Systems theoretical literary studies

In the system theoretical literature (also: systems theory-oriented literature ) is that branch of contemporary literature sociological discourse that methodologically functional structure-at the premises of the sociological systems theory of American society theorist Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) and especially their functional and structural Further development by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927–1998) followed.

Title page of Niklas Luhmann's main work on art theory

Since the 1990s, this approach, which is primarily based on Luhmann's main art-theoretical work Die Kunst der Gesellschaft (1995) and other art-sociological writings by Luhmann, has gained increasing influence and, despite some associated problems of reception, belongs not least to the undoubtedly high level of abstraction of Luhmann's system theory are based, firmly on the canonized stock of the literary theoretical method discussion within literary studies .

With its extensive fading out of psychologically processed author intentions during the production process, its in principle renouncing an analysis of the psychology of the reception acts as well as their relative distance from a pure single text exegesis in the sense of a close reading , systems theoretical literary studies joins the tradition of context-oriented literary theories and becomes literary sociology added. However, the reflection theory of Marxism , which is important in the sociological literature tradition, is just as strictly rejected as other forms of social determinism . The non-causal concept of emergence takes its place .

Systems-theoretical literary studies adopts Luhmann's claim to universality and is therefore applicable to all literary phenomena in principle. In previous academic practice, however, literary history , aesthetics , genre history and theory, romance novels and semantics as well as literature around 1800 have proven to be the main fields of work, since Luhmann assumes that at the turn of the 18th to the 19th century, a change in the primary Form of differentiation of society from stratification to functional differentiation takes place. In the meantime, however, the premodern literature and the literary production of the 20th century are increasingly moving into the focus of systems-theoretical literary studies.

Although systems theory forms a separate branch within sociological theory formation, there are still partial affinities and certain theoretical overlaps, for example with media studies , interdiscourse analysis , historical discourse analysis , field theory and other supra-individually oriented approaches in cultural studies .

So far, mainly Germanists, Englishists and Romance students have been working with the theorems of systems theoretical literary studies, especially in German-speaking countries and in the Netherlands.

Basics

What the different approaches within systems-theoretical literary studies have in common is the view that modern literature in its relationship to the rest of society, but also to itself, is best described as a differentiated social system with a specific function, stable key difference and competing programs leaves.

Within the system-theoretical paradigm, the starting point is the existence of an autonomous and self-referential literary system that clearly differs from other social systems that make up society as a whole. The internal system structures regulate both internal systemic processes and, via structural couplings, the inter-system relations of the literary system with other social systems, such as the economic system , educational system , political system , religious system , etc. Since the social systems always produce their own perspectives on reality by means of internal structures can sometimes differ significantly from one another, systems-theoretical literary studies are epistemologically assigned to constructivism .

Literary action or literary communication, which is clearly separated from psychologically processed author intentions or the reception process, can only be carried out within the limits of the literary system, which has its own distinctive identity, but at the same time also has fundamental structural similarities with other social systems and to that extent one makes specific, but not unique or somehow privileged contribution to the construction of social reality as a whole. Literary communication fulfills a function of its own, making use of its own symbolic, generalized communication medium and using its own system-specific code, the opposing values of which are defined by means of literary programs - just as it does in the other social systems of modern society. The literature system is designed as operationally closed, i.e. H. Literary communication can only be carried out successfully in the form of works which, as symbolic generalized communication media, ensure that literature is brought into a recognizable, familiar and unmistakable form.

At the program level, however, the literary system is structurally always open to non-literary ideas, e.g. for political worldviews, religious convictions or certain moral concepts, which, however, have to be offset against internal literary values and must not become dominant within the literary work, if still from Literature should be the topic.

Theoretical approaches

Seal of the Ruhr University Bochum

Seal of the University of Leiden

There are several approaches to the sociology of literature, some competing with one another, some complementing one another, which are traded under the heading of systems-theoretical literary studies and which mostly come from the field of German studies , but also from English studies . These include Empirical Literary Studies (ELW), the Bochum model and the Leiden model.

While the ELW represents a further development of the structural-functional systems theory of the US sociologist Talcott Parsons , the models developed at the German Ruhr University Bochum and the Dutch University of Leiden are primarily based on Niklas Luhmann's functional-structuralist systems theory, which is linked to Parsons. In Luhmann's wake, the last two models also take over the concept of autopoeisis from the Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela and attempt to further develop Luhmann's sociology of art, which only marginally relates to the literary scene, so that it can also be applied to literary phenomena.

In addition, there are other approaches that can be traced back to Luhmann, mostly by individual literary scholars such as B. the Anglist Dietrich Schwanitz , the Romance scholar Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht and the German scholars Oliver Jahraus and Oliver Sill are represented and deviate more or less strongly from the two main currents mentioned or add new aspects to them without establishing their own schools in the narrower sense. In the course of the 2000s, for example, studies arose that deal with the social function of literature and its coding or with the relationship between consciousness and communication in the medium of literature.

Empirical literary studies

The ELW is one of the most academically successful variants of system-theoretical literary studies. It goes back to the considerations of the German literary scholar Siegfried J. Schmidt and represents a further development of the theory of action systems developed by Parsons, which is specially geared towards the modern literary scene. The work of a working group around Jörg Schönert operating in the 1980s also goes back to Parsons finally entered into a critical dialogue with Luhmann's approach under the influence of Georg Jäger in the 1990s.

The Bochum model

The Bochum model is based on Luhmann's communication theory and the theorem of polycontexturality adopted by Luhmann from the philosopher Gotthard Günther . The derived program of a polycontextural literary study shows a certain, above all scientific practical proximity to the discourse-analytical approaches in literary theory. In addition to system-immanent processes and the question of social function and the coding of literary communication, the inter-system relationships that the literary system maintains with other social systems are also taken into account. The history of literature is conceived as a process of literary evolution in continuation of a tradition established by the Russian formalists .

The main exponents of the Bochum model are the Germanists Gerhard Plumpe and Niels Werber . Your program of "polycontextural literary studies" was developed in the early 1990s at the Ruhr University in Bochum and is based on the communication-theoretical foundations of Luhmann's theory of social systems. The attempt is made to transfer their conceptual instruments to literary communication. The literary system of the functionally differentiated society, which is only mentioned in passing in Luhmann's sociology of art, is conceived as autonomous, but not hermetically sealed. In this way, the Bochum model differs significantly from well-known schools of literary theory based on work immanence, such as the Anglo-Saxon New Criticism . With recourse to exclusively internal structures, the literary system tries to search its non-literary environment for literary material and to incorporate this into its own mode of communication, i.e. the literary works.

Title view of literature as a system

The social function that is ascribed to literary communication in the Bochum model consists in the fact that, in the course of empirically verifiable, gradually growing leisure time allotments, a steadily increasing need for entertainment arose within society, which ultimately led to the establishment of an exclusively responsible person at the end of the 18th century autonomous functional system of literature, which can be seen as a subsystem of the art system and which still exists today.

As a key difference in literary communication, to which all messages are tailored internally, clumsy and advertisers determine the dichotomy interesting / boring. It is an asymmetrical preference code, i. H. only one side of the key difference, namely the positive value interesting, is generally always aimed for. Within the literary system, this means in practice that authors, for example, keep trying to be interesting, not boring - with varying degrees of success and in different ways, i. H. with different stylistic means. The key difference itself always remains the same and gives the system a sufficient degree of internal stability.

Despite the all-encompassing cut to the key difference interesting / boring, however, there is disagreement about how the interesting should be specifically poetically designed. This addresses the conflictual level of programs that conflict with one another in the literature system. What is meant here are opposing attempts at theoretical reflection on how interesting literary works should be specifically designed, i.e. H. it is about how one can call up or "program" the positive value of the preference code in literature. In contrast to the stable key difference of the literary system, the literary programs are exposed to constant change, i. H. There is always a search for new ways to become or remain interesting and to outdo competing attempts by other authors. Following Luhmann's media theory, the literary works are understood as symbolically generalized communication media .

Plump and Werber define their research program in a nutshell as follows: “If literature is a social system in our society, then literature observes all those systems that are in its environment: for example, economics, politics or law. [...] The literary system that distinguishes and observes in this way must permanently differentiate between what it considers poetic and what is not. This decision is subject to historical change. [...] However, when the topic specification changes, the [...] question of whether the topics imported from the environment into the system of literature promise interesting or boring entertainment. In this sense, observations of literature are primarily interested in the literary stimuli of their environment, which literature knows how to integrate into texts in order to reach its audience - and not in order to change the economic or political conditions. Such entirely possible effects of literature on its environment are attributions made by observers outside the literature. "

The English scholar Christoph Reinfandt from the University of Tübingen also works with the basic assumptions of the Bochum model . He is particularly interested in a more precise definition of the relationship between literary communication and the reader psyches involved in it against the background of the development of the modern English novel, which goes beyond the traditional distinction between the individual and society. Luhmann's concept of performance, which describes the relationship between the social systems, is expanded by Reinfandt to include the relationship between the literary system and the consciousness systems that participate in it. According to Reinfandt, both types of system are in a reciprocal "constitutional context", whereby the service provided by the literature system for the reader psyche is seen primarily in the "giving of meaning".

