Double Contingency

Zusammenfassung:
In der Sozialtheorie sind dyadische Konzepte von Sozialität der dominierende Ausgangspunkt der
Konzeptualisierung sozialer Beziehungen und der damit zusammenhängenden Entstehung sozialer Ordnung. Der Dritte
wird seit Simmel zwar immer wieder als Ergänzung der Dyade eingeführt, bleibt aber in seiner systematischen Relevanz
für die Theoriebildung unklar. Ein Grund dafür ist das spezifische Bezugsproblem dyadischer Sozialitätskonzeptionen:
die doppelte Kontingenz zwischen Ego und Alter. Der Dritte wird erst dann systematisch relevant, wenn das Bezugs-
problem erweitert und es als offene Frage behandelt wird, welche Entitäten füreinander als Alter Ego auftreten kçnnen.
Ausgehend von diesem Problem, das ich im Anschluss an Plessner als Problem der Kontingenz der Mitwelt behandle,
wirft der Beitrag die Frage auf, wie sich die Differenzierungsform der modernen Gesellschaft als Ausdifferenzierung
funktionaler Teilbereiche alternativ zu handlungs- und systemtheoretischen Konzepten begreifen lässt. Anhand einzelner
Funktionsbereiche lässt sich zeigen, dass sich funktionale Teilbereiche im Sinne unterschiedlich strukturierter Dritten-
konstellationen begreifen lassen. Ich diskutiere dies am Beispiel von Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft sowie Politik und Recht.
Summary:
Dyadic notions of sociality are often used as basic concepts for understanding social relations and the emer-
gence of social order. Although Simmel had already introduced the notion of the third actor in addition to the dyad, the
systematic relevance of the third actor for social theory has remained unclear. One reason for this is that dyadic concepts
of sociality are consistently coupled with the problem of double contingency between Ego and Alter. The third actor,
Tertius, becomes a necessary consideration only once the elementary understanding of the problem of social order is ex-
tended. This extension is brought about by complementing the question how the problem of double contingency is sol-
ved with the question as to which entities will consider one another as Alter Ego respectively. Following Plessner’s theo-
ry of the shared world, the second problem is described here as the “problem of contingency of the shared world”. The
solution of the latter problem defines which entities confront one another in relations of double contingency. In this per-
spective concrete actions and communications are treated as solutions to two basic problems: the problem of contingen-
cy of the shared world and the problem of double contingency between actors. With reference to these elementary prob-
lems this contribution offers a revised concept of functional differentiation as an alternative to traditional approaches in
systems and action theory. Functionally differentiated realms of society, in this perspective, can be described as being ac-
complished in and through triadic relations structured in patterns specific to particular functional realms. This idea is
explored by discussing science, the economy, and law/politics as examples.

From a system-theory perspective, the form of address list based communication, as made possible by the Internet – often categorized under " social media " or " social networks " – is analyzed. Examples of address-list based communication are online dating services, online social networking sites such as Face-book, networking sites for the business community, travel networking sites, etc. The paper theorizes how address-lists as media represent a technologically supported possibility to cope with the problem of double contingency in terms of initiative and stabilization of interaction systems. The paper addresses, as a case example, the advantages (hopefulness) and the disadvantages (disappointments) of address-list based communication in the initiation of love or romantic relationships. Thus, it shows that the problem of initiative can be overcome, but address list communication creates problems for the continuity or stability of interaction systems within love as a symbolically generalized medium of communication. Last, but not least, it shows that address lists increase the importance of reputation-oriented communication (in German).

This article focuses on cosmopolitanism utilising the theoretical concepts of collective learning and triple contingency. Starting from the link between cosmopolitanism and collective learning in the context of the process of globalization, it extrapolates the perspective thus opened up and draws out its empirically by no means insignificant theoretical implications. The core of the paper consists of a differentiation of the general concept of learning into a number of distinct types of social learning by placing it in the context of different intersubjective experiential frameworks and, particularly, by bringing the concept of triple contingency to bear on it. This approach makes possible the critical explosion, as it were, of the theory of globalization from the inside out by identifying the learning processes at its core that are responsible for the creation of a diversity of competing cosmopolitan models or models of world openness and associated attempts to realise them. At the same time, the analysis of this culture of contradictions and corresponding practices which give rise to complex collective learning processes allows a penetrating yet reasoned critique of different types of contemporary cosmopolitanism.

