[sdoering]

Luhmann left behind 70,000 index cards, published over 70 books and ~400 papers, and his systems theory is still actively applied in sociology, legal theory, and organizational studies. He's required reading at German universities. Your sample size of n=2 is methodologically a little thin – which Luhmann himself would have appreciated, given that he had a particular fondness for pointing out systemic blind spots.

"Two professors hadn't heard of him" is a fascinating epistemological standard. Like me stating: I've also met two cardiologists who didn't know who Rudolf Virchow was. Guess he wasn't that productive either.

[kashunstva]

Fair enough, I missed the mark that I was intending. Possibly he remains better recognized in Germany than in North America; and it’s admittedly not my field. At the same time, more than once when I’ve posed the question about the utility of ZK, I’ve been pointed only to Luhmann. His academic productivity isn’t in dispute. And seemingly, for him, it was aided by the methodology that is promoted by ZK followers now. But it’s also an n=1 data point. I wonder if the ZK community has identified other productive and impactful academics who are devotees.

As for the last comment: having gone to medical school some decades ago and trained in cardiology, I’m familiar with Virchow. I would be surprised to encounter any physician who hadn’t any familiarity with him. But who knows?!

[sdoering]

Yeah, I admit, Virchow was a low hanging fruit as a cynical comparison. I stumbled upon Luhmann in school. I always wished, I had a ZK. I never got around to being disciplined enough to build one.

I also was more of an Foucault guy at university. So I never really got into Luhmann. Albeit I originally studied literature and my uni was quite cultural studies heavy - this is why I read quite a lot from other disciplines back in the days.

I feel Luhmann might be a great poster child for deferred gratification. But that might just be the cynic speaking.