ž gures in bringing
these traditions together, through their attempts at building a general
sociological theor y. In all these different versions, the conceptualization of
the process of structural differentiation is at the core of the sociological
diagnosis of the constitution and evolution of modern societies.
While the reconstruction of the concept of differentiation in sociology
can be undertaken in itself, it is my contention, however, that it is more
fruitful to focus on speciŽ c developments in which the issue of the differ-
entiation of society is placed along other contemporary sociological
concerns. 1 Moreover, the general level at which the different notions of
differentiation are formulated leaves the concept ambiguous; the notion of
differentiation seems to represent the metaphysics of a good part of the
sociological discourse on the rise of modern societies.
In this paper I propose to analyse and reconstruct a major twentieth-
century theoretical development within what one can call the paradigm of
the differentiation of societies: the theory of generalized symbolic media.
Originally developed by Parsons in the 1960s, the theor y of generalized
symbolic media has been followed through by Luhmann and Habermas as
a privileged way of looking at how modern societies produce and handle
their differentiation.
The paper has three main claims. Firstly, it states how central the theory
of media is in giving sociological content to the paradigm of differentia-
tion. Hence, secondly, it shall be shown that the commonalities and differ-
ences among the three authors in relation to the theor y of media are
related to their conceptualizations of the differentiation of modern
societies. Thirdly, I have to prove that the theory of media has followed a
progressive path in terms of its internal conceptual development.
Quite surprisingly, one Ž nds in the literature neither systematic research
about the development of the theory of media in itself nor attempts to link
the theory of media to any other major sociological issue.2 What I offer
here is the required account for the Ž rst of these aims and, hopefully, some
suggestions in relation to the second.
The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 433

2. THE SOCIOLOGICAL CONTENT OF THE THEORY OF MEDIA AND THE

RESEARCH STRATEGY

What are the media? What does the theory of generalized symbolic media
actually conceptualize? In brief, media are speciŽ c forms of social co-
ordination; they are the most constant dynamics of social co-ordination
present in modern societies. Money, power, love, truth, and the other media
are the way in which societal subsystems, Ž rstly, regulate their internal func-
tioning by contributing to its own differentiation and, secondly, Ž nd the way
to interrelate with each other to produce co-ordinations between subsys-
tems. While the former means that each subsystem becomes more efŽ cient
by being only concentrated in its speciŽ c tasks; the latter refers to the
societal framework in which differentiation takes place. Social co-
ordinations conceptualized as media give sociological content to the highly
abstract idea of the differentiation of modern societies.
One can say that social co-ordinations are necessary and unstable in
modern societies. They are necessar y, on the one hand, in the sense that
the complexity of modern social life makes unavoidable the interrelation
of different actors and logics in society. Either theorized as interpenetra-
tion (as in systems theory), or networks (as in Castells) or Ž elds (as in
Bourdieu), interdependence is seen as a central feature of differentiated
societies. They are unstable, on the other hand, because social co-
ordinations are also under a high pressure of being disrupted and there-
fore to fail. In Luhmann’s words (1986: 4), what the generalized symbolic
media conceptualize is ‘the non-random character of variations in social
relations’.
In methodological terms, Lakatos’ (1978) notion of research pro-
gramme provides the framework for fulŽ lling the task of analysing and
reconstructing the development of the theory of media. I propose that the
theor y of media has followed a progressive path by looking at the common-
alities and differences among the different versions of the theory. By
progressivity, I mean, Ž rst, that the theor y becomes an autonomous Ž eld of
theoretical research and second that the theory has evolved in the direc-
tion of providing better insights for the sociological characterization of the
differentiation of societies. Whilst this evolution is displayed step by step in
the following sections of the paper, I can straightaway summarize the main
path the theory has followed. Reconstructively, forty years after its Ž rst
formulation, it can be seen that while Parsons originally talked of inter-
change media (that is, all media seen as an extension of the features of
money); Luhmann has proposed the concept of communication media (as
communication being the key element for the autopoiesis of the system);
and Habermas has distinguished between steering and communication media
(along the lines of his distinction between system and lifeworld). In spite
of these modiŽ cations, however, it is proposed that there is only one theor y
of generalized symbolic media in the sense that the theor y has both main-
tained its focus – the conceptualization of the strongest dynamics of social
434 Daniel Chernilo

co-ordination present in differentiated societies – and improved its analyti-

cal insights for the observation of societal differentiation.

3. PARSONS. THE FOUNDATION OF GENERALIZED SYMBOLIC MEDIA OF

INTERCHANGE

In a set of monographic papers during the 1960s, Parsons (1967b, c, 1969)

proposed both the general framework for the theor y of generalized
symbolic media and the Ž rst deŽ nition of each medium, based on the four-
functions paradigm already mature at that time.3 Generalized symbolic
media of interchange were deŽ ned as resources oriented to exchange
processes between the subsystems of the social system. Media let the subsys-
tems fulŽ l two different but linked processes. On the one hand, they
increase each subsystem’s autonomy allowing higher efŽ ciency on its oper-
ations, thus reinforcing Parsons’ thesis that differentiation processes are the
main evolutionary tendency of modern societies (Parsons 1967d). On the other
hand, each medium interpenetrates with the others, a tendency which
solves the problem of the functional integration of the social system
through six subsystems of interpenetration built as double-exchange
processes. Simplistic interpretations on Parsons would just say that despite
the level of institutionalization of each medium in its subsystem, the
general tendency is towards the homeostasis of the systemic relations.
Beyond that, however, one also Ž nds in Parsons the much stronger thesis
that social differentiation is a twofold process of increasing both autonomy
and interdependence between subsystems. In theoretical terms, the
problem is the constitution of a societal perspective to link differentiation
and integration, or rather, that modern societies constitute themselves in a
process of integration through differentiation.
In spite of the fact that Parsons himself says that the theor y was devel-
oped as a generalization from the properties of money (Parsons 1977a:
198–201; 1977b: 205–8), the very name of the theory indicates a funda-
mental tension running through it. The idea of media, Ž rstly, refers to the
necessity of building links between social relations already differentiated.
The idea of interchange, secondly, refers to money being paradigmatic for
conceptualizing the ‘give-and-take’ relationships between subsystems, and
for measuring the equivalence of those relations as well. In the case of the
concepts of symbolization and generalization, thirdly, the former refers to the
exchange-value of money as well as the symbolic utility of language
(Parsons 1977b: 206); whereas the latter means that ever y medium can
represent several objects in different contexts of interaction. The refer-
ences to generalization and symbolization are also related to the anthropo-
logical and sociological capacities of human beings to operate symbolically
and to use these skills in a socially effective way. In that sense, language, as
a set of generalized symbols, is the secondar y source for the understanding
of media.4
The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 435

Parsons proposed that money is not the only medium in the social system
and deŽ ned three more, each one especially related to one subsystem:
power (political system), in uence5 (societal community) and value
commitments (Ž duciar y system).6 Table I summarizes the major
components of the media in relation to the functional imperatives of a
differentiated social system.
It cannot be clear, at Ž rst sight, what money has in common with the
other media. Hence the thesis that Parsons develops a real theory should be
supported by showing some properties which, as a generalization of the
characteristics of money, are adequate to the remaining media. In the
Parsonian version of the theory of interchange media, these properties can
be summarized as follows.7
1. Norms and codes: Each medium has a set of norms that rule its opera-
tions. As counterpart to its generalized and symbolic character, ever y
medium is institutionally anchored in its subsystem by norms. Media
have ‘meaning-speciŽ city’ referring to these norms, and they perform
effectively only within their subsystems. In the case of money, for
example, there are many exchanges that can be regulated by it, but
there are also several that cannot. The codes of the media represent
the institutional mechanisms that make their operations functionally
adequate in differentiated contexts.
2. Circulation: Media can move both between actors inside the subsystem
and beyond the system’s boundaries (double-exchanges). This second
characteristic has special relevance in the explanation of the emerg-
ence of the subsystems of interpenetration and the thesis of inte-
gration through differentiation.

TABLE I: Interchange media and the main structural categories8

Functional Mode of Co-
imperatives of Media of Value communi- ordination Basic Security
social systems interchange principle cation standard institutions base

Adaptation Money Utility Inducement Solvency Contract, Gold

(economic property, (physical
system) labour. needs)
Goal Power Effective- Command- Sovereignty Political Means of
attainment ness ment leadership, coercion
(political authority. (physical
system) force)
Integration In uence Solidarity Persuasion Consensus Citizenship, Social
(societal universalist bonds
community) legal system.
Pattern Value- Integrity Moral Pattern Churches, Internal-
maintenance commit- appellation consistency educational ized values,
(Ž duciary ments institutions. guilt
system)
436 Daniel Chernilo

3. Scarcity: The highly efŽ cient performances of media are related to this
property. The norms which rule the acquisition of each medium
make it a scarce good, scarcity being related, then, to the base that
secures the operations of each medium. Scarcity, at the same time,
produces constraints as to how media circulate, and reinforces their
efŽ ciency.
4. Non zero-sum condition: This property means that no Ž xed quantity of
a medium exists either within its subsystem or within the social system
as a whole. Their in ation or de ation processes are linked to the
credibility and efŽ ciency of each medium’s performance. Media’s
value could either increase or decrease depending on the perform-
ance of the different subsystems. Furthermore, gains in individual
possession of one medium do not imply a corresponding decrease in
the possession other actors might have of the same medium.9
5. Value principle: Each subsystem has a value principle that rules its
performances. It can be said that each medium has its own rationality,
complementar y with the rationality of the other media and subsystems.
The sociological conclusion of this discussion on Parsons’ theor y of media
is that they are achievements of modern societies. Only modern societies
have institutionalized conditions (that is, a high and successful degree of
differentiation) that make possible the emergence and functioning of
media. Technically speaking, generalized symbolic media of interchange
are a function of the degree of differentiation of social structures; the
media are consequence of such processes of differentiation (Parsons
1977a: 199).10 This is the key thesis that media are the result of the
processes of structural differentiation of societies. As we shall see, this thesis
is a major issue in the development of the theor y in relation to an historical
and sociological understanding of the differentiation of modern societies.
At the level of theory building one can say that Parsons himself was aware
of that, in some cases the properties would be more appropriate to money
than to the whole set of media. However, it was also said that this is the case
because it is a model still in progress (Baum 1977), a statement that
converges with the thesis about the constitution of the theory of media as
a research programme. In the following pages, I suggest that the develop-
ment of the theor y of media has produced a clear path, but one different
from Parsons’ idea of interchange media based on the properties of money.

