Section 1.1
In this chapter we will define the epistemological ground for our thesis. In doing so we will define three
central terms for the thesis and their relationship to one another: meaning, learning and teaching. First we
will show the dilemma that surround our main definitions and then use system theoretical communication
theory, as inspired by Niklas Luhmann, to show how this theory can be used to bridge this very dilemma and
at the end come to working definitions of our three terms and their interrelation.
Section 1.2
Since the time of the Enlightenment, teaching has had as its main objective the creation of free individuals.
However, within this objective lies a dilemma: is teaching to be seen as a causal phenomenon, however
complex, which result in ‘well-taught’, free individual or is teaching to be understood as a process of learning
centred on students existing knowledge (Qvortrup 2001; p 127)? During the 20 th century the debate has split
into two schools of opposing thought: Behaviourism and Cognitive Theory. In Behaviourism, internal mental
processes are believed to be out of the reach of science and instead individuals’ behaviours become the
object of study – how does a student become a freethinking citizen or how does an individual learn complex
mathematical operations? To answer these questions, Behaviourism looks at repetitive patterns in the
individuals surroundings, which result in these behaviours. On the other hand, Cognitive Theory sees
learning as occurring in the organization of individuals’ internal cognitive processes - into so-called
‘schematas’. The Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget developed this theory within a functional paradigm, which
among others is where Luhmann finds the roots for his system theory. According to Piaget, learning is seen
to occur in the interaction between an individual and his external environment. An individual constructs his
own picture of reality through a reciprocal action between active external actions and internal reflections,
where the individuals own as well as other’s actions are related to the individuals already existing picture of
reality. There is no objective reality, or rather; it is not the interest of study but rather an individual’s
perception of it as it is related to his own mental schema. The individual is himself responsible for the
creation of knowledge.
The problem according to Qvortrup is not in the choice of causality versus freedom or teaching versus
learning. The problem should not be posed as an either-or question but should try to answer both. According
to Luhmann, leaning can never be causal phenomenon as it always occur within and only by the individual.
Teaching, however, should be seen as a form of communication that can be used to narrow in meaning
potentials within a student/teacher relationship.
The system theoretical approach to communication is therefore a break with the traditional transfermetaphor
of communication (Luhmann; 180 Qvortrup 2000; p 143-150) that has dominated communication theory
since the 1940s. The term transfermetaphor is used because of the assumption that communication is
viewed as a transport of meaning between individuals. Individuals can transport meaning, almost like
sending a letter and the degree to which meaning differentiates from sender to receiver, becomes a question
of locating noise within the communication process. The transportmetaphore sees the origins of meaning as
linked to the sender i.e. the individual who transfers meaning 1. Luhmann points to the obvious fact that
individuals’ consciousness never comes in contact with each. Understanding and meaning only comes about
when what has been communicated, the words, pictures, sounds etc, are picked up and processed; only
after such a process can we talk about communication (Luhmann; p 181).
The transportmetaphore assumes individuals share a common view of the world. The world that I see is the
same as the world that you see, and we can therefore transfer meaning through a common code system e.g.
language, without problems. With such a view on communication, the difference between teaching and
learning fades away. The objectives of teaching becomes the transfer of data, through books, lectures etc,
into the student, where the student will learn by adding this data to his existing knowledge. The problem with
this perspective is that the transfer of data only can be considered learning if results in a change of
behaviour and more data is not the same as changing behaviour (Qvourtrup 2001; p124)
Section 1.3
To understand Luhmann, we must understand the assumptions he uses for the existence of systems. A
central term to Luhmann’s theory as presented in Sociale Systemer, is complexity. Complexity is not to be
seen as something which can or should be reduced to something simple. Complexity is rather where there
are several possibilities for a given situation e.g. several solutions to a given problem. Qvortrup terms our
present society for hypercomplex that is to be understood as in historical social structures (Qvortrup 2000; p
150). In a deocentric society, the world is seen as created by God and its individuals are therefore seen to
share a common world i.e. a world shaped by God. Individuals in an anthropocentrically society, while no
longer believed to be shaped by God, sees these individuals as shaped by a transcendental subject; while
we are all individuals, we are all created with common epistemological categories. Complexity, however,
means that we cannot reduce meaning, understanding or epistemology back to one unit common to us all.
