Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]
| Autor | Susanne Holmström |
| Titel | An Intersubjective and a Social Systemic Public Relations Paradigm -
Public relations interpreted from systems theory (Niklas Luhmann) in opposition to the critical tradition (Jürgen Habermas) |
| Ort | University of Roskilde, Denmark |
| Verlag | Internet version |
| Jahr | 1996 |
| Anmerkung | Public Relations dissertation (M. Soc. Sc.). According to the author, this dissertation received the 1st Prize of the European Public Relations Educational Award by CERP (Comité Européènne des Relations Publiques) 1998 |
| URL | http://www.susanne-holmstrom.dk/SH1996UK.pdf |
Literaturverz. |
no |
| Fußnoten | no |
| Fragmente | 5 |
| [1.] Dsi/Fragment 019 02 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2020-10-23 15:28:24 PlagProf:-) | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, Holmström 1996, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 19, Zeilen: 2-22 |
Quelle: Holmström 1996 Seite(n): 53, Zeilen: 2-14, 27ff |
|---|---|
| Originally, system meant something composed of elements. Basically, the concept basically refers to a whole, which is more than the sum of its parts. This is how the concept has been understood for centuries. Modern systems thinking originated in the 1930s with the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy's The General Systems Theory (1976). He replaces the traditional difference between whole and parts with the concepts of system and environment, and focuses as much on relations as on the elements in a system. Instead of emphasizing innate qualities in an ontological tradition, systems thinking suggests that these qualities are only important in interaction. This is a constructivist perspective (Bertalanffy, 1976). We owe to von Bertalanffy the recognition of the concept of organized complexity (as opposed to previously unorganized), and also the distinction between open and closed systems.
Systems theory has spread to most other fields of science, from psychology to astronomy—and to social sciences where the theory is applied primarily to social systems. The systems-theoretic perspective regards social phenomena as the results of interactions between social structures and the functions these structures serve. Hence, systems theory does not put emphasis on the individual; instead it views society from without, from an observer's perspective. The individual, and the values and aims of the individual, play a secondary role in regard to the purpose the individual serves in the larger structure in which the individual is situated. Systems theory claims that the actors' social interactions are determined by the larger social order and that such interactions serve to maintain this order. Bertalanffy, L. von. (1976). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller |
[p. 53]
System originally meant something composed of elements. The concept basically refers to a whole which is more than the sum of its parts. This is how the concept has been understood for centuries. Modern systems thinking originated in the 1930s with the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy's The General Systems Theory. He replaces the traditional difference between whole and parts with the concepts of system and environment, and focuses as much on relations as on the elements in a system. Systems thinking focuses on the interaction between parts, their reciprocal actions and influence. Instead of emphasising innate qualities in an ontological tradition, systems thinking proposes that these qualities are given importance only in interaction. This is a constructivist perspective. We owe to von Bertalanffy the recognition of the concept of organised complexity (as opposed to previously unorganised), and also the distinction between open and closed systems. [...] Systems theory has spread to most other fields of science, from psychology to astronomy - and to social science where the theory is applied primarily to social systems. The systems-theoretic perspective considers social phenomena as the results of interactions between social structures and the functions these structures serve. Therefore, systems theory does not emphasise the individual but views society from without, from an observer's perspective88. The individual, and the values and aims of the individual, play a secondary role in relation to the purpose the individual serves in the larger structure in which the individual is situated. Systems theory asserts that the actors' social interactions are determined by the larger social order, and that such interactions serve to maintain this order. 88 As opposed to the participant's perspective [...] |
The true source is not given. The title of von Bertalanffy's book is incorrectly stated in the source. The author copies this mistake, whereas the reference section gives the correct title. |
|
| [2.] Dsi/Fragment 020 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2020-10-23 15:29:37 PlagProf:-) | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, Holmström 1996, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 20, Zeilen: 1ff (entire page) |
Quelle: Holmström 1996 Seite(n): 51-54, Zeilen: 51:21-30, 36-41; 52:1ff; 53:37-39; 54:1ff |
|---|---|
| In recent decades, the systems theory has developed from its origin as a linear, mono-causative, end-means model into a poly-causative, circular system/environment paradigm. The pioneer of this development in social science is the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1976), who went much further than earlier systems theoreticians and replaced traditional theoretical concepts with a new and comprehensive set of concepts. In his magnum opus, Social Systems, Luhmann translates the biologists' thesis of autopoiesis to sociology, stating that social systems create and recreate themselves through a process of closed communication, which is normatively anchored in the system’s own meaning. Although the system is open to information from the environment, still it creates an image of the environment from the perspective of its own worldview. A social systemic interaction with the environment has a cognitive, not a normative, nature. There is no possibility for a shared intersystemic perspective or shared reason. In fact, according to this theory, every social system by nature resists outside regulation that would weaken its meaning boundaries, impair its inner dynamics, and threaten the existence of the system. Thus for the sake of its own survival, a system engages in self-regulatory behavior (Luhmann, 1985).
