Technological Forecasting & Social Change 146 (2019) 31–40

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

The fractal geometry of Luhmann's sociological theory or debugging systems T

theory
José Javier Blanco Rivero
CONICET/Centro de Historia Intelectual, National University of Quilmes, Roque Sáenz Peña 352, Bernal, Argentina

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Social theory faces new challenges as society changes. The question is not only if social theory can keep up with
Theory-debugging –and account for– social transformations, but also if it can avail of social changes (in this case, the current
Communication media dominance of digital media) in order to reinvent itself. The most attracting features of modern digital resources,
Strange attractors such as Big Data, lies on their tools of analysis. But it just might be that the most promising contribution to social
D dimension
theory resides in the epistemological foundations backing these developments and the conceptual tools they can
Medial couplings
Mediality
offer to rephrase epistemological issues. In this sense, the function debuggers play with regard to their target
programs could shed new light not only on the process of knowledge formation, but also on the process of
theory-improvement/ updating. The present contribution intends to show how theory-debugging might work, by
taking the sociology of Niklas Luhmann as a target program to be debugged by fractal geometry with the goal of
delivering an enhanced version of system theory. It concludes by arguing for the plausibility of describing
communication as a natural fractal susceptible of being modelled by some kind of fractal set, and for how
communication media are responsible for the fractal structure of communication along sociocultural evolution.

1. Introduction (Anderson, 2008) Can algorithms substitute humans in the process of

abduction by suggesting the researcher an array of emergent patterns
Once algorithms were an abstract and weird idea developed by out of his data base? Are the new statistical tools of Data Science re-
philosophers of mathematics and few people knew about them and inforcing and radicalizing empiricism? Or the mere availability of
what the word actually meant; nowadays it is hard to think of someone bigger in volume, real-time, diverse, exhaustive, fine-grained, relational
who have not heard the word at least once, not to mention the fact that, and flexible data sets (Kitchin, 2014, p. 1–2) help little to support
unlike in the past, algorithms are doing things for us all the time. A data certain philosophy of science, but simply provide science with more
revolution has shaken the world changing in unexpected ways how we powerful analytical tools to further research instead? And what is the
interact with other human beings and with this new ecology of artificial place of the social sciences in this scenario? Are we at the brink of a
forms of intelligence (an interface some call Global Brain (Heylighen digital transformation of social sciences and humanities? (Berry, 2011;
and Lenartowicz, 2017)), how we do business, how we teach and how Cohen, 2008; Lazer et al., 2009) What shall be the role of social theory
we learn, how we read the news, how we search for information, in in this context? How could social theory avail of the advantages that
short, everything we know, the things we do (Mayer-Schonberger and these new tools have to offer?
Cukier, 2013) and even the pace of life (Wajcman, 2008). And science, Certainly, developments in Big Data by no means would lead to the
of course, is not the exception. end of theory (Kitchin, 2014, p. 5) for decades of theoretic-philoso-
Doing science in an information society brings many questions to phical debate and experimental research have enabled its very emer-
the fore. To what extent are Big Data, Data Science, AI, Deep Learning, gence and, furthermore, asking the right questions to data requires
among others, changing the way science constructs knowledge, (i.e. to theoretically-informed guesses. In this sense, the most important con-
put forward and test hypothesis, construct theories and deal with the tribution computer science could make to social theory consists in the
problem of the nature of knowledge and the foundation of knowledge- heuristic philosophy backing AI, Deep Learning and/or Neural Net-
claiming statements, create concepts and objects of knowledge, and so works (Pearl, 1984). In other words, a promising path towards thinking
on)? (Berthon et al., 2000; Boyd and Crawford, 2012; Kitchin, 2014; of a digital transformation of social theory would imply taking an
Lash, 2002) Can algorithms make the scientific method obsolete? epistemological turn by rethinking how problems are posed and how to

E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.020
Received 12 October 2018; Received in revised form 10 February 2019; Accepted 14 May 2019
0040-1625/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J.J. Blanco Rivero Technological Forecasting & Social Change 146 (2019) 31–40

think of problem-solving. other than itself e.g. the subject, the Being, faculties of the soul or the
Social scientists are usually unconfident about problem-solving style mind, human consciousness, observation of regularities in the real
of thinking, considering the ability to ask questions more important (empirical) world, and so on. Self-referential strategies ground knowl-
than that of giving answers. The reason is that they tend to think of edge on itself. Philosophy has discovered some kind of self-reference by
answers as a termination, as putting an end to a debate. Questions are supposing that the locus of human knowledge is consciousness (e.g. the
fundamental, for sure, because the problems questions raise prompts philosophical tradition of knowledge of the self) (Taylor, 1992), but this
scientific discoveries. But solving a problem actually means to give it a is not a proper self-referential foundation of social knowledge. Con-
tractable form, to be able to handle it without excessive or inefficient versely, an example of the latter is given by the same Luhmann. The
effort, and to rely on its results in order to galvanize further research. As German sociologist considers that a theory of society ought to reflect on
a consequence of this misunderstanding on problem-solving, social its very theoretical status, because social theory only becomes possible
scientists tend to devote too much effort in intractable or truly tractable as a reflexive theory (Esposito, 1996; Luhmann 1975, p. 193; 2002).
but ill-defined problems. This statement has far-reaching consequences. It means that the
In addition, computer science could teach social sciences how to (re) theoretic design of Luhmann is, from an ‘epistemological’ point of view,
think of theory-design. If theories are observed as programs (i.e. chains neither empiricist nor transcendental or phenomenological.2 It is a self-
of binary operators capable to codify and bring about information) referential theory design –usually called constructivist. Therefore, its
executing certain kind of tasks, such as providing answers to the validity and foundations lie on the very same circularity of the theory.
questions posed or giving explanations to problems introduced, it is There is no object to refer to; there is no synthetic a priori guaranteeing
possible to evaluate their performance by examining their structure, the foundations of all human knowledge; there is no subject or con-
code and even running some sort of ‘theory-debugger’ in order to check sciousness on whose experiences all knowledge depends. Available are
for errors (namely, inner contradictions, insufficiencies, logical in- only the ephemeral operations of an operationally closed autopoietic
coherence, and so on) (Roth, 2017). system, whereby closure brings about cognitive opening (being equally
This thread can be meaningfully followed by recurring to the de- valid for living organisms, humans, AI algorithms, and social systems as
scription of the science system provided by the sociology of Niklas well). Foundation is then self-foundation, and every inquiry into the
Luhmann. As Roth (2017) argued, the sociology of Luhmann can indeed ground of a theory is enabled by the recursiveness of communication
be read as a digital theoretical design –at least as long as it is observed and the power of dissolution and recombination of the elements of the
under the concepts and formulae of the Laws of Form of G. Spencer system of science.
Brown (1972). Luhmann (1989, pp. 76-83) describes science as a However, dealing with self-referential conceptual schemes (or de-
functionally differentiated and operationally closed system reproducing scriptions) can easily derive in trivial tautology if a mechanism is not
communication autopoietically by means of a binary code (true/ not devised in order to produce determination or de-tautologize the re-
true). The operation of the code engenders oscillatory and memory spective theory (Luhmann, 1986). Back in the third decade of the 20th
functions resulting in temporality (a time dimension of its own); and at century, when the field of logics and mathematics was revolutionized
the same time, the crossing of one side of the Form1 to the other by the findings of K. Gödel debunking the Hilbert-program, the Aus-
(true ↔ not true) makes room for imaginary values to emerge (also trian-American logician stumbled on the same problem and concluded
called in the parlance of von Foerster, Eigenvalues), having as a con- that systems of that kind were undecidable (i.e. there were no rule for
sequence that the operational closure of the system achieves cognitive deciding what is true and what is false). Unfortunately, Gödel –among
openness (Luhmann, 1997, 1989, 1992, pp. 88–114). The code sym- many others following the tradition of analytic and/or language phi-
bolizes the unity of the difference in the system and simultaneously losophy– conflated problems of truth with problems of reference
represents a brief statement of its inherent paradox. In order to start up (Luhmann 2002, pp.64–65; 1999, p. 15). The fact is that the problem of
the autopoiesis of scientific communication the system needs to unfold truth –especially if understood as word-object or thought-Being corre-
its paradox by devising natural or artificial paradox-unfolding strategies spondence– and the fallacies regarding knowledge hidden behind the
(Luhmann, 1990, 1999). Programs are useful to this purpose because widely disseminated metaphor of the mirror of nature (Rorty, 1979)
they create asymmetries and/or operationalize the code. Scientific have not only impeded finding an adequate solution to the question of
programs consist of theories and methods: theories represent openness knowledge, but also, even more strikingly, they have not allowed a
by externalizing scientific results, while methods operate inwards ap- clear-cut statement of the problem to be solved. In this context,
plying the code and standing for closure. Scientific programs also Luhmann (1986, 1975, p. 196) argued that completeness shall be
produce self-structured resonance determining the manner how science substituted by self-reference, and that, since contradictions in self-re-
gains information about its social environment (Luhmann, 1989, p.79). ferential theoretical statements cannot be solved by resorting to the
The former state of affairs responds to a general feature of the Form of object, determination can only be achieved by establishing mutual
communication, namely, double closure (von Foerster, 2003) –which is limitation relationships between self-referential theories, namely, making
represented by the distinction of operation and observation. For certain, that theory A constrains what theory B can meaningfully state and vice
the evolution of scientific communication has depended on the differ- versa.
entiation and generalization of cognitive expectations, a process that The concept of mutual limitation relationships (limitation is a
has led science to excel at the production of distinctions separating concept borrowed by Luhmann from economics) is often difficult to
observations from operations. In other words, this means that science is understand. Limitation consist in the restraints resulting from selection.
particularly keen on asking for the grounds, foundations, or sources for It plays the role of contingency formula of the success medium for truth.
verification of every statement wielding knowledge-claims –in fact, As examples of limitation count: the logic of genres, typologies, laws or
Luhmann describes science as the second-order observation of knowl- statistical regularities, the principle of falsifiability, and functional
edge-claims (Luhmann, 2008, 1992). equivalences (Luhmann, 2008, pp. 157–169). The latter description
There are two kinds of strategies in order to account for the foun- could be cleared, furthered and complemented by the notion of ‘theory-
dation of a knowledge claim, namely, appealing to external reference or debugger’.
to self-reference. Allo-referential strategies ground knowledge in things In the field of informatics a debugger is a program designed with the

