本論文從系統分化的社會演化觀點嘗試提出對現代民主之內涵與民主化開展之可能性的另種論述。本文中所提及的「民主」與民主化不一定跳脫西方世界對相關概念的想像與定義，但在嘗試將「民主」視為政治系統用以描述自身之方式的這個主張而言，無論是西方式民主或者是其他種類的民主均能夠含括於其中。此外，民主化的開展僅被視為政治系統朝向「民主」的一種系統分化的社會演化過程。西方國家對民主的界定則是在此分化的演化發展中，透過宗教與政治、宗教與法律，以及政治與法律等系統彼此之間、以及從社會中分化出來而取得之形式「之一」。這是一個對系統而言不斷增加複雜性的過程，也正是在此過程中，對於民主或民主化之內容的界定變得越來越不容易。在本論文對西方與台灣民主化過程的探究中，嘗試指出的是一個類似的功能分化的社會演化與系統內部分化的相互辯證過程。這個辯證過程使現代「民主」概念得以作為一個「未預期之後果」而出現。 宗教對信仰自由的維護與對人權的爭取毋寧是來自於自身的信仰元素。換句話說，與之有關的論述是以一種自我指涉的運作方式而獲得實現。此種不斷回到自身之信仰以尋求論述之正當性的作法在操作上賦予了這些論述正當性，這便是系統的自我指涉運作。就此而言，系統毋寧是封閉的，其在自身之中不斷地自我生產有關信仰自由與人權的論述。然而，也正是因為其運作上的封閉，使得宗教（長老教會）所生產出來的論述與接續之行動均能夠在內部獲得支持，從而對自身而言具有正當性。這個正當性也成為其能夠進行觀察與自我描述的基礎。從系統論的觀點而言，長老教會在政治與社會關懷的論述與行動上，便是以封閉為基礎的開放性自我指涉運作。若非以此自我指涉的封閉且開放之運作為其系統形成的特性，那麼論述與行動的正當性便易於受到質疑，甚至無法獲得系統內部的支持。據此，現代社會以功能為主要分化形式的系統形成，至少在時間面向上均必須取得自我指涉或自主性運作上的正當性。這個正當性決定於系統在多大程度上能夠持續地維持與其環境的界線。長老教會對人權與信仰自由的主張與論述的建構，或許是與政治系統對相同論題的溝通存在著無法跨越的差異。這個差異同時也標示的是宗教與政治系統之間的那個界線，而這個差異的維持在系統分化的社會演化過程中，使得「民主（化）」作為政治系統乃至於社會描述自身的語意是可能的。 / This thesis draws on Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems, and examines the relationship between religion and democratization in Taiwan. In order to advance the analysis and to make some helpful suggestions, two points are firstly highlighted. One is the concept of democracy itself, and the other is the descriptions of it by the political system and by other social systems within society. The word ‘democracy’ has long history since ancient Greek city-state, however, its modern use and the meaning of it can possibly date back to the Middle ages, especially to the sixteenth century. Modern concept of democracy relates to the tradition of monotheism, in this case referring to the Reformation and later to the formation of Western political philosophy. The second point argues that ‘democracy’ is simply a self-description of society, and its realization lies in the transformation of the form of differentiation from hierarchical to functional. Luhmann would like to link the semantics to social evolution, by which he can investigate and explore the dialectical process between semantics and structures. The analysis of the relationship between democracy and democratization refers to this dialectical process, concerning systems differentiation and social evolution. Issues relating to democratization, the consolidation of democracies, and their discontented consequences, etc. need to be reconsidered in the sense that the concept of democracy and its modern descriptions utilize a ‘paradox’ which must be hidden while forming and maintaining identities, whether they be societies, nations, or individuals. This constitutes both positive and negative sides of the development of democracy, and also leads to crises gradually confronted by those ‘matured’ democratic Western countries and also by some third-wave democratizing regions. Among them exists a similar problem which will be discussed in this thesis: the concept of democracy and its modern developments are increasingly eroding its own foundation when the differentiation of subsystems and the evolution of society both go too far. This by no means indicates that there will not be any democracy in the near future. Instead, as an observer observing observations, this thesis inquires our present situations while at the same time attempting at offering some possible and also suitable questions from systems theory perspective.

