[author]QI Chunyi

[content]

How to Place People in System Theory

Author: Qi Chunyi

Associate Professor at the Law School of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law

Abstract: Based on the epistemological standpoint of objective constructivism, the theoretical purpose and research perspective of systems theory lies in the factual study of social systems established on the basis of communication through objects. From this perspective, the issue of human subjectivity is no longer the central problem of systems theory, and even from the perspective of systems theory, humans have been re discussed. However, the importance of human construction of social processes has not been denied as critics claim. Because in the analysis of systems theory, it is shown that the importance of human beings to the social system lies in the structural coupling relationship between the human psychological consciousness system and the social system. Furthermore, in terms of the relationship between humans and society, the contribution of the shift in the perspective of systems theory lies in its revelation of the existence of non individual structures such as social systems, which makes the care and placement of people no longer blind like traditional subject philosophy and social theory, but practical and revolutionary.
Keywords: social system; Psychological consciousness system; significance; Structural coupling; Stimulating disturbance

1. Introduction

In the implementation of Luhmann's 30-year long-term research plan on "social systems," various criticisms have been constantly heard in the healthy academic growth space. Among these critical voices, the most weighty one undoubtedly comes from Habermas, a representative figure of the Frankfurt School's critical theory. In his book "Between Facts and Norms," Habermas argues that systems theory is a functionalism of social science that neutralizes everything that is binding or has a general meaning from the perspective of participants. He criticized in Luhmann's system theory that constructing one's own world results in the loss of one's own position among the subjects who participate in the shared living world. The description of objectivism in system theory disregards the self understanding of actors, causing legal norms and actions to lose their connection with the inherent understanding process of legal operation. Is this a valid criticism or just a theoretical misunderstanding? Is human subjectivity missing in systems theory?

Luhmann devoted most of his energy to the study of social systems and their subsystems in his research. In his early theories, people in the social system environment were often only mentioned occasionally in the peripheral context of the discourse. In the debate collection "Social Theory or Social Technology: What Contributions Has the Study of Systems Theory Made?" published in 1971 and co authored by Habermas and Luhmann, it can be seen that the debate discusses issues such as "meaning," "truth," and "ideology" in systems theory at a macro level. If there is reason to believe that Luhmann's statement that "what was published before 1984 was only preparatory work" and was a "zero series" of research is serious, then the question of how Luhmann answered the relationship between "social systems and people" should be sought in his later writings. In the 1995 publication of 'Enlightenment Six in Sociology', 14 published papers by Luhmann reflecting on this issue were compiled, hence it also has a subtitle of 'Sociology and Humans'. In this book, Luhmann discusses the psychological and social systems, the self creation of consciousness, and how consciousness participates in communication based on closed operations; Discuss the form, subject, intersubjectivity, human rights, etc. of "individual" in communication; Discuss issues such as "inclusion" and "exclusion".

In these discussions, Luhmann's position is still based on the closure of the social system operation, and people discuss it at the level of "consciousness's participation in communication". In this perspective, human subjectivity is indeed not the central issue of systems theory. Based on system self creation, humans do not have the dominant role of thinking they are in front of the system. However, the focus of system theory research precisely makes the following question visible and debatable: what living conditions do people face in a society with numerous subsystems under functional differentiation? From the perspective of theoretical legal sociology, how does system theory place, care for, and give people a subject status? This article aims to attempt a preliminary exploration of this issue.

2. Research perspective of system theory

The system theory, which recognizes the composition of society, breaks the traditional interpretation of society based on subjective philosophy, which holds that humans are the smallest unit of social activity and that the entire society is composed of individuals and their social relationships. In this perspective, the observation and description of human beings undergo the following transformation: from being in society to being in an environment outside the social system, from being a complete person to a fragmented person, from being a living organism to being a communication unit.

