by
MICHAEL G. TERPSTRA, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT:
A post-modern world requires an approach to language that is sensitive
to the increasing complexities of global social interaction. An initial
step toward increasing sensitivity is to describe an alternate approach
to language and social interaction. Through Niklas Luhmann’s theory of
differentiation, I develop an idea that includes a sensitivity to language
in its relationship to social interaction. I extend Luhmann’s concept
of interpenetration to the analysis of dialogue.
I describe how the theme of "illness" unfolds as a relationship between the patient’s self awareness and the clinical encounter that comes alive through the language exchanged between physician and patient. The emotion, anger, is the patient’s adaptation to the interdependent relationship he and his physician have within their encounter which is the particular social system under analysis. In this paper, I analyze the clinical encounter as the social system in where illness is the system of interpenetration.
ILLNESS AS RELATIONSHIP
Describing today’s modern world requires an approach to language that is sensitive to the increasing complexities of global social interaction. In this paper, I propose that the description of the relationship between language and social interaction be grounded in the work of the German sociologist, Niklas Luhmann.
Post-modernism and post-industrialism are reactionary movements to previous
attempts at describing societal and economic problems. The term post-modernism
conveys ambiguous concepts and ideologies. Rather than belaboring
the meaning of this concept, I will simply use the term to identify problems
the global community is currently communicating. I use post-modernism
to refer to social interactive problems resulting from the increase complexities
of our society. I believe that Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social
interaction will help to address the information age and the complex issues
surrounding it. Luhmann's theoretical insight takes us away from
reinventing old solutions and toward applying current theoretical innovations
to complex problems.
Some post-modernists think it is necessary to liberate and free people
from their bondage. The source of knowledge (information) need
not be in the exclusive domain of the expert. If wielding knowledge
creates oppression, then "emancipation" is necessary in order to obtain
freedom. In the information age, there is no longer the need for
"emancipation" since information can be accessed by anyone. The control
of information is no longer the exclusive purview of the expert.
Branko Horvat (1982) describes the climate in which the postmodernist approaches social and economic issues. The coordination necessary for the operation of an information regulatory mechanism requires "organized information diffusion" and an "enormously increased speed and precision of information gathering and processing" (Horvat, 1982). David Prychitko goes a step further to describe a problem of the information age as "the knowledge problem" of social planning (1991). The problem centers on the conscious allocation of scarce resources complicated by the multiple demands for a commodity. The destination for a scarce commodity is decided on the basis of information received. Prychitko’s summary illustrates the problem: "The assumption of complete knowledge of the relevant factor, production functions, and equilibrium prices does not solve the knowledge problem, but in fact obscures it" (1991, p.88). A system based on the concept of equilibrium faces the knowledge problem because it ignores the problems of the transmission of that knowledge. The information age requires assessments of the validity and usefulness of the superabundance of information. It is a knowledge problem because the information is not being efficiently utilized.
My argument is that in the postmodern world, social systems need to intensify efficient information advantages in order to meet the requirements for maintaining a viable position. Luhmann's system of self-reference is the theoretical tool needed to meet the needs of the postmodern world. The postmodern agenda must include an exploration of the theory of differentiation, especially the distinction Luhmann makes between system and environment (1982, p.230). This distinction is at the heart of what I am discussing as communication and the relationship between language and social interaction. For Luhmann, human beings do not communicate; social systems communicate. At the core of this concept, communication requires the synthesis of three selections: information, utterances (Mitteilung) and a need to "understand it all" (Luhmann, 1990a, p.3).
The critics of post-modernism identify one of its failures as holding
on to an inadequate notion of subjectivity, one that puts the subject (actor)
in an isolated position, one without meaning (Kellner,
Best, 1991). When focused on the problems of communication in
the global community, Luhmann’s approach to analyzing the social domain
is especially relevant to serious considerations for an analysis of interaction
that begins with a subject-free approach.
Although I argue for Luhmann's position on the "subject-free" concept,
Luhmann recognizes modern philosophy's need for a reinvigorated concept
of the "subject." If the "subject" is a requirement for better understanding,
then Luhmann expands its foundation to be inclusive of "all processes and
systems within which 'meaning' plays an essential role" (Luhmann,
1982, p. 325).
