Given the amorality of the function systems (economy, law, politics, etc.) and the increasing secularization of modern society, a great deal of moral communication now
“[Evolutionary] advances reduce complexity in order to organize greater complexity on the basis of restriction. Thus a road network reduces the possibilities for movement to enable easier and faster movement and hence increase options for movement concretely available.”
“Western” society used to distinguish between good and evil, but that was supplanted by normal/abnormal. Good/evil is a digital distinction with no middle ground, but normal/abnormal produces a continuum. Individuals can be placed in this continuum subject to some kind of therapy to move them from abnormal to normal
Luhmann is always criticized or simply dismissed on the grounds that he ignored the individual. “Luhmann has nothing to say about the individual.” “Luhmann has
Complexity, from a systems theoretical perspective, equates to a system’s horizon of possibilities. A horizon may be approached but never crossed, as it keeps receding.
At the heart of all disciplinary systems functions a small penal mechanism. It enjoys a kind of judicial privilege with its own laws, its specific offences, its particular forms of judgement. The disciplines established an ‘infra-penality’; they partitioned an area that the laws had left empty; they defined and repressed a mass of behaviour that the relative indifference of the great systems of punishment had allowed to escape. ‘ [. . .] The workshop, the school, the army were subject to a whole micro-penality of time (latenesses, absences, interruptions of tasks), of activity (inattention, negligence, lack of zeal), of behaviour
(impoliteness, disobedience), of speech (idle chatter, insolence), of the body (‘incorrect’ attitudes, irregular gestures, lack of cleanliness), of sexuality (impurity, indecency).