Sociology in the Twenty-First Century: Key Trends, Debates, and Challenges 9783030384234, 9783030384241

Citation preview

Sociology in the Twenty-First Century Key Trends, Debates, and Challenges

Simon Susen

Sociology in the Twenty-First Century

Simon Susen

Sociology in the Twenty-First Century Key Trends, Debates, and Challenges

Simon Susen City, University of London London, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-38423-4    ISBN 978-3-030-38424-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: (c) Dina Belenko / Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

News of the demise of sociology comes regularly across my desk, and if not of its death, then at least reports of life-threatening epidemics.1 In the social sciences, sociology is peculiarly afflicted by the instability of its paradigms, conflicts over methods, and disagreements about the most basic issues. What is the social? Are we to study individuals or whole societies? The problem is not that sociology is a relatively new discipline. We can trace its origins to at least the 1820s. One can identify various causes that underpin its dilemmas. Sociology is more driven by fashions in theory than other academic disciplines. In the 1970s the fashions came from Germany—notably with Jürgen Habermas, Niklas Luhmann, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Arnold Gehlen, among others. Later we had a ‘French period’—with Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Pierre Bourdieu, and Luc Boltanski. Perhaps one peculiarity of contemporary British sociology is the absence of commanding figures, with the exception of Anthony Giddens. By contrast, we can readily count the many foreign academics who have brought intellectual brilliance to our shores—Zygmunt Bauman, Norbert Elias, Ernest Gellner, Hermínio Martins, John Rex, and more. Simon Susen draws attention to this peculiarity of British sociology in his discussion of ‘canonicity’, illustrating how British universities were able to recruit a generation of displaced academics, especially (albeit not exclusively) those who were fleeing from fascism in continental Europe. These fashions are, to some extent, fuelled by the demands of publishers for new ideas, titles, and authors. In this regard, there is arguably at least one more positive reason that may explain these fashion-driven episodes of instability. Over time, there are—unsurprisingly—major changes to society; sociologists have to re-tool to make sense of wholly new phenomena. Technological v

vi Foreword

changes—such as the role of social media, the use of drones in warfare and domestic surveillance, or cloning—have demanded new concepts, theories, and methods. Susen correctly draws attention to aspects of such changes—for instance, in his analysis of ‘metric power’ and the transformations brought about by the ‘digital age’. The sociological understanding of new forms of communication and their consequences required radical changes in sociological theories. Susen considers both problems and possibilities in his discussion of advanced digital technologies, which are powerful research tools employed largely outside the academic world by corporations to gather and to process data sets for commercial and strategic reasons. Such research technologies make traditional sociological methods look insignificant by comparison. There are less obvious reasons for the constant fluctuations within sociology. At least some of its problems appear to be associated with its connection to social reform movements; hence, its concepts and theories seem to be as much embedded in advocacy as they are in science. Through their engagement with social movements and their commitment to critical and public research and debate, sociologists have embraced working-class socialism, the women’s movement, racial equality, decolonization, and—more recently still—animal rights movements. These engagements brought on to the scientific agenda a more or less endless cycle of commitments to good causes that have the unintended consequences of critiques that reformulate and disrupt existing paradigms. For example, the central concern for class, status, and power—as basic ingredients of social structure—has been displaced by attention to gender, sexuality, and identity in contemporary sociology. One result is a new discourse of intersectionality and positionality that displaced more conventional approaches. Against this background, it is perhaps only to be expected that the sociology curriculum is constantly challenged and changed. From my own experience of teaching in North America, there was some agreement of what constituted the foundations—Karl Marx, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, and Georg Simmel—but almost no agreement about what was accepted as ‘modern sociology’. Was the lecture course to be made up, for instance, of the work of Robert N. Bellah, C. Wright Mills, Robert K. Merton, Talcott Parsons, and Charles Tilly? Or was it constituted around European social theorists such as Habermas, Foucault, Giddens, and Boltanski? What about W. E. B. Du Bois, Frantz Fanon, and E. Franklin Frazier to question the ‘whiteness’ of the sociological canon? What about recruiting women to challenge this array of elderly men? My department never came up with a satisfactory solution to these questions. There was little comfort in the realization that adjacent disciplines (in particular, anthropology) were confronted with similar problems.

 Foreword 

vii

The truth is that, in many respects, sociology is not a ‘normal science’. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2012 [1962]),2 Thomas S. Kuhn argued that normal science involves a way of doing research in terms of a shared paradigm by a more or less coherent scientific community. Scientists are engaged in work on a common problem, for which they undertake research to collect evidence (‘the facts’) to solve it. The advent of normality indicates the coming of age of a scientific field. All recognized sciences have passed through such a watershed to emerge around a more or less stable scientific community whose members share an established set of terminologies, theories, and methodologies. Around the middle of the last century, it looked as if ‘functionalism’ and ‘social systems theory’, particularly in the work of the North American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902–1979), were at the watershed of establishing a shared paradigm. Yet, in the 1960s—in the context of the political disruption of universities through radical student movements—functionalism began to fall apart. Various alternatives emerged to challenge existing terminologies, theories, and methodologies. Students were now exposed to conflict sociology, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, and—more recently— poststructuralism and postmodernism. In Britain, there was also a revival of Marxist sociology, on the one hand, and the growth of cultural sociology, on the other. This trend challenged prevailing conventions about what might count as ‘sociology’. One might say that sociology was slowly hollowed out by the growth and popularity of cultural studies, gender studies, film studies, and (mea culpa) body studies. What was left for sociological investigation apart from researching the instability of personal identity in postmodern societies? As sociology became attached to successive waves of fashionable theorists who briefly enjoyed celebrity status, its focus on research problems constantly shifted—with the result that sociology never entered the social sciences as a ‘normal science’. For university professors of sociology, one might suspect that the constant disruption of paradigms was invigorating and even exciting. Who wants normality? For the students of sociology, however, exposure to such systemic disagreements tends to result in debilitating confusion, leading eventually to dismay and withdrawal. Unsurprisingly, there have been many attempts to address the problems facing sociology. Somewhat obviously, the various national and international professional associations attempt to exercise some oversight of the discipline and impose norms of ‘scholarship’ and ‘good behaviour’. There is equally a wealth of journals that seek to maintain excellence in scholarship. Here it may be relevant to refer to the Journal of Classical Sociology, which Simon Susen and I have been co-editing for almost two decades.3 Inevitably, these academic institutions are—both in intention and in effect—conservative; they struggle to keep up with sociological

viii Foreword

publications taking place in e-journals and on social media. As a result, what has been called ‘the war of paradigms’ continues and adds more evidence (if such was ever required) that nothing has replaced the hegemony briefly enjoyed in North America by Parsons and his followers (around functionalism and systems theory) in the 1950s. Again, as Susen points out in his account of counterhegemonic scholarship, North American scientific hegemony has been displaced by alternative centres in Latin America and, more generally, in the Southern hemisphere. One such development is the emergence of ‘Southern theory’.4 This war of paradigms is, broadly speaking, the topic of Simon Susen’s excellent account of contemporary sociology and its possible futures. He is especially aware of the imperial and colonial context in which sociology emerged. Although this issue of colonialism has been well rehearsed in anthropology, it has not received sufficient attention in sociology. Susen takes this discussion to a new level, by driving home the fact that globalization has made many (perhaps all) of the principal assumptions underlying large parts of ‘Western’ sociology questionable. We inhabit a world that is both highly interconnected and deeply diverse. These facets of the global context have forced sociologists to re-think, among other topics, the meaning of modernity. The idea of ‘multiple modernities’ in the work of Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt5 (2000) offers at least one route out of the widespread supposition that ‘modernity’ is all of a piece. Assumptions about the Western origins of sociology overlook such figures as Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406), whose Muqaddimah developed the idea of ‘universal history’. The growth of sociology in China can be traced back, for example, to an early Department of Sociology, established by the National Central University in 1928, which evolved into the Nanjing University Department.6 With the success of the Maoist Revolution, however, the truth of ‘Marxism-Leninism’ as the official ‘science’ raised questions about the actual need for sociology, which was defined—and largely rejected—as a ‘bourgeois science’. If mainstream sociology has been narrowly focused on the Western world, it has also been too remote from historical research. Susen notes that this absence of a strong consciousness of the historical context of sociological work is ironic, given the importance of the work of Norbert Elias on the historical unfolding of civilization or indeed the research of Max Weber on ancient Judaism or the causes of the ultimate fall of Rome in his The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations7 (1976 [1924/1909/1896]). Perhaps more importantly (and referring to the first sentence of my Foreword), Susen does not propose a death-narrative of sociology. Indeed, in Chapter 12, he rejects the ‘rhetoric of despair’ that he perceives to have been prevalent in the second half of the twentieth century. He is deeply critical of

 Foreword 

ix

the foibles of sociology, while at the same time offering new possibilities of developing sociology in the context of global interconnectedness. He wants to treat the crises of the discipline of sociology as opportunities for development and growth. Postcolonial sociology and subaltern studies represent attempts to come to grips with global interconnectedness. National sociologies (especially British and Anglo-American sociology) fail adequately to reflect these fundamental changes to the modern worlds in which we live. Some of these concerns were articulated by Ulrich Beck, notably in his criticisms of ‘methodological nationalism’ and his notion of ‘world risk society’,8 and developed in collaboration with the Korean sociologist Chang Kyung-Sup.9 Many attempts have been made to overcome the war of paradigms to stabilize sociology around an agreed set of theories, concepts, and concerns. Yet, at the end of the day, sociological scholarship revolves around ‘making social science matter’.10 In the light of that goal, the quest for normality may be a false endeavour. It is crucial to illuminate the structure of human societies in a manner that engages us with issues that are significant and provides us with clarity of understanding to improve the way we live. Simon Susen’s kaleidoscopic overview of such sociological endeavours to describe important subjects offers a perspective that is both challenging and rewarding. Established scholars, as well as both undergraduate and postgraduate students, will find the clear development of his argument, the comprehensive coverage of issues, and the cornucopia of references an indispensable resource for further study. ACU (Sydney, Australia) and CUNY (New York, USA)

Bryan S. Turner

Notes 1. See Susen (2020). 2. Kuhn (2012 [1962]). 3. Cf. O’Neill and Turner (2001) as well as Susen and Turner (2011a). 4. See Connell (2007). 5. See, for example, Eisenstadt (2000). Cf. Susen and Turner (2011b) as well as Turner and Susen (2011). 6. See Skinner (1951). 7. Weber (1976 [1924/1909/1896]). 8. Beck (1999). 9. Kyung-Sup (2010). 10. Flyvbjerg (2001).

x Foreword

References Beck, Ulrich (1999) World Risk Society, Cambridge: Polity. Connell, Raewyn (2007) Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science, Cambridge: Polity. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah (2000) ‘Multiple Modernities’, Daedalus 129(1): 1–29. Flyvbjerg, Bent (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012 [1962]) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th Edition, with an introductory essay by Ian Hacking, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kyung-Sup, Chang (2010) ‘The Second Modern Condition? Compressed Modernity as Internalized Reflexive Cosmopolitization’, The British Journal of Sociology 61(3): 444–464. O’Neill, John and Bryan S.  Turner (2001) ‘Introduction—The Fragmentation of Sociology’, Journal of Classical Sociology 1(1): 5–12. Skinner, G. William (1951) ‘The New Sociology in China’, The Far Eastern Quarterly 10(4): 365–371. Susen, Simon (2020) Sociology in the Twenty-First Century: Key Trends, Debates, and Challenges, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Susen, Simon and Bryan S. Turner (2011a) ‘Tradition and Innovation in Classical Sociology: Tenth Anniversary Report of JCS’, Journal of Classical Sociology 11(1): 5–13. Susen, Simon and Bryan S.  Turner (2011b) ‘Introduction to the Special Issue on Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt’, Journal of Classical Sociology 11(3): 229–239. Turner, Bryan S. and Simon Susen (eds.) (2011) Special Issue: Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt, Journal of Classical Sociology 11(3): 229–335. Weber, Max (1976 [1924/1909/1896]) The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations, trans. Richard Iva Frank, London: NLB.

Contents

Part I Intimations of Postcoloniality   1 1 Postcoloniality and Sociology  3 2 Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 25 Part II Intimations of Globality  53 3 Globality and Sociology 55 4 Globality and Connectivity 75 Part III Intimations of Canonicity  95 5 Canonicity and Sociology 97 6 Canonicity and Exclusivity127 Part IV Intimations of Historicity 147 7 Historicity and Sociology149 8 Historicity and Novelty169 xi

xii Contents

Part V Intimations of Disciplinarity 195 9 Disciplinarity and Sociology197 10 Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity213 Part VI Intimations of Hegemony 239 11 Hegemony and Sociology241 12 Hegemony and Counterhegemony261 Part VII Intimations of Reflexivity

 283

13 Epilogue: Critical Remarks285 Conclusion343 References351 Index of Names445 Index of Subjects477

About the Author

Simon Susen  is Professor of Sociology at City, University of London. He is the author of The Foundations of the Social: Between Critical Theory and Reflexive Sociology (Oxford: Bardwell Press, 2007), The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), Pierre Bourdieu et la distinction sociale. Un essai philosophique (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2016), and The Sociology of Intellectuals: After ‘The Existentialist Moment’ (with Patrick Baert, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). Along with Celia Basconzuelo and Teresita Morel, he edited Ciudadanía territorial y movimientos sociales. Historia y nuevas problemáticas en el escenario latinoamericano y mundial (Río Cuarto: Ediciones del ICALA, 2010). Together with Bryan S.  Turner, he edited The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays (London: Anthem Press, 2011), The Spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘Pragmatic Sociology of Critique’ (London: Anthem Press, 2014), and a Special Issue on the work of Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt, which appeared in the Journal of Classical Sociology 11(3): 229–335, 2011. In addition, he edited a Special Issue on Bourdieu and Language, which was published in Social Epistemology 27(3–4): 195–393, 2013. He is Associate Member of the Bauman Institute and, together with Bryan S. Turner, Editor of the Journal of Classical Sociology.

xiii

Introduction

The main purpose of this book is to examine key trends, debates, and challenges in twenty-first-century sociology. Interrogations regarding the nature of sociology (‘What is sociology?’), the history of sociology (‘How has sociology evolved?’), and the study of sociology (‘How can or should we make sense of sociology?’) have been, and will continue to be, essential to the creation of conceptually informed, methodologically rigorous, and empirically substantiated research programmes in the discipline. Over the past years, however, there have been numerous disputes and controversies concerning the future of sociology. Particularly important in this respect are recent and ongoing discussions on the possibilities of developing new—and, arguably, post-classical—forms of sociology. The central assumption underlying most of these projects is the contention that a comprehensive analysis of the principal challenges faced by global society requires the construction of a sociology capable of accounting for the interconnectedness of social actors and social structures across time and space. Exploring the significance and relevance of such an ambitious venture, this book aims to provide an overview of crucial past, present, and possible future trends, debates, and challenges shaping the pursuit of sociological inquiry. To this end, it is structured as follows:

Part I: Intimations of Postcoloniality Chapter 1—entitled ‘Postcoloniality and Sociology’—highlights the wider significance of two major historical events: the colonization and, subsequently, the decolonization of large parts of the world by European powers. The birth of sociology coincides with the age of imperialism, characterized by extensive colonization processes across the globe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is far from clear, however, what both the objective and the xv

xvi Introduction

normative implications of this concurrence are, let alone how they should be conceptualized and problematized. As maintained in this chapter, the rise of postcolonial studies in the late twentieth century is indicative of the need to grapple with these implications. Postcolonial approaches are confronted with a twofold challenge: first, to provide a comprehensive critique of the multilayered impact of colonialism on world history; and, second, to take on the task of crafting viable visions of a genuinely postcolonial world. The chapter suggests that, faced with this twofold challenge, the field of postcolonial studies has made substantial—and, in several respects, indispensable—contributions to the development of contemporary sociology. Chapter 2—entitled ‘Postcoloniality and Decoloniality’—gives a brief overview of prominent approaches associated with postcolonial studies and, more recently, decolonial studies. The former have been profoundly shaped by diasporic scholars from the Middle East and South Asia. The latter have been developed, above all, by diasporic scholars from South America. Despite significant points of divergence, the numerous frameworks situated within these two currents of analysis are united by the ambition to take issue with Eurocentric conceptions of history in general and of modernity in particular. In order to demonstrate that valuable insights can be gained from these two traditions of thought, the chapter elucidates significant contributions made by the following thinkers: in relation to postcolonial studies, Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, Homi K. Bhabha, Raewyn Connell, and Boaventura de Sousa Santos; and, in relation to decolonial studies, Aníbal Quijano, Walter D. Mignolo, and María Lugones.

Part II: Intimations of Globality Chapter 3—entitled ‘Globality and Sociology’—scrutinizes the implications of the fact that, in the early twenty-first century, societies across the world are increasingly interconnected at multiple levels. On this view, the plea for a global sociology is based on the premise that we live in a global society, implying that it is the task of the former to shed light on the complexities of the latter. A connectivist approach—epitomized in the pursuit of a ‘connected sociologies’ framework—draws attention to the ways in which connected societies are embedded in connected histories. Put differently, societal developments occur due to a variety of connections—such as economic, political, cultural, linguistic, geographical, and/or demographic ones. In addition to spelling out the core presuppositions underpinning the aforementioned connectivist outlook, the chapter considers three alternative explanatory paradigms, all of

 Introduction 

xvii

which aim to make sense of key societal developments on a global scale: (1) the paradigm of multiple modernities, (2) the paradigm of multiculturalism, and (3) the paradigm of cosmopolitanism. Upon closer examination, however, it becomes apparent that these currents of thought fall short of acknowledging the role that connected histories have played, and continue to play, in shaping the constitution of modern societies. As illustrated in this chapter, the emergence of ‘postcolonial sociology’ and ‘subaltern studies’ reflects a serious effort to account for the global interconnectedness of social realities. Chapter 4—entitled ‘Globality and Connectivity’—makes a case for a connectivist sociology, insisting that modernity can be regarded as a product of multiple interconnections across the world. To the extent that we recognize both the existence and the significance of ‘connected histories’, it becomes possible to take seriously those ‘other histories’ that are commonly ignored by, or relegated to the margins of, ‘Western’ collective memories. Such a connectivist approach requires us to face up to the fact that the numerous behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns of functioning associated with the historical condition called ‘modernity’—far from possessing a monolithic origin in the cradle of European civilization—stem from a transcontinental confluence of human practices and social structures. A truly global sociology, while rejecting the assumption that civilizations constitute distinct and self-­ sufficient entities, subverts the mainstream historical narrative according to which, in the context of modernity, the European continent represents the principal driving force behind, and the crucial reference point for, civilizational developments across the world. A connectivist approach, in other words, takes issue with the separation, isolation, and hierarchization of civilizations as building blocks of human existence. Furthermore, it calls into question (1) the historical assumption that modernity has existed as ‘only one experience’ and (2) the sociological assumption that modernity, insofar as it is portrayed as a largely European affair, can make a legitimate claim to ‘uniqueness’ and ‘progressiveness’. Having exposed the fragile foundations of such an ethnocentric perspective, it becomes feasible, if not imperative, to pursue the methodological strategy of ‘provincializing’ Europe by deconstructing its epistemic claims to universality. Arguably, such an undertaking contributes to the creation of a ‘global social science community’.

Part III: Intimations of Canonicity Chapter 5—entitled ‘Canonicity and Sociology’—is concerned with dynamics of canon formation in modern sociology. The formation of an epistemic canon in sociology can be traced back all the way to the ground-breaking

xviii Introduction

works that have shaped its disciplinary identity from the beginning of its existence. Notwithstanding the question of whether or not Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, and Max Weber deserve to be regarded as the ‘founding figures’ of sociology, the far-reaching significance of their legacy is undeniable. It appears, however, that classical sociology is characterized, at best, by a deficient engagement with or, at worst, by the almost complete neglect of the wide-ranging impact of colonialism on historical developments across the world. This omission is especially problematic to the degree that Marx, Durkheim, and Weber have acquired the quasi-religious status of a ‘holy trinity’ in the history of sociology. A key question that arises in this context is why some scholars have been more successful than others in setting the agenda and shaping the canon of their discipline. One of the most remarkable features of canon formation in British sociology is that—to a large extent—it has been, and continues to be, based on the works of non-British scholars. More specifically, it is characterized by a curious paradox: non-Anglocentric Anglocentrism. While it has offered a domestic framework to an impressively large number of non-British scholars, it has greatly contributed to the hegemonic influence of Anglophone sociology—not only in Europe, but across the world. Canon formation in sociology is marked by an asymmetrical distribution of power, as is particularly evident in the field of social theory, which suffers from the ‘white-theory-­ boys syndrome’. In mainstream sociology, theoretical debates tend to be dominated by privileged, white/Western, male, middle- or old-aged, and highly educated experts. Irrespective of this socio-epistemic inequality, sociology still provides a safe home for scholars from adjacent disciplines. Chapter 6—entitled ‘Canonicity and Exclusivity’—contends that intellectual canons in mainstream sociology have systematically excluded, and effectively silenced, non-white scholars. A salient example of academic marginalization processes based on ethnicity is the sidelining of ‘African American Pioneers of Sociology’—notably W. E. B. Du Bois, E. Franklin Frazier, and Oliver Cromwell Cox. Through processes of canon formation, it is decided who is, and who is not, allowed to set the (implicit or explicit) rules underlying social mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion at work in the academic field. As posited in this chapter, the broadening of a canon may require its deconstruction, thereby exposing the relatively arbitrary criteria by means of which scholars and research traditions are included in, or excluded from, hegemonic processes and structures of knowledge production. It is, to say the least, an irony that Western discourses of emancipation gained intellectual currency in the ‘Old World’ at the same time as slavery was being instituted in the ‘New World’. The serious implications of this matter are hardly ever explored, let alone problematized, by mainstream Western sociologists. The

 Introduction 

xix

nexus between the rise of colonialism, epitomized in the age of imperialism, and the emergence of social-scientific disciplines, such as sociology, is—at best—insufficiently understood or—at worst—largely ignored by modern researchers. The mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion that govern the development of academic fields cannot be abstracted from those that operate in the societies in which they are embedded, as illustrated in the stratified—and, arguably, discriminatory—constitution of Western models of citizenship.

Part IV: Intimations of Historicity Chapter 7—entitled ‘Historicity and Sociology’—identifies important reasons why the sociological study of history deserves to be taken seriously. Such an endeavour is inconceivable without combining and cross-fertilizing two academic disciplines: history and sociology. A transdisciplinary project of this kind poses a number of challenges, which need to be tackled when drawing on distinct, but potentially complementary, analytical frameworks. It appears, however, that historical approaches have been substantially marginalized in contemporary sociology, especially in the UK. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence supporting the view that, in recent decades, British sociology has gone through a major identity crisis. Arguably, this crisis manifests itself in the paradigmatic preponderance of ‘presentist lenses’, implying that large parts of sociology’s disciplinary agenda fail to contribute to a genuinely historical understanding of social reality. This epistemic limitation is ironic, given that the founding figures of sociology—notably Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, and Max Weber—as well as subsequent ‘classics’—such as Georg Simmel, Norbert Elias, Hannah Arendt, Anthony Giddens, Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, and Jürgen Habermas—share a deep concern with the historicity of social reality. In the early twenty-first century, however, historical sociology tends to be considered a highly specialist sub-field in, rather than a core area of, sociology. This significant conceptual and methodological limitation is reinforced by the widespread use of simplistic periodizing labels (such as ‘premodern’, ‘modern’, and ‘late modern’/‘postmodern’). Thus, we are confronted with a curious paradox: in mainstream sociological circles, ‘the will to periodize’ remains strong, just as the analytical focus on the present, rather than the in-­depth engagement with the past, remains popular. Yet, both ‘stagism’ and ‘presentism’ undermine the historicist spirit permeating the project of sociology. Chapter 8—entitled ‘Historicity and Novelty’—grapples with the question of whether or not contemporary sociology, notably in the British context, has undergone a paradigmatic turn towards epochalism. The term ‘epochalism’ can

xx Introduction

be defined as the belief that the current era constitutes a historical stage that is not only fundamentally different from previous ones, but also qualitatively unique and unprecedented, reflecting a radical break with prior forms of societal existence. The chapter draws attention to central issues arising in the face of epochalism, particularly with regard to its reductionist implications—such as the simplistic juxtaposition between ‘past’ and ‘present’, the proliferation of sweeping statements concerning allegedly ‘new’ developments, and the incongruity between theoretical and empirical accounts of temporality. The chapter defends the claim that, as critical sociologists, we need to distinguish between objective, normative, and subjective dimensions influencing both realities and narratives of development in general and of change in particular. Informed by the preceding reflections on the nature of historical analysis in sociological inquiry, the chapter goes on to give an overview of both the merits and the pitfalls of Parsonian versions of evolutionism and neo-evolutionism. Parsonian sociology has been largely sidelined in the contemporary social sciences. Given its influence on the development of sociology, this seems hardly justified, especially when considering the question of whether or not it is possible to provide a non-Eurocentric understanding of modernity. The chapter discusses the possibility of developing a ‘middle position’ between Eurocentric universalism and anti-Eurocentric relativism, focusing on the epistemic benefits gained from such a venture.

Part V: Intimations of Disciplinarity Chapter 9—entitled ‘Disciplinarity and Sociology’—starts from the assumption that sociology has a strong commitment to the empirical study of social phenomena. In recent decades, however, empirical sociology appears to have undergone a crisis. The rise of postindustrialism is inextricably linked to the consolidation of a knowledge economy. In the context of the digital age, this historical transition is intensified by the gathering, processing, and analysis of social and transactional data on an unprecedented scale. The growing influence of metric power is reflected in the ways in which ‘social data’ and ‘transactional data’ are systematically used to obtain valuable information about behavioural patterns in technologically advanced societies. Particularly important in this respect is the emergence of new modes of consumption, the identification and evaluation of which play a pivotal role in the development of market strategies in the private sector of the economy. This tendency has profound implications for the status of traditional research methods in sociology. Advanced digital technologies employed outside the academic sector provide

 Introduction 

xxi

powerful ways of gathering, processing, and examining data, making traditional methods used in sociology appear, at best, limited or, at worst, obsolete. The chapter grapples with both the causes and the consequences of this shift, casting light on its ethical, epistemological, and methodological implications for the disciplinary position of sociology. Chapter 10—entitled ‘Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity’—asks why, in recent years, it has become increasingly common among sociologists to have strong reservations about the development of their discipline, notably in relation to the impact of interdisciplinarity and audit culture on both its intellectual autonomy and its institutional identity. As highlighted in this chapter, it remains to be seen to what degree sociology will be able not only to survive as a discipline, but also to protect its own intellectual autonomy and institutional identity, while continuing to play a fruitful role in contributing to the empowerment of individual and collective actors in society. Drawing on the preceding reflections, the chapter goes on to explore the extent to which the growing demand for interdisciplinarity, which one encounters both in the natural sciences and in the social sciences, has shaped sociological research agendas in recent years. Instead of endorsing a fatalistic account of interdisciplinarity, however, contemporary sociologists should seek to embrace the opportunities arising from its pursuit, especially if they want to avoid being relegated to the fringes of social-scientific research in the twenty-first century. With this task in mind, the chapter makes a case for a form of ‘epistemic realism’, which aims to account for both the empowering and the disempowering features of advanced knowledge economies. Finally, the chapter posits that sociology needs to expose the poisonous conditions created by the ideology of ‘impact’, drawing attention not only to its detrimental effects, but also to the ways in which it can, and should, be challenged and subverted.

Part VI: Intimations of Hegemony Chapter 11—entitled ‘Hegemony and Sociology’—is built on the premise that, inevitably, academic disciplines are shaped by the hegemonic modes of cognitive and behavioural functioning that are prevalent in the societies in which they are embedded. Based on this supposition, the chapter starts by observing that the concern with the future of sociology—and, crucially, with its modus operandi—has been a central issue of discussion in recent decades. Two narratives of the future are particularly noteworthy: on the one hand, the narrative of decline, suggesting that, at best, we are faced with a global crisis of unprecedented scope or, at worst, we are witnessing an unstoppable

xxii Introduction

catastrophe of worldwide reach; on the other hand, the narrative of improvement, positing that, in the worst-case scenario, we are confronted with a bundle of serious global problems that can be resolved or, in the best-case scenario, we are gazing into a horizon of opportunities proving the validity of the Enlightenment story of progress. Both positions make reference to a number of key (social, economic, socioeconomic, cultural, political, ideological, scientific, medical, environmental, military, and educational) trends. An important question that arises in this context is to what degree sociology has the capacity to delineate both its intellectual and its institutional future path in a genuinely transformative and proactive, rather than merely corrective and reactive, manner. Seeking to respond to this question, four future options for sociology are considered, none of which can ignore the hegemonic role of the state and the market in neoliberal societies. The chapter concludes by defending the idea of a critical and public sociology, capable of defying, and offering viable alternatives to, both the state-induced managerialization and the market-­ driven commodification of vital aspects of social life. Chapter 12—entitled ‘Hegemony and Counterhegemony’—rests on the assumption that, although they are shaped by hegemonic modes of cognitive and behavioural functioning prevalent in a given society, academic disciplines—notably those in the social sciences—provide powerful, and potentially counterhegemonic, tools for calling the legitimacy of the status quo into question. The chapter offers a brief, but critical, overview of the principal issues that pose a serious challenge to the discipline’s success in the twentyfirst century. Upon close examination, it becomes clear that recent and current debates on the state of sociology are remarkably similar to those that took place in the second part of the twentieth century. Striking in this respect is the ‘rhetoric of despair’, which appears to be common among sociologists across different generations, expressing a deep concern with the ways in which the discipline’s intellectual autonomy and institutional identity can be preserved. The chapter aims to give a balanced account of the extent to which negative perceptions of sociology as a discipline, including the historical conditions by which it is surrounded, are justified. As pessimistic interpretations of the state of the discipline seem to suggest, sociology finds itself in a situation in which it is, at best, enduring a crisis or, at worst, on the wane. In the social sciences, it tends to be regarded as one of the most vulnerable academic disciplines. This is ironic, since sociology, owing to its general concern with the constitution of ‘the social’, may be considered the foundational discipline of the social sciences par excellence. Exploring the reasons behind sociology’s perpetual legitimacy crisis, the chapter examines key indicators permitting us to assess the ‘health’ of the discipline. Their critical analysis demonstrates that there are

 Introduction 

xxiii

both negative and positive trends affecting the discipline’s development. The chapter concludes by proposing a tentative outline of the crucial issues upon which contemporary sociologists can, and should, focus when defending the value and importance of their discipline.

Part VII: Intimations of Reflexivity In the form of an epilogue, the final part of the book provides some critical reflections on the key trends, debates, and challenges covered in the preceding chapters. This epilogue does not aim to demonstrate that the aforementioned sociological approaches are doomed to failure. Rather, it seeks to shed light on their main weaknesses and limitations, which—while recognizing their respective strengths and contributions—need to be taken into consideration when examining central issues in twenty-first-century sociology. As illustrated throughout this study, the project of creating a sociology capable of accounting for the interconnectedness of social actors and social structures across time and space is far from straightforward. If anything, the construction of a cutting-­edge twenty-first-century sociology—regardless of whether this objective is pursued in ‘postcolonial’ or ‘decolonial’, ‘globalist’ or ‘connectivist’, ‘canonical’ or ‘anti-canonical’, ‘historical’ or ‘post-historical’, ‘interdisciplinary’ or ‘transdisciplinary’, ‘hegemonic’ or ‘counterhegemonic’ terms—is fraught with difficulties. It is the task of this epilogue to draw attention to the complexities and contradictions inherent in, and to the major challenges arising from, such an ambitious endeavour.

Part I Intimations of Postcoloniality

1 Postcoloniality and Sociology

The in-depth analysis of the historical condition commonly described as ‘postcoloniality’ has been on the academic agenda for several decades, not least in different branches of sociology. Broadly speaking, the term ‘postcoloniality’ refers to any set of social constellations directly or indirectly shaped by both the short-term and the long-term consequences of the history of colonialism, including its demise. In the humanities, ‘the study of postcoloniality has taken on the form of “postcolonial theory”’,1 emphasizing the relevance of its conceptual concerns to the inquiry into key aspects of human existence— notably in disciplinary fields such as philosophy, historiography, arts, law, linguistics, literary studies, religious studies, and cultural studies. In the social sciences, research on postcoloniality has contributed to a critical understanding of postcolonial practices, stressing the relevance of its empirical dimensions to the examination of central elements of social life—above all, in disciplines such as anthropology, geography, political science, and sociology. Interestingly, however, ‘sociology’s approach to postcolonial issues has been comparably muted’,2 if not relegated to the fringes of disciplinary activity. Instead of being elevated to an area of investigation that is located at the core of its intellectual autonomy and institutional identity as a discipline, the in-depth exploration of postcoloniality—commonly referred to as ‘postcolonial studies’ and ‘postcolonialism’—continues to occupy a fringe space within sociology. Unsympathetic critics may contend that the marginal influence of postcolonialism on mainstream sociology is due to the peripheral position of postcolonial realities in global society. Sympathetic critics, by contrast, may posit that the limited impact of postcolonialism on mainstream sociology is the result of hegemonic attempts to deny the omnipresence of postcolonial © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_1

3

4 

S. Susen

realities in the national contexts of both ‘the colonized’ and ‘the colonizers’— that is, in a global universe characterized by a profoundly asymmetrical division of power. Notwithstanding the question of which particular stance in relation to this issue one may wish to defend, a key challenge consists in exploring the actual (or at least the potential) usefulness of postcolonial studies ‘for reorienting sociological theory and research’.3 Before fleshing out the main facets of this task, it is imperative to scrutinize the motivational background to this endeavour, by reflecting on the historical context in which sociology emerged and succeeded in establishing itself as one of the most prominent disciplines in the social sciences. In this respect, two events that took place in the past centuries are of paramount significance: 1. The ‘violent imperial expansion of the European and Anglo-American states’4 across the world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, particularly in Africa and Asia, constitutes a large-scale conglomerate of historical processes generally described as colonization and associated with the era of colonialism. The acquisition, establishment, and maintenance of colonies entail the systematic exploitation of territories and populations by foreign powers. By definition, colonialism represents a form of imperialism, to the extent that it sets up an unequal relationship between ‘the colonizers’ and ‘the colonized’—that is, between an exogenous and oppressive force and an indigenous and oppressed population. ‘Beginning in the late nineteenth and continuing through the early twentieth century, powerful states like England, France, Germany, the USA, Belgium, Italy, and others mounted new territorial assaults upon Africa and Asia, creating what has become known as the period of “high imperialism”.’5 Indeed, it took only a few decades for ‘modern colonial empires’6 to rule almost ‘all of the globe’7 and thereby spread their imperial wings to exercise their hegemonic power over the political, cultural, ideological, linguistic, economic, military, demographic, and territorial organization of foreign lands and regions. 2. Shortly after the end of World War II in 1945, a historically significant process commenced, which continued through the 1960s: decolonization. This tension-laden dynamic was characterized by ‘imperial retrenchment and decline’8 and, consequently, by ‘the dismantling of those very same colonial empires that had been expanding previously’.9 To be sure, this period did not necessarily signal the end of imperialism; rather, it indicated the transformation of the international division of power into a global system in which the label ‘colony’ and the reality of ‘colonialism’ were no longer ideologically defensible, but in which transnational structures of

1  Postcoloniality and Sociology 

5

domination continued to exist.10 Irrespective of the question of whether or not a neoimperialist period succeeded the age of imperialism, decolonization on a global scale implied that, from the 1950s onwards, a ‘multitude of independent nation-states appeared’,11 especially in the Southern hemisphere. The protagonists and representatives of these postcolonial states were driven by the ambition to put the various legacies of their conflict-­ ridden past behind them by constructing new sovereign, self-­sufficient, and prosperous societies. In summary: Processes of colonization constituted ‘a staggering display of metropolitan political power’12 based on the hegemonic imposition of behavioural, ideological, and institutional modes of functioning by imperialist forces on conquered territories and populations. Processes of decolonization, by contrast, were characterized by ‘the dramatic disintegration of that very same power’,13 implying not only that colonial empires had withered away but also that postcolonial actors—notably postcolonial states—were, at least in principle, in a position to take their destiny into their own hands, embarking upon a new journey, inspired by a desire for genuine, rather than merely formal, independence. By definition, critical research in sociology is committed to considering the impact of spatiotemporally variable sets of circumstances upon the production, distribution, classification, stratification, and consumption of knowledge. Thus, both the birth of sociology and the development of sociology need to be contextualized: • In relation to the former point, it is worth stressing that sociology came into existence ‘during the first moment—the age of high imperialism—in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries’.14 In fact, given the allegedly Eurocentric outlook of its classical variants, one may claim that sociology was largely complicit in fostering the spirit of epistemic imperialism. Notwithstanding the question of whether the ‘founding figures’ of the discipline reinforced or undermined, reproduced or transformed, advocated or criticized, supported or subverted, sympathized with or distanced themselves from Western forms of imperialism, large parts of social-scientific research—especially to the extent that it involved comparative historical analysis—‘depended on knowledge of the Other’15 acquired through European expansion across the world. Some of the central issues with which classical sociology was grappling were inextricably linked to the multiple material and symbolic manifestations of imperialism that were present

6 

S. Susen

in both the colonizing and the colonized countries in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.16 • In relation to the latter point, it is hard to deny that ‘sociology’s engagement with the issues surrounding the second moment of postcoloniality remains obscure’.17 Indeed, while sociology has produced an eclectic body of research on both the constitution and the various normative implications of ‘the new imperialism’,18 it is far from obvious to what degree it has provided an adequate analysis, let alone a comprehensive assessment, of both the reality and the consequences of decolonization, epitomized in the historical condition of postcoloniality and expressed in the rise of postcolonial studies. Owing to this deficient engagement with one of the most fundamental aspects of the modern world, the concern with the role of postcoloniality in shaping the course of history has been taken more seriously in recent years, leading to fruitful debates and controversies in contemporary sociology.19 It appears, therefore, that sociology is ‘catching up’, in the sense that, at least since the early 1980s, neighbouring fields of academic inquiry—especially anthropology, historiography, cultural studies, literary studies, political science, and geography—have begun to incorporate postcolonial concerns into their realms of exploration. In many cases, they have done so discursively and institutionally, by converting ‘postcolonial studies’ into one of their core areas of investigation. For the sake of periodizing precision, at least two ‘waves’ of postcolonial studies can be distinguished20: • The ‘first wave’ of postcolonial studies emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, shaped by intellectuals such as Aimé Césaire (1913–2008),21 Albert Memmi (1920–),22 Frantz Fanon (1925–1961),23 and Steven Biko (1946–1977).24 • The ‘second wave’ of postcolonial studies emerged from the 1970s onwards, shaped by intellectuals such as Edward Said (1935–2003),25 Gayatri Spivak (1942–),26 and Homi K. Bhabha (1949–).27 Postcolonialism—notably its ‘second wave’ variants—is characterized not only by a pronounced transdisciplinary outlook but also by a multiperspectival attitude, combining insights from several traditions of thought, such as critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and feminism. Notwithstanding the differences between postcolonial approaches, they share a general interest in the study of the historical process commonly labelled ‘decolonization’ and its homological societal condition widely described as ‘postcoloniality’.28

1  Postcoloniality and Sociology 

7

To be clear, there is no such thing as a universal understanding of postcoloniality—neither in terms of means and strategy (‘How do we get there?’) nor in terms of goals and ideology (‘What kind of society do we wish to build?’). In the second part of the twentieth century, the path to social, cultural, political, economic, and technological development—that is, the pursuit of ‘civilizational progress’29—could not be dissociated from the ideological and systemic competition between socialism and liberalism. Both of these major political ideologies and systems represented potentially viable options for the construction of postcolonial societies, capable of emancipating themselves from exogenously imposed practices and structures of exploitation, oppression, and domination. Yet, ‘the post-independence years were marked by continued exploitation, violence, and global inequality’,30 implying that ‘older power relations simply took on more subtle, insidious, and even more potent forms’.31 Put differently, the world experienced a shift from imperialism and colonialism to neoimperialism and neocolonialism. Thus, even if ‘the West’ did not retain its status as the undeniable centre of overt colonial control in the traditional sense, it succeeded in preserving its hegemonic position in the global division of power. As a consequence, the profound inequalities between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’—that is, between ‘the Global North’ and ‘the Global South’32— continued to exist in this ‘postcolonial neocolonized world’.33 The power of the dominant ideology is most effective when a large number of individual and collective actors willingly—if not enthusiastically—follow its principles, values, and imperatives even if it is in their interest to do otherwise.34 In the context of decolonization, ‘[r]acialized forms of thought persisted among ex-­ colonizers and ex-colonized alike’,35 just as ‘self-negation, cultural annihilation, and feelings of marginalization’36 continued to permeate the consciousness of postcolonial peoples. One of the key challenges faced by postcolonial thought, then, consists in ensuring that it does not get caught up in ‘colonialist knowledge’s misrepresentations and epistemic violence’.37 In order to accomplish this, it needs to expose the biased, interest-driven, and erroneous nature of hegemonic discourses on the relationship between ‘the Global North’ and ‘the Global South’. Such a counterhegemonic project aims to call the validity of ‘imperialistic ways of knowing’38 into question, by casting doubt on ‘the previous dominant Western ways of seeing things’.39 The power of dominant ideologies depends on their capacity to minimize the influence of counterhegemonic discourses by adjusting to potentially changing circumstances and, if necessary, by absorbing epistemic elements that contribute to their social legitimacy. To the extent that postcolonial demands and insights are incorporated into

8 

S. Susen

dominant ideologies, they run the risk of being defused in a way that renders them toothless, implying that they may be reduced to serving a decorative, rather than transformative, function in the construction, and constant reconstruction, of interconnected and interdependent societies. Hence, postcolonialism faces a twofold normative challenge: • to provide a comprehensive critique of the social, cultural, political, economic, and ‘psychological impact of colonialism’40 on both ‘the colonized’ and ‘the colonizers’; • to contribute to ‘crafting visions of a truly postcolonial world’41—that is, of a world that not only comes after but also succeeds in going beyond ‘the colonial’ by breaking out of the behavioural, ideological, and institutional straitjackets previously imposed upon it by hegemonic powers. An intersectionalist understanding of social reality is central to postcolonial thought, insofar as it seeks to do justice to the complexity pervading the interplay between multiple sociological variables shaping asymmetrically structured relations established between individual and collective actors.42 Rather than focusing exclusively on ‘race’, ethnicity, nationality, and/or culture,43 postcolonial analysis explores the degree to which these elements of modern life forms intersect with other sociological variables—such as class,44 gender,45 age,46 and ability.47 Arguably, all of these factors have to be taken into account if one seeks to paint a comprehensive picture of both colonial and postcolonial types of domination. On this interpretation, it is misleading to overstate the significance of economic dimensions of imperialism, since such a short-­ sighted perspective implies ‘overlooking the racialized, gendered, psychological, cultural, and semiotic dimensions and legacies of imperial power’.48 Any kind of monocausalist explanatory determinism—irrespective of whether it focuses on economic, cultural, or political forces—is erroneous insofar as it reduces the complexity of social domination to one overriding factor, overarching power, or hegemonic epicentre. One of the principal objectives of postcolonial studies, therefore, consists in deconstructing ‘the essentializing representations in colonizers’ imaginations and speech’,49 by means of which it was possible to fabricate the normative opposition between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’ in terms of value-laden binaries—such as ‘superior’ vs. ‘inferior’, ‘civilized’ vs. ‘uncivilized’, ‘advanced’ vs. ‘backward’, and ‘developed’ vs. ‘underdeveloped’. Given that the relationship between colonial and postcolonial dynamics has played, and continues to play, a pivotal role in shaping the global division of power, it comes as a surprise that a large proportion of introductory textbooks in sociology fail to

1  Postcoloniality and Sociology 

9

provide sufficient, if any, coverage of postcolonial themes (expressed in keywords such as ‘postcolonialism’, ‘postcolonial theory’, ‘postcolonial studies’, and ‘postcolonial discourse analysis’). Even if, admittedly, the balance of epistemic power has changed in recent decades, the marginalization of ‘the postcolonial’ remains a problematic feature of contemporary sociology in most of its ‘national’ traditions.50 The relegation of postcolonial concerns to the fringes of sociological research agendas cannot be divorced from the paradigmatic influence of modernization theory51 on twentieth-century understandings of social development. Its tendency to subscribe to a ‘linear and universal template’,52 based on evolutionist assumptions about civilizational progress, brings it suspiciously close to representing ‘a neocolonial intervention rather than a postcolonial one’,53 articulating the ideals and interests of hegemonic powers, rather than those of counterhegemonic movements. Of course, ‘modernization-development paradigms’54 have been criticized from different angles, notably by supporters of dependency theory and world-­ systems theory.55 In this respect, the distinction between ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ is particularly important, grasping the historical significance of structural inequalities between diametrically opposed spheres in the global division of power and resources—notably between ‘the centre’ and ‘the margins’, ‘the metropole’ and ‘the satellites’, ‘the North’ and ‘the South’, as well as ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’. Dependency, world-systems, and postcolonial theories share the view that the modern world has been, and continues to be, divided by a hegemonic ‘core’ and a relatively disempowered ‘periphery’. These currents of thought differ substantially, however, in terms of their understanding of the nature of global struggles and social inequalities in the contemporary age: dependency and world-systems theories tend to focus on their economic and material elements, whereas postcolonial theories tend to concentrate on their cultural and symbolic aspects. Postcolonial approaches draw attention to ‘the cultural, psychological, discursive, epistemic, representational, or textual dimensions of colonialism’.56 Certainly, their advocates do not posit that colonial forms of domination can be abstracted from economic modes of exploitation. They insist, however, that the critical analysis of ‘racial difference, religious chauvinism, masculine domination, and attendant cultural or semiotic processes’57 must not be degraded to a scholastic exercise of conceptual or empirical irrelevance, since both the production and the reproduction of intersectionally constituted power relations are central to the development of stratified societies. On this account, a noteworthy limitation of grand narratives inspired by Marxist or world-systems analysis is that they tend to follow a deductivist explanatory

10 

S. Susen

logic, aimed at proving the validity of universalist assumptions by endorsing ‘a homogenizing and incorporating world-historical scheme that assimilate[s] non-synchronous developments, histories, cultures, and peoples to it’.58 While it is imperative to shed light on mechanisms of domination generated by colonial powers, it is no less important to avoid idealizing the emancipatory potential of life forms generated by colonized subjects. In other words, postcolonialism ‘does not mean a valorization of the “colonized”, “the East” or “Global South” in romanticized opposition to “the colonizer”, the “West”, or the “Global North”.’59 Just as it would be erroneous to portray ‘the West’ as an entirely destructive, oppressive, and reactionary ‘force for evil’, it would be misleading to conceive of ‘the Rest’ as an utterly constructive, progressive, and emancipatory ‘force for good’. A vital normative task of postcolonial studies is to transcend the simplistic opposition between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’ at both the denotative level and the connotative level—that is, in relation to both the literal meanings of and the associative meanings evoked by these terms. Postcolonial approaches, then, are not simply concerned with ‘studying the non-West or the non-European […] world’60; rather, they are aimed at engaging with ‘the racialized, cultural, discursive, and epistemic aspects of global inequalities’,61 which mainstream approaches in sociology have either insufficiently addressed or completely ignored. Defenders of postcolonial studies seek to grasp the asymmetrical distribution of material and symbolic resources in global society by advocating the pursuit of a global sociology, since the latter can grasp the intricacies of the former only to the degree that it succeeds in breaking out of conceptual and methodological straitjackets, thereby exposing the limited epistemic and experiential scope of parochial, ethnocentric, and self-referential modes of functioning. When making a case for a ‘global sociology’,62 it seems necessary to identify the principal intellectual contributions that postcolonialism has made—and, arguably, continues to make—to such an ambitious normative project. In this respect, three areas of contribution appear to be particularly important: (1) the reconceptualization of agency; (2) the overcoming of counterproductive analytical binaries; and (3) the acknowledgement of sociology’s complicity in taking an imperial standpoint, thereby reinforcing the global hegemony of ‘the West’.63 1. Agency In modern social theory, the concept of agency has been a key issue of contention, illustrating the impact of underlying epistemic presuppositions on contemporary understandings of the human subject. In a traditional sense, agency may be regarded as a privilege of human beings, given that, presumably, they are the only creatures in the world capable of speech, reflection, and self-­ justification. As such, they are able to engage in symbolically mediated

1  Postcoloniality and Sociology 

11

interactions and to provide reasons for their actions, as illustrated in the purposive power of their Verstand, the normative power of their Vernunft, and the evaluative power of their Urteilskraft.64 What traditional social theory has failed to deliver, however, is a typology of agency.65 Such a conceptual endeavour would need to take on the investigative challenge of identifying and examining crucial forms of agency, such as the following: a. nonhuman forms of agency (animals and natural forces) b. structural forms of agency (social, cultural, linguistic, political, economic, and technological forces) c. unconscious forms of agency (the aforementioned structural forces and the extent to which they operate ‘behind people’s backs’) d. positional forms of agency (the aforementioned structural forces and the extent to which they are shaped by the positions that human actors occupy in different social fields) e. dispositional forms of agency (the aforementioned structural forces and the extent to which they are contingent upon the dispositions that human actors acquire in different social fields) From a postcolonial perspective, the main problem with Enlightenment-­ inspired approaches in modern intellectual thought is that they tend to conceive of agency as a transcendental, disembodied, and rationally mediated quality of the human subject. Consequently, they fail to recognize that agency constitutes a capacity that is profoundly shaped by—and, thus, contingent upon—culturally variable and asymmetrically organized practices, structures, and arrangements. In brief, a genuinely critical conception of social reality needs to account for the power-laden constitution of agency. To the extent that sociology sets itself the task of exploring ‘the agency of colonized and postcolonial subjects and hence the possible limits of metropolitan (i.e. imperial or colonial) power’,66 it ascribes a degree of autonomy, particularity, and incommensurability to individual and collective actors, who—even if they occupy a peripheral position in global society—can challenge the behavioural, ideological, and institutional parameters dictated by hegemonic powers in order to reaffirm their authority. Human subjects are equipped with fundamental capacities—such as the interpretive capacity to attribute meaning to, the immersive capacity to engage with, the performative capacity to act upon, and the transformative capacity to change particular aspects of reality. The idea of a ‘subaltern agency’67 is based on the assumption

12 

S. Susen

that these (and other) capacities are conditioned by people’s unequally distributed access to socially relevant resources, by means of which they manage, or fail, to take control of their own destiny. Far from being reducible to a scholastic exercise of intellectual speculation, the point of rendering subaltern forces ‘agentic’68 is to demonstrate that such an endeavour ‘does offer insights on questions of agency’69—notably in terms of postcolonial subjects’ ability to liberate themselves ‘in the face of perpetual Western power’,70 by emancipating themselves from their putative dependence upon exogenous forces that appear to determine the scope of the possibilities, and limitations, of their everyday lives. Such a project, however, rejects ‘any naïve romanticization of subaltern agency’71 by acknowledging the tension-laden—and, in many ways, contradictory—nature of all individual and collective processes oriented towards the construction of emancipatory life forms. An undertaking of this kind aims to provide a comprehensive picture of global society by ‘excavating non-Western voices and perspectives so as to give voice to voices which had been previously repressed or ignored’.72 The corresponding paradigmatic shift from a ‘history from above’ to a ‘history from below’73 is motivated by the conviction that it is essential to conceive of ‘the subaltern as the maker of his [or her] own destiny’,74 thereby shedding light on, and taking seriously, ‘the contributions made by the people on their own, that is, independently of the elite’.75 Such a profound shift in emphasis can be realized only by moving away from the ‘universalist histories of capital’,76 the nation-state, the rational subject, and other forces whose presumed significance is captured in specific metanarratives. ‘Refusing to reduce difference to historical time (i.e. rendering peasants “backwards”) or Orientalist categories (the peasant as “irrational”), it sought alternative ways of thinking about, and representing, subaltern subjects.’77 On this account, subaltern agency has to be recognized, and scrutinized, in terms of its historical specificity, without reducing it to an epiphenomenon of a teleologically determined history. Following this approach, the subaltern is not only able to speak but also, crucially, able to speak for itself—that is, on its own behalf and, thus, without being patronized by exogenous voices legitimized to represent, or to misrepresent, it. This horizon-broadening endeavour permits us to render visible the limits of subaltern agency as well as ‘the limits of the West’s own agency’.78 Even if one comes to the conclusion that—owing to its complexity, heterogeneity, and irreducibility, which can hardly be captured by Western categories of objectifying scrutiny—the subaltern cannot be adequately represented,79 a critical sociology of both local and global struggles needs to contribute to equipping marginalized actors with a sense of material and symbolic re-empowerment. In order to accomplish this, it has to draw

1  Postcoloniality and Sociology 

13

attention to ‘the traces of the colonized’s ability to disrupt colonial representations and hence the colonizers’ power to control the meaning of their own texts’.80 Sociology, therefore, can learn valuable lessons from subaltern studies. In particular, it needs to take on the normative task of examining the behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns of existence developed by peripheralized—and often inferiorized—individual and collective actors. Instead of conceiving of ‘peripheral agency’ and ‘core agency’ as two diametrically opposed, and largely detached, forms of engaging with the world, sociology needs to explore the degree to which they overlap and are structurally interconnected. At the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of sociological analysis, the interconnectedness of diametrically opposed (that is, dominant and dominated, empowered and disempowered, hegemonic and marginalized) actors is central to the multilayered construction of social (that is, value-, meaning-, perspective-, interest-, power-, and tension-laden) realities. Rather than relegating the concern with subaltern agency and ‘nonelite subjects’81 to sub-fields of sociology (such as social movement studies, ethnography, urban studies, and studies of minority populations), it should be a central object of examination in most—if not all—areas of social, political, and historical inquiry. For as long as it is degraded to a ‘niche subject’, the people it scrutinizes are effectively treated as ‘niche actors’. Such a narrow view superiorizes dominant actors and inferiorizes dominated actors. Furthermore, it fails to acknowledge that several constitutive components of ‘Western’ civilizations have always already existed in ‘non-Western’ life forms. This is illustrated, for instance, in the presence of ‘indigenous or preexisting local discourses of rights’82 in (pre-) colonized societies. In addition, this is reflected in systematic attempts to exclude anticolonial revolutions83—such as the Haitian Revolution84 (1791–1804)—from mainstream accounts of other major revolutions—such as the French Revolution85 (1789–1799)—as if the former were irrelevant to the latter and as if, moreover, the former could be reduced to peripheral events, whereas the latter—and the latter only—could be elevated to happenings of ‘world-­historical significance’.86 In order to grasp the global interconnectedness of asymmetrically positioned actors, it is vital to acknowledge that ‘colonizer and colonized are mutually constituted, that the history of European states or any powerful metropolitan states is not separable from the history of their so-called Others, and that power is always exercised in concrete setting[s] and in turn refracted or reflected by those whom it seeks to control’.87 Put differently, connected histories and connected societies need to be studied by connected historiographies and connected sociologies.88

14 

S. Susen

2. Binaries In contemporary social theory, the role of binaries has been a central issue of controversy, implying that even those who are highly critical of them acknowledge their impact upon concept-formation and system-building in modern intellectual thought. Irrespective of whether one focuses on ‘relations between colonizer and colonized, metropole and colony, center and periphery’,89 debates on both colonial and postcolonial societies are profoundly marked by binaries, which are referred to as ‘dichotomies’, ‘antinomies’, ‘oppositions’, or ‘dualisms’.90 Undoubtedly, the question of the extent to which conceptual divisions in the social sciences serve a useful function remains a subject of contention.91 From a Bourdieusian point of view, ‘[o]f all the oppositions that artificially divide social science, the most fundamental, and the most ruinous, is the one that is set up between subjectivism and objectivism’.92 From a postcolonial perspective, of all the oppositions that erroneously divide social science, the most crucial, and the most damaging, is the one that is constructed between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’. In both theoretical and practical terms, this antinomy is detrimental in that it prevents not only critical researchers but also ordinary actors from comprehending the degree to which ‘identities, institutions, spaces, or places that might be deemed separate were in fact connected, intertwined, and mutually constituted’.93 One of the key missions of postcolonial theory, then, is to urge, and to help, social scientists in general and sociologists in particular to overcome ‘analytical bifurcations’94—notably those established on the basis of antagonisms such as ‘the West’ vs. ‘the Rest’, ‘North’ vs. ‘South’, ‘core’ vs. ‘periphery’, ‘inside’ vs. ‘outside’, ‘domestic’ vs. ‘foreign’, ‘us’ vs. ‘them’, ‘identity’ vs. ‘difference’, ‘superior’ vs. ‘inferior’, ‘advanced’ vs. ‘backward’, ‘developed’ vs. ‘underdeveloped’, ‘civilized’ vs. ‘uncivilized’. It appears that classical, canonical, and conventional versions of sociology tend to subscribe to ‘the myth of separation, or analytic bifurcation, of spaces and places around the world’.95 Indeed, insofar as they ignore or even ‘suppress the history of colonialism and imperialism’,96 they conceal ‘the West’s entanglements with subject peoples’,97 not only in terms of their unwillingness to commit to shedding light on the mechanisms of their conceptual and empirical marginalization but also in terms of their own—epistemically masked—complicity in contributing to their peripheralization.98 It seems, then, that the ‘founding figures’ of European sociology—that is, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber99—are guilty of failing to conceive of ‘imperialism or colonialism as independent forces in their own right’.100 Consequently, one gets the misleading impression that, in the major works of classical

1  Postcoloniality and Sociology 

15

sociologists, ‘imperialism was treated as an outgrowth of modernity rather than constitutive of it’.101 On this account, imperialism can be interpreted, at best, as an extension or, at worst, as an abnormality of modernity, rather than as an element that has always been essential to its development—if not to its very possibility. Perhaps, it is even more surprising that presumably radical thinkers— whose writings are known for challenging mainstream sociological wisdoms— remain caught up in Eurocentric misrepresentations of reality. For instance, Foucault’s ‘actual historical narratives and genealogies are problematic from the postcolonial standpoint’,102 insofar as ‘his theory arbitrarily cuts “Europe” off from its colonies—as if imperial and colonial history were not also Europe’s history’,103 when, in fact, they have played a pivotal role in its contradiction-­ ridden construction. A connectivist reading of social history, therefore, needs to do justice to the fact that ‘so-called “external” colonies of Britain were not “outside” Britain’104 but that, instead, ‘they were British’.105 In a similar vein, it insists that purportedly ‘external’ colonies of France ‘were not “outside” of France’106 but that, in reality, ‘they were French’.107 Indeed, the whole point of the French state’s attempt to triumph in the Algerian War (1954–1962)108 was ‘to keep Algeria French’,109 rather than letting it embark upon the path of independence. Notwithstanding one’s interpretation of key episodes in precolonial, colonial, and postcolonial history, simplistic binary constructions—regardless of whether they are mobilized on the basis of common-sense assumptions made by laypersons or in the name of scientificity advocated by experts—can hardly provide an appropriate picture of the multifaceted factors and relations shaping connected societies and connected histories. 3. Hegemony In the contemporary social sciences, the power of hegemony has been examined and discussed from different perspectives and in relation to diverse historical contexts. The question of which individual or collective actors have the upper hand in setting behavioural, ideological, and institutional agendas remains a concern of paramount importance in critical sociology. The question of the extent to which sociology has taken, and continues to take, an imperial standpoint—thereby reinforcing, rather than undermining, the hegemony of ‘the West’—remains controversial. Regardless of whether or not one comes to the conclusion that sociology, in one way or another, takes an imperial standpoint, the accusation stands that it is guilty of a substantial degree of complicity in terms of stabilizing, rather than subverting, the hegemonic influence of Western powers across the globe.