1
In the following, Form as in the parlance of systems theory and formal 2
The philosophy of science of Luhmann might fit Peirce epistemology if the
calculus will be written with capital letter, while the geometrical conception of place of consciousness is displaced by a communication circuitry consisting of
form will be written with lower case. abduction, induction and deduction.

32
J.J. Blanco Rivero Technological Forecasting & Social Change 146 (2019) 31–40

goal of detecting errors or bugs in other programs, usually called target Form. Every definition or statement (selection) presupposes a distinc-
programs. Debuggers simulate the target program, fully or partially, tion at the other side contouring not only the conditions of possibility
and test it for logical or programming errors. In order to perform their for the selection made, but also what becomes possible next (re-
duty they must operate as ‘translators’ or ‘interpreters’ between dif- dundancy). There arises a surplus of possibilities demanding again se-
ferent codes or programming languages. This feature –often taken for lection and re-actualizing redundancy. Communication is therefore
granted in informatics– is crucial, because it implies that a theory de- recursive, because it iteratively applies the same operator (distinction)
bugger must be able to deliver equivalences between theoretical lan- to the outcome of previous operations. Communication is also self-re-
guages which are commonly incommensurable. Debuggers, in the ferential, then the property of re-entry of the Form into the Form not
parlance of systems theory, would not only stress restrictions derived only enables communication to communicate but also to communicate
from selection, but would also point at plausibilities, connections, about communication (Luhmann 1995, pp. 137–175; 2002b).
equivalences, and convergences. Besides, debuggers not only translate As stated above, Luhmann's theory of society claims to be reflexive,
and interpret programming languages, they simulate the program and not only because it reflects on its own theoretical status, but also be-
intervene in it by correcting errors. Therefore, a debugger is a mean for cause it comprehends itself as a social description among many others
theoretical recursiveness, helping theories to correct themselves in the in the social system. According to the German sociologist, a reflexive
process of scientific inquiry. In short, a debugger shall be able to en- theory of society could only be brought about by establishing mutual
hance the target theory by underlining its links with other theoretical limitation relationships between three self-referential theories, more
productions and to create new, up-to-date, versions of it. specifically: systems theory, communication theory, and evolution
Roth (2017) was the first to advance theory-debugging by em- theory. Let us take a closer look at how mutual limitation works in the
ploying the NOR design of Spencer Brown for double contingency ta- sociology of Luhmann.
bles, in order to run a test routine for error-checking and updating the Evolution theory enables a more complex restatement of systems
differentiation theory of Luhmann (with which Roth achieves a major theory for the reason that it highlights the fact that the principle of
shift of emphasis in the system-theoretic design from re-description to differentiation is only but a contingent choice in the context of socio-
re-calculation, strengthening thereby the super-theory program that cultural evolution. The same is true for systemic references: they only
Luhmann initially conceived). The German sociologist considered that attain full development in our modern functionally differentiated so-
crosstabs played a major role in science as a Form of limitation or ciety. Evolution theory, in turn, requires systems theory and commu-
limitationality (Luhmann, 2008), for that reason substituting cross-tabs nication theory in order to explain how evolutionary mechanisms
by matrices will fulfill the same function. Hence, debugging is a com- (variation, selection, and stabilization) differentiate and distribute their
plement or functional equivalent to limitation/mutual limitation. functions. Language is described as a dissemination medium structured
Of course, there is nothing about debugging that science does not by a yes/no binary code assuming the function of engendering variety.
already do. Precisely, that is why the notion of debugging might be As a consequence of language potential for negation, causing that not
useful to deliver new insights and more self-awareness about how sci- every communicative event is accepted, there arises the need to guar-
entific knowledge corrects itself (or how science dissolves and re- antee the transmission of selection performances. This is the function
combines its elements) in the process of knowledge production. Thus, accomplished by symbolic generalized communication media (or suc-
this is how the author of this paper proposes to interpret how a digital cess media); communicative success thereby becomes the hallmark of
transformation of social theory would look like: treating theories as evolutionary selection. On the other hand, the contingency spawned by
programs that can be debugged in order to actualize new versions of it the chances of rejection and acceptance of communication furthers the
–a description with the immediate consequence of leaving aside ana- differentiation of more mechanisms for variation and selection, that is,
logic procedures such as hermeneutics (certainly, not of every kind), dissemination media such as writing and the printing press (Luhmann,
where the intention of the author, as a human and conscious agent, 1990b). And finally, when systems evolve, a sufficiently complex se-
remains crucial. lection is no longer able to achieve stability and guarantee the re-
The purpose of this paper is then twofold: first, to show an example production of evolutionary solutions. As a result, a new re-stabilizing
of theory debugging in the case of Luhmannian systems theory (target mechanism emerges: system formation (Luhmann 1975, pp. 197–200;
program); second, to employ fractal geometry as a debugger able to 1975b, 2005, 2012, 2013). These three theories constraining each other
enhance or update the social theory of N. Luhmann. constitute therefore the founding pillars of the sociology of Luhmann.
Dirk Baecker can be seen as a precursor of the further digitalization
2. The sociology of Niklas Luhmann of the system theory of Luhmann, for Baecker (2007, p. 60) re-
conceptualizes communication as a Form in the strict terms of the
The theory of society of Niklas Luhmann pivots around the concept formal calculus of Spencer Brown. Communication is thereby conceived
of communication, then for the German sociologist society is nothing as indication ¬ distinction. From this basic Form and the degrees of
but communication. Communication is described as a triple selection of freedom it brings about, several other Forms of communication can be
information, utterance, and understanding/misunderstanding. described (at least, as referring to communication in the medium of
Understanding represents the unity of the difference, because compre- meaning-processing) such as functions, systems, persons, media, net-
hension is the standpoint from which the difference between informa- works, and evolution (Baecker, 2007, pp. 146–253). In contrast to
tion and utterance can be observed. Since an observer cannot do Luhmann, who considered indication ¬ distinction as an application of
without distinctions and distinctions are equivalent to cognitive op- a more general problem of surplus-and-selection, Baecker argues that
erations, understanding equals to distinguishing. the calculus of Spencer Brown is the most general and abstract stand-
As long as observers are able to make distinctions in the medium of point from which communication and observation can be con-
meaning and to observe distinctions already made, the difference be- ceptualized (Baecker, 2007, p. 65).
tween information and utterance will regenerate once and again As a matter of fact, the reconstruction of the theory of commu-
keeping communication going. The three selections are always si- nication by Baecker is of great interest. Nevertheless, it offers the
multaneously involved in every communicative operation; it is im- chance to stress that there are currently several versions of the so-
practical to treat them separately, running otherwise the risk of con- ciology of Luhmann in the scientific market. Although the author of this
fusion (e.g. selecting an information already implies being able to essay intends to stay as close as possible to the original source code, it is
distinguish between information and some kind of communicative be- inevitable to make complexity reductions from a non-unitary literary
havior). corpus and to take a stance in sight of controversial issues –after all,
On the other hand, communication is a self-referential and recursive ‘Luhmann’ is not but a metonym of a collection of texts. Indeed, if