Luhmann, inspired by Edmund Husserl, sees meaning as the difference between actual and potential which
means that at any given time, one possibility (meaning) is in focus as opposed to what is not, but could have
been (Tække). However, such a selection of possibilities can only be made by a subject i.e. the world can
only be given meaning from a subject within the world and meaning therefore becomes self-referential. While
the objective world is out there, it is beyond our reach and only our individual interpretations of it become
interesting.
Luhmann departs with the view of the social as product of intersubjectivity, that the social is constituted
through a historical, intersubjective process, and instead sees the social as communication.
The hight of the transfer metaphore can be found in reception analysis where the focus of analysis is with the reciver’s
coding of the message where meaning is seen as occuring in the interaction between text and individual (for a more
detalied discussion see Qvortrup 2000; p146)
1
Individual consciousness, or what Luhamnn calls mental systems, are not part of, but enviorment to social
systems2. Therefore social systems i.e. communication, cannot be a product of the intersubjective, but must
be understood by itself. Social systems function as a way to communicate between the complexity of the
world and the individual’s ability to grasp this complexity. This is done through an autopetic process that is
closed, recursive, self-referential and autonomous. This mean that you cannot understand living systems
from their purpose, function or structure, but from the organistionalform with which they maintain themselves.
In order to produce and define itself in relation to its environment, a system must make a distinction between
itself and its environment i.e. reduce complexity. This is an internal distinction that belongs to the system
itself and is the essence of autopoesis (Andersen; 372). In this way autopesis reduces complexity of its
environment, but increases its own complexity at the same time as it excludes other possibilities (Qvortrup
2000; p160). In this way, autopesis characterizes the manner in which a mental system constructs meaning,
and thereby reduces complexity, by focusing on one of several possibilities through a closed and internal
process. For Luhmann systems are always closed and self-referential and exist in a system/environment
relationship. This relationship is, however, never dialectic. A system always functions as environments for
other systems through internal process – by drawing a distinction between itself and its environment. A
mental system can therefore be seen as an individual that is characterized NEDD DEF OF MENTAL AND
SOCIAL SYSTEMS.
According to Luhmann, systems are always closed – a system cannot transfer meaning into another system.
Luhmann identifies this problem with doubelcontengency3 that means that both people are contingent, or
uncertain, of the other in a communication process. A person can only observe what the others
communicative selections and from this try to construct an understanding and the other can only do the
same (Qvortrup 2000; p 164). Communication must assume self-referentiality for the involved parties which
means that all communication a possible divergence between utterance and understanding (Luhmann 192).
If the involved where not self-referential, there could be simple transfer of meaning, as this is not the case,
communication always means that you must except the fact that you are contingent to others as they are to
you. This means that we can only observe each others communicative selections and from these try to
understand and create meaning while we can never be certain that what we understand is the same as what
was intended. The function of communication therefore becomes a reduction of complexity and while this
reduction is contingent to the other, communication will primarily be concerned with narrowing in the space
of possibilities i.e. meaning in a self-referential process where a communication act is used to se how far a
previous communication act has been understood correctly (Qvourtrup 2000; p 169).
Section 1.4
As we have mentioned earlier, learning must be seen as an individual process that comes about through a
self-referential process i.e. a process within a closed system. While such a process of learning my come
about through internal dynamics alone, it is often started by an external disturbance, or what Luhmann calls
2
3
Luhmann works with three systems > only two interesting becsuse they produce meaning
Parson
pertubation4. Through communication, an individual will have to understand and chose a meaning in order to
reduce complexity and it is this process that can result in learning. Strukturel tilkobling is the term
Luhmann uses to describe the relationship that something from the systems environment disturbs it and
which the system must process based on its own preconditions (Qvortrup 2001; p 274).
Strukturel tilkobling describes the case where to systems (e.g. teacher and student) adjust their structures
depending on the other. Both systems accept the determination of doubelcontingency whereby a system
gradually though experience can begin to predict each other, reducing complexity by making some
possibilities more probable than others. Systems do not have access to each other but an expectation or
observation is necessary for communication to come about.