16 

S. Susen

Surely, ‘sociology’s metropolitan standpoint’110 can be exposed, and problematized, in numerous ways. Crucial in this respect, however, is a detailed reflection on the epistemological dimensions of such a tacitly or overtly hegemonic posture. From a postcolonial perspective, it is vital to draw attention to three insights: a. that ‘the understanding of the world by far exceeds the Western understanding of the world’,111 implying that symbolically mediated horizons of vocabularies, grammars, and pragmatics must be grasped, and studied, in terms of their particularity, heterogeneity, and irreducibility; b. that ‘there is no global social justice without global cognitive justice’,112 meaning that issues of rightness, fairness, and integrity constitute fundamental aspects of everyday normativity, whose socio-ontological centrality is expressed in the quotidian exchange of value-laden claims to validity; c. that ‘the emancipatory transformations in the world may follow grammars and scripts other than those developed by Western-centric critical theory, and such diversity should be valorized’,113 suggesting that processes of empowerment and mechanisms of disempowerment are embedded in local contexts, whose sociohistorical specificity is irreducible to the overarching logic of species-constitutive universality. Hence, it is essential to uncover the ‘hidden relationship between Orientalist knowledge and imperial power’,114 by conceding that ‘[c]ategories, discourses, and silent assumptions about the Orient were not a sideshow to imperial domination but constitutive of it—part of an entire culture of dominance’.115 In this light, it becomes clear that the very construction of ‘the West’, as a worldwide reference point of seemingly unrivalled significance and influence, would have been inconceivable without the simultaneous fabrication and reification of ‘the Other’, representing a conglomerate of variegated material and symbolic facets that are not only erroneously homogenized by hegemonic epistemologies, but also inferiorized and subjugated by imperial powers. Postcolonial theory, therefore, helps—and urges—sociology to be suspicious of ‘its tendency towards metrocentrism’,116 which is founded on the presupposition that ‘its particular knowledge, rooted in specific understandings of Europe and the rest of the world, is universal’.117 According to this universalist approach, Western sociology has produced, and continues to produce, knowledge that is applicable to non-Western parts of the globe. Owing to its privileged epistemic position, Western sociology appears to be capable of providing cognitive and normative yardsticks that permit it to make claims to validity that possess context-transcending currency. In short, metrocentrism constitutes a hegemonic form of ethnocentric and evolutionist universalism.

1  Postcoloniality and Sociology 

17

Since its institutional beginnings in the nineteenth century, sociology, self-­ defined as a science of the modern (Western) world, has conceptualized modernity endogenously by taking the social norms, structures, and values characterizing the so-called Western societies as a universal parameter for defining what modern societies are and the processes of their emergence as the path to be followed by other, modernizing countries. Thus, under a sociological lens, ‘non-Western societies’ appear as economically, politically and culturally incomplete and lacking in the face of the modern pattern, which is exclusively inferred from ‘Western societies’.118

The aforementioned dichotomy between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’ is converted into a normative antinomy between ‘advanced’ and ‘backward’, thereby establishing a hierarchy between ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ players in the global division of power. The result is the self-legitimizing construction of an imperial(ist) standpoint, whose seizure of epistemic power is reflected in its capacity to exercise hegemonic influence on the production and distribution of knowledge across the globe by inferiorizing, trivializing, marginalizing, or simply ignoring ‘non-Western’ modes of relating and attributing meaning to reality.119 The question remains, then, what role sociology can, or should, play in these local and global struggles for epistemic influence and recognition. In this respect, two (diametrically opposed) options stand out: • ‘Anti-sociology’: This option is motivated by the conviction that we need to reject and to abandon sociology altogether, since, even in its most radical and subversive variants, it cannot emancipate itself from its colonial(ist) and imperial(ist) roots. On this account, the project of sociology is part of ‘the problem for postcolonialism, not part of the solution’.120 Any serious attempt to develop truly postcolonial modes of knowledge production in a postcolonial world needs to step outside the limited horizon of modern science, thereby breaking out of the epistemic straitjackets of mainstream academic disciplines, all of which are tainted by their involvement in the construction of hegemonic—and, hence, exploitative and effectively disempowering—socio-epistemic orders. • ‘Pro-sociology’: This option is based on the contention that we need to defend and to expand sociology, including its sub-fields of inquiry, since— even in its most conservative and complicit variants—it has contributed, and will continue to contribute, to the critical analysis not only of its own colonial(ist) and imperial(ist) roots but also, in a more general sense, of the variegated power relations shaping social reality as a whole. Any serious

18 

S. Susen

attempt to develop truly postcolonial modes of knowledge production in a postcolonial world needs to draw upon the fruitful horizon of modern science, thereby making extensive use of the conceptual and methodological tools developed by different academic disciplines, all of which—at least in principle—possess the capacity to play a beneficial role in the construction of counterhegemonic—and, hence, subversive and potentially empowering—socio-epistemic orders. In brief, we need to face up to the ‘simultaneous indispensability and inadequacy of social science thought’121 if we are prepared to recognize that the postcolonial project finds itself in the paradoxical position of having to draw upon disciplinary knowledge, while having to make an enormous theoretical and practical effort to challenge and, where necessary, to go beyond it.

Notes 1. Go (2013a), p. 3 (italics added). Cf. Go (2016). 2. Go (2013a), p. 3. 3. Ibid., p. 3. 4. Ibid., p. 3. 5. Ibid., p. 3 (italics added). 6. Ibid., p. 3. 7. Ibid., p. 4. 8. Ibid., p. 4. 9. Ibid., p. 4. 10. This view is forcefully expressed in the concepts of ‘neoimperialism’ and ‘neocolonialism’. On the concept of ‘(neo-) imperialism’, see, for instance: Brewer (1990 [1980]); Bush (2006); Etherington (1984); Mommsen (1980 [1977]); Mommsen and Osterhammel (1986); Noonan (2017); Semmel (1993). On the concept of ‘(neo-) colonialism’, see, for instance: Crozier (1964); Jarrett (1996); Ngũgı ̃ (1986); Nkrumah (1965); Sartre (2001 [1964]); Vidyarthi (1988); Woddis (1967). 11. Go (2013a), p. 4. 12. Ibid., p. 4. 13. Ibid., p. 4. 14. Ibid., p. 4 (italics added). 15. Ibid., p. 4. 16. On this point, see, for example: Connell (1997); Giddings (1911); Go (2013b); Steinmetz (2009). See also Go (2013a), p. 4. 17. Go (2013a), p. 4 (italics added).

1  Postcoloniality and Sociology 

19

18. Ibid., p. 4. 19. On this point, see, for instance: Bhambra (2007a); Bhambra (2013); Bhambra (2014a); Bhambra et al. (2014); Brisson (2008); Brisson (2018); Chakrabarty (2003); Connell (2014); Cooper (2005); Dainotto (2007); Decoteau (2013); Go (2013a); Go (2013b); Hoogvelt (2001 [1997]); Kerner (2012); Kerner (2018); Lionnet and Shi (2011); McLennan (2013); Mouzelis (1999); Patel (2014); Persaud and Walker (2015); Santos (2014); Steinmetz (2009); Steinmetz (2013). 20. See Go (2013a), p. 4. See also, for instance: Young (2001); Young (2003); Young (2004 [1990]). Cf. Go (2016), esp. Chapter 1. 21. See, for example, Césaire (1970 [1955]). 22. See, for example, Memmi (2003 [1957]). 23. See, for example, Fanon (2004 [1961]). 24. See, for example, Zephaniah (2001) [see poem entitled ‘Biko The Greatness’]. 25. See, for example, Said (1978). 26. See, for example, Spivak (1988). 27. See, for example, Bhabha (1994). 28. On this point, see Go (2013a), p. 4. 29. For an excellent critique of this project, see, for example, Allen (2016). See also, for instance, Wolff (1994). 30. Go (2013a), p. 5. 31. Ibid., p. 5. 32. On the concepts of ‘the Global North’ and ‘the Global South’, see, for example: Blumberg and Cohn (2016); Chant and McIlwaine (2009); Chant and McIlwaine (2016); Collyer (2018); Collyer et  al. (2018); Confraria et  al. (2017); Farran and Hultin (2016); Green and Luehrmann (2017 [2003]); Hooks (2016); Horner and Nadvi (2018); Jackson et  al. (2016); Mahler (2018); Mayer-Ahuja (2017); Miller (2013); Miraftab and Kudva (2014); Pradella (2017); Rigg (2007); Wieringa and Sívori (2013). 33. Spivak (1990), p. 166 (quotation modified). See also Go (2013a), p. 6. 34. On this point, see Susen (2014c) and Susen (2016c). 35. Go (2013a), p. 6. 36. Ibid., p. 6. 37. Ibid., p. 6. 38. Ibid., p. 6. 39. Young (2003), p.  4 (quotation modified). On this point, see also Go (2013a), p. 6. 40. Go (2013a), p. 6. 41. Ibid., p. 6 (italics added) (quotation modified). 42. On the relationship between postcoloniality and intersectionality, see, for example: Banerjee and Ghosh (2018); Bartels et  al. (2019); Brah and Phoenix (2004); Kerner (2017); Mirza (2009); Mollett (2017); Radcliffe (2015), esp.

20 

S. Susen

chapter entitled ‘Postcolonial Intersectionality and the Colonial Present’; Valkonen and Wallenius-Korkalo (2016); Wallaschek (2015). 43. See, for example: Bhambra (2014c); Gilroy (2002 [1987]); Gilroy (2010); Krishna (2015); Persaud and Walker (2015); Quijano (2010 [2007]); Quijano (2008 [2000]); Saint-Arnaud (2009 [2003]); Stoler (1995). 44. See, for example: Balibar (1982); Bottomore (1991 [1983]); Clark and Lipset (1996); Hall (1977); Lee and Turner (1996); Marshall (1964a [1963]); Quijano (2008 [2000]); Susen (2012a); Waters (1997); Žižek (2000). 45. See, for example: Connell (2007); Connell (2014); Das Nair and Butler (2012); Stoler (1995); Taylor et al. (2011). 46. See, for example: Hartung (2016); Kunow (2016); Küpper (2016); Marshall (2007); van Dyk (2016); van Dyk and Küpper (2016); Zimmermann (2016). 47. See, for example: Campbell (2008); El-Lahib (2015); Loja et  al. (2013); Oliver (2013); Tyler (2015); Wolbring (2008). 48. Go (2013a), p. 6 (punctuation modified). 49. Ibid., p. 7. 50. On this point, see, for instance: Bhambra (2007a); Bhambra (2013); Bhambra (2014a); Bhambra et al. (2014); Brisson (2008); Brisson (2018); Chakrabarty (2003); Connell (2014); Cooper (2005); Dainotto (2007); Decoteau (2013); Go (2013a); Go (2013b); Hoogvelt (2001 [1997]); Kerner (2012); Kerner (2018); Lionnet and Shi (2011); McLennan (2013); Mouzelis (1999); Patel (2014); Persaud and Walker (2015); Santos (2014); Steinmetz (2009); Steinmetz (2013). 51. On modernization theory, see, for example: Abbott (2011 [1983]); Abraham (1980); Attir et al. (1981); Beck et al. (1994); Billet (1993); Fourie (2012); Lummis (1972); So (1990); Willis (2011 [2005]). 52. Go (2013a), p. 8. Cf. Susen (2015a), Chapter 4. 53. Go (2013a), p. 8 (quotation modified). 54. Ibid., p. 8. 55. On dependency theory, see, for example: Chilcote and Johnson (1983); Ghosh (2000); Larrain (1989); Menzel (1992); Nohlen (2002 [1984]); Seers (1981b); Seers (1981a); Senghaas (1974); So (1990). On world-systems theory, see, for example: Arrighi et  al. (1989); Babones and Chase-Dunn (2012); Hopkins and Wallerstein (1996); Kardulias (1999); So (1990); Tétreault and Abel (1986); Wallerstein (1974); Wallerstein (1980); Wallerstein (1983); Wallerstein (1989); Wallerstein (1999); Wallerstein (2004a); Wallerstein (2011b); Wallerstein (2015); Wallerstein et al. (2012). 56. Go (2013a), p. 8 (punctuation modified). 57. Ibid., pp. 8–9. 58. Said (2000), p.  210 (quotation modified). On this point, see also Go (2013a), p. 8. 59. Go (2013a), p. 9 (punctuation modified).

1  Postcoloniality and Sociology 

21

60. Ibid., p. 10. 61. Ibid., p. 10 (italics added). 62. On the concept of ‘global sociology’, see, for instance: Bhambra (2013); Bhambra (2014a); Bhambra (2014b); Bhambra (2015); Hoogvelt (2001 [1997]); Patel (2014); Persaud and Walker (2015). 63. For a useful summary of these three points, see Go (2013a), pp. 3 and 10. 64. On this point, see, for instance: Susen (2009b), pp. 104–105; Susen (2010c), pp.  112–113; Susen (2013f ), pp.  326 and 330–331; Susen (2015c), pp.  1027–1028; Susen (2015a), pp.  13, 105, 215, 219, 234, 236, 259, and 275. 65. On the concept of ‘agency’ in modern social and political thought, see, for example: Archer (1988); Archer (1990); Archer (2000); Archer (2003); Baber (1991); Bohman (1997); Bohman (1999); Dépelteau (2008); Elbasha and Wright (2017); Elder-Vass (2008); Elder-Vass (2010); Emirbayer and Mische (1998); Gell (1998); Hartmann (1985); Holland et  al. (2001 [1998]); King (2009); Las Heras (2018); Lovell (2003); Martin and Dennis (2010); Imbroscio (1999); Lakomski (1984); O’Donnell (2010a); O’Donnell (2010b); Olsson (2016); Outhwaite (1990); Rubinstein (2001); Sewell (1992); Shilling (1992); Smith (2001); Sztompka (2015 [1994]); Varela (1999); Walsh (1998); Wharton (1991). 66. Go (2013a), p. 10 (punctuation modified). 67. Ibid., p. 10. On this point, see also Spivak (1988). Cf. Go (2016), pp. 7, 11, 45–47, 59–65, 77, 93, 123, and 140; in addition, cf. ibid., Chapter 4. 68. See Go (2013a), p. 10. On this point, see also Spivak (1988). 69. Go (2013a), p. 10 (italics in original). 70. Ibid., p. 10. 71. Ibid., p. 10. 72. Ibid., p. 11. On this point, see also Ashcroft et al. (2002 [1989]). 73. On this point, see Susen (2015a), Chapter 4, esp. p. 155. 74. Guha (1984b), p. vii. On this point, see also Go (2013a), p. 11. 75. Guha (1988), p. 39 (italics in original). On this point, see also Go (2013a), p. 11. (In Go’s article, this passage is slightly misquoted.) 76. Chakrabarty (2002), p. 8. On this point, see also Go (2013a), p. 11. 77. Go (2013a), p. 11 (punctuation modified). 78. Ibid., p. 12 (italics in original). 79. On this point, see Spivak (1988). 80. Go (2013a), p. 12. On this point, see also Bhabha (1994), pp. 85–92. 81. Go (2013a), p. 12. 82. Ibid., p. 13. 83. On this point, see ibid., p. 13. Cf. Go and Watson (2019). 84. See, for example: Dubois (2004); James (1980 [1938]); Magubane (2005). 85. See, for example: Cobban (1968); Cobban (1999 [1964]); Kuhn (2013 [1999]); Lefebvre (2005 [1939/1947]); Soboul (1974 [1962]).

22 

S. Susen

86. On this point, see, for example: Armitage (2007); Brisson (2018); Bush (2006); Chakrabarty (2000); Chakrabarty (2003); Chatterjee (1993); Go (2013a), esp. p. 13; Moraña et al. (2008); Skocpol (1979). 87. Go (2013a), p. 14 (italics added). 88. On this point, see Chaps. 3 and 4. See also, for example: Bhambra (2007a); Bhambra (2013); Bhambra (2014a); Fanon (2004 [1961]); Memmi (2003 [1957]). 89. Go (2013a), p. 15. 90. On this point, see Jenks (1998). 91. On this point, see, for example, Susen (2007), esp. pp. 18 and 149. 92. Bourdieu (1990 [1980]), p.  25. See also original publication: Bourdieu (1980a), p. 43: ‘De toutes les oppositions qui divisent artificiellement la science sociale, la plus fondamentale, et la plus ruineuse, est celle qui s’établit entre le subjectivisme et l’objectivisme’. On this point, see also, for example: Mouzelis (2000); Susen (2007), pp. 149–157 and 239–240; Susen (2011a), pp.  456–458; Susen (2011c), pp.  368, 374, and 394; Susen (2011e), pp. 51–53 and 73–74; Susen (2014d), pp. 679, 690, and 763n569; Susen (2016a), pp. 45–47 and 104; Susen (2017a), pp. 139–141 and 146. 93. Go (2013a), p. 15 (italics added). 94. Ibid., pp. 3, 10, 14, 15, 17, 22, and 23. On this point, see also Go (2013c). 95. Go (2013a), p. 15. 96. Ibid., p. 15. 97. Ibid., p. 15. 98. On this point, see also, for example: Bhambra (2007a); Bhambra (2013); Bhambra (2014a); Bhambra (2015); Bhambra et al. (2014); Boatcă (2013); Boatcă and Costa (2010); Boatcă et al. (2010). 99. See, for example: Craib (1997); Giddens (1996 [1971]); Hawthorn (1987 [1976]); Morrison (2006 [1995]); Sayer (1991). See also Susen (2015a), pp. 11, 12, 236, and 248. In addition, see Susen and Turner (2011a). 100. Go (2013a), p. 15. On this point, see Seidman (2013). 101. Go (2013a), p. 15 (italics added). On this point, see also Go (2013b). 102. Go (2013a), p. 15. On this point, see also Stoler (1995). Cf. Foucault (1978 [1976]), Foucault (1979 [1975]), Foucault (1980), Foucault (1988), Foucault (1988 [1984]), Foucault (1997 [1984]), Foucault (2001 [1961]), Foucault (2002 [1966]), and Foucault (2002 [1969]). 103. Go (2013a), p. 16 (italics in original). 104. Ibid., p. 17. 105. Ibid., p. 17 (italics in original). 106. Ibid., p. 17. 107. Ibid., p. 17 (italics in original). 108. See, for example: Alexander et  al. (2002); Alexander and Keiger (2002); Windrow (1997). 109. See Go (2013a), p. 17.

1  Postcoloniality and Sociology 

23

110. Ibid., p. 18 (italics added). 111. Santos (2014), p. viii (italics added). 112. Ibid., p. viii (italics added). 113. Ibid., p. viii (italics added). 114. Go (2013a), p. 18. 115. Ibid., p. 18 (italics added). 116. Ibid., p. 19 (italics in original) (quotation modified). Cf. Go (2014), esp. pp. 178–180, 185, and 194–197. See ibid., p. 197n2: ‘The term “metrocentric” traditionally refers to urban-centered thinking, but I adopt it from recent leads in postcolonial theory within geography studies […] to refer to “metropole”-centered thinking (as in metropole vs. satellite): any form of thought (Eurocentric, Anglo-centric, Asian-centric) that analytically privileges one bounded localized space over another (where that space is typically national but also can be regional, as in “European”)’. On the use of postcolonial theory within geography studies, see Boyle and Kobayashi (2011). 117. Go (2013a), p. 19 (italics added). 118. Boatcă et al. (2010), p. 1 (italics added, with the exception of the definite article ‘the’, which appears in italics in the original version). 119. On this point, see, for instance: Connell (1997); Connell (2007); Santos (2014). 120. McLennan (2003), p.  72 (italics in original). On this point, see also Go (2013a), p. 20. In addition, see Shohat and Stam (1994). 121. Chakrabarty (2000), p. 6. On this point, see also Go (2013a), p. 21. In addition, see Chakrabarty (2002) and Chakrabarty (2003).

2 Postcoloniality and Decoloniality

In recent decades, the concepts of ‘postcoloniality’ and ‘decoloniality’ have received an increasing amount of attention in the humanities and social sciences. These concepts occupy a central place in postcolonial studies and, more recently, in decolonial studies. Notwithstanding the fundamental differences between them, all postcolonial and decolonial perspectives are unified by the ambition to pose a serious ‘challenge to the insularity of historical narratives and historiographical traditions emanating from Europe’,1 by exposing and problematizing ‘the parochial character of arguments about the endogenous European origins of modernity’.2 When seeking to grasp the intricacies of ‘our global (postcolonial) age’,3 both postcolonial and decolonial frameworks offer a number of key insights. An obvious difference between these two currents of thought concerns their spatiotemporal situatedness. Postcolonial studies have been profoundly shaped by ‘diasporic scholars from the Middle East and South Asia’,4 acting as ‘imperial interlocutors’5 between ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ countries and regions, especially in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Decolonial studies, by contrast, have been developed, first and foremost, by ‘diasporic scholars from South America’,6 focusing on the historical development of the American continent from the fifteenth century to the present. The challenge, then, consists in bringing the ‘intellectual and material histories’7 of these two research traditions closer together. The purpose of this undertaking is not only to identify their main points of convergence and divergence but also, more importantly, to demonstrate that valuable insights can be obtained from combining and cross-fertilizing them.

© The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_2

25

26 

S. Susen

1. Postcolonial Studies Among the most influential scholars who have made major intellectual contributions to the field of postcolonial studies are Edward Said (1935–2003),8 Gayatri Spivak (1942–),9 Homi K. Bhabha (1949–),10 Raewyn Connell (1944–),11 and Boaventura de Sousa Santos12 (1940–). Hence, it is worth considering some of the main aspects of their works. a. Edward Said Edward Said’s Orientalism13 (1978) is one of the most widely cited books in the contemporary humanities and social sciences. In the UK, Said’s writings14 have obtained paradigmatic status—above all, in terms of their capacity to set the agenda in cultural studies, especially in the context of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham.15 Interestingly, postcolonial theory has played a pivotal role in shaping research programmes in the humanities, whereas it has occupied a rather marginal position in the social sciences. The Orient/Occident divide epitomizes both a conceptual and an empirical bifurcation permeating both the imaginary and the factual organization of the modern world. A significant consequence of this—arguably artificial—‘double-displacement’16 was that it ‘removed the “other” from the production of an effective history of modernity’.17 To put it bluntly, ‘[h]istory became the product of the West in its actions upon others’,18 thereby converting itself into the ultimate ideological and geographical reference point of social, cultural, political, economic, military, technological, and scientific—in short, civilizational—developments, irrespective of their typological specificity and spatiotemporal situatedness. Not only in academic accounts, provided and presumably substantiated by researchers and experts, but also in everyday narratives, constructed and adhered to by ordinary people, the West’s hegemonic position in the world, based on its material and symbolic ‘domination of the “other”’,19 tends to be both ‘naturalized and justified’,20 thereby making it appear as an unavoidable fact, whose ontological preponderance cannot be seriously challenged by anyone with a commitment to realism and common sense. Whereas ‘the Occident’ is represented as active and domineering, ‘the Orient’ is portrayed as ‘passive and docile’.21 Yet, ‘Orientalism’ is, of course, problematic for numerous reasons, two of which are—from a politico-epistemological perspective—particularly important: first, those subscribing to its underlying presuppositions ‘got things wrong because there was no Orient to depict’22 in the first place; second, those endorsing its worldview provide a ‘misrepresentation’23 of ‘the

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

27

Orient’, based on misconceptions of ‘non-Western’ societies and, ultimately, of ‘the West’ itself. Rather than taking for granted that ‘the Occident’ and ‘the Orient’ actually exist as two separate—perhaps even diametrically opposed—historical conglomerates, a genuinely global sociology needs to shed light on the extent to which they are, at multiple levels, ‘historically and empirically interconnected’.24 Instead of distorting the picture in such a way that ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’ appear as ‘two disparate, unconnected entities’,25 it is vital to advocate ‘notions of intertwined histories and overlapping territories’.26 In dominant discourses, ‘the Occident’ tends to be characterized as ‘universal’, ‘dynamic’, and ‘advanced’, whereas ‘the Orient’ tends to be described as ‘particular’, ‘stagnant’, and ‘backward’. Challenging the validity of this categorical opposition, connectivist approaches insist that these two putatively separate entities—frequently referred to as ‘civilizations’27—cannot be understood in isolation from one another, since they are deeply interlinked and bound up with each other. In this sense, postcolonial critique forms part of a wider ‘struggle over historical and social meaning’,28 reminding us of the fact that, in a world shaped by hegemonic forces, genuine anti-power is inconceivable without ‘subversive resignification’29 and, hence, constant renormalization.30 b. Gayatri Spivak Gayatri Spivak’s essay ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’31 (1988) has been so influential that it can be described as a text that has acquired canonical status in postcolonial studies and beyond. The ‘postcolonial critic’32 needs to accept that, as long as we—not only as social researchers but also as ordinary actors— fail to subvert, let alone to transcend, ‘the dominant discourses by way of which we attempt to make sense of the worlds we inhabit’,33 we will fall short of ‘reversing, displacing, and seizing the apparatus of value-coding’34 designed to reinforce the status quo. Spivak’s English translation of Jacques Derrida’s De la grammatologie35 (1967), published as Of Grammatology36 (1976 [1967]), contains a telling preface, written by the translator herself, which illustrates why, for some scholars, postcolonialism and poststructuralism are inextricably linked. One of the key missions that these two currents of inquiry have in common is what is generally known as ‘the decentering of the subject’.37 In both traditions of thought, it is imperative to consider ‘Western efforts [and failures] to problematize the subject’,38 as well as, more specifically, to call into question ‘how the Third-World subject is represented [and misrepresented] in Western discourse’.39 In fact, to the extent that the subaltern subject is both theoretically

28 

S. Susen

and practically deprived of possessing the integral qualities of the Western subject, the former is effectively dehumanized by the latter. Seeking to find a satisfying answer to the question of whether or not the subaltern can speak (and, as one may add, speak for itself and on its own behalf),40 Spivak’s analysis—especially with regard to its gender-specific elements—is not imbued with a high degree of optimism. The fact that, at the beginning of her essay, she acknowledges that ‘[t]he original title of this paper was “Power, Desire, Interest”’41 is indicative of her ambition to cross-fertilize Foucauldian (‘power’), Deleuzian (‘desire’), and Marxist (‘interest’) concerns. When exploring how ‘the Third-World subject is represented within Western discourse’,42 it becomes difficult to ignore the fact that European intellectuals—including those who are, or claim to be, critical of mainstream canons of social and political thought—tend to remain trapped in the ethnocentric straitjacket of Orientalist discourses. ‘Western intellectual production is, in many ways, complicit with Western international economic interests’,43 suggesting that the former effectively contributes to defending and reinforcing the global preponderance of the latter. Some of the most radical criticism coming out of the West today is the result of an interested desire to conserve the subject of the West, or the West as Subject. The theory of pluralized ‘subject-effects’ gives an illusion of undermining subjective sovereignty while often providing a cover for this subject of knowledge.44

On this account, socio-constructivist attempts to decentre, to dissolve, or to get rid of the concept of ‘the subject’ have drawn attention to the enduring presence of various ‘-isms’—such as anthropocentrism, ethnocentrism, rationalism, and transcendentalism—in contemporary intellectual discourses. Ironically, then, it appears that ‘[t]he much-publicized critique of the sovereign subject […] actually inaugurates a Subject’,45 thereby converting it into the ultimate reference point of philosophical inquiry and, at the same time, into the ontological cornerstone of social reality. Consequently, ‘the question of ideology and [one’s] own implication in intellectual and economic history’46 is relegated to the margins of intellectual contemplation, with ‘the subaltern’ being rendered both voiceless and speechless, as it is degraded to a sub-ontological category that does not merit to occupy a central, if any, place in the universalist cosmology of Western social and political thought. Indeed, ‘“colour” [has become] useless as an emancipatory signifier’47—and so have ‘class’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘gender’, ‘age’, and ‘ability’. As a result, the concept of ‘the Subject’ is elevated to an abstract category referring to a disembodied entity capable of transcending both the positional and the dispositional determinacy

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

29

of human agency. Under scholastic conditions of self-referential immanence, it seems that, owing to its systematic exclusion from and misrecognition by Western agendas of ‘subject creation’, ‘[t]he subaltern cannot speak’.48 To the extent that we, both as ordinary actors and as researchers, remain caught up in ‘a self-contained version of the West’,49 we tend ‘to ignore its production by the imperialist project’.50 In other words, it is not enough to problematize, and to expose, hegemonic modes of knowledge production, distribution, exchange, and consumption. It is essential to step outside the hegemonic parameters of validity that serve to legitimize the behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns of functioning prevalent in a given society. Imperialism has many different faces: economic, political, cultural, epistemic, ideological, linguistic, military, territorial, and demographic—to mention only its most significant variants. Similarly, violence has many different faces: physical, psychological, structural, and symbolic—again, to mention only its most noteworthy variants.51 While different forms of imperialism draw upon, and promote, different forms of violence, the former cannot be sustained without access to the latter. A subject’s interest in pursuing desire and desire to pursue interests are integral to the purposive organization of social life: • Interest may be conceived of as ‘the “external” basis for the formation of subjects’,52 insofar as it is built into the positional structures within which human actors function. • Desire can be interpreted as ‘the subject’s internal mode of self-formation’,53 insofar as it pervades the dispositional resources through which human actors operate. These two concepts, however, can also be understood as follows: • Interest may be regarded as the internal basis for the formation of subjects, insofar as it permeates the dispositional—and, hence, motivational—configurations shaping human intentions, decisions, and actions.54 • Desire can be conceived of as the subject’s external mode of self-formation, insofar as it is stimulated by positional—and, thus, compositional— arrangements influencing human objectives, choices, and performances.55 Irrespective of how we seek to make sense of the role played by ‘interest’ and ‘desire’ in human life forms, both of them can be pursued either consciously or unconsciously. To the degree that social life is driven by practical imperatives and social actions tend to be performed in an intuitive manner,

30 

S. Susen

human subjects pursue their interests and desires in a largely unconscious fashion. To be clear, this is not to contend that there is no room for conceptually sophisticated reflexivity in the quotidian construction of social reality; rather, this is to accept the preponderance of our sens pratique over our sens théorique in everyday life.56 The normalizing force inherent in habitualized and ritualized performances manifests itself in the emergence of relatively solidified patterns of action and reflection. The engagement with subaltern studies compels us ‘to recognize the heterogeneity of the colonized subaltern subject’,57 indicating that the critical inquiry into ‘subalterneity’58 requires an epistemic sensitivity capable of doing justice to the historical conditions under which individual and collective actors can be forced into a position of social marginality. c. Homi K. Bhabha Homi K. Bhabha’s The Location of Culture59 (1994) is a powerful plea for a global historical perspective that insists that postcolonial theory—far from being reducible to a tribalist intellectual project that seeks to establish ‘separatist trajectories or parallel interpretations’60—constitutes a sustained and systematic ‘attempt to interrupt the Western discourses of modernity through […] displacing, interrogative subaltern or postslavery narratives and the critical-­theoretical perspectives they engender’.61 On this view, it is vital to revise dominant narratives of modernity in a radical fashion, thereby ‘re-­ inscribing “other” cultural traditions’62 into hegemonic ones. Modernity, on this account, cannot be dissociated from ‘the historical construction of a specific position of historical enunciation’63—that is, it needs to be understood not only in relation to the spatiotemporal contexts in which it unfolds, but also in relation to the spatiotemporal contexts in which it is narrated, interpreted, and represented. Bhabha employs the concept of the ‘Third Space’64 to refer to a social realm that emerges, and develops, when two or more culturally divergent actors engage in materially anchored and symbolically mediated forms of interaction. The emancipatory potential of such a ‘Third Space’ is that, according to Bhabha, it ‘challenges our sense of the historical identity of culture as a homogenizing, unifying force, authenticated by the originary past, kept alive in the national tradition of the People’.65 Put differently, when individual or collective actors find themselves immersed in such a ‘Third Space’, they are obliged to call the underlying parameters of their seemingly ‘intra’-culturally shared rules and conventions into question. Such an interactional—and, in many ways, transactional—process illustrates that cultures are in a constant state of flux.

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

31

Therefore, any attempt to capture an alleged ‘cultural essence’ in terms of ‘purity’, ‘originality’, ‘authenticity’, or even ‘fixity’ is futile. More specifically, ‘the disruptive temporality of enunciation displaces the narrative of the Western nation […] as being written in homogeneous, serial time’.66 For human subjects articulate their cultural identities by constantly renegotiating, reassembling, redefining, and re-enacting who they are and to whom they belong (or, more precisely, who they think they are and to whom they think they belong). To the degree that ‘all cultural statements and systems are constructed in this contradictory and ambivalent space of enunciation’,67 it is pointless—and politically retrograde—to embark on a search for human practices and social structures that escape the subtle or overt presence of hybridity, which is continually being shaped and reshaped by ‘a “fluctuating movement” of occult instability’68 and which is built into all relationally constituted realities. It is the task of postcolonial theory to expose the Eurocentrism that pervades even seemingly radical—such as Marxist, Foucauldian, feminist, and poststructuralist—accounts of modernity. Racialized conceptions of ‘the subject’ are part and parcel of modernity. Hence, ‘the desire of the colonized to be identified as Man, that is, as universal’,69 is one of the most perverse expressions of the project of modernity. As long as ‘non-whites’ are not regarded as fully fledged members of society, who—as subjects capable of speech and action—are entitled to participate in democratic processes of deliberation and decision-making, they are effectively put in a sub-citizen—if not sub-­ human—category of ‘racialized categorization’,70 marginalization, and inferiorization. d. Raewyn Connell Raewyn Connell, notably in her book Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science71 (2007), launches a profound attack on mainstream intellectual thought. In essence, she contends that ‘sociology and general theorizing in the Global North must unreservedly open itself up to “Southern theory”’.72 The primary reason for this plea is that, historically speaking, sociology came into existence in, and was profoundly influenced by, the ‘culture of imperialism’73 that dominated Western Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Indeed, the ‘founding figures’ of the sociological project—on the German-­ speaking side, Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Georg Simmel, as well as, on the French-speaking side, Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim—represented ‘the “specific cultural milieux” of the white male metropolitan liberal

32 

S. Susen

bourgeoisie’.74 In light of their culturally and educationally privileged position in society, they all fall into the category of the ‘white-theory-boys syndrome’75 and, as such, tend to subscribe to a Western-centric teleological conception of history. Their ‘“grand ethnographies” of social progress’76 are based on a normative conceptual hierarchy, according to which Western societies can be regarded as ‘advanced’, ‘dynamic’, and ‘progressive’, whereas nonWestern societies can be considered ‘underdeveloped’, ‘stagnant’, and ‘backward’. The corresponding distinction between ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’ follows an evolutionist narrative, suggesting that the world is divided into ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ life forms and that, as illustrated in the history of colonialism, the former tend to exercise control over the latter. One of the main problems arising from this evolutionist ethnocentrism is that its one-sided focus on modernist analytical concerns—such as ‘progress’, ‘integration’, ‘wealth creation’, ‘expansion’, and ‘dynamism’—prevents its advocates from providing an in-depth account of the human consequences of ‘the destruction of social relations, the discontinuity of institutions, and dispossession’,77 as they have been, and continue to be, experienced across the world. In order to overcome this noteworthy limitation, sociology needs to undertake a major ‘corrective step’,78 which, far from serving a merely cosmetic function, poses a radical challenge to conventional social and political research patterns. This can be achieved by drawing attention to ‘the voices and arguments of thinkers of the Global South’,79 insisting that they have generated intellectually insightful ‘ideas in their own right’,80 which—owing to their originality, perspicacity, and context-specific sensitivity—deserve to be taken seriously and constitute a fundamental part of a ‘more inclusive social theory’.81 Different social theories place different degrees of emphasis on different dimensions of modernity: ‘capitalism, industrialism, surveillance, and territorially organized military violence’82—or, alternatively, citizenship, the public sphere, communicative rationality, and democracy.83 According to Connell, however, one finds little in the way of a substantial engagement with non-­ Western contexts in the works of both classical and contemporary mainstream sociologists. Her own ‘engagement with Indian and Latin American writings, which frequently represent long-standing syntheses between Gramscian neo-­ Marxism, dependency theory, and Freirean liberation educationalism’,84 opens up new horizons—not only because it is ‘laudably pluralistic’85 but also because it contributes, at least in principle, to a less ethnocentric and more global, and hence more inclusive, social theory, inviting us to go beyond the ‘standpoint of the metropole’86 by cultivating the anti-parochial perspective of the world citizen.

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

33

e. Boaventura de Sousa Santos Boaventura de Sousa Santos, especially in his study Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide87 (2014), defends the view that both ‘another production and another knowledge are possible’,88 insofar as actors, shaping social and ideological developments at different geographical levels, are prepared to go ‘beyond Northern epistemologies’.89 On this account, critical sociologists must not shy away from the fact ‘that “epistemicide is the dark side of the triumph of science” and the intellectual accompaniment to genocide’.90 If this is correct, then struggles for social justice and struggles for cognitive justice have to go hand in hand, implying that—both at the local level and at the global level—it is impossible to enjoy one without the other. It is imperative to uncover the pathological social constellations generated by the systematic imposition of a ‘monoculture of knowledge’,91 in order to account for the diversity of interconnected life forms and constantly shifting realities. To the extent that mainstream approaches in the social sciences are ‘racialized’,92 however, they are guilty of reproducing ethnocentrically defined hierarchies, which are based on colonial orders of worth, value, and appreciation. Indeed, the construction of classical and conventional social theories is inextricably linked to ‘the domestication of three resident subordinate figures—nature, the savage, and the woman’93—whose ‘limitations are only fully visible “from the margins”’,94 that is, from the perspective of those who live on the fringes of their local societies and, more significantly, on the periphery of global society. For Santos, there is no human emancipation unless those who advocate and pursue individual and collective forms of empowerment are willing to transcend the ‘inertia of disciplinarity’,95 by endorsing social practices oriented towards, and inspired by, ‘intercultural translation’.96 By definition, such an endeavour needs to overcome the limitations of ethnocentric boundaries, irrespective of whether they are reinforced by hegemonic or counterhegemonic actors. Critical social scientists have a particular responsibility in exposing and challenging ‘Eurocentric concepts and concerns’,97 since they have access to a large variety of conceptual and methodological tools, as well as to historical and empirical data, which are not necessarily available to laypersons. What needs to be challenged, then, is ‘lazy reason’,98 which pervades large parts of mainstream modes of knowledge production. Indeed, it is not only the production but also the classification, distribution, circulation, interpretation, and commodification of knowledge which are colonized by the constraining parameters of ‘lazy reason’. By virtue of three key ‘sociological procedures’,99 however, the predominance of this ‘toxic’ variant of reason can be held to account:

34 

S. Susen

1. The sociology of absences seeks to draw attention to the ‘rich diversity of knowledges in the world’,100 whose plurality and particularity have been systematically annihilated by the alleged singularity and universality of Western European modernity. 2. The sociology of emergences sets itself the task of scrutinizing the sociohistorical conditions under which the creativity and insightfulness, as well as the abundance and multiplicity, of culturally specific imaginings and imaginaries come into existence and have a tangible impact upon the development of social realities. 3. The work of translation is indispensable to conducting both the sociology of absences and the sociology of emergences in a fruitful manner. The Blochian moment of the ‘not-yet’101 may be built into social practices, even into those that are colonized by mechanisms of power and domination. A substantial amount of translation work needs to be accomplished, if the specificity and incommensurability of local realities are to be deciphered and grasped without imposing the normative standards of an external vantage point and without mobilizing the distortive resources of a hegemonic ideology. The following four—erroneous—presuppositions undergird the construction of ‘lazy reason’: 1. To the degree that, in the social world, everything is external, human actors are ultimately impotent when faced with the preponderance of the reality by which they are surrounded. 2. To the degree that, in the social world, everything is contingent upon choice and decision-making processes, human actors have unconditional subjective freedom—a belief that is symptomatic of our anthropocentric arrogance as a species. 3. To the degree that, in the social world, every interactional order is equivalent to a functional totality and, furthermore, to the degree that the whole, which is only ever one entity, is greater than the sum of its parts, human actors can rely upon a kind of metonymic rationality, which elevates them above other entities. 4. To the degree that, in the social world, future events and developments can be predicted, human actors can embrace the power of proleptic reason, which dominates their appreciation of the present.102 An emancipatory sociology needs to demonstrate that the previous assumptions are flawed. Indeed, one of the main objectives of such an alternative project—which is committed to exposing noticeable absences and significant

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

35

emergences, while taking on the task of intercultural translation—is ‘to encourage rather than [to] repress contextually specific expressions of social possibility’.103 Such a radical endeavour aims to contribute to the empowerment of both individual and collective actors, navigating their way through the social world and seeking to cope with the challenges, tensions, and contradictions they encounter in their everyday lives. 2. Decolonial Studies Among the most influential scholars who have made major intellectual contributions to the field of decolonial studies are Aníbal Quijano (1928–2018),104 Walter D. Mignolo (1941–),105 and María Lugones (1944–).106 Thus, it is worth reflecting upon key aspects of their works. a. Aníbal Quijano In his writings, Aníbal Quijano is particularly concerned with the nexus between coloniality and modernity.107 In his view, these two historical conditions are inextricably linked. Put differently, modernity is an integral element of coloniality, just as coloniality is a crucial component of modernity. Owing to their ontological intertwinement, these two macrohistorical constellations have shaped one another to a significant degree. Indeed, ‘those other cultures’108—that is, seemingly non-European life forms—‘constitute the ground of European self-realization (in both senses)’,109 insofar as the former have been essential to the civilizational development of the latter. Mainstream narratives of modern history, however, tend to focus on Europe, portraying it as the civilizational epicentre of events. The epistemic significance of this ethnocentric mind-set is illustrated in the fact that, notably in Western countries, ‘most discussions of Europe are oriented towards endogenous explanations of who Europeans are and what Europe is’.110 Yet, contrary to the underlying assumptions of these ethnocentric debates, the two historical conditions of modernity and coloniality are ‘impossible to separate’.111 Most modern ideologies—notably those of political nature—‘embrace the idea of “totality”’,112 in the sense that they are based on metanarratives by means of which they purport to explain both the constitution and the development of social reality in terms of its entirety.113 Along with this pursuit of totality goes a claim to universality. Modern ideologies, insofar as they are founded on metanarratives, give the misleading impression that their validity, legitimacy, and applicability may transcend the spatiotemporally limited horizon of their own history.

