How systems theorists reproduce the enclosure milieus Luhmann warned against
The irony is perfect.
Luhmann describes operational closure. Self-reference. Enclosure milieus that only observe themselves. His students nod, understand, cite him brilliantly.
And build exactly that structure.
The Structure
The academic systems theory community has become a self-referential system that only reproduces itself. It describes inclusion/exclusion – while practicing what it theorizes.
Operational closure as method:
Systems theory is only understood by those who speak systems theory. Connectivity as entry price. External observation? "Not connectable." The system closes itself through complexity – and calls it quality assurance.
Self-reference as validation:
Who gets cited: Other systems theorists.
Who reviews: Other systems theorists.
Who gets appointed: The systemically socialized.
The structure validates itself. No one outside gets to play.
Inclusion through exclusion:
Critique from outside: "Hasn't understood Luhmann."
Questions from outside: "Not connectable."
Perspectives from outside: "Reductionist."
The milieu protects itself through hermeticism. And calls it scientific rigor.
The Paradox
Luhmann describes this dynamic.
His students reproduce it.
Exactly. Precisely. Inevitably.
Not from malice. From structure.
The system "systems theory" operates according to the rules it has itself analyzed. The theory has formatted the community – according to the principles it describes. This isn't critique. This is admiration. Systems theory has created itself as the perfect case study.
The Test
You don't believe it? Test it:
Approach the community with a framework that does not come from systems theory. That describes structurally similar things but has different roots. Paradoxical Interactions, for example.
Observe the reaction:
"Where is it published?" (= Not in our journals)
"Who's behind it?" (= No recognized institution)
"Never heard of it." (= Not part of the citation network)
The question is never: "Is it true?"
The question is always: "Is it connectable?"
And "connectable" means: Does it come from our system?
The Luhmann School
Brilliant minds. Luhmann virtuosos. They know all this. They've described it countless times. For other systems.
But for their own?
Silence.
The Luhmann school analyzes operational closure – in politics, economics, law.
It practices operational closure – in its own community.
It even sees it. But it does it anyway.
Why?
Because the structure demands it. Who breaks the closure loses connectivity. Who remains connectable cannot break the closure.
That's the PI.
Just sayin'
Luhmann's Warning – Ignored by His Followers
Luhmann warned precisely against this:
"The problem is not that systems close themselves. The problem is that they can no longer observe their own closure."
Systems theory observes everything.
Except itself.
It describes inclusion/exclusion in society.
But not in its own milieu.
It analyzes how systems shield themselves against environmental complexity.
But not how it itself does exactly that.
The structure immunizes itself through its own theory.
Who points to the closure? "Not connectable."
Who becomes connectable? Stops seeing the closure.
Perfect. Inevitable. Structurally necessary.
Why This Isn't a Scandal
This isn't an accusation. This is recognition.
Academic systems need operational closure. Without filters: chaos. Without standards: arbitrariness. Systems theory does what every scientific community must do.
But.
Who describes the filters should notice when they themselves are being filtered.
Who analyzes enclosure milieus should recognize when they sit in one.
The Luhmann school brilliantly analyzes how others enclose themselves.
It doesn't notice – or stays silent about – being itself enclosed.
That's the structure.
And we claim: That's also a PI.
The Question
If Luhmann's theory is correct – and the community is convinced it is –
then the systems theory community must itself be an operationally closed system.
Is it?
If yes: Why doesn't it analyze itself?
If no: What structure protects systems theory from what it sees in others?
We claim: There is no exception.
Systems theory is itself an enclosure milieu.
It describes what it is.
It is what it describes.
Is that true?
Or have we not understood Luhmann?
The Challenge
We don't expect friendship.
We don't expect connectivity.
We don't expect invitations.
We expect contradiction. Intellectually precise. Structurally grounded.
Show us we're wrong.
Not with "That's not connectable."
Not with "Never heard of it."
Not with "Where's it published?"
But with: "The structure works differently. Here's why."
That would be worthy of Luhmann.
That would be respectable.
That would be the response of a system that can observe itself.
Or prove us right. Through silence.
Try and Continue
Systems theory is brilliant. Luhmann was a genius. His followers are intellectually superior.
But they sit in the structure they describe.
And they don't notice it.
Or they notice it – and stay silent.
Or they know it – and defend it as soon as someone else notices.
All three options are structurally necessary..
We're not here to make friends.
We're here to ask: Is it true?
If yes: Why the silence?
If no: Why no response?
If no: Why the defense?
Peter Senner
Thinking beyond the Tellerrand
contact@piinteract.org
https://piinteract.org