In 2011, the Bochum model was expanded to include the suggestion to assess a secondary code (literary) valuable / worthless in addition to the key difference interesting / boring, which is mainly used by literary criticism and both for the genesis of the secondary medium of personally attributable author reputation and for the establishment a system's own social memory is responsible. Bearing in mind the steadily growing number of new literary publications that flood the book market year after year and create a huge excess of information within the system, the literature system needs a selection mechanism that efficiently discriminates between relevant and irrelevant new works. The vast majority of new publications are forgotten by calling up the negative value of the secondary code or by ignoring the corresponding work.

Epochs of modern literary communication

Title view of epochs of modern literature

As far as the design of literary works is concerned, according to Plumpe's system-theoretical model, there are four basic possibilities for the relation of literary elements to new works, i. H. Broadly speaking, literary works can basically be produced in four different ways. These are identified as romanticism , realism , aestheticism, as well as avant-garde . The well-known epoch terms in literary studies are given a new definition based on system theory, from which a profitable clarification of the orthodox epoch designations, which are perceived as less clear-cut, as provided by the tradition of German studies, is hoped for. In this context , the notion of a relatively rational and linear literary history , stemming from the history of ideas and the hermeneutics influenced by it, is replaced by the concept of literary evolution introduced into the literary theoretical discourse by the Russian formalist Juri Tynyanov as early as 1927 . Plump assumes the following distinguishing criteria according to which literary works can be classified:

Under romance all poetic formation attempts are detected, mainly differentiated the autonomy of the literary system over all other functional systems of the emerging functional accent in different parts of themselves articulating society: For medium for literary form profit is here so that system-environment boundary itself.

Realistic literature, on the other hand, already assumes the existence of literary autonomy, imports extra-literary theories of social reality (e.g. Freudian psychoanalysis or Karl Marx's historical materialism ) into the already established literary system and designs its works accordingly as psychodramas, social novels, etc. it should not be the task of literature to map its environments congruently; the observed environment is instead "transfigured" to a certain extent and thus made into literature.

Aesthetic literature, on the other hand, focuses primarily on system-internal potentials, primarily uses language as a medium of communication to gain literary form and relies entirely on linguistic beauty, stylistic refinement and a generally high degree of poeticism that is relatively independent of the literary genre.

The avant-garde finally followed a dedicated Entdifferenzierungsanliegen and opposes the splitting of modern society in functional subsystems. In particular, she wants to soften the system boundary between the literary system and the political system that was already solidified at the beginning of the 20th century in order to be able to make politics with literature. It was always about a radical upheaval in the prevailing social conditions, which in some cases also led to a temporary or permanent affirmation of totalitarian tendencies.

With these four modes of formation, all fundamental possibilities for the production of literary works in accordance with systems theory have been exhausted since the early 1930s. Contemporary authors are therefore forced to portray their literary achievements as innovations that they are not in reality, but merely new editions and recombinations of well-known things : neo- realism, neo- avant-garde, etc. This phase, which continues to the present, is what Plumpe im conceptual connection to the German Romanist Hans Robert Jauß therefore also as the relatively diffuse epoch of "postism".

The Leiden model

The Leiden model of text understanding is based on the theorems of intertextuality and context marking. Furthermore, the assumption is made that communication processed in the medium of written form is just as eventful as oral interaction systems. Developed at the Leiden Institute for Systems Theory and Humanoria (LISH for short) under the leadership of Germanists Matthias Prangel and Henk de Berg, the Leiden model can be seen as another important variant of systems theoretical literary studies. However, it is not a renewed attempt to determine the function and key difference of the literary system in modern society. Rather, it is based on a reinterpretation of Luhmann's communication theory against the background of traditional hermeneutical and semantic or semasiological considerations, i.e. considerations relating to the generation of meaning, which are to be linked to Luhmann's communication concept in order to increase the literary applicability of sociological systems theory.