The foundational accomplishment of postmodernism is its recognition that subjectivity needs reconstruction. Several authors recognize this contribution in a variety of expressions (Knodt, 1994, Jameson, 1991, Kellner, Best, 1991). Knodt points out that "the binary logic of classical ontology is exhausted" (1994, p.93). This means that the logic which maintains a separation between the subject and object no longer holds. In a discussion of literary style, Jameson demonstrates how an author is postmodern by identifying the emptiness of the subject (1991, p.133).
Communication is made possible only as a self-referential process. This means that communication takes place within the social system and not between the social system and environment. In one of his books, Love as Passion (1986c), Luhmann defines love as a system of interpenetration. By arguing that love is a system, Luhmann states that in order to understand "love" one must see it as a medium for the formation of personal relationships. By extending the concept to "illness" and applying Luhmann’s theory of distinctions, I analyze the clinical encounter as the social system where illness is the system of interpenetration. In the clinical encounter, illness defines the system’s (clinical encounter’s) boundaries and goals. The environment for this social system includes the two participants (patient and physician) and everything else that is not part of the system.
First, a distinction is made between the environment (including the psychic system of patient and the psychic system of physician) and the social system of illness. Information is a result of the process of the system differentiating between itself and its environment. Elaborating further, differentiation includes the first distinction mentioned above and the reproductive process of the social system (discussed later under Autopoiesis). Differentiation results from the distinction between the self-perpetuating activity of the social system (autopoiesis) and accomplishments (language) of the relationship between the participants and the social system that facilitated their interactions.
The patient and physician, because their psychic systems are part of
the environment and a condition of differentiation, form a temporarily
reciprocal interdependent relationship with the social system (clinical
encounter). The evidence for this interdependent relationship is
language. The adaptation to the interdependent relationship just
described is emotion. The emotional responses expressed by the patient
are the effect of language transferring social complexity into psychic
complexity. The transference of social complexity into psychic complexity
is the driving force behind the concept of interpenetration.
Differentiation is a meaning-based processing of experience.
The process functions in a cyclical manner by both reducing and preserving
complexity (Luhmann, 1990a, p.27). The reduction
of complexity allows us to comprehend extremely complex concepts while
the preservation of complexity prevents us from reducing a complex world
to a mere simplistic perception.
The experience of the patient unfolds during the clinical encounter.
Luhmann reminds us that the "concept of meaning refers to the way human
experience is ordered" (1990a, p.25). Through
the communication between the AIDS patient and his physician, the patient's
illness is given meaning. As we shall see, the system generates meaning
through the process of differentiation that functions by combining three
different selections: information, utterance and understanding.
Communication is the medium from which social systems operate. Communication differentiates and the difference is "thematized as the unity of what is different, as communication and non-communication, that is, as a paradox" (Luhmann, 1994b, p.25-26). When the patient (speaker) is talking about his illness, these utterances are evidence of a process of internal observation (self-observation). As far as the experience of the patient’s illness, the physician (receiver/participant) responds as an external observer of the illness.
The language spoken during the clinical encounter provides partial evidence
of a patient’s construct of "self ." Pursuant to Luhmann’s terminology,
(without the notion of a efficient subject or actor), language provides
evidence from the communicating social system of the knowledge we have
of others and ourselves. The following case study illustrates a very small
part of a patient’s construction of his system of illness.
The patient’s personal system of illness is only one of many systems of
interpenetrations that contributes to the knowledge of "self" and contributes
to society’s knowledge of illness.
In order to set the stage, I need to identify what is environment and
what constitutes the social system we are observing. The environment,
using Luhmann's vocabulary, includes the psychic systems of the AIDS patient
and the physician. The social system is the clinical encounter.
The emotion of anger as it occurs in my case study is easily identifiable. The dialogue permits identification of discernible landmarks for the presence of this emotion. The tracking of anger provides the opportunity to observe the results of interpenetration. Interpenetration is the relationship between the patient's consciousness and the encounter. Communication is a process resulting from the clinical encounter (social system) and not the act of the patient. Emotion is the "internal adaptation to internal problem situations of psychic systems" (Luhmann, 1995/1984, p.559 fn# 26).