Luhmann defines communication as a three-part selection process of information, utterance and
understanding (Luhmann 181) performed by individually closed systems. An addresser selects some
information and delivers it in the from of an utterance where the addressee must distinguish between this two
selections and itself select an understanding. The first two selections therefore lies with the addresser who
first selects an information e.g. “How are you doing?” and then an utterance e.g. saying it verbally as
opposed to nodding his head. The utterance is therefore form the information is delivered in. The third and
last selection, the selection of understanding lies with the addressee who must differentiated between
information and utterance. If someone asks ‘How are you doing?’ (information) while looking at me waiting
(utterance), the difference between the two selections would be an encouragement for me to answer back
with a reply describing how I am doing. This last selection is therefore based on my own selection criteria. Its
is not a transfer of meaning as what is said and uttered is based on the selection criteria of the addresser
and the selection of understanding is based on another set of selection criteria, those of the addressee –
here it is important that communication is based on two sets of selection criteria (Qvortrup 2000; p 165). Only
when this last selection has come about has communication occurred.
However, the third selection of understanding does not mean that what is understood is correct in terms of
the addresser’s motivation or objectiveness of the information. For communication to come about, the
addressee has to understand the difference between information (‘How are you doing?’) and the utterance
(reply with an answer). How far the understanding is accepted or rejected by the addressee and how far this
selected for further rounds of communication lies beyond the definition of communication as a three-part
selection process. Luhmann argues that ones understanding has been selected, it is in the nature of
communication to create a social situation where individuals can be expected to act on this understanding
(Luhmann 189). To use Luhmann’s own example of tobacco; ones you have been told that tobacco is
hazardous to your health, you cannot ignore this – you can either choose to accept it or reject it. How far and
to what extend you choose to accept you understanding must be based on internal, self-referential
processes – what Luhmann calls the fourth selection of communication. By making an understanding and
4
Those biologists
ones degree of acceptance or rejection a selection for a further round of communication, thereby creating a
process of several three part selection processes, communication can be used to narrow and coordinate
understandings between closed, mental systems in order to clarify and narrow in meaning as one of several
possibilities (Qvortrup 2001; p 131).
Within a teaching environment we must accept that there can be no transfer of meaning, meaning is
constructed by the closed, mental system through a self-referential process. A teacher can for example
observe a student’s communicative selections and vice versa and to the extend that these selections are
used as starting points for further acts of communication, a teacher will have the possibility to see and
correct a student’s understanding and meaning of a subject. It is important to notice that understanding,
which is not the same as having created the ‘right’ meaning, is a necessary selection before it can be
accepted, rejected and meaning created. One of the ambitions of a teacher must therefore be to encourage
student to make this third selection and to make it available for others in terms of further communication acts.
Section 1.5
In systemic learning, assimilation and accommodation describes the internal process that result in
understanding and meaning. These terms originate from Piaget psychological learning theory where learning
is seen as the result of cognitive reflection which itself builds on cognitive schemas. You write som more
here Stan
Something about feedback…
Luhmann’s theory of communication can therefore be used to answer the question set forth at the begging of
this chapter regarding the dilemma of causality vs. freedom in teaching. The point is that teaching and
learning is not a choice they are both necessary and here it is again important to stress that communication
is not a transfer of meaning. Teaching is a social activity based on communication where as an ongoing
process which has as an objective a structured focus on certain meanings. Learning occurs whit in metal
systems based on internal, mental process. Learning and teaching are therefore environments to each other.
We can therefore never make a choice between learning and teaching both are necessary and both
contribute to the overall objective. Learning and teaching occurs in each of their own systems; learning in a
mental system and teaching in a social system based on communication. Teaching can irritate or perbutate a
mental system, but only the mental system itself can learn. We will therefore define learning as the metal
process by which an individual, mental system, usually though a combination of external disturbances and
internal reflections, constructs knowledge in such a way as to modify or reconstruct existing mental
structures (Qvortrup 2001; p131, p274).