The Autopoietic Turn in Habermas' Legal Philosophy

• Author: Kevin W. Gray
• Pages: 41-57

ANCILLAIURIS(anci.ch)2014:41–Article 41

TheAutopoieticTur ninHabermas’LegalPhilosophy

Abstract

SincethepublicationofBetweenFactsandNorms,itappearstohavegonelargelyunremarkedbycrit

icaltheoriststhatHabermashaswhollyabandonedtheneoParsoniansystemstheoreticaccountofso

cialsystemsdevelopedinhismiddleperiod.Inthispaper,IarguenotonlythatHabermashas

developedanewvocabularyandtheoreticalstructurefordealingwithsocialsystemssuchaslaw,but

alsothatthisnewapproachtosocialsystemsisincompatiblewiththeneoParsonianismofsocialsys

temsdevelopedinthatearlywork.ThisisnottosaythatHabermas’workinBetweenFactsand

Normsshouldbesetaside,butratherthattheParsonianismofTheTheoryofCommunicativeAc

tionmustbeabandonedifHabermas’jurisprudentialprojectistogoahead.

Inthesepages,PoulKjaerarguedthatnotonlydidtheHabermas/Luhmanndebatecon

tinuepastthepublicationoftheirjointbookinthe1970s,butthatimportantelementsof

Luhmann’stheorysurvivedintothearchitectonicsofHabermas’BetweenFactsandNorms

(BFN).1Inparticular,Kjaerassertsthat:“oneoutcomeoftheHabermas/Luhmanndebateis

thatthelateHabermas’discoursetheorycanberegardedasanormativesuperstructureto

Luhmann’sdescriptivetheoryofsociety.”2FollowingKjaer,Iwillaskwhattheconse

quencesofthismightbeforHabermas’earlierParsonianinspiredsystemstheory.

IwillargueinthisarticlethatBFNisinconsistentwiththebinarymodelofsociety

Habermasdevelopedinhisearlierwork.Inparticular,IcontendthatHabermashaschanged

thesystemlifeworldmodelinhistheoryoflaw,evenifheisloathtoadmitit.Ultimately,

myinterestistoshowthattheoriginalsystemlifeworldmodelisunsuitableforHabermas’

legaltheoryandthatithas,inBFN,beentacitlyabandoned,andmarkstheendofthepara

digmdevelopedinTheTheoryofCommunicativeAction(TCA).ThisisnottocondemnBFN,

buttoarguethatHabermashasturnedtoanautopoieticaccountofsocialsystems.Many

theoristshavenotedtheintroductionofsomeautopoieticterminologyintoHabermasian

criticaltheory.3Iwillarguenotonlyhasautopoieticterminologybeenintroduced,butthat

thetwoversionsofsystemstheoryarefundamentallyincompatibleandthatachoicemust

bemade.4

Thesystemlifeworldmodelisrelativelywellknowntosocialtheorists.However,asthe

purposeofthispaperistocriticizetheuseofthesystemscomponentofthatmodelinHaber

1*TheauthorwouldliketothankhisresearchassistantKafumuKalyalya.Inaddition,earlierversionsofthis

articlebenefitedfromhelpfulcommentsfromDavidLea,ThomasSimon,AmelieWirts,KenBaynes,Jeff

Flynn,andDavidStrecker,aswellasfromtwoanonymousreviewers.JürgenHabermasgenerouslycom

mentedonanearlyversionofthisargument.Anymistakes,ofcourse,remaintheauthors.

1Thecollectionofarticleswas publishedas:JürgenHabermas/NiklasLuhmann,TheoriederGesellschaftoder

Sozialtechnologie–Was leistetdieSystemforschung?(FrankfurtamMain1972).

2PoulKjaer,SystemsinContext:OntheoutcomeoftheHabermas/Luhmanndebate,AncillaIuris(2006),66–

77,77.

3 See,forinstance,HughBaxter,Habermas:TheDiscourseTheoryofLawandDemocracy(Stanford2011).

4WhileIpersonallyfavoranautopoieticmodelofsocialsystems,Iwillnotmakethatargumenthere.Oth

ershavearguedagainsttheintroductionofneoParsonianism,albeitforotherreasons.Forarepresentative

critiqueoftheneoParsonianmodel,seetheessaysbyThomasMcCarthy/HansJoasandothers,in:Axel

Honneth/HansJoas(eds.),CommunicativeAction:EssaysonJürgenHabermas’TheTheoryofCommuni

cativeAction(Cambridge1991).