This thesis deals with the sociological conception of the dropout (Aussteiger) figure in Wilhelm Genazino’s Ein Regenschirm für diesen Tag (2001) and, in terms of the history of ideas, his predecessors in Heinrich von Kleist’s Michael Kohlhaas (1808) and Franz Kafka’s Die Verwandlung (1913). It discusses if and how Genazino’s protagonist represents a new contemporary dropout model, and discusses the extent to which such figures can be read as dropouts, how their individual dropout characteristics are designed and motivated, and which factors connect these central characters to each other. According to Christian Schüle and his “21 Fragmente über die Identität des Aussteigers” no one can better provide a picture of the state of a society than someone who intentionally exits from it. Thus, the essential process of dropping out is described. If someone is dropping out, he is reacting to circumstances; to what extent he reacts is, however, uneven. There is no prototype of a dropout. To grasp this highly complex and little investigated phenomenon, several sociological concepts are employed, such as assimilation, deviant behaviour, alienation, individualism and the aspect of self-realization. Niklas Luhmann’s Protest serves as another theoretical basis for the concept of dropping-out (Aussteigertum). His book focuses on how protesters choose themes that none of society’s systems would recognize as their own and thereby mirror the state of things in the society as they really are. The thesis then shows how the action of all three protagonists can be associated with these sociological concepts and how Genazino’s character in Ein Regenschirm für diesen Tag is related to previous protagonists such as Kohlhaas and Samsa. Kleist’s “gebrechliche Einrichtung der Welt” becomes the alienated world of Gregor Samsa and turns into Genazino’s “Gesamtmerkwürdigkeit des Lebens” in which melancholia and succussion bring the protagonist near to failing. The experimental setting all three authors use brings to mind the philosophical stream of Existentialism, on which they all seem to verge. Under societal pressure, all three figures begin to protest against their related situations in different ways. Because of having to submit himself to the exigencies of the society, Genazino’s protagonist feels as if he has to degenerate. To escape from these feelings he continuously walks physically through his environment and at the same time applies a philosophy of sight: as a reflective observer in the river of everyday life, as a swimmer against the tide of boredom, he drops out of society in his own way, different from the way Kohlhaas and Samsa did, but still related to them.

This thesis deals with the sociological conception of the dropout (Aussteiger) figure in Wilhelm Genazino’s Ein Regenschirm für diesen Tag (2001) and, in terms of the history of ideas, his predecessors in Heinrich von Kleist’s Michael Kohlhaas (1808) and Franz Kafka’s Die Verwandlung (1913). It discusses if and how Genazino’s protagonist represents a new contemporary dropout model, and discusses the extent to which such figures can be read as dropouts, how their individual dropout characteristics are designed and motivated, and which factors connect these central characters to each other. According to Christian Schüle and his “21 Fragmente über die Identität des Aussteigers” no one can better provide a picture of the state of a society than someone who intentionally exits from it. Thus, the essential process of dropping out is described. If someone is dropping out, he is reacting to circumstances; to what extent he reacts is, however, uneven. There is no prototype of a dropout. To grasp this highly complex and little investigated phenomenon, several sociological concepts are employed, such as assimilation, deviant behaviour, alienation, individualism and the aspect of self-realization. Niklas Luhmann’s Protest serves as another theoretical basis for the concept of dropping-out (Aussteigertum). His book focuses on how protesters choose themes that none of society’s systems would recognize as their own and thereby mirror the state of things in the society as they really are. The thesis then shows how the action of all three protagonists can be associated with these sociological concepts and how Genazino’s character in Ein Regenschirm für diesen Tag is related to previous protagonists such as Kohlhaas and Samsa. Kleist’s “gebrechliche Einrichtung der Welt” becomes the alienated world of Gregor Samsa and turns into Genazino’s “Gesamtmerkwürdigkeit des Lebens” in which melancholia and succussion bring the protagonist near to failing. The experimental setting all three authors use brings to mind the philosophical stream of Existentialism, on which they all seem to verge. Under societal pressure, all three figures begin to protest against their related situations in different ways. Because of having to submit himself to the exigencies of the society, Genazino’s protagonist feels as if he has to degenerate. To escape from these feelings he continuously walks physically through his environment and at the same time applies a philosophy of sight: as a reflective observer in the river of everyday life, as a swimmer against the tide of boredom, he drops out of society in his own way, different from the way Kohlhaas and Samsa did, but still related to them.

The purpose of this exploratory study is to develop alternative models for analyzing the systems dynamics of a large group conference format called appreciative inquiry (AI) summits. I apply Luhmann’s social systems theory to the strategizing activities of AI summits to examine how this particular format is capable of generating organizational knowledge. An AI summit is a strategic planning conference in which hundreds of internal and external stakeholders collectively design the future of the organization through structured activities. It applies the principles of AI, a consulting method used in organizational development that attends to the positive aspects of an organization as opposed to its problems. Critics challenge this unconditional focus on the positive, questioning the validity of its methods and techniques. Indeed, very few rigorous evaluations of AI methods including AI summits exist. I propose a new approach for assessing the effectiveness of AI summits. I focus on knowledge creation as the dependent variable. Previous studies have shown that successful AI interventions generate new knowledge, not just transformational change. I conceptualize an AI summit as a strategic episode that allows an organization to temporarily suspend its routines and structures for strategic reflection. According to social systems theory, organizations are autopoietic (self-reproducing) systems that maintain their identity through an ongoing production of decision communications. An AI summit consists of three different types of systems that co-evolve and are structurally coupled: an organization system, interaction system and the individual participants’ psychological systems. I propose a typology for analyzing episodes during an AI summit as a starting point for determining the structural dynamics inherent in an AI summit system. Using illustrative examples from a case study, I identify five structural features of an AI summit that facilitate organizational knowledge creation, including reduced communication barriers and the production of decisions during the conference. The study contributes to the existing literature by identifying the important but understudied role of self-organizing project teams in the knowledge creation process at an AI summit. Limitations and implications are discussed.

[Truncated abstract] The dominant approaches to knowledge management practice and the design of knowledge management systems are driven by a resource-based view of knowledge. In this thesis, it is argued that the resource-based view of knowledge is limited and lacks social sensitivity. In this thesis, Knowledge Management is viewed as a social activity and the development and examination of an alternate approach to conceptualising the social processes of knowledge management in organisations, is the primary objective. In pursuing this objective, the question of whether an activity-based view of knowledge processes can assist the design of knowledge management practice and systems is examined. To address this research question, a conceptual framework is developed which redefines the conventional, universal approach to knowledge context . . . From an organisational perspective, the ABCs framework suggests that the institutionalisation and contextualisation of knowledge provides management with another dimension for considering knowledge management and knowledge management systems implementation. The findings from the case study suggest that knowledge workers are influenced by environmental factors. As a result, organisations can use this research to develop knowledge management practices that take environmental factors into consideration. As a starting point for organisations, the findings from the case studies are used to develop a set of guidelines for the design of knowledge management practice and systems. Further research is suggested in terms of extending to considerations of other aspects of Luhmann’s theories and exploring other complexity sciences as the basis of knowledge management.

Chemnitz, Techn. Univ., Diplomarb., 2004.

Submitted by Biblioteca Central (biblioteca@unicap.br) on 2018-08-21T17:26:18Z No. of bitstreams: 2 andre_galvao_vasconcelos_almeida_revisada.pdf: 932857 bytes, checksum: fc1c08288059699bbd6cf52f46d8ec68 (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-21T17:26:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 andre_galvao_vasconcelos_almeida_revisada.pdf: 932857 bytes, checksum: fc1c08288059699bbd6cf52f46d8ec68 (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-05-22 / As a reaction to the hyper complexity that gripped acentric (or rather, polycentric) (post) modern society, the words of the legislator began to have character increasingly vague and imprecise, giving leeway to the judge in carrying out the law. These legislative techniques represent true pores/openings of the legal system in the search for greater dynamism and adaptability to social reality. Transfer the dogma of strict tight legal security codes, to the idea of "justice" built in the process context. While important, this opening may cause "side effect" of producing disparate decisions, raising the possibility that similar cases have different treatment, generating unpredictability, mistrust and especially violation of the principle of equality. Moreover, with the internalization of social contingencies at a high level, the legal system becomes potentially more complex and is having difficulties in their ability to complexity reduction, consistent generalization of normative expectations and, consequently, differentiated production of communication (legal). In the light of the theory of Niklas Luhmann, we seek to demonstrate the importance of judicial precedents in the Brazilian legal system, which would appear as able to promote (re) stabilization of normative expectations symbolically generalized media, restoring confidence and the legal system unit, representing at the same time, stability and dynamics, legal consistency and social adequacy. / Como reação à hipercomplexidade que tomou conta da sociedade (pós)moderna acêntrica (ou melhor, policêntrica), as palavras do legislador passaram a ter caráter cada vez mais vago e impreciso, dando margem de liberdade ao juiz na realização do direito. Essas técnicas legislativas representam verdadeiros poros/aberturas do sistema jurídico na busca por uma maior dinamicidade e adaptabilidade à realidade social. Transfere-se o dogma da segurança jurídica estrita cerrada nos códigos, para a ideia de “justiça” construída no âmbito processual. Embora importante, essa abertura pode provocar o “efeito colateral” de produzir decisões cada vez mais díspares, aumentando a possibilidade de que casos iguais tenham tratamento diferente, gerando imprevisibilidade, desconfiança e, sobretudo, violação ao princípio da igualdade. Além disso, com a interiorização das contingências sociais em alto nível, o sistema jurídico torna-se potencialmente mais complexo e vem apresentando dificuldades em sua capacidade de redução de complexidade, generalização congruente de expectativas normativas e, consequentemente, produção de comunicação (jurídica) diferenciada. Assim, à luz da teoria dos sistemas de Niklas Luhmann, busca-se demostrar a importância dos precedentes judiciais no sistema jurídico brasileiro, de modo que passariam a figurar como meios de comunicação simbolicamente generalizados aptos a promover a (re)estabilização das expectativas normativas, restaurando a confiança e a unidade do sistema jurídico, representando, ao mesmo tempo, estabilidade e dinamicidade, consistência jurídica e adequação social.