The brief of this chapter is to provide an assessment of the prospects for the realization of a cosmopolitan modernity, with due consideration for contemporary conditions. It undertakes this task from the perspective of critical theory which is represented in the form of a new kind of cognitive sociology. It proceeds on the basis of a theoretical conception that avoids fixing on either the idealistic philosophical concept of cosmopolitanism or on the positivist social scientific concepts of a cosmopolitan condition and banal cosmopolitanism. Instead, it gives centre stage to the concept of cosmopolitization understood as a process which leads to the formation of cosmopolitan structures on different levels – from the micro to the macro and meta levels. Rather than a purely objective movement transpiring above the heads and behind the backs of the actors involved, however, cosmopolitization is crucially also a process of societal learning through which the objective events are intersubjectively confronted, processed, made sense of and acted upon. This approach allows the understanding of cosmopolitanism in terms of three distinct formats: (i) the leading counterfactual  idea of cosmopolitanism forming part of the context-transcendent or meta-level cognitive order of modernity presupposed by all those involved; (ii) the variety of different actor-based micro-level cosmopolitan models of world openness constructed immanently in contemporary social contexts under the incursive generative and recursive regulative force of the counterfactual idea and its selective combination with other cognitive order principles such as sovereignty, freedom, equality, solidarity, legality, legitimacy, efficiency, truth, rightness, authenticity and so forth; and (iii) between the micro and meta levels, finally, the immanently relevant, publicly recognized cultural model of cosmopolitanism that emerges from the constructive practices and discourses of the plurality of actors and the discursive interrelation of their respective cosmopolitan models directed and guided by the publicly mediated selective embodiment of cognitive order principles. Taking into account the current global geopolitical situation and the typical mechanisms operating at national levels, the assessment finds that the positive side is outweighed by the negative one. The counterfactual idea of cosmopolitanism is currently acknowledged as forming part of the cognitive order of society and, complementarily, a vigorous construction of actor models of world openness is in evidence. Yet the emergence of a publicly recognized cultural model of cosmopolitanism necessary for the institutionalization of a societal cosmopolitan order is not just lacking, but rather blocked by both powerful socio-structural interferences and reified cultural models. It is possible that a cosmopolitan modernity could emerge in the medium term, but it would require concerted struggle and, at best, would be realizable in no more than a quarter of the world population. A positive development in the longer term would undoubtedly require much more radical action and change.

Esta ponencia postula que desde un marco teórico podemos comparar e integrar teorías (García, 2013) para hacer frente al estado de pluralidad de la Teoría Social (Giménez, 2004) y, al mismo tiempo, destacar los rendimientos cognitivos que suponen para la explicación social (Galindo, 2009). Se trata de elaborar una teoría social que dé cuenta de la complejidad de la(s) sociedad(es) contemporánea(s), a saber: la teoría de la práctica comunicativa. En específico, nos interesa poner a dialogar desde la noción de práctica tres propuestas sociológicas de fin del siglo XX: la teoría de los sistemas sociales de Niklas Luhmann, la teoría de la estructuración de Anthony Giddens y la teoría de la práctica de Pierre Bourdieu.

Innerhalb der Soziologie wird auf zwei anthropologische Annahmen zurückgegriffen, die sich als Antworten auf zwei Fragen verstehen lassen: "Wer ist ein Mensch?" und "Was ist der Mensch?" Die Antwort auf die zweite Frage zielt auf eine Wesensbestimmung, die aber immer nur in konkreten sozialen Prozessen erfolgt. Die Antwort auf die Frage danach, wer ein Mensch ist, wird dagegen als bekannt vorausgesetzt. In dem Aufsatz wird der Vorschlag gemacht, auch diese Frage in einer vergleichbaren Weise zu behandeln, wie die nach der Wesensbestimmung. "Mensch" wäre demnach nicht i.S. des Gattungswesens zu verstehen, sondern muß als Chiffre für "Personsein" bzw. für Sozialität im Sinne "doppelter Kontingenz" begriffen werden. Die Antwort auf die Frage, wer in diesem Sinne ein "Mensch" ist, könnte dann ebenfalls als historisch variabel aufgefaßt werden. Im Zentrum der Argumentation steht
eine Neuinterpretation von Plessners Theorie der "exzentrischen Positionalität", die aufzeigt, daß Plessner das Anliegen der Anthropologie, die Besonderheit des Menschen zu begründen, reflexiv wendet. Auf diese Weise gerät in den Blick, daß Anthropologie nur eine mögliche Form darstellt, den Kreis sozial existierender Individuen zu schließen. Wer ein sozialer Akteur ist, ist eine Frage, deren Antwort nicht von vomherein feststeht, sondern deren Beantwortung empirisch rekonstruiert werden muß.