Home 5 A hall of mirrors or a pool of analytical strategies
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

5 A hall of mirrors or a pool of analytical strategies

  • Niels Åkerstrøm Andersen
View more publications by Policy Press
Discursive analytical strategies
This chapter is in the book Discursive analytical strategies

Abstract

In this concluding chapter, I will seek to let the different analytics and analytical strategies in Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau and Luhmann reflect each other and, in so doing, attempt to compare them directly. This requires some form of standard of comparison – a uniform concept that will allow the distinctions to stand out. However, that in itself is a questionable operation, since the principal distinctions that define their constituent diversity are lost in such an endeavour. Nevertheless, this will not restrain me from proceeding to define a kind of ‘comprehensive view’, the advantage of which is that it paves the way for many fruitful discussions about how it is different to establish, for example, a link to the discourse analysis of Foucault or Laclau respectively.

As already noted, there is no natural universal standard of comparison. The four gentlemen do not ask to be compared and neither do they require a particular standard of reference. However, using Luhmann’s ideas, I have chosen to construct a concept of analytical strategy on which I will base my comparisons of the four writers. This will, of course, have the effect of making the others appear in a Luhmannian light, but there are reasons for my choice of perspective. The two principal reasons are width and level of abstraction. First, in my opinion, Luhmann possesses the greatest potential of inclusion due to his rather general but also highly potent theory of second-order observations. Second, Luhmann’s concepts appear to permit the development of a productive concept of analytical strategy.

Abstract

In this concluding chapter, I will seek to let the different analytics and analytical strategies in Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau and Luhmann reflect each other and, in so doing, attempt to compare them directly. This requires some form of standard of comparison – a uniform concept that will allow the distinctions to stand out. However, that in itself is a questionable operation, since the principal distinctions that define their constituent diversity are lost in such an endeavour. Nevertheless, this will not restrain me from proceeding to define a kind of ‘comprehensive view’, the advantage of which is that it paves the way for many fruitful discussions about how it is different to establish, for example, a link to the discourse analysis of Foucault or Laclau respectively.

As already noted, there is no natural universal standard of comparison. The four gentlemen do not ask to be compared and neither do they require a particular standard of reference. However, using Luhmann’s ideas, I have chosen to construct a concept of analytical strategy on which I will base my comparisons of the four writers. This will, of course, have the effect of making the others appear in a Luhmannian light, but there are reasons for my choice of perspective. The two principal reasons are width and level of abstraction. First, in my opinion, Luhmann possesses the greatest potential of inclusion due to his rather general but also highly potent theory of second-order observations. Second, Luhmann’s concepts appear to permit the development of a productive concept of analytical strategy.

Downloaded on 8.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.56687/9781447342205-009/html?srsltid=AfmBOoolT5Q0q8Zn2B7BBpWO9hhfkobw3HsLJ1T14-7JdtRPURBf-_CN
Scroll to top button