Callin-podcast №2 | Observance and the system

Hello, my Name is Christian Fischer, I am a Landscape- resp. Environmental Planner, -Landscape-ecologist and Nature-Protectionist. I also studied the sociological Systems-Theory developed by Niklas Luhmann and I am exploring Systems-Theory-Concepts to find out to what extend they are applicable within the framework of Environmental Planning and Nature Protection.

In the first podcast I talked about the “the necessary precondition of a possibility” and how I think this concept can build a bridge between utilitarianism and holism. Two very different and irreconcilable positions. Basically cats and dogs, really. And by starting there, I tried to show you, were I want to arrive at, but not necessarily how to get there. And I don’t just want to show how to get there neither, I actually want to go there with you. So that’s the journey I have in mind, you can join the podcast any time and give the whole thing a different spin. That would actually be phantastic. I don’t want this to be a monologue.

Ttoday I want to go a step back and at the same time also a little deeper into Luhmanns systems-theory and explore a few distinctions and theorems that we will need for our further exploration. I won’t go too deep but I think it’s necessary and fruitful for further podcasts. Next time it will be way more practical.

In the sociological System’s-Theory (according to Niklas Luhmann) observance (Beobachtung) is basically what it’s all about. But observance has nothing to do with any body’s eyes. Observance in the context of this theory is understood as the operation of observance without the need for any observer. So there is no observer, only observance, and the actuality of this operation is the system. And that’s sound awful, I know but stay with me, we can’t really communicate about Luhmanns systems-theory without having an idea about what the theory means by observance. Actually its not that’s complex:

So again, observance is not something someone does, it is not even what the system does, it is the system and only if observance is operational there is a system.

Observance (Beobachtung) always means

· the actualization of a difference (Unterscheidung), like falling/standing,

· marking one side of this difference, let’s say falling,

· and referencing this distinction, let’s observe a “falling tree”

· And observance is only observance if it is further processed within the system (Anschlussrealisierung), then we got communication.

In this theory, falling trees do not only make no sounds, but they are also not part of the system, unless of course they are observed. And by the way, there are no parts at all in this system. The system is not the world or the universe or whatever else we could observe. And we are not even observing, only observance is observing. We — are an observation of the system.

The system is the actuality of observance, with all the boxes checked we introduced in the last paragraph. Everything else is the environment (Umwelt) of the system. But its very important to keep in mind, that the environment of the system just means “whatever system is not” and system is observance, so the environment of the system is so to speak the unmarked space of the system, but it is not a space. It is just whatever is not observed, whatever is not system.

So when we observe “system“ we start with a difference, that’s the difference of “system / environment”, then we mark one side of this difference, that would be “system”, the referencing part is a little tricky here, because apart from system, there is nothing else we could reference it to, but lets just say thats not a problem here and if this observance of “system” is farther processed within the system, we got all boxes checked for a proper observation.

Important is that System is defined as the difference of system and environment. So the system is per definition only observable by actualizing the difference of system/environment and therefore the environment of the system, that’s what ever is not system, is at least implicitly defined as the necessary precondition, in this case id rather say presupposition of the system.

That is a very very interesting realization. But we must be careful here, there is, lets just say a system and then there is everything else, that is not the system, and what this theory implies, is that this environment of the system, namely everything that is not system, is the necessary precondition resp. presupposition of system.

I know all that sounds awful but there are wonderful implications if we play with this a little.

So we had system on the one hand and whatever is not system on the other. I would say culture is a system, right, and what is not culture is: nature I would say! And what would follow according to the theories logic? Is nature the necessary precondition of culture? Then culture would be an emergence out of nature, right?

And that’s how we play with systems theory concepts for nature protection.

So next time I would like to explore the difference between culture and nature and what we can learn from systems theory about this difference. What are the implications for nature protection, if we see nature as the necessary precondition of culture? And what does it in this context actually mean for our culture of “nature protection” if culture is understood as functionalized nature? Is nature the unmarked space of culture?

Lets talk about it, next time.

This is a transcript of my second callin.com-podcast, listen to it here.