You are on page 1of 8

Review: "Humans Cannot Communicate"—Unravelling the Mental Knots of Niklas Luhmann

Reviewed Work(s): Theory of Society, Volume 1 by Niklas Luhmann and Rhodes Barrett
Review by: Shamus Rahman Khan
Source: Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 43, No. 1 (January 2014), pp. 49-55
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43185279
Accessed: 08-04-2019 03:07 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and


extend access to Contemporary Sociology

This content downloaded from 129.49.5.35 on Mon, 08 Apr 2019 03:07:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Review Essays 49

may be waiting on the sidelines growing Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology.


a beard and allowing for knots. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Law, J. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science
References
Research. London, UK: Routledge.
DiMaggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell. 1991. Introduc-
Meyer, J. W. and B. Rowan. 1991. "Institutional-
tion (pp. 1-38) in Powell, W. W. and P. ized J. Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth
DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutionalism and
in Ceremony (pp. 41-62) in Powell, W. W.
Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: Universi-
and P. J. DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutional-
ty of Chicago Press. ism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL:
DiMaggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell. 1991. "The Iron
University of Chicago Press.
Cage Revisited: Institutional IsomorphismPowell,
and W. W. and P. J. DiMaggio, eds. 1991. The
Collective Rationality in Organizational
New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Fields" (pp. 63-82) in Powell, W. W. and
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
P. J. DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutionalism
Scott, W. R. and J. W. Meyer. 1991. "The Organiza-
in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: Univer-
tion of Societal Sectors: Propositions and Early
sity of Chicago Press. Evidence" (pp. 108-140) in Powell, W. W. and
Foucault, M. 1980. Power /Knowledge. London, P. UK:J. DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutionalism in
Vintage. Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.

"Humans Cannot Communicate" - Unravelling the Mental Knots of Niklas


Luhmann

Shamus Rahman Khan


Columbia University
sk2905@columbia.edu

Who now reads Luhmann? This is a ridicu-


lous question, as few of us ever have or
Theory of Society , Volume 1, by Niklas
will. And as the question intimates, thoseLuhmann, translated by Rhodes
(Americans) who have undertaken the taskBarrett. Stanford, CA: Stanford
of getting to know this monumental GermanUniversity Press, 2012. 461pp. $27.95
thinker tend to do so through a Parsonsianpaper. ISBN: 9780804739504.
prism, which both distorts the landscape of
his thought and makes most less inclined
across his some 60 books and 400 articles.
to look to his scholarship for insights. But
with the publication of the first half of his It may not be the place the start if one is look-
final work, Theory of Society, we are given ing to make sense of this rich life of work,1
a moment to reevaluate the ideas of this elu- but this book provides the clearest articula-
sive social theorist. tion of it: constructing a (grand) theory of
The book represents a culmination of
society. Such a project is perhaps more suited
Niklas Luhmann's career as a sociologist. for
It prophets seeking followers than for theo-
reticians hoping that journeymen scholars
is the first volume of Die Gesellschaft der
will take up, evaluate, and reformulate their
Gesellschaft (literally, "The Society of Socie-
ty"), published in German in 1997, one ideas through study of the empirical world.
Yet I still believe that Luhmann deserves
year before Luhmann's death. In many
ways, the book gathers insights scattered our attention - not because we might all
become Luhmannian, but because reading
his work helps us to understand better the
1 I would suggest that the most accessible intro-
kinds of questions we do not ask, and an
duction to Luhmann is his 1989 book, Ecologi-
intellectual trajectory we have not taken.
cal Communication. It is hardly comprehensive
in exploring his thought. But the interestedSuch absence helps us to see the present
yet uninitiated reader might begin here. state of American sociology. In this review

Contemporary Sociology 43, 1

This content downloaded from 129.49.5.35 on Mon, 08 Apr 2019 03:07:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
50 Review Essays

1 outline the life and ideas of Luhmann in the lawyer. He found the demands of recruiting
hope that sociologists will more clearlyand satisfying individual clients burden-
understand his thought and find that which some and so soon after began a career as
is perhaps invisible or unasked in theira public servant, starting in 1954.
work. Luhmann was a voracious reader, and
during these years began devouring socio-
logical texts. In 1960, he applied for a stipend
The Life of Luhmann to visit Harvard at the Littauer Center for