2.1 From within society to beyond society

In previous research on society, the traditional view under the Societas concept is that humans are individuals in society, and thus individuals and individualit ä t become the objects of study. Under the concept of individuality, people are seen as subjects of themselves or the world, and thus each individual's subjectivity is given more consideration. Because humans are individuals in society, sociology considers the relationship between individuals and society through the theory of human action. The concept of action usually considers each individual person, rather than the process of connecting different people together. Being behind an action is the cause, initiator, or actor of the action. However, action is only a product of describing society, and it cannot distinguish individuals from society, because action may have both individual and social significance.
From the perspective of systems theory, people are no longer a part of society because society is made up of communication. Communication is a process of choice, which consists of three stages: Information, Mitteilung, and Verstehen. Every piece of information is a choice made in a field of possibilities, for which there are many informative possibilities available, and the informed information can be understood in one way or another. When information is selected, one of the many informed possibilities is chosen, and one of the multiple understanding possibilities is selected, communication arises. Communication, like life, is a robust and highly flexible existence in the process of evolution, achieved through self creation.

Therefore, communication will not be the result of individual actions, as the origin of the three choices of information, disclosure, and understanding cannot be traced back to a single subject, but at least to two or more subjects. Although there are many psychological consciousness systems involved in communication, this does not change the composition and operation of communication. The psychological system may understand information in its own operation, but this understanding is only the internal operation of a consciousness (thoughts or ideas) that understands, and it does not enter into communication without a communicative choice. Communication establishes an independent and self driven process. This is what Lumen said, 'Communication is the only way to communicate', people cannot communicate. This will be elaborated in detail in the third part of the article.
Therefore, from the perspective of systems theory, humans are no longer social components created through communication, and they do not belong to the social system. According to the distinction between systems/environments based on system theory, everything observed, if not within the system, is within the system's environment. So, from the perspective of the social system, people are excluded from society and only exist in the social environment.

2.2 From complete individuals to fragmented individuals

Because system theory starts from the distinction between systems/environments, humans are also observed from this perspective. Generally speaking, a complete person has both body and mind, can act and think. Their body has various physiological functions and chemical processes, and their psychological activities can organize viewpoints, reason, use imagination, and express themselves. However, from a systemic perspective, humans cannot become an independent system, but are composed of many independent operating systems, including the body organic system, immune system, neurophysiological system, psychological consciousness system, etc. The reason why humans are not an independent system is that among the many operations that occur on humans, there is no unified unit that can cover various different systems and create itself.

In the philosophical and sociological traditions, people communicate with each other through association. But now people are not seen as creators of communication, they cannot communicate because their various systems operate in a self referential closed loop. According to the conceptual description of systems theory, there is no communication between two or more psychological consciousness systems. We cannot directly participate in the ideas of another consciousness system, at most we can assume that the other consciousness system is carrying out some idea at this moment. But this assumption is only our own idea, just the operation of our own consciousness system. However, by continuously connecting one communication to another in a recursive process, the social system becomes a self referential and self-contained system in operation. For communication in the social system, the psychological consciousness system can only make its partial contribution through the continuous establishment of meaning through information, communication, and understanding in the social system, and this must be based on the premise of social symbiosis. Otherwise, the contribution of individual psychological consciousness systems to information, communication, and understanding is only a few fragments.

Therefore, in society as a communication system, there is no one person in the complete sense. Society is a system that can be observed empirically and exists in continuous communication, independent of many systems such as the human organic system, psychological system, neurophysiological system, etc. However, for fragmented human systems, the organic system, psychological system, and communication system have more obvious relationships that need clarification. This is what Luhmann called the study of the self-contained operation of systems. If we study individuals, then we also focus on the organic and spiritual devices of social systems.

2.3 From living beings to individuals in communication units

From the perspective of systems theory, although people move from within society to outside, from complete individuals to fragmented systems, and these systems are all located in the environment of the social system, there is a need to discuss people within the communication concept of the whole society theory.
The concept of Person becomes a constructed unit in communication, referring to the object (Adressater) that the social system wants to send to. When individuals are constructed as communication units, they are neither fully living beings nor simple psychological consciousness systems, but rather constructs and identifications of communication. At this point, communication is simplified into (informed) actions and attributed to individuals. Behavioral expectations can also be attributed to such individuals accordingly. Therefore, 'individual' is only a form of observation of human individuals as objects. Social systems come into contact with natural persons through the construction and identification point of "individuals" as a means of communication.
In this way, in the discourse of systems theory, there will still be discussions about the parties involved, judges, administrative officials, and an ordinary hotel owner in social communication, all of which are constructed within the system to observe people in the social system environment. Although various individuals are individuals in the communication unit at this time, when we look at the relationship between social systems and people from a second-order observation perspective, people at this time are fragments of living beings, and some of these systems have relationships worth examining with social systems.

3. Coupling between social system and human structure

The result of observing from a systems theory perspective is that humans have lost their priority position in traditional philosophical and sociological theories. The premise of classical humanism and its concern for problems has been changed. People are not the subject of communication, they are no longer creators, they are just the environment of society, but this does not mean that 'all the importance of human construction of social processes is therefore negated'. Compared to traditional views, people have not become unimportant now, but have become important at a more specific level of the problem, and have made the issue more confrontational. System theory does not mean that there are no "people" in the eyes. Criticizing the complete absence of people in social systems is actually a theoretical misunderstanding. The significance of human beings to the social system lies in the structural coupling relationship between the fragmented human system and the social system. In this coupling relationship, the psychological consciousness system (as well as the body organic system closely coupled with the psychological consciousness system) is highlighted. Without the structural coupling between the psychological consciousness system and the social system, the entire social system cannot exist. It is in this perspective that systems theory highlights the value of human subjectivity and its connection to the social system.

3.1 Fragmented human psychological consciousness system
Although the process within the social system involves self referential communication, the production of its communication elements in a recursive manner must be based on certain environmental conditions. Every communication relies on the state of certain (actually two or more) organic systems, nervous systems, and psychological systems, and must involve at least two psychological consciousness systems. This is an irreplaceable contribution made by the relevant systems on the human body to the communication process (although they are still contributions from the environment).

So, what kind of system is the psychological consciousness system? Firstly, it is also a self generated system that is self manufactured and self-sustaining through the recursive reproduction of elements (as independent units). Secondly, the elements that operate the psychological consciousness system are thoughts (Gedanke) and ideas (Vorstellung). Ideas and concepts are both events (Eregnis), which means that they must disappear again at the moment they appear. Thought appears in one moment, disappears in the next, and is replaced by the next new thought. So consciousness moves from one state of consciousness to another, and the self creation of consciousness is the continuous weaving of more or less clear thoughts. Again, because self generated systems rely on the environment to provide specific energy and substances, consciousness relies on specific environmental assistance. This environment includes not only air, water, the earth, the surrounding material environment, but also the body, brain, and so on. This illustrates the relationship between the psychological consciousness system and the body organic system, neurophysiological system, and the natural world.

3.2 The structural coupling between the psychological consciousness system and the social system

In system theory, a system operates as a self-contained entity and is therefore closed. But this closure is not a complete closure and isolation of the environment. Structural coupling is a form of describing the relationship between a system and its environment, which can only be seen from the observer's perspective. Only the observer can organize different things together, examine two systems simultaneously, and think about how they are connected.

Structural coupling "is derived from Mathura's concept in biology, which attempts to illustrate how a system connects with its environment without compromising its autonomy and operational closure. If a system continuously relies on specific properties in its environment and is structurally dependent on them, then it should be said that there is structural coupling. Therefore, when a system can only construct its structure by being compatible with specific properties in the environment, it can be said that the structural development of a system is structurally coupled with that part of its properties in the environment. Structural coupling indicates specific dependencies/independent relationships between systems, that is, environments that are both interdependent and mutually dependent (such as the structural coupling relationship between consciousness and the brain). Structural coupling has the following characteristics: firstly, structural coupling has a selection function, which constructs a certain channel (Kan ä le) through which the system eliminates the influence from the environment that has a deconstructive effect, and the system is also influenced through this channel. In this way, the relationship between the system and the environment may be disruptive, disruptive, and sometimes even destructive (such as the death of an organism leading to loss of consciousness). Secondly, structural coupling leads to the co evolution of the system and the environment. The system can rely on the results of co evolution to respond internally to external disturbances within a structurally coupled framework, i.e. interpret and process them as information.

So, how to accurately describe the coupling relationship between the psychological consciousness system and the social system? Firstly, the psychological consciousness system holds a special position in the social environment, as' only at the level of consciousness can the entire society be influenced by its environment '. It is not physical, chemical, neurophysiological operations, but only consciousness that can trigger communication, and only consciousness can interfere and disturb communication. The social system can only be coupled with consciousness, which is determined by the lack of prior communication. Communication cannot be perceived, it cannot see, hear, or feel. And consciousness can perceive, and the efficacy of consciousness is perception. People have consciousness and transform the external world into consciousness through perception. Anything that is communicated must pass through the filter of consciousness and be carried out in the system environment. In this sense, communication relies entirely on consciousness (which in turn depends on the brain). Communication can only operate through consciousness, and communication only responds to consciousness. Therefore, the sensitivity and instability of communication through the process of consciousness will also increase.

Secondly, it should be pointed out that although the communication system and the psychological consciousness system are structurally coupled, they still operate independently without overlapping. Consciousness does not communicate, it is a self referential system that connects thoughts. The number of people in this world corresponds to the number of self referential closed psychological consciousness systems. Therefore, consciousness, as a process of thought, cannot enter into communication. Similarly, communication is not consciousness in operation. Communication cannot confirm what the consciousness system involved in communication is thinking. This can be proven through daily life experience. For example, although we are participating in a conversation, our thoughts may be walking on another path, even going wild. Therefore, we can participate in communication, but we cannot communicate with each other because in communication, we cannot see through the minds of the communication participants, that is, we cannot participate in the thoughts of our conversation partners at that time.
Finally, the psychological consciousness system cannot guide or determine the communication of the social system in a causal manner. Because at least a second consciousness system is involved in communication, communication cannot be traced back to individual consciousness systems. Moreover, communication cannot be attributed to the so-called collective consciousness, because the communication system is a self-contained system of self reference, with its own inherent operational logic and normativity. The psychological consciousness system may exchange ideas in communication and understand each other's current thoughts. But this is just a communicative claim, it is the operation of a communication system. And the specific psychological consciousness system may believe that it has fully understood the thoughts of its conversational partner, but it is still only their thoughts, operating within their consciousness system. So, in conversations lacking trust, even if consensus is reached, it is difficult for psychological awareness to form a firm confirmation of that consensus. In short, 'communication is communication without thinking. Consciousness is thinking without communication'. In daily life and work, we often feel "out of control" and feel the presence of a systemic force that restricts our behavior, which is the result of systematic communication.

3.3 The mechanism of coupling between psychological consciousness system and social system

Why can social systems only be coupled with consciousness? This is because both the psychological consciousness system and the social system are systems that construct and use meaning, while other types of systems, such as the body organic system or the nervous system, do not use meaning. The construction of meaning is the distinction between actualization (Akutualit ä t) and possibility (M ö glichkeit). The situation that has already been implemented can lead to boredom, forcing the system to search for new situations in the field of possibilities and implement them in the next moment. The meaning is to constantly rearrange the distinction between feasibility and possibility, and to constantly realize possibilities. It is precisely because the state of implementation is constantly changing that the system must constantly make choices among the many possibilities to be realized, and the already realized things indicate further possibilities for connection. From the perspective of the psychological system, consciousness produces ideas through thoughts, and each thought has an intentional structure, which is the subsequent possibility, and one of these possibilities will be realized in the next moment. From the perspective of the social system, every communication also has an intention structure that points to certain things, and the things being referred to also indicate the possibility of certain connections. Meaning simultaneously makes it possible to reduce complexity and maintain complexity. Meaning can reduce complexity because selective and temporary use is possible. Each meaning re integrates the selection compulsion inherent in all complexity, each meaning triggers specific connecting possibilities, and makes other possibilities impossible, difficult, or too distant, or temporarily excludes other possibilities. Meanwhile, complexity will not be destroyed, but rather provided for further system operation. With every meaning, any meaning, the uncontrollable high complexity (the complexity of the world) is presented together and used by psychological and social systems

So, how are social systems and psychological consciousness systems coupled together? Both social systems and psychological consciousness systems need to establish certain forms, or constantly establish new forms, to limit the arbitrariness of communication or thought, determining what continues to be followed, what is excluded, and what must be activated or reactivated. This certain form is' meaning '. Language, as a relatively fixed temporal storage of meaning, holds special importance. The mechanism that couples consciousness and communication, psychological system, and social system structure is language. This is linked to many attributes of language. Language has duality and can be used in both psychological and communicative contexts. Meanwhile, language does not exclude the possibility that the operation of the two systems will unfold separately. On the one hand, on a psychological level, language is a catcher of attention, which means that people can easily distinguish the sound of speech among multiple sounds and try to understand what it is saying. And once engaged in effective conversation, people's attention remains focused on the words and they have no time for anything else. Therefore, language ensures that consciousness is always present. On the other hand, at the level of communication, given the limitations of body language, language is indispensable for the transmission or fixation of meaning in communication. Moreover, language always seeks to be understood, and understanding is essential in communication.

In the evolutionary history of social communication, this mechanism of structural coupling has evolved from language (Sprache) to writing (Schrift), and finally to book printing (Buchdruck). Text is a form of language implementation that solves the problem of communication between spatial and temporal dimensions. With the help of text, language in a specific limited space is recorded and can be viewed in a retrospective manner over time. The reason why 'communication in the spatial-temporal dimension cannot be achieved' is an important issue that needs to be addressed is because how society remembers and reuses selected information is a crucial task in social evolution. For example, in the process of dividing the legal system, relying on universal language and writing, the law creates its own system of meaning. With the help of words, concrete legal norms can be formed, and the stabilization of normative expectations becomes possible. Furthermore, with the widespread use of printing technology, a large amount of text was produced, and further social functional distinctions gradually formed. On the basis of law as a social norm, universal normative expectations can become a reality. In the whole society, it is with the emergence of language, writing, and printing of books and periodicals that the communication system gradually distinguishes itself from the perception and thinking process of consciousness that runs parallel to it. However, while distinguishing the communication system, it also establishes a structural coupling relationship between it and the psychological consciousness system through the common construction and use of meaning.

4. The self preservation of Lin Lizhong's people in the system

System theory reveals the existence of social systems composed of communication at the factual level. Due to the structural coupling formed by the shared use of meaning between human psychological consciousness system and social system, the importance of constructing social processes lies in the disturbance and influence that social communication is subjected to at the conscious level. And based on the co evolutionary relationship between the system and the environment caused by structural coupling, the important significance of the psychological consciousness system in the communication process of the social system is always present and cannot be ignored.
In terms of the relationship between human beings and society, if we change our perspective and observe the system theory not from the perspective of the social system, but from the perspective of various human systems, then its greater theoretical contribution will be revealed: on the one hand, it reveals the existence of non individual structures such as the social system, making the threat of the logical expansion of such non individual structures to the physical/mental integrity of human beings observable and described. This kind of revelation can be achieved not only at the overall level of the social system, but also at the specific level of each subsystem. Compared with the theoretical viewpoints of "the loss and enslavement of objects in the capitalist production process", "the iron cage of responsibility ethics under rational expansion", "the colonization of the living world by oppressive social systems", and "the discipline of modern social governance on people in the Casero Islands", its description of the threat to human physical and mental health posed by the logical expansion of non individual structures is more thorough and comprehensive. Moreover, from the perspective of structural coupling between various subsystems of the social system, system theory provides a specific approach for analyzing the intrinsic mechanisms of this non individual structure. On the other hand, system theory also guides human beings who suffer from non individualized structural forces in the face of social systems to achieve their self preservation. How can people ensure their own survival in the face of destructive disturbances in the system? How do people demonstrate and utilize their subjective consciousness in front of the system? Toibuna, an important promoter of systems theory, provided answers to these questions.

4.1 The reality of human survival situation

Communication creates a meaningful world independent of the human mind, and humans creatively utilize various social communication subsystems to promote survival and development. For example, using political system communication to form decisions with collective binding force; Using legal system communication to stabilize normative expectations; Using communication within the economic system to achieve payment, investment, and competition; Using scientific systems to communicate and discover and apply true knowledge and objective laws; Utilize mass media systems for rapid and extensive information dissemination.