33
J.J. Blanco Rivero Technological Forecasting & Social Change 146 (2019) 31–40

reading is nothing but actualizing a background of distinctions and fragmented, and irregular. Benoit Mandelbrot (1983, p. 4), in fact,
values that will produce difference and meaning against the target text/ coined the word fractal from the Latin fractus, meaning broken, irre-
theory/program, it is inevitable to the author of this text to make his gular, fragmented. With fractal geometry, mathematicians aim again at
own copy –and/or to run his own debugger.3 describing nature, instead of ruling over nature.
Accordingly, two issues will be put forward before going on. The The intuition behind fractal geometry suggests that there exist types
first one concerns the second constituting selection of communication, of form beyond the comprehension of topology, which repeat again and
namely, utterance. This parlance is currently employed by the English again onto themselves; in other words, one finds in nature self-similar
translators of the work of Luhmann in order to account for the German patterns that remain invariant when scaling up (Mandelbrot, 1983, pp.
word Mitteilung. However, Mitteilung literally means communication, 18–19). This intuition challenges not only topology –which, for in-
notice, announcement or notification, significations that are not at all stance, within the frames of its current conceptual schemes, cannot
grasped by the concept of utterance. On the other hand, utterance has account for the difference between coastlines–, but also the notion of
clear linguistic connotations –namely, employing vocal cords to emit a dimension conceived strictly as a number of coordinates. Beyond Eu-
sound– which impede to take into account functional equivalents to clidean dimensions, where all dimensions coincide, there are di-
articulating phonemes. Although translators (and Luhmann himself) mensionally discordant sets in nature. Therefore, argues Mandelbrot
might have had good reasons for their decision, the author would rather (1983, pp. 14-17), the notions of dimension and form need to be ex-
to employ the syntagm ‘communicative behavior’, or even better ‘selection panded in order to grasp the most common features of natural objects.
of a communication medium’, as the fittest terms –after all, maybe the Dimensions shall be conceived in terms of the scaling properties of a
original concept of Mitteilung is not concise enough either. As shape (Feldman, 2012, p. 163); while the nontopological features of
Watzlawick et al. (1967) have argued, all behavior is communicative, form shall be called fractal forms (Mandelbrot, 1983, p. 17) and studied
for there is a whole spectrum of contexts where communication plays a from this standpoint.
role that cannot be reduced to linguistic articulations. From this A fractal set can then be defined as “…a geometrical object whose self-
standpoint it will be possible to understand the role of communication similarity dimension is greater than its topological dimension.” (Feldman,
media in sociocultural evolution and it would also be possible to ac- 2012, p. 169; Mandelbrot, 1983, p.15). This kind of surplus is what
count for communicative structures that do not depend on human vo- defines the D dimension or Hausdorff dimension, namely, a sort of in-
calizations (and which, in some cases, are independent of the human between space that does not correspond to any of the traditional di-
mind –e.g. bots or intelligent assistants) to set communication forth mensions and equals to a non-integer.
(Esposito, 2017). A crucial distinction is that between natural fractals and fractal sets.
The second one regards the concept of meaning. Again, the author The former consist in natural patterns that can be usefully represented
disagrees with the current translation of the German word Sinn. by fractal sets; it is important not to lose sight of the fact that natural
Although Luhmann himself translated Sinn as meaning, the semantic fractals are only self-similar up to a certain scale or range of magnifi-
load of the concept makes it much harder to distinguish between lin- cation (Hutchinson, 2000, p. 128). The latter refers to a geometrical
guistically articulated horizons of action and experience and those abstraction that serves as a model or first approximation to structures
horizons that shape expectations and actions in absence of any lin- and shapes found in nature. In any case, in order to properly define a
guistic performance. As a matter of fact, semiotic systems create their natural phenomenon as fractal, it has to be described by a specific
own meaning surpluses, but orienting one's behavior to that of others fractal set (Mandelbrot, 1983, p. 128). Furthermore, fractal phenomena
often operate at a pre-linguistic level. Losing sight of this difference are closely intertwined with scaling laws; for that reason, the researcher
often leads to a strictly semiotic –although interesting– reading of has to consider that “…to each scaling law, there exists exactly one com-
Luhmann (Lenartowicz, 2017). The difference also makes sense when it pact set (fractal) satisfying that law” (Hutchinson, 2000, p. 137).
becomes pertinent to distinguish between social semantics and the in- Fractal geometry constitutes undoubtedly a transdisciplinary para-
formation processing that functional systems carry out (i.e. semantics digm, since fractal geometries are found not only in natural sciences,
and social structure). In the same guise, from an information-theoretic but also in social sciences, such as economics, finance systems, and arts.
point of view, being able to distinguish between information and In fact, in a recent study, G. West (2017) argues that cities and orga-
meaning represents an edge whilst trying to bridge humanities and nizations follow the same scaling principles as living beings do; hence,
natural sciences within a transdisciplinary framework. Therefore, in- cities and organizations own fractal dimensions too. However, telling
stead of meaning the author would rather to talk about ‘sense-making’ in what fractal geometry has to offer to enhance our understanding of
order to cover linguistic and non-linguistic information processing as society, culture, politics, semantics, and so on is not that obvious. In
well. As the reader could notice, this is not merely a matter of trans- fact, at first sight, one might be tempted to answer: “it has nothing to do
lation, on the contrary, it is about theoretical decisions with far- with it!” But what if by examining the convergences of two transdis-
reaching influence in the kind of questions we can ask to the theory and ciplinary approaches, such as the sociology of Luhmann and the fractal
the kind of answers it can deliver. geometry of Mandelbrot, one could convincingly argue that fractal-like
structures are a universal property of complex systems? This is an ex-
citing research field to explore. The challenge is to show how to think of
3. Fractal geometry scaling and scaling properties with regard to social systems.
Certainly, there are some incompatibilities between Luhmann and
Euclidean geometry has ruled over two thousand years determining fractal geometry. First, fractal geometry speaks the language of set
our notions of nature and space. Its influence has been so powerful that theory, but the sociology of Luhmann derives from an intellectual
it practically became an ideology that instead of describing nature as it current that developed under the criticism of set theory of Georg Cantor
is, ended up imposing a rational model on nature. The revolutionary and the mathematical logic of Russell & Whitehead, due to their in-
character of fractal geometry consist in providing more accurate de- ability to deal with paradoxes (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory did not
scriptions of nature by accounting for the monstrous, deviated, solve the problem either; they just found a way to avoid paradoxes).
Accordingly, if set theory cannot account for paradoxes, fractal geo-
3
These statements fit nicely within the classic thesis of Gadamerian herme- metry, being phrased in that language, would be leaving aside the most
neutics, although framed in self-referential and strictly communicative terms prominent trait of the system theory of Luhmann –or how then can
(i.e. without the need to refer to conscious processes –which is not to say that fractal geometry account for paradoxes? On the other hand, fractal sets
these are not co-participant in communication by means of structural coupling are, in fact, recursive, but, can they behave reflexively? (i.e. is there any
in the Form of perception and sense-making). case in which fractal patterns observe themselves as fractals and use

34
J.J. Blanco Rivero Technological Forecasting & Social Change 146 (2019) 31–40

this “fractality” to orient a process of further fractal-making?). Second, 4. Communication and fractals
although both theories rest on certain logical-mathematical philosophy,
they assume antagonistic positions: fractal geometry follows an in- There are two alternative descriptions of communication in social
tuitionistic tradition, while Luhmann sympathizes with formal logic autopoietic systems theory. The original ternary description made by
–especially, as it is well-known, the Spencer-Brownian logic. Third, as Luhmann and the binary Spencer-Brownian re-description put forward
stated above, social theories –including that of Luhmann– scarcely rely by Baecker. Taking the Laws of Form as a departure point, although
on statistical methods, such as probability distributions, in order to plausible, would become cumbersome for the reason that it will require
deliver generalizations, but that is exactly what fractal geometry does. a new translation, namely, from Spencer-Brownian formal calculus to
Therefore, either a quantitative interpretation of the sociology of dynamical systems. Conversely, the ternary description of commu-
Luhmann or a qualitative reading of fractal geometry shall be advanced, nication looks more promising.
or maybe, it would possible to find a compromise between both ex- The communication triad of Luhmann can easily be paralleled to a
tremes. three-dimensional dynamical system. Information would stand for a
Nevertheless, there is no reason to be pessimistic about the afore- measure of uncertainty –as Shannon (1964) conceived of it– whereby a
mentioned difficulties. On the one hand, the intuitionistic background definite number of bits codifies the magnitude of possibilities out of
of fractal geometry has an advantage: it allows a loose and creative which a selection can be made. Nevertheless, there cannot be any in-
interpretation of fractals, instead of demanding rigorous proofs. formation outside the context of some medium, such as the human
Therefore, it is possible to extrapolate fractal theory in order to think of body, language, writing, printing press, social media, and so on. In this
social systems; the only requirement will be finding significant iso- regard, the concept of channel capacity can give insights into the pos-
morphisms between both theories. sibilities that different media offer to codify information (e.g. Gary
On the other hand, there are also certain coincidences that deserve Urton (Mann, 2003) calculated that cuneiform writing is able to codify
to be highlighted. Mandelbrot (1983, p. 197) claimed that every strange among 1000 and 1500 bits of information while Andean khipus might
attractor can be considered as a fractal if D, instead of being read as a have codified up to 1536 bits). On the other hand, the selection of a
measure of irregularity, is taken as the piling of smooth curves upon communication medium is contingent and the decision itself usually
each other (i.e. another way of interpreting fragmentation). This is very becomes significant. As a consequence, there is on the one side the
interesting because since 1995 Luhmann became acquainted with the actualization of a Form or selection within a determined medium and
concept of attractors and dynamical systems by the hand of the litera- its inherent uncertainty, and on the other side there is the difference
ture related to cognition, memory, and perception. Soon, he began to between the performances of different media –this is how the difference
apply the notion to crucial aspects of his theory, such as evolution between objective and social dimensions of sense-making (i.e. a dif-
(concretely, he speaks of “evolutionary attractors”), functions, binary ference between what and who or how) is brought about by social
coding, self-descriptions, medium and form, and redundancy. For in- evolution. Finally, understanding, as an observation, is a happening, a
stance, Luhmann (2000, p. 139) conceives functions as evolutionary selection. But what selects understanding? Understanding chooses an
attractors that, under adequate circumstances, influence the orientation attribution of meaning and/or makes sense of a situation; under-
of the evolutionary process. He describes binary codes as cyclic at- standing fixes Form-Medium relationships (whereby the fixation be-
tractors that, by interrupting their own circularity, allow the in- comes a Form in itself) leaving a mark or trace from which further
troduction of new conditionings that enable the system to increase Form-Medium configurations emerge. Information, selection of media/
complexity (Luhmann 2013, p. 91; 2013b, p. 75). He thinks of a stable behavior and understanding are interdependent variables, not only
attractor resulting from a dynamic of describing descriptions and ob- because they can hardly be defined separately, but also because the
serving observations which furthers more descriptions and observa- values of one selection are in dependence of the values adopted by the
tions, and he asks himself about the operative conditions that would others.
make it plausible to last (Luhmann, 2013, p. 314). Therefore, one might It is not hard to image information, media/behavior and under-
wonder: is not there any strange attractor in the social systems de- standing as communication coordinates in a Euclidean space.
scribed by Luhmann? Given the contexts in which Luhmann used the Furthermore, if communication is understood not as an action or seg-
concept, it is not unlikely. mented in units, but as a process, it will be possible in principle to trace
The aforementioned convergence on attractors unveils dynamical communicative trajectories. Think, for instance, about conversations;
systems theory as a suitable translation language for debugging. Not they are bursty processes with peaks and valleys, moments of intensity
only dynamical systems play an important role in fractal geometry and almost to the point of cacophony and moments of boredom. Not every
vice versa, but also the sociology of Luhmann can be rephrased in the conversation happens the same way; novelty and surprise has to be
language of dynamical systems. produced all the time to keep the interest. Think also of reading books.
Dynamical systems theory concerns with forecasting the long-term Some catch the reader's interest up to the point they cannot do anything
behavior of all points of a given space S. There are different kinds of but reading until the book is finished. Some of them are boring and left
dynamical systems. Those of most interest are non-linear higher-di- aside. Some of them are difficult and demand too much time and effort.
mensional systems and dissipative dynamical systems, for the reason Books become best-sellers, and they do so because they feed up con-
that they exhibit complex, at-the-edge-of-chaos, and chaotic behaviors. versations and readers make recommendations to other readers. In any
Non-linear higher-dimensional systems and dissipative dynamical sys- case, there are many examples of communication bursts along and
tems, as a result of their long-term unpredictable behavior, usually among different media (Karsai et al., 2018).
harbor strange attractors. Strange attractors are chaotic from a dyna- The idea that the author intends to advance is that communicative
mical point of view whilst from a geometrical perspective they tend to trajectories might also exhibit the same kind of behavior as the tra-
be fractal (Hirsch et al., 2004, pp. 155–157; Peitgen et al., 2004, pp. jectories of dissipative and/or non-linear higher-dimensional dynamical
627–630). systems. It is not far-fetched to see attractors emerging in commu-
In order for a fractal/dynamical system description of the theory of nication all the time –e.g. an issue in everyone's lips, a common place, a
Luhmann to be plausible enough, it has to deal thoroughly with a de- saying, and so on. In the same guise, basins of attraction can described
fining trait of that theory, and there is hardly a better candidate than as cultural background providing themes, concepts, common places,
communication. values, rhetorics, discourses and the like.
Accordingly, if communicative trajectories exhibit attractive dyna-
mical behaviors, they might also give rise to strange attractors and
fractals. But let us take a closer look to the notion of strange attractors

