Upshot: I draw the attention to the fact that the communication concept of Luhmann's social system theory and that of radical constructivism are not congruent. Also, communication and culture cannot be understood without taking into consideration that they are two sides of the same coin and that both act as reality-generating agents.

Context: Although the relationship between communication and culture has received significant attention among communication scholars over the past thirty or more years, there is still no satisfactory explanation as to how these two are related and how culture evolves in communication. It forces the author to turn to Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory, which is one of the main hypotheses of how social systems emerge. Problem: Unfortunately, Luhmann’s concept of meaning is too weak to explain the autopoiesis of communication. In looking for a solution, the author suggests that it is necessary to distinguish between personal sense structures and socio-cultural meanings and to introduce the concept of shared meaning to the systems-theoretical approach. The paper conceptualises “meaning” as a phenomenon that evolves in communication and defines “culture” as a pattern of structurally related meanings. Findings: (1) According to Luhmann, social systems do not consist of static objects, but of dynamic operations, and for a social system to emerge, its elements – communications – must be connected to one another. The author argues that culture equips the momentary elements of the social system – communications – with the capacity for connection, and makes the social system operationally closed, self-referential, and autopoietic. (2) The problem of adaptation does not lose its importance if we understand cognition as a “self-founding activity” of operationally closed systems but transforms into a question of whether the “reality” construed by the media favours or restricts the coping of the system in the ever changing environment. (3) From the perspective of adaptation of the social system to its internal and external environments, an important condition of the continuous process of creation of shared knowledge to which individuals orientate themselves in their activities is the existence of variations.

Key words: Communication, meaning, culture, social system, self-organisation.

Open peer commentary on the article “Do the Media Fail to Represent Reality? A Constructivist and Second-order Critique of the Research on Environmental Media Coverage and Its Normative Implications” by Julia Völker & Armin Scholl. Upshot: The present commentary is not intended as a criticism of the arguments presented in Julia Völker and Armin Scholl’s target article. I very much agree with these arguments. I only wish to draw attention to the fact that Völker and Scholl are not writing about global warming or climate change; their article suggests that communication and media studies are in a state of crisis.

Open peer commentary on the article “Social Autopoiesis?” by Hugo Urrestarazu. Upshot: I argue that it is possible to conceptualise the social system as autopoietic if we derive the social from the most important feature of a living being on which his relationship to the environment is based - from consciousness. This approach also allows us to solve Husserl’s problem of intersubjectivity.

Upshot: I revisit the basic assumptions of constructivism on which the solutions presented in the target article rest, and argue that communication is difficult to understand until the cognitive autonomy of individuals resulting from operational closure is adopted as the point of departure.

Context: The interest of communication scholars in (radical) constructivism is fuelled by the need to radically rethink the theoretical assumptions that have governed most media and communication research for the past three or four decades. Problem: On at least two points, constructivism poses difficulties that need to be overcome by scholars of communication. These are the attitudes of many radical constructivists towards “reality” and the constructivist position with regard to “society.” The article seeks to clarify the constructivist position with regard to social interaction and society by determining how successful communication among individuals is possible, despite their cognitive autonomy. Method: In order to contribute to a discussion about the current situation in communication and media studies, the article takes up the author’s argument that communication cannot be understood unless models describing it are centred on the individual. Based on this conceptualisation, considerations about the ontological assumptions of constructivism and the constructivist position with regard to social interaction are revisited. Results: It is argued that (a) cognition is not pure self-reference; (b) society cannot be considered simply as an individual construct; self-organisation also occurs at the supra-individual level, where shared knowledge and socio-cultural meanings emerge in the operatively closed motion of the successive communicative elements. Implications: Clarifying the constructivist position with regard to society can contribute to innovative theory building and research in communication science, and in the social sciences more broadly.

Key words: Communication, sense, meaning, self-organisation, adaptation.