At the center of the considerations is the accusation directed at Luhmann's address that the concept of eventuality, which implies a rapid loss of the topicality of a communication that has already been made, is reserved primarily for verbally processed communication. In contrast, Prangel and de Berg, who has taught at Sheffield University since 1996 and has turned more to intellectual history in recent years, assume that communication carried out in the medium of written form, which is the norm in the literary system, is eventful was shaped and therefore quickly lost its relevance. In doing so, a double demarcation is made from ahistorical structuralism and deconstruction : According to the Leiden reconstruction, Luhmann's communication model is neither based on a synchronous network of references that assigns a fixed context-independent meaning to the signs from their fixed differential distances to the other signs, nor from an infinite meaning Play of the differences , which leads to a permanent shift of meanings and thus to ever new readings, because within this synchronous network of references there are no fixed points with permanently stable semantics that would favor a certain reading over long periods of time.

Instead, Luhmann had shown that every communication was always constituted as a difference to what was not communicated at the same moment, i.e. in a "difference to a context of other possibilities" which, as a "withdrawal context", in a sense forms the negative film of the actually updated communication in the context of a historically unique constellation and prohibit an inherent analysis of literary texts or works. However, Luhmann did not transfer this insight consistently enough to the level of the generation of text meanings taking place in the medium of writing, which is why a system-theoretical literary scholarship should appropriately take into account their "contextual difference-relatedness" when analyzing texts, i.e. reconstruct what the concept is in close proximity brings to the theories of intertextuality. For this reason, the Leiden model is also treated as a text / context difference model .

Individual evidence

↑ Cf. Ingo Stöckmann: Before the literature. An evolutionary theory of the poetics of ancient Europe , Tübingen, 2001
↑ Cf. Rolf Parr: "Punctual affinities, unexplained relationships: (inter) discourse theory and systems theory. For an introduction to the overdue debate 'Luhmann and / or Foucault", In: Kulturrevolution , Heft 45/46, Vol. 2003, p. 55-57.
↑ Cf. Jürgen Link: "To what extent are (Foucault's) discourse and (Luhmann's) systems theory compatible? Preliminary sketch of some analogies and differences", In: Kulturrevolution , Heft 45/46, Jg. 2003, pp. 58-62.
↑ Cf. Armin Nassehi / Gerd Nollmann: Bourdieu and Luhmann. A comparison of theories. Frankfurt / M., 2004.
↑ Cf. Oliver Jahraus / Benjamin Marius Schmidt: "Systems theory and literature. Part III. Models of systems theoretical literary studies in the 1990s", In: International Archive for the Social History of Literature (IASL) , Vol. 23, Issue 1, Tübingen, 1998, esp Pp. 66-70.
↑ See Oliver Sill: Literature in the differentiated society. Systems-theoretical perspectives on a complex phenomenon , Opladen, 2001.
↑ See Oliver Jahraus: Literature as a medium. Constitution of meaning and subject experience between consciousness and communication , Weilerswist, 2003.
↑ See Christoph Reinfandt: Romantic communication. On the Continuity of Romanticism in Modern Culture , Heidelberg, 2003.
↑ Gerhard Plumpe / Niels Werber: "Environment of Literature", In: This. (Ed.): Observations of the literature. Aspects of a Polycontextural Literary Studies , Opladen, 1995, pp. 9–34.
↑ Cf. Niels Werber: Literature as a system. On the differentiation of literary communication , Opladen, 1992, p. 64.
↑ Cf. Gerhard Plumpe / Niels Werber: "Literature can be coded. Aspects of a system-theoretical literary study", In: Siegfried J. Schmidt: Literary studies and systems theory. Positions, Perspektiven, Kontroversen , Opladen, 1993, p. 30ff.
^ Gerhard Plumpe / Niels Werber: "Preliminary remark", In: Dies. (Ed.): Observations of the literature. Aspects of a polycontextural literary study , Opladen, 1995, p. 7.
↑ Cf. Christoph Reinfandt: The sense of fictional realities. A system-theoretical draft for the differentiation of the English novel from the 18th century to the present. , Heidelberg, 1997, p. 34.
↑ Cf. Dominic Berlemann: Valuable Works. Reputation in the literature system , Bielefeld, 2011.
↑ Cf. Gerhard Plumpe: Epochs of Modern Literature. A system-theoretical draft , Opladen, 1995, pp. 258ff.
↑ Cf. Gerhard Plumpe: Epochs of Modern Literature. A system-theoretical draft , Opladen, 1995, pp. 65-104.
↑ Cf. Gerhard Plumpe: Epochs of Modern Literature. A system-theoretical draft , Opladen, 1995, pp. 105-137.
↑ Cf. Gerhard Plumpe: Epochs of Modern Literature. A system-theoretical draft , Opladen, 1995, pp. 138-176.
↑ Cf. Gerhard Plumpe: Epochs of Modern Literature. A system-theoretical draft , Opladen, 1995, pp. 177-230.
↑ Gerhard Plumpe: Epochs of Modern Literature. A system-theoretical draft , Opladen, 1995, p. 232.
↑ See http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/german/staff/henkdeberg [accessed on March 3, 2011]
↑ Henk de Berg: "The eventfulness of the text", In: Ders./Matthias Prangel (ed.): Communication and difference. Systems theory approaches in literature and art studies , Opladen, 1993, p. 35.
↑ Henk de Berg. “The eventfulness of the text”, In: Ders./Matthias Prangel (ed.): Communication and difference. Systems-theoretical approaches in literature and art studies , Opladen, 1993, p. 50.
↑ Henk de Berg. “The eventfulness of the text”, In: Ders./Matthias Prangel (ed.): Communication and difference. Systems theoretical approaches in literature and art studies , Opladen, 1993, p. 42.

