N. Luhmann's theory of double differentiation:
concepts, interpretation, version
Authors: Gushchin  
Published: December 2020

Luhmann's theory of double distinction is a cross-cutting theme that runs through the entire sociological heritage of the outstanding German sociologist. Since this theory is not a subject of sociology and goes far beyond its scope, it is natural that its essential consideration does not have to be sociological. In this regard, in the process of studying Luhmann's texts, one way or another, a contradiction arises between the collaboration representing the problem and the problem itself.  What is its essence in short? We distinguish between something as such in itself — singular and indivisible, without experiencing any existential difficulties.  But as soon as we intend to discern the very distinction, we immediately find ourselves in a turbulence of forms and identifications, measures and dimensions, along the way losing our own, once unshakable, observer position. A situation of uncertainty arises, pushing towards this or that choice, to this or that commitment as to something definite. Luhmann seeks to overcome the intention of commitment. The result is a dynamic panorama of continuously related distinctive acts.  This is perhaps the most difficult passage not only in Luhmann, but also in the theory of distinction in his double dynamic perspective.  The difficulty is to describe how it is possible to relate to what is itself as a result of the relationship. According to Luhmannany definite differentiated — is act in act, movement within movement, time within time, subject within subject, life in life, relationship within relationship, etc. No matter what we are talking about, we are always talking about a double perspective of differentiation. Luhmann seeks to clarify the essence of the relation in relation as the possibility of explication of what itself makes explicit. This opportunity Luhmann calls autopoiesis, in which the unity of distinctive acts finds its higher dynamic expression. The «stumbling block» that the theory of autopoiesis constantly «stumbles over» is not so much the fact that they want to find autopoiesis in applied empirical research, but rather the fact that at the moment of its discrimination, the very correlation of discrimination itself changes dramatically. Here there is no longer a return to the previous arguments, the development of a new context is constantly required, the grounds change many times.
A few words about the method of presenting subject. In the process of writing the article, I had to make abstraction from specifically Luhmann's theoretical statements and «translate» the language of interpretation into the language of the version. We wanted not only to cover the scope of penetration into the problem of Luhmann's double distinctions, but also to approach it in my own way, as much as possible, at an extremely close distance. The task turned out to be twofold, in connection with which the so-called proposed by us was applied the formula for the relevance of the study, which would most likely be supported by a German sociologist: «author's interpretation» + «interpreter's version» = «lively response of understanding». Otherwise, we would have found ourselves in captivity exclusively to the author's system, unforgivably losing sight of the restless pulsation of the essence under study.  Throughout his entire scientific path, Luhmann not only struggles with all sorts of signs of a strictly determined system — it is more a consequence than a goal — he with enviable constancy tries to free the dynamic unity of distinctive acts from rigid conceptual and theoretical structures in order to reveal in him his relict permanent self-movement at the risk of being misunderstood by their professional community. Inspiring those who are sensitive to the grasp of thought, regardless of the rubrics that claim it.