The expression of anger began after a short rhetorical question by the physician about a previous theme. The physician's remark triggered the onset. At this juncture, the emotion of anger contributes significantly to the formation of a new theme. The physician, by allowing the patient to continue, provides the opportunity for the patient to fully express himself. The physician gives the patient ample opportunity to change topics. The expression of anger is initially introduced by the patient in isolation from other anger references. Initially I sought to identify the agent or cause of the anger portrayed through the patient's descriptions of his current state of being. The word "anger" drew attention because of its frequency in a word count of the dialogue; the patient used "anger" in one of its forms twelve (12) times during his conversation. The "diagnosis" topic drew attention because of the variety of ways in which the patient talked about his diagnosis and how he expressed his eventual acceptance of the diagnosis of AIDS. Although the word "strength" only occurs twice in the patient's talk, it contributes a clue to eventual identification of the diagnosis theme. The term "space" (seven times) has significance because of the patient's association with a mental (emotional) safe space for retreat and renewal. The combination, "safe space" (four times) identifies, in the patient's spatial jargon, a secure mental refuge from confrontations and anger. Once the patient refers to the safe space as meditation.
The patient continues the conversation with occasional physician-assisted extensions of the patient's thought. The physician attempts to change topics but the patient interrupts. The physician immediately asks a question to request an elaboration of what the patient was saying. The next two questions asked by the physician lead to what appears to be a therapeutic resolution for the patient.
The patient's awareness of his illness is reflected through self-observations. The very nature of the clinical encounter centers on the patient's illness. The definition of the clinical encounter establishes the boundaries of the social system. The theme of illness therefore is the only valid theme in the system's communicative process. It is not plausible nor necessary to have complete knowledge of the patient. Self-thematization (Luhmann, 1982, p.327) makes the social system accessible to information pertaining to the patient's illness. Self-thematization is another term that Luhmann uses to refer to the relationship a system establishes with itself. In other words, the process of self-reference (reflection) the patient connects with the social system, i.e. the clinical encounter. The patient is in a position of observation.
Metaphorically speaking, this type of language analysis might be compared to paleontology. Researchers have the fossilized bones, footprints, and eggs of the creatures called dinosaurs. They have never seen one but they make the best informed guess about the habits and physical appearance. In the same sense, communication according to Luhmann cannot be observed but residual data reveals that communication has occurred. The language exchanged in the clinical case study is the product created by the clinical encounter.
Interpenetration is the relationship between the AIDS patient's awareness of his illness and the theme of illness that is accessible through self-reference. The selected fragment of my case study demonstrates evidence for differentiation between a psychic and social system.
The language uttered by the speaker (patient) on the subject of illness is through internal observation (self-observation). The receiver/participant in the clinical encounter (physician) respond as an external observer of the illness. The only valid theme in the system's communicative process is the one emerging through internal observation (Luhmann, 1995/1984, p. 180). In the case of my clinical encounter, it is the theme of illness. The paradox is that both the speaker (patient) and addressee (physician) contribute to the knowledge of the illness but the only valid theme comes through internal observation. Internal observation is the self-observation of a social system. Luhmann reasons that the system (clinical encounter) is accessible to itself only through communication.
In this illustration (the clinical encounter), knowledge of the patient is communicated through the theme as a "meaning-employing system" rather than the source for the creation of meaning (Luhmann, 1979). Meaning for Luhmann is not the "conscious actualization of the intentional structures of experience" of the patient (1990a, p.22). Understanding the clinical encounter is realized through the activity of the social system (clinical encounter) rather than identifying the patient and physician as the source of understanding.
The clinical encounter represents two distinct and separate worlds,
one from the physician's perspective and the other from the patient's experience
(Toombs,
1993). These worlds are known by the language style the participants
use. The language of the patient reflects illness as an inward experience.
The point of reference for the physician is different than it is for the
patient.
