Abstract
The development of theoretical ideas about the issue of time has numerous remarkable chapters, which reflect the overall movement of opinion and discussions which have taken place and are still ongoing in sociology. Among the authors who deserve our attention in this context are Niklas Luhmann and Anthony Giddens, both for their contribution to the temporalization of the concept of social reality in sociological theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In Parsons’s concept a crucial issue is structures. The system is determined by the interdependence of its parts, the key is the relationship between the parts and the whole. The basic issue—maintaining the system—Parsons sees as a problem of the symbolic generalization of values which, through their internalization by acting entities, ensure the integration of the social system.
In contrast, for Luhmann, systems were more than just parts and a whole; they cannot be reduced to relationships between different elements; for him much more important than for Parsons was the issue of the boundaries of the system and the stabilization of the difference between the internal and the external. In contrast to Parsons, he was not interested in the social value system, and therefore the notion of “cultural system” plays no role in Luhmann either. If Parsons was a structural functionalist, Luhmann was first of all a functionalist [Treibel 1993: 25]. The key issue for him was how the system works, not its structure.
- 2.
This ambivalence of structures is illustrated by Giddens with the example of language acquisition: Each language restricts thinking and action, delimiting certain boundaries. At the same time, language undoubtedly immensely expands the cognitive and practical abilities of the individual [Giddens 1988: 224].
- 3.
For a long time, it seemed that Heidegger’s philosophy would not influence sociology too much (an exception to this was the existential sociology of E. Tyryakian); in recent times, only A. Giddens turned attention to Heidegger’s problems of Dasein.
From an ontological point of view, Heidegger’s contribution can be seen in the introduction of time as “temporality”. As M. Sobotka says, the old ontology oriented towards being-things knew time only in an objective sense, the classical analysis represented by Aristotle; in this conception time is inherently connected with movement, it is a measure of movement. This purely objective conception of time was not abolished by modern history; even in Newtonian physics, it tended to escalate. Among the thinkers of the ancient and Hellenistic periods, the problem of the temporality of human subject was anticipated by St. Augustine, who later (as pointed out J. Pešek) was followed in his analysis, for example, by Leibnitz and Hegel; however, the classic of the time of the human subject and the ontologist of human being in the world as a residence—Dasein—is only attributable to Heidegger [Pešek 1995: 9 et seq.].
B. Adam sees Heidegger’s significance even from another perspective: In most concepts, time is the parameter in which life takes place, while in the works of Bergson or Mead, on the contrary, time is the constitutive dimension of life (Adam speaks of the difference between events in time and time in events); Heidegger’s approach spans these differences and brings their aspects together in one coherent whole; he emphasizes the finiteness of Dasein, our Sein zum Tode, as the basis of existence in time [Adam 1990: 30].
In contrast to Husserl, who, when examining the purposes of time, turned his attention to retention (keeping the consciousness of the past) and the intentional distinction of past and present, Heidegger proceeded to the intention of the future, which represented for him “the primary phenomenon of original and authentic temporality” [Heidegger 1996: 361]. The concern where the individual is in front of themselves (in “advance”) works out multiple diverse opportunities for their own lives. The lower tone of the intention of the future in Heidegger’s Being-towards-Death is the ultimate character of original human time.
In this way, the individual can be “self-overtaking” only as one who has already been here, which means co-determined by being “thrown into the world” and guided by their past. Openness towards acquired present being then leads to the present, the third “ecstasy” of time.
An important aspect of human timing is reflection, controlling, scheduling, and manipulation, or the formation of temporality, that is, “procuring time”. The individual consumes time, counts on time, creates a time budget, etc. The procurement of time can at the same time take various forms, including alienation, in which the procurer gets lost in the procured time, finding themselves in its tow and “counted down” by it.
Bibliography
Adam, B. 1990. Time and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Baert, P. 1992. Time, Self and Social Being: Temporality within a social context. Avebury: Aldershot.
Baert, P. 1998. Social Theory in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bergmann, W. 1981. Die Zeitstrukturen sozialer Systeme: Eine systemtheoretische Analyse. Berlin: Duncker – Humblot.
