Albert: On the Modern Systems Theory of Society and IR

Albert, Mathias. (2004). "On the Modern Systems Theory of society and IR: contacts and disjunctures between different kinds of theorizing". In M. Albert & L. Hilkermeier (Eds.), Observing international relations : Niklas Luhmann and world politics (pp. xiv, 254 p.). London ; New York: Routledge.

From Albert’s Introduction to the Volume:

From the onset, this volume concludes that Modern Systems Theory (MST) and IR are not well suited for each other: “The chapters in this volume are an attempt to provide possible answers to this question [why bring another approach to IR?], particularly also giving room to answers which in the end conclude that Modern Systems Theory and International Relations make uneasy bedfellows” (1).

Two reasons why IR hasn’t taken up MST are given: firstly, it has been late to be translated into English, and, secondly, that it is, “an extremely complex kind of theory; as a theory of society, it consists of three different sets of theories connected to each other: a theory of social systems, a theory of social differentiation, and a theory of social evolution” (2). Understanding the limited interactions between MST and IR, this volume attempts to, “…stage a number of encounters between element s of Luhmann’s theory of society and parts of contemporary IR theorizing” (3).

Chapter 2: On the Modern Systems Theory of society and IR: contacts and disjunctures between different kinds of theorizing

There are two reasons that Albert believes that a fruitful encounter with Luhmann may be ripe in IR: Firstly, ideas of international society are increasingly of importance and secondly, because MST provides a very through and all-encompassing theory of society.

The idea of globalization plays a major role in IR theory. Albert wonders whether or not MST is applicable to IR because it doen’t see national separation as being anything beyond a social construct. World Society is the largest iteration of human system organization, and the nation doesn’t play much of a role. Thus, the idea of “international relations”, “…becomes highly problematic” (16).

Albert then looks at classic sociological visions of society, initially focusing on the post-Westphalian version of state society. However, these models of society are limited because they do not see the global system as a whole.

“For MST, all social systems are constituted by a difference between system and environment and are communicative systems” (17). “…communication here is conceptualized as being produced and reproduced in recursive networks of communication…communication is thus seen as being produced within the system alone” (17). “If social systems are constituted by communication and by communication alone, then society is the highest-order social system which comprises all communication” (17).

Albert finds that the difference between MST and IR is not that one is more substantive than the other, but rather that it there is a qualitative difference: “It is different in kind regarding ‘what’ is observed and ‘how’ it is observed” (21). In MST, the observer is also observed.

Also, Albert believes that it may be possible to prove MST empirically wrong. Because MST believes that functional differentiation is the most important differentiation between lower and upper forms of organization, there is less of a focus on societal differentiation. If it can be shown that the world is comprised of different societies, then MST may be wrong. Put concisely by Albert: “…if world society is conceived in the Luhmannian sense of being constituted by the fact that all communication can connect to all other communication, that, so to speak, the ‘world’ is embedded or implied in each communication, and if this world society achieves its unity only through its internal differentiation which is primarily a functional differentiation between its subsystems, then it makes no sense to speak of societies in the plural” (24). From this reading of Luhmann, there are no interesting or meaningful readings of IR.

MST provides a comprehensive view of world society. IR provides a comprehensive view of international political relations. The two are, in a way, mutually exclusive (28-9).