Firstly, hierarchies which postulate an asymmetrical distribution of power serve as substitutes. It is assumed that a superior has more power than an inferior (although in bureaucratic organizations the opposite may be normal). Another substitute is the history of the system; cases of past successes in obtaining desired outcomes in conflict situations are recalled, normalized, and generalized as expectations. This function, as a basis for comparison, goes together with the symbolic explosiveness of concerns about status and single events, which are used in a way that brings present power constellations too much to the foreground. Thirdly, there are important possibilities for substitution in semi-contractual arrangements, whereby a too-powerful partner comes to terms with those who might withdraw or be disloyal. In all these cases the direct communicative recourse to power is replaced by reference to symbols which commit both sides normatively, and at the same time take into account the presumed power differential.

DEFINE: Explains how hierarchy, history, and semi-contractual arrangements all function as substitutes that symbolically commit both sides without direct power confrontation.

Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, loc. 599