Luhmanian sociocybernetics is an observation of socio-communicative systems with a specific difference. It is a second order observation of observations understanding society as being ‘functionally differentiated’ into autonomous autopoietic subsystems or meaning worlds in the symbolic generalized media such as money, power, truth, love, art and faith. Only communication communicates and the social is communication. The social system creates products of meaning which do not represent an aggregation of the content of individuals’ minds. The bioand psychological autopoietic systems only establish boundary conditions for the sociocommunicative systems, they do not control the socio-communicative system in any way. Somehow the socio-communicative systems seem to develop on their own (by will?) although they have no body and no subject. The psychic system in Luhmann’s theory is thus not a Kantian or Husserlian transcendental ego in spite of Luhmann’s use of aspects of Husserl’s phenomenology (while at the same time destroying its philosophical frame). On the other hand, Luhmann works with an open ontology, combined with Spencer-Brown’s philosophy that making distinctions is what creates the difference between system and environment. Thus observation is basic to the theory-but where is the observer in the theoretical framework of system theory? The inspiration from Hegel is hidden here, where distinction, creation and evolution merge. Also, Hegel has been taken out of his metaphysical frame while Luhmann never took the time to finish his own. On the other hand, the father of the pragmatic triadic semiotic C. S. Peirce-also inspired by Hegel-explicitly confronted some of these problems. Like Bataille, Peirce sees a continuity between mind and matter and his Firstness contains pure feeling, meaning that there is also an inner experience aspect of matter. The article compares Luhmann’s and Spencer-Brown’s strategies with Peirce’s, the latter of whom built an alternative transdisciplinary theory of signification and communication based on a Panentheistic theory of knowing. Surprisingly it fits well with Spencer-Brown’s metaphysics, which makes it possible to establish a consistent foundation for system theory.

Contemporary debates in social disciplines are making increasing reference to theoretical concepts such as sociocybernetics and autopoiesis (Bailey, 1983, 1997, 2001; Bopry, 2007, Brier, 2005; Geyer, 1994, 1995, 2003; Glanville, 2004; Goldspink, 2001; Hernes & Bakken, 2003; Krippendorff, 1996; Letiche, 2007; Luhmann, 1996; Mingers, 2002b; Morgan, 1998; Scott, 1996, 2001b, 2003; Smith & Higgins, 2003; Umpleby, 2005; Van der Zouwen, 1997; Von Foerster, 2003; Von Glasersfeld, 1996). It becomes apparent from these debates that certain paradigm shifts are imminent not so much as a result of new knowledge, but rather as a result of new metaphors that present alternative perspectives for interdisciplinary corroboration. Thus far, debates on revisiting cybernetic concepts have largely been conducted in other social sciences disciplines such as sociology, politics and semiology, this despite the challenges a cocreational perspective poses for communication in general and for organisational communication specifically. This paper aims to raise the debate amongst communication scholars, especially since communication scholars are conspicuously absent in the social-scientific debates within other disciplines, and we are in danger of failing to challenge our own intellectual assumptions. As such, this paper discusses and explores the appropriateness and applicability of cybernetics and autopoiesis as contemporary theoretical approaches to the study of organisations as communicatively enacted entities. It attempts to identify some of the intellectual challenges posed by extending the boundaries of our conversations beyond our recognised metaphors and concepts. The purpose of this paper is to initiate dialogue among communication scholars that may resonate with the constructivist epistemology, and which constitutes both cybernetics and postmodernism. We argue that cybernetics in its entirety poses a challenge for the study of organisations from a communication perspective. We argue, as Geyer (1995) has done, that it may be an intellectually challenging exercise to reposition the current modern and postmodern organisational metaphors within a single new emerging metaphor: the schismatic metaphor.

