<論文>ルーマンの政治理論は何を目指したのか (上) S. ランゲ『ニクラス・ルーマンの政治理論』の批判的検討

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to gauge the objectives and scope of Niklas Luhmann's theory of political systems through a critical review of a 2003 book by Stefan Lange entitled Niklas Luhmanns Theorie der Politik: Eine Abklärung der Staatsgesellschaft (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag). In his book Lange attempts to compare Luhmann's arguments with other western arguments on politics more comprehensively than before and to grasp alterations in nuance in his arguments with greater detail through a diachronic periodization of Luhmann's political theory into three phases: 1960-70(Phase I), to 1980( Phase II), and to 1990-(Phase III). His theses can be divided into two assumptions. First, through his theory of functional differentiation and skepticism of "political control" Luhmann attempted to criticize and work against traditional ideas of "political society" and "state society (Staatsgesellschaft)" assuming that politics, especially state politics, as the center or top of society works to control other societal areas. Second, this adversarial tendency which appears especially in his critical diagnosis of the welfare state is derived not only from his scientific empirical insights of modern society, but also from his normative preference for the protection of a functionally differentiated society from the threat of political imperialism and its tendency of dedifferentiation. Lange calls it "normativism of differentiation". The first thesis seems to be less arguable, but the second one must be examined more critically. In Part 1 of this article his first thesis will be reviewed and in some points critically examined. In a diachronic analysis of Luhmann's political theory, Lange pointed out that his position shifted from an oscillation between control skepticism and optimistic reformism to radical skepticism that neglect possibility to control other systems in the wake of his "autopoietic turn" at the beginning of 1980s. This is a discontinuity between phases I and II. Luhmann's terminology changed but it can be pointed out that his position did not substantially change, and there was more continuity.