Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is Sustainable Theory? A Luhmannian Perspective on the Science of Conceptual Systems

  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sustainability is an important topic for understanding and developing our society (including business, government, and NGOs). For scholars who want their academic contributions to have an impact, sustainability is important for our conceptual systems (including theories, models, and policies). Because our conceptual systems share similarities with our social systems, we may investigate their characteristics to gain insight into how both may be achieved or at least understood. Theories of the humanities as well as the social/behavioral sciences are changing very rapidly. They are fragile and few seem to have any longevity. At the same time, the theoretical base does not seem to be “advancing.” They are not supporting highly effective results in the real world, so we continue to have seemingly insolvable problems such as crime, war, and poverty. This may be because academia has become inward-focused or, in Luhmann’s terminology, autonomous from the outside world. In seeking to understand how to develop more sustainable theories we found that the concept of sustainability is contested. And, in the process of comparing the sustainability of social systems to the sustainability of theories, we came to realize that neither perspective is viable. Drawing on Luhmann’s insights on the interdependence of theories and society, we came to realize that the two exist in a coevolutionary relationship. Importantly, we present an approach for measuring that evolution and suggest directions for accelerating the coevolutionary advance of society and science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benčo, J., & Vaceková, G. (2011). Theoretical–methodological problems of the scientific research. Acta Moravia. Scientific Journal for Economics, Management and Informatics, 3(5), 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Combs, A., & Krippner, S. (2003). Process, structure, and form: An Evolutionary Transpersonal Psychology of Consciousness. The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 22, 47–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsner, W., Heinrich, T., & Schwardt, H. (2014). The microeconomics of complex economies: Evolutionary, institutional, neoclassical, and complexity perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, G., & Dauber, D. (2016). Slawek Magala’s view on management of meaning and organisational change: An essay in honour of Slawek Magala. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(1), 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. K. (1967). The new industrial state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grodal, S., Gotsopoulos, A., & Suarez, F. F. (2015). The coevolution of technologies and categories during industry emergence. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 423–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann-Pillath, C. (2013). Foundations of economic evolution. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M. (1991). After Marx and Sraffa: Essays in political economy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, R. Y.-Y., & Kuo, Y.-M. (2008). Organizational learning culture, dynamic capability and organizational performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, Anaheim, California.

  • Johnson-Laird, P. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 71–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–195). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lapavitsas, C., & White, H. C. (2002). Markets from networks: Socioeconomic models of production. Enterprise & Society, 3(3), 547–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, B. B. (2000). The matrix of complexity: A multi-disciplinary approach for studying emergence in coevolution. In A. Lewin & H. Voldberda (Eds.), Mobilizing the self-renewing organization: The coevolution advantage. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1990). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magala, S. (2009). The management of meaning in organisations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, B. (2009). Incoherent culture. European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management, 1(1), 22–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1992). Cliometric metatheory: The actuarial approach to empirical, history-based philosophy of science. Psychological Reports, 71(2), 339–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (2002). Cliometric metatheory: II. Criteria scientists use in theory appraisal and why it is rational to do so. Psychological Reports, 91(2), 339–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (2004). Cliometric metatheory III: Peircean consensus, verisimilitude and asymptotic method. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(4), 615–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MK. (2007). Luhmann’s Zettelkasten. Retrieved from http://takingnotenow.blogspot.de/2007/12/luhmanns-zettelkasten.html.

  • Newton, J. L., & Freyfogle, E. T. (2005). Sustainability: A dissent. Conservation Biology, 19(1), 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberschall, A. (2000). Oberschall reviews “Theory and Progress in Social Science” by James B. Rule. Social Forces, 78(3), 1188–1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieters, K. P. (2010). Into complexity: A pattern-oriented approach to stakeholder communications. (Ph.D. in Complexity Studies), University for Humanistics, Utrecht, NL.

