Elke Weik

Theorie sozialer Systeme

Systemtheoretiker behandeln prinzipiell jeden sozialen Kontakt als System: das Warten in einer Schlange am Sparkassenschalter, die Abteilungsleitersitzung im Unternehmen, die Interaktion zwischen Schulern und Lehrer im Unterricht, den Unterricht als solchen, Schulen, Unternehmen, Universitaten bzw. andere Organisationen oder die Gesellschaft insgesamt. Immer wenn sich das Verhalten mindestens zweier Personen aneinander orientiert und dies Folgen fur den weiteren Fortgang der Ereignisse hat, ist von der Existenz eines sozialen Systems auszugehen. Die Systemtheorie, und hier unterscheidet sie sich strikt von anderen Theorien, trennt klar zwischen psychischen Systemen (Menschen) und sozialen Systemen, welche als Kommunikationssysteme bezeichnet werden. Die vor allem von dem bedeutenden Bielefelder Soziologen Niklas Luhmann (1927–1998) ausgearbeitete Theorie sozialer Systeme kombiniert zwei Paradigmen, welche in letzten Jahren nicht nur in der Sozialwissenschaft fur Furore gesorgt haben. Ausgangspunkt ist die System-Umwelt-Unterscheidung. Sie wird kombiniert mit dem Begriffskonzept der Selbstreferenz bzw. der Autopoiesis.

Organisation als soziales System

Die moderne Systemtheorie behandelt Organisationen als autopoietische soziale Systeme. Zugleich wird eine provokant anmutende Behauptung mitgefuhrt: Organisationen bestehen nicht aus Menschen, sondern aus Ereignissen bzw. aus ereignishaften Operationen. Die in der Organisation produzierte Elementareinheit stellt einen besonderen Typ von Kommunikation dar, und zwar: Kommunikation von Entscheidung. Die Organisation unterscheidet sich von anderen kommunikativ produzierten Sinnzusammenhangen durch die Art der elementaren Operationsweise. Die Elemente bzw. die elementaren Operationen, aus denen eine Organisation sich zusammensetzt, sind Entscheidungen. Der Begriff der Autopoiese kommt ins Spiel, weil davon auszugehen ist, das die Produktion der Elemente des Organisationssystems (Entscheidung) und damit die Prozesse der Grenzziehung im und vom System selbst vollzogen werden.

Free spirits? The academic on the aeroplane

Like business executives and politicians, academics form part of the super-mobile population of the global north. Their freedom to travel, which entails a freedom from certain local obligations, is not always voluntary but part and parcel of professional expectations and is subject to peer and managerial evaluation. In this article, we argue that there are a lot of structural and institutional constraints built into academic mobility. The original notion of intellectual detachment and academic freedom has developed into a demand for social and moral detachment by the ever-growing circuit of international ‘visibility’ as celebrated at international conferences. It excludes all those whose attachment to persons or causes requires bodily presence, and such an exclusion transforms the contents and values of academic knowledge – not for the better, we believe.

In Deep Waters. Process Theory Between Scylla and Charybdis

In this article, I propose a middle way between current process and substance theorizing as I argue that both ‘pure’ views are fraught with theoretical problems. I base my proposal on the ontologies of Aristotle and A.N. Whitehead, who both maintain that being and becoming are equally important for a comprehensive analysis of change processes. Drawing on their insights, I develop a conceptual frame that distinguishes between change and becoming, and proposes to use the pairs of potentiality-actuality and activity-relationality as notions that are less fraught with conceptual baggage and more relevant empirically than the distinction between substance and process.

From Time to Action The Contribution of Whitehead's Philosophy to a Theory of Action

Although many authors in the field of sociology and social theory have integrated temporal features into their theories, there is still a lack of theories based ontime. This is mostly due to the complexity of the phenomenon of time, which not only produces a number of paradoxes, but also spans the complete realm of the natural and social sciences. Moreover, time is often conceptualized in its common sense, Newtonian shape, thus ignoring major theoretical developments of the last century. One philosopher who has attempted to address these shortcomings is A. N. Whitehead. The present contribution draws on his philosophy in order to develop a theory of action based on a post-relativity concept of time.