4. LUHMANN’S THEORY OF GENERALIZED SYMBOLIC MEDIA OF

COMMUNICATION

After the Parsonian founding step, Luhmann continued the development

of the theory of generalized symbolic media. In this section, I will only stress
the main differences between Parsons’ and Luhmann’s at the level of theory
building. A broader sociological re ection upon the consequences of the
changes Luhmann introduces to the theor y is attempted in section 6.
The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 437

Evolutionarily, Luhmann theorizes three kinds of media. Firstly, there

are oral languages. As limited to face-to-face interactions between Ego and
Alter, oral languages have a low capacity to reduce complexity. The second
media are mass or diffusion media: writing, printing and telecommuni-
cations. The main characteristic of these media is the great expansion of
communication possibilities through the development of new technologies
that uncouple communication from co-presence contexts. Finally, and this
characterizes the advent of the functionally differentiated (that is, modern)
society, generalized symbolic media of communication come into being.
Luhmann (1995: 157–63) says that there is one type of medium linked to
each stage of social evolution: oral languages correspond to segmented
societies; mass media to stratiŽ ed societies, and generalized symbolic media
to functionally differentiated societies.
More than the disappearance of previous forms of differentiation,
Luhmann argues that what changes is the key principle of differentiation.
For Luhmann (1977: 518–20), then, new forms of systemic differentiation
are the result, not the cause, of the emergence of media. Luhmann turns
Parsons’ thesis that symbolic media come after the rise of functional differ-
entiation upside down. He rather links the rise of media to the problem
of contingency and maintains that functional differentiation is the
outcome of this process. Differentiation is for Luhmann the result of the
functional specialization already achieved by the media and not its previous
condition.
In this way, the theor y of generalized symbolic media starts to obtain
autonomy from the Ž rst Parsonian formulation at two levels. First, because
the research on the development of media can be undertaken in itself. As
politics or economy became differentiated because of the functioning of
power and money, the differentiation of politics from economy has to be
researched by looking at the actual development of power and money. The
research on the differentiation of society becomes historically and analytically subordi-
nated to the research on the media. The deductions from the Parsonian frame
of reference are abandoned, the theor y of generalized symbolic media
begins to follow its own path. The Parsonian scheme of four (and only
four) media is discarded, as being a mere consequence of the tetrafunc-
tional paradigm. By putting, as Luhmann does, contingency at the consti-
tutive level of the social it becomes impossible to keep a frame of reference
that deduces the existence of some media based only on Parsons’ AGIL
scheme. On the contrar y, the determination of the processes of differenti-
ation and their media should now be supported by the results of historical
researches focused on the development of different institutional settings.
Hence, in terms of which media are actually present in the societal system,
Luhmann maintains the media money and power and introduces via
historical research new media such as truth in the scientiŽ c system and love
in the system of intimate relations.
Second, according to Luhmann, media also gain autonomy by being
uncoupled from the problem of systemic exchanges and becoming linked
438 Daniel Chernilo

to the inducement of communications for the reproduction of the societal

system. In that sense, Luhmann moves from a theory of exchange media to a
theor y of communication media. In this transition, money loses its privileged
status as the paradigmatic medium from which the properties of the
remaining media are derived. Now communicative processes perform this
role. Taking this step towards the idea of communication media, Luhmann
reinforces on the one hand his thesis that communication is the only
element that really fulŽ ls the conditions to produce the systems’
autopoiesis, and on the other the idea that between the subsystems
controlled by the media there is no ‘interchange’ of goods or decisions.
Instead, these relationships must be understood as complementar y ways of
reducing complexity. One can see again that it is not necessary to suppose
full reciprocity between the subsystems: it could be found that some subsys-
tems are more differentiated than others. I can now show the properties of
Luhmann’s theor y of symbolic media.

1. Self-reference: Systemic operations are self-referential, that is, media

cannot circulate between subsystems as processes of reciprocal
exchanges (inputs/outputs). What does occur is that a medium
reinforces some choices beyond its realm, inciting those patterns of
action that are socially preferred. The code of one medium cannot be
dissolved into the codes of others (Luhmann 1998: 120–1).
2. Disjunction codes: Codes are no longer symbolic codes as in Parsons’,
each medium offers two (and only two) options. The ‘yes’ side signi-
Ž es the expected social value of the medium (pay, truth, justice). The
‘no’ position (no pay, untruth, injustice) speciŽ es the re exive
moment of the medium, showing the contingency of the positive side.
Media are distinguished by their capacity to codify preferences and to
induce the production of certain choices over others and their codes
are useful as structures that simplify information-processing and
motivate the acceptance of choices. Through this performance,
media develop both secondar y codes, which are less abstract than the
base-code, and programmes, which are strategies that give empirical
speciŽ city to the medium.
3. Production of paradoxes: Media cannot use their disjunctions on them-
selves. For example, the ‘legal/illegal’ distinction cannot by itself
ground the legality of its existence. However, the system’s autopoiesis
does not stop even during these paradoxes because this detention
would produce the end of the system.
4. Symbiotic dimension: The co-ordination achieved by the media is not
only symbolically produced but also externally reinforced through the
symbiotic dimension of the media: the physical world human beings
share (Luhmann 1995: 244–54). The relevance of this symbiotic
dimension rests in the hypothesis that part of the evolutionary success
of some media, that is, their faster and better institutionalization,
depends on the range of compatibility between the symbolic and the
The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 439