However, at the same time, the problem that arises is that these communication systems pose a threat to the integrity of humanity in their self generated operation, harming, enslaving, and even ending human survival. For example, the Nazis carried out genocide in concentration camps through a series of political orders; Judicial personnel follow legal procedures to make substantive errors in judgments, depriving people of their freedom and life in the form of accountability; The high pricing of drugs by multinational corporations in pursuit of profits has led to premature deaths of patients who cannot afford to purchase drugs; Conducting human experiments in anonymous scientific communication to obtain scientific discoveries; In the communication network of mass media, distorting the formation process of public opinion in order to achieve click through rates, and even destroying real public opinion.

Although the communication process of the social system cannot invade a person's body and soul, as a result of communication, it can disrupt the body and soul in a way that threatens self preservation. In modern functionally differentiated societies, the current state of human existence is clearly depicted from the perspective of systems theory. Usually, this holistic description is highlighted and emphasized locally, such as Habermas' emphasis on the colonization of the living world by political and economic systems; Or, in the rapidly developing fields of artificial intelligence, genetic technology, and information technology after entering the new century, the potential threats that intelligence, technology, and informatization may pose to humanity are being discussed.

4.2 The path of self preservation of human body/mind

Can people only let the social system communicate and operate on their own? In the face of the anonymous communication magic circle, can people exert their subjectivity as human beings? In Toibuna's discourse, an analytical approach that can be demonstrated is that although systematic communication creates its own world of meaning, this world of meaning is not completely independent of the human mind. The two can promote coupling through mutual disturbance. Under structural coupling, communication can stimulate psychophysical processes in a way that threatens human self preservation, disturb the soul and the body on which it depends, and cause various psychological and physical injuries. So the 'body' and 'heart' can also insist on their integrity, identity, and self preservation to resist destructive communication disturbances. Because for the social system, communication is always stimulated and interfered by the psychological consciousness system in its unique communication operation, and only the psychological consciousness system has the possibility to interfere, initiate, and stimulate communication.

The current question is, how can this kind of disturbance occur? In real life, people are just the external environment of the communication network formed by many communications, and they cannot control the daily operation of the communication network. Given the autonomy of the communication system, individuals have been excluded from society and cannot return to the communication network, let alone occupy a central position within it. In the face of the anonymous communication magic circle, whether individuals can protect their own existence is actually transformed into the question of whether individuals can assert and practice their rights against non personal structural violations in the communication process. Toibuna discusses the path of self preservation of the human body/mind in the face of the social system from the following three aspects

4.2.1 To ensure fair treatment of humanity through human rights

In human rights theory, human rights are the rights that every individual should enjoy as a human being. Starting from the theory of natural law and natural rights, there are certain rights that belong to all human beings at all times and places, whether recognized or not. These rights are those that every individual should enjoy according to their nature and are inviolable. They are not gifts or gifts, and people enjoy these rights solely as human beings, regardless of differences in nationality, religion, gender, race, social identity, occupation, culture, property, social attributes, or any other aspects. So, human rights logically come before the state and law, and fundamentally, human rights are a moral right. But in order to ensure the realization of human rights, they must be legalized. This means that when it comes to how people are viewed, they are not abstract entities, but possess not only natural attributes but also social attributes, meaning that a person cannot exist in isolation and must live with others, belonging to a certain society. The personality of a person can only be maximized in a social community formed with others. So human rights, as a right, indicate the existence of certain social relationships, and human rights exist within certain social relationships. Laws, customs, and moral norms are the specific sources of human rights.

From the perspective of systems theory, human rights aim to achieve the goal of fair treatment for humanity, which can only be achieved when human rights transcend the boundaries of communication. Compared to the traditional view that regards people as integral parts of society and justice as the distribution of social resources such as power, wealth, knowledge, and life opportunities across different parts of society, systems theory transforms key issues related to justice into how to constrain institutional actions to prevent harm to various rights in the communication environment. In this analysis, the shift from the perspective of "people in living organisms to people in communication units" demonstrates the power of insight into facts. The 'Person' in the system is a construct of communication, and such individuals cannot be equated with the living physical and mental beings in the communication environment. When the system communicates with 'individuals', the result is precisely that it may threaten and infringe upon the integrity of living people in the environment. Therefore, when facing the social communication system, people's "heart" and "body" can demand to possess their "pre legal", "pre political", and even "pre social" potential and inherent rights, namely human rights.