The emergence of the university: A case study of the founding of the University of Paris from a neo-institutionalist perspective

Abstract This case study of the founding of the University of Paris shows how a shift in the logics of medieval education promoted the institutionalisation process that led Paris to become the model university for all subsequent European universities. As a theoretical basis for the analysis of the case, I use an institutionalist framework and complement it with Bourdieus notions of capital and field. More specifically, I take a closer look at how old and new institutional logics interact, how ‘change agents’ are structurally embedded, and how it is possible for an institutional logic to emerge without a corresponding institution.

Research note: Bourdieu and Leibniz: mediated dualisms

The research note discusses similarities in theory construction between Bourdieu and Leibniz. Instead of ‘overcoming’ the Cartesian dualisms, both authors find a way to mediate between the dualistic concepts by introducing a third concept. In Leibniz’ case, this is God, in Bourdieus case, history. Reading Bourdieu thus from a Leibnizian angle, the note seeks to clarify some issues in Bourdieus theory

“Birthing” versus “being delivered”: Of bodies, ideologies, and institutions

This chapter at hand applies and extends Friedland and Alfords model of institutional logics to the case of birth practises focusing on a number of interrelated topics, namely, identity, trust, and ideology. It draws on Giddenss theory of modernity to “bring society back in,” as Friedland and Alford have formulated one major point of critique against existing institutional approaches. In its theoretical discussion, the chapter will focus on two issues: first, the treatment of conflict as a motor of institutional dynamics, and second, the relation between institutions and agency. The empirical data is based on participant observation, qualitative interviews with midwives and obstetricians, and a review of magazines and television material concerning birth and parenting.

Towards a Theory of Organizational Becoming

Organization studies appear at present to be maneuvering itself into situation where arguments revolve around a mutually interlocking dichotomy between stability on the one and change on the other hand. This dichotomy is closely linked to, and stabilised by, the dichotomy of individual-organization as individuals are viewed as “change agents”, while organizations, in the classical picture, provide the structural context for the action. Both dichotomies have served - and serve - the community well. However, when it comes to understanding organization as processes of becoming, they are not useful. We suggest that the notion of process should be disentangled from the stability-change/individualorganization debate, and that this may be done through a closer reading of Whitehead’s process philosophy. In conceptualizing organization as process of becoming, we rely on two pairs of concepts that are central to Whitehead’s work, which we refer to in this paper as dimensions for a theory of organizational becoming. First, the dimension of actuality and potentiality, which Whitehead defined as an ontological principle governing all processes. The basic tenet is that nothing can just exist somewhere in timespace without also harbouring potentiality elsewhere in timespace. This dimension is fundamental to Whitehead’s conceptualization of processes in general. A second dimension that we build on is what we define as concrete experience versus abstraction, which is a “sense-making” dimension that we find highly relevant to organization studies.

A Return to the Enduring Features of Institutions A Process Ontology of Reproduction and Endurance

Why and how do institutions endure? The most characteristic feature of institutions—their longevity—seems to be a neglected topic in current institutional analysis, which overwhelmingly is conducted as an analysis of institutional change. This article, in contrast, attempts to answer some basic questions about institutional endurance and reproduction, most notably how institutional reproduction can be distinguished from institutional endurance, how institutions manage to “bind” time and space, and which role structures “out of time and space” play in this. I explore the processual nature of three theories institutionalist authors draw on (Berger and Luckmann’s theory of social construction, Giddens’s structuration theory, and Bourdieu’s theory of field and habitus) to identify elements and explanations of endurance. I then elaborate on these insights by introducing Roger Friedland’s notion of institutional substance and ideas from the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead.