Daniel Chernilo

The theorization of social co-ordinations indifferentiated societies: the theory of generalizedsymbolic media in Parsons, Luhmann andHabermas*

ABSTRACT

The problem of the differentiation of societies is at the core of the sociologicalimagination about the rise of modernity. In postwar sociology, T. Parsonsdeveloped the theory of generalized symbolic media in the mid-1960s to tackle,theoretically and historically, the issue of differentiation. According to him, theinterchange media are de� ned as resources oriented to exchange processesbetween the subsystems of the social system. Starting with money, Parsons arguesthat the remaining media (power, in� uence, and value-commitments) have a setof characteristics de� ned as common properties for all media. After this � rstformulation, contemporary theorists such as Niklas Luhmann and JürgenHabermas have developed and modi� ed the Parsonian theory: Luhmann rejectsthe idea of interchange and proposes the use of communication; Habermasdistinguishes between steering and communication media. In all three cases, thefocus of the theory is on the characterization of the strongest dynamics of socialco-ordination present in differentiated societies. A major result of these develop-ments is the inclusion of new dimensions on which to conceive the properties ofmedia, not only those of money but also language. Beyond differences, then, it isproposed that there is only one theory of generalized symbolic media which canbe understood as a progressive research programme, in Lakatos’ terms. Finally,the hand-in-hand evolution between the theory of media and Habermas’ andLuhmann’s re-conceptualizations on societal differentiation in contemporarysocieties will also be revealed.

KEYWORDS: Differentiation; modernity; generalized symbolic media;Parsons; Luhmann; Habermas

1. INTRODUCTION. SOCIOLOGY AND THE DIFFERENTIATION OF SOCIETIES

The understanding of modern societies in terms of processes of socialdifferentiation is at the core of the sociological imagination about the rise

British Journal of Sociology Vol. No. 53 Issue No. 3 (September 2002) pp. 431–449© 2002 London School of Economics and Political Science ISSN 0007-1315 print/1468-4446 onlinePublished by Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Ltd on behalf of the LSEDOI: 10.1080/0007131022000000581

of modernity. In the early functionalist tradition, represented by H.Spencer and E. Durkheim, the concept of differentiation is utilized quiteexplicitly; they provided it with a high explanatory potential. The idea ofdifferentiation of society (or social division of labour) is central for theirunderstanding of society in both empirical and normative terms. Also atthe turn of the twentieth century, in the German-speaking world, the thesisof the differentiation of modern societies is widely present. We found it inG. Simmel’s discussion on the processes of group formation, and itcertainly underlines M. Weber’s understanding of the processes of socialand cultural rationalization (Schluchter 1981). In postwar sociology, T.Parsons, J. Habermas and N. Luhmann represent key � gures in bringingthese traditions together, through their attempts at building a generalsociological theory. In all these different versions, the conceptualization ofthe process of structural differentiation is at the core of the sociologicaldiagnosis of the constitution and evolution of modern societies.

While the reconstruction of the concept of differentiation in sociologycan be undertaken in itself, it is my contention, however, that it is morefruitful to focus on speci� c developments in which the issue of the differ-entiation of society is placed along other contemporary sociologicalconcerns.1 Moreover, the general level at which the different notions ofdifferentiation are formulated leaves the concept ambiguous; the notion ofdifferentiation seems to represent the metaphysics of a good part of thesociological discourse on the rise of modern societies.

In this paper I propose to analyse and reconstruct a major twentieth-century theoretical development within what one can call the paradigm ofthe differentiation of societies: the theory of generalized symbolic media.Originally developed by Parsons in the 1960s, the theory of generalizedsymbolic media has been followed through by Luhmann and Habermas asa privileged way of looking at how modern societies produce and handletheir differentiation.

The paper has three main claims. Firstly, it states how central the theoryof media is in giving sociological content to the paradigm of differentia-tion. Hence, secondly, it shall be shown that the commonalities and differ-ences among the three authors in relation to the theory of media arerelated to their conceptualizations of the differentiation of modernsocieties. Thirdly, I have to prove that the theory of media has followed aprogressive path in terms of its internal conceptual development.

Quite surprisingly, one � nds in the literature neither systematic researchabout the development of the theory of media in itself nor attempts to linkthe theory of media to any other major sociological issue.2 What I offerhere is the required account for the � rst of these aims and, hopefully, somesuggestions in relation to the second.

432 Daniel Chernilo

2. THE SOCIOLOGICAL CONTENT OF THE THEORY OF MEDIA AND THE

RESEARCH STRATEGY

What are the media? What does the theory of generalized symbolic mediaactually conceptualize? In brief, media are speci� c forms of social co-ordination; they are the most constant dynamics of social co-ordinationpresent in modern societies. Money, power, love, truth, and the other mediaare the way in which societal subsystems, � rstly, regulate their internal func-tioning by contributing to its own differentiation and, secondly, � nd the wayto interrelate with each other to produce co-ordinations between subsys-tems. While the former means that each subsystem becomes more ef� cientby being only concentrated in its speci� c tasks; the latter refers to thesocietal framework in which differentiation takes place. Social co-ordinations conceptualized as media give sociological content to the highlyabstract idea of the differentiation of modern societies.

One can say that social co-ordinations are necessary and unstable inmodern societies. They are necessary, on the one hand, in the sense thatthe complexity of modern social life makes unavoidable the interrelationof different actors and logics in society. Either theorized as interpenetra-tion (as in systems theory), or networks (as in Castells) or �elds (as inBourdieu), interdependence is seen as a central feature of differentiatedsocieties. They are unstable, on the other hand, because social co-ordinations are also under a high pressure of being disrupted and there-fore to fail. In Luhmann’s words (1986: 4), what the generalized symbolicmedia conceptualize is ‘the non-random character of variations in socialrelations’.

In methodological terms, Lakatos’ (1978) notion of research pro-gramme provides the framework for ful� lling the task of analysing andreconstructing the development of the theory of media. I propose that thetheory of media has followed a progressive path by looking at the common-alities and differences among the different versions of the theory. Byprogressivity, I mean, � rst, that the theory becomes an autonomous �eld oftheoretical research and second that the theory has evolved in the direc-tion of providing better insights for the sociological characterization of thedifferentiation of societies. Whilst this evolution is displayed step by step inthe following sections of the paper, I can straightaway summarize the mainpath the theory has followed. Reconstructively, forty years after its � rstformulation, it can be seen that while Parsons originally talked of inter-change media (that is, all media seen as an extension of the features ofmoney); Luhmann has proposed the concept of communication media (ascommunication being the key element for the autopoiesis of the system);and Habermas has distinguished between steering and communication media(along the lines of his distinction between system and lifeworld). In spiteof these modi�cations, however, it is proposed that there is only one theoryof generalized symbolic media in the sense that the theory has both main-tained its focus – the conceptualization of the strongest dynamics of social

The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 433

co-ordination present in differentiated societies – and improved its analyti-cal insights for the observation of societal differentiation.

3. PARSONS. THE FOUNDATION OF GENERALIZED SYMBOLIC MEDIA OF

INTERCHANGE

In a set of monographic papers during the 1960s, Parsons (1967b, c, 1969)proposed both the general framework for the theory of generalizedsymbolic media and the � rst de� nition of each medium, based on the four-functions paradigm already mature at that time.3 Generalized symbolicmedia of interchange were de� ned as resources oriented to exchangeprocesses between the subsystems of the social system. Media let the subsys-tems ful� l two different but linked processes. On the one hand, theyincrease each subsystem’s autonomy allowing higher ef� ciency on its oper-ations, thus reinforcing Parsons’ thesis that differentiation processes are themain evolutionary tendency of modern societies (Parsons 1967d). On the otherhand, each medium interpenetrates with the others, a tendency whichsolves the problem of the functional integration of the social systemthrough six subsystems of interpenetration built as double-exchangeprocesses. Simplistic interpretations on Parsons would just say that despitethe level of institutionalization of each medium in its subsystem, thegeneral tendency is towards the homeostasis of the systemic relations.Beyond that, however, one also �nds in Parsons the much stronger thesisthat social differentiation is a twofold process of increasing both autonomyand interdependence between subsystems. In theoretical terms, theproblem is the constitution of a societal perspective to link differentiationand integration, or rather, that modern societies constitute themselves in aprocess of integration through differentiation.

In spite of the fact that Parsons himself says that the theory was devel-oped as a generalization from the properties of money (Parsons 1977a:198–201; 1977b: 205–8), the very name of the theory indicates a funda-mental tension running through it. The idea of media, � rstly, refers to thenecessity of building links between social relations already differentiated.The idea of interchange, secondly, refers to money being paradigmatic forconceptualizing the ‘give-and-take’ relationships between subsystems, andfor measuring the equivalence of those relations as well. In the case of theconcepts of symbolization and generalization, thirdly, the former refers to theexchange-value of money as well as the symbolic utility of language(Parsons 1977b: 206); whereas the latter means that every medium canrepresent several objects in different contexts of interaction. The refer-ences to generalization and symbolization are also related to the anthropo-logical and sociological capacities of human beings to operate symbolicallyand to use these skills in a socially effective way. In that sense, language, asa set of generalized symbols, is the secondary source for the understandingof media.4

434 Daniel Chernilo

Parsons proposed that money is not the only medium in the social systemand de� ned three more, each one especially related to one subsystem:power (political system), in� uence5 (societal community) and valuecommitments (� duciary system).6 Table I summarizes the majorcomponents of the media in relation to the functional imperatives of adifferentiated social system.

It cannot be clear, at � rst sight, what money has in common with theother media. Hence the thesis that Parsons develops a real theory should besupported by showing some properties which, as a generalization of thecharacteristics of money, are adequate to the remaining media. In theParsonian version of the theory of interchange media, these properties canbe summarized as follows.7

1. Norms and codes: Each medium has a set of norms that rule its opera-tions. As counterpart to its generalized and symbolic character, everymedium is institutionally anchored in its subsystem by norms. Mediahave ‘meaning-speci� city’ referring to these norms, and they performeffectively only within their subsystems. In the case of money, forexample, there are many exchanges that can be regulated by it, butthere are also several that cannot. The codes of the media representthe institutional mechanisms that make their operations functionallyadequate in differentiated contexts.

2. Circulation: Media can move both between actors inside the subsystemand beyond the system’s boundaries (double-exchanges). This secondcharacteristic has special relevance in the explanation of the emerg-ence of the subsystems of interpenetration and the thesis of inte-gration through differentiation.

The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 435

TABLE I: Interchange media and the main structural categories8

Functional Mode of Co-imperatives of Media of Value communi- ordination Basic Securitysocial systems interchange principle cation standard institutions base

Adaptation Money Utility Inducement Solvency Contract, Gold (economic property, (physical system) labour. needs)

Goal Power Effective- Command- Sovereignty Political Means ofattainment ness ment leadership, coercion(political authority. (physical system) force)

Integration In� uence Solidarity Persuasion Consensus Citizenship, Social(societal universalist bonds community) legal system.