TABLE II: Communication media and partial social systems in differentiated

societies
Function
(main Primar y Secondary Symbiotic
System Media problem) code code mechanism

Economy Money Scarcity Pay/no pay Monetary Basic needs

units
Politics Power Consensus Government/ Charisma Physical force
opposition
Science Truth Knowledge Truth/false Paradigms, Perception
theories
Family Love Intimacy Loved/ Marriage Sexuality
unloved (reproduction)

organic dimension of the media: the higher the capacity of utilization

of the symbiotic mechanism, the better the performance of the
subsystem.
Table II summarizes the main elements of Luhmann’s theory of communi-
cation media.11
In concluding this section, it is worth keeping in mind two issues. Firstly,
money has deŽ nitively lost the monopoly for the determination of the
properties for all media. The change from the idea of interchange to that
of communication is a clear sign that language is now taking the paradig-
matic position within the theory of media. Secondly, by avoiding the
schematism of Parsons’ AGIL model, Luhmann opens to empirically-
oriented research the determination of: [1] the number of existing media
at the societal level and [2] different degrees of institutionalization for each
medium.

5. HABERMAS’ DISTINCTION BETWEEN STEERING AND COMMUNICATION

MEDIA

In Habermas’ (1987) two-levels theory of society, the differentiation

between system and lifeworld refers to how the problem of integration is
solved in modern societies, or in Habermas’ own words, the problem of the
co-ordination of actions. In modern societies, integration is not just social
integration, that is, it does not occur only through interactions oriented to
mutual understanding. The participants in interactions also co-ordinate
themselves by means of causal-chains over which they have neither full
control nor full consciousness in their ever yday life. There are restrictions
produced by the exigencies of functional subsystems that permeate into the
lifeworld which are most of the time invisible to the actors. That is what
Habermas calls systemic integration.
440 Daniel Chernilo

This distinction, which refers to the differentiation of two distinct

strategies of social co-ordination, constitutes the core of Habermas’
position about the theor y of generalized symbolic media. If actions are co-
ordinated in domains beyond the control of the actors, that is, if co-
ordinations are pre-deŽ ned by the exigencies of functional systems, then
co-ordinations are based on an empirical motivation relative to the actors’
achievement of goals. However, there are also other kinds of social relation-
ships that are never fully uncoupled from the actors’ will to achieve an
understanding. In these cases, the actors’ motivation for co-ordinating
their actions is not empirical but rational. This is what Habermas calls
communicative rationality – a form of co-operation based on free consent.
Thus the rationalization of the lifeworld is conceptualized as a re exive
appropriation of its symbolic reproduction.
At this stage, then, Habermas rejects as an overgeneralization Parsons’
thesis of money as the paradigmatic medium and the conceptualization of
in uence and value-commitments from this source, because they are struc-
turally linked to linguistic understanding and to the symbolic reproduction
of the lifeworld. For Habermas, the key point is that the four media
described by Parsons are not quite the same. As media are mechanisms for
improving opportunities for a successful co-ordination of actions,
Habermas afŽ rms that they either replace or condense the formation of
linguistic consent.
Those media that replace linguistic consent (i.e. money and power, the
steering media) are characterized by their progressive uncoupling from the
lifeworld, which becomes increasingly unnecessar y as the meaning-frame
for actors’ action orientations. The subsystems constituted in this way
(economy and politics) are ruled by the media producing a sort of ‘system/
environment relationship’ with the lifeworld. By contrast, media that only
condense the achievement of linguistic consent (in uence and value-
commitments, the so-called communication media) remain closely linked to
the reproduction of lifeworld through the actors’ orientation towards
understanding. Habermas realizes that these only appear as media because
there are no institutions like contract or property for them. Table III
summarizes Habermas’ position on the theor y of media so far.
Then, Habermas asks if there are some structural properties which, as
derived from money, can be generalized to the set of media as a whole. He
says that the difŽ culties related to the Parsonian schematism are not contin-
gent but systematic, because in taking money as paradigmatic medium it is
only possible the formation of action systems based on a strategic way of
achieving consensus. This would not be an empirical difŽ culty concerning
whether the economy is the Ž rst or best subsystem to become differentiated
(as Parsons could argue), but rather an analytical inaccuracy. In beginning
with the distinction between a communicative and a strategic way of co-
ordinating actions, Habermas (1987: 264–7) makes his own evaluation of
the structural properties of Parsons’ media.
The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 441

TABLE III: Generalized symbolic media in a two-level theory of society

Social
Dynamic of Relation with reproduction
co-ordination Actor’s Type of ordinar y in which is
Media of actions orientation motivation language involved

Money, power Strategic. Towards Empirical Replace Material

Functional success reproduction
chains of of systems.
consequences Systemic
integration.
In uence, Communicat- Towards Rational Condense Symbolic
value- ive. Actor’s understanding reproduction
commitments orientation of lifeworld.
towards the Social
achievement integration
of a
communicative
understanding

1. Structural features: The symbolic and generalized character of media

means that the co-ordination of actions cannot be based on criticiz-
able validity claims, because there is a consensus pre-deŽ ned by the
functional requirements of the subsystems. There are only some
realms (functional subsystem) where the media can properly operate.
From this ‘external’ point of view it is expected that actors adopt an
objectifying attitude and rationalizing orientation towards the conse-
quences of their actions. Interactions ruled by the media lack binding
capacity in the lifeworld but are efŽ cient in the rational subsystems.
2. Qualitative properties: Media (based on money) can be measured,
accumulated, and alienated. They must re ect a speciŽ c amount of
value towards which actors might refer independently of speciŽ c
contexts of interaction. Media should be apportioned exclusively and
in variable quantities to speciŽ c actors, and this marks their difference
from linguistic expressions which cannot be Ž xed in this way.
3. The structure of claim and redemption: As an object, money does not have
an intrinsic amount of value, but requires laws for its operation. Power
acquires its empirical motivation force externally, through the
physical force acting as its security base. By contrast with both money
and power, trust in ordinary language is bound to the symbolic
reproduction of the lifeworld and no additional institutions are
required for its operation. Language develops a different kind of
compelling force which motivates rationally through propositions
that can be argumentatively sustained.
4. System-building effect: The historical emergence of money is the main
force that produces the differentiation of economy as a functional
442 Daniel Chernilo

subsystem. This is because of the evolution of social structures that

come under monetary control. For Habermas, the emergence of
money as the medium of the economic system does not necessarily
imply the development of other subsystems and media. Furthermore,
he rejects the Parsonian presupposition that the interchanges
between the economy and the other subsystems must be conceptual-
ized as reciprocal double-exchanges. Like Luhmann, Habermas
rejects Parsons’ thesis that media are the result of functional differ-
entiation.
Habermas’ systematic attempt to criticize Parsons’ theory of media is
based on the difŽ culties of deriving the set of common properties using
only money as paradigmatic medium, and he demonstrated these problems
by explaining that there are two different dynamics of action co-ordinations
which are irreducible among them.
As a corollary of his discussion of Parsons’ theor y of interchange media,
Habermas shows that even a comparison within the steering media (money
and power) is rather odd. Power needs a stronger institutional ground than
money in the lifeworld, because it requires additional trust for its legitimate
use, which in modern societies makes reference to some sort of ‘common-
wealth’. Furthermore, it is supposed that exchanges mediated by money do
not harm any of the participants, since they are conceived as equal
exchanges of goods with the same value. But since in modern societies the
application of power through physical force has to be legitimated, power is
closer than money to linguistic strategies of achieving understanding. This
is a second line of Habermas’ critique of Parsons’ theor y of media. His
argument is based on the negative consequences for the participants if they
do not continue their actions in the way established by the power-holders.
Habermas says that to be intimidated by the possibility of being sanctioned
is not the route for the continuation of co-ordinations achieved through a
free and mutual understanding.12
At the stage of theory building, then, Habermas criticizes the conse-
quences of not distinguishing steering from communication media.
Certainly, this is nothing else but an application of his system-and-lifeworld
distinction to the Parsonian theor y of media. Although, we shall see how at
the sociological level Habermas’ understanding of the theory of media
changes and how these changes occur rather implicitly in theoretical terms,
even to the point of modifying major issues for the understanding of recent
trends in modern societies.

6. THE SUBSTANTIATION OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAMME. THE

PARADIGMATIC POSITION OF LANGUAGE AND THE SOCIETAL PERSPECTIVE

So far I have shown the development of the theor y at a theor y-building

level of argumentation. The paper presented and compared the different
versions of the set of properties upon which theor y is laid down; made clear
The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 443

how the theory of media is related to the general frameworks of the

different authors and linked it to their understanding of the differentiation
of societies. Thus, in terms of the conceptualization of the theory of media
as a research programme, we are now in a position to prove the hypothesis
of the progressivity of the programme. For so doing, Lakatos proposed two
clauses, the Ž rst one being that: the programme must show usefulness indepen-
dently of the general framework in which it was created.
This Ž rst condition looks fulŽ lled by taking into account how Luhmann
and Habermas have redeŽ ned and utilized the theory of media. There has
been an increase in the autonomy of the theor y of media from the general
framework of the Ž rst Parsonian version, within his systems theory, through
the inclusion of different kinds of communicative processes with their own
rationality. My own reconstruction shows that one can distinguish between
media that are a generalization from money (Parsons) and media that are
an extension of the features of language (Luhmann and Habermas). The
presentation done in the previous three sections argues for the relevance
of the theor y of media as an autonomous Ž eld of sociological research.
Before moving to the second clause proposed by Lakatos, that the theory
must theoretically provide topics for further research, I still have to show the most
recent developments in the theory of media. We will do so by looking at
how Habermas and Luhmann themselves used the theory, but now with a
much stronger sociological orientation, that is, how they have utilized the
theor y of media at the level of neither paradigm presuppositions nor
theor y building. Rather, the issue now is how the theory of generalized
symbolic media is located at the core of the their sociological understand-
ing of the differentiation of modern societies.
In his writing on Habermas’ concepts of power and politics, T. McCarthy
(1991: 160–72) has shown that in The Theory of Communicative Action
Habermas mixed the concepts of ‘political system’ and of ‘bureaucratic-
administrative system’. By so doing, politics is implicitly theorized as an
action-system concerned only with technical problem-solving instead of
normative issues. In a later work Habermas (1996: 348–59) cleared up this
confusion by saying that the political system cannot be adequately concep-
tualized just as a rational system and that it had to be split. On the one side,
he deŽ ned the already mentioned ‘bureaucratic-administrative system’. Its
operations are ruled no longer by political power but by a new medium
called ‘administrative power’, which is highly technicized and governed by
legal regulations (this is, strictly speaking, a steering medium). On the
other side, there is the ‘substantive’ political system, which resting on
fundamental rights is institutionalized as the contemporar y ‘rule-of-law
state’. Habermas says that the operations of this new subsystem are also
ruled by a medium, a new ad hoc power, the ‘communicative power’. This
is a medium as efŽ cient as any other media, but it is directly linked to the
normative grounds of the lifeworld.
More importantly, in the same work Habermas gives us another
suggestion about the relevance of language (instead of money) as the
444 Daniel Chernilo