36 

S. Susen

According to Quijano, there is no genuine ‘epistemological decolonization’ without ‘intercultural communication’.114 The latter is a precondition for the former, because the dissolution of power structures, which are symbolically mediated and materially situated, is inconceivable without dialogical practices oriented towards mutual understanding, which may—and often must— involve the crossing of cultural and ideological boundaries. Just as it is vital to conceive of ‘modernity and colonialism as co-constitutive’,115 it is imperative to acknowledge that the ‘unfinished project of modernity’116 cannot be dissociated from the ‘unfinished project of decolonization’.117 If ‘a new principle of nonhomogeneity’118 can be converted into the normative cornerstone of a global sociology, then subaltern—and, indeed, ‘subalternized’119—groups have to be recognized in terms of their sociocultural particularity, which is irreducible to the presumed logic of universality. By definition, human life forms, although they may share a number of cross-culturally equivalent features, are sociohistorically specific and spatiotemporally contingent. The condition of decoloniality epitomizes the irreducibility permeating every society. According to Quijano’s account, the power matrix that exists around the modern/colonial connection contains four major—interrelated— 120 dimensions : 1. the control of symbolic, material, and territorial resources—especially those derived from labour; 2. the control of structures of social authority, exercised by those in privileged positions—such as viceroyalties, the colonial class, and advantaged (local) members of society; 3. the control of sexuality, expressed in the regulation of gender-specific norms and practices—for instance, through the imposition of religious value systems; 4. the shaping of dominated and subaltern subjectivities, based on Eurocentric notions of ‘cultural superiority’ and ‘racial supremacy’ attached to colonizing forces and, correspondingly, on notions of ‘cultural inferiority’ and ‘racial subordination’ ascribed to colonized people, involving the self-­ ­ glorification and self-valorization of the former and the self-­ stigmatization—if not the de- and/or sub-humanization—of the latter.121 Decolonial struggles expose the ‘coloniality of power’122 by challenging the social, political, cultural, and ‘racial’ hierarchies that, in the context of modernity, imperial states have succeeded in imposing on conquered populations and, crucially, on their territories. The power matrix of both colonialism and neocolonialism is sustained by global systems of domination, capable of

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

37

giving modern imperialism the appearance of inevitability. It is the task of decolonial struggles to uncover its fragility by drawing attention to its arbitrary nature and, hence, its historicity. b. Walter D. Mignolo Walter D. Mignolo can be regarded as one of the most influential and prolific representatives of decolonial studies.123 In essence, he conceives of ‘colonialism as the precondition for the development of (ideas of ) modernity’.124 On his account, genuine decolonization cannot be limited to its social, political, cultural, economic, and/or territorial aspects but must include ‘epistemic decolonization’.125 Such a ‘decolonization of knowledge’126 is central to any serious attempt to expose Eurocentric (mis-) representations of ‘modern’ history. The writings of the ‘earlier’ Mignolo are marked by a concern with the politics of diversality, focusing on spaces of ‘colonial encounters’,127 whose normativity needs to be questioned by virtue of critical rationality. The writings of the ‘later’ Mignolo, by contrast, are characterized by a concern with the politics of pluriversality, epitomized in the ‘epistemological project of de-linking’.128 Thus, the trajectory of his work entails a decisive ‘decolonial epistemic shift’,129 which is motivated by the ambition to develop a ‘connected history of encounters’.130 Viewed in this—arguably connectivist—light, it becomes evident that, from the very beginning, the so-called ‘rise of modernity’ has been both conceptually and empirically constructed ‘in the context of an “other” against which it was (silently) juxtaposed’.131 Therefore, the normative task of Mignolo’s methodological strategy—which is summarized in the concept of de-linking—is to de-essentialize, to de-naturalize, and to de-ontologize the hegemony, and the apparent self-sufficiency, of European modernity. In other words, a key objective of decolonial studies is to deconstruct the myth of Western civilizational supremacy. The plea for pluriversality, then, is founded on the conviction that ‘each local history and its narrative of decolonization can connect through that common experience and use it as the basis for a new common logic of knowing’.132 Viewed from this perspective, the emergence of new epistemologies cannot be emancipatory unless they are constructed on the basis of intercultural dialogue, oriented towards the exploration of common ground derived from similar—if not shared—experiences. Hence, ‘dewesternization’133 permits critical actors, irrespective of the multiple positions they occupy in the social space, ‘to reject the (self-proclaimed) epistemic superiority of the West’.134 To the extent that ‘the regeneration of life [can] prevail over [the] primacy of

38 

S. Susen

recycling the production and reproduction of goods at the cost of the regeneration of life’,135 the value rationality (Wertrationalität) of communicatively structured lifeworlds can triumph over the instrumental rationality (Zweckrationalität) of utility-driven social systems. In this sense, ‘breaking “the Western code” of modernity/coloniality’136 requires the capacity to imagine the possibility of a reality beyond the limited horizon of normative parameters dictated by the hegemonic powers of contemporary history. The ‘colonial matrix of power’137 is precisely that: a colonial matrix of power. As such, it can be decolonized, and those who have been disempowered by it can be re-empowered. Within the colonial matrix of power, pretentious claims to universality may seek to conceal the conditions of their own socioperspectival particularity. And yet, there is no assertion of epistemic validity capable of transcending the historical conditions underlying its very possibility. A ‘new geopolitics of knowledge’138 needs to be informed by new knowledge of geopolitics, demonstrating that the most universalist epistemologies cannot rise above the constraining influence of the social conditions that shape the daily construction of human realities. The ‘de-colonial option’,139 therefore, is a way of both critiquing and transcending the ‘Eurocentred matrix of knowledge’,140 with the aim of shedding light on the ‘dark side of modernity’.141 To the extent that ‘people are racially ranked and regions are racially configured’,142 however, the world is divided into societies based on ethnically defined classifications, oppositions, and hierarchies. Since, in many cases, it has embraced different versions of the teleological idea of an ‘abstract macro-historical evolutionary subject’,143 which imposes itself upon and determines the course of history, sociology has played a largely ‘legitimating role in genocidal Western mythology’,144 whose ideological power consists in relegating the position of non-Western actors and (dis)orders to the fringes of its materially and symbolically stratified landscapes. In its subversive forms, processes of ‘scholarly de-linking’145 are tantamount to acts of ‘epistemic disobedience’,146 performed from a ‘locus of enunciation’147 that does not satisfy itself with a sheer commitment to ‘critical reflexivity’,148 let alone with merely cosmetic attempts to generate new modes of knowledge production that, although they may be intellectually compelling in terms of their paradigmatic originality, fail to break out of the ethnocentric straitjackets of Occidentalist modes of functioning. Far from being reducible to just another version of ‘critical modernist Euro-theory in neo-­Marxist or poststructuralist vein’,149 radical projects subscribing to decolonial ways of engaging with reality are arguably ‘more activist and radically political-­ethical than standard social science’.150 As such, they aim to overcome the artificial

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

39

epistemic dichotomies between ‘the knower and the known’,151 the educator and the educated, the enlightener and the to-be-enlightened, the expert and the layperson. Suddenly, hitherto marginalized actors—such as ‘native, mestizo, and Creole peoples’152—are part of the picture; indeed, they play a pivotal role in both theoretical and practical constructions of collective historical imaginaries. Similar to Bourdieu, then, Mignolo aims to overcome counterproductive paradigmatic oppositions in the social sciences.153 A task that is no less demanding in this context is to demonstrate that ‘a Eurocentric critique of Eurocentrism’154—as expressed, for instance, in approaches as diverse as world-systems theory, multiple modernities paradigms, poststructuralism, and postmodernism—not only fails to go far enough but also, in a more fundamental sense, is erroneous in falling short of questioning the Occidentalist presuppositions upon which it is based. Undoubtedly, ‘modern, Western cosmologies and social theories constitute “historically unavoidable reference points”’155 for anyone trying to make sense of the contemporary world and to do so in a conceptually sophisticated, methodologically rigorous, and empirically informed manner. For the concepts, methods, and data that contemporary social scientists use—even if they intend to step out of the mainstream of intellectual thought—are inevitably situated in a horizon of competing signifiers, none of which can escape the influence of hegemonic material and symbolic forces. The decolonial project advocates an audacious ‘insurrection of subjugated knowledges’156 mobilized in order to disrupt the deceptive canon of the always-already known, taught, and accepted. While ‘simultaneously absorbing and surpassing the premises of modernism and postmodernism’,157 the decolonial endeavour stands within a historical horizon that it seeks to overcome. Similar to critical theorists who accept their reproductive immanence in reality, while aiming for its transformative transcendence, the decolonial venture can be effective only to the extent that it succeeds in facing up to the possibility of its own impossibility, that is, to the fact that it cannot take its ultimate success—that is, the consolidation of its emancipatory practices— for granted. Access to and accumulation of knowledge, like access to and accumulation of economic wealth […], depend on what part of the globe you were born in and educated in, and what language you speak. […] I call the uneven distribution of knowledge the geo-politics of epistemology, just as I call the uneven distribution of wealth the geo-politics of economy.158

40 

S. Susen

Translated into Bourdieusian terminology, the unequal distribution of capital (notably social, cultural, educational, symbolic, linguistic, epistemic, political, and economic capital) is reflected in the asymmetrical allocation of resources159—not only within local communities and national societies, but also within and across continents. Decolonial struggles have the emancipatory potential not only to expose this injustice but also to pave the way for building a world free of colonial and neocolonial forms of domination. c. María Lugones María Lugones insists upon the centrality of intersectionality for the study of social inequalities—above all, with regard to the structural disparities that are embedded in the relationship between modernity and coloniality.160 Key sociological variables—such as class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability—condition the ways in which human subjects experience, relate to, engage with, interact with, and act upon reality. In this light, ‘the failure of decolonial theorists to take seriously the intersection of race, gender and sexuality with the modernity/coloniality paradigm’161 is, at best, surprising or, at worst, self-­ defeating. The ‘epistemological habit of erasing […] colonial difference’162 must be avoided, in order to face up to the global context in which the unequal distribution of material and symbolic resources takes place. The ‘politics of identity’,163 the ‘politics of difference’,164 and the ‘politics of recognition’165 have contributed to challenging, and subverting, ‘standard notions of modernity’166 to the extent that they have drawn attention to the vital role of cultural particularity in shaping the development of interconnected societies. The ‘reconceptualization of the dominant modes of thought’167 needs to go hand in hand with the exploration of those forms of being, action, and reflection that tend to be excluded from—or, in some cases, ‘exoticized’ by—hegemonic discourses. According to Lugones, a ‘categorical, dichotomous, hierarchical logic [is] central to modern, colonial, capitalist thinking about race, gender, and sexuality’.168 On this account, the European project of modernity is inextricably linked not only to colonialism and capitalism, but also to racism and sexism, all of which are sustained by virtue of relatively arbitrary categories, dichotomies, and hierarchies in stratified societies. One finds an abundant amount of examples illustrating the divisive logic that is built into societal practices and structures in modern history: • in relation to colonialism, ‘colonizer’ vs. ‘colonized’, ‘civilized’ vs. ‘savage’, ‘developed’ vs. ‘un- or underdeveloped’, ‘sophisticated’ vs. ‘primitive’;

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

41

• in relation to capitalism, ‘rich’ vs. ‘poor’, ‘bourgeois’ vs. ‘working-class’, ‘capital’ vs. ‘labour’; • in relation to racism, ‘white’ vs. ‘black’, ‘pure’ vs. ‘mixed’, ‘intelligent’ vs. ‘inane’, ‘reason-guided’ vs. ‘passion-driven’; • in relation to sexism, ‘male’ vs. ‘female’, ‘masculine’ vs. ‘feminine’, ‘rational’ vs. ‘emotional’, ‘cultural’ vs. ‘natural’, ‘objective’ vs. ‘subjective’, ‘public’ vs. ‘private’, ‘strong’ vs. ‘weak’. For Lugones, the aforementioned categories, which are constructed in terms of binaries and hierarchies, need to be studied by recognizing their intersectionality. To the extent that society is polycentrically organized, the realms of power that emerge within it are both relatively independent and relatively interdependent: • They are relatively independent insofar as they are irreducible to one another—implying that their logics of functioning need to be understood in terms of their particularity, rather than their alleged universality. • They are relatively interdependent insofar as they shape, and overlap with, one another—indicating that their logics of functioning need to be understood in relation to, rather than independent of, each other. The polycentric constitution of society manifests itself in the intersectional structuration of both the dominant and the dominated groups by which it is sustained. On the dominant side, ‘[t]he European, bourgeois, colonial, modern man became a subject/agent, fit for rule, for public life and ruling, a being of civilization, heterosexual, Christian, a being of mind and reason’.169 On the dominated side, the non-European, indigenous, precolonial, premodern man/ woman was depicted as a sub-subject/sub-agent, unfit for order and civilization, incapable of participating in the construction of a reason-guided public sphere, animal-like and savage, a creature of instinct and impulse. Arguably, this ‘hierarchical dichotomy’170 became not only a means to distinguish between ‘the human’ and ‘the non-human’171 but also ‘a normative tool’172 to glorify the colonizers and ‘to damn the colonized’.173 The former are characterized (by themselves) as ‘modern’, representing a new form of civilization that emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and, eventually, spread across the world.174 The latter are portrayed (by mainstream historians) as ‘premodern’, trapped in a pre-civilizational form of existence waiting to be civilized. In Lugones’s view, this dichotomy between ‘civilized’ and ‘uncivilized’ creates a normative hierarchy whose principal ideological function consists in justifying the hegemonic influence of dominant

42 

S. Susen

players on the world stage. In addition, it forms part of the ‘modern apparatus’175 that reduces non-modern forms of existence—notably its cosmological, ecological, economic, and spiritual dimensions—to a premodern phase in history.176 Within the ‘colonial gender system’,177 the dichotomy between ‘human’ and ‘non-human’ extends to ‘the construction of everyday life’178 in terms of binary categories (and practices): ‘the imposition of the human/non-human, man/woman, or male/female dichotomies’179 upon the collective imaginaries that are mobilized, and relied upon, by social actors is sufficiently powerful to colonize their lifeworlds. Indeed, ‘[t]he civilizing transformation justified the colonization of memory’180 to such an extent that all societal—that is, behavioural, ideological, and institutional—facets of colonized populations were sought to be controlled and regulated by colonizing powers. The control over almost every aspect of social life—which is achieved through the colonization ‘of people’s senses of self, of intersubjective relation, of their relation to the spirit world, to land, to the very fabric of their conception of reality, identity, and social, ecological, and cosmological organization’181—is a landmark of the power exercised by imperial states over conquered territories and populations. The ‘civilizing mission’182 of colonial powers ‘was the euphemistic mask of brutal access to people’s bodies through unimaginable exploitation, violent sexual violation, control of reproduction, and systematic terror’.183 It played a crucial justificatory role in the systematic subjugation of territories and populations outside the European continent. ‘Turning the colonized into human beings’,184 however, ‘was not a colonial goal’.185 Rather, it was an unintended consequence of a ruthless process that was undermined by a long struggle for the re-empowerment of the colonized through the tension-laden process of decolonization. This struggle illustrates ‘the inseparability of racialization and capitalist exploitation’,186 combined with gender-based discrimination, in modern processes of colonization. The ‘project of de-coloniality’187—insofar as its advocates are aware of ‘the intersection of gender/class/race’188—allows for the construction of a ‘resistant subjectivity’,189 oriented towards ‘liberation’190 from arbitrary sources of repressive power. Within this emancipatory space of decoloniality, the critique of domination—far from being reducible to a semantic exercise of rhetorical speculation—constitutes the cornerstone of human empowerment through social transformation. Indeed, such a decolonial ‘critique of racialized, colonial, and capitalist heterosexualist gender oppression’191 makes possible ‘a lived transformation of the social’,192 based on the radical alteration of

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

43

ostensibly inalterable hegemonic practices and the reversal of seemingly irreversible power structures. Decolonial struggles expose, and potentially subvert, the coloniality of the social, sustained by asymmetrical power relations of class, ethnicity, and gender. While—as stressed by Lugones—‘the possibility of overcoming the coloniality of gender’193 is reflected in ‘decolonial feminism’,194 the possibility of overcoming the coloniality of class and ethnicity—as one may add—is expressed in decolonial anti-capitalism and decolonial anti-racism. In a world of intersectionally constituted struggles oriented towards both individual and collective forms of human liberation, the ‘complex interaction of economic, racializing, and gendering systems’195 lies at the core of globally connected modes of social domination. Irrespective of how deeply ingrained ‘the historicity of the oppressing ← → resisting relation’196 may be in different spheres of human reality, its pervasive force can be undermined, and eventually overcome, by breaking out of the stifling straitjacket of ‘hierarchical dichotomy’197 and by taking on the challenge of building a truly emancipatory society. * * * In light of the above, it appears that sociology is in need of both postcolonial and decolonial deconstruction.198 As illustrated in the previous sections, scholars specializing in the areas of postcolonial and decolonial studies have made major conceptual, methodological, and empirical contributions to the social sciences in general and sociology in particular. As they have demonstrated, it is imperative not only to expose but also to challenge the ‘residual Eurocentrism and Occidentalism’199 permeating mainstream intellectual thought, including social research programmes in most ‘Western’ parts of the world. The combination of postcolonial and decolonial insights, which are embedded in what may be described as ‘postcolonizing’ and ‘decolonizing’ agendas,200 may turn out to be one of the decisive discursive driving forces in pushing the debate forward and contributing to the viable pursuit of a ‘global sociology’.201 Sociology, understood in the traditional sense, has been profoundly shaped by its ‘institutional location in the Western nation-state’.202 Its spatiotemporal determinacy is reflected in the selective nature of its key concepts. Indeed, within the epistemic boundaries of its ‘terminological toolkit’,203 methodological devices, and empirical data, the ‘colonial and imperial dynamics’204 that are part and parcel of the modern age have been systematically ignored, if not actively concealed, by conventional sociology. Far from undermining

44 

S. Susen

hegemonic discourses on the global division of labour, large parts of modern sociology have ‘prescriptively constituted such pervasive binary codings as modernity-tradition, West-Rest, First-Third worlds’,205 thereby reinforcing questionable patterns of interpretation that appear to distort, rather than to expose, uncomfortable truths. Postcolonial and decolonial approaches are increasingly influential in the social, sciences. Their place in the discursive realms of social-scientific inquiries, however, is far from clearly defined. While several disciplines in the social sciences may provide inspiring epistemic conditions for fruitful research, they are shot through with ideological and institutional tensions, frictions, and contradictions. Undoubtedly, postcolonial and decolonial approaches require ‘a central sociological dimension’206 if they are serious about uncovering the multiple social dimensions attached to the daily production and reproduction of power dynamics across the world. One noticeable characteristic that postcolonialism and decolonialism have in common with other radical ‘-isms’, such as Marxism and feminism, is that they ‘greatly “exceed” sociology while also deploying and replenishing its resources’.207 In other words, they stand within the disciplinary horizon of sociology, while seeking to rise above it. They are situated within the epistemic comfort zone of sociology, insofar as they draw upon its conceptual tools, methodological devices, and empirical data. At the same time, they transcend the ideological and institutional boundaries of sociology, insofar as they make use of investigative instruments, intellectual insights, and substantive information generated by other disciplines. Paradoxically, disciplinary boundaries are both real and imagined: they are real in that they exist, both ideologically and institutionally, shaping the ways in which experts and researchers produce scientific knowledge; they are imagined in that the boundaries between different disciplines are not only relatively arbitrary but also artificial, to the degree that epistemic comfort zones influence and permeate one another.208 Sociology draws upon knowledge generated in numerous other disciplines (such as anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, historiography, and philosophy), and vice versa. Even if some of these realms of exploration have stronger disciplinary identities, and hence stronger disciplinary boundaries, than others, they are all interconnected. In the social sciences, prominent intellectual currents evolve both within and across disciplinary identities and boundaries. One may focus on Marxism, feminism, functionalism, structuralism, poststructuralism, postmodernism, or postcolonialism—to mention only a few examples. To a greater or lesser extent, all of these traditions of analysis impact upon one another. None of

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

45

them can be understood in isolation from each other, and all of them are influenced by, and overlap—to varying degrees—with, other paradigms and systems of thought. Similar to academic disciplines, the boundaries between intellectual currents are both real and imagined—that is, they exist, but they are always relatively arbitrary and contingent upon cognitive projections. Since postcolonial and decolonial studies are conducted within both disciplinary and sub-disciplinary realms of epistemic networks, they are shaped by, and in turn shape, both the ideological parameters and the institutional structures underlying social-scientific knowledge production. In the twenty-first century, any serious attempt to provide a comprehensive understanding of paradigmatic developments in the social sciences needs to engage with the profound challenges posed by postcoloniality and decoloniality.

Notes 1. Bhambra (2014a), p. 117 (italics added). 2. Ibid., p. 117 (italics added). 3. Ibid., p. 117. 4. Ibid., p. 118 (italics added). 5. Ibid., p. 118. 6. Ibid., p. 118 (italics added). 7. Ibid., p. 119. 8. See, for example, Said (1978). 9. See, for example, Spivak (1988). 10. See, for example, Bhabha (1994). 11. See, for example, Connell (2007). 12. See, for example, Santos (2014). 13. Said (1978). See also Said (2000). In addition, see Bhabha and Mitchell (2005) as well as Guhin and Wyrtzen (2013). 14. See, for example: Said (1978); Said (1979); Said (1981); Said (1982); Said (1983); Said (1989); Said (1993); Said (1994); Said (2000); Said and Viswanathan (2001). 15. See, for example: Gilroy (1993); Gilroy (2002 [1987]); Gilroy (2010); Hall and Gieben (1992); Hall et al. (1992); Hoggart (1969); Meyersohn (1969). 16. Bhambra (2014a), p. 120. 17. Ibid., p. 120 (italics in original). 18. Ibid., p. 120. 19. Ibid., p. 120. 20. Ibid., p. 120. 21. Ibid., p. 120 (italics added).

46 

S. Susen

22. Ibid., p. 120. 23. Ibid., p. 120. 24. Ibid., p. 121 (italics added). 25. Ibid., p. 121. 26. Ibid., p. 122. 27. See, for example, Huntington (1996). 28. Bhambra (2014a), p. 122. 29. Butler (1999), p. 123. See also ibid., p. 120. Cf. Browne and Susen (2014), Susen (2008a), Susen (2008b), Susen (2014 [2015]), and Susen (2018b). 30. On this point, see Susen (2007), pp. 195–196. 31. Spivak (1988). Cf. Go (2016), pp. 7, 11, 45–47, 59–65, 77, 93, 123, and 140; in addition, cf. ibid., Chapter 4. 32. See Spivak (1990) (quotation modified). See also, for example: Guha and Spivak (1988); Spivak (1987); Spivak (1988); Spivak (1999); Spivak (2008). 33. Bhambra (2014a), p. 125. 34. Spivak (1990), p.  228. On this point, see Bhambra (2014a), p.  126. Cf. Naved (2007). 35. Derrida (1967). 36. Derrida (1976 [1967]). 37. Spivak (1988), p. 271 (italics added). On this point, see also, for example: Susen (2015a), pp. 10, 74, 107, 112, 116, 120, 151, 157, 167, 178, 179, 180, 193, 194, 195, 196, 221, 227, and 301n145. On the concept of ‘decentering’ (and on the concept of ‘decentring’), see, for example: Benton and Craib (2001), p.  161; Bouchet (1994), p.  406; Butler (2002), p.  56; Delanty (2000b), p.  11; Fielding (2009), pp.  433–435 and 442–443; Firat and Venkatesh (1993), pp. 236–237; Fraser and Nicholson (1994 [1988]), p. 246; Habermas (2001); Kelemen and Peltonen (2001), pp.  161–163; Kumar (1995), pp. 128 and 130–131; Lemert (1994 [1990]), p. 265; Matthewman and Hoey (2006), p.  539; Mcevoy (2007), pp.  405–406; Murrey (2011), pp.  75–100; Parusnikova (1992), pp.  35–36; Quicke (1999), p.  281; Rose (1991), p. 4; Seidman (1994b), pp. 5–6 and 8; Singh (1997), pp. 3, 9–10, and 16; Solomon (1998), pp. 35–50; Smart (1993), p. 21; Torfing (1999), esp. pp. 1–8 and 89; Vakaloulis (2001), p. 214; van Raaij (1993), pp. 549–555. 38. Bhambra (2014a), p. 126. 39. Ibid., p. 126 (quotation modified). 40. Spivak (1988). 41. Ibid., p. 271. 42. Ibid., p. 271 (quotation modified). 43. Ibid., p. 271 (italics added). 44. Ibid., p. 271 (italics added). 45. Ibid., p. 272. 46. Ibid., p. 272. 47. Ibid., p. 294 (spelling of ‘color’ modified).

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

47

48. Ibid., p. 308. Cf. Chakrabarty (2002), Chakrabarty (2003), and Guha and Spivak (1988). Cf. also Banu and Özlem (2017), Maggio (2007), Riach (2017), Trowler (2014), and Zembylas (2018). 49. Spivak (1988), p. 289. 50. Ibid., p. 289. 51. On the history of violence, see, for example, Pinker (2011). For criticisms of Pinker’s position, see, for instance: Bhatt (2013); Lea (2013); Ray (2013); Rose (2013). In addition, see Pinker (2015). On the relationship between violence and society, see, for example, Kilby and Ray (2014). 52. Bhambra (2014a), p. 127 (italics added). 53. Ibid., p. 127 (italics added). 54. For a tentative outline of a typology of interests, see, for example, Susen (2016f ), pp.  130–131. See also, for instance: Habermas (1987a [1968]); Habermas (2000); Müller-Doohm (2000); Peillon (1990); Swedberg (2005a); Swedberg (2005b). 55. For a tentative outline of a typology of desires, see, for example, Susen (2007), pp.  293–296. See also, for instance: Lash (1985); Silverman (2000); Sinhababu (2017); Thompson and Hoggett (2012); Yar (2001); Zimmerman (2011). 56. On this point, see, for example: Susen (2007), p.  94; Susen (2017a), pp. 134–135 and 144–145. 57. Bhambra (2014a), p. 128. 58. Ibid., p. 128. 59. Bhabha (1994). See also Bhabha (1990). 60. Bhambra (2014a), p. 123. 61. Bhabha (1994), pp. 345–346. On this point, see Bhambra (2014a), p. 123. 62. Bhambra (2014a), p. 123. 63. Bhabha (1994), p. 348. 64. See, for example: Bhabha (1988), pp.  20, 21, and 22; Bhabha (1994), pp. 56, 143, 310, 312, and 315. Cf. Soja (1996) and Susen (2014b), p. 352. 65. Bhabha (1988), p. 21. 66. Ibid., p. 21. 67. Ibid., p. 21 (italics added). 68. Ibid., p. 21. Cf. Fanon (2004 [1961]), esp. pp. 182–183. 69. Bhambra (2014a), p. 124. On this point, see Bhabha (1994), p. 194. 70. Bhambra (2014a), p. 124. 71. See, for example, Connell (2007). See also, for instance: Connell (1997); Connell (2014); Connell and Pearse (2014 [2009]). 72. McLennan (2013), p. 121 (quotation modified). 73. Ibid., p. 121. 74. Ibid., p. 121. See also Connell (2007), pp. 9, 14, and 24. 75. Susen (2013b), p. 85. 76. McLennan (2013), p. 122.

48 

S. Susen

77. Ibid., p. 122 (italics in original). On this point, see Connell (2007), p. 215. 78. McLennan (2013), p. 122. 79. Ibid., p. 122 (quotation modified). 80. Ibid., p. 122. 81. Ibid., p. 122. 82. Ibid., p. 122. 83. On this point, see, for instance, Susen (2010b) and Susen (2011d). 84. McLennan (2013), p. 124. 85. Ibid., p. 124. 86. Ibid., p. 124. 87. See, for example, Santos (2014). In addition, see, for instance: Santos (2004); Santos (2006); Santos (2007a); Santos et  al. (2004); Santos et al. (2007). 88. See Santos (2006) and Santos (2007a). 89. See Santos (2007a), see esp. Santos (2007b). See also Santos (2014). In addition, see Bhambra and Santos (2017) as well as Savransky (2017). 90. McLennan (2013), p.  125 (italics added). See also Santos et  al. (2004), pp. 158–160. 91. McLennan (2013), p. 125. See also Santos et al. (2004), pp. 158–160. 92. McLennan (2013), p. 125. See also Santos et al. (2004), pp. 158–160. 93. McLennan (2013), p. 125. See also Santos et al. (2004), pp. 158–160. 94. McLennan (2013), p. 125. See also Santos et al. (2004), pp. 158–160. 95. See McLennan (2013), p. 125. 96. See ibid., p. 125. See Santos (2014), esp. pp. x, 25, 40, 42, 44, 91, 164, 178, 188, 203, 206, and 212–220. 97. Santos et al. (2007), p. xxxiv. See also Brisson (2018), McLennan (2013), p. 125, and Kerner (2018). 98. On Santos’s concept of ‘lazy reason’, see, for instance: Santos (2004); Santos (2014), pp. 163 and 164–187. 99. Santos (2004), p. 158. 100. McLennan (2013), p. 125. 101. On this point, see Bloch (1959). See also Gunn (1987). In addition, see Susen (2008a) and Susen (2008b). See also Susen (2015a), pp. 184–185. 102. On these four points, see McLennan (2013), p. 126. Cf. Santos (2004) and Santos (2014), pp. 163 and 164–187. 103. McLennan (2013), p. 126. 104. See, for example, Quijano (1990). 105. See, for example, Mignolo (2007a) as well as Mignolo and Escobar (2010). 106. See, for example, Lugones (2010). 107. See, for example: Quijano (1971); Quijano (1990); Quijano (2008 [2000]); Quijano (2010 [2007]); Quijano (2014); Weffort and Quijano (1973). 108. Bhambra (2014a), p. 130. 109. Ibid., p. 130.

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

49

110. Ibid., p. 130 (italics added). 111. Ibid., p. 130 (italics added). 112. Ibid., p. 130. On the concept of ‘totality’, see Susen (2015a), pp. 38, 39, 78, 79, 82, 100, 157, 161, 166, 168, 176, 178, 180, 217, 244, 254, 263, 272, and 337n116. 113. On the concept of ‘metanarrative’, see, for instance: Susen (2015a), esp. Chapter 4. See also Susen (2016d) and Susen (2017d). Cf. Lyotard (1984 [1979]). 114. On this point, see Bhambra (2014a), p. 130. 115. Ibid., p. 131. 116. On modernity as an unfinished project, see, for example: Frank (1992); Habermas (1996 [1981]); Habermas (1989 [1985/1987]); Honneth et al. (1992a); Honneth et al. (1992b); McLellan (1992); Passerin d’Entrèves and Benhabib (1996); Patton (2004), esp. p. 11875; Susen (2015a), pp. 233–235, 241, and 279. 117. Bhambra (2014a), p. 131 (quotation modified). Cf. Allen (2016). 118. Bhambra (2014a), p. 131. 119. Ibid., p. 131. 120. On this point, see Quijano (2008 [2000]) and Quijano (2010 [2007]). 121. On these points, see Quijano (2010 [2007]), p.  23. See also McLennan (2013), pp. 129–130. 122. See Quijano (2008 [2000]). 123. See, for example: Mignolo (2000); Mignolo (2002); Mignolo (2003 [1995]); Mignolo (2005); Mignolo (2007b); Mignolo (2007a); Mignolo (2008 [2002]); Mignolo (2009); Mignolo (2011); Mignolo (2014); Mignolo and Escobar (2010); Mignolo et al. (2008); Tlostanova and Mignolo (2012). 124. Bhambra (2014a), p. 134. 125. Ibid., p. 134. 126. Ibid., p. 134. 127. Ibid., p. 135. 128. Ibid., p. 135. 129. Ibid., p. 135. 130. Ibid., p. 135. 131. Ibid., p. 135. 132. Mignolo (2007b), p.  497 (italics in original). See also Bhambra (2014a), p. 136. 133. Cf. Mignolo (2011), pp.  25, 36, 37, 42, 44, 47, 69, 73, 121, 246, 263, and 301. 134. Bhambra (2014a), p. 137. 135. Mignolo (2011), pp. 121–122. On this point, see also Bhambra (2014a), p. 137. On Mignolo’s critique of modernity, see Mignolo (2011). On Mignolo’s critique of the Renaissance, see Mignolo (2003 [1995]). 136. Bhambra (2014a), p. 137.

50 

S. Susen

137. Ibid., p. 138. 138. Ibid., p. 139. 139. See McLennan (2013), pp. 127–130. 140. Ibid., p.  127. Cf. Brisson (2018), Dirlik (1999), Dirlik (2007), Kerner (2018), and Thomassen (2012). 141. McLennan (2013), p. 127. See also Mignolo (2009), p. 160. 142. Mignolo (2009), p. 160. McLennan (2013), p. 128. 143. McLennan (2013), p. 128. 144. Ibid., p. 128. 145. Ibid., p. 128 (italics in original). 146. Ibid., p. 128 (italics in original). 147. Ibid., p. 128. 148. Ibid., p. 128. On the concept of ‘reflexivity’, see, for example, Susen (2016b). 149. McLennan (2013), p. 128. 150. Ibid., p. 128. 151. Ibid., p. 128. 152. Ibid., p. 128 (punctuation modified). 153. On Bourdieu’s ambition to overcome counterproductive antinomies in the social sciences, see, for example: Bourdieu (1980a), pp. 43, 46, 78, 87, 103, 178, 202, 234, and 242; Bourdieu (1982b), pp. 35–37; Bourdieu (1982c), p. 14; Bourdieu (1982d), p. 36; Bourdieu (1984b), p. 5; Bourdieu (1993a [1984]), pp.  55, 57, and 59; Bourdieu (1994a), p.  169; Bourdieu (1994b), p.  3; Bourdieu (1995a), p.  8; Bourdieu (1995b), p.  120; Bourdieu (1997a), pp. 16–17, 43, 77, 122, 157, 159–160, 163–167, 185, and 225; Bourdieu (1998), pp. 9 and 110; Bourdieu (2005 [2000]), pp. 210–213; Bourdieu (2001a), pp.  7, 24, and 31; Bourdieu (2001b), pp.  76, 151, and 153; Bourdieu (2002), p. 353; Bourdieu et al. (1968), pp. 34, 93–94, and 101; Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992c), p. 66; Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992d), pp. 121–122; Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992e), pp. 151 and 162. On this point, see also, for example: Susen (2007), pp. 18, 149–157, 171, 172, 173, 174, 183, 217, 218, 239, 249, 250, 270n21, and 310; Turner and Susen (2011), p.  368, 374, 393, 394, and 402; Susen (2011a), esp. pp.  80–81; Susen (2017a), pp. 140 and 149–150n34. 154. McLennan (2013), p. 128. Cf. Brisson (2018), Dirlik (1999), Dirlik (2007), Kerner (2018), and Thomassen (2012). 155. McLennan (2013), p. 128. 156. Mignolo (2008 [2002]), p. 231; see also Mignolo (2000), p. 19 and passim. On this point, see McLennan (2013), p. 128. 157. McLennan (2013), p. 128. 158. Mignolo (2005), p. 44 (italics in original). 159. See, for instance: Bourdieu (1975a); Bourdieu (1979); Bourdieu (1980b); Bourdieu (1986 [1983]); Bourdieu (2013 [1978]). See also, for example:

2  Postcoloniality and Decoloniality 

51

Albrecht (2002); Beasley-Murray (2000); Gunn (2005); Herz (1996); Lojkine (2002); Robbins (2005); Siisiäinen (2000); Susen (2007), esp. Chapters 5–8; Susen (2011b); Susen (2011c); Susen (2011e); Susen (2013e); Susen (2013f ); Susen (2016a); Susen and Turner (2011a); Susen and Turner (2011c); Wacquant (2004b [1997]); Wacquant (2013). 160. See, for example: Lugones (1999); Lugones (2003); Lugones (2007); Lugones (2010); Lugones and Price (2003); Mignolo et al. (2008). 161. Bhambra (2014a), p. 133. 162. Lugones (2010), p. 753. On this point, see also Bhambra (2014a), p. 133. On the concept of ‘colonial difference’, see Lugones (2010), esp. pp. 743 and 746–758. In addition, see Lugones (2007). 163. On the ‘politics of identity’, see, for example: Holloway and Susen (2013), pp.  93, 97, and 100n35; Susen (2010a), pp.  204–208; Susen (2010b), pp. 260–262 and 271–274; Susen (2015a), pp. 4, 171, 172, 180, 182, 193, and 272. 164. On the ‘politics of difference’, see, for example: Holloway and Susen (2013), pp.  93, 97, and 100n35l; Susen (2010a), pp.  204–208; Susen (2010b), pp. 260–262 and 271–274; Susen (2015a), pp. 4, 109, 110, 171, 172, 180, 182, 183, 184, 272, and 318n4. 165. On the ‘politics of recognition’, see, for example: Susen (2007), pp. 192–198; Susen (2015a), pp. 4, 171, 172, 180, 182, and 272. 166. Bhambra (2014a), p. 134. 167. Ibid., p. 134. 168. Lugones (2010), p. 742. 169. Ibid., p. 743. 170. Ibid., p. 743. 171. On this distinction, see ibid., pp. 743, 744, 749, 750, and 751. 172. Ibid., p. 743. 173. Ibid., p. 743. 174. See Giddens (1990), p. 1. On Giddens’s conception of ‘modernity’, see ibid., esp. pp. 1–17 and 45–54. Cf. Outhwaite (2014a). On this point, see Susen (2015a), p. 12. 175. Lugones (2010), p. 743. 176. On this point, see ibid., p. 743. 177. See ibid., p. 749. 178. Ibid., p. 750. 179. Ibid., p. 750. 180. Ibid., p. 745. 181. Ibid., p. 745. 182. Ibid., p. 744. 183. Ibid., p. 744. 184. Ibid., p. 744. 185. Ibid., p. 744.

52 

S. Susen

186. Ibid., p. 745. 187. Ibid., p. 746. 188. Ibid., p. 746. 189. Ibid., p. 746. 190. Ibid., p. 746. 191. Ibid., p. 746. 192. Ibid., p. 746. 193. Ibid., p. 747. 194. Ibid., p. 747 (italics added). 195. Ibid., p. 747. 196. Ibid., p. 748. 197. Ibid., pp. 743 and 749. See also ibid., pp. 742, 743, and 757n9. 198. On this point, see McLennan (2013), esp. p. 120. Cf. Boatcă (2015). 199. McLennan (2013), p. 120. Cf. Boatcă (2015). 200. On this point, see McLennan (2013), p. 120. 201. On the concept of ‘global sociology’, see, for instance: Bhambra (2013); Bhambra (2014a); Bhambra (2014b); Bhambra (2015); Hoogvelt (2001 [1997]); Patel (2014); Persaud and Walker (2015). 202. McLennan (2013), p. 121 (quotation modified). 203. Ibid., p. 121. 204. Ibid., p. 121. 205. Ibid., p. 121. 206. Ibid., p. 121 (italics added). 207. Ibid., p. 131. 208. On this point, see Susen (2011a), pp. 62–64 and 79–80.

Part II Intimations of Globality

3 Globality and Sociology

The relationship between globality and sociology is a complex one. The key premise underlying the plea for a global sociology is that we live in a global society—that is, in a society that is characterized by an increasing degree of interconnectedness at multiple levels. Especially important in this respect are historical, economic, political, cultural, demographic, military, and environmental aspects of global interconnectedness.1 Arguably, both expert-based and common-sense ‘perceptions about the globalized nature of the world in which we live are beginning to have an impact within sociology’,2 as well as within other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Such a global perspective implies that, inevitably, ‘sociology has to engage not just with the changing conceptual architecture of globalization, but also with recognition of the epistemological value and agency of the world beyond the West’.3 Surely, it would be erroneous to portray ‘the world beyond the West’ as a homogeneous, monolithic, or unified entity. A first step towards the construction of a global consciousness, however, is to concede that—as expressed in the ethnocentric attitudes defended by most of its ideological leaders—‘the West’ has, for a long time, been preoccupied mainly with itself and its allegedly superior civilizational position in the global division of power. From a historical angle, ‘it is only by acknowledging the significance of the “colonial global” in the constitution of sociology that it is possible to understand and address the necessarily postcolonial (and decolonial) present of “global sociology”’.4 Thus, as critical sociologists, we must not lose sight of the fact that ‘the colonial’ constitutes a central element of both the global past and the global present. On this view, it is not possible to pursue the project of a

© The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_3

55

56 

S. Susen

‘global sociology’ without engaging with the colonial, postcolonial, and decolonial facets of early modern, modern, and late modern history. The systematic attempt to develop ‘a postcolonial “connected sociologies” approach’5 reflects the ambition to make sense of ‘our contemporary global world’.6 It seeks to accomplish this not only by providing a radical critique of Eurocentrism but also, in a more fundamental sense, by shedding light on the central role played by colonialism in both the construction and the destruction of particular life forms across the world. Such a task requires uncovering the sociohistorical significance of ‘racialized hierarchies’7 that exist both within and beyond the boundaries of national societies. Indeed, the ‘re-organization of understanding through the lens of coloniality’8 draws attention to ‘a specific kind of hierarchical ordering’9 that divides the world—socially, culturally, politically, ideologically, territorially, demographically, and economically—into ‘core’ and ‘periphery’. The far-reaching significance of this asymmetrically structured constellation manifests itself in different— including racialized—modes of stratification. Given the intersectional constitution of power relations, it is crucial to recognize that the ‘reproduction and transformation of racialized hierarchies on a global scale’10 cannot be understood in isolation from the existence of other modes of inferiorization and superiorization. As demonstrated in intersectionalist approaches,11 cultural, ethnic, and racialized hierarchies possess ‘similar significance to other hierarchies and are similarly embedded within them’.12 Different types of social hierarchy overlap with, shape, and are implanted within one another. Irrespective of the specificities that characterize intersectional assemblages in spatiotemporally contingent contexts, colonialism— both as a large-scale historical happening and as an ideological discourse—represents a constitutive part of modernity. If we account for the fact that ‘colonialism is a social and political structure of modernity that necessarily impinges upon other social structures associated with modernity and that social relations are necessarily racialized or otherwise hierarchized in colonial terms’,13 then we are in a position to grasp the fact that the historical age commonly called ‘modernity’ was built not merely on bright—that is, progressive, emancipatory, and empowering—but also on dark—that is, reactionary, repressive, and disempowering—grounds. In most sociology textbooks, the concept of modernity ‘refers to modes of social life or organization which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence’.14 This conventional definition is problematic, however, to the degree that it fails to acknowledge the intrinsic relationship between modernity and colonialism, let alone the pivotal role that the latter

3  Globality and Sociology 

57

played in the development of the former. Hence, in order to make a case for a ‘truly global sociology’,15 it is imperative to identify the constitutive features of ‘our global (postcolonial) age’,16 including the central place of colonialism in modern history—that is, not only in the history of ‘the colonized’ but also in the history of ‘the colonizers’. In mainstream sociological accounts of modernity, two themes are of paramount importance: rupture and difference.17 In essence, these explanatory frameworks posit ‘a temporal rupture between a premodern past and a modern industrial present, and a qualitative spatial (cultural) differentiation between Europe (and the West) and the rest of the world’.18 On this view, the temporal differentiation between ‘a before’ and ‘an after’ is just as central to the rise of modernity as the spatial differentiation between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’. Indeed, these two modes of differentiation are vital to the modernist narrative—that is, to a narrative that establishes a hierarchy between ‘advanced’ and ‘underdeveloped’ parts of the world. The symbolic construction of this ideological architecture is inconceivable without the employment of ideal types, which lie at the heart of mainstream comparative historical analysis.19 One of the reasons why these ideal types can be misleading, however, is that they ‘necessarily abstract a set of particular connections from wider connections and, further, suggest sui generis endogenous processes as integral to the connections that are abstracted’.20 Consequently, when relying on ideal types, one easily gets the deceptive impression that particular constellations can be both conceptually and empirically disconnected from other ensembles of practices and structures, as if they existed in isolation from, and bore no (direct or indirect) relation to, one another: The connections most frequently omitted are those ‘connecting’ Europe and the West (the modern) to much of the rest of the world (tradition). These connections are thereby rendered exogenous to the processes abstracted from them at the same time as these processes are represented as having a significant degree of internal coherence, independent of these wider connections.21

In short, historical approaches that are overly reliant on ideal types are guilty of explanatory reductionism—not only insofar as they distort the interconnectedness of internal and external developments, but also insofar as they fail to recognize that the very distinction between endogenous and exogenous forces is both conceptually and empirically problematic. Under their interpretive umbrella, ‘Europe’ is treated as synonymous with ‘modernity’, ‘Europeanist’ is conflated with ‘modernist’, and ‘Europeanization’ is coalesced with ‘modernization’. Thus, we are confronted with the erroneous idea that

58 

S. Susen

the rise of modern society can be regarded as an ‘endogenous European development, followed by diffusion to the rest of the world’,22 as if the—asymmetrically structured—connections between different geographical regions had been completely irrelevant to the construction of ‘the West’. Especially noteworthy in this respect are the following types of connections: • connections of economic nature, expressed in the existence of national and transnational markets of production, distribution, circulation, and consumption of goods and services, along with the systematic exploitation of natural and human resources, across the globe; • connections of political nature, illustrated in the impact of a range of social movements and revolutions upon behavioural, ideological, and institutional constellations across the world; • connections of cultural nature, evident in the links between diverse local customs, traditions, and life forms at a global—that is, cross-continental—level; • connections of linguistic nature, manifest in the development of directly or indirectly interrelated languages—particularly in terms of their morphological, semantic, syntactical, grammatical, phonetic, and pragmatic characteristics. Viewed in this connectivist light, the following becomes clear: • Industrialization cannot be reduced to ‘a European or Western phenomenon’.23 Rather, it must be understood as a large-scale social development, possessing ‘global conditions for its very emergence and articulation’.24 • Political revolutions cannot be reduced to merely European or Western events. Rather, they must be understood in relation to other revolutions across the world. Hence, major modern revolutions that took place in Europe—notably the French Revolution25 (1789–1799)—are directly or indirectly related to important modern revolutions that took place outside Europe—such as the Haitian Revolution26 (1791–1804). All of these happenings possess world-historical significance due to, rather than irrespective of, their spatiotemporal interconnectedness.27 • Cultural developments—illustrated not only in the constant transformation of habits, conventions, and ways of life, but also in the emergence of artistic and creative modes of expression—cannot be reduced to exclusively European or Western forms of existence. Rather, they must be understood as globally interconnected dynamics, which, by definition, transcend geographical—such as local, national, regional, and continental—boundaries.

3  Globality and Sociology 

59

• Linguistic processes—concerning their genesis, evolution, competition, spread, and/or possible extinction—cannot be reduced to symbolically mediated practices and structures that are entirely determined by European or Western forms of hegemonic power. Rather, they must be understood as cross-cultural developments, whose local idiosyncrasies cannot be abstracted from a global context of cross-border connections. Ignoring the aforementioned insights into the global interconnectedness of multiple events and processes shaping the incessantly evolving project of modernity, one may be tempted to buy into mainstream narratives that contribute to ‘the writing out of the colonial and postcolonial moment’,28 thereby removing it from the official textual representations of recent world history. Arguably, the problem with this hegemonic account is that, far from owing its existence simply to ‘an error of individual scholarship’29 or the impact of a few intellectually decorated opinions, it is ‘the very disciplinary structure of knowledge production’30 that creates an epistemic gulf between sociology as ‘the study of the modern and colonizing parts of the world’ and anthropology as ‘the study of the traditional and colonized parts of the world’. As a result, it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to take seriously the possibility of the ‘postcolonial modern’.31 In this regard, two observations are crucial: • At the historical level, ‘sociology’s emergence coincided with the high point of Western imperialism’32—that is, it came into existence when the hegemonic position of ‘the Occident’ in relation to other parts of the world was reaching its peak. • At the epistemic level, ‘the dynamics of empire were not incorporated into the basic categories, models of explanation, and narratives of social development of the classical sociologists’33—that is, the material and ideological facets of imperialism were not absorbed into the ‘terminological toolkit’34 of their discipline. Scholars who are keen to defend mainstream accounts of contemporary history will insist that ‘the European origins of modernity cannot be denied’35 and that, even if this may seem somewhat fatalistic, the examination of the ‘factual happenings’ demonstrates that a Eurocentric conception of modernity is both appropriate and inevitable. Scholars who prefer to subscribe to a connectivist understanding of human reality, on the other hand, will challenge both obvious and latent forms of Eurocentrism, arguing that, within the normative framework of a genuinely global sociology, interconnections are

60 

S. Susen

‘recognized as constitutive of modernity and its institutional orderings’,36 instead of being reduced to a mere characteristic ‘of a later phase of globalization’37 or of an advanced phase of societal differentiation. Disregarding the numerous approaches situated in the area of postcolonial and decolonial studies, it is worth mentioning at least three alternative currents of thought grappling with key societal developments on a global scale38: (1) the paradigm of multiple modernities,39 (2) the paradigm of multiculturalism,40 and (3) the paradigm of cosmopolitanism.41 Given the influence of these paradigms upon contemporary forms of social and political analysis, it makes sense to consider the key underlying assumptions of each of these approaches in some detail. It should be spelled out at the outset that, from the point of view of postcolonial and decolonial studies, the three aforementioned currents of thought fall short of acknowledging the sociological significance of connected histories across the globe. 1. The Paradigm of Multiple Modernities Sociological approaches advocating the paradigm of multiple modernities seek to shed light on both local and ‘global cultural variations’.42 Rather than assuming that there is only one modernity, or that modernity constitutes a monolithic historical endeavour, this perspective conceives of ‘the modern’ as ‘encompassing divergent paths’43 and as manifesting itself in a large variety of social practices, institutional systems, and historical trajectories. Irrespective of its multiple forms of expression, modernity can be regarded as ‘a European (and Western) phenomenon’44—that is, as a macro-historical stage that, in terms of its origins, commenced in Europe before spreading to other parts of the world. In the contemporary era, we are confronted with ‘a multiplicity of non-convergent modernities’,45 each of which possesses idiosyncratic characteristics. Conventional modernization theories embrace the erroneous idea of ‘a singular modernity’.46 According to this notion, European modernity, owing to its hegemonic position, has been able to set the civilizational agenda across the globe. Hence, conventional modernization theories are guilty of what may be described as overt and full-scale Eurocentrism. Explanatory approaches supporting the paradigm of multiple modernities are less Eurocentric than conventional modernization theories, in the sense that the former, unlike the latter, allow for an extensive degree of paradigmatic decentring. Both interpretive frameworks remain Eurocentric, however, to the extent that, within their representational universe, Europe continues to be ascribed the role of the ultimate reference point for an adequate understanding of modernity:

3  Globality and Sociology 

61

The argument put forward by theorists of multiple modernities is that, while the idea of one modernity, especially one that has already been achieved in Europe, would be Eurocentric, theories of multiple modernities must, nonetheless, take Europe as the reference point in their examination of alternative modernities […].47

As illustrated above, it appears that those advocating the paradigm of multiple modernities are, despite their seemingly laudable intentions, culpable of latent and small-scale Eurocentrism.48 The principal reason for this normative limitation is that, similar to mainstream accounts of modernity, they continue to give priority to ‘the West’, even when making a case for ‘the construction of a comparative historical sociology of multiple modernities’.49 On this view, European modernity constitutes the ‘originary modernity’50—that is, it represents the ontological cornerstone of, and historical precondition for, all other variants of modernity, notwithstanding their respective degrees of singularity and exceptionality. From a connectivist perspective, one of the main problems inherent in the paradigm of multiple modernities is that it fails to recognize that colonialism—including its key ingredients, such as enslavement, exploitation, and racial hierarchization—forms a constitutive component, rather than a by-­ product or side effect, of modernity. Consequently, colonialism—comprising its numerous dehumanizing characteristics—is not considered an essential ‘part of the sociopolitical or economic structures of modernity’,51 let alone of the material and ideological infrastructures that made its rise possible in the first place. A truly critical and comprehensive understanding of the contemporary age, however, needs to account for ‘the social interconnections in which modernity has been constituted and developed’52 and, thus, for the countless— both endogenous and exogenous—sources of influence that have defined, and continue to define, the parameters underpinning its existence. Assessed from an unsympathetic angle, then, the paradigm of multiple modernities offers little more than ‘a kind of global multiculturalism, where a common (Eurocentered) modernity is inflected by different (other) cultures’53 and where, eventually, all—including non-European—parts of the world end up reproducing the behavioural, ideological, and institutional modes of functioning fostered by ‘the West’. 2. The Paradigm of Multiculturalism Explanatory approaches promoting the paradigm of multiculturalism and making a case for a ‘global multicultural sociology’54 draw attention to the culturally varied constitution of the social world, while grappling with the

62 

S. Susen

normative implications that this insight may, or may not, have for the study of diversified life forms. The key assumptions underlying such an investigative endeavour, oriented towards the consolidation of a global multicultural sociology, have been developed, in an increasingly systematic fashion, following two conferences of the National Associations Committee of the International Sociological Association, which were ‘organized […] by Sujata Patel in Miami in 2006 and by Michael Burawoy in Taipei in 2009’,55 respectively. Indeed, the debates that took place at these events were continued and taken to an even more in-depth and formalized level, as reflected in numerous academic publications.56 The plea for ‘the “indigenization” of the social sciences’57 was motivated by the conviction that sociology, in order to convert itself into a discipline with a genuinely global outlook, would have to engage in ‘learning from the traditions of various cultures’.58 On this account, the ‘globalization of sociology’ has to go hand in hand with the ‘indigenization of sociology’,59 thereby including a ‘variety of locations’60 in the big picture and creating ‘spaces for alternative voices’,61 whose practices and contributions have been hitherto relegated to the fringes of public discourse, if not entirely ignored. The initial controversies on ‘the “indigenization” of the social sciences’62 sparked vigorous debates on the possibility of developing ‘autonomous or alternative social science traditions’63 capable of challenging ethnocentric modes of conducting social research. Particularly important in this respect are scholars such as Syed Hussein Alatas,64 Syed Farid Alatas,65 Vineeta Sinha,66 and Raewyn Connell67—all of whom draw attention to the culturally eclectic and globally spread origins of sociology. Yet, as they point out, the global diversity of sociology is widely overlooked, due to the hegemonic influence of Western social science. Indeed, in this context, two issues are striking: (a) ‘the lack of autonomy’68 of peripheralized—so-called ‘Third World’—social science; (b) ‘the lack of a multicultural approach in sociology’,69 not only in epistemic contexts that occupy a marginal place in the global field of knowledge production, but also in those national or regional settings whose experts and researchers find themselves in the privileged position of exercising hegemonic influence over competing academic fields worldwide. Attractive as the idea of promoting multiculturalism—both within and beyond the social sciences—may seem, and laudable as the ambition to give a voice to hitherto marginalized, autonomous, and alternative ways of doing social science may appear, it is far from obvious what the substantial payoff of such a commendable undertaking would be. Similar to the debates on the paradigm of multiple modernities, ‘there is little discussion of what the

3  Globality and Sociology 

63

purchase of these autonomous traditions would be for a global sociology, beyond a simple multiplicity’.70 Surely, the hegemonic position of Anglo-American and European social science across the globe is deeply problematic, especially insofar as it is contingent upon the systematic marginalization of paradigms, currents of thought, and research traditions developed in other—notably in peripheralized—parts of the world. The challenge remains, then, to subvert this epistemic inequity, which is embedded in cross-regional material and symbolic inequality, by contributing to ‘a balanced unity of the discipline’.71 One may, or may not, reach the conclusion that ‘there is, and can be, only one sociology studying many social worlds’72—that is, a ‘global sociology’. Notwithstanding the strengths and weaknesses of this endeavour, there can be no doubt that the tension-laden struggle aimed at the realization of such an undertaking is inconceivable without ‘contesting the hegemony of the dominant forms’73 that reinforce the legitimacy of both epistemic inequity and social inequality in a global universe of asymmetrically structured forms of individual and collective agency. Put differently, the gulf between ‘the centre of the überaltern’ and ‘the periphery of the subaltern’ can be bridged only through a ‘de-­centering of sociological epistemologies’.74 An ambitious project of this sort requires that the parameters of validity— far from simply being shifted from ‘the core’ to ‘the periphery’, or vice versa— be democratized in such a way that transhegemonic modes of inclusion become the normative driving force behind the construction of a truly global sociology. In this regard, the challenge consists in complementing, combining, and cross-fertilizing hegemonic and counterhegemonic forms and contents of knowledge production, with the prospect of creating a world of discourses whose validity is determined not primarily by the quest for power and social legitimacy but, rather, by the unforced force of the better argument75 and, thus, by epistemic insightfulness and originality. 3. The Paradigm of Cosmopolitanism Explanatory approaches supporting the paradigm of cosmopolitanism— expressed in the plea for a ‘global cosmopolitan sociology’—have become increasingly influential in recent decades.76 Typically, a ‘new universalism of a globally cosmopolitan sociology’77 is opposed to a somewhat obsolete ‘methodological nationalism’,78 which is both conceptually and empirically insufficient due to its narrow focus on the study of social phenomena within national, rather than global, contexts. Cosmopolitan approaches seek to account for the fact that, since its dawn, the consolidation of modernity has been accompanied by the gradual emergence of a ‘world society’. From a

64 

S. Susen

cosmopolitan perspective, however, it appears that one of the principal problems with classical sociology is that its ‘concepts are inappropriately bounded’,79 insofar as they remain caught up in ethnocentric patterns of analysis. Indeed, from a global-connectivist point of view, both the thematic focus and the terminological toolbox of classical sociology are ‘methodologically Eurocentric’,80 rather than simply ‘methodological[ly] nationalistic’,81 in the sense that they are centred around seemingly ‘European’ and ‘Western’, in opposition to purportedly ‘non-European’ and ‘non-Western’, issues. If this is the case, then the ‘the concepts of the “first age” […] were as inadequate in their own time as they are claimed to be today and need more comprehensive reconstruction than is suggested by [Ulrich] Beck’82 and other contemporary representatives of sociological cosmopolitanism. Hence, rather than reducing the task of reconstructing sociology to ‘an issue of the present and the future’,83 a radical reinterpretation of the discipline needs to account for the deeply Eurocentric spirit permeating its very foundations. From a global-connectivist angle, then, cosmopolitan sociology à la Beck suffers from a major limitation—namely, from the fact that it continues to treat ‘Western perspectives as the focus of global processes, and Europe as the origin of a modernity which is subsequently globalized’84 and thereby exported to other regions in the world. Put differently, sociological cosmopolitanism tends not only to represent and to reproduce Eurocentrism, but also to legitimize and to hegemonize it. By contrast, a global-­connectivist sociology—that is, a sociology that is ‘open to different voices’85—exposes the provincial, parochial, and ultimately self-referential outlook of mainstream European social and political thought, while making a case for a radically ‘reconstructed sociology of modernity’86 based on a ‘new universalism’,87 capable of challenging and overcoming the limitations inherent in ‘hegemonocentric’ social science. * * * 1. Postcolonial Sociology In light of the above, we are confronted with the task of identifying the key facets of an alternative approach, to which we may refer as postcolonial sociology.88 Such an endeavour obliges us to reflect on both the presence and the place of peripheralized ‘“others” in the history of modernity’,89 thereby ensuring not only that ‘the voice of the voiceless’90 is heard, but also that their

3  Globality and Sociology 

65

constitutive role in the construction of the contemporary era is recognized. Most mainstream narratives of modernity remain ‘centered upon a narrowly defined European history’,91 in which there is little, if any, ‘place for the broader histories of colonialism or slavery’.92 Thus, in academically legitimized interpretations of modernity, individual and collective actors situated in so-called peripheral regions and countries are relegated to the fringes of historical narratives, if they are granted the privilege of playing any role at all. Sociological approaches advocating the paradigms of multiple modernities, multiculturalism, and/or cosmopolitanism have made valuable intellectual contributions to the humanities and social sciences, not least because they call the validity of ethnocentric and monolithic accounts of history into question. They remain deeply problematic, however, insofar as they continue to be trapped in tacit forms of Eurocentrism. From a postcolonial perspective, it appears that, in these explanatory frameworks, ‘the centrality of the West remains in place and new voices are allowed to supplement the already existing truths about a Eurocentered modernity, but not to reconstruct them’.93 To put it bluntly, these approaches are reformist, rather than radical, in the sense that they refuse to go all the way, embracing ‘half-way’ solutions instead. Their integrationist conceptions of sociology imply that hitherto largely marginalized experiences, viewpoints, and voices ‘do not bear on its previous constructions’.94 Merely cosmetic changes made to the constitution of sociology do not go far enough, especially if those endorsing them fail to regard ‘the histories of colonialism and slavery as central to the development of the “global”’.95 Rather than conceiving of ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’ as ‘historically separate civilizational contexts’,96 we need to explore the extent to which they are interconnected, permeating one another and making each other possible in the first place. From a connectivist angle, ‘the omission of the colonial global from understandings of how the global came to be constituted as such’97 has serious consequences for contemporary conceptions (and misconceptions) of modernity. ‘By silencing the colonial past within the historical narrative central to the formation of sociology, the postcolonial present of Europe (and the West) is also ignored. As a consequence, sociological attempts to address the “newly” global are misconstrued’,98 thereby failing to grasp the intimate link between modernity and coloniality. As long as ‘a form of ethnocentrism is perpetuated’,99 by portraying key developments in ‘the West’ as—endogenously and exclusively—‘European’ and, furthermore, by ascribing world-historical significance to them, it will not be possible to provide a genuinely critical understanding of modernity.