Bergmann, W. 1983. “Das Problem der Zeit in der Soziologie.” In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie: 462–504.
Bronowski, J. 1974. “New Concepts in the Evolution of Complexity.” In: Philosophical Foundations of Science, Boston Studies, XI: 133–151.
Giddens, A. 1976. New Rules of Sociological Method. London: Hutchinson.
Giddens, A. 1981a. A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, Vol. 1, Power, Property and the State. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. 1981b. Time and Space in Social Theory. In: Matthes J. (ed.) Lebenswelt und soziale Probleme, Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag GmbH: 88–97.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley – Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. 1988. Die Konstitution der Gesellschaft: Gründzige einer Theorie der Strukturierung. Frankfurt – New York: Campus.
Giddens, A. 1995 [1981]. A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. London: Macmillan.
Giddens, A. 1999. Sociologie. (Sociology). Praha: Argo.
Goffman, E. 1999. Všichni hrajeme divadlo: Sebeprezentace v každodenním životě. (The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life). Praha: Nakladatelství Studia Ypsilon.
Heidegger, M. 1996. Bytí a čas. (Being and Time). Praha: OIKOYMENH.
Kiss, G. 1986. Grundzüge und Entwicklung der Luhmannschen Systemtheorie. Stuttgart: Fernand Enke Verlag.
Luhmann, N. 1971. Die Knappheit der Zeit und die Vordringlichkeit des Befristeten. In: Luhmann, N. Politische Planung: Aufsätze zur Soziologie von Politik und Verwaltung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag: 143–164.
Luhmann, N. 1976. “The Future Cannot Begin.” In: Social Research 43: 130–152.
Luhmann, N. 1980. Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik: Studien zur Wissenssoziologie der moderne Gesellschaft. Bd. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann N. 1991. Soziologische Aufklärung, Bd. 2, Aufsätze zur Theorie der Gesellschaft. (4. Auflage). Köln und Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Luhmann, N. 1993. Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. (4. Auflage). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, N. 1998. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft (Erster Teilband). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Marx, K.; Engels, B. 1950. Vybrané spisy, Vol. 1. (Selected Writings). Praha: Svoboda.
Mucha, I. 1989. “Některá východiska Luhmannovy kritiky současné sociologické teorie.” (Some Starting Points for Luhmann’s Critique of Contemporary Sociological Theory) In: Kolektiv autorů. Soudobá teoretická sociologie na západě: Příspěvky ke kritické analýze. (Contemporary Theoretical Sociology in the West: Contributions to Critical Analysis). Praha: Ústav pro filozofii a sociologii ČSAV: 147–167.
Müller, H. P. 1992. Sozialstruktur und Lebensstile: Der neuere theoretische Diskurs über soziale Ungleichheit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Nassehi, A. 1993. Die Zeit der Gesellschaft: Auf dem Weg zu einer soziologischen Theorie der Zeit. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Petrusek, M. 1998. “Anthony Giddens: Teoretik strukturace a modernity: Doslov” (“Anthony Giddens: Theorist of Structure and Modernity: Epilogue”). In: Giddens, A.: Důsledky modernity. (The Consequences of Modernity). Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství: 159–195.
Pešek, J. 1995. Proměny času ve vztahu k bytí a jeho možnému smyslu. (Changes of Time in Relation to Being and Its Possible Meaning). Praha: Ježek.
Reese-Schäfer W. 1992. Luhmann zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.
Schlote, A. 1996. Widersprüche sozialer Zeit: Zeitorganisation im Alltag zwischen Herrschaft und Freiheit. Opladen: Leske – Budrich.
Treibel, A. 1993. Einführung in soziologische Theorien der Gegenwart. Opladen: Leske – Budrich.
Willke H. 1991. Systemtheorie. (3. Auflage). Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Šubrt, J. (2021). The Role of Time in Theoretical Systems of Sociology at the End of the Twentieth Century. In: The Sociology of Time. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83289-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83289-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-83288-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-83289-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)