In this rejoinder to Zelený and Hufford’s paper, The application of autopoiesis in systems analysis: Are autopoietic systems also social systems? ", it is argued that applying autopoiesis, a biological concept, directly and literally to social systems in general, and to the family in particular, encounters practical difficulties of interpretation and adds no conceptual clarification or explanatory value to research in those fields. Additionally, and contrary to what Zelený and Hufford imply, social systems are not limited to cooperative units but include hierarchical command systems as well. \\Discussion follows Luhmann’s efforts to widen the concept of autopoiesis beyond its original biological connotations, thus making it applicable to the social sciences: social and psychic systems are not living systems, but meaning-using systems, based respectively on communication and consciousness as modes of meaning-based production rather than on individuals or even actions. Two concepts (selfobservation and self-reference) from second-order cybernetics are then presented and are illustrated with recent research examples. These two concepts are held to be important explanatory variables for describing the behavior of social systems.

Key words: Autopoiesis, communication. complexity reduction, family, free choice, self-ob-servation, self-organization, self-production, self-reference, sociocybernetics.

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to elaborate the connection between the evolution of cybernetics and the development of scientific rationality (classical, non-classical, post-non-classical) and to emphasize the relevance of the formation of post-non-classical cybernetics for self-developing reflexive-active environment (the third-order cybernetics). Design/methodology/approach – This paper includes interdisciplinary analysis of the evolution of cybernetics and possible directions of its development. Findings: A connection between the types of scientific rationality (classical, non-classical and post-nonclassical) and the stages of the development cybernetics is presented. Classical rationality is first-order cybernetics dealing with observed systems (an external observer). Non-classical rationality is secondorder cybernetics dealing with observing systems (built-in observer). Post-non-classical rationality is third-order cybernetics dealing with the self-developing reflexive-active environment (distributed observer). Research limitations/implications – This is an initial theoretical conceptualization, which needs a broader assessment and case studies. Practical implications: This proposed direction for the analysis of cybernetics opens new approaches to social control on the basis of the subject-focused models and integration of traditional cybernetic tools. Social implications – Third-order cybernetics will promote the development of civil society. Direct democracy receives new tools for development. Originality/value – The value of this research is in the interdisciplinary analysis of the cybernetics evolution and in new possible directions for its development.

Key words: Cybernetics, methodology, philosophy, epistemology, social systems, self-organization, sociocybernetics, second-order cybernetics.

Purpose: In the tradition of Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form, observation was defined in Luhmann’s social systems theory as the designation of a distinction. In the sociological design, however, the designation specifies only a category for the observation. The distinction between observation and expectation enables the sociologist to appreciate the processing of meaning in social systems. Seeks to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach – The specification of “the observer” in the tradition of systems theory is analyzed in historical detail. Inconsistencies and differences in perspectives are explicated, and the specificity of human language is further specified. The processing of meaning in social systems adds another layer to the communication. Findings: Reflexivity about the different perspectives of participant observers and an external observer is fundamental to the sociological discourse. The ranges of possible observations from different perspectives can be considered as second‐order observations or, equivalently, as the specification of an uncertainty in the observations. This specification of an uncertainty provides an expectation. The expectation can be provided with (one or more) values by observations. The significance of observations can be tested when the expectations are properly specified. Originality/value – The expectations (second‐order observations) are structured and therefore systemic attributes to the discourse. However, the metaphor of a (meta‐)biological observer has disturbed the translation of social systems theory into sociological discourse. Different discourses specify other expectations about possible observations. By specifying second‐order observations as expectations, social systems theory and sociocybernetics can combine the constructivist with an empirical approach.

Purpose: To present sociocybernetic models of observers in interaction with the aim of encouraging reflection on what is good practice in human communication. Design/methodology/approach – Foundational cybernetic concepts of process and product are drawn upon to develop models of belief, meaning, truth and power. Findings: Belief, following Pask and Rescher, is modelled as a coherent, self-reproducing system of concepts. Meaning, following Peirce, is modelled in terms of the pragmatic consequences of holding certain beliefs to be true. The concept of truth is modelled as justified true belief, the classic ideal of the objective sciences. Power is modelled as the pragmatic consequences of socialinteraction. Originality/value – The paper invites the members of the sociocybernetics community to reflect on the reflexive nature of these models and to critically monitor and evaluate the quality of the communication within that community.