35
J.J. Blanco Rivero Technological Forecasting & Social Change 146 (2019) 31–40

before assuming communication processes show this kind of dynamics. scaling is implicitly involved –and logarithms, of course, are also
There is no agreement among mathematicians upon what defines a commonly used in fractal geometry.
strange attractor, but some of the most reputed hint at five properties Shannon thought of logarithms to the base 2 because he was in-
that a set A with fundamental neighborhood U must satisfy (Ruelle, terested in a practical measure unit. Shannon (1964, p. 32) proceeded
1989, pp. 24–27): under the following assumptions: The linear variations that those
logarithms produced were appropriate to deal with engineering para-
1) Attractivity: for every open set V ⊃ A there is ft U ⊂ V for every meters such as time, number of relays, and so on; linearity was also
large enough t. suggested by intuition as a fit measure, and calculus thereof was
2) Invariance: ftA = A mathematically more viable. However, West (2017, pp. 21-30) has
3) Irreducibility: a point x′∈ A such that for each x ∈ A there is a po- convincingly argued that thinking intuitively of scales in terms of lin-
sitive t such that ft x′ is arbitrary close to x. earity usually leads to error. In fact, scaling properties of complex
4) Sensitive dependence on initial conditions. systems tend to be non-linear (sublinear or superlinear). Therefore, one
5) Stability under small random perturbations. can thoughtfully ask, beyond concerns about measurement, if com-
munication really behaves linearly or, contrarily, nonlinearly.
Thinking of isomorphic relations between social autopoietic systems Anyhow, communication may be considered to scale as a function of
and strange attractors, several things to consider come to the fore. First, information, namely, if the magnitude of information grows, so does
time plays a significant role in dynamical systems theory and this is an the scale of communication. In this sense, the scaling of communication
important feature when comparing trajectories with the autopoietic is equivalent to gaining complexity and expanding sense-making hor-
reproduction of communication. Therefore, dynamical systems have the izons as well. There might be some evidence indicating a nonlinear
potential to represent and/or simulate sociocultural evolution. Second, scaling behavior of communication. The psychic environment of social
descriptions of dynamical systems are produced in the language of set systems could set a limit to the growth of information in society for the
theory –and, as stated above, that represents in principle a difficulty. reason that communication depends on the structural coupling of
However, sets can be considered Forms of allo-descriptions while the human attention and attention is limited by the neurobiological settings
concept of system can be reserved for cases when dynamical behavior of our brains. However, are new communication technologies –pre-
itself distinguishes between their own operations and those of the en- sumably enabling algorithms to communicate (Esposito, 2017)– cap-
vironment and is able to deliver self-descriptions of this state of affairs. able of breaking this limit?
Third, set theory can also be a useful tool to describe the evolutionary
process of the out-differentiation of the social system by pointing at the 4.2. Scaling properties of communication
dynamics behind function, code, semantics, system differentiation,
media differentiation, structural and operative couplings. Fourth, sen- In geometry, there are four topological dimensions: 0 (point), 1
sitive dependence on initial conditions might explain the differences in (length), 2 (area), and 3 (volume). A shape is said to be self-similar if
complexity, structure and distribution of functions between social sys- fitting into itself a number of times. For instance, let us have a three-
tems. Fifth, the properties of invariance and stability under small dimensional shape, such as a cube, and magnify it by 5. How many
random perturbations can be considered as an equivalent to self-orga- cubes will fit into the bigger cube? This problem is solved thanks to the
nization, in fact, strange attractors in themselves can be considered as following equation:
self-organized communicative structures. The thing is that operations
Number of small copies = (magnification factor)ᴰ
need reference points from which to depart and against which to pro-
duce effects, and that is precisely what a relatively invariant dynamical where D stands for dimension. So, we get
structure does. Sixth, social evolution prompts indeed dynamical re-
53 = 125
gions (or sets) where several attractors (strange or not) emerge. The test
of irreducibility could equate to the identification of a code giving rise We have then found the self-similarity dimension of the respective
to a functional system and/or crowning the evolution of determined cube. So far, so good. Now, if the same equation is applied to a non-
success medium. Irreducibility and differentiation –that is a conceptual standard shape (e.g. snowflake patterns drawn on a plane) of unknown
pair in need of further research. dimension, the result will be a non-integer. Seen the other way round,
If communication processes harbor strange attractors, communica- there are certain types of shapes where the actual dimension D exceeds
tion ought to be fractal, and if communication is fractal there arises its topological dimension (DT). Those shapes are fractal because its D
some questions to be answered: supposing communication is a natural dimension is found in-between any of the known dimensions (i.e. if DT
fractal, does communication reproduce under some kind of scale law? If equals 1, the D dimension will be D + 1, and so on). In fractal geo-
so, which would be the scaling properties of communication? Is there a metry, topological dimensions (length, area, and volume) are also un-
D dimension of communication? derstood as scaling properties or dimensions of fractals (Hutchinson,
2000, p. 140).
4.1. Scaling laws of communication? But how can a nonstandard shape be self-similar? Fractal geometry
certainly performed some kind of interpretive turn in key geometrical
There is hardly an answer for the question above within the frames concepts such as dimension, topology, and also self-similarity.
of the oeuvre of Luhmann (at least, at first sight). Notwithstanding, the According to Mandelbrot (1983, pp. 37-38), a nonstandard shape is self-
mathematical theory of communication of Shannon & Weaver, as in- similar as long as “the whole may be split up into N parts, obtainable from it
spiring as it was for Luhmann himself, can render some hints. by a similarity of ratio r (followed by displacement or by symmetry)”. Be-
Provided that information has been defined as a manifold of choices sides, it is important to recall that strange attractors are also fractal
available to be selected for communication, as a measure of un- because the iterative piling of curves at the basin of attraction can also
certainty, Shannon (1964, pp. 32-33; Weaver, 1964, pp. 9-10) con- be considered as a measure of (or an alternative to) irregularity
sidered that information could be measured by the logarithm of the (Mandelbrot, 1983, p. 197). Therefore, any shape fulfilling these re-
number of options at disposition of the information source. To the quirements shall be treated as fractal.
American mathematician, electrical engineer and cryptographer, loga- Let us now turn to social systems. How is it possible to think about
rithms to the base 2 seemed more reasonable than logarithms to the dimensions of communication?
base 10 to do the job –although the last option was not rejected at all. A first approach to this question was advanced by Heinz von
Accordingly, being logarithms the inverse operation of exponentiation, Foerster (2003) in an essay in honor to Niklas Luhmann. The Austrian