66 

S. Susen

If, by contrast, we take both the empirical existence and the global significance of ‘subaltern agency’100 seriously, we are not only obliged to ‘re-examine the conceptual paradigm of modernity from the perspectives of those “others” usually relegated to the margins, if included at all’101, but also compelled to accept that they have been, and continue to be, as fundamental to the course of history as those actors who tend to monopolize the performative centres of our ideological imaginaries and spatiotemporal realities. A step in the right direction would be for Western nation-states to face up to, and to problematize, ‘their colonial and imperial histories (and thereby recognize their postcolonial present)’,102 instead of pretending that their contemporary constitution can be dissociated from their global connections with regions and countries whose territories and populations they once officially and formally controlled. If they fail to concede, however, that the ‘influx of postwar migrants and refugees’103 belongs to ‘an indigenous or native narrative internal to national identity’104 of these states and their citizens both within and outside Europe, then they accomplish little in the way of acknowledging the intertwinement of modernity and coloniality. ‘Just as in standard sociological accounts industrialization is represented as endogenous and its extension as diffusion, so migration has usually been regarded as a process both exogenous and subsequent to the formation of nation-states.’105 The issue with which we are confronted, then, is the myth of European developments being almost exclusively endogenous and, hence, independent of seemingly ‘extra-European’ dynamics. In fact, the very distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ is problematic in that it disguises the central role played by cross-regionally and cross-continentally connected histories. Viewed in this light, it becomes evident that ‘[t]he idea of the political community as a national political order’,106 which constitutes an ideological cornerstone of European societies, is misleading in that it falls short of including ‘extra-European’ citizens in the equation. Numerous major ‘European states were colonial and imperial states’,107 whose subjects lived not only within but also outside Europe. Insofar as European states claimed territories outside the European continent to be ‘their’ lands and, thus, to be part of ‘their’ nations, the subjects living in these territories should be considered as fully fledged citizens of the states that sought to incorporate them. Instead of pretending that the essential ‘nature’ of Western ‘national communities’ has ‘formed independently of the processes by which migrants come to be connected to their places of new settlement’,108 and instead of giving the misleading impression that demographic and civilizational forces across the world can be understood in isolation from one

3  Globality and Sociology 

67

another, it is essential to recognize the ‘constitutive role’109 played by non-­ European actors and structures ‘in the formation of those communities’.110 As long as ‘global histories of colonial interconnections’111 are misrepresented as ‘separate modernities’,112 they will ‘continue to be effaced from both historical and analytical consideration’113 and thereby reduced to national specificities stemming from endogenously shaped constellations. Conceptions of society that are based on the ‘Eurocentered modern’114 and ‘Eurocentered modernity’115 are reductive, since they fail to grasp ‘the long-standing interconnections among the locations in which knowledges are constructed and produced’116—that is, spatiotemporal interconnections that transcend local, national, regional, and continental boundaries. A postcolonial sociology, by contrast, demands a thorough engagement with ‘histories of colonialism and empire in the configuration of understandings of the global’.117 A comprehensive analysis of global society requires examining the extent to which the very condition of modernity has been, and continues to be, shaped by both processes and systems embedded in orders and disorders of coloniality and postcoloniality. One of the main tasks of a sociology that—in terms of its conceptual, methodological, and empirical outlook—is both global and postcolonial is to expose and to criticize ‘the Eurocentred nature of knowledge production by examining alternative loci of knowledge production and the consequences of subverting standard narratives’.118 Such an undertaking represents an explorative project that is, by definition, more inclusive than mainstream sociology, for it seeks to incorporate ‘“other” places and traditions of thought’.119 It thereby ensures that the pivotal role that alternative and subaltern forms of agency have played, and continue to play, in modern history play an equally constitutive role in the pursuit of sociology. Inevitably, such an ambitious normative mission implies contesting ‘imperial epistemologies’,120 especially to the degree that they are reflected in the discursive construction of ‘“foundational” concepts and events within social theory and historical sociology’.121 In order to challenge ‘imperialist epistemologies and Eurocentred knowledges’,122 it is crucial to account for the spatiotemporal specificities and typological ‘variety of globally located phenomena’,123 whose significance is often ignored, if not denied, by social scientists of the ‘hegemonic West’.124 2. Subaltern Studies In recent decades, the field of ‘subaltern studies’ has been growing significantly, thereby giving the impression that, after all, it is no longer as ‘sub’ a­ nd/ or ‘altern’ as its name may suggest. Numerous works standing in the tradition of subaltern studies have been published, and these have appeared in various

68 

S. Susen

languages—notably in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Bengali, and Hindi.125 It is no accident that this area of inquiry is ‘often seen as a close relative of postcolonialism’,126 given that both currents of investigation place a considerable emphasis on the sociohistorical position of peripheralized actors in the global division of power. Furthermore, their ambition to write a ‘history from below’,127 challenging mainstream forms of narrating ‘history from above’,128 brings them close to the alternative approaches developed by prominent scholars such as Christopher Hill,129 E. P. Thompson,130 and Eric Hobsbawm.131 Motivated by an anti-elitist spirit, subaltern studies—similar to postcolonial and decolonial, as well as Marxist, perspectives—are characterized by a strong opposition to mainstream historiography, that is, to a ‘historiography that had [and continues to have] its roots in the colonial education system’.132 Indeed, insofar as the impact of colonialism on contemporary conceptions of both the past and the present fails to be thematized, let alone problematized, the multiple ways in which it permeates, and distorts, our understanding of history are largely ignored. By contrast, the whole point of pursuing the project of a ‘subaltern historiography’133 is to recognize the pivotal role that colonialism has played not only in shaping history itself, but also in shaping representations and misrepresentations of history, as expressed in different versions of historiography. In this respect, the following three tasks are especially important: a. ‘a relative separation of the history of power from any universalist histories of capital’;134 b. ‘a critique of the nation-form’;135 and c. ‘an interrogation of the relationship between power and knowledge’.136 In relation to these points, we are faced with three key challenges: a. to call into question the ostensibly universal capacity of capital to expand across, and to take hegemonic control of, the globe; b. to call into question the validity of mainstream—that is, largely Eurocentric—accounts of the nation-state; and c. to call into question the nexus between social power and epistemic power. All three tasks are pursued by exposing the extent to which official historical narratives of ‘the West’ are based on distortions and misrepresentations of globally interconnected practices and structures. ‘Where does Subaltern Studies, both the series and the project, stand today? At the crossing of many

3  Globality and Sociology 

69

different pathways, it seems.’137 The more these pathways are converted from sub-fields into leading fields of social and political inquiry, the more ‘subaltern studies’ will acquire the status of an influential area of investigation in contemporary academia and beyond. The ambition ‘to make the subaltern the maker of his [or her] own destiny’138 forms part of the collective attempt to ensure subaltern studies occupy a firm, and intellectually fruitful, place in the humanities and social sciences.

Notes 1. On this point, see Susen (2015a), pp. 127–128. 2. Bhambra (2013), p. 295. 3. Ibid., p.  295. On this point, see also ibid., p.  296. In addition, see Gandhi (1998). 4. Bhambra (2013), p.  295 (italics in original). On this point, see also ibid., p. 296. 5. Ibid., p. 296 (italics added). On this point, see also Bhambra (2014a). 6. Bhambra (2013), p. 296 (italics added). 7. See ibid., pp. 296, 297, and 302. On this point, see also Bhambra (2007b) and Holmwood (2001). 8. Bhambra (2013), p. 296. 9. Ibid., p. 296. 10. Ibid., p. 297. 11. On the concept of ‘intersectionality’ in sociological research, see, for instance: Chow et al. (2011); Das Nair and Butler (2012); Doetsch-Kidder (2012); Fraser and Nicholson (1994 [1988]); Grabham (2009); Krizsán et al. (2012); Lutz et  al. (2011); Lykke (2010); MacDonald et  al. (2005); Nicholson (1990); Oliver et al. (2011); Schneider (2004), esp. p. 87; Susen (2012b), p. 716; Susen (2012a), pp. 284 and 290; Susen (2015a), pp. 9, 36, 71, 91, 109, 110, 111, 173, 184, 185, 200, 201, 208, 220, 263, 276, and 280; Taylor et al. (2011); Young (1994 [1989]); Young (1997). 12. Bhambra (2013), p. 297. 13. Ibid., p. 298 (italics added). On this point, see also Bhambra (2007b) and Bhambra et al. (2014). 14. Giddens (1990), p.  1 (quotation modified). On Giddens’s conception of ‘modernity’, see ibid., esp. pp. 1–17 and 45–54. Cf. Outhwaite (2014a). On this point, see Susen (2015a), p. 12. 15. Bhambra (2013), p. 298. 16. Ibid., p. 298. 17. See ibid., p. 298. On this point, see also Bhambra (2007a), esp. pp. 1–12 and 145–155.

70 

S. Susen

18. Bhambra (2013), p. 298 (italics added). 19. On the concept of ‘ideal type’, see, for example: Haug et al. (2004); Rosenberg (2016); Susen (2015a), pp. 57, 100, 204, 205, 207, and 217; Swedberg (2018). 20. Bhambra (2013), p.  299. On this point, see also Holmwood and Stewart (1991). 21. Bhambra (2013), p. 299 (italics added). 22. Ibid., p. 299. 23. Ibid., p. 300. 24. Ibid., p. 300 (italics added). 25. See, for example: Cobban (1968); Cobban (1999 [1964]); Lefebvre (2005 [1939/1947]); Soboul (1974 [1962]). 26. See, for example: Dubois (2004); James (1980 [1938]); Magubane (2005). 27. On this point, see Go (2013a), p. 13. See also, for example, Skocpol (1979). 28. Bhabha (1994), p. 359 (italics added). On this point, see also Chakrabarty (2000). In addition, see Bhambra (2013), p. 300. 29. Bhambra (2013), p. 300. 30. Ibid., p. 300 (italics added). 31. See ibid., p. 300. 32. Ibid., p. 300. 33. Seidman (1996), p. 314. On this point, see Bhambra (2013), p. 300. 34. McLennan (2013), p. 121. 35. Bhambra (2013), p. 300. 36. Ibid., p. 300. 37. Ibid., p. 300. 38. On this point, see ibid., esp. pp. 295 and 296. 39. On the concept of ‘multiple modernities’, see, for example: Eisenstadt (1999); Eisenstadt (2000a); Eisenstadt (2000b); Eisenstadt (2003); Eisenstadt and Schluchter (1998); Fourie (2012); Preyer and Sussman (2015); Roniger and Waisman (2002); Rosati and Stoeckl (2012); Sachsenmaier et  al. (2002); Schmidt (2006); Susen (2011e); Susen and Turner (2011b). 40. On the concept of ‘multiculturalism’, see, for instance: Barry (2001); Chevallier (2008 [2003]); Crowder (2013); Jullien (2014 [2008]); Kelly (2002); Khory (2012); Kymlicka (2005); Kymlicka (2007); Kymlicka and He (2005); Lutz et al. (2011); Modood (2013 [2007]); Nemoianu (2010); Parekh (2008); Phillips (2007); Schweppenhäuser (1997); Taylor and Gutmann (1992); Yar (2001). See also, for instance: Holloway and Susen (2013), pp. 93, 97, and 100n35; Susen (2010a), pp.  204–208; Susen (2010b), pp.  260–262 and 271–274; Susen (2015a), pp. 185, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, and 211. 41. On the concept of ‘cosmopolitanism’, see, for example: Appiah (2007 [2006]); Archibugi (2008); Archibugi et al. (1998); Beck (1998); Beck (2000); Beck (2002a); Beck (2003); Beck (2006 [2004]); Beck (2011); Beck and Sznaider (2006); Benhabib (2008); Bohman and Lutz-Bachmann (1997); Breckenridge et al. (2002); Brennan (1997); Brown and Held (2010); Buzan

3  Globality and Sociology 

71

et  al. (1998); Calhoun (2007b); Cheah and Robbins (1998); Chernilo (2007a); Delanty (2000a); Delanty (2003), pp. 149–153; Delanty (2009); Delanty (2012); Fine (2003); Fine (2007); Habermas (2003); Harrington (2016); Held (2010); Holton (2009); Holton (2011 [1998]); Hutchings and Dannreuther (1999); Inglis and Robertson (2008); Jacob (2006); Kendall et al. (2009); Kögler (2005); Post (2008); Reid et al. (2010); Rovisco and Nowicka (2011); Rumford (2008); Skrbiš and Woodward (2013); Susen (2015a), esp. Chapter 5, pp.  212–223; Toulmin (1990); Turner (2000b); Turner (2000c); Turner (2002); Vertovec and Cohen (2002); Waldron (2000); Walzer (1995); Went (2004); Woodward et al. (2008); Yeĝenoĝlu (2005); Zolo (1997). 42. Bhambra (2013), p.  301. See also Eisenstadt (2000a) and Eisenstadt (2000b). In addition, see Susen (2011e) as well as Susen and Turner (2011b). 43. Bhambra (2013), p. 301. 44. Ibid., p. 301. 45. Ibid., p. 301. 46. Ibid., p. 301. 47. Ibid., p.  301 (italics in original). On this point, see also Eisenstadt and Schluchter (1998), p. 2. Cf. Brisson (2018), Dirlik (1999), Dirlik (2007), Kerner (2018), and Thomassen (2012). 48. On this point, see also, for example: Blaser (2009); Cooper (2005); Dirlik (1999); Dirlik (2007); Escobar (2010); Singh (2019), esp. pp.  335–336, 340–341, and 350–351; Thomassen (2012). 49. Bhambra (2013), p. 302 (italics added). 50. Ibid., p. 302 (italics in original). 51. Ibid., p. 302 (quotation modified). 52. Ibid., p. 302 (italics in original). 53. Ibid., p. 303. 54. Ibid., pp. 303 and 306. See also, for example, Susen (2015a), pp. 185, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, and 211. 55. Bhambra (2013), p. 303. 56. On this point, see, for example: Burawoy et al. (2010); Patel (2010). See also Bhambra (2013), p. 303. 57. Bhambra (2013), p. 303 (italics added). On this point, see also Akiwowo (1986) and Akiwowo (1988). 58. Bhambra (2013), p. 303. 59. Ibid., p. 303. 60. Ibid., p. 303. 61. Ibid., p. 303. 62. Ibid., p. 303 (italics added). On this point, see also Akiwowo (1986) and Akiwowo (1988). 63. Bhambra (2013), p. 304. 64. See, for example, Alatas (2002) and Alatas (2006c).

72 

S. Susen

65. See, for example, Alatas (2006b) and Alatas (2010). 66. See, for example, Sinha (2003). 67. See, for example, Connell (2007), Connell (2014), and Connell (1997). 68. Alatas (2006b), p. 5. On this point, see also Bhambra (2013), p. 304. 69. Alatas (2006b), p. 5. On this point, see also Bhambra (2013), p. 304. 70. Bhambra (2013), p. 304 (italics in original). 71. Ibid., p. 305. 72. Sztompka (2011), p. 389. On this point, see also Bhambra (2013), p. 305. 73. Bhambra (2013), p. 305. 74. Ibid., p. 306. 75. On this point, see, for instance: Habermas (2001b [1984]), esp. pp. 94–99; Habermas (2001), pp. 13, 44, 45, and 79; Habermas (2018 [2009]), esp. pp. 88, 96, 102, 103, 117, 120, and 156. See also, for example: Allen (2012); Apel (1990 [1985]), pp. 35, 41–42, and 50; Azmanova (2010); Ferrell and Old (2016); Flynn (2019); Fultner (2001), p. xv; Pellizzoni (2001); Power (2000); Ray (2004), pp.  317–318; Rochlitz (1996); Susen (2007), pp. 88–89, 114, 244, 251, 265, and 286; Susen (2009a), pp. 96–97; Susen (2009b), pp.  111–112; Susen (2010c), pp.  109, 113, and 116; Susen (2015b), pp. 1033–1034; Susen (2018c), p. 51; Thompson (1982), p. 128; Whitton (1992), p. 307. 76. See Susen (2015a), esp. Chapter 5, pp. 212–223. See also previous note on the concept of ‘cosmopolitanism’. 77. Bhambra (2013), p. 306. 78. On this issue, see, for example: Chernilo (2006a); Chernilo (2006b); Chernilo (2007a); Chernilo (2007b); Chernilo (2008). See also Fine (2007), pp. ix, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14. 79. Bhambra (2013), p. 307. 80. Ibid., p.  307. Cf. Brisson (2018), Dirlik (1999), Dirlik (2007), Kerner (2018), and Thomassen (2012). 81. Bhambra (2013), p. 307. 82. Ibid., p. 307. See, for example: Beck (1998); Beck (2000); Beck (2002a); Beck (2003); Beck (2006 [2004]); Beck (2011); Beck and Sznaider (2006). 83. Bhambra (2013), p. 307. 84. Ibid., p. 308. 85. Ibid., p. 308. 86. Ibid., p. 308. 87. Ibid., p. 308. 88. On the idea of a ‘postcolonial sociology’, see, for example: Bhambra (2007a); Bhambra (2007b); Bhambra (2013); Boatcă (2013), esp. pp.  57 and 75; Boatcă and Costa (2010); Boatcă et al. (2010); Brisson (2008); Brisson (2018); Chakrabarty (2000); Chakrabarty (2003); Decoteau (2013); Gandhi (1998); Go (2013a); Go (2013c); Go (2016); Gutiérrez Rodríguez et al. (2010); Hoogvelt (2001 [1997]); Kerner (2012); Kerner (2018);

3  Globality and Sociology 

73

McLennan (2003); McLennan (2013); Mignolo and Escobar (2010); Mignolo (2000); Mignolo (2008 [2002]); Moraña et al. (2008); Outhwaite (2015), Chapter 8; Quijano (2008 [2000]); Quijano (2010 [2007]); Seidman (2013); Young (2003). 89. Bhambra (2013), p. 309. 90. On this point, see, for instance, Susen (2015a), pp. 155, 183, 214, and 254. 91. Bhambra (2013), p. 309. 92. Ibid., p. 309. 93. Ibid., p. 309 (italics in original). 94. Holmwood (2007), p. 55. On this point, see also Bhambra (2013), p. 309. 95. Bhambra (2013), p. 309 (italics added). 96. Ibid., p. 309. 97. Ibid., p. 310 (italics added). 98. Ibid., p. 310. 99. Ibid., p. 310. 100. Ibid., p. 310. 101. Ibid., p. 310. 102. Ibid., p. 310. 103. Bhabha (1994), p. 6. On this point, see also Bhambra (2013), p. 310. 104. Bhabha (1994), p. 6 (italics added). Cf. Amin (2004). On this point, see also Bhambra (2013), p. 310. 105. Bhambra (2013), p. 310 (italics added). 106. Ibid., p. 310 (italics in original). 107. Ibid., p. 310. 108. Ibid., p. 311. 109. Ibid., p. 311. 110. Ibid., p. 311. 111. Ibid., p. 311. 112. Ibid., p. 311. 113. Ibid., p. 311. 114. Ibid., p. 311. 115. Ibid., p. 309. See also ibid., p. 303. 116. Ibid., p. 311. 117. Ibid., p. 311. 118. Bhambra et  al. (2014), p.  293. Cf. Brisson (2018), Dirlik (1999), Dirlik (2007), Kerner (2018), and Thomassen (2012). 119. Bhambra et al. (2014), p. 293. 120. See ibid., esp. pp. 293 and 299. 121. Ibid., p. 293. 122. Ibid., p. 300. 123. Ibid., p. 293. 124. Ibid., p. 293. 125. On this point, see Chakrabarty (2003), p. 192.

74 

S. Susen

126. Ibid., p. 192. 127. On this point, see ibid., pp. 192 and 194. 128. On this point, see Susen (2015a), Chapter 4, esp. p. 155. 129. See, for instance, Hill (1985), Hill (1986a), and Hill (1986b). 130. See, for instance, Thompson (1994). 131. See, for instance, Hobsbawm (1994). 132. Chakrabarty (2003), p. 194 (italics added). 133. See ibid., p. 194. 134. Ibid., p. 194. 135. Ibid., p. 194. 136. Ibid., p. 194. 137. Ibid., p. 200 (italics in original). 138. Ibid., p. 200.

4 Globality and Connectivity

A truly global sociology—not only in terms of its conceptual and methodological toolkit, but also in terms of its empirical outlook—needs ‘to deconstruct the inherent Eurocentrism which is there in the discipline’s cognitive frames’1 and which prevents social researchers from grasping, let alone studying, the numerous connections between societies across the world. Eurocentrism permeates the behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns of functioning of academic disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Taking into consideration its far-reaching capacity to pervade almost every aspect of mainstream forms of knowledge production, we need to recognize that ‘Eurocentrism is not merely represented in sociological theories and methods but is also enmeshed in practices and sites’.2 Arguably, it requires not only a ‘critical turn’3 but also an ‘ethno-conscious turn’4 to challenge the pervasive power of Eurocentrism. The multilayered presence of Eurocentrism in dominant channels of knowledge production has been scrutinized and discussed by diverse explanatory frameworks: ‘plural and cosmopolitan’,5 ‘multiple modernities’,6 ‘alternative modernities’,7 ‘hybrid modernities’,8 ‘entangled modernities’,9 and ‘global modernities’.10 Irrespective of which particular approach one may favour, most scholars defending the idea of a global sociology tend to concur that the following elements are especially important: • A global sociology needs to be constructed ‘through the lens of coloniality’11—as illustrated, for instance, in the works of Enrique D.  Dussel,12 Aníbal Quijano,13 and Immanuel M. Wallerstein.14 The unequal distribution of resources at a global level manifests itself in the social, economic, © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_4

75

76 

S. Susen

and epistemic divide between, on the one hand, European and North American and, on the other hand, African, Asian, Australian, and Latin American regions of the world. • A global sociology needs to be ‘oriented to ontological and epistemic issues’.15 At the ontological level, it is concerned with the constitution of the principal features of global society. At the epistemic level, it grapples with the representations of multiple aspects of global society. Social theory needs to shed light on ‘the epistemic silence regarding the historical inequalities and exploitation that connected up the different processes and institutions of knowledge across the globe’.16 In this regard, two challenges deserve particular attention: 1. We need to question the historical assumption that modernity has existed as ‘only one experience’17—namely, as a European experience, which is rooted in the legacy of Greco-Roman civilization. Challenging this mainstream interpretation, there is extensive evidence to suggest that ‘European modernity can be traced back to the influence of Egyptian and Islamic scholastic ideas’.18 2. We need to question the sociological assumption that modernity, especially if conceived as a European affair, can make a claim to uniqueness19 as well as to progressiveness. The concept of ‘coloniality’, by contrast, draws attention (a) to the intersectionally constituted nexus between class,20 ‘race’/ethnicity,21 and gender/sexuality22 as an effective foundation upon which ‘to control labour’23 and (b) to the globally sustained mode of production in which it is embedded. These intersectional constellations represent structural patterns of stratification by which ‘peoples and regions within the colonial capitalist world’24 were, and within the postcolonial universe continue to be, divided. • A global sociology needs to ‘examine the nature of the science behind the corpus of established knowledge regarding the “social”’,25 especially in relation to the mainstream canons that have emerged and evolved over the past two centuries. Of paramount importance in this respect are (1) empiricist, (2) objectivist, and (3) universalist pretensions of mainstream social science.26 Three epistemological presuppositions underpin this conception of scientific knowledge: 1. In terms of its positivity, scientific knowledge can and should be experience-­based, rather than fabricated by virtue of speculative or metaphysical thought experiments.

4  Globality and Connectivity 

77

2. In terms of its objectivity, scientific knowledge can and should strive to be as value-free as possible, minimizing the distortive impact of bias, perspective, partiality, and particular interests upon cognitive processes of epistemically informed representations. 3. In terms of its universality, scientific knowledge can and should aim to acquire context-transcendent status, thereby making empirically substantiated and logically justified claims to epistemic validity, which, by definition, rise above the spatiotemporal specificities of intersubjectively negotiated and subjectively projected patterns of normativity. • In short, a global sociology needs to grapple with the empiricism, objectivism, and universalism that permeate large parts of mainstream social science. Based on this critical attitude, it ‘suggests a need to deconstruct the way these “truths” have been designed and devised and the way they are implicated in theories, methodologies, and methods’27—that is, ‘in sociology’s system of practices’.28 With this mission in mind, the project of global sociology seeks to underscore the fact that the ‘theoretical and methodological orientations and practices of the social sciences’29—even if, and perhaps especially when, they claim to be experience-based, value-free, and context-transcendent—are ‘partial, limited, sometimes prejudiced’,30 and shaped profoundly by the epistemic, and in many cases canonical, paradigms in which they are embedded. Thus, ‘models of comprehending global social change’,31 as well as praxis-oriented agendas designed to initiate it, need to take into consideration that all claims to epistemic positivity, objectivity, and universality are impregnated with normativity, subjectivity, and particularity.32 • Indeed, scientific knowledge production is (1) ‘never value-free but always value-laden’,33 (2) ‘never autopoietic but always, at least potentially, impact-­ laden’,34 (3) ‘never free from presuppositions but always paradigm-laden’,35 and (4) ‘never a free-floating activity but always context-laden’.36 In this light, it is no accident that much of ‘Eurocentric critique has used the structuralist and deconstructivist methods to understand the limitations within the discourse of sociology’.37 The use of these methods permits critics of ethnocentrism to underline the socio-ontological significance of the fact that epistemic constellations, as well as the historical assemblages in which they are spatiotemporally situated, can be not only constructed but also, in a transformative and potentially subversive sense, deconstructed and reconstructed. Such ‘an historical approach may help to organize new models of assessing global social change’,38 emphasizing the contingency,

78 

S. Susen

malleability, and relativity of all culturally constructed forms of human reality.39 • A global sociology needs to expose the extent to which—due to different forms and varying degrees of ethnocentric domination—the production, distribution, circulation, consumption, reproduction, and recycling of knowledge are not only structured ‘unequally across the different parts of the world’40 but also organized in such a way that hegemonic patterns of explanation and interpretation are reinforced, rather than destabilized. Eurocentrism can be defined as ‘an episteme that has been institutionalized through organized practices reproducing Atlantic knowledge across the world’.41 In other words, it stands for an Occidentalist form of ethnocentrism contributing to, and legitimizing, the hegemonic influence of European and Anglo-American modes of knowledge generation. The colonization of institutionalized frames of cognition manifests itself at several levels: 1. in the choice of research topics; 2. in the formulation of research objectives, research questions, and research hypotheses; 3. in the construction of literature reviews, especially in terms of the thematic foci of the theoretical, empirical, and historical dimensions covered in them; 4. in the selection, elaboration, and justification of research methods; 5. in the ways in which research is conducted; 6. in the ways in which research results are reported, analysed, and interpreted—notably with regard to the confluence of their conceptual, methodological, and empirical underpinnings; 7. in the ways in which research is concluded, especially at the end of a manuscript, dissertation, or monograph; 8. in the ways in which research is referenced—and thereby not only backed and legitimized, but also situated in a particular field in relation to other studies, findings, and controversies; 9. in the ways in which research draws upon other bibliographic sources— especially in terms of their disciplinary identity, status, and impact, but also in terms of the (national and/or field-specific) language in which they are written; 10. in the ways in which research is strategically published in suitable outputs, such as specific journals or books by particular publishing houses;

4  Globality and Connectivity 

79

11. in the ways in which research is perceived and rated, depending not only on what is published but also on who publishes it, when, where, and for whom: The question of whether we consider a statement right or wrong depends not only on what is being said, but also on who says it when, where, and to whom. For objectivity (‘What?’) is—inevitably—a matter of social authority (‘Who?’), spatiotemporal contextuality (‘Where and when?’), and interactional relationality (‘To whom?’). The idea of abstract epistemic universality evaporates when confronted with the multilayered constitution of normative—that is, value-laden, meaning-laden, perspectiveladen, interest-laden, power-laden, and tension-laden—realities.42

• The significance of the aforementioned points is reflected not only—at the level of research—‘in the formulation of criteria adopted for accepting articles for journals and books, and ultimately in defining what and where one publishes and what is [considered] academic excellence’,43 but also—at the level of teaching—in the ways in which ‘curricula and syllabi are framed’,44 forming the background horizon against which scholars construct epistemic horizons. One may conceive of ethnocentric modes of knowledge production in different ways—for instance, in terms of ‘methodological nationalism’,45 ‘provincialization’,46 or ‘endogenous knowledge’.47 A striking characteristic of Eurocentric types of knowledge generation is that, notably in the humanities and social sciences, they are marked by conceptual oppositions, such as the following: ‘reason and body, science and religion, subject and object, culture and nature, masculine and feminine, modern and traditional’.48 In this context, the disciplinary distinction between sociology and anthropology is telling. The former designates ‘the study of modern (European—later to be extended to Western) society’.49 The latter stands for ‘the study of (non-­ European and non-Western) traditional societies’.50 Sociology is widely considered an academic discipline whose main task is to examine the societies that began to emerge in Europe from the late seventeenth century onwards and then gradually spread across the world. Anthropology, by contrast, is commonly regarded as an academic discipline whose main task is to explore the societies that emerged long before the rise of modernity and outside the zones of immediate influence associated with it—that is, societies that, in terms of their cultural identity, do not form part of the Western world. To put it

80 

S. Susen

crudely, sociology is concerned with the study of ‘the social’ focusing on ‘the West’, whereas anthropology is concerned with the study of ‘the cultural’ focusing on ‘the Rest’. This clear-cut separation between the two disciplines is deeply problematic for several reasons: 1. It overlooks the fact that, just as sociology grapples with the constitution of the cultural (especially in cultural sociology and the sociology of culture, but also in other branches of sociology), anthropology wrestles with the constitution of the social (particularly in social anthropology, but also in other currents of anthropology). 2. It neglects the fact that various approaches in sociology propose to explore the nature of tradition, just as numerous currents of research in anthropology set out to examine the nature of modernity. 3. It ignores the fact that, from the beginning of its existence as a discipline, sociology has provided an epistemic home for the critical engagement with non-Western societies, while in anthropology one can find several investigations that centre upon Western societies. ‘The discipline of anthropology since the late nineteenth century legitimized a colonial frame of reference’51—and, arguably, so did sociology. As a result of this ethnocentric form of epistemic imperialism, ‘indigenous intellectuals’52 have been largely ‘deleted from knowledge frameworks and silenced’,53 since they do not form part of the common landscape of key reference points within mainstream academic discourse. Yet, ‘culturist projects’,54 oriented towards ‘creating indigenous knowledges’55 and reflected in the idea of contributing to the construction of an ‘ethnoscience’,56 are to be treated with suspicion, insofar as they remain caught up in ‘the colonial and neocolonial binaries of the universal/particular and the global/national’,57 which need to be overcome if one is prepared to take the project of connected—and, hence, diversified—sociologies seriously. Only if both the material and the symbolic ‘inequalities that organize the global production of knowledge’58 are challenged by radically transforming the transcontinental division of power will it be possible to construct a genuinely postcolonial world—that is, a world in which the colonial mechanisms of exclusion, discrimination, and exploitation are at least significantly minimized, if not completely eliminated. According to some social scientists, such an ambitious endeavour requires us ‘to particularize the universals of European thought’,59 so that the parochial, provincial, contingent, ethnocentric, and ultimately self-referential character of its transcendental pretensions can be

4  Globality and Connectivity 

81

exposed and deconstructed.60 The methodological strategy known as provincialization forms an essential part of this undertaking: To ‘provincialize’ Europe was precisely to find out how and in what sense European ideas that were universal were also, at one and the same time, drawn from the very particular intellectual and historical traditions that could not claim universal validity.61

Such a strategy has a twofold purpose: 1. It aims ‘to deconstruct the provincialism of European universalisms’62 by locating them in ‘their own cultural and national contexts’63 and, hence, by relativizing the alleged universality of their claims to epistemic validity.64 2. It aims to contribute to creating a ‘global social science community’65 capable not only of transcending cultural boundaries, but also of connecting different traditions of inquiry across local, national, regional, and continental frames of reference.66 This explorative venture draws attention to the following insights: 1. It is crucial ‘to move out of truth claims that are universalistic and assert those that are historical and contextual’.67 Such a paradigmatic move makes it possible to avoid getting caught up in futile endeavours designed to transcend the spatiotemporal contingency that permeates all claims to epistemic validity. 2. It is imperative ‘to make the social science market competitive rather than monopolistic as it is now’,68 thereby ensuring that there is not one epistemic epicentre capable of hegemonizing and controlling mechanisms of knowledge production across the world. In light of the above, it becomes viable to make a case for a ‘creative dialectics’,69 allowing for the emergence of gradually more egalitarian forms of teaching and learning processes, which are shaped by the universal interests of the human species, rather than by the particular interests of individual or collective actors seeking to impose their views of the world on other members of society. The challenge, therefore, consists in substituting ‘existing vertical hierarchical linkages between imperialist and ex-colonial countries or between that of core and periphery in production, distribution, and consumption of knowledge with horizontal linkages between localities, regions, and nation-states of the non-Atlantic and Atlantic regions’.70 Such an approach aims to take on the task of contributing to the construction of a world in which imperialist and neoimperialist systems of domination are radically

82 

S. Susen

subverted by, and replaced with, human practices and social structures that allow for the emergence of modes of agency whose empowering potential is reflected in experiences of self-realization based on individual and collective autonomy, rather than on access to privilege, entitlement, and discriminatory opportunity. Towards a Global Sociology of Connected Histories The assumption that ‘modernity and sociology are co-constitutive is routine and common-place within the discipline’.71 Considering the spatiotemporal context in which they came into existence, one may claim that the same applies to other social-scientific disciplines—such as anthropology, psychology, geography, political science, and economics. The case of sociology stands out, however, due to the discipline’s concern—broadly shared by most of its scholars and representatives—with the ‘modes of social life or organization which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence’.72 Of course, different scholars focus on different elements of modern history: the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, and/or the Reformation—to mention only a few. All of these events, however, tend to be interpreted as ‘world-­historical’73 in terms of the influence they have had, and continue to have, on key societal developments in Europe and beyond. In light of their global significance, they are often regarded as manifestations of—if not as substitutes for—‘world-­ history’.74 On this view, it seems that, given their impact upon the development of global society, the aforementioned events, while remaining firmly situated in modernity, may be conceived of as large-scale happenings of universal centrality. If, by contrast, we follow a sociological approach that recognizes both the existence and the wider significance of connected histories, it becomes possible to take seriously those ‘other histories’75 that are commonly ignored by, or relegated to the margins of, ‘Western’ collective memories. It appears, however, that ‘the dominant disciplinary and conceptual contours of sociology’76 offer little in the way of a commonly accepted research programme oriented towards the writing of history in the spirit outlined above. From this perspective, modernity is ‘a product of interconnections’,77 which are ‘made up of different forms of domination, appropriation, possession, and dispossession that cannot be seen as deriving from a simple logic of capitalist development or expanded market relations’78 but, rather, need to be understood in terms of

4  Globality and Connectivity 

83

their intersectionally constituted complexity. Far from being reducible to one single sociological variable, global interconnections are multilayered. Behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns of functioning associated with modernity are ‘neither self-contained nor adequately expressed within the self-understanding of sociology’.79 Local, national, regional, and continental modes of existence are connected at a global level, implying that the practices and structures emerging in particular contexts are intertwined with those in other contexts, even if—and, in many cases, especially if—this is not immediately obvious. Such a plea for ‘an alternative understanding of the emergence of the global within sociology’80 is motivated by the conviction that, in order to break out of the ethnocentric straitjacket of mainstream social science, it is essential to make a case for a ‘“connected sociology” in contrast to the “ideal type” methodology of comparative historical sociology’.81 Rather than relying on deductivist schemes of universalist frameworks of explanation, such an alternative approach seeks to identify and to examine historical connections across different spatiotemporal contexts—especially in relation to social constellations in which the existence, let alone the significance, of these connections is far from self-evident. As elucidated above, sociological approaches that, in terms of their presuppositional underpinnings, are situated in the ‘alternative mainstream’—such as modernization theories, underdevelopment theories, dependency theories, and theories of multiple modernities82—fail to go far enough, in the sense that they remain trapped in Eurocentric horizons of analysis, even if they purport to accomplish the opposite. A ‘reformist’ conception of sociology may suggest that it is sufficient to contribute to ‘expanding the canon and pluralizing it’.83 A ‘radical’ conception of sociology, on the other hand, may contend that the entire notion of the canon needs to be deconstructed, if a genuinely counterhegemonic mode of knowledge production is to be brought into existence. ‘Counter-posing the First World to the Third World, for example, without reflecting on how the Third World has been produced by the very same processes that have created the First, is part of this process of naturalization.’84 The global dynamics of power are tantamount to Hegel’s master-slave dialectic,85 in which the mutual recognition of ‘the dominant’ and ‘the dominated’ is fundamental to the taken-for-grantedness of asymmetrically structured social relations, which manifest themselves in systems of domination. Arguably, the defence of disciplinary architectures is complicit in the reproduction of globally spread structures of domination. In fact, the pursuit of a global sociology needs to take seriously the normative task of ‘dismantling […] the disciplinary divides and […] the disciplinary edifices constructed upon those divides’,86 insofar as they contribute to the legitimization of social

84 

S. Susen

injustices. If, for instance, territorial dispossession, appropriation, and usurpation are assigned to the investigative domain of anthropology (and removed from neighbouring disciplines, such as economics, political science, and sociology), these issues are artificially disconnected from ‘any consideration of justice in “modern” societies’.87 A radically connectivist conception of sociology, then, may be described as follows: To think sociology differently is to take connections as the basis of the histories which we acknowledge; to do sociology differently is to act on the basis of having recognized those connections.88

On this account, the ‘standard methodology of ideal types that is the basis for comparative historical sociology’89 needs to be abandoned in favour of an alternative approach aimed at doing justice to the specificity of culturally constituted realities whose uniqueness cannot be reduced to pretentious vocabularies of universality. According to this view, it would be erroneous to advocate ‘a multiplication—rather than reconstruction—of ideal type formulations […] as if they [had] no implications for previous formulations’.90 For such a methodological undertaking would run the risk of multiplying, rather than undermining, Eurocentric toolkits designed to uncover the world-historical significance of world-historical events. To be sure, ‘ideal types are necessarily selective’,91 implying that they are constructed in order to conceptualize specific aspects of reality from a particular position. The point is not to get rid of ideal types altogether; rather, the point is to ensure that their validity is confirmed by empirical evidence. From a connectivist perspective, it is crucial to recognize that the ‘ideal type of European modernity’92 is founded on a ‘selection of historical narratives that simultaneously presents a normative argument about European progress and superiority’.93 This ideal-typical narrative is reflected in the view that history constitutes a multilayered process determined by different degrees of necessity. More specifically, this interpretation is based on five central assumptions: 1. Historical developments are products of underlying laws and, at least in terms of large-scale and long-term trends, inevitable (historical lawfulness). 2. Historical developments are structurally determined and, to a considerable extent, predictable (historical predictability). 3. Historical developments follow an evolutionary logic and are, in this sense, inherently progressive (historical linearity).

4  Globality and Connectivity 

85

4. Historical developments are teleologically oriented and, therefore, directional (historical teleology). 5. Historical developments, insofar as they are driven by the implicit rationality of context-transcending patterns, can be global in scope and, thus, may have universal significance for human evolution (historical universality).94 Irrespective of whether one focuses on the alleged lawfulness, predictability, linearity, teleology, or universality of historical processes, predominant narratives of modernity tend to make reference to a combination of these elements. The employment of ideal types—mobilized to justify the case for a ‘European modernity’, understood as the ‘original’ form of modernity, which emerged as a result of endogenous historical constellations—is accompanied by a sort of self-insurance policy based on epistemic claims to positivity, objectivity, and universality. Hence, ideal types can be used ‘to separate the categories necessary for the construction of valid sociological theories from the value-relevant cultural concerns’95 of both those who assert their validity and those whose lifeworlds they are supposed to represent as objects of inquiry. Such a methodological strategy ‘establishes a double form of protection for European explanations given the conflation of European cultural values with issues of universal relevance’.96 On this account, it appears that the events that took place in the European continent possess a degree of historical significance that transcends the spatiotemporal boundaries of their own reality. At the same time, numerous significant happenings and developments—notably those that occurred outside Europe—are excluded from this ethnocentric narrative, even if and when they are directly or indirectly related to the rise of modernity. Hence, ‘the histories and cultures neglected within the ideal type of (European) modernity’97 are demoted to the fringes of mainstream narratives, as if they had not been connected to, let alone played a pivotal role in, the era that commenced roughly in the late seventeenth century. A truly global sociology needs to face up to the task of ‘challenging the underlying historical narrative that maintains civilizations as distinct entities prior to European encounter and subordinates those civilizations to that encounter’.98 In brief, three issues are at stake: (1) the separation, (2) the isolation, and (3) the hierarchization of civilizations as building blocks of human existence. A critique of Eurocentrism, then, is inconceivable without ‘a critique of the processes of knowledge production centred upon a European academy writ large’.99 Such an endeavour strives to be ‘decolonial in intent and practice’,100 exposing colonial legacies and postcolonial realities. As a normatively

86 

S. Susen

ambitious project, it requires ‘deconstructing the standard narratives based upon the universalization of parochial European histories and reconstructing global narratives on the basis of the empirical connections forged through histories of colonialism, enslavement, dispossession, and appropriation’.101 The project of connected sociologies—which highlights the global significance of connected histories—constitutes a methodological undertaking sustained by processes of deconstruction, denaturalization, destandardization, decanonization, and decolonization. • As a project of deconstruction, it sheds light on the relatively arbitrary constitution of social arrangements, especially those that are put in place to reinforce the legitimacy attributed to systems of domination. • As a project of denaturalization, it exposes the social constructedness of historical constellations that may be taken for granted, or even perceived as inevitable, by those who experience them in their everyday lives. • As a project of destandardization, it contends that, in many cases, it is necessary to rise above the constraining horizon of commonly accepted parameters and criteria, in order to draw attention to the fact that hegemonic conventions of judgement and evaluation constitute self-legitimizing instruments of domination. • As a project of decanonization, it posits that—within the realm of epistemically constituted horizons of reference—the consolidation of standards, rules, and principles creates a binary division between insiders and outsiders, who make judgements about reality on the basis of socially legitimized and cognitively assimilated schemes of validity. • As a project of decolonization, it affirms that a truly postcolonial world can be built only to the extent that global structures of domination are replaced with processes of human emancipation, which, by definition, transcend the limited perspective and interests of individual and collective actors motivated, above all, by the pursuit of power maximization. Surely, there are different ways of contributing to the emergence of a global sociology, understood in terms of an ‘ecumenical sociology that admits diffuse and diverse particularities’,102 potentially with a worldwide scope of applicability but without necessarily making claims to context-transcendent universality. The ‘turn away from grand narratives and towards forms of cultural sociology (or sociologies of culture)’103 certainly represents one—increasingly influential—way of unearthing the relationally constituted contingency of all socially constructed dimensions of human reality. Diversified processes of drawing upon ‘new data’104 and of ‘reshaping shared narratives’105 across local,

4  Globality and Connectivity 

87

national, regional, and continental contexts serve to subvert the cognitive, normative, and evaluative ‘high ground’106 of epistemic ‘authoritarianism’,107 which permeates numerous Western intellectual traditions. The plea for ‘connected sociologies and their alternative connected histories’108 seeks ‘to pose a challenge to this self-regarding view of the “European” tradition’,109 insisting that the ‘big picture’ is far more complex than erroneously suggested by ethnocentric accounts of modernity. It is crucial, then, to reflect on the role of authoritarianism in modern history. Of course, one may focus on extreme forms of political authoritarianism, such as fascism and state socialism/state communism, which liberal and conservative historians tend to conceive of as variants of totalitarianism. ‘Great crimes often start from great ideas.’110 Totalitarianism—far from being reducible to a historical accident—is naked modernity, to the extent that it represents a constitutive element of the twentieth century.111 As demonstrated in the Historikerstreit,112 ‘both liberal and conservative scholars tend to interpret totalitarian regimes as products of utopian ideals, whether they are fascist or communist’.113 By contrast, Marxists—especially those who defend, or sympathize with, ‘orthodox’ positions—will insist that fascism is a variant of capitalism, that is, an extension of an exploitative system capable of installing a dictatorship if and when it enters a profound legitimacy crisis. From a connectivist perspective, extreme forms of political authoritarianism should be regarded not as ‘pathological varieties of modernity, as deviant forms’,114 but, more accurately, as ‘a constitutive part of European culture’.115 To be sure, this is not to suggest that every aspect of European culture is openly or tacitly authoritarian; rather, this is to recognize that it would be simplistic, and too comfortable, to reduce authoritarianism to a peripheral phenomenon, let alone to a historical accident, of modernity. Indeed, an ‘acknowledgement of [European] authoritarian practice in Europe’116 is no less important than an acknowledgement of [European] authoritarian practice outside Europe. In this light, the short-sighted assumption that European modernity is founded on an a priori ‘commitment to cosmopolitan values’117 and practices needs to be complemented by recognition of the uncomfortable truth that its de facto commitment to authoritarian values and practices has been no less significant in terms of its impact on historical developments across the world. Thus, while the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment, along with the Renaissance and the Reformation, ‘make the cut’,118 it is striking that, in most mainstream narratives of modernity, ‘processes of colonialism, enslavement, dispossession, and appropriation’119 are hardly mentioned or even completely ignored. Yet, they

88 

S. Susen

form a significant part of the story. Indeed, as a connectivist understanding of history makes clear, colonialist practices and structures ‘constitute the conditions of [the] very possibility’120 of modernity. To overlook ‘the millions of people killed in the execution of the European project who were not white—the Algerians, the Mau Mau, the Congolese, among countless others’121—and to exclude them from the European narrative would be both cynical and demeaning towards those who gave their lives either in colonial struggles or when defending the interests of European nation-states as soldiers. Several European polities—notably the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal—‘were imperial states as much as they were national states’,122 meaning that their overseas activities were no less significant than their domestic policies. Insofar as ‘the political community of the British Empire was a multicultural community historically’123 and insofar the same applies to its rival European empires, it must be recognized that ‘[t]he failure to acknowledge these multicultural histories of colonialism and empire’,124 far from being reducible to a mere analytical oversight, is a striking characteristic of mainstream readings of modernity. Misinterpretations of this sort seem to confirm the suspicion that history is written by the victors—that is, by triumphant political and intellectual forces in charge of setting the hegemonic agenda. Granted, social and political contracts—irrespective of whether they are advocated in the spirit of Hugo Grotius,125 Thomas Hobbes,126 John Locke,127 Jean-Jacques Rousseau,128 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,129 John Rawls,130 David Gauthier,131 or Philip Pettit132—tend to be conceived of within the material and symbolic boundaries of nation-states. It is essential to concede, however, that ‘European states did not bind themselves in this way, but were active in colonial projects with more extensive boundaries’.133 In other words, their colonial overseas activities were not simply a decorative appendage but an integral feature of European imperialism. It is all the more ironic that, in both official and unofficial discourses of European nation-states, people from colonies were generally portrayed as ‘migrants’, ‘foreigners’, or ‘others’—despite the fact that, when arriving in Europe, they ‘often came as citizens, or at the very last as subjects, of these broader political configurations, namely empires’.134 Hence, it is both objectively (‘they were citizens’) and normatively (‘they should be citizens’) inaccurate to deprive them of their status as fully fledged members of nation-states, whose imagined communities and empirical boundaries had been imposed upon the lifeworlds of their own (partially or entirely dispossessed) realities. According to the connectivist view outlined above, the ‘recognition of intertwined histories and overlapping territories’135 can serve ‘as a more adequate

4  Globality and Connectivity 

89

basis for the development of our conceptual categories than purified national histories’.136 Such an approach obliges us to abandon classical ideal types that leave little, if any, room for the inclusion of the excluded in the dominant narrative. To be clear, ‘including the excluded’ does not just mean providing the disempowered, marginalized, and peripheralized sectors of the world population with a discursive place that confirms their precarious position. Rather, in a more radical sense, it implies that their constitutive role in the construction of modernity needs to be fully recognized by drawing attention to the connectedness of seemingly disconnected histories, territories, and narratives. Consequently, we should conceive of ‘migration to Europe as integral to the narrative of national, and European, identity’,137 instead of portraying the former as a subcategory of the latter. A truly global sociology, on this account, is an ambitious undertaking that starts its reflective journey ‘from the perspective of the world by locating itself within the processes that facilitated the emergence of that world’.138 Sociology, therefore, needs to situate its own genesis in the multiplicity of obvious and subtle factors that have shaped both its own existence—as a social-scientific discipline—and the existence that it sets out to study—social reality—in a fundamental manner. The sustained attempt ‘to reconstruct meaning and to engage in new collective endeavours’139 will be futile unless it succeeds in subverting ethnocentric schemes of action, communication, and justification by contributing to the creation of social arrangements in which, in principle, all human subjects can flourish and experience emancipation.

Notes 1. Patel (2014), p.  603. Cf. Brisson (2018), Dirlik (1999), Dirlik (2007), Kerner (2018), and Thomassen (2012). 2. Patel (2014), p. 603 (italics added). 3. Ibid., p. 604. 4. On this point, see Susen (2015a), pp. 8–9. 5. See, for example: Beck (2002a). On this point, see also Patel (2014), p. 604. 6. See, for example: Eisenstadt (1999); Eisenstadt (2000a); Eisenstadt (2000b); Eisenstadt (2003); Eisenstadt and Schluchter (1998). In addition, see, for instance: Fourie (2012); Preyer and Sussman (2015); Roniger and Waisman (2002); Rosati and Stoeckl (2012); Sachsenmaier et  al. (2002); Schmidt (2006); Susen (2011e); Susen and Turner (2011b). 7. See, for example: Bhargava (2010); Gaonkar (2001). 8. See, for example: Bhabha (1994).