In 1927, Niklas Luhmann was born into Public Administration (what would become
a family of brewers from Luneburg, Ger-the Kennedy School), and for a year found
many.2 His early education was interrupted
himself under the tutelage of Talcott Par-
sons. The influence of Parsons on Luhmann
by Germany's declining fortunes in World
War II; at 15 he was manning anti-aircraftwas immense, but is commonly overstated.
guns at the airbase near his home, and byLuhmann's career was spent (re)working
16 he was a full-fledged soldier in the south
systems theory, and presenting a radically
different model from that of Parsons. Had
of Germany. It was not long before Luhmann
was captured by Americans and becameother theoretical traditions taken up systems
a prisoner of war, spending the last sixtheory more seriously, Luhmann might not
be so allied in our imagination with Parson-
months of the war in a labor camp.
Luhmann recalled that his early life wassian thinking; but in the absence of others
working in this realm, it seems that Luh-
marked by the breakdown of social order mann - is the inheritor of the Parsionsian
from the rise of the Third Reich to the inter-
kingdom, such as it is.
ruption of his school days to fight, to the cha-
os of the German forces in the twilight of the
This reading is unfair to both Luhmann
and Parsons. Upon his return to Germany,
war, to the beatings he received while in his
Marseille work camp. Perhaps it should be Luhmann published his now classic essay,
"Function and Causality," which critically
no surprise, then, that the young Luhmann
assessed the kind of functionalist explana-
initially chose law as his profession, enroll-
tions provided within Parsons (see the first
ing at Freiburg after his return to Germany.
chapter of Social Systems [1995] for a reprise
Upon the completion of his degree, Luh-
mann returned to his hometown as a trainee of these ideas). This essay, combined with
his fast-growing list of scholarly works,
landed Luhmann a series of professorships
before he became the first professor at the
2 For an outstanding review of Luhmann' s life
newly formed Bielefeld University; he was
and work, see Rudold Stichweh's entry, "Nik-
las Luhmann" in the Blackwell Companion appointed
to before the university had begun
Major Social Theorists. Professor Stichwehtoisenroll students. He remained in Bielefeld
both more sympathetic to Luhmann and pro- for the rest of his career. Unlike other
vides an outline of his ideas in far greater
prominent academics, Luhmann generally
detail than I do here. I would encourage inter-
ested readers to visit his work. I have drawn avoided politics, intellectual trends, or the
mass media - even though he would become
on it extensively for this biographical informa-
tion. For other treatments of Luhmann I wouldfamous for writing on this very "system."
encourage scholars to read Daniel Lee's out-
Instead he quietly but powerfully built
line of Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, written
a body of work that, at least in terms of the
before the present translation had appeared
number of pages written, is almost unrivaled
(2000), liana Gershon's argument about what
Luhmann might bring to the discipline of in sociology. And much of it had a singular
theme.
anthropology - though her insights certainly
bear on sociology as well (2005), Jakob Arnol- When discussing the appointment offer at
di's introduction to a special issue of TheoryBielefeld,
, Luhmann was asked about his
Culture & Society that was dedicated to the
research program. He replied, "A Theory of
ideas of Luhmann - whose essays are worth
Society." Ambitious and immodest, none-
reading for more specific engagements with
theless this is what Luhmann sought. His
Luhmann's theory (2001), and Gothard Bech-
mann and Nico Stehr's essay, "The Legacy writings
of gradually built such a theory, with
Niklas Luhmann" (2002). books on law, art, love, mass-media,

Contemporary Sociology 43, 1

This content downloaded from 129.49.5.35 on Mon, 08 Apr 2019 03:07:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Review Essays 51