36
J.J. Blanco Rivero Technological Forecasting & Social Change 146 (2019) 31–40

cybernetician identified three dimensions of communication, namely, communication media (i.e. increasing information, gaining in com-
(recursive) functions (1), operative closure (2), and double closure (3). plexity, and employing sense-making in order to reduce and simulta-
Functions are operationally open, linear; they are trivial machines since neously conserve complexity).
their past states do not influence their future states. When functions But, is it possible that communication media are the D dimension of
feedback they become operationally closed, non-linear; they are non- communication?
trivial machines because their behavior is influenced by their own op-
erational history becoming unpredictable as a result. Double closure 4.3. The D dimension of communication
occurs by means of the integration of two operationally closed circuits;
the integration of functions have functors as an outcome; functors give There are two questions left to explore: What remains invariant
rise to a functional equivalent of hierarchy, namely, heterarchy; he- across scales? And which is the D dimension of communication –that is,
terarchical organization allows operators to become operands and vice the extra dimension beyond topology? The answer to both questions is
versa, causing functors to acquire freedom of action. As a corollary, von deeply intertwined and it regards communication media.
Foerster (2003, p. 322) describes communication as the Eigen behavior In order to understand media and the role they play in the growth of
of a recursive operationally double closed system. information and the multiplication of information sources, it is im-
The answer of von Foerster to the question of the recursiveness of portant to dissociate the concept from usual connotations such as
communication is outstanding for many reasons, however, the mediation and transmission. Communication media do not inter-
equivalence of dimensionality and scaling is a remarkable feature of the mediate between two sides of the communication process, whether
latter description. Function, operative closure, and double closure hint consciousness and society or among two persons/consciousnesses or
at some scaling law regarding to degrees of self-organization or com- more. Transmission, on the other hand, consist in the performance of
plexity-degrees (provided that what is at stake is not the sheer number communication technologies that avail of the physical properties of
of elements, but the functions (relationships) that engender new ele- determined physical media (e.g. radio waves, electronic circuits,
ment-relationship configurations). quantum physics, etc.) in order to codify and transmit signals. But
Functions refer to ephemeral processes (just like communication signals do not communicate by themselves; signal-decoding becomes
trajectories being attracted and/or repelled), while operational closure informative when instantiated within a communication process –be it as
and double closure are precise descriptions of operations differentiating a motivation or complement. Transmission is thereby a technology that
between system and environment. That is, after a definite number of has made room for new highly technical media to emerge. But neither
iterations there arises Eigen behaviors, Eigen values, attractors, and transmission nor mediation explain or describe what communication
strange attractors; a system emerges, thereby, when a dynamic beha- media actually do.
vior is capable to observe its own operations and to trace a distinction The distinction medium/Form developed by Luhmann (2000, pp.
between self-reference and allo-reference (what kind of strange at- 102-132; 2012, pp. 113-120) describes, to put it briefly, a relationship
tractors are these? –that is a question in need of further research). between loose coupled and tightly coupled elements. The medium is the
Hence, von Foerster dimensions/ scaling of communication account unity of the difference between medium and Form. Therefore, a
primarily for system differentiation. Nonetheless, there is a problem medium presupposes the gathering of a plurality of elements sharing
with the concept of communication of von Foerster. As discussed above, similar properties; these elements are able to couple and decouple,
the reproduction of social communication always take place within combine and recombine in different forms just like Lego pieces; media
some media, as a consequence, there cannot be any satisfactory theory are flexible, because they can produce outputs suited for different oc-
of communication without explaining the role media play. casions –or as Luhmann (1987, p. 101) put it: “Media differ from other
A way out could consist in finding the place of media within the materialities in that they allow a very high degree of dissolution”. But ele-
dimensionality-scheme drawn by von Foerster. In this regard, is there ments cannot combine and recombine at will, there are certain trans-
any relationship between communication media and the scaling up of formation rules governing every medium. In a sense, communication
communication? Are media the D dimension of communication? media are ruled by algorithms. For instance, the structure of a language
Let us have a closer look at the idea that communication scales up establishes which phonemes make sense when uttered in sequence; the
by increasing information. By conceptualizing communication in terms writing and grammatical conventions of a language determine what
of autopoietic reproduction, Luhmann has put the emphasis on the combinations of vowels and consonants represent real words; even the
process character of communication. Ergo, instead of considering physiology of the human body limits the set of gestures and postures
communication as a discrete unit, one should think of it as set of con- that might make up the body language of a culture.
tinuous trajectories. Observing communication processes as trajectories However, although elements and rules for combination and re-
implies bringing to the forefront both, namely, a temporal dimension combination are limited, the combinatory potential of media is ex-
characterized by the hiatus between the ephemeral and duration, and ponential –keep in mind the examples of artificial languages given by
the selectivity leading to some options whilst discarding the rest. As von Foerster (2003) and Hofstadter (1999). In this sense, in every
stated above, selectivity in systems processing sense-making opens up a medium there is always a difference between the possibilities enabling
surplus of reference and surplus-possibilities that demand selectivity in the current operation, the possibilities opened up by the very selection
turn. The more extensive this surplus is, the more complex the system being made, and the wider unactualized possibilities that the medium
and the more information it brings about. offers. In addition, the existence of multiple communication media adds
Now, is there a pattern (meaning a self-similar pattern!) char- new horizons expanding the realm of communication possibilities. In
acterizing every communication process no matter how long it lasts or short, media produce a huge surplus of possibilities of communication
the selections it performs? In fact there is. Communication processes (seen the other way around, these possibilities represent uncertainty,
begin by being very informative and end when they cease to be in- hence, information).
formative. This is equivalent to the thesis of the burstiness of commu- Luhmann (2012, pp. 18-27) defined as sense-making precisely this
nication studied by Karsai et al. (2018). Communication bursts because surplus reference obtained from actuality, but since sense-making is a
information is entropic; moreover, the fact that communication can universal medium –namely, a medium of media– the differentia specifica
reproduce among different media (e-mails, cell phones, human inter- of media operating within sense-making remains an open question. As a
actions, etc.) not only shows similar patterns of burstiness, but also consequence, the suggestion is to call mediality the emergent property of
evidences that providing a manifold of information sources stirs up communication media. To put it briefly, mediality refers to the in-
communication once and again. This is how complexity-gain triggers in formation-generative potential of a medium –a potential that can be
social systems, namely, by diversifying its information sources or measured in bits. Seen from another perspective, a medium is an

37
J.J. Blanco Rivero Technological Forecasting & Social Change 146 (2019) 31–40

information source and its own information source as well. the result is a complex set of time-dimensions where past, present
If we think of media in terms of their dynamics, namely, how do and future intertwine and acceleration crops up as a by-product. The
they interact among each other (and how do they behave with regard to fact is that the existence of a plurality of communication media
social systems, i.e. interaction, organization, and functional systems), it which can couple in several ways makes it possible to reconstruct
becomes necessary to think of a concept to describe such state of affairs. possibilities that were left behind by choices made in the past, and
The author will coin the novel concept of medial coupling in order to this reconstruction succeeds not only by observing the contingency
account for these dynamics. of the choice made, but also by creating redundancy and structure
The idea of medial couplings refers to the observation that com- that engender analogous choices. This causes the past to pluralize as
munication media actually couple among each other like a matryoshka a function of present operations and their expectations projected in
doll (e.g. the embeddedness of writing in printing press and con- the future; recycling options by means of fusing time-horizons, sa-
temporary electronic media such as Twitter, Facebook, and the like; the tisfy the steady demand for novelty of complex systems, but when
re-contextualization of oral communication, usually ruling over inter- there is exceeding supply, social acceleration raises forcing ex-
action systems, in those very same electronic media; or the conversion pectations to collide and face disappointment –unleashing far-ran-
possibilities of power into money and vice versa). There are five fea- ging consequences in the social system (comp. Luhmann, 1976,
tures of medial couplings: 1997; Rosa and Scheuerman, 2009; Koselleck, 1989, 2000).

