Foundations of Science

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 733–747 | Cite as

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

  • Steven E. WallisEmail author
  • Vladislav Valentinov


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.


Sustainability Luhmann Evolution Theory Conceptual system Systems theory 


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Elsner, W., Heinrich, T., & Schwardt, H. (2014). The microeconomics of complex economies: Evolutionary, institutional, neoclassical, and complexity perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Galbraith, J. K. (1967). The new industrial state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herrmann-Pillath, C. (2013). Foundations of economic evolution. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hodgson, G. M. (1991). After Marx and Sraffa: Essays in political economy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson-Laird, P. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 71–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lapavitsas, C., & White, H. C. (2002). Markets from networks: Socioeconomic models of production. Enterprise & Society, 3(3), 547–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Luhmann, N. (1990). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  19. Magala, S. (2009). The management of meaning in organisations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McSweeney, B. (2009). Incoherent culture. European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management, 1(1), 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meehl, P. E. (1992). Cliometric metatheory: The actuarial approach to empirical, history-based philosophy of science. Psychological Reports, 71(2), 339–467.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MK. (2007). Luhmann’s Zettelkasten. Retrieved from
  25. Newton, J. L., & Freyfogle, E. T. (2005). Sustainability: A dissent. Conservation Biology, 19(1), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oberschall, A. (2000). Oberschall reviews “Theory and Progress in Social Science” by James B. Rule. Social Forces, 78(3), 1188–1191.Google Scholar
  27. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pieters, K. P. (2010). Into complexity: A pattern-oriented approach to stakeholder communications. (Ph.D. in Complexity Studies), University for Humanistics, Utrecht, NL.Google Scholar
  29. Ploeger, A. (2010). Evolutionary psychology as a metatheory for the social sciences. Integral Review, 6(3), 164–174.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Roth, S., & Schütz, A. (2015). Ten systems: Toward a canon of function systems. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 22(4), 11–31.Google Scholar
  33. Seligman, J., Liu, F., & van Benthem, J. (2011). Models of reasoning in ancient China. Studies in Logic, 4(3), 57–81.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Stichweh, R. (2003). The multiple publics of science: Inclusion and popularization. Soziale Systeme, 9(2), 210–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swedberg, R. (2003). Principles of economic sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Tool, M. R. (1981). The compulsive shift to institutional analysis. Journal of Economic Issues, 15(3), 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Valentinov, V. (2014a). The complexity-sustainability trade-off in Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(1), 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Valentinov, V. (2014b). K. William Kapp’s theory of social costs: A Luhmannian interpretation. Ecological Economics, 97, 28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Valentinov, V. (2015a). From equilibrium to autopoiesis: A Luhmannian reading of Veblenian evolutionary economics. Economic Systems, 39, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Valentinov, V. (2015b). The rawlsian critique of utilitarianism: A Luhmannian interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics (online first).Google Scholar
  45. Valentinov, V. (2015c). Value devolution in social enterprises institutional economics and systems theory perspectives. Administration and Society, 47(9), 1126–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Valentinov, V., & Chatalova, L. (2014a). Institutional economics and social dilemmas: A systems theory perspective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(1), 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Valentinov, V., & Chatalova, L. (2014b). Transaction costs, social costs and open systems: Some common threads. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(2), 316–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Valentinov, V., & Chatalova, L. (2016a). Institutional economics and social dilemmas: a systems theory perspective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(1), 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Valentinov, V., & Chatalova, L. (2016b). Institutional economics, social dilemmas, and the complexity-sustainability trade-off. Systems Research and Behavioral Science (online first).Google Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Valentinov, V., & Vaceková, G. (2015). Sustainability of rural nonprofit organizations: Czech Republic and beyond. Sustainability, 7(8), 9890–9906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Valentinov, V., Hielscher, S., & Pies, I. (2013). The meaning of nonprofit advocacy: An ordonomic perspective. The Social Science Journal, 50(3), 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Valentinov, V., Hielscher, S., & Pies, I. (2016). Emergence: A systems theory’s challenge to ethics. Systemic Practice and Action Research (online first).Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Wallis, S. E. (2008a). Emerging order in CAS theory: Mapping some perspectives. Kybernetes, 38(7), 1016–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. Wallis, S. E. (2008c). Validation of theory: Exploring and reframing Popper’s worlds. Integral Review, 4(2), 71–91.Google Scholar
  58. Wallis, S. E. (2009a). The complexity of complexity theory: An innovative analysis. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 11(4), 26–38.Google Scholar
  59. Wallis, S. E. (2009b). Seeking the robust core of organisational learning theory. International Journal of Collaborative Enterprise, 1(2), 180–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wallis, S. E. (2010b). Towards developing effective ethics for effective behavior. Social Responsibility Journal, 6(4), 536–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wallis, S. E. (2010c). Towards the development of more robust policy models. Integral Review, 6(1), 153–160.Google Scholar
  63. Wallis, S. E. (2011a). Avoiding policy failure: A workable approach. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. Wallis, S. E. (2012b). The right tool for the job: Philosophy’s evolving role in advancing management theory. Philosophy of ManagementSpecial Issue (Guest Editors: Stephen Sheard, Mark Dibben, 11(3), 67–99.Google Scholar
  67. 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.Google Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wallis, S. E. (2014b). Existing and emerging methods for integrating theories within and between disciplines. Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 11(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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 presspublished online 8 May 2014. Google Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Wallis, S. E. (2015b). Integrative propositional analysis: A new quantitative method for evaluating theories in psychology. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wallis, S. E. (2015c). The science of conceptual systems: A progress report. Foundations of Science. Available online 17 June 2015 (in press).Google Scholar
  75. 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.Google Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531.Google Scholar
  78. Wood, J. N. (2015). It is time to advance the science of laws. The Science of Laws Journal, 1(1), 1.Google Scholar
  79. Yolles, M., & Fink, G. (2014). The sustainability of sustainability. Business Systems Review, 3(2), 32.Google Scholar
  80. Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fulbright SpecialistHalleGermany
  2. 2.Capella UniversityMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Meaningful Evidence, LLCFalls ChurchUSA
  4. 4.Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition EconomiesHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations