I believe that one cannot define things into existence. Societies, as Luhmann, etc. define them, simply don't exist, or rather, only exist in the realm of the discourse of sociological theory and theorists rather than in the world of "commonsense" action.
I won't deny my idealist tendencies here but you can only define what exists, even if it is only a conceptual construction. I also concur that existence is not a predicate, which means stating "a" exists is not an argumentative point, it is an assumption gained by stating "a", adding existence does nothing, and worse causes problems by creating things like the ontological argument for god, etc. of course it is a bit more complicated. defining something that already exists is what I think Luhman is doing. I would argue though that societies as Luhman defines them, and it seems to me that there are variates here to deal with, always exist as long as humans exist. Disputing the definition is fine and providing evidence that a definition is wrong is great too, but it really just gives you the point that there are alternative interpretations, it does not necessarily prove non-existence. (warning general observation about the practice of theorists follow, it is not meant in reference to any specific individual) There becomes a point in time when one sits back and says in their own work and understanding of the world "either this theory works for my work or it does not", what they rarely follow up on is, "why does it work for her work and not mine?", this point is sort of moot because of the pragmatics of academic life, time, etc. Instead they get parochial and start thinking that my theory works and others do not, which seems to me to be a bit problematic, but that's just me. This discussion though becomes an argument eventually of whether or not one accepts that definition or accepts competing definitions. However, unless you are exceedingly strategic in the reconception or alternative theory that you use, it will probably collapse to another definition(or at least my opinion is that it could) which is probably a weaker system than some would like. now of course, I've wandered way off topic and will stop unless someone else chooses to continue:) jeremy hunsinger jhuns@vt.edu on the ibook www.cddc.vt.edu www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy www.dromocracy.com