Pattern Value- Integrity Moral Pattern Churches, Internal-maintenance commit- appellation consistency educational ized values, (� duciary ments institutions. guiltsystem)

3. Scarcity: The highly ef� cient performances of media are related to thisproperty. The norms which rule the acquisition of each mediummake it a scarce good, scarcity being related, then, to the base thatsecures the operations of each medium. Scarcity, at the same time,produces constraints as to how media circulate, and reinforces theiref� ciency.

4. Non zero-sum condition: This property means that no � xed quantity ofa medium exists either within its subsystem or within the social systemas a whole. Their in� ation or de� ation processes are linked to thecredibility and ef� ciency of each medium’s performance. Media’svalue could either increase or decrease depending on the perform-ance of the different subsystems. Furthermore, gains in individualpossession of one medium do not imply a corresponding decrease inthe possession other actors might have of the same medium.9

5. Value principle: Each subsystem has a value principle that rules itsperformances. It can be said that each medium has its own rationality,complementary with the rationality of the other media and subsystems.

The sociological conclusion of this discussion on Parsons’ theory of mediais that they are achievements of modern societies. Only modern societieshave institutionalized conditions (that is, a high and successful degree ofdifferentiation) that make possible the emergence and functioning ofmedia. Technically speaking, generalized symbolic media of interchangeare a function of the degree of differentiation of social structures; themedia are consequence of such processes of differentiation (Parsons1977a: 199).10 This is the key thesis that media are the result of theprocesses of structural differentiation of societies. As we shall see, this thesisis a major issue in the development of the theory in relation to an historicaland sociological understanding of the differentiation of modern societies.

At the level of theory building one can say that Parsons himself was awareof that, in some cases the properties would be more appropriate to moneythan to the whole set of media. However, it was also said that this is the casebecause it is a model still in progress (Baum 1977), a statement thatconverges with the thesis about the constitution of the theory of media asa research programme. In the following pages, I suggest that the develop-ment of the theory of media has produced a clear path, but one differentfrom Parsons’ idea of interchange media based on the properties of money.

4. LUHMANN’S THEORY OF GENERALIZED SYMBOLIC MEDIA OFCOMMUNICATION

After the Parsonian founding step, Luhmann continued the developmentof the theory of generalized symbolic media. In this section, I will only stressthe main differences between Parsons’ and Luhmann’s at the level of theorybuilding. A broader sociological re� ection upon the consequences of thechanges Luhmann introduces to the theory is attempted in section 6.

436 Daniel Chernilo

Evolutionarily, Luhmann theorizes three kinds of media. Firstly, thereare oral languages. As limited to face-to-face interactions between Ego andAlter, oral languages have a low capacity to reduce complexity. The secondmedia are mass or diffusion media: writing, printing and telecommuni-cations. The main characteristic of these media is the great expansion ofcommunication possibilities through the development of new technologiesthat uncouple communication from co-presence contexts. Finally, and thischaracterizes the advent of the functionally differentiated (that is, modern)society, generalized symbolic media of communication come into being.Luhmann (1995: 157–63) says that there is one type of medium linked toeach stage of social evolution: oral languages correspond to segmentedsocieties; mass media to strati� ed societies, and generalized symbolic mediato functionally differentiated societies.

More than the disappearance of previous forms of differentiation,Luhmann argues that what changes is the key principle of differentiation.For Luhmann (1977: 518–20), then, new forms of systemic differentiationare the result, not the cause, of the emergence of media. Luhmann turnsParsons’ thesis that symbolic media come after the rise of functional differ-entiation upside down. He rather links the rise of media to the problemof contingency and maintains that functional differentiation is theoutcome of this process. Differentiation is for Luhmann the result of thefunctional specialization already achieved by the media and not its previouscondition.

In this way, the theory of generalized symbolic media starts to obtainautonomy from the � rst Parsonian formulation at two levels. First, becausethe research on the development of media can be undertaken in itself. Aspolitics or economy became differentiated because of the functioning ofpower and money, the differentiation of politics from economy has to beresearched by looking at the actual development of power and money. Theresearch on the differentiation of society becomes historically and analytically subordi-nated to the research on the media. The deductions from the Parsonian frameof reference are abandoned, the theory of generalized symbolic mediabegins to follow its own path. The Parsonian scheme of four (and onlyfour) media is discarded, as being a mere consequence of the tetrafunc-tional paradigm. By putting, as Luhmann does, contingency at the consti-tutive level of the social it becomes impossible to keep a frame of referencethat deduces the existence of some media based only on Parsons’ AGILscheme. On the contrary, the determination of the processes of differenti-ation and their media should now be supported by the results of historicalresearches focused on the development of different institutional settings.Hence, in terms of which media are actually present in the societal system,Luhmann maintains the media money and power and introduces viahistorical research new media such as truth in the scienti� c system and lovein the system of intimate relations.

Second, according to Luhmann, media also gain autonomy by beinguncoupled from the problem of systemic exchanges and becoming linked

The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 437

to the inducement of communications for the reproduction of the societalsystem. In that sense, Luhmann moves from a theory of exchange media to atheory of communication media. In this transition, money loses its privilegedstatus as the paradigmatic medium from which the properties of theremaining media are derived. Now communicative processes perform thisrole. Taking this step towards the idea of communication media, Luhmannreinforces on the one hand his thesis that communication is the onlyelement that really ful� ls the conditions to produce the systems’autopoiesis, and on the other the idea that between the subsystemscontrolled by the media there is no ‘interchange’ of goods or decisions.Instead, these relationships must be understood as complementary ways ofreducing complexity. One can see again that it is not necessary to supposefull reciprocity between the subsystems: it could be found that some subsys-tems are more differentiated than others. I can now show the properties ofLuhmann’s theory of symbolic media.

