Niklas Luhmann's Zettelkasten Method "One Pager" (1968)

chrisaldrich · January 3

The internet is now rife with what I call “zettelkasten method one pagers” that describe what many people rightly (or very often wrongly) think that Niklas Luhmann’s zettelkasten method entails.

While doing some research about Luhmann’s numbering system’s antecedents, I recently came across a “one pager” (typescript) written by Luhmann himself in the form of some lecture notes from 1968 that folks may appreciate.

Luhmann, Niklas. 1968-01-13. “Ms. 2906: Technik des Zettelkastens.” Münster, Germany. Lecture Notes. Niklas Luhmann Archiv: https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/manuskripte/manuskript/MS_2906_0001.

Seemingly everyone with a blog that ran across the idea of Zettelkasten in the last decade or so wrote up their own description of what it is. If you know of other blog posts about zettelkasten, let me know for my collection.

Of special note to those who are still under the misapprehension that Luhmann “invented the zettelkasten”, in the closing section of his 1968 notes he writes “In conclusion: from personal experience, others work differently” by which one understands that he’s aware of others who use similar systems and admits that they’re all idiosyncratic to their individual users. I would suspect that he gave this lecture while at Sozialforschungsstelle an der Universität Münster (Social Research Centre of the University of Münster) to students about how to arrange and do their own sociology research work.

Sascha · January 3

“In conclusion: from personal experience, others work differently” by which one understands that he’s aware of others who use similar systems and admits that they’re all idiosyncratic to their individual users.

It means more likely that others don't use a Zettelkasten at all, and that there is a diversity of approaches aside from having a Zettelkasten. Similarity of others workflows to his is not implied.

ctietze · January 3

Yeah, this is again a thing where Luhmann's way to be funny in German, as a writer, is hard to translate -- because when you read it in German, it sounds like a trivial tautology, and I believe that's the literary device used to be funny If so, it would convey that, well of course, like a "duh" moment, of course others work differently. And it's not mandatory to use a Zettelkasten.

s41f · January 3

I found the humor to translate better when read in the document’s original format:

VII. In Closing: From Personal Experience
Others work differently.

I’m curious to know what the practices of his colleagues may have been in comparison.

ZettelDistraction · January 4

@s41f said:
I found the humor to translate better when read in the document’s original format:

VII. In Closing: From Personal Experience
Others work differently.

Meaning that nobody else really works as much, if it all.^†

† Just kidding.

harr · January 14

@s41f said:
I’m curious to know what the practices of his colleagues may have been in comparison.

Some academics and writers didn't use index cards at all. (For example Adler and Doren recommended to write structural notes directly in the book you're reading). Some did use standard-sized index cards, but with other systems or for other purposes. Some did use numbering systems in their card indexes, others didn't. Some organized their card indexes alphabetically or by topic. Some combined index cards with notes in other formats. Some used index cards in multiple sizes. (For example Umberto Eco recommended to use small index cards for the bibliographical file and large index cards for the readings file.) Some put a stronger emphasis on a filing system for material, that is not shaped like a standard-sized index card. Some didn't even bother with filing systems, because their brains could process unsorted piles of paper.

AFAIK Luhmann was aware of the idiosyncracies of his method. Hence the disclaimer at the end of the talk.

chrisaldrich · January 14

@harr said:
Some academics and writers didn't use index cards at all. (For example Adler and Doren recommended to write structural notes directly in the book you're reading).

While they did suggest this, Adler et al. had an index card practice to rival Luhmann: https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/2623/mortimer-j-adlers-syntopicon-a-topically-arranged-collaborative-slipbox

Mortimer J. Adler holding a pipe in his left hand and mouth posing in front of dozens of boxes of index cards with topic headwords including "law", "love", "life", "sin", "art", "democracy", "citizen", "fate", etc.

@s41f While the supports may have differed (paper, index cards, notebooks, commonplace books, photos, files, boxes, filing cabinets, etc.) it's almost universal that academics, writers, creators, etc. had some sort of system (and most of them were doing fairly similar things within their diverse practices.)

Sascha · January 15

@chrisaldrich said:
@s41f While the supports may have differed (paper, index cards, notebooks, commonplace books, photos, files, boxes, filing cabinets, etc.) it's almost universal that academics, writers, creators, etc. had some sort of system (and most of them were doing fairly similar things within their diverse practices.)

An underdetermined concept of similarity leads to self-sealing of this claim. I would like to link to an article that doesn't connect this issue with non-flattering associations like conspiracy theories because I don't want to imply anything like that. However, I want to point out that this is a critical thinking error (pun intended).
In the beginning phase of my Zettelkasten I interviewed two dozen of professors and mid-level academic staff. None had a system (meaning: one coherent organisational entity for knowledge work and publication), some had trusted tools (like Citavi back then), a surprising number outright rejected the need and validity of having a system at all (some of which were highly successful and internationally accomplished academics).

However, if putting stuff in a shoebox counts as a system that counts as "similar to a Luhmannian Zettelkasten", then the horrific mess of printed out articles and paper slips on a desk that one history professor was half-ironically, half-ashamed tried to compare with naturally forming sediment layers could count as a system.

harr · January 15

@Sascha said:
(…) interviewed two dozen of professors (…)

I had similar conversations with productive academics, who produce well-organized results, even if their personal work environments look rather messy.

@Sascha said:
(…) the horrific mess of printed out articles and paper slips on a desk that one history professor was half-ironically, half-ashamed tried to compare with naturally forming sediment layers (…)

We seem to have similar images in our minds :-)

https://imgur.com/picture-of-professors-desk-rwUE5

harr · January 15

@chrisaldrich said:
While they did suggest this, Adler et al. had an index card practice to rival Luhmann: (…)

Noteworthy differences:

The card index shown in the photo was a collaborative tool. It made it easier for a group of people to discuss and pool their findings. Luhmann's Zettelkasten was a personal tool.
The card index shown in the photo was ordered by topic and subtopic. ("Each idea has more than 30 subdivisions. Woman, not a main idea, is included in Family, Man and Love." Source) Luhmann's Zettelkasten is decidedly and explicitly non-topical.

I'm well aware of the historical relevance of card indexes. At some point in time they were the most powerful tool available for knowledge management. Today we carry networked computers in our pockets.

But I also appreciate nuance. What problems did a particular card index solve — and how?

Zettelkasten Forum

Niklas Luhmann's Zettelkasten Method "One Pager" (1968)

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion