Typically, sociology organizes its debates around a series of issues, which are addressed by presenting opposing alternative pairs. Various theoretical exercises shape this task using the notions of dichotomies, dilemmas, and guiding distinctions. In this article, we begin with a review of this literature, focusing on how these approaches conceptualize relationships and the goals they pursue, before supporting our choice to focus on tensions. Subsequently, we adopt Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory as the central empirical reference, using the categories of position, conception, and general conception to guide our analysis. Specifically, we explore his conception in three classic tensions that have structured sociological thought since its foundation: individual/society, referring to the delimitation of the discipline’s object of study; knowledge/reality, concerning the foundation of scientific knowledge; and description/critique, regarding the orientation of sociological practice. Given that dualism predominates in the Luhmannian conception, we complement the analysis of each tension with examples of monistic and integrative conceptions. Finally, the conclusions present the results, outlining the potential of our analytical framework.
BecerraG (2020) La Teoría de los Sistemas Complejos y la Teoría de los Sistemas Sociales en las controversias de la complejidad. Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales27: 1–23.
BourdieuP (2001) El oficio de científico. Barcelona: Anagrama.
5.
BourdieuP (2002) Intervenciones políticas. Un sociólogo en la barricada. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
6.
BourdieuP (2007) El sentido práctico. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
7.
BourdieuPWacquantL (1993) An Invitation of Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
8.
DaweA (1970) The two sociologies. The British Journal of Sociology21(2): 207–218.
9.
FuchsCHofkirchnerW (2009) Autopoiesis and Critical Social Systems Theory. In: MagalhãesRSanchezR (eds) Autopoiesis in organization theory and practice. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 111–129.
GiordanoP (2024) The ontological and epistemological influence of Talcott Parsons’ s analytical realism on Niklas Luhmann’ s operative constructivism. Constructivist Foundations19(2): 167–178. Available at: https://constructivist.info/19/2/167
GiordanoPBecerraG (2024) Integración y dualismo: Concepciones generales para tratar tensiones en las teorías de Pierre Bourdieu y Niklas Luhmann. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y SocialesLXIX(250): 69–93. Available at: https://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rmcpys/article/view/80821
16.
HabermasJ (1993) El discurso filosófico de la modernidad. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Katz.
17.
IzuzquizaI (2008) La Sociedad Sin Hombres. Niklas Luhmann o la teoría como escándalo. Sankt Augustin: Anthropos.
18.
JenksC (1998) Core Sociological Dichotomies. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage.
19.
JohnsonTDandekerCAshworthC (1984) The Structure of Social Theory. Strategies, Dilemmas and Projects. New York: Macmillan Publishers.
20.
LuhmannN (1994) Los problemas de la investigación en la sociología. Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales7: 194–194.
21.
LuhmannN (1996) Social Systems. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
LuhmannN (1997) La ciencia de la sociedad. Mexico City: Universidad Iberoamericana; Tlaquepaque, Mexico: ITESO; Sankt Augustin: Anthropos.
23.
LuhmannN (2006) Cognition as construction. In: MoellerH-G (ed.) Luhmann Explained: From Souls to Systems. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, pp.241–260.
24.
LuhmannN (2012) Theory of Society, Volume 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25.
LuhmannN (2013) Theory of Society, Volume 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
26.
MascareñoA (2011) Sociología de la intervención: Orientación sistémica contextual. Revista Mad25: 1–33.
27.
MascareñoA (2017) Esse sequitur operari, o el nuevo giro de la teoría sociológica contemporánea: Bourdieu, Archer, Luhmann. Revista Mad37: 54–74. Available at: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3112/311252754003.pdf
28.
Pignuoli OcampoS (2019) La superación de la antinomia entre realismo y constructivismo en Luhmann y Bhaskar. Hacia una fundación paradójica del conocimiento científico. Revista Internacional de Sociología77(1): e116.
29.
Pignuoli OcampoS (2021) La definición de ‘lo social’ y el sistema de coordenadas de la socialidad. Estudios Sociológicos de El Colegio de México39(117): 685–716.
RothS (2019) Digital transformation of social theory. A research update. Technological Forecasting and Social Change146: 88–93.
32.
RothS (2023) Digital transformation of management and organization theories: A research programme. Systems Research and Behavioral Science40: 451–459.
33.
SchollA (2012) Between realism and constructivism? Luhmann’s ambivalent epistemological standpoint. Constructivist Foundations8(1): 5–18.
34.
Spencer BrownG (1979) Laws of Form. New York: E.P. Dutton.
35.
SztompkaP (1979) Sociological Dilemmas. Toward a Dialectic Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
36.
TouraineA (1987) El regreso del actor. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Eudeba.
37.
TouraineA (2016) El fin de las sociedades. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
38.
UdehnL (2002) The changing face of methodological individualism. Annual Review of Sociology28: 479–507.
39.
van KriekenR (2002) The paradox of the ‘two sociologies’: Hobbes, Latour and the Constitution of modern social theory. Journal of Sociology38(3): 255–273.
40.
von GlasersfeldE (1995) Radical Constructivism. A Way of Knowing and Learning. Abingdon: Routledge Falmer.
