Systems in Context: On the Outcome of the Habermas/Luhmann-Debate

Usually regarded as a 1970s phenomenon, this article demonstrates that the debate between Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann continued until Luhmann’s death in 1998, and that the development of the two theorists’ positions during the 1980s and 1990s was characterised by convergence rather than by di...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Poul Kjaer
Format: Article
Language:deu
Published: Ancilla Iuris 2006-09-01
Series:Ancilla Iuris
Online Access:https://anci.ch/articles/ancilla2006_66_kjaer.pdf
id doaj-48d085f6cc50463d98a535a422da5187
record_format Article
spelling doaj-48d085f6cc50463d98a535a422da51872020-11-24T22:25:46ZdeuAncilla IurisAncilla Iuris1661-86101661-86102006-09-016677Systems in Context: On the Outcome of the Habermas/Luhmann-DebatePoul KjaerUsually regarded as a 1970s phenomenon, this article demonstrates that the debate between Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann continued until Luhmann’s death in 1998, and that the development of the two theorists’ positions during the 1980s and 1990s was characterised by convergence rather than by divergence. In the realm of legal theory, the article suggests, convergence advanced to the extent that Habermas’ discourse theory may be characterised as a normative superstructure to Luhmann’s descriptive theory of society. It is further shown that the debate’s result was an almost complete absorption of Habermas’ theory by Luhmann’s systems theoretical complex – an outcome facilitated by Luhmann’s deliberate translation of central Habermasian concepts into systems theoretical concepts. The article argues that both the debate and Habermas’ conversion were made possible because not only Habermas’ but also Luhmann’s work can be considered a further development of the German idealist tradition. What Luhmann did not acknowledge was that this manoeuvre permitted the achievement of Habermas’ normative objectives; nor did he notice that it could eradicate a central flaw in the system theoretical construction, by allowing the context within which distinctions are drawn to be mapped ‐ an issue of pivotal importance for grasping relationships between different social systems, and coordinating them, via the deployment of legal instruments.https://anci.ch/articles/ancilla2006_66_kjaer.pdf
collection DOAJ
language deu
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Poul Kjaer
spellingShingle Poul Kjaer
Systems in Context: On the Outcome of the Habermas/Luhmann-Debate
Ancilla Iuris
author_facet Poul Kjaer
author_sort Poul Kjaer
title Systems in Context: On the Outcome of the Habermas/Luhmann-Debate
title_short Systems in Context: On the Outcome of the Habermas/Luhmann-Debate
title_full Systems in Context: On the Outcome of the Habermas/Luhmann-Debate
title_fullStr Systems in Context: On the Outcome of the Habermas/Luhmann-Debate
title_full_unstemmed Systems in Context: On the Outcome of the Habermas/Luhmann-Debate
title_sort systems in context: on the outcome of the habermas/luhmann-debate
publisher Ancilla Iuris
series Ancilla Iuris
issn 1661-8610
1661-8610
publishDate 2006-09-01
description Usually regarded as a 1970s phenomenon, this article demonstrates that the debate between Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann continued until Luhmann’s death in 1998, and that the development of the two theorists’ positions during the 1980s and 1990s was characterised by convergence rather than by divergence. In the realm of legal theory, the article suggests, convergence advanced to the extent that Habermas’ discourse theory may be characterised as a normative superstructure to Luhmann’s descriptive theory of society. It is further shown that the debate’s result was an almost complete absorption of Habermas’ theory by Luhmann’s systems theoretical complex – an outcome facilitated by Luhmann’s deliberate translation of central Habermasian concepts into systems theoretical concepts. The article argues that both the debate and Habermas’ conversion were made possible because not only Habermas’ but also Luhmann’s work can be considered a further development of the German idealist tradition. What Luhmann did not acknowledge was that this manoeuvre permitted the achievement of Habermas’ normative objectives; nor did he notice that it could eradicate a central flaw in the system theoretical construction, by allowing the context within which distinctions are drawn to be mapped ‐ an issue of pivotal importance for grasping relationships between different social systems, and coordinating them, via the deployment of legal instruments.
url https://anci.ch/articles/ancilla2006_66_kjaer.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT poulkjaer systemsincontextontheoutcomeofthehabermasluhmanndebate
_version_ 1725756479219171328