My second article idea I think is something that is a little more palatable. I posted my article in reddit's sociology subsection and have come to realize that, hoowee, there's still so much work to do when it comes to figuring out a satisfying understanding of culture in Luhmann's social systems theory. I knew this was the case, and I never intended for the article to be something that would present many answers. But, and this is a testament to those on reddit replying to my post, that there are some important questions that I never considered that, at the very least, need to be broached when tackling this subject. I think everyone on reddit for their input, should anyone from there be reading this.
My second article idea wants to develop the idea of the 'nation' as a social system. I think that the best place to start here is with one of the most crucial, though still controversial, distinctions that give a platform for the nation to differentiate itself; the 'nation' vs. the 'state'. In various ways, the two simply can't be imagined as being entirely separated. There are several facets and functions to both the nation and the state which overlap that any endeavour to completely separate the two is misguided, at best. However, the nation does do several things to separate itself from its 'state' counterpart (I'll be borrowing heavily from Gellner and Hobsbawm here, but might forget to properly cite them, cuz, ya know, this is a blog).
The one that jumps out at me as the most significant area of differentiation is that the nation has a religious component to it that the state does not. The nation consistently makes decision on what is and isn't secular. It's the concern with this distinction that the nation not only finds its justification, but also its differentiation from the state. Now, this isn't to say that the state isn't similarly concerned with the secular. However, the secular functions differently in it. The state uses the secular as a means to justify its claim to governance. The state reasons that it isn't preordained to govern, but is either democratically decided, or proven through conflict, to name only a few examples that come to mind. This is secular reasoning, but it relies on a secularism that is already formed. The nation, on the other hand, takes part in the formation of this secularism and what lies within and without it.
It would be irresponsible not to mention the functioning of rights in a social system concerned with the secular. The functioning of rights in both the nation and the state, again, problematizes the distinction between them. The obvious distinction would be in how the nation takes 'rights' as for granted, while the state continually utilizes and references these rights for socially recognizable and consistent governance. The idea of rights in the nation are thus far more contentious. The state simply relies on the strict letter of rights (in Canada, this would be the exact wordage included in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms). The discussion of rights, however, functions in the space of the nation, and its within the nation that rights are either seen as functioning properly or not. Further elaboration on this might be needed.
Let us take the freedom of speech, particularly as its being discussed right now in the public, so eliminating any kind of judicial or parliamentary (I'm speaking as a Canadian, so...) developments. The freedom of speech, as a national interest, is incredibly contentious, yet all functions within the idea of what makes the nation. A discussion concerning the right to freedom of speech relies on expectations, desires and justifications that all find themselves within the idea of the nation as something already realized, yet always in perpetual realization. Regardless of whether or not a person wants, for example, the allowance of aggressively targeted language, or the restriction of of this language, or wants the government to decide on respectful speech, or sees these decision as being outside of the governments rightful purview, all of these discussions are functioning under the idea of the nation as a realized social institution.
A lot of these arguments are further justified by an appeal to the historical. Staying within the example already presented, all discussions of the significance of freedom of speech in Canada rely on an assumption along the lines of "what was meant" or "this is what Canada stands/stood for". This is an area in need of serious discussion as well, but I have shit around the house to do.
Comments