• The condition of possibility of medial couplings rest on Forms Consequently, if there is something invariant across communication
spawned within certain medium becoming the medium of another scales it has to be some kind of surplus-ratio where communication
sort of Forms. Coupling hints at the interactive and interdependent possibilities surpass what can be achieved in a single communicative
character of media evolution. Communication media have the process. However, uncertainty and certainty, determination and in-
ability to reinforce each other's differentiation, as in a positive determinacy, redundancy and variety must keep some kind of propor-
feedback loop, becoming dependent of each other's output (e.g. tional relationship in order for communication to reproduce autopoie-
think of the effect of the printing press in the transformation of tically. If there is too much uncertainty communication is impossible; if
power, especially, reaching structural reflexivity: power controlling there is no uncertainty at all, communication becomes unnecessary. If
power) –but as history also reveals, there are also negative feedback there is not enough redundancy communication is unsuccessful; if there
loops among media (i.e. dynamics where political change is im- is too much redundancy communication is superfluous. It is the creation
peded, such as the use and effects of propaganda in totalitarian re- and maintenance of this sense-making-surplus (=meaning + informa-
gimes). tion-surplus) what puts social systems at the edge of chaos; it is because
• The amount of media in the social system boosts information by of the asymmetries and bifurcations produced by that surplus that so-
means of the mere availability of more options to perform com- ciocultural evolution is set forth (comp. Leydesdorff and Ivanova,
munication. However, every medium in its own internal constitution 2014). And media and their couplings, as shown above, play a major
of medium and Form, creates a range of possibilities and a code of part in this drama.
their own to which other media are blind. Therefore, the concept of But how is it that communication media can exceed the topological
coupling is used here in an analogous sense to the structural cou- dimensions of communication and become fractal? How is it possible?
plings of functional systems (i.e. as fulfilling the function of con- In order to proof that mediality/ medial couplings represent the
verting analogic [data?] into digital [information?]). When cou- fractal dimension of communication, communication media ought to
pling, information is not just added up; new media mean new portray some parallelisms with strange attractors –many of which are
sources of information. considered fractal. Therefore, the behavior of communication media as
• Medial couplings increase the complexity of the relationship be- a function of time should exhibit the following properties: attractivity,
tween meaning and information. This means that the same type of invariance, irreducibility, sensitiveness to initial conditions, and stabi-
communicative structure acquires novelty and different meanings/ lity under small random perturbations (Ruelle, 1989, pp. 24–27).
senses by being actualized within different media. For instance, The first thing to cause uneasiness might be considering media as
declaring one's love is not the same if said, written, e-mailed, texted, sets. Nevertheless, the difference medium/Form can be paralleled to the
tweeted or posted on one's Facebook wall. The very choice of a relationship between boundary set and open set. The idea of an open set
medium tells something. Let us say you write a love letter; you just tunes in with the dynamics implied by the difference between medium
do not write down the words “I love you”. The choice made implies and Form, since open sets represent open intervals in the real line;
the use of certain linguistic conventions (e.g. poetic language, the elements in the open set can acquire any value within the frames of the
use of rhetorical tropes, or, plainly: fulfilling the writing conven- boundary set, just as Forms couple and decouple within the domain of
tions of what is currently considered romantic); those conventions the respective medium. Another way to describe mediality by means of
are nested within determined semantic fields ruled by certain me- set theory notions, consist in considering medium/ Form as the in-
taphors, images, or distinctions directrices that condition the way clusive relationship of a universal set U consisting of finite elements,
words are used and understood; and, on the other hand, that very possessing an open subset V. Of course, set theory do not mirror exactly
choice makes available certain kinds of attribution schemes to make the properties of media, nonetheless if iterated long enough, media
sense of it (e.g. writing a love letter is romantic/writing a love letter would fulfill the condition ft U ⊂ V, namely, attractivity (Ruelle, 1989,
is outdated and ridiculous, and so on), or even the contingency of p. 24).
the selection is employed to infer something about the personality of Communication media possess, as said above, a surplus-ratio that
the lover. must be kept invariant across scales, otherwise communicative autop-
• Medial couplings beget resonance and dissonance simultaneously oiesis run the risk of ceasing –or, in less dramatic cases, complexity-gain
(i.e. agreement and disagreements are potentiated in the same stagnates. There is also another point of view from which to consider
proportion) making the problem of the acceptance of communica- invariance. Although communication media evolve (i.e. vary, select/are
tion more pressing. This process leads to –and reinforces– the full selected, and stabilize), relative invariance must for certain be a de-
structural development of success media. fining property of their behavior. Success media achieve invariance by
• Medial couplings have the effect of increasing the complexity of means of the development of a code –and before this achievement
time and of temporalizing complexity (Luhmann, 1993). Sequential profiled and stabilized, they did it through the differentiation of a do-
temporality is already implied in autopoiesis, but when commu- main of the sense-making-dimensions where the mere selectivity mo-
nication thickens its volume and multiplies its information sources, tivated engaging in communication processes. Dissemination media, on

38
J.J. Blanco Rivero Technological Forecasting & Social Change 146 (2019) 31–40

the other hand, remain relatively invariant in the domain of the surely notice that the author has insisted about Luhmann once and
semiotic systems envisaged and/or in the (representation) technologies again, but Luhmann, to say it again, is nothing but a metonym for a
employed to depict them. Invariance is what makes communication theoretical corps that happens to be developed in its most part by
trajectories to be attracted (or eventually repelled4) to certain forms of someone called Niklas Luhmann. But the most important is not what
selectivity with the potential either to increase the probability of ac- Luhmann, the human, had in his mind, but the potentials emanating
ceptance (success media) or to expand the reach of communication from the texts he left to further systems theory (which, it shall be
processes in space, time, and the degree of involvement of alter (dis- stressed, is a performance of communication media).
semination media). The second idea exposed along these lines was showing how a
As said above, irreducibility could account for differentiation since theory-debugger might work. For that case, Luhmannian systems theory
what is looked for, in geometrical terms, is to exclude other possible was the target theory to be debugged (and, as a result, strengthened) by
attractors within the basin of attraction or the set explored. But irre- Mandelbrotian fractal geometry, whereby dynamical systems theory
ducibility might also be the result of the dominant behavior of certain fulfilled the role of a programming language. It was found that com-
strange attractors/media, for instance, power and writing can be very munication may be treated as a natural fractal describable by some kind
dominant: political power tends to exclude or subsume other forms of of fractal set, concisely, strange attractors. The questions raised here are
social influence, while writing in the long run tends to override oral essential to confirm or reject this idea, however, the answers shall be
conventions of communication and social memory; on the other hand, considered exploratory and provisory. Further, the tentative answers
couplings between media can produce the same effect: power and provided along the text aim at showing there are some interesting
writing can work together so as to exclude other media either of success analogies or convergences between both theories (so as to establish a
or of dissemination. mutual limitation relationship that locks them in a self-referential
If communication media history is considered from a cross-cultural loop), but, in order to give a more formal and sophisticated answer,
and non-teleological perspective, it will become clear how sensitive to further research is required. For instance, there is maniple of questions
initial conditions communication media are. Civilization theories usually in need of future exploration:
consider writing the hallmark of civilization. Nonetheless, what is un-
derstood by writing is very narrow and ethnocentric (Harris, 2001). • What is the relationship between irreducibility and differentiation
There are many other semiotic systems with quite different technolo- –if any?
gies of representation (e.g. think of the Inka khipu, the fine-line cera- • Scales up communication non-linearly?
mics of the Moche culture, just to name a couple of unconventional • What kind of strange attractor is an autopoietic system?
examples). The point is that different environmental, cultural and • How do strange attractors (media) behave in interaction with other
technological conditions give rise to functionally equivalent but dif- strange attractors?
ferent forms of communication media in terms of their rules of trans- • Can this framework provide suitable tools for modeling and faith-
formation, complexity, mediality, and coupling networks. Even civili- fully simulating social systems and sociocultural evolution?
zations with alphabetic writing differ widely in their evolutionary • Mediality and medial couplings deserve further research regarding
trajectories. theoretical-debugging and modeling and simulation experiments
Finally, communication media do remain stable against small per- • Is there any case in which fractal patterns observe themselves as
turbations. Variations, in order to trigger structural change, must be fractals and use this “fractality” to orient a process of further fractal-
selected (and therefore, iterated) and stabilized –a point in no need of making?
further clearance because it complies smoothly with the theory of • How could strange attractors account for paradox?
evolution of Luhmann (2012, pp. 275-312).
These considerations authorize the conclusion that communication Acknowledgements
media are the fractal or D dimension of communication.
The author acknowledges the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones
5. Concluding remarks Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) under which Post Doc Fellowship this
research was carried out, and wishes to thank Loet Leydesdorff, Inga
The present contribution has intended to suggest how the idea of Ivanova, Mark Johnson, anonymous reviewers, and editors for their
debugging a software can be extrapolated to the critical process of helpful comments on previous drafts of this paper.
evaluating a theory and contributing to its improvement. Commonly,
the fate of a theory is bound to the author who developed it; critique is References
usually considered, by both the critics and the critique-observers, as an
attack to its validity pretensions; and contributions face difficulties in C. Anderson, The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete,
integrating to the theory because they are scored in other's author re- Wired magazine 06/23/08 (2008). Available at: https://www.wired.com/2008/06/
pb-theory/ Last visit: 02/01/2019.
cord and tend to be treated separately when studied and taught. But if Baecker, D., 2007. Form und Formen der Kommunikation, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
we think of theories as they are, not only someone's creation, but first D. Berry, The Computational Turn: Thinking About the Digital Humanities, Culture
and foremost as a set of enunciations and concepts logically con- Machine 12 (2011). Available at: http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/
article/view/440/470 Last visit: 12/3/2012.
catenated and having to deal with problems of incompleteness, self- Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Watson, R., 2000. Postmodernism and the web. Technol. Forecast.
reference and paradox, it is possible to remove the constraints regarding Soc. Chang. 65, 265 (279.).
the anthropocentric self-descriptions of theorizing. The keen reader will Boyd, D., Crawford, K., 2012. Critical questions for big data. Inf. Commun. & Soc. 15 (5),
662–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878.
Cohen, D., 2008. Contribution to: the promise of digital history (roundtable discussion). J.
4
Am. Hist. 95 (2) (452 491).
Let us think, for instance, of secrecy: the need to codify messages that only Esposito, E., 1996. From self-reference to autology: how to operationalize a circular ap-
the recipient could decode, has been responsible for many technical advances in proach. Soc. Sci. Inf. 35 (2), 269 281.
communication transmission and the development of semiotic systems –think of Esposito, E., 2017. Artificial communication? The production of contingency by algo-
the history of computers, think about those languages and writing systems re- rithms. Z. Soziol. 46 (4), 249 265.
Feldman, D.P., 2012. Chaos and Fractals. An Elementary Introduction. Oxford University
served for the sacred and/or the royalty. The paradoxical effect of secrecy is
Press, Oxford.
remarkable, for exclusivity became a means for massification. But there are Foerster, H. von, 2003. For Niklas Luhmann: “How Recursive Is Communication?”,
other examples, such as the resistance to change in traditional contexts or even Understanding Understading. Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition. Springer, New
the varying patterns of social disregard/ acceptance that can also be considered York.
as repelled communicative trajectories. Harris, R., 2001. Rethinking Writing. Continuum, London.