paradigmatic medium, but now through a sociological rather than a theor-

etical argumentation. Habermas asks about the possible conceptualization
of ‘ultimate metalanguages’: these would be media specialized in convert-
ing to a common semantic the different functionally specialized languages
represented by all the media. The function of these metalanguages is the
translation of different media, so as to make societally compatible the
specialized codes of all media. For Habermas (1996: 348), both ordinar y
languages and law are these metalanguages. Firstly, ordinary languages are
in fact the very background of the processes of communication, because
every communicative act presupposes a shared cultural horizon. As, for
him, media are the most stable communicative processes in contemporary
societies, they themselves must be co-ordinated through ordinar y lan-
guages. Secondly, law is normatively linked both to the lifeworld through
human rights and to the functional systems through legal codes. Habermas
concludes by saying that the actual conditions of functional differentiation
produce a kind of upper-level integration, and hence the hypothesis of the
existence of metalanguages becomes plausible.
The conclusion is that Habermas has made an implicit but very import-
ant change: to ground the theory of generalized symbolic media on both
money and language. He has been using an alternative strategy for the
understanding of media that is, however sociologically plausible, still
theoretically underdeveloped: the utilization of language as paradigmatic
medium and the re-deŽ nition of the whole set of media (including money)
from the properties of language. Moreover, this use of language has analyti-
cal and normative consequences in terms of his understanding of modern
societies. Analytically, it states that a proper conceptualization of the social
must be at the level of intersubjectivity; and it also states that, regardless the
level of abstraction and self-reference achieved by the steering media, the
processes of symbolization and generalization cannot go beyond natural
languages.
Normatively, the democratic theory Habermas has recently put forward
requires the strongest possible location for language as the medium upon
which to build discursive procedures for guaranteeing the universal
applicability and compelling force of norms. In my view, this is how
Habermas explains sociologically an alternative strategy for understanding
the media. He does not, however, develop it explicitly at the theory-
building level: i.e. the use of language as the paradigmatic medium and the
possibility of re-deŽ ning all the properties starting from language.
Moreover, this also clariŽ es that the Parsonian generalization of money’s
properties to the remaining media was not a necessar y theoretical develop-
ment but rather resulted from the expansion of Parsons’ systemic frame-
work.
In terms of Luhmann’s work, I would like to emphasize two issues.
Firstly, Luhmann’s different understanding concerning the rise of
modern society in relation to Parsons’. As we have said, Luhmann’s thesis
is that media appear before the functional differentiation of societies;
The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 445

media themselves are catalysts of such process. By so doing, he goes for a

more historically open-ended strategy for researching the structural
conditions of differentiation. For example, in the research about the func-
tional differentiation of science one must begin by looking at the develop-
ment of the cognitive relations which end up constituting a self-referential
environment where only the medium truth can regulate the internal
communications of the scientiŽ c subsystem and also mediate the relations
with other equally self-referential subsystems. Luhmann’s theory of the
rise of functional differentiation is redeŽ ned by the way he discusses
Parsons’ theor y of media.
Secondly, and this can only be understood as a direct result of the
previous step, Luhmann is the author who has most clearly made the claim
that the theor y of media provides a societal approach towards the under-
standing of the development of modern society. What is original in
Luhmann’s Love as Passion (1986) is not that feelings and sentiments are
seen sociologically (this is anyway a rising Ž eld of research in sociology),
but rather that he offers a societal point of view for the study of love as a
social phenomenon. What Luhmann argues is that a truly sociological
understanding of love is achieved by undertaking the research on the trans-
formation of intimacy as part of the more general problem of the rise of
modern societies, by taking into account its interrelations with the societal
differentiation as a whole. As he explicitly recognized, this would not be
possible without the paradigmatic framework offered by the theor y of
media.
In this context, it might look as if the second of Lakatos’ conditions, that
the theory has to provide topics for further research, is not adequately
satisŽ ed. In this possible (and I think restrictive) interpretation, ‘further
research’ can be understood as empirical research in a, let me put it
bluntly, ‘traditional sense’. In this approach, the results I have shown could
be considered insufŽ ciently empirical or, at the ver y least, insufŽ ciently
empirically-oriented. Furthermore, one has to recognize that the theor y of
generalized symbolic media played little role as yet in this kind of empiri-
cal research.
However, I certainly take a different position and sustain that there are
good reasons to consider this second clause, and hence the thesis of the
progressivity of the whole programme, as reasonably supported. Firstly, the
rise of different dynamics of social co-ordination represented by media
such as love and truth, and by metalanguages such as law and ordinar y
languages was revealed. This openness of the theory towards more
historical determinations of new media is a step forward in relation to the
empirical possibilities produced by theoretical improvements. Secondly, it
was also argued that there are dynamics of social co-ordination that could
only be theorized – as societally relevant – through the conceptual frame-
work set up by the theory of media. It seems to me that this is a very strong
methodological point made by Luhmann, by claiming that the theory of
media offers not only the analytical framework to conceptualize the
446 Daniel Chernilo