distinction, education, ecology, risk, and they engage with phenomena that are social-
countless other topics that have not been ly meaningless.
translated into English (or are simply That is because at the heart of the Luh-
unknown to me). Theory of Society is proof mannian model is a distinction between sys-
that Luhmann's answer in 1967 was not tem and environment. Systems undertake
arrogant bluster, but the project of a adedicat-
series of tasks, one of the foremost of which
ed unique mind. And while Luhmann pas-
is boundary maintenance (people, it should
sionately argues that such a project is are part of the environment of sys-
be noted,
necessary for the sociological enterprise, it do not constitute those systems).
tems; they
also took him further and further away Parsons imagines systems as inter-
Whereas
from what many American sociologistsdependent (embedded within each element
would recognize as our own discipline.
of the AGIL schema is every other element
of that schema), Luhmann argues that the
basic work of social systems is one of differ-
The Thought of Luhmann entiation. To be clear, systems are not auton-
omous.toInstead, Luhmann thinks of them as
The first thing an American reader needs
know about Luhmann is that people are rel-
autopoietic.
atively unimportant. Luhmann argues that Desperate for an example?
Confused?
sociologists have proceeded from the false
You're not getting one. At least not from
presumption that society is made up Luhmann.
of indi- And so let me take a step back,
viduals and that social integrationand
is we
the
can return to these ideas shortly after
product of individual values or interests
walking (p.
through how Luhmann arrives at
6). Almost all of the work published in
his positions.
American sociology journals thereby pro-Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luh-
In 1971,
ceeds from incorrect premises and mann
engages
published a book together, Theorie der
a kind of variable-based analysis that,Gesellschaft
from oder Sozialtechnologie. Was leistet
a Luhmannian perspective, is mistaken.die Systemforschung? (Theory of Society or
This is a radical idea that is almost Social
impossi-Technology: What does Systems
ble to grasp from within AmericanResearch
sociolo- Accomplish?). Sadly, this book
gy; but it is one worth entertaining. has never been translated into English. Yet
While I am generally contemptuous of announced two radically differ-
the debate
analogous thinking, let me provideent a com-
directions for social research. Habermas
parison for the reader entering the world
laid outofhis spirited defense of modernity,
systems theory for a moment. Perhaps the
particularly emphasizing the emancipatory
best entrée is one version of networkpotential
analy- of reason, grounded in individuals
sis where we imagine individuals as andnodes
their interactions with one another. He
in a network. As such, the explanatory weight
also launched an attack on systems theory,
of this approach falls not on the individuals
arguing that its counter-enlightenment ten-
themselves and their properties, but dencies
insteadtoward technocratic functionalism
in the structural arrangement between thein neoconservative positions. For
resulted
units. In this sense, individuals arehis
epiphe-
part, Luhmann criticized the naïve
nomenal to the analysis, and in radical ver-of the New Left, represented here
approach
sions we could think of properties ofby people
Habermas, particularly in their incapacity
not as aspects of the self, but instead as
to conse-
consider or make sense of social complex-
quences of a network structure. ity. "Modern" society was not so simple that
This is not Luhmann's argument, but giv- communication could sweep in and
rational
en how foreign his argument maysolve
be to
all our social problems. The world was
some, it might help the reader to see much
the ter-
too complex and layered; we require
rain we are about to enter. And it also illus-
a similar sociological theory to make sense
trates the distance between Luhmann and of it.
Parsons; whereas Parsons began his career
Luhmann ended up moving in two
grappling with theories of action, Luhmann
directions after this debate. First, like Haber-
suggests if such theories are based upon
mas, he began to think seriously about com-
the individual as the unit of analysis, then
munication within modern societies, but in

Contemporary Sociology 43, 1

This content downloaded from 129.49.5.35 on Mon, 08 Apr 2019 03:07:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
52 Review Essays

a radically different way. Second, he began To answer that, and to end, let me turn
to look beyond sociology for theoretical guid- more fully to Theory of Society.
ance to make sense of modern complexity Luhmann organizes this first half of Theo-
From Husserl, Luhmann began to think of ry of Society around three main themes: Soci-
psychic systems (consciousness) and social ety as a Social System, Communication
systems (communication) as separate, or at Media, and Evolution. The first part of the
least distinct. And this is part of the reason book, "Society as a Social System," is largely
why his thinking is relatively unpopulated a reprise of Social Systems (1995), which
by people. But to take from philosophers is began as a preface to Die Gesellschaft der
not uncommon, particularly among conti- Gesellschaft but soon ballooned into a project
nental theorists. Luhmann ventured far fur-
all its own. The opening premise for Luh-
ther. His interest in systems led him away
mann is that societies are increasingly com-
plex and such complexity results in
from social systems and into biology, where
restructuring and adaptation. This should
he drew upon the work of Chilean biologist
and philosopher Humberto Maturana. feel very common - many of our sociological
Maturana, along with Francisco Varela, theories proceed from the complexity prem-
ise, but whereas other theories think about
invented the idea of "autopoiesis" - a kind
of self-(re)producing entity.3 Whereas the organizing principles of people (think
Maturana and Varela developed their modeldivision of labor), Luhmann turns his atten-
using living beings, Luhmann began to
tion instead to systems.
apply the idea to social systems. Maturana'sWhat is a system? It is a realm of society
work drew heavily on mathematician
that has a relatively distinct logic and func-
George-Spencer Brown's work, particularly
tion. Sociologists can have irrationally viscer-
al reactions to the word "function," even
Laws of Form (1969), a book that explores
though they deploy the concept relentlessly.
the logical systems of Algebra. From Brown,
Think
Maturana and Luhmann take the impor- about law for a moment. It is a realm
tance of "distinction." of society that has a distinct set of rules, a par-
And from this, we have three central ele-ticular language, and functions to deal with
ments of Luhmann' s theory: communica-a host of social issues and concerns. Whether
tion, autopoiesis, and distinction. Expertsyou believe law serves to create order or
will object that there is so much more. apartheid or both, you still think about the
Alas, there always is. But this is enough for purposes that law serves, or its function.
us to finish our task of making sense of Luh- For Luhmann, systems convert disorder
mann. It should also give the reader a clue asinto organized complexity. And they do so
to why Luhmann feels so foreign. His ideas largely through some kind of internal logic
emerge from and engage with literatures and by maintaining the boundaries (distinc-
we rarely encounter or consider. Scholars oftions) between their modes of being and
cybernetics, a deeply transdisciplinary field,those of others around them. If we stay with-
in the case of the law, we can imagine how
are on firmer ground in thinking through
the law solves challenges by converting
Luhmann. Sociologist must find ways to
think through evolutionary biology, philoso-ambiguity and disorder into new legal prin-
phy, communications, and organizationalciples that are based in legal logic and lan-
and systems theory. It's no easy task, one guage. At the same time, law as a system
that defenders of Luhmann may argue I'm works to differentiate itself from other social
not up for! The question is, is it worth it? systems. There are problems that are the
purview of the law and thereby dealt with
3 Their classic example was a biological cell. by law in the (communicative) logic of the
Varela and his colleagues write, "Consider law, and there are other problems to which
for example the case of a cell: it is a networkthe law is irrelevant. These problems are
of reactions which produce molecules suchpart of the environment that the law works
that (i) through their interaction generate and
within, but they are not legal concerns.
participate recursively in the same network We now have a clearer view of what it
of reaction which produced them, and (ii) real-
means to say that a system is autopoietic
ize the cell as a material unity" (Varela et. al
1974:188). but not autonomous. Which is to say

Contemporary Sociology 43, 1

This content downloaded from 129.49.5.35 on Mon, 08 Apr 2019 03:07:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Review Essays 53

that the law creates organized complexity indeed about the world in which we live,
through its own logic. But it is embedded we know through the mass media"
within other systems which themselves (2000:1). But Luhmann is not expanding
function similarly to the law (economy, pol- upon Horkheimer and Adorno, arguing
ity, etc.). Elements of the social system are that a culture industry is creating ideological
each distinct from one another, deploying dupes. Instead, he seeks to argue that sys-
their own logic and working to defend tems are defined by communication; such
both that logic and the boundaries or edges communication is not a description of reality
of their domain, but they exist embedded (objective or otherwise), instead it consti-
within an environment made up by every tutes the logic and boundaries of systems -
other system. thereby constructing the conditions through
Such a position results in what Luhmann which systems both manage and make sense
calls, "a radically anti-humanist, radically of their operations and their environment.
anti-regional and radically constructivist Luhmann gives us a tripartite model of
concept of society" (p. 12).4 Luhmann information, utterance, and understanding
demands radical constructivism because (p. 113; see also Chapter Four of Social Sys-
tems). Such a model allows for a complex
"reality" is contingent upon the perspective
of particular systems and, importantly, sci- of what information is being trans-
interplay
ence itself is a system. Luhmann's ferred,
episte-how it is transferred (whether
mology is both complex and fascinating
intended or not), and then how it is received
(interested readers should consult the final
(which itself reinstitutes the communicative
chapter of Systems Theory, which was
process by re-conceptualizing information).
expanded into a book in its own right,
SuchDie
a model seeks to move us away from
the ideas
Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft). These Weberian/Parsonsian action frame of
reference, or rather to reconstruct action in
about constructivism might be explained
most succinctly through Spinoza, of whom
such a way that it is understood not relative
Luhmann seems particularly fond:to "That
the agency of individuals, but instead to
which cannot be conceived through theany-
self-referential pattern of communication
thing else must be conceived throughwithin
itself"
different functionally differentiated
systems (law, economics, art, religion,
(Ethica I, Axiómata 11). Claims about systems
must be made from within social systemsetc.). Again, each system exists in relation
and thereby create conditions of their to allown
other systems - "the environment"
"objectification," resulting not in "reality"
(this is what Luhmann means by autopoie-
but its relative construction. The society of than autonomy). Each system has
sis rather
its own
society (or, Theory of Society ), requires mode of communication, which
that
society be observed from inside itself, andambiguous complexity and main-
reduces
recognizing this has epistemic implications
tains the boundaries of system. But insofar
as systems exist in relation to one another,
for the production of knowledge of society.
Understanding Luhmann's concept of communicate with one other.
they must
communication is important here. He opens of communication are internally
As systems
his book on mass media with what has constructed, information, utterances, and
become one of his most famous lines, understanding are not seamlessly trans-
"Whatever we know about our society, ferred
or across systems.
Let me do something very un-Luhmannian,
4 I do not discuss this "anti-regional" point inwhich is to provide an example. The system
of communication for the economy might
this review. But quickly on the insight: if you
think of economics as a system, you might be thought of as monetary exchange. From
within this system, such communication
argue that the bounds or region are fast evap-
orating as economic processes globalize (you helps reduce complexity as it gives a way
also might argue against this). But the point
for elements within this system to be
is simple enough: we tend to think in regional
arranged and made sense of. To go to a store
units because region tends to be important to
and exchange currency for a hat "makes
us as individuals. But to systems, the bounds
of such regions are less important than pro-sense" within the communicative logic of
cesses of system maintenance. system. Luhmann argues that like all others,

Contemporary Sociology 43, 1

This content downloaded from 129.49.5.35 on Mon, 08 Apr 2019 03:07:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
54 Review Essays

this system seeks to maintain aggressively, the same: a sociology populated by people
and even expand, its bounds. But the logic who have a capacity to better the conditions
of the system does not apply to other sys- of their life through their own activities. Yes,
tems. Instead, those systems use a different we have structures. But those too can be orga-
communicative logic. If I committed a crime nized, arranged, and re-constituted by action.
and went before a judge and offered a mone- None of this makes sense to Luhmann, and it
tary exchange to "make up for" my crime, or is why some read him as a conservative.
if upon visiting my parents I were to pay That is a political claim, not an empirical
them for the dinner they cooked me, I would one or an analytic evaluation. And my judg-
be deploying a communicative logic that was ment of this work ends perhaps in an unsat-
inconsistent with that of the legal or familial isfactory place for the reader, but in the only
systems. place I feel comfortable occupying. That is,
Luhmann would never write a paragraph simply, that Luhmann's ideas must be evalu-
like the above, in part because I have fallen ated empirically. If they are useful to schol-
back upon the unit of analysis of the individ- ars in making sense of phenomena, then
ual. But hopefully it will help the reader we can better understand their power, and
better understand the importance of com- their limits. But until these ideas are put to
munication, differentiation, and autopoiesis. work in ways that go beyond endless theo-
Through self-referential logics, systems retical self-reference, we can say little about
organize and make legible the world. Such Luhmann. Reading him is not enough.
legibility is not an objective description, but Who now uses Luhmann? Until more schol-
instead a constructed contingency of the par- ars respond, "I do!" we will have to wait for
ticular system. Systems function and survive a fuller evaluation of his ideas. And unfortu-
by differentiating themselves from their nately, to my reading, Theory of Society is
environment (other systems). But they also unlikely to inspire scholars to undertake
depend upon that environment, engage such a challenge.
with it, and often misunderstand or are mis-
understood by it because of different logics
of communication - and as such, systems References
are not static, but evolve in relation to their
Arnoldi, Jakob. 2001. "Niklas Luhmann: An Intro-
environment. So for example, the economic duction/' Theory , Culture , & Society 18(1):1-13.
system has a way of organizing itself. It sur- Bechmann, Gotthard and Nico Stehr. 2002. "The
vives in part by defending and attempting to Legacy of Niklas Luhmann." Society Vol
expand its boundaries. But its functioning 39(2):6 7-75.
requires political, familial, and legal sys- Brown, George Spencer. 1969. Laws of Form. Lon-
don, UK: Allen and Unwin.
tems. Economic communication does not
Gershon, Illana. 2005. "Seeing Like a System: Luh-
describe the world so much as it does con-
mann for Anthropologists." Anthropological
struct a mode of understanding it that is
Theory 5( 2):99-116.
not universally applicable. Lee, Daniel. 2000. "The Society of Society: The
Here, then, we have a rough outline ofGrand Finale of Niklas Luhmann." Sociological
Theory 18(2):320-330.
Luhmannian sociology. Such thought is
Luhmann, Niklas. 1988. Die Wissenschaft der
a kind of labyrinth that, once occupied for
Gesellschaft. Frankfurt, GDR: Suhrkamp.
long enough, can soon become a home.
And once it does, its contours reveal them- Bednarz, Jr. Chicago, IL: Universi
selves to be more complex that I have been
Press.

able to convey in this relatively sort introduc-


tion. Evaluating Luhmann's ideas is difficult.with Dirk Baecker. Stanford, CA: Sta
versity Press.
They certainly do not fit within much of
American sociology. Many sociologists imag- Kathleen Cross. Stanford, CA: St
ine themselves as part of a project of such
versity Press.
human emancipation. While they may Luhmann,
not Niklas and Jürgen Habermas. 1971.
agree with the trappings of a Habermasian Theory der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie?
approach to modernity, their basic stance is Frankfurt, GDR: Suhrkamp.

Contemporary Sociology 43, 1

This content downloaded from 129.49.5.35 on Mon, 08 Apr 2019 03:07:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Review Essays 55

Stichweh, Rudolf. 2011. "Niklas Luhmann," in Varela, F., H. Maturana, and R. Uribe. 1974.
The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Major Social "Autopoiesis: The Organization of Living Sys-
Theorists: Volume II Contemporary Social Theo- tems, Its Characterization and a Model/' Bio-
rists, ed. George Ritzer and Jeffrey Stepnisky. systems 5:187-96.
Maiden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

A Radical Administrator Confronts the Possibilities in the New University


Gaye Tuchman
University of Connecticut
Gaye.Tuchman@Uconn.edu

I confess: after all these years of reading soci-


ology, I prefer some genres to others. I favor Under New Management: Universities ,
books that reason with data or that construct Administrative Labor ; and the Professional
a theoretical and logical framework that Turn , by Randy Martin. Philadelphia,
might take too much time to read but will PA: Temple University Press, 2011.
show me an author's mind in action. 253pp. $29.95 paper. ISBN: 978143
Although many discursive texts display9906958.
prob-
ing, even unrelenting thought, I find that mul-
tisyllabic arguments revolving around other
Placing
people's books (some of which I have notthe new managerial professional
read) can be trying, even when they classconcern
in both its historical and cross-cultural
context, he sees it as the latest development
a topic that I deeply care about. I experience
them as a slow walk down the spiralinof thea international
fun- educational competition
that has relegated professors to the role of
nel rather than as a breathtaking slide.
workers.
I slogged through Randy Martin's Under(As Gary Rhoades [1998], whom
New Management , which I regard as Martin quotes, put it some years ago, profes-
a discur-
sive text. That said, I'm glad I read sors have become managed professionals
it. Temple
University Press claims that some under ofthe
the
control of professional managers.)
He any
book is ethnographic; it did not in stresses
wayhow in the United States and
elsewhere, an emphasis on economy, effec-
remind me of classic Chicago participant
tiveness,
observation. Temple U. P. also promotes and efficiency has been trans-
the
book as "evenhanded." I would not have formed itself into the practice of
arbitrage
chosen that word. Martin has taught at - "investment activity by which
small
a variety of colleges and universities andvariations in value. . . are leveraged
served in a variety of middle-managerto immediate positional and reputational
posts
at New York University. To me, hiseffect"
book (p. 108). This process has produced
a new academic labor force dominated by
answers a question that some professors
ask about their boss's bosses, the ones in "casualization" - full-time instructors on
the deaneries and central administrations: non-tenure lines, adjuncts who live as
"How can they live with themselves?" "freeway flyers" speeding from a course
at one college to a different course at anoth-
Martin not only understands how higher
education has been transformed world- er, and ubiquitous graduate students hired
wide, but he shows us that some administra-
as teaching assistants, who in some depart-
ments
tors - clearly not all - understand their outnumber their mentors. In other
work
countries, graduate students pay tuition,
to be cutting across the grain of the bureau-
but they often support themselves as casual
cratic forest being erected by professional
instructional
managers. A radical who "confess[es]" that and low-level managerial
he has "caught the administrative bug,"labor.
Mar- How can there be academic freedom,
Martin
tin sees his work as a way to direct aspects of rightfully asks, when most aca-
the new managerialism against itself. demic labor cannot even dream of tenure?

Contemporary Sociology 43, 1

This content downloaded from 129.49.5.35 on Mon, 08 Apr 2019 03:07:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

You might also like