The theory of autopoiesis claims that a certain amount of openness is a prerequisite for closure, which in turn is a prerequisite for a certain amount of openness to be possible without risking the system’s existence. The objective is to strengthen the normative boundaries, but also to secure cognitive in interaction with other social systems. The ultimate objective of reflection is, therefore, to generate the social trust, which to an increasing extent is required as a prerequisite for interaction between social [systems as society becomes more complex and differentiated.] Luhmann, N. (1976). Generalized Media and the Problem of Contingency. In J.J. Loubser, R.C. Baum, A. Effrat, and V.M. Lidz (Eds.), Explorations in General Theory in Social Science: Essays in Honor of Talcott Parsons. New York:Free Press, 1976, p. 507-532. Luhmann, N. (1985), Die Autopoiesis des Bewusstsein [sic], in Soziale Welt 36, 1985. |
[p. 51]
LUHMANN'S THESIS OF AUTOPOIESIS STATES THAT SOCIAL SYSTEMS CREATE AND RECREATE THEMSELVES THROUGH A PROCESS OF CLOSED COMMUNICATION WHICH IS NORMATIVELY ANCHORED IN THE SYSTEM'S OWN MEANING. THE SYSTEM IS OPEN TO INFORMATION FROM THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT CREATES AN IMAGE OF THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ITS OWN WORLDVIEW. A SOCIAL-SYSTEMIC INTERACTION WITH THE ENVIRONMENT HAS A COGNITIVE, NOT A NORMATIVE NATURE. THE POSSIBILITY DOES NOT EXIST FOR A SHARED INTERSYSTEMIC PERSPECTIVE OR SHARED REASON. EVERY SOCIAL SYSTEM BY NATURE RESISTS OUTSIDE REGULATION WHICH WOULD WEAKEN ITS MEANING BOUNDARIES, IMPAIR ITS INNER DYNAMICS AND THREATEN THE EXISTENCE OF THE SYSTEM. [...] A SYSTEM ENGAGES IN SELF-REGULATORY BEHAVIOUR FOR THE SAKE OF ITS OWN SURVIVAL. IT IS MY THESIS THAT THE MEDIUM OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IS TO AN INCREASING EXTENT CO-REFLECTED BECAUSE IT IS REQUIRED AS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE AUTONOMY OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS. AS THE THEORY OF AUTOPOIESIS STATES: A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF OPENNESS IS A PREREQUISITE FOR CLOSURE, WHICH IN TURN IS A PREREQUISITE FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF [p. 52] OPENNESS TO BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT RISKING THE SYSTEM'S EXISTENCE. THE OBJECTIVE IS TO STRENGTHEN THE NORMATIVE BOUNDARIES - BUT ALSO TO SECURE COGNITIVE INTERACTION WITH OTHER SOCIAL SYSTEMS. THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE OF REFLECTION IS THEREFORE TO GENERATE THE SOCIAL TRUST WHICH TO AN INCREASING EXTENT IS REQUIRED AS A PREREQUISITE FOR INTERACTION BETWEEN SOCIAL SYSTEMS, THE MORE COMPLEX AND DIFFERENTIATED SOCIETY BECOMES. [p. 53] From its origin as a linear mono-causative end-means model, systems theory has in recent decades developed into a poly-causative, circular system/environment paradigm. Pioneering this development in social science is the [p. 54] German sociologist, Niklas Luhmann. Luhmann goes much further than earlier systems theoreticians and replaces traditional theoretical concepts with a new and comprehensive set of concepts. [...] In his magnum opus published in 1984, Social Systems, Luhmann translates the biologists' thesis of autopoiesis to sociology. |
The source is not given. The reference section also includes an entry for "Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme, Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main (German.) English translation: Social Systems, Stanford University Press, California, 1995." |
|
| [3.] Dsi/Fragment 021 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2022-12-22 21:30:56 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, Holmström 1996, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 21, Zeilen: 1-11 |
Quelle: Holmström 1996 Seite(n): 52, Zeilen: 3 ff. |
|---|---|
| [The ultimate objective of reflection is, therefore, to generate the social trust, which to an increasing extent is required as a prerequisite for interaction between social] systems as society becomes more complex and differentiated. Otherwise, uncertainty about the behavior of the environment would block interaction (Luhmann, 1985).
In this social-systemic paradigm one can identify a role for public relations. Through the public communications system—a function system coordinated by the medium of social responsibility—public relations practice encodes and decodes images to be utilized in the shared reflection in social systems. The objective is to strengthen public trust between systems. All interactions between social systems are cognitive and anchored in the logic of the specific social system. This applies to public relations practice. And because, according to Luhmann (1984), communication is not a result of human action but a product of social systems, in this perspective the public relations practitioner has no actual influence on the coordination of social actions. Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme, Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main (German.) English translation: Social Systems, Stanford University Press, California, 1995. Luhmann, N. (1985), [sic] Die Autopoiesis des Bewusstsein, in Soziale Welt 36, 1985. |
THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE OF REFLECTION IS THEREFORE TO GENERATE THE SOCIAL TRUST WHICH TO AN INCREASING EXTENT IS REQUIRED AS A PREREQUISITE FOR INTERACTION BETWEEN SOCIAL SYSTEMS, THE MORE COMPLEX AND DIFFERENTIATED SOCIETY BECOMES. OTHERWISE, UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD BLOCK INTERACTION.