  • Ploeger, A. (2010). Evolutionary psychology as a metatheory for the social sciences. Integral Review, 6(3), 164–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puddington, A. (2015). Discarding democracy: A return to the iron fist Freedom in the world 2015 (p. 32). Washington, D.C.: Freedom House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, S. (2013). Les Deux Angleterres Et Le Continent: Anglophone sociology as the guardian of old european semantics. Journal of Sociocybernetics, 9(1–2), 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, S., & Schütz, A. (2015). Ten systems: Toward a canon of function systems. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 22(4), 11–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, J., Liu, F., & van Benthem, J. (2011). Models of reasoning in ancient China. Studies in Logic, 4(3), 57–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, B. A., & Elkins, Z. (2004). The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stichweh, R. (1990). Self-organization and autopoiesis in the development of modern science. In: W. Krohn, G. Kuppers, & H. Nowotny (Eds.), Self-organization: Portrait of a Scientific Revolution. Sociology of the Sciences (Vol. XIV, pp. 195–207). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stichweh, R. (2003). The multiple publics of science: Inclusion and popularization. Soziale Systeme, 9(2), 210–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svidroňová, M., & Vaceková, G. (2012). Current state of self-financing of private non-profit organizations in the conditions of the Slovak Republic. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18(3), 438–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, R. (2003). Principles of economic sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tool, M. R. (1981). The compulsive shift to institutional analysis. Journal of Economic Issues, 15(3), 569–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaceková, G., & Svidroňová, M. (2014). Benefits and risks of self-financing of NGOS-empirical evidence from the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria. E+ M Ekonomie a Management, 17(2), 120–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V. (2014a). The complexity-sustainability trade-off in Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(1), 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V. (2014b). K. William Kapp’s theory of social costs: A Luhmannian interpretation. Ecological Economics, 97, 28–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V. (2015a). From equilibrium to autopoiesis: A Luhmannian reading of Veblenian evolutionary economics. Economic Systems, 39, 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V. (2015b). The rawlsian critique of utilitarianism: A Luhmannian interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics (online first).

  • Valentinov, V. (2015c). Value devolution in social enterprises institutional economics and systems theory perspectives. Administration and Society, 47(9), 1126–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V., & Chatalova, L. (2014a). Institutional economics and social dilemmas: A systems theory perspective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(1), 138–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V., & Chatalova, L. (2014b). Transaction costs, social costs and open systems: Some common threads. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(2), 316–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V., & Chatalova, L. (2016a). Institutional economics and social dilemmas: a systems theory perspective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(1), 138–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V., & Chatalova, L. (2016b). Institutional economics, social dilemmas, and the complexity-sustainability trade-off. Systems Research and Behavioral Science (online first).

  • Valentinov, V., & Iliopoulos, C. (2013). Economic theories of nonprofits and agricultural cooperatives compared new perspectives for nonprofit scholars. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V., & Vaceková, G. (2015). Sustainability of rural nonprofit organizations: Czech Republic and beyond. Sustainability, 7(8), 9890–9906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V., Hielscher, S., & Pies, I. (2013). The meaning of nonprofit advocacy: An ordonomic perspective. The Social Science Journal, 50(3), 367–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V., Hielscher, S., & Pies, I. (2016). Emergence: A systems theory’s challenge to ethics. Systemic Practice and Action Research (online first).

  • Vogd, W. (2012). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. In O. Jahraus, A. Nassehi, M. Grizelj, I. Saake, C. Kirchmeier, & J. Müller (Eds.), Luhmann-Handbuch: Leben—Werk—Rezeption (pp. 224–230). Stuttgart: Verlag J.B. Metzler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2008a). Emerging order in CAS theory: Mapping some perspectives. Kybernetes, 38(7), 1016–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2008b). Seeking the robust core of social entrepreneurship theory. Paper presented at the first international conference on social entrepreneurship, systems thinking, and complexity, Garden City, NY.

