The dialectic of closure and openness in Luhmann: a contrast with Simondon's processuality and Latour's flat ontology.

The article explores the key dialectic of closure and openness in N. Luhmann's social systems theory, conducting a contrasting analysis with the process ontology of G. Simondon and the flat ontology of B. Latour. The aim of the work is to understand how Luhmann conceptualizes autopoietic systems as operationally closed (closed to direct "instructions" from the outside, self-reproducing through their own operations) but simultaneously cognitively and structurally open (capable of perceiving disturbances from the environment and evolving through changes in internal structure in response to them). This dialectic is contrasted, firstly, with Simondon's processuality, where the focus shifts to continuous becoming, individuation, and the lack of rigid boundaries between the “individual” and the “pre-individual,” in which closure as such is not a primary property. Secondly, it is contrasted with Latour's flat ontology, which rejects hierarchies and binary oppositions (such as closed/open) in favor of a network of heterogeneous actants, whose associations and interactions constitute reality without predetermined systemic boundaries. The methodology of the study is based on the sequential application of four complementary methods that provide depth of analysis and systematic comparison of the concepts of Luhmann, Simondon, and Latour: contextual hermeneutics of key texts, conceptual-terminological analysis, structural-functional comparison, and critical reconstruction and contrasting. The relevance of the article is determined by the necessity for a deep rethinking of the concepts of boundary, autonomy, and adaptation in complex modern societies and technological environments. Understanding Luhmann's dialectic is critically important for analyzing the resilience, variability, and "blindness" of social institutions in the face of global challenges: ecology, digitalization, pandemics, etc. The novelty lies in the systematic comparison of these three influential theoretical approaches specifically through the lens of the problem of closure and openness. The work demonstrates that Luhmann offers a unique path to understanding complexity that is distinct from both pure processuality (Simondon) and radical decentration (Latour): systems as closed operational unities due to their openness to evolution, rather than in spite of it. This allows for a new perspective on the paradoxes of modernity, where the growth of systemic complexity is accompanied by an increase in their operational isolation and specialization.