1. Self-reference: Systemic operations are self-referential, that is, mediacannot circulate between subsystems as processes of reciprocalexchanges (inputs/outputs). What does occur is that a mediumreinforces some choices beyond its realm, inciting those patterns ofaction that are socially preferred. The code of one medium cannot bedissolved into the codes of others (Luhmann 1998: 120–1).

2. Disjunction codes: Codes are no longer symbolic codes as in Parsons’,each medium offers two (and only two) options. The ‘yes’ side signi-� es the expected social value of the medium (pay, truth, justice). The‘no’ position (no pay, untruth, injustice) speci� es the re� exivemoment of the medium, showing the contingency of the positive side.Media are distinguished by their capacity to codify preferences and toinduce the production of certain choices over others and their codesare useful as structures that simplify information-processing andmotivate the acceptance of choices. Through this performance,media develop both secondary codes, which are less abstract than thebase-code, and programmes, which are strategies that give empiricalspeci� city to the medium.

3. Production of paradoxes: Media cannot use their disjunctions on them-selves. For example, the ‘legal/illegal’ distinction cannot by itselfground the legality of its existence. However, the system’s autopoiesisdoes not stop even during these paradoxes because this detentionwould produce the end of the system.

4. Symbiotic dimension: The co-ordination achieved by the media is notonly symbolically produced but also externally reinforced through thesymbiotic dimension of the media: the physical world human beingsshare (Luhmann 1995: 244–54). The relevance of this symbioticdimension rests in the hypothesis that part of the evolutionary successof some media, that is, their faster and better institutionalization,depends on the range of compatibility between the symbolic and the

438 Daniel Chernilo

organic dimension of the media: the higher the capacity of utilizationof the symbiotic mechanism, the better the performance of thesubsystem.

Table II summarizes the main elements of Luhmann’s theory of communi-cation media.11

In concluding this section, it is worth keeping in mind two issues. Firstly,money has de� nitively lost the monopoly for the determination of theproperties for all media. The change from the idea of interchange to thatof communication is a clear sign that language is now taking the paradig-matic position within the theory of media. Secondly, by avoiding theschematism of Parsons’ AGIL model, Luhmann opens to empirically-oriented research the determination of: [1] the number of existing mediaat the societal level and [2] different degrees of institutionalization for eachmedium.

5. HABERMAS’ DISTINCTION BETWEEN STEERING AND COMMUNICATION

MEDIA

In Habermas’ (1987) two-levels theory of society, the differentiationbetween system and lifeworld refers to how the problem of integration issolved in modern societies, or in Habermas’ own words, the problem of theco-ordination of actions. In modern societies, integration is not just socialintegration, that is, it does not occur only through interactions oriented tomutual understanding. The participants in interactions also co-ordinatethemselves by means of causal-chains over which they have neither fullcontrol nor full consciousness in their everyday life. There are restrictionsproduced by the exigencies of functional subsystems that permeate into thelifeworld which are most of the time invisible to the actors. That is whatHabermas calls systemic integration.

The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 439

TABLE II: Communication media and partial social systems in differentiatedsocieties

Function(main Primary Secondary Symbiotic

System Media problem) code code mechanism

Economy Money Scarcity Pay/no pay Monetary Basic needsunits

Politics Power Consensus Government/ Charisma Physical forceopposition

Science Truth Knowledge Truth/false Paradigms, Perceptiontheories

Family Love Intimacy Loved/ Marriage Sexualityunloved (reproduction)

This distinction, which refers to the differentiation of two distinctstrategies of social co-ordination, constitutes the core of Habermas’position about the theory of generalized symbolic media. If actions are co-ordinated in domains beyond the control of the actors, that is, if co-ordinations are pre-de� ned by the exigencies of functional systems, thenco-ordinations are based on an empirical motivation relative to the actors’achievement of goals. However, there are also other kinds of social relation-ships that are never fully uncoupled from the actors’ will to achieve anunderstanding. In these cases, the actors’ motivation for co-ordinatingtheir actions is not empirical but rational. This is what Habermas callscommunicative rationality – a form of co-operation based on free consent.Thus the rationalization of the lifeworld is conceptualized as a re� exiveappropriation of its symbolic reproduction.

At this stage, then, Habermas rejects as an overgeneralization Parsons’thesis of money as the paradigmatic medium and the conceptualization ofin� uence and value-commitments from this source, because they are struc-turally linked to linguistic understanding and to the symbolic reproductionof the lifeworld. For Habermas, the key point is that the four mediadescribed by Parsons are not quite the same. As media are mechanisms forimproving opportunities for a successful co-ordination of actions,Habermas af� rms that they either replace or condense the formation oflinguistic consent.

Those media that replace linguistic consent (i.e. money and power, thesteering media) are characterized by their progressive uncoupling from thelifeworld, which becomes increasingly unnecessary as the meaning-framefor actors’ action orientations. The subsystems constituted in this way(economy and politics) are ruled by the media producing a sort of ‘system/environment relationship’ with the lifeworld. By contrast, media that onlycondense the achievement of linguistic consent (in� uence and value-commitments, the so-called communication media) remain closely linked tothe reproduction of lifeworld through the actors’ orientation towardsunderstanding. Habermas realizes that these only appear as media becausethere are no institutions like contract or property for them. Table IIIsummarizes Habermas’ position on the theory of media so far.