  • Wallis, S. E. (2008c). Validation of theory: Exploring and reframing Popper’s worlds. Integral Review, 4(2), 71–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2009a). The complexity of complexity theory: An innovative analysis. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 11(4), 26–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2009b). Seeking the robust core of organisational learning theory. International Journal of Collaborative Enterprise, 1(2), 180–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2010a). The structure of theory and the structure of scientific revolutions: What constitutes an advance in theory? In S. E. Wallis (Ed.), Cybernetics and systems theory in management: Views, tools, and advancements (pp. 151–174). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2010b). Towards developing effective ethics for effective behavior. Social Responsibility Journal, 6(4), 536–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2010c). Towards the development of more robust policy models. Integral Review, 6(1), 153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2011a). Avoiding policy failure: A workable approach. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2011b). The complexity of complexity theory: An innovative analysis. In P. M. Allen, K. A. Richardson, & J. A. Goldstein (Eds.), Emergence, Complexity and Organization: E:CO Annual (Vol. 11, pp. 179–200). Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2012a). Existing and emerging methods for integrating theories within and between disciplines. Paper presented at the 56th annual meeting of the International Society for Systems Sciences (ISSS), San Jose, California.

  • Wallis, S. E. (2012b). The right tool for the job: Philosophy’s evolving role in advancing management theory. Philosophy of Management—Special Issue (Guest Editors: Stephen Sheard, Mark Dibben, 11(3), 67–99.

  • Wallis, S. E. (2013). Propositional analysis for evaluating explanations through their conceptual structures. Paper presented at the International Society for Complexity and Emergence (ISCE) “Modes of Explanation” Paris, France.

  • Wallis, S. E. (2014a). Abstraction and insight: Building better conceptual systems to support more effective social change. Foundations of Science, 19(4), 353–362. doi:10.1007/s10699-014-9359-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2014b). Existing and emerging methods for integrating theories within and between disciplines. Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 11(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2014c). Structures of logic in policy and theory: Identifying sub-systemic bricks for investigating, building, and understanding conceptual systems. Foundations of Science, in press—published online 8 May 2014.

  • Wallis, S. E. (2014d). A systems approach to understanding theory: Finding the core, identifying opportunities for improvement, and integrating fragmented fields. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(1), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2015a). Are theories of conflict improving? Using propositional analysis to determine the structure of conflict theories over the course of a century. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 17(4), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2015b). Integrative propositional analysis: A new quantitative method for evaluating theories in psychology. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 365–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S. E. (2015c). The science of conceptual systems: A progress report. Foundations of Science. Available online 17 June 2015 (in press).

  • Wallis, S. E., & Wright, B. (2015, March 4-6). Strategic Knowledge Mapping: The Co-creation of Useful Knowledge. Paper presented at the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning (ABSEL) 42nd annual conference, Las Vegas, CA.

  • Wandel, J., & Valentinov, V. (2014). The nonprofit catallaxy: An Austrian economics perspective on the nonprofit sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(1), 138–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. N. (2015). It is time to advance the science of laws. The Science of Laws Journal, 1(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yolles, M., & Fink, G. (2014). The sustainability of sustainability. Business Systems Review, 3(2), 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fulbright Specialist, Halle, Germany

    Steven E. Wallis

  2. Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Steven E. Wallis

  3. Meaningful Evidence, LLC, Falls Church, VA, USA

    Steven E. Wallis

  4. Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies, Halle, Germany

    Vladislav Valentinov

Authors
  1. Steven E. Wallis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vladislav Valentinov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven E. Wallis.

Additional information

This paper began with a project supported by the Fulbright Specialist Program and IAMO. We deeply appreciate the efforts of the four reviewers whose comments and questions have supported the emergence of a stronger paper. The second author gratefully acknowledges the support from the Volkswagen Foundation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wallis, S.E., Valentinov, V. What is Sustainable Theory? A Luhmannian Perspective on the Science of Conceptual Systems. Found Sci 22, 733–747 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-016-9496-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-016-9496-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation