How one should live o how things should be is what philosophy studies. That’s what Niklas Luhmann blabbers about through his “wonderful” systemic theories. He takes an activity such as communication, and follows it through a philosophical paradigm. Don’t get me wrong, I think that in what concerns sociological systems theory, it’s a whole new ball game, since my major isn’t sociology I can’t really comment on the matter. I don’t believe that he’s at all capable of theorizing in communication supporting himself with the old communication
model, an unidirectional communication exposed by Shannon y Weaver[1].
That would be my main concern, you can't base your theories with a model that worn out by the 1940’s it’s more than 60 years old, there’s new, better and a whole lot more modern communicative theories, we can’t limit ourselves to the old paradigm.
Such as those suggested by the School of Palo Alto, and my personal favorite Watzlawick , who is part of the second generation of that school: it should also be noted that Watzlawick[2] is a bit systemic, but only in the pragmatic way, not in the philosophical practice. He recognizes the structure and function of communication, and its process.
On the other hand Luhmann, is totally contradictory, he affirms that communication is action and later he takes it back, and later he says that it s an action which SHOULD be simplified, how the heck are you going to simplify a complicated process? He never emphasizes on the importance of the meaning that the interlocutors have in communication, or the effects of intention, which is constantly present in human behavior, if someone says something without a specific intention, I can say, that he or she is crazy. Since it’s impossible to communicate without intention; Luhmann doesn’t give a crap about it.
He has a closed perspective on the matter, he’s way too, philosophical, mathematical, and completely out of his league, for example: “The act of communication SHOULD duplicate information […]”[3].
He also states that communication, should ALWAYS, accomplish a change, I don’t think that’s entirely true, what about those ANTI Smoking campaigns in which people keep smoking? He also says the media transforms the improbable in probable[4], what the hell, so all we see is lies on the news, and read lies in the papers? He thinks, social systems, develop a self description which allows the prediction of future actions[5], I can’t believe this pseudo-social theorist actually believes the crap he writes, he must really have a good dealer, Luhmann if you’re reading this, please contact me to your dealer, I would really appreciate it, I don’t agree with more of 75% of your so called “theories”, so come and get me!!! Haha I’m sorry people, I just don’t understand why some teachers love the guy, and he’s really full of stereotypes and rigor-less paradigms
4 comments:
It's my imagination or someone here is throwing trash?
otra vez escribo como pienso en español??
carajo....
te seguiré la pista a ver si aprendo algo, por cierto... LUHMANN APESTA!!
Las mentes más brillantes siempre son las más incomprendidas y criticadas...
Eres socióloga?
Pues si lo eres, debes leer más y pues si no lo eres, deberías leer el doble...y comprender...
mira a tu alrededor y te darás cuenta....
Una amiga Chilena,
Sociología Tercer Año
landed here on one of the strange ways the internet provides.
just wanted to let you know that Luhmann doesnt refer to the sender-recipient model of Shannon/Weaver.
ow yeah, i must support that anonymous poster above. Luhmann uses NON-shannonian concept of communication as he abolishes completely the idea of information transmitted over a channel.
Post a Comment