Dialektik der Kommunikationsgesellschaft. Richard Münch (1991). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 397 Pages. ISBN 3-518-28480-0.
Reviewed by Pablo B. Markin, DAAD Center for German Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Richard Münch’s 1991 Dialektik der Kommunikationsgesellschaft [The Dialectics of Communication Society (my translation)] makes notable contributions to sociological theory, historical and comparative sociology, and sociological analysis of contemporary society that may not be familiar to non-German readers. This review seeks to introduce his work by summarizing his argument that a scholarly grasp and analysis of the complexity of social interdependence is only possible with the help of theoretical points of view that bring the comprehensive scale of economic, political, social and cultural processes together.
[CC image: Paul-Löbe-Haus by warein.holgado]
Of particular interest to scholars of space and culture, Münch’s (1991) theorization of interrelations among modernity, accumulation, and action offers a perspective that clarifies economic, social, cultural, and political transitions taking place in cities. In this regard, cities stand out as historical crystallization points of cultural accumulation. Münch comments that “[i]t was, moreover, cities and the special nature of their life that has played a decisive role in a further renewal of Western culture: The Enlightenment and modernity were decisively brought about through them. [...] Once created, culture gives to corresponding urban life a long-lasting continuity” (my translation, Münch 1991: 231).
Furthermore, he argues that without an integrative frame of social theoretical reference, sociological accounts miss the relationally interwoven and socially dynamic existence of their subject matter (Münch 1991: 19-20). According to Münch, the present development of modernity brings about an unlimited reproduction, acceleration, compression, and globalization of communication. Permeating society to an unprecedented extent, communication needs to increase its scope and become more complex to overcome the corresponding loss of its effectiveness. An unintended consequence of its intensification is that communications deepen social contradictions by creating inflationary pressure on media of interchange, such as money, power, reputation and expertise. Social contradictions become more acute as continuous communication is integrated into modern culture. As controversies, conflicts, and disagreements become commonplace, the devaluation, inflation, and impoverishment of communication derail effective communication with violent reactions, power-accumulation strategies, and communication breakdowns coming in its stead (Münch 1991: 22).
Another contradiction of social development results from the unremitting expansion of economy, politics, society, and culture. These spheres increasingly put integration, overlap, conflict, and competition at the centre of their communicative processes. Thus, his theoretical orientation towards structural relations, systematic analysis, and theory building sets Münch apart from other streams of sociological theory such as symbolic interactionism, rational choice theory, and systems or functionalist theories. His reconstruction of the theories of Parsons, Weber and Durkheim seeks to demonstrate that the perception of modernity as an outcome of a functional differentiation of its constituent systems is secondary to the integrative processes that are at the heart of modern social order.
Via the intensification of communication, Münch argues that society is altered to an unprecedented extent. Accordingly, society is constantly reorganized by the increasing circulation, application, and relevance of knowledge. No one can escape the pressure to take public attention and successful self-representation as reference points for fear of being forgotten, lost, and disadvantaged. In addition, modern integration of cultures hailing from all corners of the world creates further contradictions. Constantly increasing demand for influence on public awareness and attention makes public discourse increasingly central, but creates inflationary waves of communication. The latter cause relapses into less advanced forms of strategic conflict settlement, such as confrontations between state forces and urban squatters (Münch 1991: 17-18).
The existing forms of regulation and coordination lose their effectiveness unless their complexity and adaptability is increased to fulfill the function of symbolic and generalized communication. For Münch, the present development of modernity distinguishes itself by the extent of social contradictions between different facets of culture and social action. However, the crises that ensue from these contradictions increasingly exceed the coping capacity of capitalism, technology, democracy, bureaucracy and law, while problematising their deepest cultural foundations. Furthermore, in the process of these crises, Western culture increasingly needs to produce self-justifications via communication within a discursive interrelationship among different cultures of the world. The competition among Western, Islamic and Asian cultures leads to their participation in a shared discourse over meaning, value, and purpose of human existence (Münch 1991: 21).
[CC image: Cold War Communication, Pt. II by mr * p]
Ultimately, and of particular interest to researchers of communications, space and culture, Münch suggests that the stable mediation between conflicting functions and orientations requires going beyond the mutual adjustment of economy, politics, society, and culture. Institutions of inter-systemic communication, such as litigation suits, out-of-court settlements and negotiation rounds, will be an ever more urgent need as conflicts over contradictions need to be productively resolved. In cities, cultural, political, social, and economic accumulation involves particular interests, identifiable individuals, and differentiated institutions. As theorized by Münch (1991), modernity has not only macro dynamics of and contradictions between systems of political, economic, cultural, and social accumulation, but also micro dynamics and contradictions of strategic relations among project-oriented groups, formalized organizations, and urban spaces.
Given the concerns that Münch raises, researchers of space and culture might want to consider some questions that follow from the concerns I have raised. First, could it be that Münch’s greatest contribution to social and cultural theory lies precisely in keeping applied research and theoretical concepts closely related in concrete analytical terms? Second, in view of Münch’s macro-spatial reference points including England, France, United States and Germany, is a micro-spatial corrective, such as a greater emphasis on cities, not in order? And in conclusion, what would be the challenges of comparative application to other countries, especially given the cultural, social, political and economic differences involved?