90 

S. Susen

9. See, for example: Elkana et al. (2002); Randeria (2002); Therborn (1995); Therborn (2003). 10. See, for example: Dirlik (1997); Dirlik (2007); Featherstone and Lash (1995); Featherstone et al. (1995); Friedman (1995); Inglis and Robertson (2008); Nederveen Pieterse (1995); Prazniak and Dirlik (2000); Robertson (1995). 11. Patel (2014), p. 604 (italics added) (in the original version, the preposition ‘through’ is misspelled as ‘though’). 12. See, for example: Dussel (1993); Dussel (2000); Dussel (2002); Moraña et al. (2008). 13. See, for example: Quijano (2008 [2000]); Quijano (2010 [2007]). 14. See, for example: Wallerstein (2004b). 15. Patel (2014), p. 604 (italics added). On this point, see also Mignolo (2014). 16. Patel (2014), p. 604 (italics added). 17. Ibid., p. 604. 18. Ibid., p.  604 (italics added). On this point, see also Amin (2004) and Amin (2008). 19. On this point, see Patel (2014), p. 604. 20. See, for example: Balibar (1982); Bottomore (1991 [1983]); Clark and Lipset (1996); Hall (1977); Lee and Turner (1996); Marshall (1964a [1963]); Quijano (2008 [2000]); Susen (2012a); Waters (1997); Žižek (2000). 21. See, for example: Bhambra (2014c); Gilroy (2002 [1987]); Gilroy (2010); Krishna (2015); Persaud and Walker (2015); Quijano (2010 [2007]); Quijano (2008 [2000]); Saint-Arnaud (2009 [2003]); Stoler (1995). 22. See, for example: Connell (2007); Connell (2014); Das Nair and Butler (2012); Stoler (1995); Taylor et al. (2011). 23. Patel (2014), p. 604. 24. Ibid., p. 604. 25. Ibid., p. 604 (italics added). 26. On this point, see Susen (2015a), pp. 49–55. 27. Patel (2014), p. 605 (italics added) (punctuation modified). 28. Ibid., p. 605. 29. Ibid., p. 605. 30. Ibid., p. 605. 31. Ibid., p. 605. 32. On this point, see Susen (2015a), p. 60. 33. Ibid., p. 60 (italics in original). 34. Ibid., p. 60 (italics in original). 35. Ibid., p. 60 (italics in original). 36. Ibid., p. 60 (italics in original). 37. Patel (2014), p. 605. 38. Ibid., p. 605 (italics added).

4  Globality and Connectivity 

91

39. On this point, see also, for example: Bhabha (1994); Bhambra (2007a); Bhambra (2014a); Bhambra et al. (2014); Boatcă (2013); Boatcă and Costa (2010); Boatcă et al. (2010); Calhoun (2003); Chakrabarty (2000); Chakrabarty (2003); Connell (2007); Delanty and Isin (2003); Go (2013b); Go (2013c); Guha (1988); Gutiérrez Rodríguez et al. (2010); Mignolo (2000); Randeria (2002); Said (1978); Santos (2004); Smith (2012 [1999]); Steinmetz (2013); Susen (2015a), Chapter 4; Wallerstein (2004b); Young (2004 [1990]). 40. Patel (2014), p. 605. 41. Ibid., p. 605. 42. Susen (2015a), p. 10 (italics in original). 43. Patel (2014), p. 605. 44. Ibid., p. 605. 45. On the concept of ‘methodological nationalism’, see, for example: Chernilo (2006a); Chernilo (2006b); Chernilo (2007a); Chernilo (2007b); Chernilo (2008). See also Fine (2007), pp. ix, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14. 46. On the concept of ‘provincialization’, see, for example: Burawoy (2005b); Chakrabarty (2000); Goswami (2013); Holmwood (2007), esp. pp. 55–56; Holmwood (2010a), p. 648. 47. On the concept of ‘endogenous knowledge’, see, for example: Hountondji (1997 [1994]). 48. Patel (2014), p. 606. 49. Ibid., p. 606 (italics added). 50. Ibid., p. 606 (italics added). 51. Ibid., p. 607 (quotation modified). 52. Ibid., p. 607. 53. Ibid., p. 607. 54. Ibid., p. 608. 55. Ibid., p. 608. 56. Ibid., p. 608. 57. Ibid., p.  608. On this point, see also Hountondji (1997 [1994]) and Hountondji (1995). 58. Patel (2014), p. 608. 59. Ibid., p. 609. 60. On this point, see Bhambra (2014c) and Magubane (2014). 61. Chakrabarty (2000), p. xiii (italics added). On this point, see also Patel (2014), p. 609. 62. Patel (2014), p. 609. 63. Ibid., p. 609. 64. On this point, see Bhambra (2014c) and Magubane (2014). 65. Patel (2014), p. 609. 66. On this point, see Connell (2014), Lan (2014), and Reddock (2014). 67. Patel (2014), p. 609 (italics added).

92 

S. Susen

68. Ibid., p. 609 (italics added). 69. Ibid., p. 610. 70. Ibid., p. 610 (italics added) (punctuation modified). 71. Bhambra (2014a), p. 141. 72. Giddens (1990), p.  1 (quotation modified). On Giddens’s conception of ‘modernity’, see ibid., esp. pp. 1–17 and 45–54. Cf. Outhwaite (2014a). On this point, see Susen (2015a), p. 12. 73. Bhambra (2014a), p. 141. 74. Ibid., p. 141. 75. Ibid., p. 141. 76. Ibid., p. 142. 77. Ibid., p. 142. 78. Ibid., p. 142 (punctuation modified). 79. Ibid., p. 142 (italics in original). 80. Ibid., p. 142. 81. Ibid., p. 142. 82. On this point, see ibid., p. 142. 83. Ibid., p. 145. 84. Ibid., p. 145. 85. On Hegel’s ‘master-slave dialectic’ (sometimes referred to as ‘the lordship and bondage relation’), see Hegel (1977 [1807]). See also Hegel (1990 [1825–1826]). In addition, see Susen (2015c), p. 1028. 86. Bhambra (2014a), p. 146. 87. Ibid., p. 145. 88. Ibid., p. 146. 89. Ibid., p. 146. 90. Ibid., p. 146. 91. Ibid., p. 147. 92. Ibid., p. 147. 93. Ibid., p. 147. 94. Susen (2015a), p. 137 (italics in original) (quotation modified). 95. Bhambra (2014a), p. 148. 96. Ibid., p. 148. 97. Ibid., p. 148. 98. Ibid., p. 148 (italics added). 99. Ibid., p. 149. 100. Ibid., p. 149. 101. Ibid., p. 149 (italics added) (punctuation modified). 102. Ibid., p. 149 (italics added). 103. Ibid., p. 149. 104. Ibid., p. 150. 105. Ibid., p. 150. 106. Ibid., p. 151.

4  Globality and Connectivity 

93

107. Ibid., p. 151. 108. Ibid., p. 151. 109. Ibid., p. 151. 110. Bauman (1997), p. 5. 111. On this point, see, for instance, Alexander (2013), Hobsbawm (1994), and Mazower (1998). See also Susen (2015a), pp. 15, 45, 75, 139, 169, 176, 218, 234, 235, 236, 240, 251, and 268. 112. Translation from German into English: the ‘historians’ quarrel’ or the ‘historians’ dispute’. Taking place in West Germany between 1986 and 1989, the Historikerstreit was an intellectual and political controversy concerned with the interpretation of the Holocaust. On this point, see, for instance: Habermas (1989 [1985/1987]); Nolte (1977); Nolte (1987). See also Kienel (2007) and Kronenberg (2008). 113. Susen (2015a), p. 240. 114. Bhambra (2014a), p. 151. 115. Ibid., p. 151. 116. Ibid., p. 152 (italics added). 117. Ibid., p. 152 (italics added). 118. Ibid., p. 152. 119. Ibid., p. 152 (punctuation modified). 120. Ibid., p. 152. 121. Ibid., p. 152. On this point, see also Hansen (2002) and Hansen (2004). Cf. Adler-Nissen and Gad (2013) as well as Bonilla (2015). 122. Bhambra (2014a), p. 153 (italics added). 123. Ibid., p. 153. 124. Ibid., p. 153. 125. Grotius (2012 [1625]). 126. Hobbes (1998 [1642/1647/1651]). 127. Locke (1993 [1924/1689]). 128. Rousseau (1996 [1762]). 129. Proudhon (1969 [1851]). 130. Rawls (1999 [1971]). 131. Gauthier (1986). 132. Pettit (1997). 133. Bhambra (2014a), p. 154. 134. Ibid., p. 154. 135. Ibid., p. 155 (italics added). 136. Ibid., p. 155. 137. Ibid., p. 155 (italics added). 138. Ibid., p. 156. 139. Ibid., p. 156.

Part III Intimations of Canonicity

5 Canonicity and Sociology

Far from being reducible to a peripheral phenomenon of disciplinary development, canonicity lies at the core of most institutionalized fields of academic inquiry. In this regard, sociology is no exception. Indeed, the formation of an epistemic canon in sociology can be traced back all the way to the ground-­ breaking works that have shaped its disciplinary identity from the beginning of its existence. Notwithstanding the question of whether one agrees or disagrees with the view that Marx, Durkheim, and Weber deserve to be considered the ‘founding figures’ of sociology, the far-reaching significance of their legacy is undeniable. The importance of their writings transcends the epistemic boundaries of disciplinary specificity, as reflected in their profound impact on neighbouring fields of investigation—such as history, philosophy, political science, and anthropology. Surely, the fact that these three thinkers have acquired the quasi-religious status of a ‘holy trinity’ in the history of sociology—including the way in which the discipline is taught at school and university—is problematic for several reasons, three of which are particularly noteworthy. 1. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, various other writers made substantial contributions to the development of sociology—notably in terms of its epistemological underpinnings, conceptual toolboxes, methodological strategies, and sources of empirical data. Among other scholars who, owing to their lasting impact on the discipline, are frequently regarded as ‘classical sociologists’ are intellectual pioneers such as Auguste Comte (1798–1857), Georg Simmel (1858–1918), George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), and—more recently—Norbert Elias (1897–1990). © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_5

97

98 

S. Susen

2. Similar to epistemic selection processes in contemporary sociology, canon formation in classical sociology suffers from the ‘white-theory-boys syndrome’.1 In other words, ever since it established itself as a major academic discipline, research directions in sociology have been dominated by the agendas of privileged, white, Western, male, middle- or old-aged, and highly educated experts. To put it bluntly, discriminatory mechanisms have been at work in sociology no less than in society. This means that sociology has found itself in the paradoxical position of both exposing and reproducing practices and structures of classism, sexism, ethnocentrism, ageism, ableism, and numerous other ‘-isms’ designating specific modes of discrimination. Arguably, the reduction of ‘sociological classicality’ to the restricted circle of the ‘holy trinity’ of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber is culpable of contributing to a narrowing of disciplinary perspective, based on the voices of privileged, white, Western European, middle-class men. 3. The canonization of knowledge is problematic to the extent that it involves the uncritical acceptance of doxic, dogmatic, and doctrinal presuppositions, which are reinforced by the self-referential activities of epistemic communities. Of course, the taken-for-grantedness of implicit assumptions shared by particular groups of actors is as much an essential ingredient of everyday life as a precondition for the production of scientific knowledge. To the degree that these assumptions are effectively treated as irrefutable presuppositions, however, those who rely on them—irrespective of whether they do so as laypersons or as experts—run the risk of producing and reproducing stifling patterns of description, interpretation, and explanation. Such a limited epistemic horizon does not leave sufficient room for self-questioning and self-criticism, let alone for subversion and transformation. Marx, Durkheim, and Weber are widely regarded as the ‘founding figures’ of sociology. Any attempt to break out of the straitjacket of such a strongly consolidated hegemony, by exploring the possibility of identifying ground-breaking works beyond the imaginary constraints imposed by the discursive construction of this canonical trinity, appears to lack legitimacy in the eyes of those blinded by too narrow an understanding of the roots of sociology. These reservations put aside, there is no point in denying that Marx, Durkheim, and Weber are widely considered the ‘founding figures’ of sociology and that, furthermore, they have made invaluable contributions to the discipline. The question that remains in the context of making a case for a truly global sociology, however, is to what extent not only the lives but also the works of its ‘founding figures’ remain trapped in the limited horizon of coloniality.

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

99

The Rise of Sociology and the Rise of Imperialism: A Historical Coincidence? What has come to be known as ‘classical sociology’2—notably the works of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber—‘took shape during the high point of a world dominated by imperial states’.3 In sociology, both in its classical and in its contemporary versions, it has become commonplace to associate the rise of modernity with a number of key developments. In this respect, the following processes can be regarded as crucial to the rise of modernity: 1. industrialization    (economic level) 2. rationalization     (epistemic level) 3. ideologization    (political level) 4. bureaucratization  (organizational level) 5. individualization  (cultural level) 6. emancipation   (philosophical level) This is not the place to provide a detailed analysis, let alone an in-depth discussion, of these processes.4 For the sake of brevity, let us elucidate the relevance of these dimensions to a sociological understanding of modernity. 1. At the economic level, the rise of modernity cannot be dissociated from processes of industrialization. These manifest themselves in the expansion of industrial capitalism, commencing in the eighteenth century and subsequently spreading across the world, leading to the consolidation of dynamic and wide-ranging patterns of production, distribution, and consumption on an unprecedented scale. 2. At the epistemic level, the rise of modernity cannot be divorced from processes of rationalization. Their significance is illustrated in the far-reaching influence of science on virtually all facets of human existence, including both its private and its public aspects, contributing significantly to the secularization of society and, thus, to the repositioning of traditional sources of authority, such as religion. 3. At the political level, the rise of modernity cannot be separated from processes of ideologization. These are expressed in ‘the elaboration, justification, divulgation, application, institutionalization, and constant revision of political programmes founded on ideological principles’.5 Modern ­history has been profoundly shaped by ‘major’ political ideologies (such as anarchism, communism/socialism, liberalism, conservatism, and fascism) as well as by ‘sub-major’ political ideologies (such as nationalism, feminism, and environmentalism), which have been hybridized and cross-­ fertilized in numerous ways, demonstrating their adaptability and elasticity.

100 

S. Susen

4. At the organizational level, the rise of modernity cannot be dissociated from processes of bureaucratization. Their far-reaching impact is epitomized in the colonization of almost every sphere of modern society by different types of instrumental rationality, accompanied by the emergence of unparalleled degrees of systemic—notably large-scale administrative—complexity. 5. At the cultural level, the rise of modernity is characterized by processes of individualization. These are reflected in people’s capacity to convert themselves into protagonists of their own destiny and to construct their sense of self by developing, and drawing upon, increasingly pluralized, as well as internally fragmented, forms of personal identity. 6. At the philosophical level, the rise of modernity is inextricably linked to processes of emancipation. These are inspired by different intellectual discourses of the Enlightenment, indicating a historic transition ‘from heteronomy to autonomy, from dependence to freedom, or from alienation to self-realization’.6 In the context of modernity, individual and collective actors are expected to convert themselves not only into protagonists of their own destiny, but also into sovereign subjects capable of liberating themselves from illegitimate regimes of power, repression, and domination by pursuing different routes to human emancipation. What tends to be overlooked in mainstream accounts offered by modern intellectual thought, however, is the historical coincidence between the rise of sociology and the rise of imperialism.7 Indeed, ‘a world organized by imperial states and empires persisted well into the early twentieth century’.8 Against the background of this constellation of global players, the social sciences— including sociology—developed both institutionally and ideologically, above all in those national societies that had established colonies across the world, notably in Africa and Asia. Based on the formulaic teaching of the works of ‘the classics’, sociology became an increasingly canonized discipline. This process of canonization has led to the proliferation of standardized explanations of social change—an epistemic tendency that may be interpreted as an expression of a worrying degree of ‘historical amnesia’9 in sociology. Idealist readings of the recent past may give the misleading impression that the course of modern European history was shaped mainly, if not exclusively, by the progressive values of the Enlightenment10 and the French Revolution,11 as well as by the establishment of an international system of co-operating states in the spirit of the Treaty of Westphalia.12 Contrary to such a one-sided and overly optimistic interpretation, however, a more comprehensive analysis of modernity obliges us to recognize that the pursuit of imperialist goals, as

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

101

illustrated in processes of empire-building, continued to drive key European nation-state players until the early and mid-twentieth century. Granted, large parts of classical sociology may be characterized as ‘historical sociology’,13 in the sense that its most prominent representatives—such as Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, but also Hebert Spencer (1820–1903),14 Lester F.  Ward (1841–1913),15 Georg Simmel (1858–1918),16 and Norbert Elias (1897–1990)17—emphasized the spatiotemporal contingency of all forms of sociality. Despite the ubiquity of imperial realities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, however, ‘the very idea of empire’18 remained largely ‘peripheral to classical sociology’.19 In fact, one finds little in the way of an empirically substantiated, methodologically innovative, and conceptually sophisticated engagement with imperial realities in the writings of classical sociologists.20 Thus, at the heart of classical sociology lies a fundamental contradiction: • On the one hand, both the presence and the significance of empire were acknowledged by all prominent nineteenth-century and early twentieth-­ century sociologists. • On the other hand, despite the crucial role of empire-building in the development and organization of modernity,21 the rise of imperial dynamics remained a concern of marginal importance in the works of these sociologists. The question that poses itself in this context is why it appears to be the case that the quality of the intellectual contributions made by classical sociologists suffers from ‘a systemic neglect or absence of imperial dynamics as a discrete, independent social and political process’.22 Given their foundational status in the discipline of sociology, let us consider the cases of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber in more detail. Marx Marx (1818–1883) was highly familiar with the everyday reality of empire. Throughout his life, he experienced different national contexts of what is now often described as ‘the Global North’. In this sense, particularly formative were his periods of residence in major European cities—notably in Berlin (1836–1842), Cologne (1842–1843 and 1848–1849), Paris (1843–1845), Brussels (1845–1848), and London (1849–1883). Once he had settled in Great Britain, the place in which he spent more than half of his adult life, his writings on the politics of the British Empire became his main source of revenue, especially in the 1850s and 1860s. Given that, in the late nineteenth

102 

S. Susen

century, Great Britain was the heartland not only of industrial capitalism but also of colonial imperialism, Marx could hardly have been placed in a more suitable environment for his critical engagement with key societal transformations that were associated with the rise of modernity. London turned out to be his adopted home for the greater part of his intellectual life. With regard to the concept of ‘empire’, his political writings were marked by the crucial distinction between precapitalist empires and capitalist empires. • A striking characteristic of precapitalist or, in Marx’s words, ‘Asiatic’ empires (such as Persia, the Ottoman Empire, India, and China) is that they ‘undergo political but not social change’.23 In Marxist terms, while their ideological superstructure may go through substantial transformations, their economic base tends to remain largely stagnant. According to Marx, the relatively fixed constitution of the Asiatic type is due to the economically self-sufficient and geographically secluded organization of village life, whose social reproduction is based on the collective ownership of property. This explains why, throughout the history of Asiatic empires, the rise and demise of political sovereigns left the underlying mode of production of village life essentially unaltered.24 • A defining feature of capitalist empires is that they undergo both political and social change. In Marxist terms, both their ideological superstructure and their economic base are in a constant state of flux. On this account, societal transformations are driven by the dynamic constitution of incessantly evolving forces of production. The development of modern imperial states—such as Great Britain and France—hinges on the rapid expansion of capitalist political economies, which largely determine the civilizational changes taking place in market-driven societies. Under the spread of capitalism across the world, accelerated by the imposition of different forms of colonialist imperialism, more and more workers were converted into wage labourers, at the same time as key elements of social life (such as land, labour, technology, and material resources) were transformed into commodities. For Marx, India was a classic example of this extensive process. Hitherto relatively autonomous village life was radically transformed, as common ownership was gradually replaced by private ownership—above all, by the private property of the means of production, which is central to any capitalist economy.

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

103

From a Marxist perspective, ‘colonialism is significant as a means to create the conditions of a world capitalist order’.25 Given their worldwide influence, ‘[i]mperial states will sweep away the dead weight of centuries-old social traditions and fossilized forms of social life’.26 Under the pressures exerted by the relentless forces of global capitalism, the fate of every society depends on its capacity to adapt to processes of commodification and the pursuit of profit maximization.27 From a Marxist point of view, then, ‘imperialism is a necessary but transitional moment in the development of capitalism’.28 It creates the ensemble of social conditions required for the establishment of capitalism on a global scale. While Marx provided invaluable insights into the nature of capitalism, especially in relation to disempowering processes of exploitation and alienation, his work suffered from a tendency to portray imperialism as ‘a brief historical phase in the internationalization of capitalism’.29 Constrained by the somewhat simplistic parameters of this interpretive framework, ‘Marx had very little to say about imperialism in his successive drafts of the critique of political economy’.30 To be sure, the connection between capitalism and colonialism is crucial to understanding both the former and the latter. To reduce imperialism to a merely transitional moment in the history of capitalism, however, means to underestimate the far-reaching significance of colonialism, whose multifaceted complexity has played a constitutive, rather than marginal, role in the development and organization of modern societies. Of course, in the intellectual tradition of Marxism, there are exceptions—most famously, V. I. Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, both of whom provided elaborate economic theories of imperialism.31 In Marx’s own writings, however, one finds little in the way of an in-depth study of imperialism, capable of doing justice to its crucial functions in the development of global capitalism. Durkheim France’s attempt to establish itself as a world empire was expressed in its numerous colonial ambitions outside the European continent. Particularly significant in this respect were its invasion of Algeria in 1830 and its eventual conquest of Algeria in 1882.32 Similar to other world powers, France’s colonial agenda was shaped by tension-laden domestic policies, geopolitical competition with other major state players, and the ideological construction of a ‘civilizing mission’, which its advocates justified by reference to the key principles of the French Revolution (1789–1799)—liberté, égalité, fraternité. Its capacity to project its power on a global scale was illustrated in the establishment of numerous French colonies across the world—not only throughout the African continent, but also in the islands it controlled in the Pacific and Indian Ocean,

104 

S. Susen

as well as in key areas of Southeast Asia, such as Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. In addition, it managed to impose garrisons and trading posts in India and China. A remarkable feature of French colonialism was that, unlike its British rival, it ‘aspired to centralized state control over its colonies’.33 As such, it epitomized the project of a ‘Greater France’, which, while centrally governed from Paris, would transcend the borders of the European continent and extend to its provinces and colonies across the world. Ideologically, this large-scale colonial endeavour was justified on the basis of the aforementioned Republican ideals, which—in theory—were socially inclusive, but which—in practice— turned out to be socially exclusive. While the native people of colonized territories were supposed to be ‘elevated’ to an allegedly ‘superior’ civilizational level by obtaining the status of French citizens, in reality they were facing the discriminatory practices and structures of imperial power exercised, in many cases, in the most repressive and oppressive forms possible. The same nation whose protagonists purported to defend the famous normative principles of 1789 denied the validity of these principles to other peoples, as illustrated in the usurpation of distant territories and conquest of foreign populations. Irrespective of the strongest efforts to keep ‘French nationals’ and ‘colonial natives’ separate, ‘people, ideas, and goods circulated between the metropole and colony’.34 In other words, colonialism was not simply a one-way process. Just as colonizing powers exerted considerable influence over the territories and populations they conquered, the latter had a substantial impact upon the development of the former. At the same time as French culture was imposed upon France’s colonies, ‘[c]olonial culture was brought into France’.35 This was mainly due to waves of migration from the colonies to the ‘home countries’ of their colonizers, but it was also reflected in the various institutions that had been founded with the aim of studying colonized societies—notably their geographies, histories, languages, and cultures.36 Based on the analysis of his manifold writings, it appears that ‘Durkheim was neither a public advocate nor a critic of French imperialism’.37 Yet, this did not prevent him from developing ‘a sociological critique of German imperialism’,38 especially in relation to its militarist and expansionist tendencies, which, in his view, had reached an abnormal degree emanating from the rivalry between European nation-states. For Durkheim, however, imperialism was not an inevitable outcome of the fierce competition between nation-states, aiming to pursue their interests and to enhance their position within the global division of power. Rather, it was the unfortunate—but by no means unavoidable—product of a sociohistorical constellation in which the modern

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

105

state attributed more importance to its military function than to its moral function. The former is reflected in its ‘external’ role, which consists in protecting society from (potential or actual) outside threats. The latter is illustrated in its ‘internal’ role, which consists in providing a viable normative framework for all members of society, stipulating what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, legitimate and illegitimate. The former reinforces the state’s external sovereignty, which hinges on its capacity to claim legitimacy from being recognized, and respected, by other states. The latter reaffirms the state’s internal sovereignty, which rests on its capacity to claim legitimacy from being recognized, and respected, by its own citizens—that is, by the subjects that it is supposed to represent. In premodern social formations, it was especially the military function of the state by means of which it was able to exert ‘almost unlimited power’.39 The principal task of such ‘a military and colonial state’40 was ‘to increase the material power of a society’,41 with the army taking on the role of ‘the organ of conquest’.42 In the age of modernity, the state underwent a paradigm shift: ‘the military role of the state diminishes while its moral role becomes primary’.43 In this unprecedented historical context, a state’s engagement in warfare, although it has far from disappeared, has become the exception. ‘Instead we see the growth of deliberative assemblies, judiciary, legal codes, contractual relations […] administrative bodies’,44 implying that, gradually, the state has become a ‘civil organ of justice’.45 The era of colonialism constitutes a historical period dominated by absolutist states driven by militarist and expansionist ambitions, ‘circumscribed only by the constraints of foreign powers’46 in the struggle for global influence. Yet, as part of the ‘civilizing process’47 fostered by the European project of modernity, the ‘deliberative civic role’48 of the state ‘expands as it takes on more responsibility for securing the moral conditions of civic order and justice’.49 Analogously, its military functions diminish, given the emergence of a new international order oriented towards the consolidation of long-term peace between different nations. It appears, then, that imperialist states whose actions are driven primarily by militarist and colonialist expansionism do not have a legitimate place in the modern world order.50 ‘In the spirit of Kant and the liberal Enlightenment, Durkheim anticipated a world of nations regulated by an international moral order anchored in ideals of the sacredness of the person, national sovereignty, and perpetual peace […].’51 Processes of social differentiation are a defining feature of modern life forms. These processes are accompanied by the constant exchange of functions, goods, services, and resources between numerous individual and

106 

S. Susen

collective actors living in increasingly differentiated societies, which are reproduced on the basis of a gradually evolving division of labour.52 In this emerging network of interdependence both within and between national societies, the modern state became more and more disentangled from civil society, thereby ensuring it would be in a position to exercise a substantial degree of autonomy and ‘moral agency’.53 It was Durkheim’s conviction—or at least his hope—that, in the context of modernity, states would be increasingly ‘regulated by civil society and by an international order’,54 committed to the establishment of peace and the pursuit of prosperity. The obvious exception was Germany. German exceptionalism was reflected in the ideal of ‘pan-Germanism’—that is, in the quest for the political unification of all Europeans speaking German or a Germanic language. Advocates of this ideal—notably those inspired by Hegel—tended to conceive of the German state as the superior expression of ‘the German nation’, not only in social and political terms, but also in cultural and ethnic terms. As the history of the twentieth century illustrated with clarity, this pan-Germanic project ‘drove the [German] nation into the militaristic and imperial pursuit of power’,55 culminating in World War II and genocide on an unprecedented scale. Weber Given that Germany—understood as a unified nation-state—did not come into existence until 1871, it may be described as ‘a latecomer to nationhood’.56 While the creation of the German nation-state was an intended consequence of the Franco-Prussian War (July 1870–10 May 1871), the principal architect of this process, Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898), was ‘a reluctant imperialist’,57 in the sense that he regarded German colonies, at best, as an unnecessary luxury or, at worst, as a costly nuisance. Indeed, his overriding priority was the ambitious goal of establishing national unity, based on a strong sense of cultural identity and civic order, while converting the German Empire (Deutsches Reich) into one of the most dominant political forces in modern history. The decision not to treat its colonial activities as a first priority gave the recently born German nation-state not only the opportunity to avoid direct military confrontation with world powers such as France and Britain, but also the capacity to focus on the large-scale industrialization of its own society. Bismarck’s strategic approach, however, was by no means shared by all members of the German establishment. In its young history, numerous members of Germany’s political, cultural, and economic elite—notably governmental figures and parliamentary representatives, right-wing intellectuals and

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

107

scholars, as well as business leaders and influential merchants—‘lobbied for an imperial state’58 capable of defending their interests and pursuing their ambitions on a global scale.59 Indeed, such a colonial project was motivated by four main geo-economic objectives: a. the creation of new markets of production, distribution, and consumption; b. the expansion of capital across the globe; c. the borderless exploitation of labour power as human capital; and d. the tapping of raw materials and natural resources in different parts of the world.60 From the point of view of numerous key members of its political, cultural, and economic elite, the worldwide influence of Germany could be secured only through the state’s bold and proactive involvement in the spread of modern colonialism. The key assumption underlying this conviction was straightforward: ‘[w]eak nations could not compete with powerful imperial states’.61 On this account, the most efficient way of guaranteeing access to foreign markets, the expansion of capital, the exploitation of overseas labour, and the tapping of natural resources across the globe was to participate in the imperial game, trying to secure an advantageous position in relation to one’s main competitors. An additional reason for making a case for a strong imperial state was to be found in the fact that, following Germany’s rapid large-scale industrialization, a significant amount of its citizens saw themselves forced to emigrate, aiming to find work and/or land elsewhere. Arguably, German colonies provided convenient environments for German emigrants, permitting them to leave their country, while sustaining a sense of national loyalty and taking advantage of a familiar political, cultural, and economic infrastructure far away from their homeland. Given the weight of these considerations, it was no surprise that, ‘[f ]rom the early 1880s through World War I, Germany became a major force in the global field of imperial rivalry’.62 Its consolidation as a world power was reflected in its colonization of South West Africa [Südwestafrika] (1883–1884), Cameroon [Kamerun] (1884), and East Africa [Deutsch-Ostafrika] (1895), as well as in its establishment of a so-called ‘protectorate’ in Togo (1884). In addition, it managed to secure a considerable imperial presence in the Pacific, notably in West Samoa (1900).63 By the beginning of World War I in 1914, ‘Germany’s colonial territory was exceeded only by the British and French’,64 making it—along with other main players, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, Italy, Spain, and Portugal—one of the most influential imperial powers in the world.

108 

S. Susen

The obvious question that poses itself in relation to classical sociology is what Weber’s position was in relation to Germany’s rise to an imperial player. A founding member of the German Democratic Party (DDP), he was a centre-­left scholar, whom some perceived as ‘a fairly conventional nationalist’.65 As such, he took the view that both domestic and foreign policies should be pursued in accordance with the interests of the nation-state. From this perspective, the defence of national interests—especially those embodied in key dimensions such as politics, culture, and economics—ought to be among the highest-ranking values guiding the state in general and the exercise of state power in particular.66 This typically liberal stance, which emphasized the importance of access to foreign markets and resources, led him to advocate German expansionism, maintaining that ‘[t]he expanded economic community is just another form of the struggle of the nations with each other’.67 In fact, he elaborated on this notion in an even more radical fashion, suggesting that his and his compatriots’ ‘successors will hold [them] answerable to history not primarily for the kind of economic organization [they] hand down to them, but for the amount of elbow-room in the world which [they] conquer and bequeath to them’.68 Statements of this sort leave little doubt that Weber’s political worldview was sympathetic towards ‘the legitimation and development of a movement of liberal imperialism in late nineteenth-century Germany’.69 It is striking that, with the exception of the analysis of ancient empires he provides in his The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations,70 it is only in his Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology71 that Weber offers a rigorous examination of the sociological implications of imperialism. In this study, arguably his magnum opus, he tends to associate empire with ‘patrimonial rule’, which stands for ‘a form of the traditional legitimation of political authority’.72 In this respect, the distinction between patrimonialism and feudalism is noteworthy. The former is personalistic, involving a clear-cut separation between ruler and subjects. The latter is legalistic, ensuring the distribution of rights, duties, and authority.73 Patrimonialism—especially to the extent that, under its umbrella, the exercise of power remains largely unrestrained and unchallenged—fits the logic of empire. By contrast, feudalism—especially to the extent that, under its umbrella, the exercise of power is at least partially restrained and can be challenged—undermines the logic of empire. The former relies on the centralization and monopolization of power. The latter hinges on the decentralization and distribution of power. Based on this typological opposition, Weber drew a distinction between ‘the patrimonial-empire nexus of the “Orient”’74 and ‘the feudal-modern nexus of the “Occident”’.75 Weber suggested that, after the fall of the Roman Empire,

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

109

patrimonialism was gradually replaced by feudalism, which meant that, across ‘the West’, traditional and charismatic forms of domination, although they never completely disappeared, were substituted by—or, at many levels, combined with—legal-rational forms of domination. In a revealing section entitled ‘The Economic Foundations of “Imperialism”’,76 Weber presented an outline of a sociology of imperialism, attributing central importance to the concept of ‘empire’. Rejecting the economistic and arguably determinist presuppositions underlying orthodox Marxist approaches, Weber was keen to highlight the role of non-economic factors—such as prestige, status, reputation, and nationalism—in bringing about, and shaping, imperialism. The aforementioned dual typology, which is based on the distinction between the patrimonial-empire nexus of ‘the Orient’ and the feudal-modern nexus of ‘the Occident’, is crucial in offering a sociological explanation for, on the one hand, the relatively rapid and successful development of ‘the West’ and, on the other hand, the backwardness and increasing peripheralization of ‘the East’. Weber drew a fundamental distinction between ‘the Occident’ and ‘the Orient’. In addition, he sought to account for the reasons behind the rise of Western modernity, shedding light on its historical idiosyncrasies. He was explicit about the centrality of this investigative endeavour, notably in his ‘Vorbemerkung’ to Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie,77 which was published as the ‘Author’s Introduction’78 to the English edition of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.79 In this ‘Preliminary Remark’ (to provide a literal translation of the German word ‘Vorbemerkung’), he stated that the main task of his historical sociology was to shed light on ‘the sociocultural uniqueness of Occidental civilization’.80 As he spelled out in this preface, ‘[i]t is […] our first concern to work out and to explain genetically the special peculiarity of Occidental rationalism, and within this field that of the modern Occidental form’.81 In Weber’s eyes, among the unique features of Western modernity are the following: industrial capitalism; rational law; the state of law; constitutionalism; large-scale bureaucracy; the preponderance of instrumental rationality; the rise of science; secularization; and civic, political, and social citizenship. It appears, however, that Weber’s historical sociology suffered from an ‘internalist bias’: in his eyes, the key ingredients of Western modernity could be explained as endogenous phenomena that developed out of the continent’s own history. According to such an ‘internalist explanation of Occidental modernization’,82 historical sociologists, in order to understand the specificity of ‘the West’ as well as its hegemonic influence on other parts of the world, need to focus on the cornerstones of Western civilization—such as the foundational

110 

S. Susen

contributions of Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, Christianity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment. This (arguably Eurocentric) view implied that Weber’s historical sociology hardly acknowledged the pivotal role of imperialism—notably in terms of ‘the interconnection between metropole and colony’,83 between ‘centre’ and ‘periphery’, between colonizers and colonized. It seems, then, that Weber failed to account for the numerous links between Europe and other continents, without which modernity, as we know—or, rather, have come to know—it, would have been a sheer impossibility. * * * Despite the fact that the writings of classical sociologists—such as the works of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber—were produced during an era of imperialism, dominated by the hegemonic position of major European powers, they contained little in the way a systematic engagement with the extent to which empire, far from being reducible to a large-scale societal constellation of the past, should be regarded as a constitutive element of modernity. Consequently, they failed to recognize the degree to which the multiple connections between ‘colonizers’ and ‘colonized’ were central to the various civilizational—that is, economic, epistemic, political, organizational, cultural, and philosophical as well as technological, military, demographic, and environmental—developments associated with the rise of modernity. It appears, then, that classical sociology is marked, at best, by a deficient engagement with or, at worst, by an almost complete neglect of the far-­ reaching impact of colonialism on historical developments across the world. Similar to many of their European predecessors, contemporaries, and successors, classical sociologists shared the problematic assumption—now commonly described as ‘Orientalism’84—that world history, especially in the modern period, was based on a civilizational divide between ‘the Occident’ and ‘the Orient’: • In historico-geographical terms, the former referred to Western European life forms founded on the Greek city-states and the early Roman Republic, whereas the latter was associated with the legacy of ‘the ancient empires of the Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, and China’.85 • In historico-sociological terms, the former was portrayed as ‘dynamic’ and ‘forward-looking’, representing key elements of the Enlightenment (such as progress, science, reason, and cosmopolitan attitudes), whereas the latter

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

111

was conceived of as ‘static’ and ‘backward-looking’, incapable of overcoming its deep-rooted attachment to ‘traditionalism, localism, social stagnation, and empire’.86 In short, they bought into the somewhat simplistic dichotomous distinction between ‘Occident = modernity’ and ‘Orient = tradition’. Of course, it would be erroneous to suggest that their interpretations of this divide are congruous. • In Marx’s historical materialism, ‘the Orient’ is conceptualized primarily in economico-societal, rather than geographical, terms.87 On this account, vast regions—as diverse as Eurasia, Central Asia, and the Middle East—were largely governed by the so-called Asiatic mode of production, as demonstrated in the constitution of societies that were ‘village-centered, tradition-­ bound, rigidly hierarchical, based on collective property and sustained by an imperial or despotic state’.88 In Marx’s view, Asiatic societies were characterized by a considerable lack of dynamism, especially in relation to their economic organization: Oriental empires always show an unchanging social infrastructure coupled with unceasing change in the persons and tribes who manage to ascribe to themselves the political superstructure.89

This statement is indicative of the schematic assumptions underlying Marx’s social evolutionism, suggesting that human history can be divided into the following modes of production: primitive-communist; Asiatic; antique or ancient; feudal; capitalist; socialist; and, finally, communist. According to this stage theory of civilizational development, societies of ‘the Orient’ never succeeded in reaching an evolutionary phase beyond the Asiatic period, illustrating their intrinsically stagnant nature. In light of this explanatory framework, it was due to the exogenous force of capitalist imperialism—imposed upon ‘the Orient’ by ‘the Occident’—that Asiatic societies succeeded in evolving beyond their own—endogenously l­ imited— horizons, as exemplified by the dramatic structural changes that were inflicted upon China, India, Persia, and the Middle East.90 • In Durkheim’s sociological functionalism, the transition from ‘traditional society’ to ‘modern society’ is epitomized in the replacement of ‘mechanic solidarity’ by ‘organic solidarity’ and, furthermore, expressed in the gradual shift from ‘the cult of the tribe’ and ‘the cult of God’ to ‘the cult of the individual’.91 Thus, the consolidation of modern society signals a profound

112 

S. Susen

historical transition from ‘segmented’ and ‘collectivist’ to ‘highly differentiated’ and ‘individualist’ life forms. The former are relatively static, insofar as ‘their common culture and repressive laws resist change’92 and major societal transformations. The latter are remarkably dynamic, insofar as they are not only founded on unprecedented degrees of ‘social differentiation and individualism’93 but also foster, and even depend upon, constant adjustment and alteration processes. On this account, non-Western societies—including contemporary ‘Oriental’ formations, such as Russia and China—remain trapped in the horizons of traditionalism and despotism.94 • In Weber’s historical sociology, the distinction between ‘Occident’ and ‘Orient’ is crucial to understanding civilizational developments in the modern world. Similar to Marx and Durkheim, Weber conceived of modernization as a historical process that was primarily—if not exclusively— taking place in Western countries. For him, too, the reality of ‘failed modernization in the East’95 was, to a large extent, a product of the geo-­ specific preponderance of Oriental despotism and traditionalism. In China, for instance, although several significant political and administrative changes took place, notably under (and between) the Qin Dynasty (221 BCE–206 BCE) and the Qing Dynasty (1644–1912), the structural and institutional foundations of the Chinese social order remained almost entirely unchanged over the considerable historical period of almost two millennia. Notwithstanding both the triumph and the decline of different emperors in China, its social order—which was based upon clan-based villages and reproduced through age-old behavioural and ideological mechanisms of patriarchal authority and ancestor worship—remained largely intact, obstructing substantial change and transformation. This meant that, unlike Western Europe, whose proclivity for progress and innovation reached its peak in modernity, Oriental life forms remained bound to the past, incapable of replicating the civilizational accomplishments of Occidental dynamism and secularism. For Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, the course of world history is marked by ‘a civilizational divide between Occident and Orient’.96 This binary interpretation attributes chief characteristics—if not ‘a core social identity’97—to each of the two civilizational blocs, which are essentially ‘antithetical’.98 Far from being reducible to a set of simplistic assumptions whose influence can be relegated to the past, Occidentalist and Orientalist misperceptions, misconceptions, and misrepresentations—on which large parts of classical sociology appear to be based—continue to play a pivotal role in the construction of social and political discourses in the early twenty-first century.

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

113

As illustrated in the recent rise of right-wing populism across the world, notably in Europe and in the Americas,99 both Occidentalism and Orientalism—which serve as interdependent reductive typologizations of two civilizational blocs—remain an integral ‘part of the politics of the West’s troubled relation to the non-West’100 as well as, as one may add, of the non-West’s troubled relation to the West. In other words, the binary stereotypification of civilizational units works both ways—that is, it is reproduced by both the West and the non-West about both the West and the non-West. In a political climate of uncertainty, in which right-wing populism has not only gained ground but also, in several countries, begun to exercise hegemonic influence, ‘European anxieties and fears towards non-Christian and non-white social worlds’101 have been created, and systematically mobilized, in order to defend the geopolitical interests of the West and of its powerful position across the globe. As ‘the geopolitical dominance of Islam, China, Persia, and the Ottomans was giving way to the triumph of Christian Europe’,102 the West generated Occidentalist and Orientalist discourses projecting ‘a civilizational division and hierarchy’103 between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’ upon the world order. These discourses, which were founded on simplistic assumptions about both ‘us’ and ‘them’, reinforced material and symbolic processes of transborder ‘othering’, permitting ‘European imperial states to assert their global power by claiming to serve a world-historical project of driving social progress and human advancement’.104 One may have expected classical sociologists to be sufficiently critical to be able to challenge—rather than to buy into, let alone to endorse—this construction of binary civilizational division and hierarchy in terms of ‘Occident = modernity’ and ‘Orient = tradition’. Yet, their tendency to conceive of their own project as ‘a postideological science of society and history’105—which was supposed to follow a rigorous agenda guided by conceptual sophistication, methodological rigour, and empirical substantiation—cannot cover up the fact that they remained caught up in the epistemically limited horizon of civilizational binaries. Eurocentric variants of social evolutionism, regardless of whether we conceive of them as ‘Orientalism’106 or ‘Occidentalism’,107 are deeply problematic in that they fail to do justice to the diversity and heterogeneity of civilizational formations. The simplistic opposition between, on the one hand, Oriental traditionalism and despotism and, on the other hand, Occidental modernism and liberalism falls short of providing a differentiated account of the interconnectedness of societies and histories across the world, whose complexity is irreducible to the imaginary construction of a binary civilizational division.108 Such a reductive binary worldview is based on derogatory, disparaging, and

114 

S. Susen

‘polluted projections of the East’109 as well as on self-glorifying, self-indulgent, and ‘purifying constructions of the West’.110 This interpretation is ethnocentric at two levels: • It tends to focus on the European continent when setting objective, normative, and subjective standards for the description, analysis, and assessment of sociohistorical developments. • Within its self-referential imaginary, it portrays ‘the Occident’ as ‘the dramatic center of history, as the driving force of change, and as the agent of human freedom’,111 while depicting ‘the Orient’ as the periphery of history, as a cage of stagnation, and as a theatre of despotic constraint. The core assumption underlying the key works of classical sociologists is the conviction that, from about the seventeenth century onwards, Europe was going through a massive social transformation, which was unprecedented in terms of scale, scope, and significance. Similar to major Enlightenment philosophers, classical sociologists substantially contributed to the construction of a ‘discourse of modernity’.112 Just as philosophers (as well as historians and political scientists) differ in their assessment of the main features of modernity, so do classical (as well as contemporary) sociologists: • For Marx, modern society is, above all, driven by the productive forces of capitalism.113 • For Durkheim, modern society is held together by the organic solidarity brought about by industrialism and sustained by an ever more differentiated division of labour.114 • For Weber, modern society constitutes an increasingly disenchanted world, owing to the preponderance of bureaucratic rationalization.115 Notwithstanding the question of the noteworthy differences between their approaches, ‘they share not only the ontological assumption that modern society is inherently dynamic and progressive, but also the methodological conviction that the causal mechanisms shaping the course of modern history can be systematically and empirically studied’.116 What is often understated, if not ignored, is the fact that ‘European imperialism formed an important “background condition” for the production of the modern/tradition binary’117 within the social sciences in general and within sociology in particular. This is not to suggest that the discovery—or, as cynics may argue, the discursive invention—of modernity took place through

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

115

Europe’s direct or indirect exposure to the traditionalism of ‘Oriental’ cultures and civilizations. This is to recognize, however, that the imaginary construction of ‘the other’, epitomized in the discursive opposition between ‘the Occident’ and ‘the Orient’ as ‘us’ and ‘them’, was vital to the distinction between European and non-European life forms based on the ‘modern’ vs. ‘traditional’ binary. Such a reductive worldview is permeated by the distortive effects of several problematic ‘-isms’—notably Eurocentrism, evolutionism, and hegemonism: • It is Eurocentric in that it converts the European continent into the ultimate reference point of modernity. • It is evolutionist in that it posits that, ultimately, every part of the world will be forced to follow the path of progress paved by European modernity. • It is hegemonist in that it creates not only a binary division between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, but also a normative hierarchy, according to which the former is qualitatively (that is, socially, economically, epistemically, politically, organizationally, culturally, philosophically, technologically, and militarily) superior to the latter. Such a simultaneously ethnocentric, evolutionist, and hegemonist approach appeared to give Europeans permission ‘to view themselves as world-historical agents of human progress’118—that is, not simply as protagonists of progress in one continent (in a particularist sense), but, at a species-constitutive level, as protagonists of progress in the world (in a universalist sense). Following this logic of collective self-justification, it became possible to portray imperial practices—including the most atrocious happenings and inhumane interventions—as ‘acts of sociohistorical redemption’,119 motivated by the self-­ indulgent ‘civilizing mission’120 of Western proselytizers. Colonialist and neocolonialist patterns of justification, far from having died out, have made their way into the twenty-first century, serving as ideological frameworks for defending ‘Anglo-European world dominance’121 in an age in which attempts to construct and to reconstruct different forms of ‘Empire’122 continue to be central to the global division of power. Surely, the hegemonic position of Europe and North America has been substantially challenged by the rise of other key players on the world stage, as reflected in the increasing influence of the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China)123 as well as of Japan and NICs124 in South and Southeast Asia. As a result, the binary categories of colonialist and neocolonialist discourses, although they will not disappear, can be expected to lose a substantial degree

116 

S. Susen

of legitimacy, indicating the complexification of civilizational (that is, social, economic, epistemic, political, organizational, cultural, philosophical, technological, military, territorial, and demographic) confluence and competition in an age of polycentric globality. * * * Canon Formation in Late Twentieth-Century British Sociology Canon formation in sociology has been a topic of contention for some time.125 Arguably, in late twentieth-century British sociology, four figures have been particularly successful in shaping the canon of the discipline: Zygmunt Bauman (1925–2017), Ulrich Beck (1944–2015), Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002), and Anthony Giddens (1938–).126 These scholars have some obvious commonalities: they are all male, white, European, and roughly part of the same generation. Yet, they differ in the following respects: Bauman was originally Polish, Beck was German, Bourdieu was French, and Giddens is the only native British representative among these four thinkers. Two of them wrote predominantly in English (Bauman and Giddens); one of them wrote mainly, although not exclusively, in German (Beck); and one of them wrote primarily in French (Bourdieu). The key works of all four, however, are available in English. Of course, one may go back to the ‘holy trinity’ of Karl Marx (1818–1883), Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), and Max Weber (1864–1920) when examining the canonization of sociological thought. Undoubtedly, these three ‘founding figures’—to which one may add slightly less prominent, but nonetheless influential, ‘classics’ such as Georg Simmel (1858–1918)127 and George Herbert Mead (1863–1931)128—have shaped the discipline in a fundamental manner from the early years of its existence up to the present. When scrutinizing major trends in contemporary sociology, however, one is confronted with ‘a fairly “stable” canon of theorists ascribed a comparably prominent superstar role in contemporary sociology’.129 In fact, to the previous list, one may add names such as Norbert Elias (1897–1990),130 Michel Foucault (1926–1984),131 Jürgen Habermas (1929–),132 Manuel Castells (1942–),133 Bruno Latour (1947–),134 Nancy Fraser (1947–),135 Axel Honneth (1949–),136 and Judith Butler (1956–).137 When focusing on thinkers of this intellectual calibre, the question that poses itself is whether or not their celebrity status and level of recognition are

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

117

deserved.138 In the cases of Bauman, Beck, Bourdieu, and Giddens, it appears that ‘a set of intellectual structures that link all four, to varying degrees’,139 may be one of the principal reasons why they acquired the prestige associated with ‘big names’ within the discipline. Especially important in this regard are their sustained concern with, and original contributions to the study of, central issues in contemporary sociology. For instance, recent and ongoing debates on key sociological oppositions—such as ‘particular’ vs. ‘universal’, ‘local’ vs. ‘global’, ‘objective’ vs. ‘subjective’, ‘conceptual’ vs. ‘empirical’, ‘theoretical’ vs. ‘practical’, ‘micro’ vs. ‘macro’, ‘human’ vs. ‘nonhuman’, ‘traditional’ vs. ‘modern’, or ‘modern’ vs. ‘late modern/postmodern’—have been substantially shaped by the writings of these four scholars. Sceptics may have good reason to be critical of ‘this entire “continental” direction of sociological theory’,140 asserting that concept-building should serve the function of providing terminologically sophisticated and intellectually insightful interpretations of empirical data. On this view, social theorists should not be given the privileged status of ‘would-be legislators’,141 equipped with quasi-omnipotent epistemic faculties. Rather, they should be encouraged to adopt the interpretive role of sign-posting commentators. Consequently, they should abandon the overly ambitious goal of putting themselves in the elevated position of paradigm-seeking lawmakers.142 The fact that, with the exception of Bourdieu, the aforementioned academic celebrities143 have undertaken little, if any, empirical research makes it more difficult to argue the case for the direct and ‘natural’ intertwinement of theory-based and data-gathering investigation. In principle, most sociologists may agree that ‘research without theory is blind, and theory without research is empty’.144 In practice, however, very few highly influential scholars are known for having been able to strike a healthy balance between these two complementary domains of inquiry. One of the most interesting features of British sociology is that it has not only attracted numerous non-British scholars but also accepted them by providing them with a ‘second home’. Indeed, it has succeeded in doing so on a larger scale than any other European tradition of sociology.145 Paradoxically, then, British sociology may be described as an open, eclectic, and dynamic forum of non-Anglocentric Anglocentrism. It is non-Anglocentric in the sense that it has offered a domestic framework to an impressively large number of non-British (and, originally, non-Anglophone) researchers and intellectuals. At the same time, it is Anglocentric in the sense that it has greatly contributed to the hegemonic influence of Anglophone sociology not only in Europe but across the world.

118 

S. Susen

When examining the sociological composition of the field of social theorists, it does not take a massive analytical effort to realize that it tends to represent a rather selective group of the general population. The ‘white-theory-boys syndrome’146 is particularly obvious in this respect. In terms of key sociological variables such as class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability, the field of social theory is largely dominated by privileged, white/Western, male, middle- or old-­ aged, and highly educated experts capable of navigating their way through an intensely codified realm of epistemic production, which outsiders may perceive as a conglomerate of private language games, which are largely disconnected from the bread-and-butter issues of everyday life.147 Although, in British sociology, the ‘gender and “racial” imbalance’148 has reduced significantly over time, it continues to be pronounced in the field of social theory, as well as in the adjacent field of the philosophy of the social sciences.149 As long as these areas of inquiry remain controlled by ‘white theory boys’, the heterogeneous composition that characterizes other clusters of the discipline will hardly become a trademark of social theory. A large proportion of female scholars, for instance, have tended to situate themselves within, and to contribute to, ‘the growing field of feminist theory, which fundamentally reshaped the discipline, but not really at its core’.150 Something similar applies to theoretically inclined non-Western and/or non-white scholars, a lot of whom have succeeded in carving a niche for themselves within the sociology of race and ethnicity,151 which—comparable to feminist theory and gender studies—has had a major impact on the development of the discipline, but not, in a foundational sense, at its epistemic centre. Just as sub-fields have gained increasing influence within and upon sociology, so have both sub-disciplines and neighbouring disciplines. Most sociology departments across the world have integrated scholars with diverse disciplinary backgrounds and research specialisms: criminology, media studies, cultural studies, urban studies, social geography, food studies, political science, gender studies, socio-legal studies, psychosocial studies, social psychology, anthropology, and philosophy—to mention only a few. In light of these paradigmatic developments, it seems appropriate to remark that ‘sociology has tended to grow at its margins, offering hospitality to adjacent “disciplines” and research fields’152 and, consequently, a safe home for scholars from different walks of academic life. Its relatively open, dynamic, and undogmatic way of defining and redefining canonicity has been an essential ingredient of sociology’s success story—not only in the UK, but across the world. This is not to suggest that sociology has been, or ever will be, free of canon formation. Rather, this is to recognize that its capacity to incorporate multiple sub-fields,

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

119

sub-disciplines, and adjacent disciplines in a fruitful, albeit tension-laden, manner has greatly contributed to its intellectual richness and disciplinary fortune.

