This article analyzes the ego/alter ego constellation of social interaction. Every social interaction constitutes a situation with double contingency, which is recognized as such by both sides: both know that both know that one could also act differently. The circularity of the relationship brings about indeterminacy; self-commitment would presuppose that others commit themselves and vice versa. How is this infinity problem solved? How can we account for the possibility of social interaction, and social order? Both Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann have devoted considerable attention to the theorem of double contingency. Here, I analyze their theoretical formulations on this topic.

Constructivism is very influential in education. However, its underlying ideas and assumptions have not yet been critically analysed sufficiently. In this paper, I argue that John Dewey’s analyses of the transaction of organism and environment can be read as an account of the construction processes that lie beneath all human activity. Dewey’s work anticipates, if it does not explicitly articulate, much of what is important and interesting about constructivist epistemology and constructivist pedagogy. The paper is devoted to a reconstruction of the formulation of this transactional constructivism, and to an analysis of its consequences for a constructivist understanding of communication and education.

The rise of scientific specializations and disciplines depends on the formation of specialized scientific communities. The establishment of specialized scholarly journals facilitates the formation of such communities or networks. Publications, especially articles in specialized journals, have become institutionalized as the ‘ultimate’ form of scientific communication. Specialized journals fulfil a key role in the scientific disciplines. They both secure the shared values of a scientific community and endorse what that community takes to be certified knowledge. This article first elaborates on the evolution of communication within scientific disciplines. Afterwards, it presents an analysis of publication practices in the main generalist sociology journals in the Low Countries. Because of the close relationship between journals and discipline, this sociological analysis addresses the evolution of sociology itself.

:  Education cannot mean that the young are the product of the activities of their teachers. At the same time, we do not speak of education if students would simply learn something irrespective of the ac­tivities of their teachers. In this paper we focus on the question: How is education possible? Our aim is to contribute to a social theory of education, a theory that does not reduce our understanding of educational processes and practices to underlying ‘constituting elements’ but rather tries to understand the social nature of education as a reality sui generis.

To describe the basic characteristics of modern society, two levels should be distinguished: the structural and the cultural level. According to the late Talcott Parsons, the dominant value pattern of modern society is the cultural pattern of instrumental activism. What is valued in modern society is not passive adjustment to the exigencies of the environment, but increasing the freedom of action within the environment, and ultimately control over the environment. It is no longer adaptation to the environment, but adaptation of the environment to social needs. On the structural level, new patterns of societal differentiation have emerged. According to Niklas Luhmann, the pattern which characterizes modern society is one of functional differentiation. Functional subsystems impose their particular perspective on the world. The environment is perceived through different lenses (e.g. through a political, legal, economic, educational or scientific lens). These different perceptions are incommensurable. As a consequence, society cannot control its overall impact on the environment. Its structural and cultural characteristics limit its sensitivity vis‐à‐vis the environment. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

In line with a long sociological tradition, Niklas Luhmann has analysed the basic characteristics of modern society in terms of social differentiation. Luhmann has focused on the forms of differentiation, and argued that modern society is differentiated according to subsystems that concentrate on one function (e.g. the economy, law, science, politics, education). In the first part of the article, I explore the backgrounds of this systems-theoretical framework. In the second part, this framework is used to analyse the structural characteristics of the educational system. This system has its basis in the school's complexes of interaction and organization. But education is also confronted with the consequences of its own autonomy, its own mode of operating. It is suggested that these secondary effects have more impact on the evolution of this system than its societal environment. KEY WORDSeducation / functional differentiation / interaction / Luhmann / organization / systems theory ince its origins in the 19th century, sociology has endeavoured to make modern society intelligible as a historical unit. For this purpose, it has elaborated numerous theoretical schemes -such as the contrasting concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (Tönnies), of mechanic and organic solidarity (Durkheim), or the theory of rationalization and Entzauberung of the world (Weber). Talcott Parsons' pattern variables are another example of these classical either/or schemes. Since the last decades of the 20th century, and the breakthrough of novel social challenges, it has become clear that these theoretical approaches underestimated the complexity and diversity of modern 255 Sociology

In 1984, Niklas Luhmann published Soziale Systeme in which he applies the idea of autopoiesis (= self-production) to social systems. Abstracted from its biological connotations, the concept of autopoiesis leads to a sharp distinction between different kinds of autopoietic organization, i.e. between life, consciousness and communication. According to Luhmann, the relationship between social systems and human beings cannot be adequately analysed except by taking into account that they are environments for one another. If this theoretical background is accepted, the concepts and theory of socialization need to be revised. Luhmann takes issues with classical notions such as internalization, inculcation, or 'socialization to the grounds of consensus' (Talcott Parsons). After a historical overview of social systems research and general systems theory, it is indicated how communications trigger further communications and realize the autopoiesis of social systems. In the second part of the article, the distinction between social systems and psychic systems is used to discuss issues crucial to socialization theory. Both a revision of the concept of socialization, and lines for an empirical research programme are proposed in accordance with Luhmann's theory of social systems.