The reason why it is necessary to propose constraints on non individual structural violations through human rights is that in situations of disturbance, the system may ensure its autonomy by "not necessarily making decisions". Therefore, it is necessary to develop various forms, substantive or procedural safeguards through human rights to protect individuals from infringement by society as a whole and the government and its specific implementing agencies. For example, Article 1 (1) of the German Basic Law establishes the "ethical value" of human dignity as the "highest constitutional principle", making it a directive in empirical law. The difference between the "basic rights" in the Constitution and the "subjective rights" in private law is precisely that it does not involve mutual infringement between individuals as natural persons, but rather involves the harm caused to institutional organizations and the integrity of natural persons by anonymous communication magic circles and non personal social processes.

4.2.2 Implement self-restraint of communication systems through normative forms of prohibitive rules

In situations where social communication causes harm to the "body" and "mind", it should be ensured that physical pain and mental damage are not silently ignored, but constantly disrupt social communication. This is because in order to successfully stimulate social communication and attract attention, physical and mental pain cannot continue to remain silent. The physical and mental struggle against abuse can only be 'heard' if it is expressed through communication. But the reality that must be clarified is, what does the social communication system "hear" and respond to? Due to the closure of the system, the social system can only understand and process the information "heard" within its own communication system. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that the rules inherent in communication provide protection for the "body" and "mind".

The solution to this is to establish a super communication foundation for social communication through rules, which is the core role of the law. The role of law ultimately relies on the premise that 'human rights serve as a negative constraint on social communication'. That is to say, in the face of the anonymous communication magic circle and the damage to the integrity of natural persons caused by non personal social processes, people have the right to assert self limitation on the communication system based on their human rights. Specifically, the exercise of this right can take the form of legal prohibitive rules. Rules themselves are intellectual creations generated by human beings in social interactions, while legal rules are instructions and regulations that give legal meaning to certain factual states, and are norms and standards that regulate legal rights and obligations. The prohibitive rules referred to here have a broad meaning, corresponding to the entire content expressed in the mandatory rules. It includes both negative obligations (obligations of inaction) that prohibit people from making certain actions; This also includes setting positive obligations for people (as obligations), that is, rules that require people to or should perform certain behaviors (the opposite of which is "not allowed" to perform certain behaviors).

When advocating for the restraint of institutions through human rights, the use of normative forms such as "prohibitive rules" is hoped to achieve self-restraint in communication, such as "prohibition of endangering public safety", "prohibition of intentional homicide", and "prohibition of disrupting public order" in criminal law; The Criminal Procedure Law prohibits the use of torture to extract confessions and requires the exclusion of illegal evidence; In civil law, one must be "honest and trustworthy" and "abide by public order and good customs"; The prohibition of abuse of market dominance and the prohibition of abuse of administrative power to exclude or restrict competition in economic law all go beyond the boundaries of communication by prohibiting certain specific types of communication. They correspond not only to human rights in the legal sense, but also to the "potential rights" of human beings, such as the inherent right of flesh and blood to demand their physical and spiritual dignity. The role of legal norms is to establish a foundation for communication beyond communication, and prohibitive rules are legal norms created in conflicts between different subsystems and between subsystems and the physical/mental systems of individuals, ultimately defining the boundaries of external communication for social communication.  