Notes 1. Susen (2013b), p. 85. 2. On the concept of ‘classical sociology’, see, for example: Bhambra and Santos (2017), esp. pp.  3 and 4; Boatcă (2013), esp. pp.  55–57; Calhoun et  al. (2012 [2002]); Chernilo (2008); Connell (1997); Craib (1997); Edles and Appelrouth (2015 [2005]); Giddens (1996 [1971]); Hawthorn (1987 [1976]); Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley (2001); Morrison (2006 [1995]); Pradella (2017), pp. 147, 148, 150, and 157; Ray (1999); Ritzer and Goodman (2008 [1992]); Ritzer and Stepnisky (2018 [2003]); Sayer (1991); Seidman (2013); Susen and Turner (2011a); Turner (2013); Wickham (2007). 3. Seidman (2013), p. 35. 4. For a brief explanation of each of these dimensions, see Susen (2015a), pp. 13–18. 5. Ibid., p. 14 (in the original version, this passage appears in italics). 6. Susen (2015c), p. 1025. 7. Arguably, this applies to several other social-scientific disciplines, such as anthropology and psychology. 8. Seidman (2013), p. 36. On this point, see also, for instance: Burbank and Cooper (2010); Fieldhouse (1982 [1966]); Hobsbawm (1987); Silverblatt (2004); Steinmetz (2005a). 9. Seidman (2013), p. 35. 10. On the concept of ‘Enlightenment’, see, for example: Adorno and Horkheimer (1997 [1944/1969]); Friedrich (2012); Goldhammer (2001); Gordon (2001a); Gordon (2001b); Habermas (1987 [1985a]); Habermas (1996 [1981]); Hawthorn (1987 [1976]); Harding (1990); Honneth et al. (1992a); Honneth et al. (1992b); Kant (2009 [1784]); McLellan (1992); Osborne (1998); Passerin d’Entráeves (1996); Racevskis (1993); Rengger (1995); Saiedi (1993). On the concept of ‘emancipation’, see, for example: Antonio (1989); Apter (1992); Bensussan (1982); Harding (1992); Laclau (1992); Laclau (1996); Lukes (1991 [1983]); Nederveen Pieterse (1992a); Nederveen Pieterse (1992b); Nuyen (1998); Pease (2002); Ray (1993); Santos (2006); Santos (2007a); Slater (1992); Susen (2009a); Susen (2011d); Susen (2015c); Susen (2015a); Susen (2016d); Susen (2017d); Weiss (1997); Wertheim (1992).

120 

S. Susen

11. On the French Revolution, see, for example: Cobban (1968); Cobban (1999 [1964]); Kuhn (2013 [1999]); Lefebvre (2005 [1939/1947]); Soboul (1974 [1962]). 12. On the Treaty of Westphalia, see, for example: Croxton (1999); Croxton (2013); Croxton and Tischer (2002); Fraser (2007a); Fraser (2014 [2007]); Kurasawa (2014). 13. On the concept of ‘historical sociology’, see, for example: Adams et al. (2005a); Adams et  al. (2005b); Barrelmeyer (1997); Calhoun (1996); Calhoun (1998); Calhoun (2003); Chakrabarty (2003); Delanty and Isin (2003); Dufour (2015); Fleck (2000); Hall (1989); Inglis (2014); Magubane (2005); Steinmetz (2007b). 14. See, for instance: Spencer (1961 [1873]). 15. See, for instance: Ward (1903). 16. See, for instance: Simmel (1997 [1903]). See also, for example: Craib (1997); Frisby and Featherstone (1997); Helle (2015); Lechner (1991); Susen (2014b), pp. 334–336; Wolff (1964 [1950]). 17. See, for instance: Elias (2000 [1994/1939]). 18. Seidman (2013), p. 36. 19. Ibid., p. 36. 20. On this point, see, for instance, Magubane (2005). 21. On this point, see Seidman (2013), p. 36. See also, for example: Cooper (2005), pp. 156, 171, and 182; Dirks (1992); McClintock (1995); Pomeranz (2000); Steinmetz (2005b), p. 358; Veer (2001), pp. 7–8; Wilder (2005). 22. Seidman (2013), p. 37 (italics in original). 23. Ibid., p. 38. 24. On this point, see Avineri (1968), p. 70. 25. Seidman (2013), p.  38 (italics added). See also Marx and Engels (1942), p. 439. 26. Seidman (2013), pp. 38–39. See also Avineri (1968), pp. 124–131. 27. Cf. Susen (2012a) and Susen (2018a). 28. Seidman (2013), p. 39 (italics added). 29. Ibid., p. 39. 30. Ibid., p. 39. 31. See, for example, Lenin (2010 [1917]) and Luxemburg (1913). See also, for instance: Glaser and Walker (2007); Jha (1959); Kowalik (2014); Lee (1971). On the concept of ‘(neo-) imperialism’, see, for instance: Brewer (1990 [1980]); Bush (2006); Etherington (1984); Mommsen (1980 [1977]); Mommsen and Osterhammel (1986); Noonan (2017); Semmel (1993). 32. See, for example, Ruedy (2005 [1992]). 33. Seidman (2013), p. 40. 34. Ibid., p. 40 (punctuation modified). 35. Ibid., p. 40.

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

121

36. On this point, see ibid., pp. 40–41. See also, for example: Aldrich (1996), esp. pp. 246–250; Wilder (2005), esp. Chapter 3. 37. Seidman (2013), p. 41 (quotation modified). 38. Ibid., p. 41. See Giddens (1986). 39. Seidman (2013), p. 41. See also Durkheim (1991 [1957/1950/1890–1900]), p. 72; Durkheim (1984 [1893]), p. 220. 40. Seidman (2013), p. 41. 41. Ibid., p. 41. 42. See Durkheim (1986 [1900–1905]), pp. 47–48; see Giddens (1986). See also Seidman (2013), pp. 41–42. 43. Seidman (2013), p. 42. 44. Durkheim (1986 [1900–1905]), p. 49. See Seidman (2013), p. 42. 45. Durkheim (1986 [1900–1905]), p. 49. See Seidman (2013), p. 42. 46. Seidman (2013), p.  42. See also Durkheim (1984 [1893]), pp.  150 and 220–221. 47. See Elias (2000 [1994/1939]). 48. Seidman (2013), p. 42. 49. Ibid., p. 42. 50. On this point, see Durkheim (1984 [1893]), p.  225. See also Seidman (2013), p. 42. 51. Seidman (2013), p.  42. On this point, see Durkheim (1991 [1957/1950/1890–1900]), pp. 69–75. 52. See Durkheim (1984 [1893]). 53. Seidman (2013), p. 43. 54. Ibid., p. 43. 55. Ibid., p. 43. 56. Ibid., p. 43. 57. Ibid., p. 43. 58. Ibid., p. 43. 59. On this point, see, for instance: Blackbourn (1998), p. 333; Smith (1978), Chapter 2. 60. On these points, see Susen (2015a), p. 125. 61. Seidman (2013), p. 43. 62. Ibid., p. 43. On this point, see also, for instance, Blackbourn (1998), p. 332. 63. On this point, see, for example: Mommsen (1995 [1990]); Steinmetz (2002). 64. Seidman (2013), p. 44. 65. Ibid., p. 44. See Blackbourn (1998), pp. 424–440. 66. See Weber (1994 [1895]), p. 17. 67. Ibid., p. 16. 68. Ibid., p. 16 (quotation modified). 69. Mommsen (1984 [1959]), p. 71 (quotation modified). On this point, see Seidman (2013), p. 44. 70. See Weber (1976 [1924/1909/1896]).

122 

S. Susen

71. Weber (1978 [1922]). See also Weber (1980 [1922]). 72. Seidman (2013), p. 44. 73. On this point, see ibid., p. 44. 74. Ibid., p. 45 (italics added). 75. Ibid., p. 45 (italics added). 76. See Weber (1978 [1922]), pp. 913–921 (Volume 2). 77. Weber (1921). 78. See Weber (2001a/1930 [1904–05]). 79. See Weber (2001b/1930 [1904–05]). 80. Seidman (2013), p. 45. 81. Weber (2001a/1930 [1904–05]), p. xxxix. 82. Seidman (2013), p. 45. 83. Ibid., p. 45. 84. See Said (1978). See also Guhin and Wyrtzen (2013). 85. Seidman (2013), p. 46. 86. Ibid., p. 46. 87. On this point, see ibid., p. 46. 88. Ibid., p. 46. 89. See Marx (1968 [1862]), pp. 418–420. On this passage, see, for example: Avineri (1968), p. 9; Elster (1985), p. 275; Seidman (2013), pp. 46–67. 90. On this point, see, for example, Marx (2010 [1973]), pp. 325–326, as well as Marx and Engels (1942), p. 70. See also Avineri (1968), pp. 18 and 88, as well as Seidman (2013), p. 47. 91. On this point, see Durkheim (2010 [1924]), p. 59. See also Susen (2015a), pp. 15 and 36. 92. Seidman (2013), p. 47. 93. Ibid., p. 47. 94. On this point, see Durkheim (1984 [1893]), pp.  175 and 159. See also Seidman (2013), p. 47. 95. Seidman (2013), p. 47. 96. Ibid., p. 48. 97. Ibid., p. 48. 98. Ibid., p. 48. 99. On this point, see, for example: Abromeit et  al. (2016); Berezin (2009); Berlet and Lyons (2000); Betz (1994); Harrison (1995); Held (1996); Jones (2019); Kalb and Halmai (2011); Korkut (2012); Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser (2012); Pauwels (2014); Silva and Vieira (2019); Susen (2017b), esp. p.  156; Vorländer et  al. (2018); Weffort and Quijano (1973); Wodak (2013). 100. Seidman (2013), p. 48. 101. Ibid., p. 48 (quotation modified). 102. Ibid., p. 48. 103. Ibid., p. 48. Cf. Boatcă (2015).

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

123

104. Seidman (2013), p. 48 (quotation modified). 105. Ibid., p.  48. On this point, see also, for example: Chatterjee (1993); Veer (2001). 106. See Said (1978). 107. See Coronil (1996) and Boatcă (2015), esp. Chapters 3 and 8. 108. On this point, see, for example: Calhoun et al. (2006); Chatterjee (1993), pp. 29–32; Frank (1998); Go (2006); Hostetler (2001); Pomeranz (2000); Seidman (2013), esp. p. 49. 109. Seidman (2013), p. 49 (italics added). 110. Ibid., p. 49 (italics added). 111. Ibid., p. 49. 112. On the philosophical discourse of modernity, see Habermas (1987 [1985a]). On the concept of ‘modernity’, see, for instance: Bauman (1991); Beck (1992); Beck et al. (1994); Beck and Lau (2005); Beilharz (2000); Berman (1983 [1982]); Bernstein (1985); Bhambra (2007a); Craib (1997); Delanty (1999); Featherstone et al. (1995); Giddens (1996 [1971]); Giddens (1991); Habermas (1987 [1985a]); Habermas (1996 [1981]); Hall and Gieben (1992); Hall et  al. (1992); Hawthorn (1987 [1976]); Kellner (1989a); Lichtblau (1999); Morrison (2006 [1995]); Outhwaite (2014a); Sayer (1991); Susen (2015a), esp. pp. 11–18; Thomas and Walsh (1998); Wagner (1994); Wagner (2001); Wagner (2008); Wagner (2012); Walter (2001); Wellmer (1993); Zima (1997); Zima (2000). 113. See Marx (2000/1977 [1859]) and Marx (2000/1977 [1857–1858/1941]). 114. See Durkheim (1966/1951 [1897]) and Durkheim (1984 [1893]). 115. See Weber (1991 [1948]), esp. pp. 196–244. 116. Susen (2015a), p. 12 (italics in original). 117. Seidman (2013), p. 50. 118. Ibid., p. 50 (quotation modified). 119. Ibid., p. 50. 120. On this point, see, for example: Dodge (2003); Eisenstadt (2000b); Eisenstadt (2003); Seidman (2013), pp.  39 and 51; Silverblatt (2004); Veer (2001). 121. Seidman (2013), p. 51. 122. See Hardt and Negri (2000) as well as Hardt and Negri (2006). See also, for example: Atzert and Müller (2004); Borón (2005); Passavant and Dean (2004); Pieper et al. (2007). 123. On this point, see, for instance: Borodina and Shvyrkov (2010); O’Neill (2001); Sujatha (2006). 124. Newly Industrialized Countries (such as Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey). 125. On this point, see Outhwaite (2009). On canon building and canon formation, see also, for example: Alatas and Sinha (2017); Baehr (2002); Baehr (2017 [2002]); Coller (2007 [2003]); Collyer (2010); Connell (2003);

124 

S. Susen

Dawson (2017); How (2007); How (2016); Inglis (2009); Outhwaite (2017); Reed (2006); Santos (2006); Santos et  al. (2007); Scott (2018); Stanfield II (2010). 126. See Outhwaite (2009). 127. See, for instance: Simmel (1997 [1903]). See also, for example: Craib (1997); Frisby and Featherstone (1997); Helle (2015); Lechner (1991); Susen (2014b), pp. 334–336; Wolff (1964 [1950]). 128. See, for instance: Mead (1925–1926); Mead (1967 [1934]). See also, for example: Aboulafia (1999); Dews (1999); Gillespie (1984); Habermas (1987d [1981]); Habermas (1992b [1988]); Joas (1997 [1980]); Kron (2004); Silva (2007b); Silva (2007a); Susen (2010d). 129. Outhwaite (2009), p. 1030. 130. See Elias (2006 [1969/1933]), Elias (2000 [1994/1939]), Elias (2012 [1970]), Elias (1991 [1989]), Elias (1996 [1989]), Elias and Scotson (1994 [1965]), and Goudsblom and Mennell (1998). 131. See Foucault (1978 [1976]), Foucault (1979 [1975]), Foucault (1980), Foucault (1988), Foucault (1988 [1984]), Foucault (1997 [1984]), Foucault (2001 [1961]), Foucault (2002 [1966]), and Foucault (2002 [1969]). 132. See Habermas (1987 [1968a]), Habermas (1971 [1968/1969]), Habermas (1981 [1980]), Habermas (1987a [1981]), Habermas (1987b [1981]), Habermas (1987 [1985a]), Habermas (1988 [1967/1970]), Habermas (1988 [1973]), Habermas (1989 [1962]), Habermas (1996a [1992]), Habermas (2001), Habermas (2002 [1981, 1991, 1997]), Habermas (2008 [2005]), Habermas (2010 [2008]), Habermas (2019a), Habermas (2019b), and Habermas and Ratzinger (2006 [2005]). 133. See Castells (1996), Castells (1997), and Castells (1998). 134. See Latour (1990), Latour (1993 [1991]), and Latour (2005). 135. See Fraser (2003a), Fraser (2003b), Fraser (2007b), Fraser and Honneth (2003a), Fraser and Honneth (2003b), Fraser and Honneth (2003a), and Fraser and Nicholson (1994 [1988]). 136. See Fraser and Honneth (2003a), Fraser and Honneth (2003b), Fraser and Honneth (2003a), Honneth (1995 [1992]), Honneth (2003a), Honneth (2003b), and Honneth (2007). 137. See Butler (1990a), Butler (1990b), Butler (1994 [1990]), Butler (1997), Butler (1998), Butler and Athanasiou (2013), and Butler et al. (2000). 138. On this point, see Outhwaite (2009), p. 1034. 139. Ibid., p. 1034 (italics added). 140. Ibid., p. 1034. 141. See ibid., p. 1034. 142. On the role of ‘paradigms’ in the production, circulation, reception, and interpretation of knowledge, see, for example: Antonites (1992); Baert (2005); Bluhm (1982); Boulting (2002); Bourdieu (1975b); Calhoun (2007a); Caneva (2000); Castán Broto et al. (2009); Fischer and Hoyningen-Huene

5  Canonicity and Sociology 

125

(1997); Fornel and Lemieux (2007); Fuller (2000); Fuller (2003); Fuller (2016); Gutting (1980); Haas (1992); Harris (2000); Janos (1986); Kuhn (2012 [1962]); Lebedev (2014); Lockshin (2007); Meehan (1968); Merton (1973 [1945]); Merton (1973); Müller-Godeffroy (1981); Outhwaite (1987a); Outhwaite (1987b); Outhwaite (2009); Patterson and Williams (1998); Poggi (2009); Radder (1997); Ritzer (1975b); Ritzer (1975a); Ritzer (1980 [1975]); Ritzer (1981); Roudometof (1997); Schram (2004); Spruill (1983); Susen (2011e); Tang (2011); Waller (2006); Wallerstein (2001 [1991]); White (1977); Willmott (1992). 143. Cf. Walsh and Lehmann (2020). 144. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992a), p. 162 (italics removed). On this point, see also, for example: Susen (2007), p. 246; Susen (2013f ), p. 352; Susen (2017c), p. 109; Susen and Turner (2011c), pp. xxi and xxvii. 145. Other examples include the following scholars: Stanislaw Andreski, Wilhelm O.  H. Baldamus, Zevedei Barbu, Julius Carlebach, Percy Cohen, Ralf Dahrendorf, Norbert Elias, Ernest Gellner, Stuart Hall, Karl Mannheim, Hermínio Martins, Ilya Neustadt, Karl Popper, John Rex, Teodor Shanin, Alfred Sohn-Rethel, and Sami Zubaida. Cf. Outhwaite (2009), p. 1035. 146. Susen (2013b), p. 85. 147. On this point, see, for example, Susen (2017f ), pp. 13 and 45–46. 148. Outhwaite (2009), p. 1036. 149. On this point, see ibid., p. 1036. Cf. Susen (2013b), pp. 85–86 and 99n27, as well as Susen (2017f ), pp. 11, 45–46, and 50. 150. Outhwaite (2009), p. 1036. 151. Cf. Morris (2007) and Winant (2007). 152. Outhwaite (2009), p. 1037. On this point, see also Urry (1981).

6 Canonicity and Exclusivity

Segregation—which is sustained and reinforced by practices and structures of exclusivity—has been, and continues to be, a noticeable characteristic not only of US-American society but also of US-American sociology. Indeed, ‘at least until the 1960, […] two distinct institutionally organized traditions of sociological thought—one black and one white’1—have shaped Anglo-­ American discourse. Yet, the latter has largely eclipsed—if not systematically effaced—the former, almost to such an extent that one may get the misleading impression that non-white US sociology has never really existed in the first place. Challenging this misconception, it is essential to recognize that sociology—in the USA and beyond—has been significantly shaped by numerous black scholars, such as W. E. B. Du Bois,2 E. Franklin Frazier,3 and Oliver Cromwell Cox4—to mention only three prominent examples. These—and, arguably, many other—‘African American Pioneers of Sociology’5 have been systematically excluded from the US sociological canon, as if they were unworthy of being treated as fully fledged members of the Anglo-American community of social-scientific researchers. The pursuit of postcolonial analysis permits us not only to understand the sociopolitical consequences of ‘the dismantling of formal systems of colonialism and empire’,6 but also to shed light on the degree to which imperial structures, at several levels, continue to be present in contemporary societies. Such an ambitious investigative endeavour, however, requires examining the role that colonialism has played in the construction of fundamental elements of modernity. One illustrative example in this respect is the nation-state. Although its history and constitution have been extensively scrutinized in the social sciences, especially in political sociology, it is hardly ever acknowledged © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_6

127

128 

S. Susen

that the nation-state can be conceived of ‘as a product of colonialism and not just a product of nationalism (including national oppositions to colonialism)’.7 In other words, the birth of the nation-state and the emergence of colonialism are inextricably linked. In mainstream versions of history, including those concerned with the genealogy of scientific disciplines, ‘alternative traditions of thought […] are rendered absent or insignificant […], indigenous voices and histories [are] displaced and silenced’,8 as if they did not form part of the collective picture of events, experiences, and contributions. To the extent that colonized voices are excluded from dominant national imaginaries, however, they are relegated to the fringes of collective memories. What makes the US-American case more complicated, of course, is the narrative of ‘American exceptionalism’,9 commonly endorsed by right-wing and conservative fractions of the country’s intellectual and political elite. Its ‘self-conception as the first “new nation”’10 is based on the conviction that the USA constitutes an exceptional country that, unlike its European counterparts, had ‘seceded from a colonial power and was forging its own destiny free of the encumbrances of history and tradition’.11 Part of this journey, imbued with hope and self-confidence, has been the habitualized exclusion of so-called social minorities—especially African and Native Americans—from conventional discourses. To be exact, it is not only their exclusion from the canon but also, in a more significant sense, their exclusion from the power-laden processes of canon building12 that is ‘key to understanding the dominant politics of knowledge production current within the academy’.13 For it is in these processes of canon building that it is decided who is included in and who is excluded from canon formation. Indeed, it is decided who is, and who is not, allowed to set, and to control, the (implicit or explicit) rules underlying social mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion. These mechanisms tend to be sustained by protectionist policies of self-­legitimization, designed to defend the interests of those who have the upper hand in terms of intellectual influence and recognition. What is needed, then, is ‘both political and epistemological decolonization and self-determination’14—that is, the ‘decolonization of social science research’,15 ensuring that the role of colonialism in the very formation processes of academic disciplines is taken seriously as an object of inquiry, not least because it has shaped, and continues to shape, mainstream sociology. Numerous hegemonic ‘-isms’—such as classism, racism, sexism, ageism, and ableism—permeate Western universities no less than the societies in which they are embedded. As such, they have succeeded in colonizing the underlying doxa of behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns of functioning shared by

6  Canonicity and Exclusivity 

129

social actors, by whose everyday practices, discourses, and networks they are produced and reproduced. If it is pursued in a rigorous manner, the gradual ‘decolonization of social science research’16 may ‘contribute to the larger anticolonial dynamic’,17 by means of which long-established patterns of discrimination can be challenged and reversed. To be clear, disciplinary canons are never ‘wholly impermeable or immune to change’,18 let alone categorically absolved from controversy and contestation. Unsurprisingly, implicit or explicit assumptions about the alleged ‘integrity of “the canon”’19 are politically charged: they create relatively arbitrary hierarchies—not only among those who are included in the canon, but also between those who are included in and those who are excluded from it.20 In addition, they generate contentious notions of ‘purity’, ‘authenticity’, and ‘legitimacy’, ascribed to those who enjoy the privilege of being regarded as fully fledged members of the club of canonicity. A canon can be converted into a political instrument insofar as it forms ‘the ground upon which the value(s) of “Western civilization” is/are to be defended against the questioning, by others’21 and, hence, against the calling into question of the white-­ male-­dominated context in which it emerged. The result is a self-selection process, which bestows a sense of purity, authenticity, and legitimacy upon those who use the purported ‘maintenance of standards’22 as a pretext for defending their own position of alleged superiority and supremacy. 1. Canon Formation: Between Inclusion and Exclusion Every disciplinary canon is based on ‘a clear demarcation between privileged insiders and neglected outsiders’,23 between gatekeepers and outcasts, between allegedly legitimate scholars and allegedly illegitimate pseudo-scholars. Viewed in this light, it becomes evident that ‘determining canonicity is not simply a matter of persuading others of the merits of particular authors or texts’.24 Put differently, a canon is not tantamount to a pristine realm of intersubjectivity epitomized in an ideal speech situation, in which the unforced force of the better argument25 prevails and determines the development of knowledge production. To the extent that ‘we are not all in a position to participate as equals in a conversation’,26 since material and symbolic resources are asymmetrically distributed, we are obliged to abandon the paradise view of the ‘ideal speech situation’27 with an empirically informed notion of the ‘real speech situation’.28 It is not enough, however, to face up to the fact that canon formation is pervaded by power dynamics and, consequently, by processes of marginalization, discrimination, and exclusion. It is both theoretically and practically

130 

S. Susen

fruitful to explore the degree to which the serious engagement with, and critical analysis of, non-canonical voices can enrich the canon itself. Thus, we need to scrutinize the extent to which ‘the silenced traditions within hegemonic accounts of US sociology provide us with greater resources to begin to rethink otherwise dominant sociological conceptualizations’.29 In a radical sense, the genuine broadening of a canon may be inconceivable without its partial deconstruction as a canon, aimed at consolidating a disciplinary mode of investigation capable of minimizing mechanisms of marginalization, discrimination, and exclusion (irrespective of whether these are based on class, ethnicity, gender, age, ability, and/or other sociological variables). Ultimately, the goal of building a more inclusive discipline requires not only ensuring that it is open to a wide range of scholars and researchers (regardless of their socioeconomic, ethnic, gender-specific, generational, educational, or dispositional background), but also contributing to a discursive process by means of which its epistemic horizon can be significantly enhanced: the more inclusive a discipline, the richer its social and epistemic resources. It is a great irony, to say the least, that ‘[e]mancipation emerges as a key theme within European Enlightenment thought in the Old World at precisely the time that slavery is being instituted in the New’.30 Leading nations, whose representatives claimed to be inspired by the Enlightenment, were proclaiming their commitment to progressive (or at least nominally progressive) values—such as freedom, liberty, equality, solidarity, and dignity. At the same time, they were generating practices and structures of domination, oppression, subjugation, and exploitation—not only in their ‘home territories’, but also, to an even larger extent, in the territories they had colonized, in most cases, in a ruthless and sanguinary manner. In the era of colonialism, ‘some had a greater right to be free than others’.31 And even in the era of postcolonialism, the Orwellian aphorism that ‘[a]ll animals are equal, but some are more equal than others’32 continues to apply to the global division of power. If the aforementioned normative commitments were merely decorative rhetoric, then the modern promise of emancipation was, at best, limited to those who were entitled to experience and to benefit from it or, at worst, a form of false consciousness whose illusory nature was due to the empty universalism that sought to pass off ‘mechanisms of exclusion’ as ‘processes of human emancipation’.33 Given their insistence upon the need to endorse a truly humanistic conception of domination, which rejects ‘the narrow sense of being a counterfoil to slavery in terms of simple liberation from enslavement’34 and instead advocates the broad sense of designating ‘the necessary condition for the fulfilment of one’s capacities as a human being’,35 the ‘African American Pioneers of

6  Canonicity and Exclusivity 

131

Sociology’36 deserve to be resurrected. They have made major intellectual contributions to the discipline, which are in danger of being effaced from the official—that is, mainstream—sociological memory. In fact, not only do they ‘rightfully belong in the canon’37 but, in a more fundamental sense, their existence indicates that the very project of ‘the canon’ needs to be subverted, or even abolished, if one seeks to create a sociology, in the USA or elsewhere, that is immune to being governed by mechanisms of marginalization, discrimination, and exclusion. If sociology promotes the dogmatization, standardization, and normalization of conceptual and methodological toolkits whose legitimacy is derived not from epistemic or evidence-based validity but from discriminatory schemes of doxa and hegemony, it will fall short of accomplishing one of its most valuable missions, which consists in contributing to the construction of egalitarian societies. To be sure, the case for a ‘broader politics of knowledge production’38 should not be made by arguing that any particular type of sociology is reducible to the narrow concern with one particular issue: ‘Black sociology’39 is not just about ‘race’, ‘female sociology’ is not just about ‘gender’, the ‘sociology of sexuality’ is not just about ‘sexual orientation’, ‘working-class sociology’ is not just about ‘class’, ‘childhood sociology’ is not just about ‘children’, and the ‘sociology of disability’ is not just about ‘disabled people’. The intersectional constitution of social reality does not allow for its reduction to one of its constitutive facets within the realm of sociological inquiry. Indeed, it would be equally misleading to assume that only ‘Black sociologists’ are affected by ‘race’, only ‘female sociologists’ are affected by ‘gender’, only ‘LGBT sociologists’ are affected by ‘sexual orientation’, only ‘working-class sociologists’ are affected by ‘socioeconomic status’, only ‘childhood sociologists’ are affected by ‘childhood’, and only ‘sociologists of disability’ are affected by issues related to ‘disability’. The dominant groups within each of these sociological categories are no less affected by power relations than the dominated groups within them. This, of course, is not to deny that these groups may be shaped by power relations in diametrically opposed ways and that their members may have profoundly different experiences of reality, arising from the respective positions they occupy in the social space. In a similar vein, a radically postcolonial critique of mainstream sociological canons, which is informed by and makes a case for an intersectionalist understanding of human reality, ‘needs to recognize the connections of enslavement, dispossession, and segregation as constitutive of the very formation of two traditions and of the hierarchical ordering of the relations between those traditions’.40 Social domination affects the discursively constructed narratives of both dominant and dominated social groups. The critique of social

132 

S. Susen

domination should not be left to those who suffer, let alone to those who benefit, from it; rather, it needs to be articulated by anyone grappling with the role of power relations in the construction of human life forms. Attempts to challenge asymmetrical power structures by generating emancipatory practices should be both reflected and acted upon by everyone, not simply because of their group-specific affiliation but, in a more fundamental sense, because of their common humanity.41 The ‘global dynamics of knowledge’42 have been examined from a variety of perspectives: ‘Southern theory’,43 ‘alternative traditions in social science’,44 ‘postcolonial sociology’,45 ‘indigenous knowledge’,46 ‘the psychology of liberation’,47 ‘decolonial thought’,48 and ‘the decolonization of methodology’.49 Insofar as numerous liberation movements have articulated their struggles within ‘a Northern container’,50 their limited scope of presence, reference, and influence needs to be expanded, if they seek to take on the task of contributing to the construction of a world shaped by an ideal of global justice.51 To the extent that the unequal and exploitative ‘division of labour persisted after decolonization’,52 it is erroneous to portray the postcolonial era as a postimperialist historical period. If anything, imperialism has been transformed into a conglomerate of ever more subtle, and ever more complex, systems of domination.53 Considering the essentially asymmetrical division of power in the contemporary world, however, it is hard to overlook the fact that widespread mechanisms of social domination have far from vanished. As long as the ‘global periphery still exports data and imports applied science’,54 ‘[w]orkers from the periphery travel to the metropole for doctoral training, sabbaticals, conferences, or better jobs’,55 while natural and human resources available in ‘the Global South’ continue to be exploited by ‘the Global North’, the postcolonial period can be characterized, in moderate terms, as an age of worldwide inequality or, in radical terms, as an age of neoimperialism. 2. From Segregationist Sociology to Global Sociology? One of the principal limitations of the mainstream sociological tradition is its ‘Eurocentric nature’.56 Particularly striking in this respect is ‘its inadequacy in dealing with questions of power, race, and coloniality’57 but also, in a broader sense, in grappling with issues related to culture and ethnicity. The first step towards breaking out of such a Eurocentric outlook is to take into consideration ‘a wide range of geographical locations’,58 extending far beyond European or ‘Western’ territories. The ambition to pursue and to ‘understand sociology from a global perspective’,59 however, concerns not only the task of pluralizing its agendas and the sources upon which it draws, but also the preparedness to challenge ‘the dominance of Europe and the US in the production of

6  Canonicity and Exclusivity 

133

knowledge’.60 Arguably, this can be accomplished by demonstrating that alternative research currents from non-Western parts of the world, which have been systematically undervalued or even ignored by mainstream sociology, have made major contributions to the discipline. If we seek to do justice to the global umbrella of ideas and research under which sociology has developed, we need to take seriously (recent and current) non-Western contributions to the discipline. To this end, it is imperative ‘to recognize [the] multiple, globally diverse, origins of sociology’,61 by which the discipline has been shaped from the early days of its existence. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Anglo-American sociology. When examining ‘the development of racially differentiated traditions within US sociology over the twentieth century’,62 it does not take a great analytical effort to realize that, in Anglo-America, the discipline, similar to other spheres of US society, is ethnically divided. Indeed, ‘the continued exclusion of sociologists such as W. E. B. Du Bois, E. Franklin Frazier, and others from the US sociological canon’63 is indicative of the far-reaching implications of the ethnic—and, arguably, ‘racial’—organization, stratification, and segregation of the discipline. Critical researchers have interpreted sociology in various ways; the point is to change it. 3. Global Coloniality: The Global-Colonial Matrix of Power In the context of ‘global coloniality’64—that is, in a historical setting in which coloniality permeates, to a greater or lesser extent, every aspect of contemporary societies—it is crucial to reflect upon the manifold ways in which mechanisms of domination are produced and reproduced by both social actors and social structures. The ‘dialectic of temporal circumgression, meaning a broad re-embedding of relations of domination through violent military intervention and exploitative global capitalism’,65 is essential to the imposition of hegemonic power across the globe. In the face of recent military campaigns in the Middle East, it is not far-fetched to suggest that, under the pretext of ‘humanitarian intervention and global antiterrorism’,66 this part of the world has been ‘recolonized’67 by Western players. In the contemporary era, ‘struggles of decolonization’68 continue to be shaped by ‘the push and pull of contending historical forces operating at multiple levels’69—notably at the political, cultural, ideological, linguistic, economic, military, demographic, and territorial levels of social development. Such a polycentric approach implies that ‘the focus of decoloniality is not restricted to critiques of global capitalism’70 but comprises a serious

134 

S. Susen

engagement with coexisting and overlapping modes of domination. Notwithstanding the question of whether we conceive of the contemporary world as ‘colonial’, ‘neocolonial’, ‘postcolonial’, or ‘decolonial’, key sociological variables (such as class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability) need to be examined in relation to major forms of social domination (such as capitalism, racism, sexism, ageism, and ableism) on a global scale. Decoloniality, then, is about ‘learning to unlearn’71: learning to unlearn the naturalized doxa of power relations; learning to unlearn the taken-for-grantedness of unequal access to socially relevant resources; learning to unlearn accepting the omnipresence of a seemingly omnipotent colonial division of influence; learning to unlearn reinforcing the legitimacy of behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns that contribute to the existence of asymmetrically structured modes of production, distribution, circulation, and consumption of goods and services; in short, learning to unlearn being complicit in assembling historical constellations based on social injustice, discrimination, and inequality. In a radical sense, ‘[d]ecoloniality means projecting decolonial thinking over the colonial matrix of power’.72 A genuinely decolonial sociology, then, is confronted not only with the theoretical task of uncovering the underlying mechanisms strengthening the ostensibly ubiquitous influence of colonialism, but also with the practical task of generating forms of individual and collective agency that deserve to be described as emancipatory, in the sense that they play a constructive and substantive role in the empowerment of all—including the most marginalized, peripheralized, and inferiorized—members of humanity. 4. Citizenship: From ‘Connected Histories’ to ‘Connected Sociologies’? Citizenship can be regarded as ‘one of the defining social and political categories of modernity’.73 Universalist models of citizenship, however, tend to rely on ‘abstract categories of membership and rights’,74 which fail to account for the stratified, gendered, and ‘racialized structuring of the social world’.75 In essence, this means that ‘the historical inclusion of some groups within citizenship’76 is inextricably linked to ‘the active exclusion of other groups, even as seemingly universal claims are being made’.77 Put differently, the appearance of universal inclusion is embedded in the reality of social exclusion.78 In the field of postcolonial studies, one way of exposing the discriminatory constitution of universalist models of citizenship is to challenge the validity of tacit or overt paradigms of ‘separate histories’,79 by contrasting them with an alternative approach that recognizes the socio-ontological significance of ‘connected histories’,80 as reflected in the plea for a global research project capable

6  Canonicity and Exclusivity 

135

of bringing together ‘connected sociologies’.81 From such a connectivist point of view, mainstream social science in general and conventional sociology in particular remain trapped in Eurocentric versions ‘of “civilizational” analysis organized around the idea of separate histories’.82 Inevitably, such a presuppositional framework creates a conceptual dichotomy between ‘us’ and ‘them’. More significantly, it generates an epistemic horizon in which civilizational features are attached to particular parts of the world, whose identity is defined and assigned in cultural, ethnic, demographic, and/or geographical terms. Thus, the discursive distinction between ‘the Occident’ and ‘the Orient’83— or, if one prefers, between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’84—is central to the ideological construction of ‘separate histories’, whose idiosyncrasies can be explained in terms of ‘endogenous dynamics’,85 that is, in terms of both small-­ scale and large-scale processes that emerged within civilizational units in a quasi-independent and isolated—if not hermetically sealed—manner. An explanatory approach that is committed to exploring ‘connected histories’ paints a picture that is radically different from the one described above. To begin with, it insists that ‘events and histories are constituted by processes that are always broader than the selections that bound them as particular’.86 Regardless of how fine-grained and evidence-based the representation of a particular part of reality or series of occurrences may be, it can never grasp the entirety of interrelated causal factors shaping, if not determining, a set of social relations at different levels. The normative mission of doing justice to the place of connected events and development in world history is an ambitious one: While knowledge can never be total, the selections we make have consequences for its ordering. That ordering is always open to challenge in light of different selections and reorderings. Connected sociologies seek to break down the endogenous[ist] accounts offered within standard sociological approaches to reveal the interconnections that undermine claims for endogenous developments deriving from the special characteristics of particular ‘cultures’ or ‘peoples’.87

The production of knowledge is inevitably value-, meaning-, perspective-, context-, interest-, and power-laden.88 The project of developing ‘connected sociologies’, which is informed by the critical study of ‘connected histories’, aims to explore the links between different sets of social constellations, even if and when, at first glance, they appear to be unrelated or are presented as separate in official narratives. Unless we recognize ‘the mutually constituting relationship between colonial knowledge and colonial power’,89 we cannot expose the extent to which

136 

S. Susen

hegemonic representations of the world are largely controlled by those whose interests they express and disguise. Laudable as the attempt made by scholars advocating the paradigm of ‘multiple modernities’ to break out of the Eurocentric straitjacket may seem, it fails—as a global-connectivist analysis of historical developments illustrates—to go far enough. For even within their horizon of presuppositions, it is assumed that ‘civilizations exist as distinct entities and are constituted through different core values or practices that are historically foundational and that maintain, over time, an integrity of identity as a cultural pattern or tradition’.90 This view, advocated by Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt and his supporters, is synthesized in the notion of ‘Axial Age civilizations’.91 From a global-connectivist perspective, however, it suffers from at least two main shortcomings: a. ‘it obscures other places and the connections and relations between places and peoples’,92 thereby overemphasizing the influence of ‘the West’ and underemphasizing the role of ‘the Rest’ in the landscape of global interconnections; b. ‘it naturalizes, and reads back through history, a separation’93 between these two ‘civilizational universes’, as if they were almost entirely disconnected and as if the latter had not played a pivotal role in both the material and the symbolic construction of the former, and vice versa. The political implications of the conscious or unconscious legitimization of imperialist epistemologies can hardly be overestimated. Indeed, the ideological construction of ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, based on their distortive description as ‘historically separate entities’,94 is undertaken by virtue of ‘the institutional effacement of the connected histories of colonialism and enslavement’,95 both of which constitute integral elements of modernity, whose rise and development cannot be dissociated from the imperialist drive towards territorial expansion and the imposition of dominant ideologies. Insofar as ‘the disciplinary organization of knowledge itself ’96 reflects, and reinforces, a colonial division of power, the explanatory adequacy of the conceptual and methodological tools by which it is sustained, as well as the epistemic validity of the self-referential presuppositions on which it is founded, must be called into question. The approach of connected sociologies […] recognizes a plurality of possible interpretations and selections, not as a ‘description’ but as an opportunity for reconsidering what we previously thought we had known. Mere external contingencies from one perspective become central features in another. To understand events

6  Canonicity and Exclusivity 

137

through their connections is to acknowledge from the outset that addressing particular sets of connections leads to particular understandings that are put in question through choosing other sets of connections.97

In short, the approach of connected sociologies breaks down the distinction between ‘endogenous’ and ‘exogenous’ factors, positing that their conceptual separation is problematic insofar as seemingly ‘internal’ and ‘external’ levels of local, national, regional, and continental magnitude are historically intertwined. To be clear, ‘the reconstruction of concepts and the reinterpretation of histories in the light of that reconstruction’98 is not supposed to represent a plea for ‘simple pluralism’,99 let alone for epistemic ‘relativism’.100 Rather, it is motivated by the conviction that by ‘engaging with different histories’101— especially with those histories that have been systematically effaced from the individual and collective memories of mainstream social and political thought—it becomes possible to shed light on the multiple—notably political, cultural, ideological, linguistic, economic, military, demographic, and territorial—connections between civilizational conglomerates that are erroneously portrayed as separate entities. ‘To put it most strongly, there is no connection where there is no reconstruction, and no understanding remains unchanged by connection.’102 To be precise, without a thorough historical construction, it appears that there are no historical connections where, in fact, there are and where, upon scrutiny, their discovery and recognition can radically change our understanding of the spatiotemporal horizon in which we, or others, are immersed. The recognition of historical connections presupposes their existence, just as the existence of historical connections requires their recognition. 5. Citizenship: Between Inclusion and Exclusion If citizenship is defined as ‘a practice of contestation through which subjects become political’,103 then this involves the risk of suggesting that, in a strict sense, ‘people outside of citizenship are not political and that being outside of citizenship is not itself politically constituted’.104 Such an interpretation creates an artificial and misleading dichotomy between a ‘political’ domain within and through citizenship and a ‘nonpolitical’ domain outside and beyond citizenship.105 The capacity to be ‘political’ by participating in normative practices stipulated by universalist frameworks of citizenship, however, is not the only realm of privilege from which actors can be excluded. Indeed, this systematic segregation can be—and, historically speaking, has been—extended to other key areas of social stratification, such as class, gender, ethnicity, and ability.

138 

S. Susen

The exclusions of European women and unpropertied European men had been based upon the understanding that they did not possess the attributes of rationality or the capacity to rise above mere subsistence and so could not be seen to be modern subjects.106

Both gender and class can serve as vehicles of social status equipping actors with, or depriving them from, a set of material and symbolic resources that they can mobilize in order to position themselves in relation to others. When doing so, they need to demonstrate whether or not they dispose of essential ‘human’ privileges (such as property rights) as well as ‘human’ capacities (such as the ability to reason, both in the private sphere and in the public sphere). Universalist conceptions of citizenship exclude particular groups from enjoying the collectively recognized rights of fully fledged members of society. In other words, the question of whether or not an individual is regarded as a subject possessing qualities of a ‘proper citizen’, and equipped with the right to act on them, is defined in terms of social mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion. The idea of a subject capable of speech, action, self-justification, reflection, and reasoning may sound appealing in theory. If, however, in practice some—if not large—parts of a given population are officially and formally deprived of basic rights, because they are discriminated against on the grounds of class, ethnicity, gender, age, and/or disability, then the idea of political inclusion (allowing for empowerment and emancipation) is translated into the reality of social exclusion (expressed in disempowerment and discrimination).107 Inclusion based on assimilation as a way of integrating into a large-scale community requires ‘alignment with the dominant historical narrative’108 and, hence, acceptance of the hegemonic discourse imposed by the most influential groups in society. Effectively, this means that ‘histories of enslavement, dispossession, and annihilation’109 may be removed from, if not denied by, mainstream celebratory narratives, whose main function consists in perpetuating the dominant ideology of the triumphant groups they represent. To be sure, any definition of citizenship that defines the modern subject in terms of self-ownership is problematic, in the sense that taking advantage of the benefits of its ‘wider discourses of emancipation and equality’110 is limited to those who are regarded and treated as fully fledged members of society—that is, to those who are equipped with private ownership and who are, in the eyes of the state, capable of ‘appropriating their means of subsistence and reproduction’.111 Unsurprisingly, these ‘processes of exclusion’112 have far-­reaching consequences for those who are unwilling to subscribe to the normative parameters imposed upon them by universalist models of citizenship, which, in reality, are deeply particularist:

6  Canonicity and Exclusivity 

139

Those subjects who refuse self-alienation through their disavowal of the very idea of individuated property—and who were dispossessed and annihilated in the process of the European expression of modern subjecthood—similarly are unable simply to be accommodated into a definition of modern subjecthood.113

To put it bluntly, if one does not accept the rules of the game, one cannot participate in the game. In such a situation, one is punished for not respecting, let alone following, the underlying conventions of a discriminatory social system. An actor’s inability or unwillingness to adapt to, to endorse, and to integrate into a prescriptive sociopolitical framework may be (mis-) portrayed ‘as an aspect of their own flawed subjectivity, or their lack of modernity’.114 Such a short-sighted perspective, however, fails to grasp the extent to which social mechanisms of exclusion, marginalization, and discrimination are reinforced, rather than undermined, by universalist models of citizenship. Following this logic of ‘responsibilization’,115 subjects can be rendered individually responsible for the disempowering mechanisms imposed upon them by a sociopolitical system that excludes, marginalizes, and discriminates against them. This divisive approach, which ‘organizes actors into being political or nonpolitical, included or excluded’,116 constitutes a set of administrative and normative constellations based on the privileging capacity of privilege, on the entitling gift of entitlement, and on the authorizing force of authority—in short, on the empowering power of power.117 To the degree that mechanisms of ‘domination upon which modern forms of citizenship are founded’118 are silenced, if not denied, the numerous ways in which ‘historical processes of dispossession, displacement, enslavement, and domination’119 are inscribed into hegemonic sociopolitical arrangements of ‘the West’ are not recognized, let alone problematized, by the privileged actors who—consciously or unconsciously—benefit from the discriminatory structures upon which they are built and whose legitimacy they reinforce. Irrespective of whether we consider the social position and history of ‘Black Americans’, ‘Native Americans’, ‘Indígenas’, or other inferiorized ethnic ‘minorities’, ‘these groups are “out of place” in the standard narratives and their displacement, material and epistemological, is what is at issue here’.120 Indeed, their displacement is tantamount to a quasi-effacement imposed by those groups who find themselves in relatively privileged positions in the global division of power. Of course, complicity can be active or passive, conscious or unconscious, minor or major, behavioural or ideological, visible or invisible, public or private—to mention only a few possibilities. In societies characterized by high

140 

S. Susen

degrees of interactional differentiation, complicity is intersectionally structured, and intersectionally experienced, by both those who profit and those who suffer from it. Unless complicity is seriously challenged, it will continue to perpetuate substantive inequalities—not only between individuals, but also, crucially, between social groups. If, in mainstream accounts of history, the ‘vanishing’ of a particular ethnic group is portrayed ‘as preordained, as natural, as inevitable’,121 it is the task of critical sociology to expose the mechanisms by which individual and collective actors can be systematically excluded from, marginalized within, and/or inferiorized by behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns of reproduction designed to reinforce, and to legitimize, the empowerment of the powerful and the disempowerment of the relatively or absolutely powerless.

Notes 1. Bhambra (2014c), p. 472. 2. See, for example, Du Bois (1997 [1903]) and Du Bois (2013 [1935]). 3. See, for example, Frazier (1947) and Frazier (1968). 4. See, for example, Cox (1970 [1948]). 5. See Saint-Arnaud (2009 [2003]). On this point, see also Bhambra (2014c), pp. 472, 483, and 485. Cf. Morris (2007) and Winant (2007). 6. Bhambra (2014c), p. 472. 7. Ibid., p. 473. 8. Ibid., p. 473. 9. On the concept of ‘American exceptionalism’, see, for instance: Bell (1989); Chen (2009); Shafer (1991). Cf. Calhoun (2007a). 10. Bhambra (2014c), p. 473. 11. Ibid., p. 473. 12. On canon building and canon formation, see, for instance, Outhwaite (2009). See also, for example: Alatas and Sinha (2017); Baehr (2002); Baehr (2017 [2002]); Coller (2007 [2003]); Collyer (2010); Connell (2003); Dawson (2017); How (2007); How (2016); Inglis (2009); Outhwaite (2017); Reed (2006); Santos (2006); Santos et al. (2007); Stanfield II (2010). 13. Bhambra (2014c), p. 474. 14. Ibid., p. 475. 15. See Blauner and Wellman (1973). On this point, see also Bhambra (2014c), p. 475. 16. See Blauner and Wellman (1973). On this point, see also Bhambra (2014c), p. 475.

6  Canonicity and Exclusivity 

141

17. Blauner and Wellman (1973), p. 330. On this point, see Bhambra (2014c), p. 475. Cf. Go and Watson (2019). 18. Bhambra (2014c), p.  475. On this point, see also, for example: Bennett (1984); Kermode (1985); Morrison (1989). 19. Bhambra (2014c), p. 475. 20. Cf. Collyer (2018). Cf. also Collyer et al. (2018). 21. Bhambra (2014c), p. 475 (quotation modified). Cf. Morrison (1989), pp. 1–2. 22. Ibid., p. 475. 23. Ibid., p. 476. On this point, see also Weinsheimer (1991). 24. Bhambra (2014c), p. 476. 25. On this point, see, for instance: Habermas (2001b [1984]), esp. pp. 94–99; Habermas (2001), pp. 13, 44, 45, and 79; Habermas (2018 [2009]), esp. pp. 88, 96, 102, 103, 117, 120, and 156. See also, for example: Allen (2012); Apel (1990 [1985]), pp. 35, 41–42, and 50; Azmanova (2010); Ferrell and Old (2016); Flynn (2019); Fultner (2001), p. xv; Pellizzoni (2001); Power (2000); Ray (2004), pp.  317–318; Rochlitz (1996); Susen (2007), pp. 88–89, 114, 244, 251, 265, and 286; Susen (2009a), pp. 96–97; Susen (2009b), pp.  111–112; Susen (2010c), pp.  109, 113, and 116; Susen (2015b), pp. 1033–1034; Susen (2018c), p. 51; Thompson (1982), p. 128; Whitton (1992), p. 307. 26. Bhambra (2014c), p. 476. 27. On Habermas’s concept of the ‘ideal speech situation’, see also, for example: Habermas (1988 [1963]), pp. 279 and 281; Habermas (1970), pp. 367 and 371–374; Habermas (1988 [1971]), p.  17; Habermas (1987c [1981]), p.  42; Habermas (1990c [1983]), pp.  86–94; Habermas (2001b [1984]), pp. 85–86, 93, 97–99, and 102–103; Habermas (1987b [1985]), p. 323; Habermas (1993 [1990]), pp.  163–165; Habermas (1993 [1991]), pp.  54–57; Habermas (1996b [1992]), pp.  322–323; Habermas (1992), pp.  419, 422, and 452; Habermas (1995), p.  117; Habermas (2001), pp. 7–8, 10–13, 23, 29, 37, 42, 45–47, 52, and 83–84; Habermas (2004), p. 875.—In the secondary literature see, for example: Apel (1990 [1985]), esp. pp.  24–25, 33–35, and 42–51; Benhabib (1990), pp.  330–331 and 343–345; Bernstein (1995), pp. 47–57; Böhler (1990 [1982]), esp. pp. 114, 132–133, and 136; Cooke (1993), p. 253; Cooke (1994), pp. 31, 172n8, and 172–173n9; Cooke (1997), pp. 9–13; Cooke (2004); Davey (1985), pp.  113–114 and 120; Factor and Turner (1977), pp.  194, 196, and 201–202; Ferrara (1987), pp. 44–45; Fultner (2001), pp. xv–xvi; Gamwell (1997), p. 37; Geuss (1981), pp. 65–75; Günther (1998), esp. pp. 235–236; Jay Kilby (2004), p.  308; Koczanowicz (1999), p.  57; Matustik (1989), pp. 159 and 166–167; McCarthy (1973), pp. 145–148; Mendelson (1979), pp. 71–73; Milley (2002), p. 58; Mitchell (2003), p. 7; Ray (2004), pp. 309 and 315–317; Susen (2007), pp. 74, 88–90, 99–100n105, 116, 122, 123, 144, 261, and 306; Susen (2009a), pp.  81–82, 93–103, and 107–110;

142 

S. Susen

Susen (2009b), pp. 110–113 and 118–119; Susen (2013f ), pp. 200, 213, 217, 218, and 229; ibid., p. 325; Trautsch (2004), p. 183. 28. On Susen’s concept of the ‘real speech situation’, see, for example, Susen (2013d), Susen (2013e), and Susen (2013f ). See also Susen (2007), pp. 144 and 261. 29. Bhambra (2014c), p. 479. 30. Ibid., p. 479 (italics added). 31. Ibid., p. 479. 32. Orwell (1989 [1945]), p. 112 (Chapter 10). 33. On the concept of ‘emancipation’, see Susen (2015c). See also Susen (2009a). 34. Bhambra (2014c), p. 483 (italics added). 35. Ibid., p. 483. 36. See Saint-Arnaud (2009 [2003]). On this point, see also Bhambra (2014c), pp. 472, 483, and 485. 37. Bhambra (2014c), p. 485. 38. Ibid., p. 486. 39. Ibid., p. 486. 40. Ibid., p. 486 (italics in original) (punctuation modified). 41. Cf. Chernilo (2017). Cf. also Susen (2020c). 42. On this point, see Connell (2007). See also Connell (2014), p. 554. 43. See, for example: Connell (1997); Connell (2007); Connell (2014); Meekosha (2011). 44. See, for example: Alatas (2006a); Alatas (2006b); Patel (2010); and Patel (2014). 45. See, for example: Bhambra (2007a); Bhambra (2007b); Bhambra (2013); Bhambra (2014b); Bhambra (2014a); Bhambra et  al. (2014); Reuter and Villa (2010). 46. See, for example: Odora Hoppers (2002). 47. See, for example: Montero (2007). 48. See, for example: Mignolo and Escobar (2010); Mignolo (2000); Mignolo (2005); Mignolo (2008 [2002]); Mignolo (2009); Quijano (2008 [2000]); Quijano (2010 [2007]); Tlostanova and Mignolo (2012). 49. See, for example: Smith (2012 [1999]). 50. Connell (2014), p. 550. 51. On the concept of ‘global justice’, see, for example: Barry and Pogge (2005); Brock (2009); Brock and Moellendorf (2005); Brooks (2008); Brooks (2012); Føllesdal and Pogge (2005); Pogge (2001); Williams and Death (2017). 52. Connell (2014), p. 554. 53. On the concept of ‘simple domination’, see, for example: Boltanski (2008), esp. pp.  149–158; Boltanski (2009), pp.  186–190; Boltanski (2011 [2009]), pp. 124–126. See also, for instance: Susen (2012b), pp. 707–710; Boltanski

6  Canonicity and Exclusivity 

143

et al. (2014 [2010]), pp.  188–190; Susen (2014d), pp.  652–656; Susen (2016c), pp. 212–215. On the concept of ‘complex domination’, see, for example: Boltanski (2008), esp. pp. 149–158; Boltanski (2009), pp. 190–193; Boltanski (2011 [2009]), pp. 127–129. See also, for instance: Susen (2012b), pp. 707–710; Boltanski et al. (2014 [2010]), pp. 188–190; Susen (2014d), pp. 652–656; Susen (2016c), pp. 212–215. 54. Connell (2014), p. 554. 55. Ibid., p. 554 (punctuation modified). 56. Bhambra (2014b), p. 451. 57. Ibid., p. 451 (punctuation modified). 58. Ibid., p. 451. 59. Ibid., p. 451. 60. Ibid., p. 451. 61. Ibid., p. 452. 62. Ibid., p. 453. 63. Ibid., p. 453 (quotation modified). 64. Persaud and Walker (2015), p. 83. 65. Ibid., p. 83 (italics in original). 66. Ibid., p. 83. 67. Ibid., p. 83. 68. Ibid., p. 83. 69. Ibid., p. 83. 70. Ibid., p. 83. 71. See Tlostanova and Mignolo (2012). 72. Ibid., p. 18. On this point, see also Persaud and Walker (2015), p. 83. 73. Bhambra (2015), p. 102. On this point, see also, for example: Beiner (1995); Bhargava and Reifeld (2005); Marshall (1964a [1963]); Marshall (1981); Susen (2010b); Turner (1994 [1990]); Turner (2009). 74. Bhambra (2015), p. 102. 75. Ibid., p. 102. 76. Ibid., p. 102 (italics added). 77. Ibid., p. 102 (italics added). 78. On this point, see Susen (2010b), esp. pp. 265–268 and 271–274. See also, for example: Bader (1997); Baert (2010); Barbalet (1988); Bhambra (2015); Clarke (2008); Crouch et al. (2001); Delanty (2000a); Dunne and Bonazzi (1995); Hutchings and Dannreuther (1999); Isin and Turner (2007); Isin and Wood (1999); Izadi (1996); Kofman (1995); Mann (1994 [1987]); Marshall (1964b [1963]); Mouffe (1992); Oliver and Heater (1994); Soysal (1994); Staeheli (2008); Stanfield II (2010); Taylor (1989b); Turner (1993); Vandenberg (2000); White (1999); Young (1994 [1989]).