The problem discussed by Toombs in the following quote illustrates
the problem of double contingency. "In the clinical encounter the
body becomes objectified. With this objectification the unity of
lived body disintegrates and the body is alienated from the self.
The alienation from self engenders a profound sense of loss of control"
(Toombs,
1993, p83). This illustration presents a partial picture.
Toombs conclusion about clinical encounter assumes an object and subject
dynamic. Anyone who develops an objective/subjective model avoids
the problem of double contingency. The problem is that one’s conclusions
are determined by the object/subject dilemma. The dilemma is knowing
who is the subject and what is object. Toombs’ methodology that created
the above conclusion about clinical encounters emerges out of the object/subject
duality.
An alternative perspective, such as that of Luhmann, envisions the
function of social analysis as the relationship between system and environment.
When Luhmann uses the problem of double contingency as a solution, it becomes
part of the social system’s autopoietic characteristics. A methodology
developed along the lines of Luhmann’s theory does not emerge from an object/subject
duality. When I use the concept of double contingency, it contributes
to the idea of illness as a system of interpenetration. Luhmann's
solution to the problem of double contingency is to utilize its presence
where meaning: emerges through the clinical encounter.
"Interpenetration is ... a relationship between autopoietic systems" (Luhmann, 1995/1984, p.218). Autopoiesis, simply defined, is the process of a system's reproduction through its own network of structures. "Systems" refers to biological systems, psychic systems, and social systems. Autopoiesis is applicable to all systems but the single most important characteristic of social and psychic systems is that they are non-living systems. Without going into detail, the system's ability to maintain closure and openness at the same time requires that these social systems be classified as non-living (Luhmann, 1986a).
Self-reference is a process of autopoiesis that refers something beyond itself and then returns to itself. Self-reference and external reference are examples of closed and open systems respectively. The self-referential systems maintain closure with respect to communication (Luhmann, 1990a, p.5). Because I am using the concept of self-reference in the context of an interaction rather than society at large, the distinction between interactive and social systems requires a refinement in definition. Social systems are all-inclusive, thus "closure" becomes all encompassing. On the other hand, interactive systems are both open and closed to their environment. They are open in the sense that communication with the environment is acknowledged by "the fact that the persons who are present and participate in the interaction have other roles and other obligations within systems that cannot be controlled here and now" (Luhmann, 1990a, p.5). Interactive systems are also closed "in the sense that their own communication can be motivated and understood only in the context of the system, and if somebody approaches the interactional space and begins to participate, he has to be introduced and the topics of conversation eventually have to be adapted to the new situation" (Luhmann, 1990a, p.5). Therefore the synthesis of information, utterance, and understanding causes the system to deal with resolution of the difference between closure and openness.
Luhmann defines the input/output schema as a restrictive description on the relations between system and environment (personal communication, September 20, 1996). The restriction is limited to social systems that have fixed input and output goals. What this means is that the methodology for analyzing the interaction between the physician and patient during a clinical encounter must not include an input/output scheme. The only type of social system that can utilize input/output organization are those systems that have to distinguishes between openness and closure. The classical example Luhmann sites is the system (firm) which distinguishes between labor markets and product markets. When following through with Luhmann’s theoretical constructs, it is important to return to his applications of system reproduction (autopoiesis) and self-identification (self-reference). [For further study, see summary of conversation with Luhmann - 8/22/96 ]
The complexities of today's global interaction between diverse cultures requires that we maximize the resources of our "informational age." I do not believe that many doubt the overwhelming impact of the amount of information on the potential for meeting our problem solving needs. But I think that many still underestimate the impact the "knowledge problem" has on social planning and problem solving. With the enormous accumulation of information, effective systems for managing knowledge must be found. I suggest that Luhmann's theory of social interaction addresses this "knowledge problem." In order to illustrate the potential for Luhmann's theory in the analysis of social interaction, I use language to focus on one of the basic tenets of his theory, interpenetration. The development of the "illness" theme shows the relationship between what Luhmann defines as the relationship between autopoietic systems. That is, the language spoken by the patient in my example is the evolutionary result of what occurs between the patient and his means to understand his illness. The difference between environment (which includes the patient's psychic system) and the system, the clinical encounter, is at the heart of Luhmann's work. Illness as a relationship not due to the role played out by the patient but only as that theme of "illness" is communicated by the clinical encounter.
References:
Horvat, B., (1982). The Political Economy
of Socialism. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Jameson, F., (1991). Postmodernism, or The
Cultural Logis of Late Capitalism.
Durham: Duke University.
Kellner, D.M., Best, S. (1991). Postmodern
Theory: Critical Interrogations.
New York: Guilford.
Knodt, E., (1994). Toward a Non-Foundationalist
Epistemology: The Habermas/
Luhmann Controversy Revisited. New German Critique. 61,
Winter.
Luhmann, N., (1979). Trust and Power. John Wiley and Sons.
Luhmann, N., (1982). Differentiation of Society.
(S. Holmes, C. Larmore,
Trans.) New York: Columbia University.
Luhmann, N., (1986a). Ecological Communication.
(J. Bednarz, Jr., Trans.)
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Luhmann, N. (1986b). The Autopoiesis
of Social Systems. In F. Geyer.
Sociocybernetic Paradoxes: Observation, Control and Evolution
of Self-Steering Systems. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Luhmann, N. (1986c). Love As Passion:
The Codification of Intimacy.
(J. Gaines, D.L. Jones, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University.
Luhmann, N., (1990a). Essays on Self Reference. New York: Columbia Univ.
Luhmann, N., (1991). Instead of a Preface
to the English Edition: On the
Concepts "Subject" and "Action." In N. Luhmann, (1995).
Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University. (Original work
published 1984)
Luhmann, N., (1994b). Speaking and Silence. New German Critique. 61, Winter.
Luhmann, N., (1995). Social Systems. (J. Bednarz,
Jr., & D. Baecker, Trans.).
Stanford: Stanford University. (Original work published 1984).
Prychitko, D., (1991). Marxism &
Workers' Self-Management: The Essential
Tension. New York: Greenwood.
Toombs, S.K. (1993). The Meaning of Illness.
Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
APPENDIX A: SEGMENT OF CASE STUDY DIALOGUE.
The following is brief exerpt of a clinical encounter between an AIDS
patient and his physician.
==========================================================
Physician:
015 You were taking him to court,
016 last I heard.
Patient:
016
We both were cited because there
017
were no witnesses and he said
018
that I hit him also.
Physician:
019 I didn't hear that part.
Patient:
019
Oh, yeah. So the DA threw it out
020
because it was his word against
021
mine, so I took him to small claims
022
court, and an hour before small
023
claims court started, he called the
024
bailiff and said that I had
025
threatened his life, so that threw
026
the whole court into turmoil
027
and caused all of us
028
to be searched and um, in other
029
words, angered
030
the, He's not even a judge in small
031
claims, they are attorneys.
032
They're called commissioners,
033
and commissioner is the head one,
034
who's, I'm sure anti gay, Catholic,
035
which I was excommunicated from the
036
Catholic church, and, and let's
037
see, what else, let's see one
038
more thing, oh anti union, for the
039
union. So, they were all
040
against me, I lost.
Physician:
041 I wonder why.
Patient:
041
I know. So that sort of like has
042
got me angry and now I have to
043
appeal to the Superior Court.
044
Something else, you know, and
045
also my mother, she's doing very
046
badly in terms of a lot of
047
different things, but then she is
048
focusing on this too.
049
So even though I'm detaching myself
050
from that sort of, it's
051
still difficult in the sense that
052
we're very close and
053
I'm sorry that she is sad and
054
unhappy about it, but that
055
affects me too. Not as much as it
056
might have in the past,
057
I think I've gotten some strength
058
from certain things that help me with
059
it, but still it does affect
060
me and so,
061
um, and I have just, as of
062
September thirteenth,
063
I was diagnosed a year ago,
064
which was nice for me,
065
I mean, a year, but the thing is,
066
and I plan on more,
067
but the thing is, so it was sort
068
of an odd couple of weeks,
069
the last couple of weeks.