No description available.

Tableau d’honneur de la Faculté des études supérieures et postdoctorales, 2014-2015 / Ce travail de maîtrise a pour but de confronter les théories sociales de Niklas Luhmann et de Jürgen Habermas, afin d’éclairer les défis que le monde contemporain pose à la pensée philosophique. À la suite d’un examen approfondi, qui nous mènera à revisiter les traditions classique (Weber et Durkheim) et moderne (Parsons) de la sociologie, il sera possible de mettre en évidence les implications qui s’ensuivent pour les concepts de société, de rationalité et de normativité. Plutôt que de prendre parti pour l’une des théories en question, nous décèlerons leur signification philosophique en exposant la manière dont elles abordent le phénomène de la complexité. Nous discutons enfin de la place qu’occupe l’humanisme au sein de la théorie sociale contemporaine. / This M.A. thesis compares the social theories of Niklas Luhmann and Jürgen Habermas. Its main goal is to cast light upon the problems that philosophical thinking encounters in its attempt to understand modern society. The Luhmann-Habermas debate is presented from a comparative perspective, which will then lead into key problems of both classical (Weber and Durkheim) and modern (Parsons) traditions of sociology. It is our contention that this debate reveals two alternative standpoints from which the concepts of society, rationality, and normativity can be conceived. Instead of endorsing one theory or the other, this thesis would rather display their philosophical significance by addressing the manner in which they deal with complexity. Finally, the place of humanism within contemporary social theory is examined.

Die historischen Avantgardebewegungen haben mit dem Angriff auf die Autonomie der Kunst ein Erdbeben erzeugt, das sowohl die zeitgenössische Kunstpraxis als auch die ästhetische Theorie nachhaltig bewegt. Das Vermächtnis der historischen Avantgarden bleibt insofern als the Living Dead bestehen, als die Forderung, politisch wirksame Kunst zu schaffen, seit dem Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts immer wieder begraben und wiederbelebt wird. Auf der Ebene der Theorie pendeln diese Debatten zwischen der Konzeption einer autonomen Kunst einerseits und einer heteronomen Kunst andererseits, wobei Erstere einer philosophischen und Letztere einer soziologischen Kontextualisierung von Kunst entspricht. Die vorliegende Arbeit stellt diese beiden Perspektiven – einmal die ästhetische Theorie von Jacques Rancière und einmal die Gesellschaftstheorie von Niklas Luhmann – nebeneinander und zeigt, wie ein künstlerisches Schaffen – hier Marko Peljhans Projekt Makrolab – zugleich politisch wirksam und politisch unwirksam sein kann. Mit diesem Schritt wird die Diskussion über politische Kunst auf die Diskussion über die Wirksamkeit verschoben. Es wird festgestellt, dass die Frage nach politisch wirksamer Kunst nur im Rahmen einer kulturhistorisch spezifischen Vorstellung von Wirksamkeit möglich ist. Wird diese Vorstellung von Wirksamkeit durch eine andere ersetzt, verliert die Frage nach politischer Kunst ihren Sinn, es erschließt sich jedoch ein neues Verständnis des gesellschaftlichen Wandels, das weit über die Themen der Kunst hinausgeht. / By attacking the autonomy of the arts, the historical avant-gardes caused an upheaval which has resonated in the contemporary artistic practices as well as in art theory to this day. The legacy of the historical avant-gardes remains in the state of the living dead, since the demands to make political art have since the beginning of the 20th century repeatedly been buried and resuscitated. On the level of theory, these debates have been oscillating between the concept of an autonomous sphere of art on the one side and the heteronomous sphere of art on the other, whereas the former corresponds to a philosophical and the latter to a sociological contextualisation of the arts. This text combines both of these perspectives, putting Jacques Rancière’s philosophy of art and Niklas Luhmann’s social theory side by side in order to show how a singular artwork – here Marko Peljhan’s project Makrolab – can be understood as politically efficient and not politically efficient at the same time. With this step the discussion about political art is shifted to a discussion about efficacy and brought to the conclusion that the question of political art is only possible within a frame of a culturally and historically specific conception of efficacy. When this specific conception of efficacy is replaced by another, the question about political art loses its meaning. However, it is exactly at this point that a new understanding of social change opens up, which reaches far beyond the domain of art theory.