144 

S. Susen

79. See Bhambra (2015), p. 103. 80. See ibid., pp. 104 and 110. 81. See ibid., pp. 102, 103, and 104. See also Bhambra (2014a). 82. Bhambra (2015), p. 103 (italics added). 83. See Said (1978). 84. See Hall (1992). 85. Bhambra (2015), p. 103. 86. Ibid., p. 103. 87. Ibid., p. 103 (italics added). 88. On this point, see Susen (2015a), pp. 10, 60, 95, 126, 200, 243, 245, and 261. See also Susen (2014a), esp. p. 23, and Susen (2018b). 89. Bhambra (2015), p. 103. 90. Ibid., p. 103. 91. See, for example: Eisenstadt (1999); Eisenstadt (2000a); Eisenstadt (2000b); Eisenstadt (2003); Eisenstadt and Schluchter (1998). Cf. Jaspers (1949). Cf. also, for instance: Habermas (2019a), esp. pp. 175–306 (Part II), pp. 307–459 (Part III), and pp. 461–480 (‘Erste Zwischenbetrachtung: Die begrifflichen Weichenstellungen der Achsenzeit’); Habermas (2019b), esp. pp. 189–211 (‘Zweite Zwischenbetrachtung: Die Zäsur der Trennung von Glauben und Wissen’ ), pp. 557–589 (‘Dritte Zwischenbetrachtung: Vom objektiven Geist zur kommunikativen Vergesellschaftung erkennender und handelnder Subjekte’ ), and pp. 767–807 (‘Postskriptum’ ). 92. Bhambra (2015), p. 103. 93. Ibid., p. 103. 94. Ibid., p. 104. 95. Ibid., p. 104. 96. Ibid., p. 104. 97. Ibid., p. 104 (italics added). 98. Ibid., p. 104. 99. Ibid., p. 104. 100. Ibid., p. 104. 101. Ibid., p. 104. 102. Ibid., p. 104. See also Bhambra (2014a), p. 5. 103. Bhambra (2015), p. 104. On this point, see also, for example: Isin (2000); Isin (2009); Isin and Turner (2007); Isin and Wood (1999). 104. Bhambra (2015), p. 105. 105. On this point, see ibid., pp. 105–106. 106. Ibid., p. 105 (italics added). 107. On this point, see Susen (2010b), esp. pp. 265–268 and 271–274. 108. Bhambra (2015), p. 106. 109. Ibid., p. 106. 110. Ibid., p. 106.

6  Canonicity and Exclusivity 

145

111. Ibid., p. 106. 112. Ibid., p. 106. 113. Ibid., p. 106 (italics added). 114. Ibid., p. 106 (italics added). 115. On the concept of ‘responsibilization’, see, for example: Pyysiäinen et  al. (2017); Shamir (2008). See also, for instance: Rabinow and Rose (2006); Shaver (1985); Weiner (1995). 116. Bhambra (2015), p. 106. 117. On this point, see, for example: Browne and Susen (2014); Susen (2008a); Susen (2008b); Susen (2014 [2015]); Susen (2014c); Susen (2015a), pp. 117–118; Susen (2016c); Susen (2018b). 118. Bhambra (2015), p. 107 (italics in original). 119. Ibid., p. 107. 120. Ibid., p. 108. 121. Ibid., p. 109.

Part IV Intimations of Historicity

7 Historicity and Sociology

The nature, status, and role of historical sociology have been extensively discussed in recent decades.1 In this regard, the question concerning its place in the humanities and social sciences deserves to be taken seriously. ‘There are many reasons to study historical sociology—or to study history sociologically.’2 Indeed, one may go a step further by positing that, in intellectual terms, the history of sociology is complementary to the sociology of history. The former is crucial to a historical understanding of sociology. The latter is vital to a sociological understanding of history. To be precise: the former is essential to a comprehensive analysis of past, present, and possible future developments in sociology; the latter is fundamental to an in-depth examination of past, present, and possible future developments of social realities. Thus, ‘the importance of bringing history and sociology together’3 can hardly be overestimated, permitting us to obtain both a historical understanding of society and a sociological understanding of history. When reflecting on the nature, status, and role of historical sociology, one may identify a number of reasons as to why it should not only be taken seriously but also occupy a central place in the humanities and social sciences. In this respect, three considerations are particularly noteworthy: 1. The analysis of social change4: Instead of conceiving of history as a conglomerate of occurrences determined by a ‘set of universal laws’,5 we need to account for its volatility. The paradigm shift in contemporary French historiography from ‘histoire de la longue durée’6 to ‘microhistoire’7 indicates a sustained engagement with the nature of social change as it is experienced by ordinary actors in their lifeworlds. © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_7

149

150 

S. Susen

2. The perspective of anti-determinism8: Such an angle is concerned with ‘dispelling the illusions of false necessity’9 by drawing ‘attention to historical specificity’.10 Instead of assuming that social developments are governed by unshakable laws of structural determinacy, historical sociology places the emphasis on the relative openness pervading the seemingly most solidified forms of human sociality. ‘Seeing the present in relation to the past is an important way of recognizing its contingency’,11 implying that all modes of agency are situated in spatiotemporally constituted horizons of historicity. 3. The task of contextualization12: When scrutinizing behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns in human societies, we need to comprehend them in relation to ‘the historical contexts of their production and application’.13 Human practices, belief systems, and organizations are embedded in ensembles of previously established traditions, conventions, standards, and culturally codified reference points. As such, they can be regarded as ‘historical products and results of conscious or unconscious choice’.14 Paradoxically, they can be both discursively negotiated and intuitively assimilated, ascribed and achieved, reproduced and transformed, accepted, and rejected. The presuppositions outlined above are expressed in the view that history constitutes a multilayered process shaped by different degrees of contingency. More specifically, a radical—arguably, late modern or postmodern—version of this perspective is based on five central assumptions: 1. Historical developments are intrinsically ephemeral and always relatively arbitrary (historical lawlessness). 2. Historical developments are open and, hence, largely unpredictable (historical unpredictability). 3. Historical developments are neither progressive nor regressive, but rather chaotic, irregular, and incoherent (historical nonlinearity). 4. Historical developments are not subject to a conscious or unconscious all-­ encompassing purpose and, in this sense, are not aimed at fulfilling the mission of bringing humanity gradually closer to an overarching or transcendental goal (historical directionlessness). 5. Historical developments are composed of a plurality of irreducible and context-dependent realities (historical particularity).15 Insisting on the alleged lawlessness, unpredictability, nonlinearity, directionlessness, or particularity of historical processes, predominant narratives of

7  Historicity and Sociology 

151

late modernity or postmodernity tend to make reference to all, or a combination, of these elements.16 As a consequence, two diametrically opposed conceptions of history emerge: on the one hand, history as ‘a structured and structuring horizon of unavoidable, predictable, progressive, directional, and universal developments’17; on the other hand, history as ‘an open horizon of arbitrary, unpredictable, chaotic, directionless, and irreducible developments’.18 Regardless of which of these two interpretations one may favour, and notwithstanding the question of whether or not they are reconcilable, historical sociology is crucial to a proper understanding of the historicity that permeates the human condition. ‘The categories with which we think the world are part of a social imaginary that in some degree also makes that world real and makes it what it is’.19 In other words, our Sprachanschauung (linguistic view) is a form of Weltanschauung (worldview) capable of converting itself into a Weltmacher (world constructor). The categories with which we think the world are, in addition, part of a social history that, to a considerable extent, makes that world temporal and makes it what it is in the present. Put differently, our Sprachanschauung (linguistic view) is a form of Geschichtsschreibung (historiography) capable of converting itself into a Gegenwartsmacher (present constructor). Given the spatiotemporal constitution of all modes of worldly agency, the historicity permeating the human condition is essential to all forms of embodied sociality. A fundamental mission of historical sociology consists in exploring the numerous implications of the historicity that lies at the heart of the social conditions shaping humanity. 1. Presentism and Sociology One of the most vibrant debates taking place in the contemporary social sciences concerns the question of the extent to which British sociology has entered a crisis in recent years, if not decades. Indeed, it ‘has been diagnosed by various parties as suffering from a wide range of ailments’,20 weaknesses, and limitations. Following a self-critical form of ‘introspective attention’21 and inward-looking contemplation, among the most common criticisms are the following22: • It may be judged ‘seriously underpowered in terms of quantitative methodological expertise’,23 especially if compared to other national traditions of sociology in which this kind of investigative proficiency is both far more common and far more developed—as is the case, for instance, in AngloAmerican universities.

152 

S. Susen

• Its flirtation with cultural studies, reflected in the impact of the cultural turn24 on its disciplinary identity, may have led to the increasing influence of a ‘soft’ programme, sometimes described as ‘decorative sociology’,25 which has moved its research agendas away from a serious empirical engagement with structural determinants of social realities. • As an exporter discipline,26 it provides human and intellectual capital for adjacent disciplines—such as social geography, urban studies, cultural studies, food studies, media studies, gender studies, management studies, socio-legal studies, psychosocial studies, social psychology, criminology, or anthropology. As a consequence of this export trend, it runs the risk of ‘losing its own distinct identity’27 as a collective endeavour with clear disciplinary boundaries. • As an importer discipline,28 it attracts and draws upon human and intellectual capital from the aforementioned adjacent disciplines. In fact, one may add several disciplines to the previous list, notably those disciplines whose (implicit or explicit) protectionist ‘entry policies’ prevent ‘outsiders’ from being granted academic asylum within their ideologically and institutionally sustained fields of inquiry. This applies, in particular, to age-old academic disciplines—such as philosophy and classics—which tend to be perceived as ‘prestigious’, ‘intellectually superior’, and ‘watertight’. • As illustrated in some of its members’ obsessive preoccupation with conceptual issues, large sections of British sociology may be criticized for producing self-indulgent and ‘empirically unsubstantiated “social theory”’,29 far removed from a genuine, let alone thorough, commitment to studying real-life concerns.30 • As a fragile and, at the same time, soulless discipline, lacking a truly pioneering spirit, British sociology may be perceived as ‘being in need of radical methodological overhaul’,31 which would provide it with the opportunity to liberate itself from seemingly outdated pretensions, such as the twofold ambition to uncover the underlying logic of ‘essence level’ social causalities and to embrace the pursuit of ‘newer concerns to do with “surface level” social phenomena’.32 At the ontological level, such a paradigm shift requires questioning the validity of essence/surface distinctions in sociology—if not abandoning them altogether. At the methodological level, such a paradigm shift requires developing techniques of studying society in an innovative manner—that is, in a way that does justice to the multilayered constitution of human reality, which, owing to both its structural and its processual complexity, is irreducible to the binary distinction between ‘ontologies’ and ‘phenomenologies’.33

7  Historicity and Sociology 

153

Despite their relevance and insightfulness, the aforementioned criticisms fail to engage with the question of the extent to which ‘the very nature of sociology itself as a historically-situated form of knowledge production’34 has been largely ignored by contemporary scholars, especially by those working in the UK. Sociology claims to know the world around it. But in Britain today it seriously fails in this regard, because it operates with radically curtailed understandings of the historical forces which made the social conditions it purports to analyse. A sophisticated understanding of the contemporary world is made possible only by an equally sophisticated understanding of long-term historical processes, not just over the last five hundred years—since the so-called ‘dawn of modernity’— but over many millennia, and not just in ‘the West’ but across the whole planet.35

Thus, both in cross-temporal terms (‘over many millennia’) and in cross-­ spatial terms (‘across the world’), historical processes can, and should, be examined by exploring their potentially enduring and wide-ranging relevance to societal trends and developments. To be sure, a robust awareness of historicity does not suffice to attend to the task of accounting for the role of long-­ term and large-scale historical processes and forces. In addition, it is imperative to acquire, and to cultivate, a ‘strong consciousness of historical complexity’,36 in which there is no room for reductionist conceptions of societal trends and developments, notably with regard to the tension-laden relationship between determinacy and indeterminacy.37 Hence, what is not helpful in this respect are ‘pre-packaged, highly simplistic accounts of complex historical forces, which save the majority of sociologists from really having to understand in profound ways the complexities of long-term historical dynamics’.38 What is appropriate in this regard, however, are context-sensitive, conceptually and methodologically sophisticated accounts of complex historical forces, which encourage the majority of sociologists to scrutinize the intricacies of long-­ term historical dynamics. Arguably, ‘[s]ophisticated historical consciousness is largely moribund in mainstream British sociology today, posing acute questions about the intellectual solidity of the discipline as it is currently organized and practised’.39 On this—critical—view, the quality of contemporary British sociology suffers from a narrow emphasis on the present and a lack of serious engagement with the past, thereby falling short of recognizing the latter’s impact upon the former. The preponderance of ‘presentist lenses’40 in the interpretation of particular aspects of society results in ‘historically unsatisfying analyses’41—that is, in studies of the present that fail to comprehend their situatedness in the past.

154 

S. Susen

To be fair, there are a few exceptions that demonstrate that the sustained engagement with the past is not a complete anomaly in contemporary British sociology. Indeed, the Journal of Historical Sociology and Comparative Studies in Society and History provide two widely respected fora of scholarly debates on long-term and large-scale developments in social history. Insofar as they occupy a rather peripheral place within the current landscape of sociological discourse, however, their status is indicative of the marginal role of historical sociology, which, effectively, has been downgraded to a sub-discipline within the humanities and social sciences. It comes as no surprise, then, that most historical sociologists come from outside the UK. Their relatively insignificant, if not almost irrelevant, position within the field of British sociology does not make it particularly appealing to embark upon an academic career within a national context in which their work is likely to be unfavourably judged, if it is noticed at all.42 Granted, there are several historically oriented scholars in British sociology—such as W. G. Runciman,43 Jack Goody,44 and Michael Mann.45 Yet, in the writings of most canonized contemporary writers—such as Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck, Zygmunt Bauman, and Pierre Bourdieu—historical sociology is given insufficient, if any serious, attention.46 Put differently, historical sociologists do not make it into the canon, which is indicative of the fact that historical sociology, far from being assumed to lie at the core of the discipline, suffers from relative intellectual marginalization. This tendency is reinforced by the fact that, in the early twenty-first century, British sociology is subject to the increasing managerialization of the university sector. In such a context, characterized by the commodification of research and education, as illustrated in the rise of an ever more pervasive ‘audit culture’,47 it may seem rather unpopular to make a case for historical sociology. The dominant tendency is ‘to reposition sociology more thoroughly as a “useful” discipline’48— that is, as a discipline that is adjustable to, and profitable within, the neomanagerialist agendas of the current age. The preponderance of instrumental reason (Zweckrationalität) over substantive reason (Wertrationalität) in the social sciences affects not only how academics are judged (both from inside and from outside), but also how they operate and produce research. Under the considerable pressure exerted by benchmark systems of metrics-oriented assessments, the mission of social science is not primarily to generate knowledge with the aim of serving the critical function of uncovering underlying forces of power and domination; rather, its normative vocation has been reduced to complying with the hegemonic doxa of managerialization, commodification, and competitive administration. Irrespective of whether they do so unconsciously or consciously,

7  Historicity and Sociology 

155

reluctantly or willingly, unwittingly or deliberately, most contemporary social scientists, in order to further their careers, accept the ‘rules of engagement’49 by which ‘academic fields’50 are governed, thereby participating not only in instrumentally driven dynamics of positioning but also in a constant struggle for access to material, symbolic, reputational, and financial resources.51 In such a bleak sociopolitical climate, ruled by target-specific and profit-­ focused imperatives, it seems worth reflecting on the history of society in general and the history of sociology in particular. The historicization of reality, in terms of both its representations and its actualizations, leads not only to the relativization of seemingly absolute and unshakable foundations but also to the calling into question of the taken-for-grantedness of the given. If ‘sociology has strong forms of historical consciousness’,52 it can provide radical modes of critique capable of shedding light on the spatiotemporal contingency that permeates relationally constituted realities. Without historical consciousness, sociology runs the risk of losing its reflexive spirit, which is essential to its transformative potential, upon which it needs to draw in order to assert itself as a major intellectual force aimed at shaping, rather than only interpreting, society. If, however, ‘historical consciousness is weak, as it is now in British sociology, contemporary society’s self-understandings are not challenged but uncritically reproduced’.53 Sociology, in order to live up to its normative mission, needs to be both understood and practised ‘as an integral part of social criticism and as an important driving force in the cultivation of any given social order’s reflexive consciousness of itself, its nature, its past, and its possible futures’.54 If it lacks such a critical and reflexive attitude, sociology will fail to have not only a substantive but also a transformative—and potentially emancipatory—impact upon society. A ‘markedly more self-aware and historically-sensitive sociology’55 requires a disciplinary identity that, while wary of dogmatic forms of programmatic agendas, is capable of engaging with the key questions and challenges of its time, without giving in to the dominant forces that assert their hegemony by absorbing all (actually or potentially) subversive practices into their own ideological territory. In light of the need to develop a historically informed consciousness, tendencies towards ‘presentism’ are particularly worrying in contemporary sociology. These tendencies are reinforced and legitimized by ‘elite specialists called “social theorists”’,56 to the extent that their works are characterized by a pronounced obsession with the present, rather than by a serious engagement with the past. Insofar as British sociology is both prone to and reliant upon processes of disciplinary canonization,57 its flirtation with big-picture claims about the nature of the present epoch is given priority. Undoubtedly, there are

156 

S. Susen

profound presuppositional differences between the works of canonical thinkers—such as Zygmunt Bauman (1925–2017),58 Michel Foucault (1926–1984),59 Jürgen Habermas (1929–),60 Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002),61 Anthony Giddens (1938–),62 Manuel Castells (1942–),63 Ulrich Beck (1944–2015),64 Bruno Latour (1947–),65 Nancy Fraser (1947–),66 Axel Honneth (1949–),67 and Judith Butler (1956–).68 Yet, despite the significant conceptual, methodological, and ideological discrepancies that separate them from one another, one key element that these scholars have in common is that, rightly or wrongly, their writings are frequently used in a presentist fashion. From an evaluative point of view, then, it appears that these prominent figures suffer from the intellectual malaise called presentism: […] theorists of this sort—the most successful and consecrated intellectual entrepreneurs of the age—are at their weakest (or at least, most highly problematic) when making claims about the historical processes that they claim have led to the contemporary social condition they are championing—liquid modernity, late modern reflexivity, risk or cosmopolitan society, and so on. This is because the historical account gets subordinated to the account of the alleged condition we are currently in.69

Zeitgeist-surfing is a crucial form of activity for a discipline that prides itself on providing cutting-edge accounts of the world in which we live. One of the main dangers attached to bold announcements about ‘the only game in town’ and allegedly earthshattering societal developments on a global scale is that they tend to be based on simplistic explanatory frameworks that fail to do justice to the complexity of intersectionally constituted, and hence polycentrically organized, realities. ‘One cannot have late-, post-, liquid-, second-­ modernity (etc.) without having a necessarily caricatured “modernity” to juxtapose them against.’70 At the same time, the concept of modernity does not have any nominal, let alone real, currency ‘without an (equally, or even more) caricatured “pre-modernity”’.71 Concept formation is just as problematic as canon formation, however, if the ideal types upon which its advocates rely become epistemically more powerful than the reality they are supposed to represent. When ‘useful heuristic devices’72 are hypostatized by converting them into ontological certainties, critical sociological analysis is replaced by reductive and decorative rhetoric. Defending classical sociology, it is worth pointing out that a striking feature of the key writings produced by the discipline’s ‘founding figures’ is a strong commitment to the sociohistorical study of human

7  Historicity and Sociology 

157

existence. Yet, ‘today much of the historical-sociological critique of classical theory goes unheard in the mainstream’,73 due to a paradoxical constellation: • On the one hand, the explanatory frameworks developed by the ‘founding figures’ have ‘seeped into the intellectual bloodstream of sociologists at an early stage in their training’,74 to such an extent that the validity of their conceptual and methodological tools, notably those employed for historically informed modes of analysis, are taken for granted. • On the other hand, ‘historical-sociological knowledges of this kind’75 tend to be considered ‘so highly “specialist”, if not outright esoteric’76, that they fail to ‘enjoy wide circulation outside limited scholarly circles (the field of restricted, as opposed to mass, consumption in Bourdieu’s terms)’,77 meaning that their impact remains limited and that, furthermore, explanatory approaches associated with these epistemic sources remain relatively marginalized within the arena of sociological investigation. Classical sociology, while it is still drawn upon by contemporary researchers, appears to be relegated to the margins of the social sciences, giving the impression that, although it constitutes an indispensable element of future intellectual developments, it needs to be thoroughly revised, if not—at least in some respects—abandoned. Classical sociology’s apparent limitations are often invoked—we apparently live in a version of modernity ‘very different’ from that which the classics knew—at the very instant that their dichotomizing impulses and assumptions about modern uniqueness are tacitly deployed. The trinity of [a] pre-modernity / [b] (high) modernity / [c] late (or post-) modernity is invoked at the same time as the classical antecedents from which it derives are criticized or denounced, an ironic situation to say the least.78

The simplistic periodization of society into these three key historical stages— that is, (a) ‘premodern’, (b) ‘modern’, and (c) ‘late modern’/‘postmodern’—is tantamount to an insurance policy that gives contemporary social theorists the presuppositional means to attribute legitimacy to their professional project. […] the hugely contestable assumption of a single ‘great divide’ between the pre-­modern and [the] modern goes generally unremarked, not just because it remains part of the field’s doxa inherited from the classics, but also because it

158 

S. Susen

flatters the sensibilities of contemporary sociologists that ‘their’ special object, ‘modernity’, is indeed very special, because historically utterly unique.79

To put it bluntly, simplistic periodizing schemes can make those who advocate them feel important, as they convey high degrees of catch-all assertiveness, even if a close examination of their validity may demonstrate low degrees of explanatory persuasiveness. Admittedly, the alleged ‘chasm between “premodern” and “modern” social systems’,80 as well as—correspondingly— between ‘modern’ and ‘late modern’/‘postmodern’ social configurations, may serve as a powerful conceptual reference point, on the basis of which the nature of large-scale historical developments can be captured. Ultimately, however, the methodical engagement with empirical realities demonstrates that, in most cases, periodizing schemes are—at best—heuristic devices or— at worst—traps of explanatory reductionism, preventing sociologists from facing up to elevated levels of societal complexity, whose multiple components are irreducible to the overarching logic of a metanarrative, let alone to a monolithically constituted Zeitgeist of world-historical universality. 2. The Challenge of Historical Sociology The various elements determining ‘the fate of the genre and sub-field of “historical sociology”’81 are highly complex. Unsurprisingly, different commentators will provide different forms of assessment when evaluating the respective significance of each of these elements. Reflecting on the numerous factors that either stimulate or impede both the emergence and the influence of historically oriented sociological studies, it seems that the following dimensions are particularly noteworthy82: a. There is ‘the presence or absence in the general sociological field of ideas supportive of historical approaches to social issues’.83 Just as some scholars are sympathetic to the notion that key sociological problems have to be examined in terms of their historical constitution, others are sceptical of, opposed to, or simply ignorant of this assumption. In this respect, one may compare and contrast different national traditions of sociology—for instance, those that emerged in German and Anglo-American academic environments in the twentieth century.84 The former, notably in the context of the Weimar Republic, was marked by a strong emphasis on the importance of historically oriented approaches.85 The latter, especially in the early and mid-twentieth century, was shaped predominantly by presentist frameworks, which were directly or indirectly influenced by economics and, hence, by an academic

7  Historicity and Sociology 

159

discipline favouring a sustained focus on abstract models for the study of present-day issues, rather than historically contextualizing modes of analysis.86 b. There is ‘the presence of Marxism especially of a classical variety, as a corpus of thought upon which historically-minded sociologists can draw or react against’.87 In relation to both the status and the influence of historical sociology, Marxism is a double-edged sword. • On the one hand, ‘it can promote historical approaches within sociology in some contexts’.88 As indicated in the label ‘historical materialism’,89 Marxist approaches, inspired by Hegelian thought, stress the spatiotemporal constitution of human existence, whose underlying and constantly evolving modes of production are conceived of as a driving force of civilizational development. • On the other hand, it can hinder historical approaches within sociology in some contexts, especially if they are perceived as ‘“too Marxist” by a generally anti-Marxist sociological field’.90 Researchers and scholars who, for different reasons, wish to distance themselves from Marxist currents of analysis may end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater, when abandoning historically oriented approaches completely, in order to avoid being associated with sociological methods whose materialist presuppositions they reject. It is not insignificant to note that both the appeal and the disapproval of Marxism depend on ‘extra-academic factors, notably the state of play in the political field in a given country’91 and, thus, on wider ideological trends and developments. For instance, in the context of the Vietnam War (1955–1975),92 ‘rebellious younger groups in US sociology’93 were attracted by, and turned towards, Marxism, paving the way for the arrival of historical sociology in Anglo-American social science in the 1970s and expressing a considerable degree of discontent—not only with the political and economic establishment, but also, in the intellectual field, with ‘what were seen as the ideological academic legitimators of the status quo, namely structural-functionalist and modernization theories’.94 This phase is sometimes referred to as the ‘golden age’95 of historical sociology in the USA, peaking in the late 1970s and early 1980s—a key moment represented in the works of Theda Skocpol96 and Charles Tilly.97 c. There is the question of ‘how relatively open or closed the general sociological field is to historically-oriented sociology at a given time’.98 The relative openness and closure of sociological fields in relation to historically oriented approaches vary across time and between national contexts, depending on multiple factors—both outside these fields (for instance, wider cultural,

160 

S. Susen

political, ideological, and economic developments in a given society) and within these fields (for instance, particular paradigmatic or institutional developments in a given academic setting). In Germany—to be exact, in West Germany—after World War II, the hegemonic influence of empiricist and positivist modes of investigation, supported and sponsored by the USA, led to the almost complete exclusion of ‘history-led approaches for at least two decades’.99 By contrast, the sociological fields in both the USA and the UK during the same period were relatively open.100 Unlike the US-American context,101 however, in the UK the field of sociology was fairly accommodating towards Marxist traditions of analysis, especially in the 1970s—a period in which research into class and stratification occupied a central place on the sociological agenda. Arguably, the genre or sub-field of historical sociology has been ‘in rude health’102 in British social science for numerous decades.103 One may draw on the works of Marxist scholars, such as Perry Anderson,104 and/or on the writings of Weberian and neo-Weberian scholars, such as W.  G. Runciman105 or Michael Mann.106 Thus, one may focus on economic and/or cultural forces when providing explanations of social change. Historical sociology, even when it is relegated to the margins of the humanities and social sciences, constitutes a vital area of inquiry, in that it obliges those who pursue it to pose, and to offer answers to, the ‘big questions’ related to the historicity permeating different elements of social reality. Favourable interpretations of the role and status of historical sociology in the British context107 may have turned out to be too optimistic, in the sense that the contributions it was expected to make were, eventually, made—at best—on the fringes of the discipline or—at worst—almost completely ignored by mainstream social researchers in the UK. d. There is ‘the general structuring of the field at given points in time and over time’.108 Every social field constitutes an ensemble of constantly shifting positions occupied by actors with different dispositions. Hence, the impact that historically oriented approaches may, or may not, have on the wider field of sociology depends on the positions occupied by their representatives and advocates, as well as by those who are, to a greater or lesser degree, opposed to them. In other words, the influence of a particular current of thought upon a given academic field rests upon its capacity to convert its own sets of discourses into a dynamic form of symbolic capital. To the extent that a specific tradition of inquiry is both pursued and valorized by a substantial number of relatively influential scholars within the boundaries of a given field, it stands a chance of being elevated to a key reference point, through the lenses of which more and more actors, situated in this arena, seek (i) to describe, (ii) to analyse, (iii) to interpret, (iv) to explain, and (v) to assess particular aspects of social reality.

7  Historicity and Sociology 

161

Notwithstanding the various profound limitations and shortcomings of their works, it is crucial to recognize that classical sociologists ‘well understood the intimate relation[s] between “the historical” and “the social”’109 and that, furthermore, ‘only after the rise to prominence of positivistic science’110—in the mid-twentieth century—‘this affinity between social and historical inquiry suddenly appear[ed] to be problematic’.111 One of the main reasons for this turn away from historically oriented approaches was the gradual ‘positivization’112 of the social sciences in general and of sociology in particular. In the US-American context, the strong presence of positivist frameworks was reflected—perhaps, most importantly—in both the American Sociological Review and the American Journal of Sociology, in which a large amount of quantitatively oriented research papers found a home.113 In order for historically oriented sociology to survive in a paradigmatically ‘hostile’ environment of this sort, ‘it had to be institutionalized and conventionalized, through means like postgraduate programmes, dedicated journals and book series, specialist conferences, slots at mainstream conferences, and so on’.114 Insofar as a particular genre or sub-discipline is relegated to the margins of an academic field, the only way in which it stands a realistic chance of escaping further peripheralization, if not extinction, is for its representatives and advocates to ensure that it retains a minimal degree of institutional stability, continuity, and presence at the scholarly levels of teaching, research, and divulgation. It may be useful to distinguish two forms of sociology, both of which emphasize the importance of historicity in their respective studies of society: • On the one hand, there is ‘historically oriented sociology’,115 ‘which can hold out the promise of informing and transforming other wings of sociology, most notably through its revision of existing theoretical positions’.116 • On the other hand, there is ‘historical sociology’,117 which can be conceived of as ‘a named and legitimated sub-field with its own codified corpus of reference points, texts, and modes of reproduction such as PhD training and tenure-track jobs’.118 The former reflects a general programme, in the sense that it is historically conscious, seeking to ensure that all branches of sociology generate knowledge capable of accounting not only for the historicity of society, but also for the historicity of the terminologies and methodologies employed to collect and to examine data within disciplinary boundaries. The latter constitutes a specific programme, in the sense that it is historically focused, aiming to guarantee that it converts itself into a major sub-discipline with its own paradigmatic

162 

S. Susen

identity and presuppositional horizon of scientific tools, permitting its supporters to carve a niche for themselves in the discursive and institutional landscape known as sociology. Given their relatively marginal position in the field of sociology, however, it would be no exaggeration to suggest that both historically conscious and historically focused sociologists have begun to resemble ‘a luxury good […], the sociological equivalent of […] a Prada bag’.119 In such a tension-laden atmosphere, being a historical sociologist appears to be both a privilege and a stigma: as a privilege, it can be a sign of distinction, giving scholars conducting historical research a special status in terms of the epistemic elitism and alleged superiority of their intellectual pursuits; as a stigma, it can be a sign of exclusion, putting scholars conducting historical research into the precarious position of being relegated to the margins of the discipline, fighting professional extinction, due to an objective lack of material, symbolic, reputational, and financial profits emanating from their ambitious undertakings. The answer to the question of whether one belongs to the ‘sociological aristocracy’120 or to the ‘sociological proletariat’,121 then, depends on where a researcher is situated in the field of sociology—not only in terms of the value of their intellectual contributions, but also in terms of the value of their area of investigation, genre, or sub-discipline. 3. Periodization In contemporary sociology, notably in the British context, ‘the will to periodize’122 remains strong. One may speculate about the reasons ‘why British sociology finds itself today in a situation whereby grand but glib periodizing dichotomies between earlier and later modernity are so appealing to the sociological profession’.123 In this respect, the contrast between UK-based and non-­ UK-­based (notably French, German, and Anglo-American) social theorists is particularly stark. For it seems that ‘periodizing inclinations’ are far more pronounced among the former than among the latter. On the face of it, it gives those making, or at least supporting, ‘periodizing claims’ immense intellectual authority, owing to the big-picture scope of their epistemic assertions about the nature of the current epoch. Of course, one may draw attention to the stereotypical opposition between philosophy and sociology.124 The former is often perceived as grappling with seemingly transhistorical or timeless issues—such as ‘the laws of knowledge (epistemology), the laws of being (ontology), the laws of argument (logic), the

7  Historicity and Sociology 

163

laws of morality (ethics), or the laws of forms (aesthetics)’.125 The latter is generally conceived of as dealing with sociohistorical and time-laden issues— insisting that the aforementioned ‘laws’ are relationally constituted and, hence, spatiotemporally contingent. A problematic aspect of large parts of contemporary (including British) sociology, however, is that its advocates may have ‘retained the worst of the classics’,126 in particular their ‘simplifying dichotomies’,127 instead of further developing ‘the best of the classics’, above all their sustained concern with, and original insights into, both ‘Western history’ and ‘non-Western history’, stretching a long way back in time and covering periods preceding the rise of modernity. A truly critical sociology that claims to be both historically informed and historically sensitive needs to be able to go beyond a narrow conception of, and superficial engagement with, society, based on a one-sided focus on current matters (presentism) and misguided by a reductive rhetoric of periods (stagism). To the extent that both presentism and stagism are not only ‘endemic in contemporary British sociology’128 but also ‘expressed in and reproduced by the “elite theorists” that most British sociologists rely upon to do their historical thinking for them’,129 the task that needs to be confronted by those interested in breaking away from doxic, dogmatic, and doctrinal tendencies within the discipline is to reinvent it, by drawing attention to the fact that its historical focus has been part of its intellectual genealogy from the beginning. The more optimistic point here is that sociology is only contingently, and not necessarily, oriented in presentist ways. Its intellectual promise is that it can be— and, at certain periods, has been—based around both powerful awareness of long-­ term historical dynamics and also the reflexive understanding of the inevitably contested nature of those dynamics. […] To be a really meaningful contribution to human societies and how these understand themselves, sociology must operate with more sophisticated and self-reflexive understandings of the terms it uses than it currently does […].130

In short, presentism and stagism, far from representing essential ingredients of its disciplinary identity, go against the historicist spirit of sociology. This spirit permeates the works of the ‘founding figures’ of sociology. In the current context, it needs to be revived in order to safeguard the critical outlook of a discipline that can make sense of contemporary social practices and structures only insofar as its researchers study the spatiotemporally constituted background horizons in which they emerge and unfold as happenings of a past-laden and future-oriented present.

164 

S. Susen

Notes 1. On recent debates concerning the nature, status, and role of historical sociology, see, for example: Adams et al. (2005a); Adams et al. (2005b); Barrelmeyer (1997); Burke (2005 [1992]); Calhoun (1996); Calhoun (1998); Calhoun (2003); Chakrabarty (2003); Delanty and Isin (2003); Dufour (2015); Fleck (2000); Hall (1989); Inglis (2014); Magubane (2005); Steinmetz (2007b). 2. Calhoun (2003), p. 383. 3. Ibid., p. 383. 4. Ibid., p. 384. 5. Ibid., p. 383. 6. Ibid., p. 384. 7. Ibid., p. 384. 8. Ibid., p. 384. 9. Ibid., p. 384. 10. Ibid., p. 384. 11. Ibid., p. 384. 12. Ibid., p. 384. 13. Ibid., p. 384. 14. Ibid., p. 384. 15. Susen (2015a), p. 138 (italics in original) (quotation modified). 16. On this point, see ibid., Chapter 4. 17. Ibid., p. 138 (italics added). 18. Ibid., p. 138 (italics added). 19. Calhoun (2003), p. 385 (italics added). On this point, see also, for instance: Bouchet (1994); Calhoun (2002); Castoriadis (1975); Castoriadis (1987 [1975]); Taylor (2002); Taylor (2004). 20. Inglis (2014), p. 99. Cf. Scott (2018), esp. his reflections on the question of whether there was ‘a failure of British social theory’ (Chapter 1). Cf. also Inglis (2019). 21. Inglis (2014), p. 100. 22. On these points, see ibid., p. 100. 23. Ibid., p. 100 (italics added). On this point, see also, for example: Erikson (2005); Halsey and Runciman (2005); Payne et al. (2004). 24. On the ‘cultural turn’, see, for example: Bauman (1999 [1973]); Bell (1991 [1976]); Bonnell and Hunt (1999); Bonnell et al. (1999); Bouchet (1994); Butler (1998); Duvall (2002); Eickelpasch (1997); Featherstone (2007 [1991]); Foster (1985 [1983]); Franklin et  al. (2000); Gillison (2010); Harvey (1989); Hassan (1987); Hoogheem (2010); Huyssen and Scherpe (1993); Jacob (1999); Jameson (1991); Jameson (1998); Kellner (1997); Lash and Lury (2007); McGuigan (2006 [1999]); McMahon (1999); Morawski (1996); Nemoianu (2010); Polan (1988); Rademacher and

7  Historicity and Sociology 

165

Schweppenhäuser (1997); Ramazanoglu (1997); Rojek and Turner (2000); Sarup (1996); Sewell (1999); Sim (2002); Smith Maguire and Matthews (2014); Solomon (1998); Susen (2015a), esp. Chapter 3; Toews (2003); Vattimo (1988 [1985]); Wernick (2000). 25. On the concept of ‘decorative sociology’, see Rojek and Turner (2000). See also Susen (2015a), p. 248. 26. See Holmwood (2010a). See also Inglis (2014), p. 100. 27. Inglis (2014), p. 100. 28. See Holmwood (2010a). 29. Inglis (2014), p. 100. 30. On this point, see, for example: Abell and Reyniers (2000); Goldthorpe (2007 [2000]); Halsey (2004). 31. Inglis (2014), p. 100 (italics added). 32. Ibid., p. 100. On this point, see Osborne et al. (2008). 33. On this point, see, for example: Susen (2011d), p.  451; Susen (2015a), pp. 51 and 167. 34. Inglis (2014), p. 100 (italics added). 35. Ibid., p. 100 (italics added). 36. Ibid., p. 100 (italics added). 37. See Susen (2015a). 38. Inglis (2014), p. 101 (italics added). 39. Ibid., p. 101. 40. Ibid., p. 101 (italics added), 41. Ibid., p. 101. 42. Cf. Calhoun (1996), Calhoun (1998), Calhoun (2003), and Calhoun (2007a). 43. See Halsey and Runciman (2005), Runciman (1969 [1963]), Runciman (1983), Runciman (1989), Runciman (1997), and Runciman (2009). 44. See Goody (2004), Goody (2006), and Goody (2010 [1998]). 45. See Mann (1986), Mann (1993), Mann (2012), and Mann (2013). 46. See Outhwaite (2009). 47. See Holmwood (2010a). See also, for instance: Bailey and Freedman (2011); Burton (2016); Collini (2012); Collini (2017); Crook (2003), esp. pp. 9–10 and 13–14; Crouch (2016); Evans (2004); Furedi (2006 [2004]); Furedi (2017); Holmwood (2010a); Holmwood (2010b); Holmwood (2011a); McGettigan (2013); Power (1994); Power (1997); Rosenfeld (2010); Savage (2010); Smart (2016), esp. pp. 464 and 468–472; Sparkes (2007); Strathern (2000); Willetts (2017); Wright and Shore (2017). 48. Inglis (2014), p. 102. 49. See Lawler (2004). 50. See Bourdieu (1984a). See also Fabiani (1999). 51. On this point see, for instance: Baert (2015), esp. Chapter 7; Baert and Isaac (2011); Baert and Shipman (2012); Bourdieu (1966); Bourdieu (1984c);

166 

S. Susen

Bourdieu (1988 [1984]); Bourdieu et al. (1994); Collins (1998); Davies and Harré (1990); Fuller (2016); Harré and Langenhove (1998); Harré et  al. (2009); Miller (2003); Morgan and Baert (2015); Osbeck and Nersessian (2010); Pecourt (2007); Ries and Trout (2001 [1981]); Ringer (2000 [1990]); Rubio and Baert (2012); Susen and Baert (2017a); Swartz (2013); Thijssen (2013); van Langenhove and Harré (1993). 52. Inglis (2014), p. 103. 53. Ibid., p. 103. 54. Ibid., p. 103 (italics added). 55. Ibid., p. 99. 56. Ibid., p. 103. 57. On this point, see Outhwaite (2009). See also Inglis (2014), p. 104. 58. See Bauman (1991), Bauman (1992), Bauman (1997), Bauman (1998), Bauman (1999 [1973]), Bauman (2000b), Bauman (2000a), Bauman (2005), and Bauman (2007). 59. See Foucault (1978 [1976]), Foucault (1979 [1975]), Foucault (1980), Foucault (1988), Foucault (1988 [1984]), Foucault (1997 [1984]), Foucault (2001 [1961]), Foucault (2002 [1966]), and Foucault (2002 [1969]). 60. See Habermas (1987 [1968a]), Habermas (1971 [1968/1969]), Habermas (1981 [1980]), Habermas (1987a [1981]), Habermas (1987b [1981]), Habermas (1987 [1985a]), Habermas (1988 [1967/1970]), Habermas (1988 [1973]), Habermas (1989 [1962]), Habermas (1996a [1992]), Habermas (2001), Habermas (2002 [1981, 1991, 1997]), Habermas (2008 [2005]), Habermas (2010 [2008]), Habermas (2019a), Habermas (2019b), and Habermas and Ratzinger (2006 [2005]). 61. See Bourdieu (1977 [1972]), Bourdieu (1984 [1979]), Bourdieu (1990 [1980]), Bourdieu (1990), Bourdieu (1992), Bourdieu (2000 [1997]), Bourdieu and Boltanski (2008 [1976]), Bourdieu and Passeron (1990 [1970]), and Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992a). 62. See Beck et al. (1994), Giddens (1972), Giddens (1977), Giddens (1978), Giddens (1987a), Giddens (1990), Giddens (1991), Giddens (1996 [1971]), Giddens (2000), and Giddens and Turner (1987). 63. See Castells (1996), Castells (1997), and Castells (1998). 64. See Beck et al. (1994), Beck (1992 [1986]), Beck (1995 [1988]), Beck (1998), Beck (1999b), Beck (2006 [2004]), Beck (2009 [2007]), Beck (2011), Beck (2012 [2010]), Beck and Lau (2005), and Beck and Sznaider (2006). 65. See Latour (1990), Latour (1993 [1991]), and Latour (2005). 66. See Fraser (2003a), Fraser (2003b), Fraser (2007b), Fraser and Honneth (2003a), Fraser and Honneth (2003b), Fraser and Honneth (2003a), and Fraser and Nicholson (1994 [1988]). 67. See Fraser and Honneth (2003a), Fraser and Honneth (2003b), Fraser and Honneth (2003a), Honneth (1995 [1992]), Honneth (2003a), Honneth (2003b), and Honneth (2007).

7  Historicity and Sociology 

167

68. See Butler (1990a), Butler (1990b), Butler (1994 [1990]), Butler (1997), Butler (1998), Butler and Athanasiou (2013), and Butler et al. (2000). 69. Inglis (2014), p. 104 (italics added). As pointed out by Inglis, Bourdieu may be absolved from these criticisms, since he, unlike numerous other canonical scholars, is not guilty of falling into the trap of subscribing to simplistic forms of periodization. On this point, see ibid., p.  115n10; see also Santoro (2011). 70. Inglis (2014), p. 104 (italics in original). 71. Ibid., p. 104. 72. Ibid., p. 105. 73. Ibid., p. 106. 74. Ibid., p. 106. 75. Ibid., p. 106. 76. Ibid., p. 106 (punctuation modified). 77. Ibid., p. 106. On this point, see also Steinmetz (2007b). In addition, see Susen (2011c), esp. pp. 176–184. 78. Inglis (2014), p. 106 (italics in original). 79. Ibid., p. 107 (italics in original). 80. Ibid., p. 107. 81. Ibid., p. 108. 82. On these factors, see Steinmetz (2007b). See also Inglis (2014), pp. 108–111. 83. Inglis (2014), p. 108 (italics in original). 84. On this point, see Steinmetz (2007b). 85. Cf. Harrington (2016), esp. Chapter 6, and Susen (2015a), esp. Chapter 4. 86. Cf. Bourne (2006) and Tamm and Olivier (2019). 87. Inglis (2014), p. 108 (italics in original). 88. Ibid., p. 108 (italics added). 89. See, for example: Habermas (1976); Küttler et al. (2004); McLennan (1981). 90. Inglis (2014), p. 108. 91. Ibid., p. 108 (italics added). 92. See, for instance, Tucker (1998). 93. Inglis (2014), p. 108. 94. Ibid., p. 108. On this point, see also Calhoun (1996). 95. Inglis (2014), p. 109. 96. See, for instance, Skocpol (1979). 97. See, for instance, Tilly (1978). 98. Inglis (2014), p. 109 (italics in original). 99. Ibid., p. 109. 100. On this point, see ibid., p. 109. 101. Cf. Calhoun (2007a). 102. Inglis (2014), p. 109.

168 

S. Susen

103. On this point, see Hall (1989). 104. See Anderson (1974). 105. See Halsey and Runciman (2005), Runciman (1969 [1963]), Runciman (1983), Runciman (1989), Runciman (1997), and Runciman (2009). 106. See Mann (1986), Mann (1993), Mann (2012), and Mann (2013). 107. An example of such an optimistic interpretation is, for instance, Hall (1989). 108. Inglis (2014), p. 109 (italics in original). 109. Mandalios (2000 [1996]), p. 389 (italics added). 110. Ibid., p. 389. 111. Ibid., p. 389 (italics added). 112. Inglis (2014), p. 109. 113. On this point, see Gartrell and Gartrell (2002). See also Inglis (2014), p. 109. 114. Inglis (2014), p. 109. 115. Ibid., p. 109 (italics in original). On this point, see also Calhoun (1996) and Calhoun (1998). 116. Inglis (2014), p. 109. 117. Ibid., p. 109 (italics in original). On this point, see also Calhoun (1996) and Calhoun (1998). 118. Inglis (2014), p. 109. 119. Adams et al. (2005b), p. 30. On this point, see Inglis (2014), p. 110. 120. Inglis (2014), p. 110. 121. On this concept, see, for instance, Seale (2012 [1998]), p. 395. 122. See Inglis (2014), pp. 111–113. 123. Ibid., p. 111. 124. On this point, see Cordero (2017a) and Susen (2007), pp. 166–167. On the sociological actuality of philosophy, see Cordero (2017a), pp.  160, 161n27, and 162. On the philosophical actuality of sociology, see ibid., pp. x, 11, 153, 155, and 160. On the ‘false dilemma’ between sociology and philosophy, see ibid., pp. 7, 155, and 160. See also Susen (2017c), esp. pp. 102–103 and 108–110, as well as Cordero (2017b). In addition, see Adorno (1972 [1968]). Cf. Chernilo (2017), Manent (1998 [1994]), and Susen (2020c). 125. Susen (2015a), p. 51. 126. Inglis (2014), p. 112. 127. Ibid., p. 112. Cf. Jenks (1998). 128. Inglis (2014), p. 113. 129. Ibid., p. 113. 130. Ibid., pp. 113–114 (italics added; apart from the auxiliary verb ‘must’, which appears in italics in the original version) (punctuation modified).

8 Historicity and Novelty

The question of whether or not contemporary sociology, notably in the British context, has undergone a paradigmatic turn towards epochalism has been a major subject of controversy in recent years.1 In the most general sense, epochalism can be defined as the belief that the current era constitutes a historical stage that is not only fundamentally different from previous ones, but also qualitatively unique and unprecedented, reflecting a radical break with prior forms of societal existence. Hence, from an epochalist perspective, the social sciences require a methodological transformation, capable of delivering theoretical and practical tools by means of which the qualitative specificity of the new epoch can be deciphered and adequately conceptualized. What needs to be examined, then, is ‘the appeal of epochalist modes of social thought, especially as manifested in contemporary British sociology’,2 but also in other national traditions of sociological research, particularly in those of continental Europe and North America. One of the principal characteristics of epochalist forms of analysis is that they posit a decisive move away from ‘older evolutionary models of social change which root future events in past conditions’.3 Part of this paradigmatic shift is a collectively shared preoccupation—if not obsession—with ‘the new’, rather than a sustained engagement with the extent to which the present is profoundly shaped by behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns of the past. As British sociology developed at a considerable pace and with expanding scope in the period following the end of World War II, it was marked by ‘its championing of the “new” as a means of claiming intellectual legitimacy over the “traditional” social sciences’.4 In other words, the search for the allegedly novel phenomena of the present epoch may serve as a legitimization strategy, which—notwithstanding © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_8

169

170 

S. Susen

the question of whether or not it is pursued consciously or unconsciously by those who embrace it—provides sociologists with a raison d’être. Indeed, the development of a ‘distinctive social science research infrastructure’5 is indicative of the attempt to offer conceptual and methodological frameworks permitting researchers to gain valuable insights into the distinctive constitution of the contemporary age. To be sure, grand claims concerning major historical change are as old as—if not much older than—sociology itself. Paradoxically, they can be conceived of ‘as a point of stability—a constant amidst the flux’6—that is, as a recurring theme within the flow of debates and controversies in the humanities and social sciences, above all in sociology. In this respect, one juxtaposition is particularly important: on the one hand, industrialism in the context of modernity7; on the other hand, postindustrialism in the context of late or postmodernity.8 The former describes ‘the before’, whereas the latter designates ‘the now’. Irrespective of whether one employs terms such as ‘postindustrialism’, ‘postmodernism’, and ‘post-Fordism’, it has become fashionable to proclaim ‘that we […] live in a postsomething era’9—that is, in a historical period that is characterized on the basis of adjectives such as ‘indeterminate’, ‘liquid’, ‘disorganized’, ‘detraditionalized’, ‘hyper-individualized’, ‘globalized’, or ‘high-risk-laden’.10 The task of exploring the question of ‘how epochalism is instantiated in the infrastructure of the social sciences themselves’11 is far from straightforward. Two levels of analysis are crucial in this regard: the conceptual level and the empirical level. Thus, the ‘interplay between speculative epochal thinking and the development of empirical research methods’,12 designed to provide substantive evidence in support of claims concerning both the existence and the significance of epochal change, is essential to epochalist forms of inquiry. 1. Paradoxes of Epochalism Unsurprisingly, there are numerous accounts asserting that a new type of society, which is fundamentally different from previous ones, has been gradually emerging from the mid- or late twentieth century onwards.13 The explanatory approaches supporting this contention—irrespective of whether they suggest that we have entered an age of ‘postindustrialism’, ‘postmodernism’, ‘post-­Fordism’, ‘globalization’, or any other historical stage—are far from uncontroversial, entailing a number of fundamental—and, arguably, paradoxical—issues, which are worth considering in further detail.