Then, Habermas asks if there are some structural properties which, asderived from money, can be generalized to the set of media as a whole. Hesays that the dif� culties related to the Parsonian schematism are not contin-gent but systematic, because in taking money as paradigmatic medium it isonly possible the formation of action systems based on a strategic way ofachieving consensus. This would not be an empirical dif�culty concerningwhether the economy is the � rst or best subsystem to become differentiated(as Parsons could argue), but rather an analytical inaccuracy. In beginningwith the distinction between a communicative and a strategic way of co-ordinating actions, Habermas (1987: 264–7) makes his own evaluation ofthe structural properties of Parsons’ media.

440 Daniel Chernilo

1. Structural features: The symbolic and generalized character of mediameans that the co-ordination of actions cannot be based on criticiz-able validity claims, because there is a consensus pre-de� ned by thefunctional requirements of the subsystems. There are only somerealms (functional subsystem) where the media can properly operate.From this ‘external’ point of view it is expected that actors adopt anobjectifying attitude and rationalizing orientation towards the conse-quences of their actions. Interactions ruled by the media lack bindingcapacity in the lifeworld but are ef� cient in the rational subsystems.

2. Qualitative properties: Media (based on money) can be measured,accumulated, and alienated. They must re� ect a speci� c amount ofvalue towards which actors might refer independently of speci� ccontexts of interaction. Media should be apportioned exclusively andin variable quantities to speci� c actors, and this marks their differencefrom linguistic expressions which cannot be � xed in this way.

3. The structure of claim and redemption: As an object, money does not havean intrinsic amount of value, but requires laws for its operation. Poweracquires its empirical motivation force externally, through thephysical force acting as its security base. By contrast with both moneyand power, trust in ordinary language is bound to the symbolicreproduction of the lifeworld and no additional institutions arerequired for its operation. Language develops a different kind ofcompelling force which motivates rationally through propositionsthat can be argumentatively sustained.

4. System-building effect: The historical emergence of money is the mainforce that produces the differentiation of economy as a functional

The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 441

TABLE III: Generalized symbolic media in a two-level theory of society

SocialDynamic of Relation with reproductionco-ordination Actor’s Type of ordinary in which is

Media of actions orientation motivation language involved

Money, power Strategic. Towards Empirical Replace MaterialFunctional success reproductionchains of of systems.consequences Systemic

integration.

In� uence, Communicat- Towards Rational Condense Symbolicvalue- ive. Actor’s understanding reproductioncommitments orientation of lifeworld.

towards the Socialachievement integrationof acommunicativeunderstanding

subsystem. This is because of the evolution of social structures thatcome under monetary control. For Habermas, the emergence ofmoney as the medium of the economic system does not necessarilyimply the development of other subsystems and media. Furthermore,he rejects the Parsonian presupposition that the interchangesbetween the economy and the other subsystems must be conceptual-ized as reciprocal double-exchanges. Like Luhmann, Habermasrejects Parsons’ thesis that media are the result of functional differ-entiation.

Habermas’ systematic attempt to criticize Parsons’ theory of media isbased on the dif� culties of deriving the set of common properties usingonly money as paradigmatic medium, and he demonstrated these problemsby explaining that there are two different dynamics of action co-ordinationswhich are irreducible among them.

As a corollary of his discussion of Parsons’ theory of interchange media,Habermas shows that even a comparison within the steering media (moneyand power) is rather odd. Power needs a stronger institutional ground thanmoney in the lifeworld, because it requires additional trust for its legitimateuse, which in modern societies makes reference to some sort of ‘common-wealth’. Furthermore, it is supposed that exchanges mediated by money donot harm any of the participants, since they are conceived as equalexchanges of goods with the same value. But since in modern societies theapplication of power through physical force has to be legitimated, power iscloser than money to linguistic strategies of achieving understanding. Thisis a second line of Habermas’ critique of Parsons’ theory of media. Hisargument is based on the negative consequences for the participants if theydo not continue their actions in the way established by the power-holders.Habermas says that to be intimidated by the possibility of being sanctionedis not the route for the continuation of co-ordinations achieved through afree and mutual understanding.12

At the stage of theory building, then, Habermas criticizes the conse-quences of not distinguishing steering from communication media.Certainly, this is nothing else but an application of his system-and-lifeworlddistinction to the Parsonian theory of media. Although, we shall see how atthe sociological level Habermas’ understanding of the theory of mediachanges and how these changes occur rather implicitly in theoretical terms,even to the point of modifying major issues for the understanding of recenttrends in modern societies.

6. THE SUBSTANTIATION OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAMME. THE

PARADIGMATIC POSITION OF LANGUAGE AND THE SOCIETAL PERSPECTIVE

So far I have shown the development of the theory at a theory-buildinglevel of argumentation. The paper presented and compared the differentversions of the set of properties upon which theory is laid down; made clear

442 Daniel Chernilo

how the theory of media is related to the general frameworks of thedifferent authors and linked it to their understanding of the differentiationof societies. Thus, in terms of the conceptualization of the theory of mediaas a research programme, we are now in a position to prove the hypothesisof the progressivity of the programme. For so doing, Lakatos proposed twoclauses, the � rst one being that: the programme must show usefulness indepen-dently of the general framework in which it was created.

This � rst condition looks ful� lled by taking into account how Luhmannand Habermas have rede� ned and utilized the theory of media. There hasbeen an increase in the autonomy of the theory of media from the generalframework of the � rst Parsonian version, within his systems theory, throughthe inclusion of different kinds of communicative processes with their ownrationality. My own reconstruction shows that one can distinguish betweenmedia that are a generalization from money (Parsons) and media that arean extension of the features of language (Luhmann and Habermas). Thepresentation done in the previous three sections argues for the relevanceof the theory of media as an autonomous � eld of sociological research.

