Abstract
In this article, I apply the contributions of Luhmannian systems theory to the analysis of the third sector, accepting, in realistic terms, the diagnosis of current societies as increasingly complex and the descriptions of third sector as hybrid. After identifying some of the main analytical elements and concepts, I propose applying it in two ways. First, with the illustration of organizations’ self-descriptions, I show how third sector organizations may be analyzed in light of the concepts of self-reference, reflexivity, and reflection to evidence both their operational closure and their structural couplings with other systems. Second, I refer to the self-descriptions of “sector” in terms of its self-reflection and semantics as different from other sectors and show that it is a paradoxical heterogeneous unity. I conclude by arguing for the usefulness of this analytical framework to understand contextually the meaning of the third sector in functionally differentiated societies.
Résumé
Dans cet article, j’applique les contributions de la théorie des systèmes sociaux de Luhmann à l’analyse du troisième secteur, acceptant, en termes réalistes, le diagnostic de complexification des sociétés actuelles et les descriptions du troisième secteur comme hybride. Après avoir identifié certains des éléments et concepts analytiques principaux, je propose d’appliquer cette théorie de deux manières. D’une part, en m’aidant des descriptions faites d’elles-mêmes par les organisations du troisième secteur, je montre comment elles peuvent être analysées à la lumière des concepts d’autoréférence, de réflexivité et de réflexion pour mettre en évidence à la fois leur cloisonnement opérationnel et leurs liens structurels avec d’autres systèmes. D’autre part, je m’appuie sur les auto-descriptions du « secteur » , qui le présentent comme différent des autres secteurs en termes d’autoréflexion et de sémantique, pour démontrer qu’il s’agit d’une unité hétérogène paradoxale. Je conclus en soutenant l’utilité de ce cadre analytique pour comprendre dans le contexte la signification du troisième secteur dans des sociétés fonctionnellement différentiées.
Zusammenfassung
In der vorliegenden Abhandlung wende ich die Beiträge der luhmannischen Systemstheorie auf die Analyse des Dritten Sektors an, wobei ich, realistisch betrachtet, akzeptiere, dass gegenwärtige Gesellschaften als vermehrt komplex diagnostiziert werden und der Dritte Sektor als hybrid beschrieben wird. Nach der Identifizierung einiger der wichtigsten analytischen Elemente und Konzepte schlage ich eine Anwendung auf zwei Weisen vor. Zunächst zeige ich anhand der Illustration der Selbstbeschreibungen von Organisationen, wie die Organisationen des Dritten Sektors vor dem Hintergrund der Konzepte Selbstreferenz, Reflexivität und Reflexion analysiert werden können, um sowohl ihre operationale Geschlossenheit als auch ihre strukturellen Kopplungen mit anderen Systemen zu beweisen. Anschließend beziehe ich mich auf die Selbstbeschreibungen des Konzepts “Sektor” hinsichtlich der Selbstreflexion und Semantik als andersartig im Vergleich zu anderen Sektoren und lege dar, dass es sich um eine paradoxe heterogene Einheit handelt. Abschließend liefere ich Argumente für die Nützlichkeit dieses analytischen Rahmenwerks, um die Bedeutung des Dritten Sektors in funktionell unterschiedlichen Gesellschaften kontextabhängig zu verstehen.
Resumen
En el presente artículo, aplico las contribuciones de la teoría de sistemas de Luhmann al análisis del tercer sector, aceptando, en términos realistas, el diagnóstico de las sociedades actuales como crecientemente complejas y las descripciones del tercer sector como híbrido. Después de identificar algunos de los principales elementos y conceptos analíticos, propongo aplicarla de dos formas. En primer lugar, con la ilustración de autodescripciones de las organizaciones, muestro como las organizaciones del tercer sector pueden ser analizadas a la luz de los conceptos de autorreferencia, reflexividad y reflexión para evidenciar tanto su cierre operativo como sus acoplamientos estructurales con otros sistemas. En segundo lugar, me refiero a las autodescripciones del “sector” en términos de su autorreflexión y semántica como diferente de otros sectores y muestro que es una unidad heterogénea paradógica. Concluyo defendiendo la utilidad de este marco analítico para comprender contextualmente el significado del tercer sector en sociedades diferenciadas funcionalmente.