IN THIS SOCIAL-SYSTEMIC PARADIGM WE CAN IDENTIFY A ROLE FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS. VIA THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (A FUNCTION SYSTEM COORDINATED BY THE MEDIUM OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY) PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTICE ENCODES AND DECODES IMAGES TO BE USED IN THE RECIPROCAL REFLECTION IN SOCIAL SYSTEMS. THE OBJECTIVE IS TO STRENGTHEN PUBLIC TRUST BETWEEN SYSTEMS. ALL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SOCIAL SYSTEMS ARE COGNITIVE AND ANCHORED IN THE LOGIC OF THE SPECIFIC SOCIAL SYSTEM. THIS APPLIES ALSO TO PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTICE. AND BECAUSE COMMUNICATION, ACCORDING TO LUHMANN, IS NOT A RESULT OF HUMAN ACTION BUT A PRODUCT OF SOCIAL SYSTEMS, IN THIS PERSPECTIVE THE PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONER IS WITHOUT ACTUAL INFLUENCE ON THE COORDINATION OF SOCIAL ACTIONS. |
The true source is not given. |
|
| [4.] Dsi/Fragment 302 21 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2020-10-12 21:02:56 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, Holmström 1996, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 302, Zeilen: 21-23 |
Quelle: Holmström 1996 Seite(n): 1, Zeilen: 3-8 |
|---|---|
| Lastly, until recently, the phenomenon of public relations, understood both as a specific social relation and as a specific social activity, has been increasingly institutionalized as a professional practice and thus, has been examined and described [mainly within a practice-oriented framework.] | The ambition in writing this dissertation is to outline possible interpretations of the phenomenon of public relations, understood both as a specific social relation and as a specific social activity which is being increasingly institutionalised as a professional practice.
Until recently, the phenomenon has been examined and described mainly within a practice-oriented framework. |
The source is not given. Continues on the next page. |
|
| [5.] Dsi/Fragment 303 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2020-10-23 15:30:39 PlagProf:-) | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, Holmström 1996, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 303, Zeilen: 1-17, 20-23 |
Quelle: Holmström 1996 Seite(n): 1, 2, 3, Zeilen: 1:13-15; 2: 2-8; 3:6-16 |
|---|---|
| In Indonesia, public relations is currently developing from a pre-theoretical activity into a scientifically-based profession. Admittedly, it has been almost sixty years since the first book on public relations was published (Edward L.Bernays: Public Relations, 1952), and there have been many since, often containing theories on how public relations should be practiced. But these theories contain mainly normative assumptions based on isolated knowledge of practice and know-how, and lack the reflection of epistemological theory. Such theories are not sufficient to give a profession a scientific basis. However, if fundamental scientific research were placed into public relations in the theoretical framework of business economics, the PR phenomenon might be seen mainly in relation to an overall economic goal, and the context would be weakened. If public relations research was based solely on communications science, it would not provide a scientific environment where it would be possible to examine the actual social function of the phenomenon. The truth is, public relations as a professional practice arose in pluralistic, democratic societies and should be examined in connection with developments in structures and processes in society. It is therefore necessary to apply theories of sociology to describe, analyze, interpret and discuss the phenomenon and to place its manifoldness in a meaningful whole. [...] The researcher inquires [sic] the need for more scientific research into public relations that apply theoretical frameworks such as Jürgen Habermas’ theories on Bourgeois society and communicative action and Niklas Luhmann’s development of systems theory including the Autopoiesis thesis. | [p. 1]
TO THAT END, JÜRGEN HABERMAS' THEORIES ON BOURGEOIS SOCIETY AND COMMUNICATIVE ACTION HAVE BEEN CHOSEN, AS HAS NIKLAS LUHMANN'S DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMS THEORY INCLUDING THE AUTOPOIESIS THESIS. [p. 2] Public relations1 is currently developing from a pre-theoretical activity into a scientifically based profession. Admittedly, it is more than forty years since the first book on public relations was published2, and there have been many since, often containing theories on how public relations should be practised. But these contain mainly normative assumptions based on isolated knowledge of practice and know-how, and lack the reflection of epistemological theory. Such theories are not sufficient to give a profession a scientific basis. [p. 3] If we placed fundamental scientific research into public relations in the theoretical framework of business economics there would be a risk of the phenomenon being seen mainly in relation to an overall economic goal, and the context would be weakened3. If public relations research was based solely on communications science, it would not provide a scientific environment where it would be possible to examine the actual social function of the phenomenon. Public relations as a professional practice arose in pluralistic, democratic societies in the course of the present century and should be examined in connection with developments in structures and processes in society. It is therefore necessary to apply theories of sociology to describe, analyse, interpret and discuss the phenomenon and to place its manifoldness in a meaningful whole. 1 I use the term "public relations" initially, [...] 2 Edward L. Bernays: Public Relations, 1952. [...] 3 At business schools, [...] |
The source is not given. |
|