byKevinW.Gray*

KevinW.Gray–TheAutopoieticTurninHabermas‘LegalPhilosophy

42 ANCILLAIURIS(anci.ch)2014:41–Article

mas’reconstructionoflaw,IwilldrawoutwhatItaketobethesalientpointsofHabermas’

systemstheoryinthefirstsectionbydiscussingHabermas’receptionofParsons,beforemov

ingontoHabermas’theoryoflawinbothTCAandBFN.ThemodelHabermasdevelopsis

idiosyncraticintwoways:unlikeParsons,herelegatessystemstheorytoonlyonepartof

actioncoordination.Similarly,Habermas’useofthetermlifeworldhaslittleincommonwith

thebetterknownHusserlianorSchutzianmodelsofthelifeworld.ForHabermas,thelife

worldisthecollectionofbackgroundnormsandstructures(includingmodernlearningpro

cesseswhichoccurinsidedetranscendentalizedmorality,inthesocialandnaturalsciences,

etc.)thatguidecommunicativeactioninthemodernworld.Structuresinwhichcommunica

tionpredominatesarelifeworldstructures;conversely,socialsystemsarethoseregions

whereactioncoordinationthroughreplacementmediadominates.

I. SocialSystemsinTheTheoryofCommunicativeAction

TCAsetsouttodevelopamodelofthestructuraldifferentiationofsocietywhich,while

buildingontheFrankfurtSchool’sappropriationofWeber’sworkontherationalizationand

bureaucratizationofsociety,conceivesofbotharealmofcommunicativefreedominmodern

societyandaregionofmodernsocietyintegratedbyinstrumentalaction.Thatrealmof

instrumentalactiongivesrisetothesystemtheoreticaccountofsocialactivitythatdraws

heavilyonthematureworkofTalcottParsons.5

FromParsons,Habermasdrawstheconceptualarchitectureoftheactionsystem.Asocial

system,inParsons’theory,isquitesimplyanypatternofactionwhichhasaninternalanalyt

icalstructure.6Eachsocialsystemmustbeintegratedbyasteeringmediawhichregulates

exchangebetweenthatsystemanditsenvironment.Forinstance,moneyregulatesexchange

betweentheeconomyandothersocialsystems.

Particularlyinhislaterwritings,Parsonsarguesthatitis,atleastinprinciple,possibleto

findsimilarmediawhichintegrateallsocialsystems.Moneyservesasthemodelforallsuch

media.AccordingtoParsons,thegeneralproblemistodecidewhethersuchmechanismsof

exchange“couldbegeneralizedbeyondthecaseofmoneytothatofothermedia.”7What

holdstrueofmoneyholdstrue,mutatismutandis,forothermedia.

5Inseveralplacesinhiswork,HabermasacknowledgeshisdebttoTalco ttPars ons.Heremarks,forinstance,

that:“anytheoreticalworkinsociologytodaythatfailedtotakeaccountofParsonscouldno tbetakenseri

ously,”JürgenHabermas,TheTheoryofCommunicativeAction,vol.2(Boston1984),199.Overthecourseof

hiscareer,Talc ot tParso ns,likeHabermashimself,transitionedfromanearlierWe beri anmodelofsocial

actiontoalaterembraceofsystemstheory.ItisParsons’maturesystemstheorythatcomesintoplayin

TCA.

6 Broadly,byaninternalanalyticstructure,Parsonsintendsanysocialsystemwhichmakesuse,inorderfor

itscontinuedexistenceandfunction,ofstructureswhichprovideforfouressentialproperties:adaptation

(i.e.responsestotheenvironmentandacquisitionofsufficientresources),goalattainment(i.e.settingand

obtainingdifferentgoals),integration(i.e.howdifferentsectionsofthesystemareintegratedandhowsoli

darityismaintained)andlatency(whichhesometimescallspatternmaintenance–i.e.theprocessby

whichinstitutions,organizations,androlesallowthesystemtocontinuetofunctionbyfurnishingand

maintainingthenecessarymoralandculturalpreconditions).Collectively,theseformParsons ’famous

AGILparadigm.SeeTal co tt Parsons,TheSocialSystem(NewYor k1951).

7Tal co tt Parsons,ReviewofHaroldJ.Bershady’sIdeologyandSocialKnowledge,in:Talco ttPar sons(ed.),

SocialSystemsandtheEvolutionofActiontheory(NewYork 1977),128;citedin:JürgenHabermas,TheThe

oryofCommunicativeAction,vol.2(Boston1984),257.

OfthefourAGILcomponents,onlysomeare‘left’tosocialsystemsinHabermas’systemlifeworldmodel.

TheILcomponentsarelefttothelifeworldinHabermas’model.