Suchergebnisse

Det moderne samfunnets kunnskap bygger i stor grad på sannsynlighet – beskrivelser
av sannsynlig realitet, men hva baseres en slik kunnskap på, hva er
dens referanse og hva betyr den for samfunnet? Slike beskrivelser viser til en
fremtidig realitet, altså til noe som ikke eksisterer. Deres sannhetsverdi kan
derfor ikke bestemmes, og deres realitet må derfor ligge i beskrivelsen. Som
beskrivelser er de realitet. Hvis vi tenker konstruktivistisk lar det seg gjøre å
gi en plausibel bestemmelse av begrepet "sannsynlig realitet". Vi må også relatere
begrepet til det moderne samfunnets temporalstruktur, først og fremst
dets omgang med dens ukjente, men åpne og kontingente fremtid.


ENGELSK ABSTRACT:

Sverre Moe: Modernity, Truth and Probability: Society's Temporal Structure of Knowledge

Knowledge in modern society is based, to a considerable extent, on probability, on descriptions of probable reality. But what is such knowledge based on, what is its reference point and what does this reference point mean for society? Descriptions of probable reality refer to a future reality, something that does not yet exist and which cannot be certain to come about. The value of these probabilities is therefore indecisive, and hence their "reality" must be found in the probability description as such. As descriptions such probabilities are real. The concept of "probable reality" can be plausibly defined if we think in constructivist terms. We must also relate this concept to the temporal structure of modern society, in particular to its handling of its unknown, but open and contingent future.

Key words: Probability, knowledge, temporality, constructivism, decisions.

The world society

If we live in the world society, this must be the only society existing on earth today encompassing all kinds of social life on the globe; hence the ultimate reference of any sociological theory. It is no wonder then that most social theorists avoid the notion of a world society and prefer to speak in terms of 'internationalisation' and 'globalization'. The article discusses four theories of the world society: functionalism (Parsons), world-system-theory (Wallerstein), neo-institutionalism (Thomas Meyer, etc.) and the theory of autopoietic social systems (Luhmann). The article argues that Luhmann managed to speak of a world society without merely reproducing traditional notions of society that imply homogeneity, unity, equality and centrality (as the other theories tend to do). In Luhmann's view society must be understood in terms of communication, evolution and differentiation. Thus the world society is a functionally differentiated society that makes it possible to connect and synchronize communication anywhere on the globe with communication anywhere else. Luhmann's notion of the world society should however be debated. For instance one can ask if he is emptying the concept of a "society" or how he can speak of the world society as a system.