070
I know that affects
071
my health too and
072
I do see this psychologists,
073
Jxxxxx Mxxxxx who helps me
074
quite a bit.
Physician:
075 She probably helps you more
076 than we could help you at
077 this point.
Patient:
077
Well, I don't know.
078
I think everyone is pretty equal.
Physician:
079 Yeah, your health has been
080 pretty good, knock on wood.
Patient:
It's been, it's been, it's been,
081
except for the two pneumonias,
082
yeah it's been great.
Physician:
083 Yeah, yeah.
Patient:
083
And I was going to tell you also
084
that since it was my one
085
year anniversary, I really
086
appreciate what you've done
087
for me, and
088
I am very grateful.
Physician:
089 My pleasure. Anyway, so you
090 think your main problem right
091 now is ...
Patient:
091
Mental.
Physician:
092 What kind of mental.
Patient:
092
Is that what you were
093
going to say?
Physician:
094 Well, I was going to let you
095 finish that.
Patient:
095
Uh, kind of, and I think
096
I would define that
097
as being angry,
098
I am angry. I don't know
099
whether I've gone through,
100
I've been diagnosed with
101
AIDS for a year so I
102
know Elizabeth Kubler Ross and
103
all the different things.
104
I don't think
105
I'm in the anger stage because
106
I've gone through anger
107
a couple of times back,
108
but you can go in and out of
109
whatever, but I'm angry about
110
this Mr. [named] that assaulted
111
me, I'm angry at the judge
112
that threw this,
113
I mean the DA that threw
114
it out, I'm angry at those kind
115
and so I think mainly it's trying
116
to deal with this anger
117
and of course, live my life
118
despite the fact that I have
119
AIDS, and plus, my mother did
120
something to me. She called
121
a couple of my cousins.
122
I asked her not to tell them.
123
If the dissemination of information
124
is going to be done,
125
it's going to be by me and
126
that sort of angered me also,
127
so I'm sort of going through
128
an angry period.
Physician:
129 How are you dealing with all
130 this?
Patient:
130
Well, I don't know. The thing
131
with this, I was at Dr. Mxxxxx's
132
today and I said,
133
How do I deal with it?
134
Well she said you see
135
I feel, and I feel fortunate,
136
I'm thirtyfour years old.
137
I had a charmed life.
138
I lived in New York city,
139
I've been around the world,
140
I had money in the past and
141
I've had a very happy life.
142
And I think a lot of that has
143
to do with that I was in
144
this sort of, um space,
145
a safe space,
146
that I wasn't affected
147
by people like this
148
Mr. [named] or my mother or
149
things like that. So it's just
150
something that I have
151
to deal with, maybe put myself back
152
in that safe space, meditation,
153
whatever.
Phone Conversation with Niklas Luhmann:
8/22/96
Professor Luhmann would prefer to have material in writing before any
indebth comments. His main concern
was that phone conversations would be too expensive. It is O.K. to
talk about any material now. His secretary
is on vacation until next week. I will call his secretary at
the university next week for his E-Mail address.
Brief answers to a couple of queries regarding my dissertation:
September 20th 1996 Text from Niklas Luhmann
DATE: 20-Sep-96 at 02:56:18
First, the input/output schema is a restrictive description of the
relation between system and environment. The restriction consists in
a presupposed differentiation of the environment according to input
and output. The most famous example is, of course, the firm which
distinguishes between labor market and product market but not all
social systems can presuppose such a distinction, for example not
families.
Second, I do not see action as subject-free. An action presupposes,
of course, an actor. This is part of the concept of action and both,
action and actor are constructions of an observer. Whether we call
the actor "subject" is another question. I hesitate to do this,
because the term subject has historical connotations as a
self-founding entity and I would not say that the concept of action
presupposes such a theoretical construct.
I take the term subject as belonging to a historical tradition which
tries to found the modern individualism on reflexivity. The end of
this tradition is marked by Freud who describes the individuum as
distinguished from itself, namely its unconscious motives. In every
day language the term subject has lost these historical references
but than it can be replaced by individuum.
I hope that this short reply is understandable to you and remain with
all good wishes for your work
yours sincerely,
Niklas Luhmann