Before moving to the second clause proposed by Lakatos, that the theorymust theoretically provide topics for further research, I still have to show the mostrecent developments in the theory of media. We will do so by looking athow Habermas and Luhmann themselves used the theory, but now with amuch stronger sociological orientation, that is, how they have utilized thetheory of media at the level of neither paradigm presuppositions northeory building. Rather, the issue now is how the theory of generalizedsymbolic media is located at the core of the their sociological understand-ing of the differentiation of modern societies.

In his writing on Habermas’ concepts of power and politics, T. McCarthy(1991: 160–72) has shown that in The Theory of Communicative ActionHabermas mixed the concepts of ‘political system’ and of ‘bureaucratic-administrative system’. By so doing, politics is implicitly theorized as anaction-system concerned only with technical problem-solving instead ofnormative issues. In a later work Habermas (1996: 348–59) cleared up thisconfusion by saying that the political system cannot be adequately concep-tualized just as a rational system and that it had to be split. On the one side,he de� ned the already mentioned ‘bureaucratic-administrative system’. Itsoperations are ruled no longer by political power but by a new mediumcalled ‘administrative power’, which is highly technicized and governed bylegal regulations (this is, strictly speaking, a steering medium). On theother side, there is the ‘substantive’ political system, which resting onfundamental rights is institutionalized as the contemporary ‘rule-of-lawstate’. Habermas says that the operations of this new subsystem are alsoruled by a medium, a new ad hoc power, the ‘communicative power’. Thisis a medium as ef� cient as any other media, but it is directly linked to thenormative grounds of the lifeworld.

More importantly, in the same work Habermas gives us anothersuggestion about the relevance of language (instead of money) as the

The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 443

paradigmatic medium, but now through a sociological rather than a theor-etical argumentation. Habermas asks about the possible conceptualizationof ‘ultimate metalanguages’: these would be media specialized in convert-ing to a common semantic the different functionally specialized languagesrepresented by all the media. The function of these metalanguages is thetranslation of different media, so as to make societally compatible thespecialized codes of all media. For Habermas (1996: 348), both ordinarylanguages and law are these metalanguages. Firstly, ordinary languages arein fact the very background of the processes of communication, becauseevery communicative act presupposes a shared cultural horizon. As, forhim, media are the most stable communicative processes in contemporarysocieties, they themselves must be co-ordinated through ordinary lan-guages. Secondly, law is normatively linked both to the lifeworld throughhuman rights and to the functional systems through legal codes. Habermasconcludes by saying that the actual conditions of functional differentiationproduce a kind of upper-level integration, and hence the hypothesis of theexistence of metalanguages becomes plausible.

The conclusion is that Habermas has made an implicit but very import-ant change: to ground the theory of generalized symbolic media on bothmoney and language. He has been using an alternative strategy for theunderstanding of media that is, however sociologically plausible, stilltheoretically underdeveloped: the utilization of language as paradigmaticmedium and the re-de� nition of the whole set of media (including money)from the properties of language. Moreover, this use of language has analyti-cal and normative consequences in terms of his understanding of modernsocieties. Analytically, it states that a proper conceptualization of the socialmust be at the level of intersubjectivity; and it also states that, regardless thelevel of abstraction and self-reference achieved by the steering media, theprocesses of symbolization and generalization cannot go beyond naturallanguages.

Normatively, the democratic theory Habermas has recently put forwardrequires the strongest possible location for language as the medium uponwhich to build discursive procedures for guaranteeing the universalapplicability and compelling force of norms. In my view, this is howHabermas explains sociologically an alternative strategy for understandingthe media. He does not, however, develop it explicitly at the theory-building level: i.e. the use of language as the paradigmatic medium and thepossibility of re-de� ning all the properties starting from language.Moreover, this also clari�es that the Parsonian generalization of money’sproperties to the remaining media was not a necessary theoretical develop-ment but rather resulted from the expansion of Parsons’ systemic frame-work.

In terms of Luhmann’s work, I would like to emphasize two issues.Firstly, Luhmann’s different understanding concerning the rise ofmodern society in relation to Parsons’. As we have said, Luhmann’s thesisis that media appear before the functional differentiation of societies;

444 Daniel Chernilo

media themselves are catalysts of such process. By so doing, he goes for amore historically open-ended strategy for researching the structuralconditions of differentiation. For example, in the research about the func-tional differentiation of science one must begin by looking at the develop-ment of the cognitive relations which end up constituting a self-referentialenvironment where only the medium truth can regulate the internalcommunications of the scienti� c subsystem and also mediate the relationswith other equally self-referential subsystems. Luhmann’s theory of therise of functional differentiation is rede� ned by the way he discussesParsons’ theory of media.

Secondly, and this can only be understood as a direct result of theprevious step, Luhmann is the author who has most clearly made the claimthat the theory of media provides a societal approach towards the under-standing of the development of modern society. What is original inLuhmann’s Love as Passion (1986) is not that feelings and sentiments areseen sociologically (this is anyway a rising � eld of research in sociology),but rather that he offers a societal point of view for the study of love as asocial phenomenon. What Luhmann argues is that a truly sociologicalunderstanding of love is achieved by undertaking the research on the trans-formation of intimacy as part of the more general problem of the rise ofmodern societies, by taking into account its interrelations with the societaldifferentiation as a whole. As he explicitly recognized, this would not bepossible without the paradigmatic framework offered by the theory ofmedia.

