Editors' Note on the Revised Translation

We cannot overstate the enormous difficulties in translating Luhmann's works into English. Anyone who has read them in the original German will know about his idiosyncratic style with its long, complex sentences and eccentric punctuation. Communicating complex, abstract ideas is always a difficult task in any language, but the well-established German tradition of philosophical writing allowed Luhmann to assume that his readers would be sufficiently well-read and intellectually trained to follow his detailed, intricate arguments. If one adds to this Luhmann's propensity for inventing new words or combinations of words and giving familiar words new meanings, together with his propensity for irony, one can begin to see just how enormous are the problems in rendering an English version which captures not only the meaning of the German text, but also something of the richness and originality of Luhmann's style.

Given that these two works were the first of Luhmann's books to be translated into English, the three translators of the first edition did a remarkable job. However, as we compared the English and German texts, it became increasingly clear that there were some significant deficiencies in the translation and that to leave them uncorrected would have been irresponsible on our part. Apart from obvious mistranslations, there were also passages which either did not make good sense in English or were based on a misunderstanding of the theoretical concepts.

Any translation always involves a balance between a literal rendition of the original and producing something which both reads well in the target language and at the same time conveys the ideas and intentions of the author. We took the early decision that our prime task was to publish a text that was readily understandable by English-speaking readers, even if that meant failing to give every German word its literal translation. Even so, these two books present as formidable a challenge to readers in English as they do in German, and there is nothing that translators can or should do to reduce that challenge by trying to simplify the text. The only major concession we have made in this direction has been to modify Luhmann's original punctuation by making the translation comply with English rules and conventions. We find it strange that so many translations of Luhmann do not make these changes, but insist rather on sticking rigidly to the original German punctuation, which, we believe, unnecessarily increases the difficulties of comprehension for English readers.

Fortunately, we have enjoyed some considerable advantages over the original translators. Firstly, we have both been students of Luhmann's social theory for many years and have followed it through its various stages of development. Unlike the original translators, we have been able to benefit from reading Luhmann's expressly theoretical works, notably Social Systems (Soziale Systeme) and Introduction to Systems Theory (Einführung in dem Systemtheorie), published some years after Trust and Power and which are now available in both languages. We have the added advantage of combining a native German speaker, who now teaches and writes in English, with a native English speaker, who has been involved in several previous translations of Luhmann's books. Most of our discussions together have been devoted to working out how best to capture in accessible English some of the more complex ideas that Luhmann sets out in these books.

Finally there is the major difficulty of vocabulary where Luhmann uses a German word or phrase in a very particular, theoretical way. We have listed these below. There will no doubt be those who disagree with our choice of English to translate the German, so we have explained wherever appropriate the thought processes behind our choices, always giving the German word or phrase so that the readers may consult their own dictionaries and find alternatives which might, in their eyes, be preferable.

Below are some notes on specific points.

Trust

Chapter 1
p. 6: Luhmann refers to 'problems' in the sense of analytical or mathematical problems rather than social problems.

Chapter 2
p. 12: Luhmann uses the words 'Bestand' and 'Bestände' to explain that the continuity of social activities is based on constantly changing events, and events are only made possible because they are provided with a continuity that secures the constant reoccurrence of events. Luhmann is likely to have been influenced by A. N. Whitehead, who developed a very similar conception, but who uses the term 'permanence', without any plural. Luhmann presents a much more self-referential understanding by adding a plural. In order to express this notion, we have decided to use the terms constancy and constancies.
p. 13: It is common to translate the German word 'Sinn' as meaning. However, the reader should be aware that the German word does not directly include the notion of meaning and signification. In this context, one could say that Sinn precedes meaning or that meaning results from Sinn. For Luhmann Sinn refers to the phenomenal conception of the horizon of possibilities.

Chapter 5
p. 36: In the title, as elsewhere, 'exceeding information' conveys the idea that having a mass of information is not necessarily helpful or necessary in trust situations. The underlying notion is that trust always involves an extrapolation from the information available on the object of trust.
p. 39: 'trust protection' is a provision in the German civil code which provides for legal action in cases where a fiduciary relationship has been abused.

Chapter 8
p. 68: Throughout the text Luhmann uses the word 'schenken' - to give something as a present. There is no direct equivalent in English to translate this. One can talk of 'gifting', as a verb, meaning 'to endow with gifts' or 'make a present of'. However, Luhmann's use of this word in this context is a deliberate attempt to convey the liberal dimension of giving trust, which cannot be demanded (just as one cannot really demand presents if they are to remain presents, one cannot demand trust without raising suspicions). We have translated 'schenken' as to give, bestow, confer, according to the context.
p. 68: The term 'ontification' is used by Husserl to describe the sense of being as temporally constituted. Luhmann seems to suggest in this context that trust as a virtue or moral standard can be gained or applied in social contexts that have an emphasis on temporal endurance and stability; for instance, the patron/client relationship in Ancient Rome was based on such a concept of trust - known as fiducia.

Power

Chapter 2
p. 132: Luhmann uses in his writings the two words 'Erfahrung' and 'Erleben', which both translate as 'experience' in English. There is a semantic overlap between the two German words, but 'Erleben' is closer to the English 'to experience something', or 'to go through some experience', while 'Erfahrung' is closer to the notion of experience in the sense of 'to be experienced in something', that is, to learn something or to obtain knowledge about something by having gone through the experience. The same kind of translation problem presents itself in deciding the closest English equivalent to the German 'Handlung' and 'handeln', which can mean either action or act or acting (in the sense of carrying out an action). An elaboration of this difference can be found in Luhmann's 1981 essay 'Erleben und Handeln'.

Chapter 3
p. 143: In the German original Luhmann uses the word 'archaic', which was an accepted term at that time, but contemporary ethnologists would, perhaps, speak of early ethnic groups or societies.
p. 150: Luhmann uses the term 'Neben-Code', which has the meaning of being an extra or supplementary code. Such codes do not always substitute for the primary code of the system, but if they do Luhmann often calls them secondary codes.
p. 153: 'Rules of evasion': Luhmann uses this English term in the German original, which we have not changed, although the meaning in English may not be as clear as Luhmann appears to believe.
p. 156: The words 'conditional' or 'conditioning' have a different meaning in Luhmann's writings than in behavioural psychology. Conditioning refers for Luhmann to the selective temporal arrangement of relationships between elements. Systems are not simply relationships between elements, since these relationships have to be regulated, and this is where he uses the term conditioning.

Chapter 4
p. 169: The German word 'Gewalt' has a broad meaning and can be translated as force or violence. In most cases, the word force seems the most suitable translation. However, depending on the context, we have also made use of the word violence.
p. 178: The words 'lifeworld' and 'technique' are inspired by phenomenological philosophy. Luhmann was a keen reader of Edmund Husserl. Technique is here used in a much broader sense than skill, referring to a way of carrying out a particular task or...