Why Luhmann was transformed in Chile into one of the leading theorists? (it is a matter of reviewing programs, for example, the phd, in order to observe their influence). In the end, it is not true that is extremely influential in a universal way.
What becomes even more strange the issue is that his theory has not, to my knowledge, no ‘success’ explanatory or descriptive relevant. Almost all of the other theorists we can say that illuminated an aspect of social life, or who gave an interesting response about a problem -allowed us to advance our understanding of the social.
Of functionalism, we can say that -wrong and everything – the ideas of Merton on anomie, or sociology of science allowed for a better understanding of certain aspects of social life. Even Habermas can be stated that its disquisitions led to progress in the understanding of the public sphere. In the case of Bourdieu, even when it is declared to be obsolete, it would be difficult to deny that The Distinction represented a contribution to the whole field of the sociology of culture and consumption. And so one could continue with other theorists and traditions.
But in the case luhmanniano, what part of the analysis of social life has received a substantial contribution of this theory? Sometimes I have the impression that the matter is reduced to a simple (well, complex) redescripción of themes and dimensions.