In this context, it might look as if the second of Lakatos’ conditions, thatthe theory has to provide topics for further research, is not adequatelysatis� ed. In this possible (and I think restrictive) interpretation, ‘furtherresearch’ can be understood as empirical research in a, let me put itbluntly, ‘traditional sense’. In this approach, the results I have shown couldbe considered insuf� ciently empirical or, at the very least, insuf� cientlyempirically-oriented. Furthermore, one has to recognize that the theory ofgeneralized symbolic media played little role as yet in this kind of empiri-cal research.

However, I certainly take a different position and sustain that there aregood reasons to consider this second clause, and hence the thesis of theprogressivity of the whole programme, as reasonably supported. Firstly, therise of different dynamics of social co-ordination represented by mediasuch as love and truth, and by metalanguages such as law and ordinarylanguages was revealed. This openness of the theory towards morehistorical determinations of new media is a step forward in relation to theempirical possibilities produced by theoretical improvements. Secondly, itwas also argued that there are dynamics of social co-ordination that couldonly be theorized – as societally relevant – through the conceptual frame-work set up by the theory of media. It seems to me that this is a very strongmethodological point made by Luhmann, by claiming that the theory ofmedia offers not only the analytical framework to conceptualize the

The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 445

functional differentiation, but also the way in which one must look at thoseprocesses in order to achieve a societal level of abstraction. If this is not anempirical result as such yet, it is undeniably an empirically-oriented claimarising directly from the core of this theoretical outlook.

7. SUMMARY

As the paper has different lines of argumentation, in these last few words Iwill simply try to clarify what these lines are and why I claim they form acoherent framework.

1. I began with the broad sociological thesis about the rise of modernsocieties in terms of a process of differentiation by doing two thingsat once. First, I brought the issue of differentiation into the contem-porary debate, by relating it with the work of Parsons, Luhmann andHabermas. Second, it was claimed that the theory of media as devel-oped by these authors represents a sort of middle-range approach tosubstantiate sociologically the problem of differentiation, whichremains at a paradigmatic level. The sociological relevance of lookingat the theory of media is based not only in its intrinsic interest as acontemporary theoretical development, but also on its relation to thegeneral disciplinary problem of the differentiation of societies.

2. The object of the theory was de� ned by the formula that media repre-sent the most stable dynamics of social co-ordinations present indifferentiated societies. In order to undertake the research, Lakatos’proposal to the reconstruction of research programmes was chosen.

3. The reconstruction of the theory of media was done by looking at howthe three authors developed it within their own general analyticalframeworks. In those sections (3, 4 and 5) the accent was placed onthe elucidation of the set of properties that allowed us to understandthe different media as an identi� able theory, as a coherent corpus ofknowledge. Two were the main results of the reconstruction: � rst,money looses its position as paradigmatic medium, language being totake that place. Second, the relation between media and differentia-tion is rede� ned by reversing Parsons’ thesis: media are now seen asa causal component of the functional differentiation of societies, theycome before and not after the differentiation. Whilst Habermasadvanced the former development, Luhmann has the authorship forthe latter.

4. Finally, I undertook the substantiation of the theory of media, bylooking at Lakatos’ two clauses to prove the progressivity of theprogramme. Firstly, it is clear that the theory of media is now anindependent analytical framework in relation to the � rst Parsonianformulation. Secondly, and arguably harder to prove, I put forwardthe claim that there are further topics of research which are logically

446 Daniel Chernilo

derived from the developments of the theory. In that case, I tookHabermas’ discussion of the rise of metalanguages and Luhmann’sconceptualization of love as direct results of the path followed by thetheory of media. In these cases, it is suggested, there is a sociological-research interest rather than an attempt at the theory-building level.

By stating the necessity of conducing deeper research through thetheory of media, this paper sought to reinstate in the agenda the interestof continuing this line of theoretically informed sociological research. Theclari� cation of the basic lines of the discussion was the necessary � rst stepin that direction.

(Date accepted: April 2002) Daniel CherniloDepartment of Sociology

The University of Warwick

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

*A previous version of this paper was presented at the 5th Conference ofthe European Sociological Association in Helsinki, August–September2001. My thanks to Dr. Marcelo Arnold, Omar Aguilar, Andrés Haye,Marcus Taylor and two anonymous BJS reviewers for their comments atdifferent stages of this research. I am especially indebted to Dr. Robert Finefor his help through the � nalization of the paper.

NOTES

The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 447

1. This claim seems to be shared by therepresentatives of the neo-functionalistproject (Alexander 1990). A similar thesisabout the recent developments in relationto the differentiation theory, but quitecritical of the neo-functionalists, can befound in Schwinn (1998: 77–82).

2. Garcia’s (1997) account is interest-ing, but he ful� ls neither of these tasks.

3. In the following years, Parsons gen-eralizes the theory of media to the ‘generalsystem of action’ and later on to the‘human condition’. Nevertheless, thispaper is only concerned with the media ofthe social system because: (a) these mediaare particularly relevant towards thetheorization of the dynamics of social co-ordination, and (b) Luhmann and Haber-mas focus their works mainly on the mediaof the societal subsystems.

4. On this issue, Dodd’s (1994: 60–2)

and Lidz’s (2001: 142–52) claims arerelevant. Whilst the former argues thatParsons’ main movement was from lan-guage to money, the latter (whoseinterpretation I endorse) claims thatParsons’ media are derived from moneybut recognizes that there is the tension asto whether money or language is the para-digmatic medium. My central claim isdifferent from both in that, beyondParsons’ intentions, Habermas andLuhmann reconstructed the theory ofmedia by explicitly dealing with thatoriginal tension.

