If we ask whether computers are machines that work analogously to consciousness and can replace or even outdo consciousness systems, we are
putting the problem wrongly and probably playing it down. Nor is it relevant
whether the internal operations of the computer can be understood as
communications. We must presumably leave aside all analogies of this sort
and ask instead what consequences it would have if computers could establish a quite independent structural coupling between a reality they were able
construct and consciousness or communicative systems. This question
deserves greater attention; it is impossible to judge at present what consequences it would have for the further evolution of the societal system. At any
rate, any theory of society should reserve an indeterminacy position for the
issue, and the structural coupling concept offers such a possibility.
89
The possibility of using structural couplings to secure indeterminacy seems to
vacate a space in social systems theory for future inclusion of technology. It
remains unclear, however, between which systems these structural couplings
would emerge. The system of mass media does not accurately describe the social
complexity of technology use during the last decades, as the development of the
World Wide Web and rise of social media have detached information production
from established mass media. Could the answer, perhaps, be found in evaluating
technology as an autopoietic system in its own right, as the German sustainability
researcher André Reichel suggests? Reichel applies systems theory to what he
considers to be the core of technology, the technological artefact, which
then connects with its physical and social environment and with the human
user.
90 He considers three options for including technology in systems theory:
technology as a social system with coding work/fail; technology as a part of other
systems; and technology as a sui genesis autopoietic system. He opts for the third
option, as the first two would fail to actualise the full potential of technology.
Technology as a self-producing but not social system would be distinct from
society and humans. This would depict technology as non-physical and nonliving reproduction, as ‘technological’ instead of social.
91
Although perceiving technology as a sui generis autopoietic system might be
tempting, there are several issues against it. Reichel’s technological system is not
a social system and as such it is not based on communication, but instead
operates through information.
92 However, he still connects technology to social
systems and psychic systems through the use of language, through meaning and
communication,
93 which only social systems are able to do.
94 The interpretation
also disregards the social interdependencies between artefacts, markets and
cultural elements, the impact of regulation and financial incentives that all
reciprocally affect the development of technology. If we separate technology
from human interaction, the picture of technology becomes one-sided. Also,
without the social element, different subsystems in society cannot form structural
couplings with technology.
Another option is to consider the social practices related to technology, the
social element, as an internal programme of a social subsystem. However, this
Understanding law and technology 47
putting the problem wrongly and probably playing it down. Nor is it relevant
whether the internal operations of the computer can be understood as
communications. We must presumably leave aside all analogies of this sort
and ask instead what consequences it would have if computers could establish a quite independent structural coupling between a reality they were able
construct and consciousness or communicative systems. This question
deserves greater attention; it is impossible to judge at present what consequences it would have for the further evolution of the societal system. At any
rate, any theory of society should reserve an indeterminacy position for the
issue, and the structural coupling concept offers such a possibility.
89
The possibility of using structural couplings to secure indeterminacy seems to
vacate a space in social systems theory for future inclusion of technology. It
remains unclear, however, between which systems these structural couplings
would emerge. The system of mass media does not accurately describe the social
complexity of technology use during the last decades, as the development of the
World Wide Web and rise of social media have detached information production
from established mass media. Could the answer, perhaps, be found in evaluating
technology as an autopoietic system in its own right, as the German sustainability
researcher André Reichel suggests? Reichel applies systems theory to what he
considers to be the core of technology, the technological artefact, which
then connects with its physical and social environment and with the human
user.
90 He considers three options for including technology in systems theory:
technology as a social system with coding work/fail; technology as a part of other
systems; and technology as a sui genesis autopoietic system. He opts for the third
option, as the first two would fail to actualise the full potential of technology.
Technology as a self-producing but not social system would be distinct from
society and humans. This would depict technology as non-physical and nonliving reproduction, as ‘technological’ instead of social.
91
Although perceiving technology as a sui generis autopoietic system might be
tempting, there are several issues against it. Reichel’s technological system is not
a social system and as such it is not based on communication, but instead
operates through information.
92 However, he still connects technology to social
systems and psychic systems through the use of language, through meaning and
communication,
93 which only social systems are able to do.
94 The interpretation
also disregards the social interdependencies between artefacts, markets and
cultural elements, the impact of regulation and financial incentives that all
reciprocally affect the development of technology. If we separate technology
from human interaction, the picture of technology becomes one-sided. Also,
without the social element, different subsystems in society cannot form structural
couplings with technology.
Another option is to consider the social practices related to technology, the
social element, as an internal programme of a social subsystem. However, this
Understanding law and technology 47