How Society Changes: Sociological Enlightenment and a Theory of Social Evolution for Freedom.

The American Sociologist Pub Date : 2020-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-10-27 DOI:10.1007/s12108-020-09464-y
Mitsuhiro Tada
{"title":"How Society Changes: Sociological Enlightenment and a Theory of Social Evolution for Freedom.","authors":"Mitsuhiro Tada","doi":"10.1007/s12108-020-09464-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article clarifies the relationship between individual freedom and social order by relying on Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory and thereby defines sociology's contribution to social evolution as <i>sociological enlightenment</i>, which seeks otherwiseness in living experience and action. For this purpose, Luhmann's theory will specifically be compared with Emile Durkheim's and Alfred Schutz's sociological theories. Durkheim, a \"child of the Enlightenment,\" considered freedom a collective ideal of moral individualism and conceived that the rational state realizes freedom by spreading the civil-religious human ideal for modern social order. In contrast, Schutz, following Henri Bergson, who criticized rationality for spatially fixing inner time, regarded freedom as a given in the individual's underlying duration, not as a shared ideal. Yet, unlike Bergson, he continued relying on rationalism, and he thought that the sociological observer observes how something appears to people with the epoché of natural attitude, not what it objectively is. Inheriting this phenomenological subjectivism, Luhmann showed that the self-referentiality of consciousness also applies to society: A social system, which path-dependently emerges itself from a double contingency, observes the world in its own way based on its self-referentially constituted eigen-time. On account of this system closure, and contrary to Durkheim's illuminist belief, there is no controlling entity in a highly evolved society, where freedom results from the enlarged, diversified possibilities of living experience and action (contingency). Thus, sociological enlightenment doubts self-evidence so that society brackets the taken-for-granted social order or social reality and amplifies individuals' deviations to evolve toward freedom.</p>","PeriodicalId":515284,"journal":{"name":"The American Sociologist","volume":"51 4","pages":"446-469"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s12108-020-09464-y","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Sociologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-020-09464-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/10/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article clarifies the relationship between individual freedom and social order by relying on Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory and thereby defines sociology's contribution to social evolution as sociological enlightenment, which seeks otherwiseness in living experience and action. For this purpose, Luhmann's theory will specifically be compared with Emile Durkheim's and Alfred Schutz's sociological theories. Durkheim, a "child of the Enlightenment," considered freedom a collective ideal of moral individualism and conceived that the rational state realizes freedom by spreading the civil-religious human ideal for modern social order. In contrast, Schutz, following Henri Bergson, who criticized rationality for spatially fixing inner time, regarded freedom as a given in the individual's underlying duration, not as a shared ideal. Yet, unlike Bergson, he continued relying on rationalism, and he thought that the sociological observer observes how something appears to people with the epoché of natural attitude, not what it objectively is. Inheriting this phenomenological subjectivism, Luhmann showed that the self-referentiality of consciousness also applies to society: A social system, which path-dependently emerges itself from a double contingency, observes the world in its own way based on its self-referentially constituted eigen-time. On account of this system closure, and contrary to Durkheim's illuminist belief, there is no controlling entity in a highly evolved society, where freedom results from the enlarged, diversified possibilities of living experience and action (contingency). Thus, sociological enlightenment doubts self-evidence so that society brackets the taken-for-granted social order or social reality and amplifies individuals' deviations to evolve toward freedom.

社会如何变化:社会学启蒙与自由社会进化理论。
本文借助卢曼的社会系统理论厘清了个人自由与社会秩序的关系,从而将社会学对社会进化的贡献界定为社会学启蒙,即在生活经验和行动中寻求异于性。为此,我们将具体地将鲁曼的理论与涂尔干和舒茨的社会学理论进行比较。“启蒙之子”涂尔干认为自由是道德个人主义的集体理想,并认为理性国家通过传播现代社会秩序的公民-宗教人类理想来实现自由。相反,Schutz在批评理性在空间上固定内在时间的亨利·柏格森(Henri Bergson)之后,将自由视为个体潜在持续时间中的一种给定,而不是一种共同的理想。然而,与柏格森不同的是,他继续依靠理性主义,他认为社会学观察者以自然态度的时代演进来观察事物在人们面前是如何出现的,而不是客观地观察事物是什么。卢曼继承了这种现象学的主观主义,表明意识的自我指涉性也适用于社会:一个从双重偶然性中产生的路径依赖的社会系统,基于其自我指涉构成的特征时间,以自己的方式观察世界。由于这种系统封闭性,与涂尔干的光明主义信仰相反,在高度进化的社会中没有控制实体,自由来自生活经验和行动(偶然性)的扩大和多样化的可能性。因此,社会学启蒙怀疑自明性,从而使社会将理所当然的社会秩序或社会现实加以托起,并放大个人的偏差以向自由进化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书