39
J.J. Blanco Rivero Technological Forecasting & Social Change 146 (2019) 31–40

Heylighen, F., Lenartowicz, M., 2017. The global brain as a model of the future in- Luhmann, N., 2002b. What is communication? In: Luhmann, N. (Ed.), Theories of
formation society, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 114 1, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Distinction. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Cal., pp. 155–168.
j.techfore.2016.10.063. Luhmann, N., 2005. Geschichte als Prozess und die Theorie sozio-kultureller Evolution.
Hirsch, M., Smale, S., Devaney, R., 2004. Differential Equations, Dynamical Systems, and In: Luhmann, N. (Ed.), Soziologische Aufklärung. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 3.
an Introduction to Chaos. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Luhmann, N., 2008. In: Luhmann, N. (Ed.), Die Ausdifferenzierung von
D. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach. An Eternal Golden Braid, Basic Books, New York, NY, Erkenntnisgewinn: Zur Genese von Wissenschaft. Ideenevolution, Suhrkamp,
1999. Frankfurt am Main.
J. E. Hutchinson, Deterministic and random fractals, in: T Bossomaier, D. Green, Complex Luhmann, N., 2012. Theory of Society. vol. 1 Stanford University Press, Stanford, Cal.
Systems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. Luhmann, N., 2013. Theory of Society. vol. 2. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Cal.,
Karsai, M., Jo, H.-H., Kaski, K., 2018. Bursty Human Dynamics. Springer, Cham. pp. 1–108.
Kitchin, R., 2014. Big Data, New Epistemologies and Paradigm Shifts, BD&S April–June. Luhmann, N., 2013b. A Systems Theory of Religion. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
vol. 1. pp. 12. Cal., pp. 74–77.
Koselleck, R., 1989. Vergangene Zukunft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Mandelbrot, B., 1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W. H. Freeman & Company, New
Koselleck, R., 2000. Zeitschichten. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. York.
Lash, S., 2002. Critique of Information. Sage publications, London. Mann, Ch., 2003. Cracking the Khipu code. Sci. 300 (6), 1650–1651.
Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., et al., 2009. Computational social science. Sci. 323 Mayer-Schonberger, V., Cukier, K., 2013. Big Data: A Revolution That Will Change How
721, 733. We Live, Work and Think. John Murray, London.
Lenartowicz, M., 2017. Creatures of the semiosphere: a problematic third party in the Pearl, J., 1984. Heuristics. Intelligent Search Strategies for Computer Problem-solving.
‘humans plus technology’ cognitive architecture of the future global super- Addison-Wesley publishing company, Reading, MA.
intelligence. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 114, 35 42. Peitgen, H.-O., Jürgens, H., Saupe, D., 2004. Chaos and Fractals. New Frontiers of
Leydesdorff, L., Ivanova, I.A., 2014. Mutual redundancies in interhuman communication Science. Springer, New York, NY.
systems: steps toward a calculus of processing meaning. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. Rorty, R., 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton University Press,
65, 386–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22973. Princeton, NJ.
Luhmann, N., 1975. Systemtheorie, Evolutionstheorie und Kommunikationstheorie. In: Rosa, H., Scheuerman, W., 2009. High-speed Society. Social Acceleration, Power and
Luhmann, N. (Ed.), Soziologische Aufklärung. vol. 2 Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen. Modernity. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA.
Luhmann, N., 1975b. Evolution und Geschichte. In: Luhmann, N. (Ed.), Soziologische S. Roth, Parsons, Luhmann, Spencer Brown. NOR design for double contingency tables,
Aufklärung 2. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen. Kybernetes 46 (8) (2017) 1469 1482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-05-2017-
Luhmann, N., 1976. The future cannot begin. Soc. Res. 43 (1) (130 152). 0176.
Luhmann, N., 1986. The theory of social systems and its epistemology: reply to Danilo Ruelle, D., 1989. Chaotic Evolution and Strange Attractors. Cambridge University Press,
Zolo's critical comments. Phil. Soc. Sci. 16, 129 134. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Cambridge, NY.
004839318601600110. Shannon, C., 1964. The mathematical theory of communication. In: Shannon, C., Weaver,
Luhmann, N., 1987. The medium of art. Thesis Eleven 18-19, 101 113. W. (Eds.), The Mathematical Theory of Communication. The University of Illinois
Luhmann, N., 1989. Ecological Communication. The University of Chicago Press, Press, Urbana.
Chicago. Spencer Brown, G., 1972. Laws of Form. The Julian Press, New York.
Luhmann, N., 1990. Tautology and paradox in the self-descriptions of modern society. In: Taylor, C., 1992. Sources of the Self. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Luhmann, N. (Ed.), Essays on Self-reference. Columbia University Press, New Wajcman, J., 2008. Life in the fast lane? Towards a sociology of technology and time. Br.
York, NY. J. Sociol. 59 (1), 59 77.
Luhmann, N., 1990b. The improbability of communication. In: N. Luhmann, Essays on Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., Jackson, D., 1967. Pragmatics of Human Communication.
Self-reference. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
Luhmann, N., 1992. Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Weaver, W., 1964. Recent contributions to the mathematical theory of communication.
Luhmann, N., 1993. Temporalisierung von Komplexität: Zur Semantik neuzeitlicher In: Shannon, C., Weaver, W. (Eds.), The Mathematical Theory of Communication. The
Begriffe. In: Luhmann, N. (Ed.), Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik, Band 1. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Suhrkamp, Franfurt am Main. West, G., 2017. Scale. The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the
Luhmann, N., 1995. Social Systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Cal. Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies. Penguin Press, New
Luhmann, N., 1997. The control of intransparency. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 14, 359 (371.). York, NY.
Luhmann, N., 1999. The paradox of form. In: Baecker, D. (Ed.), Problems of Form.
Stanford University Press, Stanford. José Javier Blanco Rivero PhD in Political Science at Central University of Venezuela.
Luhmann, N., 2000. Art as a Social System. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Cal. Member of Iberconceptos Research Project. Post Doc Fellow at Centro de Historia
Luhmann, N., 2002. The cognitive program of constructivism and the reality that remains Intelectual, National University of Quilmes (Arg).
unknown. In: Luhmann, N. (Ed.), Theories of Distinction. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, Cal.

40