#### : Reclaiming Agency from Systems Theory ![[FireGhost.png]] # The nature of human social order. While [[Niklas Luhmann]] and [[Christopher Boehm]] are both giants in their respective fields (sociology and anthropology), their work represents two fundamentally different, almost diametrically opposed, ways of explaining how human societies function. Here’s a breakdown of how their ideas match up, clash, and where they might surprisingly complement each other. #### Inside Out · Luhmann (Systems Theory): Society is a system of communication. It is an emergent, self-organising, and impersonal reality. Social order arises from the functional differentiation of systems (law, economy, science, politics) that operate according to their own internal logic. The individual human being ("psychic system") is outside of the social system. · Boehm (Hierarchy & Egalitarianism): Society is a system of people. It is a profoundly personal and political reality. Social order, particularly egalitarianism, is a conscious, active, and moral achievement maintained by individuals to suppress dominance and reverse hierarchies. --- ### The Core Ideas of Each Thinker ##### Niklas Luhmann's Social Systems Theory ![[NiklasLuhmann.jpeg]] · Autopoiesis: Social systems are "autopoietic" (self-creating). They produce and reproduce the very elements (communications) that constitute them. A legal system produces legal judgments based on previous legal judgments, not on economic profitability. · Communication, Not People: For Luhmann, society is made only of communication. Human beings, with their consciousness and bodies, are part of the "environment" of the social system. The system is concerned with the continuous linking of communications, not with human intentions. · Functional Differentiation: Modern society is divided into functionally specific subsystems (law, economy, politics, science, mass media). Each has its own binary code (e.g., legal/illegal, payment/non-payment, government/opposition) and is operationally closed. The economy doesn't tell you what is true, and science doesn't tell you what is legally right. · De-centering the Individual: This is the most radical point of contrast with Boehm. There is no "controller" of society. Order is an emergent property of the system's own operations, not the result of collective human will or morality. ##### Christopher Boehm's Reverse Dominance Hierarchy ![[Christopher Boehm_0122.jpeg]] · The Egalitarian Syndrome: Boehm, an anthropologist, studied hunter-gatherer societies and argued that their egalitarianism is not a primitive default but a sophisticated political achievement. Humans, like our primate ancestors, have a tendency to form dominance hierarchies. · Conscious Political Action: To counter this, early humans developed a "reverse dominance hierarchy." The group (the majority) consciously and collectively acts to suppress alpha individuals who try to dominate, bully, or hoard resources. · Moral Community: This is maintained through a shared moral code, gossip, ridicule, ostracism, and, ultimately, execution. It's a system of social control where the group is sovereign. · The Individual as Political Agent: Boehm's model is all about individual and collective agency. People have intentions, they make moral judgments, and they act in concert to shape their social environment. The "system" is the direct result of their collective political will. --- ### How Their Ideas Match Up and Diverge Luhmann analyses the logic of communication itself. Boehm analyses the political behaviour of individuals within a group. Is social order something that happens to us as a systemic effect (Luhmann), or something we actively create and enforce (Boehm)? For Luhmann, the person is outside society. For Boehm, the person is the very material of society. ### Nature of Society A network of functionally specialised, amoral systems or unified moral community with a political structure. Luhmann describes a macro-sociological architecture. Boehm describes a micro-sociological political process. Concept of Power. A medium of communication within the political system; a systemic function or a personal capacity for domination that the group must actively suppress. Luhmann sees power as a systemic code. Boehm sees it as a dangerous human impulse that requires constant political management. Potential for Complementarity. Boehm explains the evolutionary origins of human politics, while Luhmann describes the complex, modern form that politics has taken. --- #### A Synthesis: The Moral Code and the System's Logic 1. The Moral Community as the Engine of Systemic Differentiation: The primordial political act—the group suppressing a dominator—is social communication. From this repeated act, society begins to differentiate: · The need to formalise sanctions crystallises into a legal system (code: legal/illegal). · The management of collective resources and sanctions evolves into an economic system (code: have/not have). · The process of deliberating who gets to decide and how formalises into a political system (code: government/opposition). In this view, Luhmann’s impersonal systems are the institutionalised, automated, and scaled-up fossils of Boehm's conscious political conflicts. The system's logic is a frozen decision-making process, a way to handle the problem of social order without constant campfire meetings. 2. The Campfire Within the Machine: How Agency Persists: Luhmann’s description of systems as operationally closed does not eliminate agency; it relocates it. Boehm’s "reverse dominance hierarchy" does not disappear in a complex society—it becomes internalized within each system. · The board firing a CEO is the modern economic system executing a "sanction" against a failed "dominator." · A vote of no confidence in parliament is the political system performing its own version of "leveling." · A scientific paradigm shift is the academic community collectively "ostracising" a dominant theory. The "campfire" is now everywhere—in corporate boardrooms, courtrooms, and peer-review committees. The moral-political dynamic Boehm identified is not replaced but is now mediated through the specific codes and logics of Luhmann’s differentiated systems. 3. A Unified View: The Dance of Structure and Insurrection: Ultimately, Luhmann and Boehm describe the two fundamental, intertwined forces of social life: · Luhmann explains the architecture of social order: the impersonal, self-perpetuating systems of communication that provide stability, complexity, and function. · Boehm explains the energy of social order: the conscious, moral, and political acts of human agents that create, sustain, and challenge that architecture. We do not live in either the "view from nowhere" or the "view from the campfire." We live in both simultaneously. The "system" sets the rules of the game, but the "moral community" of players can always change the game. The global financial system (Luhmann) may seem untouchable, until a mass social movement (Boehm in a modern, scaled form) creates a new political communication that forces a change in its regulatory logic. Conclusion: A Single Reality, Observed from Within and Without They are describing the same reality, just from the perspective of the element (Boehm's human agent) and the perspective of the system (Luhmann's communication). The "eternal political struggle" is the lived experience inside the system; the "impersonal machine of communication" is the pattern that struggle creates when observed from a distance. To fully grasp society, we must see it as a dynamic whole: a Luhmannian system of communication that is perpetually generated, contested, and reshaped by Boehm's political, moral humans. [[Structural Coupling]] `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:`