5 Further developments of the Par-sonian concept of in� uence are found inLidz (1991) and Cohen and Arato (1992:138).

6. For a summary, see Johnson (1992).7. For a different version of these

properties see Münch (1994: 47–58).

8. This table is based on Baum (1977:467) and Habermas (1987: 274). Method-ologically I follow Münch (1987: 220n)when he writes ‘we should be concernedless with the individual formulations thanwith the interpretation of the paradigm’sperspective’.

9. A critique of the zero-sum model isfound in Giddens (1995).

10. I owe this precise reference toAlmaraz’s (1981: 504–6) comprehensivework on Parsons.

11. See also Arnold and Rodríguez(1991: 167).

12. ‘Value-commitments’ also tends tothe application of sanctions, in this casenot through physical but by social andpsychological sanctions. See above, TableI.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, J. 1990 ‘Introduction. Differen-tiation Theory: Problems and Prospects’ inJ. Alexander and P. Colomy (eds) Differen-tiation Theor y and Social Change. Comparativeand Historical Perspectives, NY: ColumbiaUniversity Press.Almaraz, J. 1981 La Teoría Sociológica deTalcott Parsons, Madrid: CIS.Arnold, M. and Rodríguez, D. 1991Sociedad y Teoría de Sistemas, Santiago: Ed.Universitaria.Baum, R. 1977 ‘Introduction to part IV.Generalized Media in Action’ in J.Loubser, R. Baum, A. Effrat, and V. Lidz(eds) Explorations in the General Theory inSocial Science. Essays in honour of TalcottParsons, Vol. Two, NY: Free Press.Cohen, J. and Arato, A. 1992 Civil Societyand Political Theory, New Baskerville: MITPress.Dodd, N. 1994 The Sociology of Money.Economics, Reason and Contemporary Society,Cambridge: Polity Press.García, P. 1997 ‘Los Medios Simbólicos¿De Comunicación o de Intercambio?: ElLegado Parsoniano en Luhmann’, RevistaAnthropos 173/174: 100–11.Giddens, A. 1995 ‘ “Power” in the Writingsof Talcott Parsons’, in A. Giddens Politics,Sociology and Social Theory, California: Stan-ford University Press.

Habermas, J. 1987 The Theory of Communi-cative Action Vol. 2. Lifeworld and System: aCritique of Functionalist Reason, UK: BeaconPress.—— 1996 Between Facts and Norms, NewBaskerville: MIT Press.Johnson, H. 1992 ‘The Generalized Sym-bolic Media in Parsons’ Theory’ in P.Hamilton (ed.) Talcott Parsons. CriticalEssays IV, London: Routledge.Lakatos, I. 1978 The Methodology of Scienti�cResearch Programmes. Philosophical PapersVol.1, J. Worral and G. Currie (eds), Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.Lidz, V. 1991 ‘In� uence and Solidarity:De� ning a Conceptual Core for Sociology’in R. Robertson and B. Turner (eds)Talcott Parsons. Theorist of Modernity, GB:Sage.—— 2001 ‘Language and the “Family” ofGeneralized Symbolic Media’ in A. J.Treviño (ed.) Talcott Parsons Today. HisTheor y and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology,USA: Rowman & Little� eld Publishers.Luhmann, N. 1977 ‘Generalized Mediaand the Problem of Contingency’ in J.Loubser, R. Baum, A. Effrat, and V. Lidz(eds) Explorations in the General Theory inSocial Science. Essays in honour of TalcottParsons, Vol. Two, NY: Free Press.—— 1986 Love as Passion. The codi�cation ofIntimacy, GB: Polity Press.—— 1995 Social Systems, Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press.—— 1998 Complejidad y Modernidad, Spain:Trota.McCarthy, T. 1991 On Reconstruction andDeconstruction in Contemporar y CriticalTheor y, New Baskerville: MIT Press.Münch, R. 1987 Theory of Action: Towards aNew Synthesis Going Beyond Parsons,London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.—— 1994 Sociological Theory II: From the1920s to the 1960s, Chicago: Nelson Hall.Parsons, T. 1967a ‘Durkheim’s Contri-bution to the Theory of Integration ofSocial Systems’ in T. Parsons SociologicalTheor y and Modern Society, NY: Free Press.—— 1967b ‘On the Concept of PoliticalPower’ in T. Parsons Sociological Theor y andModern Society, NY: Free Press.—— 1967c ‘On the Concept of In� uence’in T. Parsons Sociological Theory and ModernSociety, NY: Free Press.—— 1967d ‘Evolutionary Universals in

448 Daniel Chernilo

Society’ in T. Parsons Sociological Theor y andModern Society, NY: Free Press.—— 1969 ‘On the Concept of Value-Commitments’ in T. Parsons Politics andSocial Structure, NY: Free Press.—— 1977a ‘The Social Systems’ in T.Parsons Social Systems and the Evolution ofAction Theory, NY: Free Press.—— 1977b ‘Social Structure and the Sym-bolic Media of Interchange’ in T. Parsons

Social Systems and the Evolution of ActionTheor y, NY: Free Press.Schluchter, W. 1981 The Rise of WesternRationalism, California: University of Cali-fornia Press.Schwinn, T. 1998 ‘False Connections:Systems and Action Theories in Neo-functionalism and in Jürgen Habermas’,Sociological Theory 16(1): 75–95.

The theorization of social co-ordination in differential societies 449