4.2.3 Smooth access to communication channels

Although the normative form of prohibitive rules can promote self limitation of communication systems, people's pursuit of justice in the face of the system cannot only start from the discourse of the law and stay within it. This is because, as analyzed earlier, true human rights are different from the rights of "individuals" in communication, and true people are different from the "individuals" in communication as "recipients of basic rights". The true pursuit of human rights is the conscious protection of the physical and mental integrity of living individuals.
Therefore, in order to ensure the physical and mental integrity of individuals, it is necessary to have smooth access to social communication, especially legal communication, as the coercive power of the law can provide ultimate and effective protection. What we want to emphasize in order to facilitate communication is to enable the information of resistance against non individual structures that invade the body and the complaints and struggles of the painful soul to be heard, understood, considered, adopted, and reconstructed in decision-making; Instead of being ignored, endured, or forgotten. If a dispute/disagreement cannot express its meaning in the final court, then the only thing that can happen next is to endure this infringement in one's inner experience and be forgotten silently over time. From a social perspective, the concept of inclusion points out an individual's participation in specific communication, that is, "who can communicate" points out the entry conditions into specific social connections.
In order to stimulate social communication, the means of approaching social communication, especially the legal means of "approaching the use of the law", must be kept open and organized in a highly selective manner. This is expressed in the formal elements of the rule of law as the need to safeguard judicial independence and make it easily accessible. Specifically, in civil and administrative litigation, it is necessary to provide a resolution mechanism for disputes that cannot be resolved by the parties themselves, and there should be no expensive fees that cannot be paid, or time-consuming or excessive litigation delays due to the inconvenience of the jurisdictional court; In criminal proceedings, it is necessary to ensure that the persons or their representatives involved in the proceedings have smooth channels to participate in the proceedings and have sufficient opportunities to substantially participate in the litigation activities. Secondly, in the legal communication process, the right of the parties to express their opinions should be fully guaranteed to be realized. This can be strengthened by safeguarding the defense rights of lawyers. If the expression of physical pain/mental distress caused by injury can enter into communication, then the humanized self-restraint of communication has gained some opportunities. Only through sufficient perception, reconstruction, and reintroduction of stimuli can social systems, especially legal systems, experience the harm to human physical and mental integrity. Finally, special legal remedies should be guaranteed and made open to the parties applying for relief, such as applying for retrial in criminal proceedings. It can correct factual and legal errors in legal communication, such as the widespread use of torture to extract confessions in known wrongful cases.

5. Conclusion

A major misunderstanding of systems theory has always been that the study of social systems only focuses on the self-contained operation of the system, which removes the subjective factor of human beings and is therefore only a functionalist and objectivist description lacking in human touch. Habermas' criticism further confirms the misconception that systems theory is seen as a 'social governance technique'. Therefore, system theory has lost its appeal to many scholars who conduct social research from the perspective of social relationships between subjects, including legal research. This article explains the theoretical purpose of Luhmann and points out that when Luhmann answers the pre question of "how society is possible" about "how social order is possible", he perceives from behind the surface of "society composed of people" that meaningful communication between people has given rise to a social communication system, and this huge social communication system is the truth that dominates the operation of the entire society. Describing people as the power battery of the Matrix in "The Matrix" may be too extreme, but after the emergence of a social communication system that transcends the collective of all individuals, individuals do indeed provide a source of meaning for the social system in their own and social evolution.

In The Matrix, people can only break free from the false illusion of being in the Matrix by unplugging their tubes, and unite as awakened humans to resist the domination of the Matrix. For awakened humans, the reality of survival may be unbearable, but its value lies in the fact that all thoughts and actions come from the free will of the true self. In my opinion, Luhmann provides a insightful description of the division and functional differentiation of communication systems in modern society in his theory. When people view this theoretical description as ignoring the subjectivity of actors and considering it unacceptable, it may be because people are still stuck in the false reality of individuals having the ability to decide and control communication networks in modern complex societies. Facing the issue of the relationship between social systems and humans in systems theory is more like unplugging the tube and using theoretical self-awareness to confront the many problems brought about by modernity. If this is acknowledged, then the contribution of systems theory is not to deny the importance of human construction of social processes, but to describe the structural coupling relationship between the psychological consciousness system and the social communication system through shared construction and use of meaning, thereby demonstrating how people can recognize the internal mechanisms of non individual structures such as social systems when they pose a threat and harm to human physical/mental integrity, and how to seek the path of self liberation through this structural coupling. This concern for the overall fate of humanity is not anthropocentric, but it is more effective than any theory in solving the modern problems faced by humanity.