functional differentiation, but also the way in which one must look at those
processes in order to achieve a societal level of abstraction. If this is not an
empirical result as such yet, it is undeniably an empirically-oriented claim
arising directly from the core of this theoretical outlook.

7. SUMMARY

As the paper has different lines of argumentation, in these last few words I
will simply tr y to clarify what these lines are and why I claim they form a
coherent framework.

1. I began with the broad sociological thesis about the rise of modern
societies in terms of a process of differentiation by doing two things
at once. First, I brought the issue of differentiation into the contem-
porar y debate, by relating it with the work of Parsons, Luhmann and
Habermas. Second, it was claimed that the theory of media as devel-
oped by these authors represents a sort of middle-range approach to
substantiate sociologically the problem of differentiation, which
remains at a paradigmatic level. The sociological relevance of looking
at the theor y of media is based not only in its intrinsic interest as a
contemporar y theoretical development, but also on its relation to the
general disciplinar y problem of the differentiation of societies.
2. The object of the theory was deŽ ned by the formula that media repre-
sent the most stable dynamics of social co-ordinations present in
differentiated societies. In order to undertake the research, Lakatos’
proposal to the reconstruction of research programmes was chosen.
3. The reconstruction of the theory of media was done by looking at how
the three authors developed it within their own general analytical
frameworks. In those sections (3, 4 and 5) the accent was placed on
the elucidation of the set of properties that allowed us to understand
the different media as an identiŽ able theor y, as a coherent corpus of
knowledge. Two were the main results of the reconstruction: Ž rst,
money looses its position as paradigmatic medium, language being to
take that place. Second, the relation between media and differentia-
tion is redeŽ ned by reversing Parsons’ thesis: media are now seen as
a causal component of the functional differentiation of societies, they
come before and not after the differentiation. Whilst Habermas
advanced the former development, Luhmann has the authorship for
the latter.
4. Finally, I undertook the substantiation of the theory of media, by
looking at Lakatos’ two clauses to prove the progressivity of the
programme. Firstly, it is clear that the theory of media is now an
independent analytical framework in relation to the Ž rst Parsonian
formulation. Secondly, and arguably harder to prove, I put forward
the claim that there are further topics of research which are logically
The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 447

derived from the developments of the theor y. In that case, I took

Habermas’ discussion of the rise of metalanguages and Luhmann’s
conceptualization of love as direct results of the path followed by the
theory of media. In these cases, it is suggested, there is a sociological-
research interest rather than an attempt at the theory-building level.
By stating the necessity of conducing deeper research through the
theor y of media, this paper sought to reinstate in the agenda the interest
of continuing this line of theoretically informed sociological research. The
clariŽ cation of the basic lines of the discussion was the necessary Ž rst step
in that direction.

(Date accepted: April 2002) Daniel Chernilo

Department of Sociology
The University of Warwick

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

*A previous version of this paper was presented at the 5th Conference of

the European Sociological Association in Helsinki, August–September
2001. My thanks to Dr. Marcelo Arnold, Omar Aguilar, Andrés Haye,
Marcus Taylor and two anonymous BJS reviewers for their comments at
different stages of this research. I am especially indebted to Dr. Robert Fine
for his help through the Ž nalization of the paper.