摘要
本文中,笔者应用鲁曼系统理论(Luhmannian systems theory)对于第三部门分析的贡献,并从现实角度出发,接受将当前社会诊断为日益复杂化的复合体以及将第三部门描述为混元体的观点。在确定了一些主要的分析元素与概念之后,笔者提出通过两个途径将其应用。第一,通过对组织的自我描述的阐释,笔者展示了如何根据自我指涉、自反性、反省等概念分析第三部门组织,以证明其系统的封闭(operational closure)及其与其他系统的结构耦合(structural couplings)。第二,笔者所指的“部门”的自我描述,是依据其不同于其他部门的自我反省与语义,并显示这是一个矛盾的异质性的统一体(paradoxical heterogeneous unity)。笔者支持该分析框架的有用性,以实现从整体环境上理解第三部门在功能差异化的社会中的意义。
ملخص
في هذه المقالة، أنا طبقت مساهمات نظرية أنظمة (Luhmannian) لتحليل القطاع الثالث، لقبول، من حيث واقعية، تشخيص المجتمعات الحالية التي تزداد تعقيدا˝ ووصف القطاع الثالث كالهجين. بعد تحديد بعض العناصر والمفاهيم التحليلية الرئيسية، أقترح تطبيقه بطريقتين. الأولى، مع التوضيح للأوصاف الذاتية للمنظمات، أوضح كيف يمكن تحليل منظمات القطاع الثالث في ضوء المفاهيم المرجعية الذاتية، وإنعكاس الفعل المنعكس إلى أدلة كل من التشغيل المغلق وهيكلية وصلات مع النظم الأخرى. ثانيا˝، أود أن أشير إلى الوصف الذاتي “للقطاع” سواء من حيث التأمل الذاتي ودلالات مختلفة عن القطاعات الأخرى وتبين أنه وحدة متجانسة متناقضة. وأختتم بالقول لفائدة هذا الإطار التحليلي لفهم سياق معنى القطاع الثالث في المجتمعات المتباينة وظيفيا˝.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
On the shift to the use of the term civil society see Van Til and Ross (2001).
“For ‘irritation’ we should understand that an autopoietic system perceives its own screen disturbances, ambiguities, deceptions, deviations and inconsistencies in such a way that it can continue its operations without losing its autopoiesis” (Luhmann 1998, p. 241).
Systems programs and organizations establish these boundaries when operationalizing the codes (those paying and those not paying, healthy and ill).
Luhmann (1995) distinguishes function from performance, with the latter implying the system observation of other systems.
For instance, the shift from the citizen to the client implies a shift from the political to the economic system observations.
This and the following quotations are drawn from interviews I have conducted with TSOs managers in England in 2008.
References
Andersen, N. Å. (2008). Partnerships: Machines of possibility. Bristol: Policy Press.
Andersen, N. Å., & Born, A. W. (2007). Heterophony and the postponed organisation. Organising autopoietic systems. Tamara Journal, 6(2), 176–186.
Baecker, D. (1999). Introduction. In D. Baecker (Ed.), Problems of form. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brandsen, T., van de Donk, W., & Putters, K. (2005). Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9), 749–765.
Bromley, P., et al. (2012). Decoupling revisited: Common pressures, divergent strategies in the U.S. nonprofit sector. M@n@gement, 15(5), 469–501.
Castellani, B., & Hafferty, F. W. (2009). Sociology and complexity science: A new field of inquiry. Berlin: Springer.
Corry, O. (2010). Defining and theorizing the third sector. In R. Taylor (Ed.), Third sector research. London: Springer/ISTR.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Anheier, H. K. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 137–159.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Donati, P. (1996). Sociologia del Terzo Settore. Rome: NIS.
Dunsire, A. (1996). Tipping the balance: Autopoiesis and governance. Administration Society, 28(3), 299–334.
Elson, P. (2011). High ideals and noble intentions: Voluntary sector–government relations in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Enjolras, B. (2004). Formes Institutionnelles, Rationalité Axiologique et Conventions. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75(4), 595–617.
Evers, A. (2008). Hybrid organisations. Background, concepts, challenges. In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The third sector in Europe: Prospects and challenges. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ferreira, S. (2012). Observando a indecidibilidade da participação do terceiro setor na governação em rede. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 97, 107–132.