Key words: Modelling, Sociocybernetics, Systems analysis

Innovations in the use of Information and Communications Technologies ICT, give rise to organisational change as a more or less intended concomitant. At the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, ICT is being deployed in a number of innovative ways to support the delivery of education and training and associated business processes. Part of my role, as a learning technology specialist, is to act as a facilitator of organisational change. In this paper, I give an account of my work. For guidance, I draw on the action learning, action research and organisational change literatures. I also explicitly draw on sociocybernetics to provide key concepts and principles. I set out my understanding of these key concepts and principles and illustrate their relevance and application using my Defence Academy and some other experiences as case studies.

Key words: organisational change, sociocybernetics, social system, human communication, trust, managing variety

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to set out some ideas about how sociocybernetics can contribute to understanding possible world futures. A central concept in cybernetics is governance, the art of steersmanship. As conceived by Ashby, Beer and others, this art is concerned with the management of variety. How do we face the challenge of managing all the variety that makes up possible world futures? Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses the distinction between first and second order cybernetics as a way of bringing order to the wide variety of disciplinary studies that are relevant for the understanding of possible world futures. Findings: Sociocybernetics is concerned with applying theories and methods from cybernetics and the systems sciences to the social sciences by offering concepts and tools for addressing problems holistically and globally. With its distinction between first order studies of observed systems and the second order study of observing systems, sociocybernetics provides a unifying epistemological and methodological conceptual framework. Within this framework, sociocybernetics accommodates awealth of specialisms in the social sciences, ranging, for example, from the drivers and effects of technological development to sustainability to justice. The shared framework facilitates communication between social science specialisms and also between the social sciences, the natural sciences and the applied, technological sciences. Originality/value – The paper will be of interest to anyone keen to see how ideas from cybernetics and the systems sciences can facilitate interdisciplinary approaches to the understanding of complex social systems.

Key words: Sociocybernetics, Cybernetics, Social systems

Throughout the world, educational, political and other social systems are in transition under the combined impact of ecological, demographic, cultural and technological changes. Arguably, there is a special role for Higher Education Institutions HEIs, not only to accommodate themselves to these changes, but also to lead the way in understanding them, to help avoid or ameliorate the painful consequences of change and to contribute to the practical achievement of sustainable development. In order to move towards these goals, it is worthwhile, if not essential, for there to be a reappraisal of the roles and functioning of HEIs. This paper addresses these issues by first briefly summarising the developments that have led to the age of global information and the ‘great debates’ concerning ownership, poverty, literacy and sustainable development that have been engendered. It goes on to consider the special roles of HEIs in understanding what is happening and in promoting constructive action. It argues that is a particularly constructive role for the transdisciplines first and second order cybernetics, sociocybernetics. These latter can fruitfully be a source of order and simplicity amidst disorder and complexity, by providing a ‘lingua franca’, conceptual understandings and hopefully shared values. Particular reference is made to the conversation theory of Gordon Pask. Finally, there is a brief discussion of how developments in e-learning can contribute to ensuring a secure and sustainable future for all.

The aim of this article is to show how sociocybernetics can clarify and bring order to two key concepts in the social sciences: ‘observation’ and ‘reflexivity’. The article provides an introduction and conceptual overview of second order cybernetics, placing it in the larger context of cybernetics and systems sciences studies. Since its inception, in cybernetics the role of the observer has been paramount. It is the observer who distinguishes systems of interest. It is the observer who communicates her observations and theoretical interpretations to the wider community of other observers. Critically, as Heinz von Foerster emphasises, with second order cybernetics the observer, since she is herself an observing system, should ‘enter the domain of her own descriptions’. With her second order studies, she is explaining herself to herself. Reflexively, she is obliged to engage in self-observation. The article sets out some of the theoretical and methodological implications of these propositions.

Key words: conversation theory, observation, reflexivity, second order cybernetics, sociocybernetics