Art and literature sociological publications by Luhmann

Luhmann, Niklas: "Can art be coded?", In: Schmidt, Siegfried J. (Ed.): 'Schön': To discuss a controversial term. Munich, 1976, pp. 60-95.

Luhmann, Niklas: "The problem of the formation of epochs and the theory of evolution", In: Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich / Link-Heer, Ursula (eds.): Epoch thresholds and epoch structures in the discourse of literature and language history. Frankfurt / M., 1985, pp. 11-33.

Luhmann, Niklas: "The medium of art", In: DELFIN , Heft VII, 1986, pp. 6-15.

Luhmann, Niklas: "The work of art and the self-reproduction of art", In: Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich / Pfeiffer, Karl Ludwig (ed.): Style. Stories and functions of a cultural-scientific discourse element. Frankfurt / M., 1986, pp. 620-672.

Luhmann, Niklas: "Weltkunst", In: Ders./Bunsen, Frederick D./Baecker, Dirk ( ed .): Unobservable world. About art and architecture. Bielefeld, 1990, pp. 7-45.

Luhmann, Niklas: "The evolution of the art system", In: Kunstforum 124, 1993, pp. 221–228.

Luhmann, Niklas: The art of society. Frankfurt / M., 1995.

Luhmann, Niklas: "The differentiation of the art system", In: Calleen, Justinus Maria (ed.): What is that: Art? An interdisciplinary symposium. Stuttgart, 1998, pp. 111-156.

Luhmann, Niklas: essays and speeches. Stuttgart, 2001.

Luhmann, Niklas: Writings on art and literature. Frankfurt / M., 2008.

Secondary literature

Overview representations

Binczek, Natalie : "System Theory", In: Schneider, Jost (ed.): Lexicon Method History of German Studies , Berlin / New York, 2009, pp. 701–720.

Jahraus, Oliver / Schmidt, Benjamin Marius: "Systems theory and literature. Part III. Models of systems-theoretical literary studies in the 1990s", In: International Archive for the Social History of Literature (IASL), Vol. 23, Issue 1, Tübingen, 1998, p. 66-111.

Jahraus, Oliver: "Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998)", In: Martínez, Matías / Scheffel, Michael (eds.): Classics of modern literary theory. Munich, 2010, pp. 280-300.

Köppe, Tilmann / Winko, Simone: "System theory of literature", In: Dies. (Ed.): Newer literary theories. An introduction , Stuttgart, 2008, pp. 175–188.

Kretzschmar, Dirk: "Niklas Luhmann's system theory and its fields of application in literary studies", In: Ders. (Ed.): Text descriptions, system observations. New Studies in Russian Literature in the 20th Century. Dortmund, 1997, pp. 1-41.

Müller, Harro (ed.): "System theory / literary studies", In: Bogdal, Klaus-Michael (ed.): New literary theories. An introduction. Opladen, 1997, pp. 208-224.

Ort, Claus-Michael: "System theory" In: Burdorf, Dieter / Fasbender, Christoph / Moennighoff, Burkhard (eds.): Metzler Lexikon Literatur. Terms and definitions. Stuttgart / Weimar, 2007, pp. 748-749.