Gidron, B., & Bar, M. (Eds.). (2009). Policy initiatives towards the third sector in international perspective. London: Springer.
Hasse, R. (2005). Luhmann’s systems theory and the new institutionalism. In K. H. Becker & D. Seidl (Eds.), Niklas Luhmann and organization studies. Malmö: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
Hasse, R., & Krücken, G. (2008). Systems theory, societal contexts, and organizational heterogeneity. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hutter, M., & Teubner, G. (1993). The parasitic role of hybrids. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 149, 706–715.
Knudsen, M. (2007). Structural couplings between organizations and function systems: Looking at standards in health care. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 14(2–3), 111–131.
La Cour, A., & Højlund, H. (2011). The emergence of a third-order system in the Danish welfare sector. In R. Hull, J. Gibbon, O. Branzei, & H. Haugh (Eds.), The third sector. Dialogues in Critical Management Studies. Bingley: Emerald.
La Cour, A., & Højlund, H. (2013). Organizations and semantics: Systems theory meets institutionalism. In A. la Cour & A. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos (Eds.), Luhmann observed: Radical theoretical encounters. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Lewis, J. (1999). Reviewing the relationship between the voluntary sector and the state in Britain in the 1990s. Voluntas, 10(3), 255–270.
Luhmann, N. (1982). The differentiation of society. New York: Columbia University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1987). The evolutionary differentiation between society and interaction. In J. C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Münch, & N. J. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Luhmann, N. (1990a). Essays on self-reference. New York: Columbia University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1990b). Political theory in the welfare state. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1998). Complejidad y Modernidad: De la Unidad a la Diferencia. Madrid: Trotta.
Luhmann, N. (1999). The paradox of form. In D. Baecker (Ed.), Problems of form. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (2004). Law as a social system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (2012). Theory of society (Vol. 1). Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (2013). Theory of society (Vol. 2). Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Medd, W., Marvin, S., & Bowd, R. (2005). Researching inbetweeness: Understanding the Transformative role of intermediaries. Manchester: Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures.
Neumayr, M., Meyer, M., & Schneider, U. (2010). Identifying the functions of civil society organizations on organizational level. In T. Brandsen, P. Dekker, & A. Evers (Eds.), Civicness in the governance and delivery of social services. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Nobles, R., & Schiff, D. (2004). Introduction. In N. Luhmann (Ed.), Law as a social system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sager, R. (2010). Theories of nonprofit sector, sociological. In H. K. Anheier & S. Toepler (Eds.), International encyclopedia of civil society. New York: Springer.
Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, S. W., & Associates. (2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (Vol. 2). Bloomfield: Kumarian.
Seidl, D. (2005). The basic concepts of Luhman’s theory of social systems. In K. H. Becker & D. Seidl (Eds.), Niklas Luhmann and organization studies. Malmö: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
Smith, S. R., & Lipsky, M. (1998). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spencer-Brown, G. (1994). Laws of form (4th ed.). Portland: Cognizer.
Teubner, G. (1986). After legal instrumentalism? Strategic models of post-regulatory law. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Dilemmas of law in the welfare state. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Teubner, G. (1991). Autopoiesis and steering: How politics profit from the normative surplus of capital. In R. J. In’t Veld, L. Schaap, C. J. A. M. Termeer, & M. J. W. van Twist (Eds.), Autopoiesis and configuration theory: New approaches to societal steering. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Teubner, G. (2009). And if I by Beelzebub cast out Devils. An essay on the Diabolics of Network Failure. German Law Journal, 10, 395–416.
Valentinov, V. (2011). The meaning of nonprofit organization: Insights from classical institutionalism. Journal of Economic Issues, 45(4), 901–916.
Van Til, J. (1988). Mapping the third sector: Voluntarism in a changing social economy. New York: Foundation Center.
Van Til, J., & Ross, S. W. (2001). Looking backward: Twentieth-century themes in charity, voluntarism, and the third sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(1), 112–129.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ferreira, S. Sociological Observations of the Third Sector Through Systems Theory: An Analytical Proposal. Voluntas 25, 1671–1693 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9469-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9469-7