NOTES

1. This claim seems to be shared by the
representatives of the neo-functionalist
project (Alexander 1990). A similar thesis
about the recent developments in relation
to the differentiation theory, but quite
critical of the neo-functionalists, can be
found in Schwinn (1998: 77–82).
2. Garcia’s (1997) account is interest-
ing, but he fulŽ ls neither of these tasks.
3. In the following years, Parsons gen-
eralizes the theor y of media to the ‘general
system of action’ and later on to the
‘human condition’. Nevertheless, this
paper is only concerned with the media of
the social system because: (a) these media
are particularly relevant towards the
theorization of the dynamics of social co-
ordination, and (b) Luhmann and Haber-
mas focus their works mainly on the media
of the societal subsystems.
4. On this issue, Dodd’s (1994: 60–2)
and Lidz’s (2001: 142–52) claims are
relevant. Whilst the former argues that
Parsons’ main movement was from lan-
guage to money, the latter (whose
interpretation I endorse) claims that
Parsons’ media are derived from money
but recognizes that there is the tension as
to whether money or language is the para-
digmatic medium. My central claim is
different from both in that, beyond
Parsons’ intentions, Habermas and
Luhmann reconstructed the theor y of
media by explicitly dealing with that
original tension.
5 Further developments of the Par-
sonian concept of in uence are found in
Lidz (1991) and Cohen and Arato (1992:
138).
6. For a summar y, see Johnson (1992).
7. For a different version of these
properties see Münch (1994: 47–58).
448
8. This table is based on Baum (1977:
467) and Habermas (1987: 274). Method-
ologically I follow Münch (1987: 220n)
when he writes ‘we should be concerned
less with the individual formulations than
with the interpretation of the paradigm’s
perspective’.
9. A critique of the zero-sum model is
found in Giddens (1995).
10. I owe this precise reference to
Almaraz’s (1981: 504–6) comprehensive
work on Parsons.
11. See also Arnold and Rodríguez
(1991: 167).
12. ‘Value-commitments’ also tends to
the application of sanctions, in this case
not through physical but by social and
psychological sanctions. See above, Table
I.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, J. 1990 ‘Introduction. Differen-
tiation Theory: Problems and Prospects’ in
J. Alexander and P. Colomy (eds) Differen-
tiation Theor y and Social Change. Comparative
and Historical Perspectives, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Almaraz, J. 1981 La Teoría Sociológica de
Talcott Parsons, Madrid: CIS.
Arnold, M. and Rodríguez, D. 1991
Sociedad y Teoría de Sistemas, Santiago: Ed.
Universitaria.
Baum, R. 1977 ‘Introduction to part IV.
Generalized Media in Action’ in J.
Loubser, R. Baum, A. Effrat, and V. Lidz
(eds) Explorations in the General Theory in
Social Science. Essays in honour of Talcott
Parsons, Vol. Two, NY: Free Press.
Cohen, J. and Arato, A. 1992 Civil Society
and Political Theory, New Baskerville: MIT
Press.
Dodd, N. 1994 The Sociology of Money.
Economics, Reason and Contemporary Society,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
García, P. 1997 ‘Los Medios Simbólicos
¿De Comunicación o de Intercambio?: El
Legado Parsoniano en Luhmann’, Revista
Anthropos 173/174: 100–11.
Giddens, A. 1995 ‘ “Power” in the Writings
of Talcott Parsons’, in A. Giddens Politics,
Sociology and Social Theory, California: Stan-
ford University Press.
Daniel Chernilo
Habermas, J. 1987 The Theory of Communi-
cative Action Vol. 2. Lifeworld and System: a
Critique of Functionalist Reason, UK: Beacon
Press.
—— 1996 Between Facts and Norms, New
Baskerville: MIT Press.
Johnson, H. 1992 ‘The Generalized Sym-
bolic Media in Parsons’ Theor y’ in P.
Hamilton (ed.) Talcott Parsons. Critical
Essays IV, London: Routledge.
Lakatos, I. 1978 The Methodology of ScientiŽc
Research Programmes. Philosophical Papers
Vol.1, J. Worral and G. Currie (eds), Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lidz, V. 1991 ‘In uence and Solidarity:
DeŽ ning a Conceptual Core for Sociology’
in R. Robertson and B. Turner (eds)
Talcott Parsons. Theorist of Modernity, GB:
Sage.
—— 2001 ‘Language and the “Family” of
Generalized Symbolic Media’ in A. J.
Treviño (ed.) Talcott Parsons Today. His
Theor y and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology,
USA: Rowman & LittleŽ eld Publishers.
Luhmann, N. 1977 ‘Generalized Media
and the Problem of Contingency’ in J.
Loubser, R. Baum, A. Effrat, and V. Lidz
(eds) Explorations in the General Theory in
Social Science. Essays in honour of Talcott
Parsons, Vol. Two, NY: Free Press.
—— 1986 Love as Passion. The codiŽcation of
Intimacy, GB: Polity Press.
—— 1995 Social Systems, Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
—— 1998 Complejidad y Modernidad, Spain:
Trota.
McCarthy, T. 1991 On Reconstruction and
Deconstruction in Contemporar y Critical
Theor y, New Baskerville: MIT Press.
Münch, R. 1987 Theory of Action: Towards a
New Synthesis Going Beyond Parsons,
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
—— 1994 Sociological Theory II: From the
1920s to the 1960s, Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Parsons, T. 1967a ‘Durkheim’s Contri-
bution to the Theor y of Integration of
Social Systems’ in T. Parsons Sociological
Theor y and Modern Society, NY: Free Press.
—— 1967b ‘On the Concept of Political
Power’ in T. Parsons Sociological Theor y and
Modern Society, NY: Free Press.
—— 1967c ‘On the Concept of In uence’
in T. Parsons Sociological Theory and Modern
Society, NY: Free Press.
—— 1967d ‘Evolutionar y Universals in
The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies
Society’ in T. Parsons Sociological Theor y and
Modern Society, NY: Free Press.
—— 1969 ‘On the Concept of Value-
Commitments’ in T. Parsons Politics and
Social Structure, NY: Free Press.
—— 1977a ‘The Social Systems’ in T.
Parsons Social Systems and the Evolution of
Action Theory, NY: Free Press.
—— 1977b ‘Social Structure and the Sym-
bolic Media of Interchange’ in T. Parsons
449
Social Systems and the Evolution of Action
Theor y, NY: Free Press.
Schluchter, W. 1981 The Rise of Western
Rationalism, California: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Schwinn, T. 1998 ‘False Connections:
Systems and Action Theories in Neo-
functionalism and in Jürgen Habermas’,
Sociological Theory 16(1): 75–95.