Plump, Gerhard / Stöckmann, Ingo: "System theory", In: Müller, Jan-Dirk (Hg.): Reallexikon der Deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Berlin / New York, 2003, pp. 561-564.

Reinfandt, Christoph: "System theory", In: Nünning, Ansgar (Hg.): Metzler Lexicon literature and culture theory . Stuttgart, 1998, pp. 521-523.

Bochum model

Berlemann, Dominic: Valuable Works. Reputation in the literature system , Bielefeld, 2011.
Plumpe, Gerhard: Aesthetic Communication of Modernity , 2 vols., Opladen, 1993.
Plumpe, Gerhard / Werber, Niels: "Literature can be coded. Aspects of a system-theoretical literary study", In: Schmidt, Siegfried J .: Literary studies and systems theory. Positions, perspectives, controversies. Opladen, 1993, pp. 9-43.
Plump, Gerhard: Epochs of modern literature. A system-theoretical draft. Opladen, 1995.
Plumpe, Gerhard: "Literature as a system", In: Fohrmann, Jürgen / Müller, Harro (eds.): Literary studies. Munich, 1995, pp. 103-116.
Reinfandt, Christoph: The sense of fictional realities. Heidelberg, 1997.
Reinfandt, Christoph: Romantic communication. On the continuity of romanticism in modern culture. Heidelberg, 2003.
Stöckmann, Ingo: Before literature. A theory of evolution of the poetics of ancient Europe. Tübingen, 2001.
Werber, Niels: Literature as a system. To differentiate literary communication. Opladen, 1992.
Werber, Niels: "Only art is art", In: Soziale Systeme , Heft 1, Opladen, 1996, pp. 166–177.
Werber, Niels: love as a novel. For the coevolution of intimate and literary communication. Munich, 2003.

Leiden model

de Berg, Henk: "The eventfulness of the text", In: Ders./Prangel, Matthias (ed.): Communication and difference. Systems theoretical approaches in literature and art studies. Opladen, 1993, pp. 32-52.
de Berg, Henk / Prangel, Matthias: "Once again: system-theoretical text understanding. An answer to Lutz Kramatschki's criticism of the 'Leiden model'", In: Dies. (Ed.): Systems theory and hermeneutics. Tübingen, 1997, pp. 117-142.
Prangel, Matthias: "Between deconstructionism and constructivism. On a system-theoretical approach to text comprehension", In: Henk de Berg u. That. (Ed.): Communication and Difference. Systems theoretical approaches in literature and art studies. Opladen, 1993, pp. 9-31.
Prangel, Matthias: "Contexts - but which ones? With a view to a system-theoretical concept of 'objective' text understanding", In: de Berg, Henk / Ders. (Ed.): Differences. Systems theory between deconstruction and constructivism. Tübingen, 1995, pp. 153-170.

Anthologies

Böhm, Elisabeth / Gansel, Christina (eds.): System theory , In: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistikverband 58, H. 4 (2011).
de Berg, Henk / Prangel, Matthias (eds.): Communication and difference. Systems theoretical approaches in literature and art studies. Opladen, 1993.
de Berg, Henk / Prangel, Matthias (eds.): Differences. Systems theory between deconstruction and constructivism. Tübingen, 1995.
de Berg, Henk / Prangel, Matthias (eds.): Systems theory and hermeneutics. Tübingen, 1997.
Fohrmann, Jürgen / Müller, Harro (ed.): System theory of literature. Munich, 1996.
Plump, Gerhard / Werber, Niels (Hgg.): Observations of the literature. Aspects of a polycontextural literary study. Opladen, 1995.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. (Hg.): Literary studies and systems theory. Positions, controversies, perspectives. Opladen, 1993.
Werber, Niels (Hg.): Systems Theoretical Literature Studies: Concepts - Methods - Applications. Berlin, 2011.

Others

Jahraus, Oliver: Literature as a medium. Constitution of meaning and subject experience between consciousness and communication. Weilerswist, 2003.
Schreiber, Dominik: Literary Communication. On the recursive operativity of the literature system . In: Textpraxis. Digital journal for philology. No. 1 (2010)
Schwanitz, Dietrich: Systems Theory and Literature. A new paradigm. Opladen, 1990.
Sill, Oliver: Literature in the functionally differentiated society. Systems theoretical perspectives on a complex phenomenon. Opladen, 2001.