8  Historicity and Novelty 

171

a. There is the ‘paradox of an ever-renewing novelty’.14 Perhaps, this idea is reflected most forcefully in Walter Benjamin’s notion of ‘the eternal recurrence of the ever-same’.15 The permanent reappearance of the ever-same reflects ‘the power of a future-facing mode of apprehension which, whatever its sophistication, is necessarily unable to recognize repetition, recurrence, perpetuation’.16 The repetitive, recurrent, and perpetual patterns of development largely escape the perception of those who experience them. One may draw upon Castells’s notion of ‘eternal ephemerality’,17 representing a central principle underlying the rise of the ‘network society’,18 which is characterized by a constant confluence of flows, whose omnipresence ‘dissolves time by disordering the sequence of events and making them simultaneous’.19 Similar arguments have been made by various scholars—such as Anthony Elliott,20 Anthony Giddens,21 David Harvey,22 and John Urry23—who grapple with the nature of late modernity and/or postmodernity, epitomizing the consolidation of an epoch marked by ‘the ubiquity of electronic and satellite communication’.24 These claims about the purported novelty of the contemporary age tend to be ‘embedded in a style of thought in which the past is only rendered as a foil for exhibiting the new’.25 Put differently, the juxtaposition between ‘past’ and ‘present’ lies at the heart of the attempt to capture the principle of ever-renewing novelty that is built into human society. b. There is the ‘inbuilt obsolescence’26 issue, which concerns the fact that contemporary sociology is characterized by ‘a remarkable proliferation of claims to the “new”’.27 Indeed, the contention that the current era is marked by an unprecedented degree of novelty is articulated by means of numerous key concepts, such as the following: ‘disorganized capitalism’,28 ‘post-Fordism’,29 ‘individualization’,30 ‘reflexive (or late) modernity’,31 ‘risk society’,32 ‘globalization’,33 ‘neoliberalism’,34 ‘network society’,35 and ‘surveillance society’.36 In light of this explosion of innovative terminology, expressed in the creation of neologisms, it appears that, in contemporary sociological discourse, new epochal claims are made on a regular basis. A problematic aspect of this (re-) invention mania, however, is the fact that most declarations concerning the alleged emergence of new epochal horizons are remarkably short-lived. In most cases, ‘the arrival of such “new” conditions is no sooner announced than they are replaced by yet newer epochal claims’,37 often by the same authors, who have a tendency to invent a new major paradigm almost every decade or so.38 Of course, the question that poses itself in this light is why one should

172 

S. Susen

bother with new accounts of epochal change if it is obvious that, in the majority of cases, their expiry date is around the corner. c. There has been a ‘mismatch between the theorization of temporality and the actual deployment of temporal accounts in the social sciences’.39 The high degree of sophistication that characterizes a large amount of recently developed conceptual representations and problematizations of time is not complemented by the same degree of erudition in empirical studies grappling with the temporal constitution of social existence. When examining contemporary sociological analyses of Western conceptions of time, which tend to be linear and calendar-bound, the level of theoretical complexity of these approaches is remarkable.40 It appears, however, that empirical studies of social transformations and their implications for contemporary understandings and regulations of time do not possess equivalent levels of intricacy. Ironically, in their substantive variants, they tend to fall back upon the same—arguably, Western-­ centric and modernist—conceptions of time that they critique in their theoretical frameworks.41 Their epochalist conceptions of ‘the present’ suffer from a similar weakness. • On the one hand, conceptual accounts of temporality may be informed by critical realism, complexity theory, and other sophisticated versions of terminologically refined imaginaries. At this level of analysis, it is posited that ‘time and space are not separate from the processes by which the physical and social world operate’.42 All spatiotemporal dimensions of human existence, because they are sociohistorically contingent, differ between culturally codified life forms and, thus, between normative arrangements put in place by particular sets of actors. • On the other hand, empirical accounts of temporality tend to fall into the trap of effectively relying on ‘linear conceptions of “empty, homogeneous” time’,43 which correspond to Eurocentric notions of the ways in which the human immersion in temporal horizons are regulated, at least in the context of modernity. This discrepancy between theoretical sophistication and empirical simplification is indicative of a profound disconnect between provocative assertions and substantive evidence, rhetorical pirouettes and empirical short-sightedness, illustrating the reductive nature of epochalist readings of contemporary society.

8  Historicity and Novelty 

173

2. Epochalism and Sociology Ever since its emergence, the self-understanding of modernity has been inextricably linked to ‘the mobilization of idioms of change, dynamism, and transformation’.44 In other words, the condition of modernity can be considered a historical stage that is in a constant state of flux. The ‘erosion of tradition and habit’,45 along with increased levels of ‘reflexivity and indeterminacy’,46 may be conceived of as central to the modern condition. Classical sociological narratives designed to capture the nature of modernity tend to rely on different versions of evolutionism, thereby advocating ‘a teleology which saw future conditions as some kind of elaboration of existing ones’.47 On this interpretation, large-scale societal developments associated with modernity represent manifestations of an underlying story line, whose universal significance is reflected in its capacity to shape the course of world history. Teleological metanarratives are ‘stories with […] simplistic binary schemes’48, such as These versus Antithese (Georg W.  F. Hegel), Gemeinschaft versus Gesellschaft (Ferdinand Tönnies), Kapitalismus versus Sozialismus/Kommunismus (Karl Marx), Wertrationalität versus Zweckrationalität (Max Weber), or solidarité mécanique versus solidarité organique (Émile Durkheim)—to mention only a few examples.49

Arguably, Daniel Bell’s assertion that, in the late twentieth century, advanced societies reached a postindustrial stage can be regarded as the first example of Anglo-American sociological epochalism.50 On this account, which began to gain intellectual currency in the period following the end of World War II, the preponderance of the tertiary sector is inextricably linked to the rise of postindustrial society—that is, of a historical formation in which knowledge, information, and services constitute the principal forces of production and sectors of employment. Given this paradigmatic shift, contemporary—that is, postindustrial—types of society are fundamentally different from previous—that is, industrial and preindustrial—types of society. In the early 1980s, a set of new sociological epochal labels began to emerge. Most of these labels—such as ‘fragmentation’, ‘deregulation’, ‘debureaucratization’, ‘decentralization’, ‘commodification’, and ‘marketization’—were associated with neoliberalism.51 Another term that became increasingly important in this context was the concept of post-Fordism, which had been introduced by representatives of the French Regulation School and according to which

174 

S. Susen

‘flexible specialization’52 is a defining characteristic of our time.53 One of the most influential concepts, however, was that of postmodernism,54 crucial elements of which were based on scholarly writings produced in the humanities, notably in literature and philosophy. The contention that, in the late twentieth century, most Western societies had been witnessing the rise of a new historical era, called postmodernity, became increasingly popular, especially after the collapse of state socialism in 1990 and Francis Fukuyama’s provocative claim that we had reached ‘the end of history’.55 What is striking in this respect, however, is that, from the late 1980s onwards, ‘the disciplinary focus of these epochalisms clearly shifted to sociology in the work of Martin Albrow, Zygmunt Bauman, Ulrich Beck, Scott Lash, and John Urry’56 as well as Anthony Giddens and Richard Sennett, all of whom have had a major impact on key paradigmatic developments shaping the discipline. Hence, it appears that, during the 1990s and 2000s, ‘most prominent British sociologists needed to invoke some kind of account of change as a means of displaying their expertise and insight as sociologists’.57 Epochalism became a core feature of mainstream discourses in British sociology in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Interestingly, the majority of scholars embracing sociological epochalism are of British nationality (Giddens, Urry, Albrow), or have migrated to the UK (Bauman, Sennett), or are of continental European nationality, but have ‘developed strong institutional links with British academia’58 (Beck). Furthermore, leading British sociology journals—as, for instance, Theory, Culture & Society—have played a central role in advocating and promoting different versions of epochalism. This tendency is reflected in the publication of numerous articles as well as Special Issues on postmodernism, globalization, neoliberalism, and post-Fordism in these journals. In this intellectual climate of epochalist announcements, it became remarkably difficult for sociologists not to share at least some of the mainstream enthusiasm for ‘big picture’ claims regarding the nature of the contemporary era. Indeed, various world-renowned sociologists—such as John Goldthorpe, among many others59—were suspicious of bold assertions concerning the depth, breadth, and pace of social transformations. Despite their prominent position in the field of sociology, their rejection of the epochalist Zeitgeist meant that their influence became gradually reduced to their area of expertise.60 Until the 1970s, advocates of sociological discourses proclaiming epochalist change were, by and large, Anglo-American. In this respect, the names of J. K. Galbraith,61 Alvin Toffler,62 and Daniel Bell63 are particularly noteworthy.64 Yet, when examining the subsequent period, commencing in the early 1980s and lasting until the present, it is difficult to identify any leading

8  Historicity and Novelty 

175

Anglo-­American social scientists, let alone sociologists, who would have been vocal about subscribing to epochalist narratives. One may, of course, point to exceptions such as Manuel Castells and George Ritzer.65 Yet, the former, although domiciled in the USA, is originally Spanish-Catalonian, and the latter never sought to make a case for an epochalist reading of contemporary society, not even in his bestseller The McDonaldization of Society,66 which—since it was originally designed for teaching the work of Max Weber to undergraduate students—‘was not intended as a serious intellectual contribution’,67 let alone as a plea for sociological epochalism. In the Anglo-American context, one encounters contemporary versions of epochalism not primarily in sociology but, above all, in its neighbouring disciplines, notably in political science. Especially significant in this respect are the writings of influential scholars such as Ronald Inglehart, Francis Fukuyama, and Samuel Huntington. Inglehart is known for his thesis concerning the ‘silent revolution’ and the rise of a ‘postmaterialist’ culture in advanced societies.68 Fukuyama is famous for his thesis regarding ‘the end of history’, following the collapse of state socialism and the global triumph of liberalism in the late twentieth century.69 Huntington has coined the notion of the ‘clash of civilizations’70—that is, an ideal-typical framework according to which it makes sense to identify ‘six and “possibly” seven civilizations’,71 which can be compared and contrasted in terms of their culture-constitutive conventions, norms, and values: ‘Western, Islamic, Sinic, Japanese, Hindu, Latin-­American, and “possibly” African’.72 Among Anglo-American social scientists, it remains common to develop explanatory models within communitarian frameworks,73 which tend to suggest that ‘the decline of community’ as well as ‘the decline of social capital’74 represent major societal trends shaping large-scale Western life forms, particularly in Anglo-Saxon countries. The somewhat nostalgic longing for the restoration of meaningful modes of community life informs the writings of several Anglo-American scholars, including Richard Sennett75 and Christopher Lasch.76 Trends towards hyper-individualism, it seems, are associated with profound social challenges that can, and should, be examined by contemporary sociologists but need to be tackled by economists and policy makers. Unlike their British counterparts, most distinguished French social theorists do not advocate epochalist interpretations of change. Rather, they highlight the extent to which ‘certain kinds of “past” patterns are repeated, instantiated, and reproduced in the present’.77 Instead of endorsing the view that we have entered an entirely new historical age, whose qualitative specificities are unparalleled, eminent Francophone scholars in the social sciences— such as Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, and Bruno Latour—shed light on

176 

S. Susen

the numerous implications of the fact that the present cannot be properly understood in isolation from the past, since the former is, inevitably, a product of the latter. In a similar vein, prominent German social theorists—notably Niklas Luhmann, Jürgen Habermas, Axel Honneth, Peter Wagner, and to some degree Ulrich Beck—have tended to conceive of historical development in terms of both large-scale and long-term processes, without shying away from making use of evolutionary approaches to society. Irrespective of whether one chooses to focus on the micro-level, the meso-level, or the macro-level of sociological analysis, social developments are part of complex evolutionary dynamics, whose underlying logic needs to be carefully studied in order to provide historically informed understandings of the present. To accomplish this, one may draw upon different conceptual frameworks, such as the following: Jürgen Habermas’s theory of communicative action,78 Peter Wagner’s theory of modernity,79 Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition,80 and Ulrich Beck’s theory of risk society81—to mention only a few. All of these accounts share a sustained concern with the sociohistorical underpinnings of central ontological forces shaping highly differentiated collective life forms. 3. The Language of ‘Change’ Numerous conclusions can be drawn from the previous reflections. As illustrated above, the ‘change idiom’82 has played, and continues to play, a central role in contemporary sociological discourse, especially in the British context.83 Contemporary sociology, insofar as it stands for a genuinely critical endeavour, needs to scrutinize the validity of bold contentions regarding the arrival of new epochal formations. On the basis of the preceding examination, the following dimensions deserve particular attention. a. When comparing and contrasting social developments, three fundamental forms of change can be distinguished: (i) epochal, (ii) evolutionary, and (iii) cyclical. Whereas (i) epochalist accounts tend to emphasize novelty, both (ii) evolutionary accounts and (iii) cyclical accounts tend to stress connectedness, situatedness, and repetitiveness—that is, they draw attention to the ways in which the present is connected to, situated within, and dependent upon structural patterns transmitted from the past. Although one has to be careful not to rely on oversimplifications based on cultural stereotypes, it seems that different national traditions of intellectual thought have produced ‘distinctive national framings of change, ranging from predominantly British epochalism, through German evolutionism, American nostalgic communitarianism, and French scepticism’.84 Inevitably, every account of change is contestable and influenced by a variety of contextual—notably social, cultural, political, and

8  Historicity and Novelty 

177

ideological—factors, leading to different narratives of historical development. While explanatory approaches should never be taken at face value, their respective merits and limitations need to be assessed in terms of the conceptual, methodological, and/or empirical adequacy of their principal claims to epistemic validity. b. The question of how it is possible to determine the nature of, let alone the reasons for, change is far from straightforward. Arguably, throughout the history of the human species, change has not only occurred in many different forms and found many different expressions, but also been studied by several different means and measures: ‘personal experience, mediated by memory; the oral accounts of others; and the comparison of documents being the most important’.85 An interesting methodological development is reflected in the fact that, in the historical period following World War II, sample survey methods and the interview began to play an increasingly influential role in the social sciences, above all in sociology.86 The relationship between (i) objective, (ii) normative, and (iii) subjective dimensions87 influencing narratives of change is crucial: i. Change may be characterized as objective, insofar as it takes place as a factual force, irrespective of people’s normatively structured and subjectively contingent conceptions of it. ii. Change may be characterized as normative, insofar as it is shaped by, and embedded in, socioculturally specific arrangements. iii. Change may be characterized as subjective, insofar as it is experienced and interpreted differently by different actors. c. One of the main reasons why several prominent sociologists—notably in the UK—have been drawn to epochalism is that their own discipline emerged and developed as a collective endeavour competing with, and seeking to distinguish itself from, neighbouring disciplines (such as anthropology, geography, political science, history, and philosophy) by positing that it possessed a monopoly on the study of ‘the new’. While bold contentions about the arrival of unprecedented eras may not only be intellectually provocative but also give legitimacy to the symbolic authority of an academic discipline, they are by no means a guarantee of epistemic validity, let alone the source of scientifically substantiated certainties regarding the nature of society and the course of history. * * *

178 

S. Susen

Given the pivotal role it has played, and will continue to play, in the development of sociology, the concept of modernity deserves to be given careful consideration. 1. Modernity and Sociology The concept of modernity occupies a central place in sociology—especially in the ‘classical’ works of its ‘founding figures’, but also in the writings of contemporary scholars who grapple with the nature of post-traditional societies. Arguably, one of the principal limitations of mainstream sociology is that it tends to be Euro- or Western-centric, applying seemingly universal, but essentially parochial, parameters to the study of non-European and non-Western societies, including the inquiry into ‘Third-World development’.88 Parsonian versions of evolutionism and neo-evolutionism89 are particularly problematic in this respect, as they have ‘a strong tendency to view non-Western developmental trajectories (past, present, and future) as imitations of a Western-­ specific pattern of development’.90 On this account, non-Western pathways are, in the long run, mere replications of Western routes of evolution, as the latter— owing to their technological superiority, symbolic authority, and political hegemony—dictate the development of the former. According to this evolutionist understanding of societal development, epitomized in Parsonian versions of modernization theory, it makes sense to draw a distinction between ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’. This perspective ‘places Western societies at the modernity end of the continuum, with Third-World countries moving more or less rapidly up the evolutionary ladder via the diffusion of Western values, technology, and capital’.91 To the extent that capitalism is considered an essential ingredient of this civilizational journey towards modernity, ‘non-capitalist developmental paths’,92 as illustrated in state-­ socialist countries, tend to be conceived of as ‘non-modern’.93 The exclusivist club of ‘modern societies’, on this reading, is the group of advanced, capitalist nations, while ‘pre-1989 Eastern European societies’,94 as well as contemporary state-socialist countries, ‘constitute exceptions’95 that escape the linear logic of large-scale evolutionary development.96 Such a picture creates various interrelated conceptual dichotomies—along the lines of ‘traditional’ vs. ‘modern’, ‘socialist’ vs. ‘capitalist’, and ‘deviant’ vs. ‘normal’. In contemporary sociology, one will struggle to find many scholars subscribing to such a crude evolutionist conception of social development. Most modern-day social scientists would agree, however, that falling into the trap of cultural, moral, and/or epistemic relativism is no less problematic than advocating reductive forms of universalism. Indeed, if we ‘fail to differentiate

8  Historicity and Novelty 

179

features of advanced modern societies that are specifically Western (e.g. certain forms of individualism) from those which, although fully institutionalized in the West, have a more universal character’,97 then we run the risk of subscribing to a form of relativism that falls short of distinguishing between particular features of some human life forms and general features of all human life forms. To be sure, numerous elements of radical scepticism about Eurocentric versions of evolutionism are not only entirely justified but also necessary to push the debate forward and to contribute to a comprehensive—that is, non-­ reductive and genuinely global—understanding of modernity. If, however, a commitment to breaking out of ethnocentric straitjackets implies getting caught up in (overt or tacit) forms of relativism, then no analytical grounds on which to examine, and no normative grounds on which to make value judgements about, social practices and arrangements can be provided. In this regard, the following three forms of reductionism are to be avoided: a. moral relativism, according to which it is ‘impossible to criticize non-­ Western cultural practices that violate basic human rights’,98 because—following its arbitrary normative parameters—universalist concepts can be reduced, at best, to culturally specific constructions or, at worst, to ideologically motivated fabrications; b. cognitive relativism, according to which ‘Western science has no cognitive superiority’99 over non-scientific modes of thought, implying that there is no epistemic hierarchy between, on the one hand, research-based and expert knowledge and, on the other hand, ordinary and common-sense knowledge; c. Third-World-centrism, according to which it is futile to ‘criticize Western capitalism or colonialism by using “Western” social-science concepts’,100 since, in essence, the latter constitute epistemic representations that form integral—and, hence, complicit—elements of the former. In light of the above, the challenge consists in finding ‘a middle position between the obvious Eurocentrism of prevailing descriptions of modernity/ modernization and the ultra-relativistic Third-Worldist proposals that critics of Eurocentrism have to offer us’.101 Put differently, we are confronted with the age-old task of trying to find a compromise between universalism and particularism,102 which, in this case, is reflected in the tension between universalist Eurocentrism and relativist anti-Eurocentrism. Such a middle position—which is based on both a non- or anti-Eurocentric and a non- or anti-relativist conception of modernity—must not shy away from accomplishing the following objectives:

180 

S. Susen

a. It needs to account for forms of development in which the capitalist mode of production is peripheralized, if not almost completely absent (for instance, state-­socialist countries). b. It needs to account for forms of development in which the logic of the capitalist mode of production is subordinated to logics stemming from other—that is, non-economic—behavioural, ideological, and institutional spheres (for example, strongly religious societies, such as Iran, or politicomilitary societies, such as Nigeria and Zaire). c. It needs to account for the historical specificity of modernity, by identifying a series of characteristics that distinguish ‘modern large-scale societies’ (both Western and non-Western) from ‘pre- or non-modern large-scale societies’ (such as ‘Hellenistic Egypt, Ancient Rome, the Chinese, or Islamic empires’103), both of which can display high degrees of differentiation and complexity.104 2. Modernity and the Nation-State In accordance with standard narratives of contemporary history, modernity may be conceived of as an era that is based on ‘the type of social arrangements that became dominant in Western Europe after the English Industrial and the French Revolutions’105 and, eventually, spread across large parts of the world. The consolidation of the nation-state cannot be dissociated from the strategic aim to provide a systemic framework capable of defining, mobilizing, and controlling large-scale populations on an unprecedented scale. Its extraordinary infrastructural powers converted the nation-state into one of the most effective vehicles for making use of both human and nonhuman resources in a systematic, administrative, and top-down manner.106 Its capacity to shape human life forms—in terms of their social, economic, cultural, political, ideological, linguistic, demographic, and military organization—is of unparalleled civilizational significance. Its subsequent exportation to non-European regions across the globe may be interpreted as a sign of its success story, despite the uneven—and, at many levels, deeply ambivalent—consequences of its presence on the world stage. After all, the ‘imagined community’107 of the nation-state became a central collective reference point. The modern nation-­ state was supposed to equip its citizens with numerous—notably material, cultural, linguistic, and educational—resources, permitting them to contribute to determining the course of history not simply as individuals but, rather, as members of their historically defined ‘community of fate’ (Schicksalsgemeinschaft).

8  Historicity and Novelty 

181

3. Modernity and Institutional Differentiation Processes of differentiation have been crucial to the development of human societies—arguably, not only since the rise of modernity but also, in a more fundamental sense, since the emergence of organized life forms purposely constructed by Homo sapiens. In this respect, the distinction between social integration and system integration108 is central: the former refers to intersubjectively constituted processes of integration, taking place in people’s lifeworlds and mediated by communicative rationality109; the latter designates systemically constituted processes of integration, shaped by social structures and driven by functionalist rationality.110 Prominent scholars who have grappled with the sociological implications of these processes—notably Talcott Parsons, Niklas Luhmann, and Jürgen Habermas—point out that ‘modern societies have surpassed all earlier levels of structural-functional differentiation’,111 implying that, in evolutionary terms, they are more advanced than premodern small- and large-scale forms of human existence. Surely, one may argue that the explanatory force of Parsons’s approach suffers from ‘its overemphasis of system and its underemphasis of social integration’.112 At the same time, one may suggest that, owing to the socio-ontological preponderance it ascribes to communicative (rather than instrumental) rationality, the opposite applies to Habermas’s account. Irrespective of which particular sociological framework one may find most convincing in this regard, there is no doubt that processes of differentiation need to be taken seriously if one seeks to grasp the developmental constitution of human societies. According to Parsons, there are four key functional imperatives (AGIL)113 underlying the reproduction of social systems: a. adaptation (the capacity to interact with the environment and to cope with external boundary conditions); b. goal attainment (the capacity to set goals for the future, to make decisions in accordance with these goals, and to resolve goal conflicts); c. integration (the capacity to generate processes of social harmonization, involving the emergence of dominant values, norms, and conventions); d. latency (the capacity to maintain, and to draw upon, vital sources of social cohesion, notably habitualized patterns of behaviour). In his analysis, Parsons aims to identify what he calls ‘evolutionary universals’.114 This project reflects the ambitious attempt to identify functionalist mechanisms that can be considered foundational in that they exist in, and shape the development of, any kind of society, regardless of its spatiotemporal

182 

S. Susen

specificity. On this view, evolutionary societal development comprises four main components: (a) differentiation, (b) adaptive upgrading, (c) inclusion, and (d) value generalization.115 a. The concept of differentiation describes ‘the division of a unit or structure in a social system into two or more units or structures that differ in their characteristics and functional significance for the system’.116 In other words, each component of differentiation serves a unique function in terms of its capacity to contribute to the reproduction of an overarching system. b. The concept of adaptive upgrading captures the fact that the aforementioned components or units need to reach an appropriate degree of efficiency by adjusting to constantly changing conditions of existence. Their ability to adapt to circumstances that are, potentially, in a constant state of flux is illustrated in the fact that ‘a wider range of resources is made available to social units, so that their functioning can be freed from some of the restrictions of its predecessors’,117 which are, by definition, less differentiated than they are. c. The concept of inclusion is of paramount importance in this context, insofar as it permits us to examine the extent to which particular units are either included in or excluded from ‘a larger whole’,118 to which we may refer as a ‘system’. Those constituents that are included survive, whereas those elements that are excluded perish, unless they find a functionally viable place in an alternative system. d. The concept of value generalization permits us to account for the fact that systemic processes of inclusion and exclusion are fostered and legitimized by dynamics of institutionalization. Hence, these processes ‘must be complemented by value generalization if the various units in the society are to gain appropriate legitimation and modes of orientation for their new patterns of action’.119 Indeed, ‘[w]hen the network of socially structured situations becomes more complex, the value pattern itself must be couched at a higher level of generality in order to ensure social stability’.120 Increasing systemic complexity requires the consolidation of superior levels of universality, to which actors—who are consciously or unconsciously involved in processes of reproduction—can refer, thereby reinforcing their legitimacy as well as contributing to their relative predictability. The challenge that remains, then, is to identify ‘evolutionary universals’,121 to shed light on their principal functions, and to grasp the role they play in the construction of modernity. This needs to be accomplished, however, without endorsing a tunnel vision based on ethnocentrism.

8  Historicity and Novelty 

183

4. Modernity and the World In the most general sense, ‘modernity entails the destruction of traditional localisms and an unprecedented process of social mobilization’.122 Thus, modernity involves the annihilation of life forms sustained by customs and conventions established over hundreds, if not thousands, of years, while moving entire populations into new civilizational directions on an exceptional scale. Regardless of whether one focuses on social, economic, cultural, political, demographic, organizational, technological, or military dimensions,123 modernity has brought with it a whole package of profound civilizational transformations, which are ongoing and—it seems—never-ending. Its ‘unprecedented levels of structural-functional differentiation’124 imply that, in evolutionary terms, it has led to the formation of societies whose degree of large-scale organization and division of labour goes far beyond the structural complexity of any hitherto existing era. While it may be an undeniable historical fact that ‘modernity […] first appeared in Western Europe’,125 the following observations need to be taken into account when examining its civilizational specificity: a. Some of the key institutional components associated with modernization ‘can be found, in less developed form, in several pre-industrial, non-­ European civilizations’.126 b. It is far from uncontroversial to assume that ‘the breakthrough or take-­ off’127 illustrated in the rise of modernity ‘could only have happened in the West’,128 since, under similar conditions, it could have occurred in other parts of the world, possibly even at the same time. c. It is imperative to treat the Eurocentric assumption concerning the ‘uniqueness of the West’129 with considerable caution. Indeed, insofar as various features of Western modernity possess a ‘transcultural character’,130 they cannot be reduced to cultural specificities of one particular continent. To the extent that ‘evolutionary universals’131 underpin the development of all human societies, irrespective of their spatiotemporal specificities, they can be conceived of as foundational—rather than contingent, let alone ephemeral—elements of historical processes.132 ‘No society can advance or even survive in the present world without acquiring the broad economic, political, cultural, and social modern features discussed above.’133 Socio-­ ontological preconditions, by definition, precondition the very being of the social, no matter how varied the historical constellations through which they are articulated.

184 

S. Susen

In light of the above, the explanatory task of a critical sociology of modernity consists in differentiating between ‘context-specific’ and ‘context-­ transcending’—for instance, between ‘Western-specific’ and ‘evolutionary-universal’—characteristics.134 The numerous challenges involved in this task can be described as follows: […] it becomes quite obvious that late-developing countries trying to ‘catch up’ with the West are not merely imitating Western-specific institutional features. They are also trying, more or less successfully, to adopt some transcultural, universal features that happened to be fully institutionalized for the first time in Western Europe. To be more specific, in the same way as efforts to catch up with English industrialization by European late-comers like France and Germany did not entail the ‘Anglicization’ of these countries, so today non-Western ‘late-late’ comers can industrialize without necessarily becoming fully Westernized. In other words, if we distinguish Western-specific (e.g. Protestant work ethic) from evolutionary-universal features of modernity (e.g. the nation-state), then it is possible to see Westernization not as modernity tout court, but as simply one type of modernity.135

In short, it is imperative to draw a distinction between Western-specific and evolutionary-universal dimensions of modernity. The former designate those features of modernity that are unique to Western modernity. The latter describe those features of modernity that are shared by all modernities, notwithstanding their sociohistorical particularities. For instance, most Western versions of modernity are characterized by ‘the preponderance of the economic’, whereas most non-Western versions of modernity are marked by ‘the preponderance of the non-economic’. In the former, the logic of the market tends to prevail over the logic of other spheres of society. In the latter, the logic of political, cultural, or religious matters tends to prevail over the logic of the economic realm.136 5. Modernity beyond Eurocentrism? The following conclusions can be drawn from the previous reflections. a. It is possible to find a middle position between Eurocentric universalism and anti-Eurocentric relativism. Such a middle position may be defined as a form of ‘sociological realism’, capable of recognizing and problematizing both context-transcending and context-depending features of modernity. b. The concept of modernity, far from representing an insignificant chapter in human history, refers to an era that is ‘characterized by an unprecedented level of social mobilization/incorporation into the centre’137 and ‘by an equally unprecedented level of institutional differentiation’.138 The

8  Historicity and Novelty 

185

former illustrates its capacity for large-scale social integration, occurring in people’s lifeworlds and shaped, as well as given meaning, by virtue of communicative rationality. The latter demonstrates its capacity for large-scale system integration, taking place at an institutional level and driven by functionalist rationality. c. Key characteristics of modernity initially emerged in Western Europe— notably after the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment. Some of these characteristics, however, are not geographically limited, in the sense that they constitute ‘evolutionary universals’,139 without which no contemporary society has a viable future in the global context in which they are spatiotemporally situated. Hence, modern institutional forms—such as the nation-state, mass literacy, large-scale economies, and citizenship—are foundational to the extent that they represent a conditio sine qua non for organized participation in the contemporary world. d. The terms ‘modernity’ and ‘Western society’—let alone ‘modernization’ and ‘Westernization’—should not be used interchangeably, as they are not synonymous. The main reasons for this can be synthesized as follows: i. Central components of contemporary institutions and life forms have existed in non-Western civilizations long before the rise of Western modernity (for instance, large-scale forms of administration, demographic control, and warfare). ii. The principal revolutions that led to the rise of modernity in Europe— particularly the scientific, industrial, political, ideological, and philosophical revolutions—could have occurred in non-European parts of the world. iii. Even if modernization processes experienced by non-Western societies involve structural dynamics based on ‘catching up’140 with, or imitating, the West, some of the principal aspects that they appear to replicate, or even to plagiarize, are not Western-specific but possess ‘a transcultural, evolutionary-universal character’.141 e. It would be reductive to suggest that there is only one modernity in the world. A critical sociology of the contemporary era needs to account for ‘the great variety of existing and virtual modernities’142 that can, and should, be studied in a comparative and cross-cultural manner, rather than ­resorting to Eurocentric templates. When comparing and contrasting different paths to and modes of modernity, one may distinguish between two key levels of differentiation: first, ‘systemic’ vs. ‘social’; and, second, ‘formal’ vs. ‘substantive’. The former is crucial to grasping the competing roles

186 

S. Susen

of ‘functionalist’ and ‘communicative’ rationality in the construction of modern societies. The latter is central to explaining the distinctive roles of ‘segments’ and ‘organs’ (at the formal level) as well as the relative balance or imbalance between different ‘parts’ and ‘organs’ (at the substantive level) in modern societies. Arguably, a genuinely balanced inclusion of different parts or organs ‘has never been achieved in the West or anywhere else’.143 One may consider different logics that compete with one another, both within and across modern societies: i. the economic logic of productivity, efficiency, and wealth creation; ii. the political logic of citizenship, participation, and democracy; iii. the social logic of solidarity, cohesion, and belonging; iv. the cultural logic of commitment, autonomy, and normativity. Both in Western and in non-Western variants of modernity, it appears to be the case that one type of logic can impose itself upon another type, or upon various other types, of logic. In most cases, then, one social subsystem can assert its hegemonic influence by colonizing other subsystems, leading not only to the differentiation but also to the hierarchical segregation of value spheres.144 The consolidation of interactional, ideological, and institutional pecking orders is part and parcel of modernity. f. One may reflect on different ‘attempts to move from monologic/imbalanced to polylogic/balanced forms of modernity’.145 As much as a polylogic or balanced ideal of modernity may be unrealistic, a monologic or imbalanced reality of modernity may be unsustainable, especially if it involves the colonization of every single social subsystem or sphere by market-driven economies. In the face of global environmental catastrophes, it may be not only theoretically undesirable but also practically unviable to live within the constraining parameters of a modernity that is almost entirely dictated by economic imperatives, such as productivist competition and profit maximization. The prediction that ‘the globally dominant Anglo-Saxon modernity will maintain its hegemony in the coming [i.e. twenty-first] century’146 will continue to be accurate unless it is seriously challenged by a mode of social, political, cultural, and economic organization capable of providing a feasible alternative to the doxa underlying prevailing forms of power and domination.

8  Historicity and Novelty 

187

Notes 1. On the concept of ‘epochalism’, see, for instance: Calhoun (1993); du Gay (2003); Inglis (2014), pp.  112–113; Krause (2019); McLennan (2014), pp. 453, 462, and 464n21; Osborne et al. (2008), esp. pp. 525 and 532; Osrecki (2011); Osrecki (2015); Savage (2009); Urry (2011), Chapter 3 (esp. pp. 36–39); Vostal (2014). 2. Savage (2009), p. 217. 3. Ibid., p. 217. 4. Ibid., p. 217 (italics added). 5. Ibid., p. 217; Savage makes reference to sample survey and the interview. 6. Ibid., p. 218. 7. See, for example: Bauman (1991); Beck (1992); Beck et al. (1994); Beck and Lau (2005); Beilharz (2000); Berman (1983 [1982]); Bernstein (1985); Bhambra (2007a); Craib (1997); Delanty (1999); Featherstone et al. (1995); Giddens (1996 [1971]); Giddens (1991); Habermas (1987 [1985a]); Habermas (1996 [1981]); Hall et al. (1992); Hawthorn (1987 [1976]); Kellner (1989a); Lichtblau (1999); Morrison (2006 [1995]); Outhwaite (2014a); Sayer (1991); Susen (2015a), esp. pp. 11–18; Thomas and Walsh (1998); Wagner (1994); Wagner (2001); Wagner (2008); Wagner (2012); Walter (2001); Wellmer (1993); Zima (1997); Zima (2000). 8. See, for example: Bertens (1995), p.  220; Boyne and Rattansi (1990b), p. 18; Gibbins and Reimer (1999), pp. 22–34; Susen (2015a), pp. 3, 18, 34, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 92, 93, 108, 119, 120, 124, 127, 177, 188, 189, 264, 266, and 297. 9. Wagner (1992), p.  467 (italics added). On this point, see also Susen (2015a), p. 18. 10. On this point, see Susen (2015a), esp. Chapter 3. 11. Savage (2009), p. 218. 12. Ibid., pp. 218–219. 13. On this point, see Susen (2015a), esp. Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. 14. Savage (2009), p. 219 (italics added). On this point, see ibid., pp. 219–220. 15. On this point, see ibid., p. 220. See also Benjamin (1999 [1982]). In addition, see Benjamin (1968). 16. Savage (2009), p. 220. 17. Castells (1996), p. 497. On this point, see Savage (2009), p. 219. 18. See, for instance, Castells (1996), Castells (1997), and Castells (1998). 19. Castells (1996), p. 497. On this point, see Savage (2009), p. 219. 20. See, for example, Elliott and Urry (2010). 21. See, for example, Giddens (1990), Giddens (1991), and Giddens (2000). 22. See, for example, Harvey (1989), Harvey (1996), and Harvey (2006).

188 

S. Susen

23. See, for example, Elliott and Urry (2010), Lash and Urry (1987), and Urry (1995). 24. Savage (2009), p. 220. On this point, see also, for example, Susen (2015a), pp. 227 and 277. 25. Savage (2009), p. 220. 26. Ibid., p. 220 (italics added). On this point, see ibid., pp. 220–221. 27. Ibid., p. 220. 28. See, for instance: Lash and Urry (1987). 29. See, for instance: Amin (1994); Bernard (2000); Bonefeld and Holloway (1991a); Bonefeld and Holloway (1991b); Dolgon (1999); Jessop (1991); Jessop (2001). 30. See, for instance: Beck (2012 [2010]); Beck et al. (1994); Beck and Lau (2005); Giddens (1991); Giddens (2000); Sinha (2003). 31. See, for instance: Beck et al. (1994); Beck and Lau (2005); Giddens (1991); Giddens (2000). 32. See, for instance: Beck (1992 [1986]); Beck (1995 [1988]); Beck (1999b); Beck (2002b); Beck (2009 [2007]); Borodina and Shvyrkov (2010); Elliott (2002); Robertson and Kellow (2001). 33. See, for instance: Axford (2013); Baert and Silva (2010 [1998]), pp. 248–284; Bauman (1998); Beck and Lau (2005), pp. 525–533; Boron (1999), pp. 53 and 63; Burawoy (2000), pp. ix–xv, 1–40, and 337–373; Burchardt (1996); Butler (2002), pp. 116–118; Buzan et al. (1998), pp. 388–391; Centeno and Cohen (2010); Chirico (2013); Delanty (2000b), pp. 145–146; Dicken (2011 [1986]); Dolgon (1999), pp. 129–130 and 139–140; Drake (2010); Elliott (2000), pp.  336–339; Featherstone et al. (1995), pp.  1–4; Featherstone et al. (1995); Franklin et al. (2000); Fraser (2007b); Friedman (1995); Gane and Gane (2007), pp. 131–136; Giddens (1990), esp. p. 64; Giddens (1991), pp. 1 and 20–23; Hammond (2011), pp. 305 and 310–315; Harvey (1989), esp. pp.  293–296; Hawthorne (2004), p.  244; Hirst and Thompson (1995); Hirst and Thompson (1996); Hoogvelt (2001 [1997]); Horrocks (1999), pp.  41 an 62; Hutcheon (2002), p.  205; Hutcheon (2007), p.  16; Huyssen and Scherpe (1993); Ianni (1999 [1995, 1996]); Jacob (1999); Jameson (1984); Jameson (1988); Jameson (1991); Jameson (2007), pp. 215–216; Janos (1997), p. 122; Jogdand and Michael (2003); Jones (2010); Kellner (2007), pp. 103–115; Lash and Lury (2007); Latour (2005), pp. 173–190; Lury (2004); Martell (2010); Mayo (2005); McKenzie (2007), pp. 150–151; Mittelman (1996); Mouzelis (2008), pp. 159–161; Nederveen Pieterse (1995); Paulus (2001), p. 745; Petrella (1996); Piketty (2013); Redner (2013); Ritzer (2013 [1993]); Robertson (1995); Sassen (2004); Sklair (1995 [1991]); Slott (2002), p. 420–422; Sloterdijk (2013 [2005]); Smart (1993), pp.  62, 74–77, and 127–153; Spiegel (2007), pp.  14–19; Susen (2010a), pp.  182–197; Susen (2010b), pp.  260–262; Susen (2015a), esp. pp. 123–135; Tomlinson (1999); Torfing (1999), p. 7;

8  Historicity and Novelty 

189

Turner (2006), p.  226; Vakaloulis (2001), pp.  153–172; Williams et al. (2013). 34. See, for instance: Boron (1999), p. 53; Browne and Susen (2014); Burawoy (2000), esp. pp. 34–35 and 345–349; Centeno and Cohen (2010); Chomsky (1999); Coles and Susen (2018); Davies (2014); Delanty (2000b), pp. 145–146; DeMartino (2000); Dicken (2011 [1986]); Dolgon (1999), pp. 129–130 and 139–140; Featherstone and Lash (1995), pp. 1–15; Gane (2012); Gane (2014); Harvey (1989), esp. pp.  292–296; Harvey (2005); Haug (1996); Hawthorne (2004), p.  244; Hutcheon (2002), p.  205; Jameson (1984); Jameson (2007), pp.  215–216; Kellner (2007), pp.  103–106; Lash and Lury (2007); McCarthy and Prudham (2004); Piketty (2013); Ritzer (2013 [1993]); Roy et al. (2007); Saad-Filho and Johnston (2004); Sloterdijk (2013 [2005]); Slott (2002), pp.  420–422; Smart (1993), p. 62; Smith et al. (2008); Soederberg et al. (2005); Susen (2010a), pp. 183, 195, 196, 199, 200, and 210; Susen (2010b), pp. 260–262, 267, and 274; Susen (2012a), pp. 294, 303, and 307–308; Susen (2015a), pp. 124, 134, 185, 194, 195, 201, 257, and 273; Susen (2017b), pp. 156, 169–170, and 178; Susen (2018a), pp.  8, 24–29, and 61–62; Touraine (2001 [1999]); Vakaloulis (2001), pp.  103–121 and 153–172; Williams et al. (2013). 35. See, for instance: Castells (1996); Castells (1997); Castells (1998). See also, for instance: Baert and Silva (2010 [1998]), pp.  249–255; Beck and Lau (2005), pp. 525–533; Burawoy (2000), esp. pp. 34–35 and 345–349; Buzan et al. (1998), pp. 388–391; della Porta et al. (2006); Featherstone and Lash (1995), pp. 1–15; Giddens (1990), p. 64; Giddens (1991), pp. 1 and 20–23; Kali and Reyes (2007); Latour (2005), esp. pp. 247–262; Ruby (1990), p. 35; Toews (2003), p. 82. 36. See, for example: Bauman and Lyon (2013); Bernal (2016); Deflem (2008); Gilliom and Monahan (2013); Lyon (1994); Lyon (2001); Lyon (2006); Lyon (2018); Monahan (2006); Monahan (2010); Monahan and Wood (2018); Webb (2007); Zuboff (2019). 37. Savage (2009), p. 220 (quotation modified). 38. On this point, consider the work of Ulrich Beck as an example. In 1986, he made the bold assertion that a ‘risk society’ had come into being; see Beck (1992 [1986]); see also Beck (1995 [1988]) and Beck (1999b). By the turn of the millennium, however, his emphasis had shifted to the notion that we were witnessing the rise of a ‘cosmopolitan society’; see Beck (2000), Beck (2002a), Beck (2003), Beck (2006 [2004]), Beck (2011), and Beck and Sznaider (2006). 39. See Savage (2009), p.  220 (italics added). On this point see ibid., pp. 220–221.

190 

S. Susen

40. See, for instance: Abbott (2001a); Adam (1990); Adam (1995); Adam (1998); Lash et al. (1998); Urry (2003). 41. On this point see Savage (2009), p. 221. According to Savage, an example of this contradiction can be found when comparing the theoretical account provided in Urry (2000a) and the substantive account offered in Lash and Urry (1987), Urry (2000b), and Urry (2003). 42. Urry (2000a), p. 107. On this point, see also Savage (2009), p. 221. 43. Savage (2009), p. 221. 44. Ibid., p. 221. On this point, see also, for example: Wagner (2001); Wagner (2008); Wagner (2012). 45. Savage (2009), p. 221. 46. Ibid., p. 221. 47. Ibid., p. 221. Cf. Susen (2015a), Chapter 4. 48. Seidman (1994c), p. 130. 49. Susen (2015a), p.  11. On this point, see, for instance, Seidman (1994c), p. 130. See also, for example, Jenks (1998) and Susen (2009b). 50. On this point, see Savage (2009), pp. 223–224. See also Bell (1973), Bell (1991 [1976]), and Bell (2000 [1960]). 51. See, for instance: Boron (1999), p. 53; Browne and Susen (2014); Burawoy (2000), esp. pp. 34–35 and 345–349; Centeno and Cohen (2010); Chomsky (1999); Coles and Susen (2018); Davies (2014); Delanty (2000b), pp. 145–146; DeMartino (2000); Dicken (2011 [1986]); Dolgon (1999), pp. 129–130 and 139–140; Featherstone and Lash (1995), pp. 1–15; Gane (2012); Gane (2014); Harvey (1989), esp. pp.  292–296; Harvey (2005); Haug (1996); Hawthorne (2004), p.  244; Hutcheon (2002), p.  205; Jameson (1984); Jameson (2007), pp.  215–216; Kellner (2007), pp.  103–106; Lash and Lury (2007); McCarthy and Prudham (2004); Piketty (2013); Ritzer (2013 [1993]); Roy et al. (2007); Saad-Filho and Johnston (2004); Sloterdijk (2013 [2005]); Slott (2002), pp.  420–422; Smart (1993), p. 62; Smith et al. (2008); Soederberg et al. (2005); Susen (2010a), pp. 183, 195, 196, 199, 200, and 210; Susen (2010b), pp. 260–262, 267, and 274; Susen (2012a), pp. 294, 303, and 307–308; Susen (2015a), pp. 124, 134, 185, 194, 195, 201, 257, and 273; Susen (2017b), pp. 156, 169–170, and 178; Susen (2018a), pp.  8, 24–29, and 61–62; Touraine (2001 [1999]); Vakaloulis (2001), pp. 103–121 and 153–172; Williams et al. (2013). 52. Savage (2009), p. 224. 53. On this point, see, for example, Aglietta (1979 [1976]). See also, for instance: Amin (1994); Bernard (2000); Bonefeld and Holloway (1991a); Bonefeld and Holloway (1991b); Dolgon (1999); Jessop (1991); Jessop (2001). 54. See Susen (2015a). For critical review articles on this book, see, for example: Birešev (2017); Burton (2015); el-Ojeili (2017); Fach (2016); Feather

8  Historicity and Novelty 

191

(2016); Gane (2016); Hashemi (2017); Hazelrigg (2016); Isaac (2017); McLennan (2017); Mele (2017); Miranda González (2016); Munslow (2016); O’Mahony (2018); Nicolae (2019); Oliveira (2018); Outhwaite (2016a); Roberts (2017); Rush (2017); Salinas (2016); Schlembach (2018); Smith (2017); Toews (2016). See also my response to Outhwaite (2016a) in Susen (2016d), as well as my response to McLennan (2017) in Susen (2017d). In addition, see, for instance: Anderson (1996); Appignanesi and Garrett (2003 [1995]); Best and Kellner (1997); Boyne and Rattansi (1990a); Brown (1994); Butler (2002); Callinicos (1989); Cilliers (1998); Dickens and Fontana (1994); Doherty et al. (1992); Domańska (1998); Eagleton (1996); Farrell (1994); Featherstone (2007 [1991]); Goulimari (2007); Hassan (1987); Hollinger (1994); Hutcheon (1989); Jameson (1991); Lash (1990); McGowan (1991); Owen (1997); Quicke (1999); Seidman (1994a); Woodiwiss (1990). Cf. Habermas (2018 [2009]), pp. 79 and 194n45. 55. On Fukuyama’s conception of ‘the end of history’, see Fukuyama (1992), esp. pp.  276–277. On this point, see also, for example: Blackburn (2000), p.  267; Boltanski (2008), p.  63; Bourdieu and Boltanski (2008 [1976]), p.  53; Eagleton (1995), esp. p.  66; Fukuyama (2002); Good and Velody (1998), pp. 5 and 9; Hammond (2011), pp. 305–306, 310, 312, and 315; Horrocks (1999), pp.  7 and 13; Kellner (2007), p.  119; Osamu (2002); Paulus (2001), p.  745; Susen (2015a), pp.  169, 170, 271, and 317n207; Williams (2010), p. 309. 56. Savage (2009), p. 224. 57. Ibid., p. 224 (italics added). 58. Ibid., p. 224. 59. On this point, see, for instance, Goldthorpe (2007 [2000]). See also Savage (2009), p. 224. 60. On this point, see Savage (2009), p. 224. 61. See Galbraith (1998 [1958]). 62. See Toffler (1964). 63. See Bell (1973) and Bell (2000 [1960]). 64. On this point, see Savage (2009), p. 224. 65. On this point, see ibid., p. 224. 66. Ritzer (2013 [1993]). 67. Savage (2009), p. 224. 68. On the ‘postmaterialist culture’ thesis, see, for example: Abramson and Inglehart (1995); Inglehart (1977); Inglehart (1990); Inglehart (1997); Inglehart and Welzel (2005). 69. On the ‘the end of history’ thesis, see Fukuyama (1992), esp. pp. 276–277. On this point, see also, for example: Blackburn (2000), p. 267; Boltanski (2008), p. 63; Bourdieu and Boltanski (2008 [1976]), p. 53; Eagleton (1995), esp. p. 66; Fukuyama (2002); Good and Velody (1998), pp. 5 and 9; Hammond

192 

S. Susen

(2011), pp. 305–306, 310, 312, and 315; Horrocks (1999), pp. 7 and 13; Kellner (2007), p.  119; Osamu (2002); Paulus (2001), p.  745; Susen (2015a), pp. 169, 170, 271, and 317n207; Williams (2010), p. 309. 70. On the ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis, see Huntington (1996). 71. Parekh (2008), p. 153 (italics added). 72. Ibid., p. 154 (italics added) (punctuation modified). 73. Cf. Etzioni (1993) and Etzioni (2018). 74. On this point, see, for example: Putnam (1995) and Putnam (2000). See also Bellah et al. (2008 [1985]). 75. See, for instance, Sennett (1998). 76. See, for instance, Lasch (1979). 77. Savage (2009), p. 225 (punctuation modified). 78. See Habermas (1970), Habermas (1987a [1981]), Habermas (1987b [1981]), Habermas (1990a [1983]), Habermas (2001a [1984]), Habermas (2001), Habermas (2018 [2009]), Habermas (2019a), and Habermas (2019b), esp. pp. 557–589 (‘Dritte Zwischenbetrachtung: Vom objektiven Geist zur kommunikativen Vergesellschaftung erkennender und handelnder Subjekte’) and pp. 767–807 (‘Postskriptum’). 79. See Wagner (1994), Wagner (2001), Wagner (2008), and Wagner (2012). 80. See Fraser and Honneth (2003a), Fraser and Honneth (2003b), Fraser and Honneth (2003a), Honneth (1995 [1992]), Honneth (2003a), Honneth (2003b), and Honneth (2007). 81. See Beck et al. (1994), Beck (1992 [1986]), Beck (1995 [1988]), Beck (1998), Beck (1999b), Beck (2006 [2004]), Beck (2009 [2007]), Beck (2011), Beck (2012 [2010]), Beck and Lau (2005), and Beck and Sznaider (2006). 82. Savage (2009), p. 233. 83. On this point, cf. Osrecki (2015). 84. Savage (2009), p. 233 (punctuation modified). 85. Ibid., p. 233. 86. On this point, see ibid., pp. 226–232. 87. On the relationship between objective, normative, and subjective dimensions, see, for example: Susen (2007), pp.  23, 38–39, 43n25, 44n37, 75–88, 104–107, 115, 127n21, 275–302, and 307; Susen (2014b), pp. 349–350 (point 13); Susen (2015a), pp. 6, 8, 18, 45, 52–54, 56, 80–81, 95, 101–103, 110–111, 142, 146, 152, 160, 161, 189, 194, 198–199, 201, 210, 239, 247, 253, and 259; Susen (2016e); Susen (2016f ), pp. 122–123, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, and 136; Susen (2017c), pp. 104–106, 110, 113–115, 118, and 120; Susen (2017d), pp. 109–110; Susen (2018a), pp. 9–10, 53–55, 57–58, 60, 64–65, 69, and 70; Susen (2018b), pp. 6, 10–13, 17, 22–23, 25–26, and 30–31; Susen (2018d), esp. pp. 1278–1279 and 1282; Susen (2020c), pp. 137–138 and 147. 88. Mouzelis (1999), p. 141 (quotation modified).

8  Historicity and Novelty 

193

89. On this point, see, for example: Parsons (1964); Parsons (1966); Parsons (1971); Parsons (1977 [1966/1971]); Parsons (1978); Parsons and Shils (1951). See also Mouzelis (1999), p.  141. On Parsons’s legacy, see, for instance: Robertson and Turner (1989); Robertson and Turner (1991); Rocher (1974 [1972]); Treviño (2001); Treviño (2016). 90. Mouzelis (1999), p. 141 (italics added) (quotation modified). 91. Ibid., p. 141 (italics added) (quotation modified). 92. Ibid., p. 141. 93. Ibid., p. 141. 94. Ibid., p. 142. 95. Ibid., p. 142. 96. Cf. Wolff (1994). 97. Mouzelis (1999), p. 142 (italics added) (quotation modified). 98. Ibid., p. 142 (quotation modified). 99. Ibid., p. 142 (italics in original) (quotation modified). 100. Ibid., p. 142 (quotation modified). 101. Ibid., p. 142 (italics added) (quotation modified). 102. See, for example, Susen (2015a), Chapter 1 (esp. pp. 45–47). See also ibid., pp. 2, 40, 138, 159, 165–167, 181, and 259–260. 103. Mouzelis (1999), p. 143 (punctuation modified). 104. On these points, see ibid., pp. 142–143. 105. Ibid., p. 143. 106. On this point, see, for example: Anderson (1991 [1983]); Delanty and Kumar (2006); Malešević (2013). 107. See Anderson (1991 [1983]). 108. On the distinction between ‘social integration’ and ‘system integration’, see, for example, Susen (2007), pp. 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 237, and 258. In addition, see, for instance: Cooke (1994), p.  134; Habermas (1987e [1981]), pp. 154–155 and 164; Habermas (1987f [1981]), pp. 374–375. 109. See Habermas (1987a [1981]); see also Habermas (1981b). 110. See Habermas (1987a [1981]); see also Habermas (1981b). 111. Mouzelis (1999), p. 144. 112. Ibid., p. 144. 113. See Parsons (1949 [1937]), Parsons (1991 [1951]), and Parsons and Shils (1951). On this point, see also Mouzelis (1999), p. 145. On Parson’s further development of this model, see Parsons (1978), esp. his reflections on ‘A Paradigm of the Human Condition’. 114. See Parsons (1964). See also Parsons (1966) and Parsons (1977 [1966/1971]). 115. See Parsons (1971), pp.  26–27. On this point, see also Mouzelis (1999), p. 145. In addition, see ibid., pp. 152 and 156. 116. Parsons (1971), p. 26. On this point, see also Mouzelis (1999), p. 145. 117. Parsons (1971), p. 27. On this point, see also Mouzelis (1999), p. 145. 118. Mouzelis (1999), p. 145.

194 

S. Susen

119. Parsons (1971), p.  27 (italics added). On this point, see also Mouzelis (1999), p. 145. 120. Parsons (1971), p.  27 (italics added). On this point, see also Mouzelis (1999), p. 145. 121. See Parsons (1964). See also Parsons (1966) and Parsons (1977 [1966/1971]). 122. Mouzelis (1999), p. 148 (italics added). 123. See Susen (2015a), pp. 13–16. See also ibid., pp. 34–38. 124. Mouzelis (1999), p. 149. 125. Ibid., p. 150. 126. Ibid., p. 150. 127. Ibid., p. 150. 128. Ibid., p. 150. 129. Ibid., p. 151. 130. Ibid., p. 151. 131. See Parsons (1964). See also Parsons (1966) and Parsons (1977 [1966/1971]). 132. On the tripartite distinction between ‘foundational’, ‘contingent’, and ‘ephemeral’ elements of social life, see, for example: Susen (2013f ), p.  236n121; Susen (2014d), pp.  762–763n568; Susen (2016e), pp.  461–463; Susen (2016f ), p. 131; Susen (2017a), pp. 144 and 146; Susen (2018b), pp. 25–26. 133. Mouzelis (1999), p. 151. 134. On this point, see ibid., p. 151. 135. Ibid., p. 151 (italics in original) (quotation modified). 136. On this point, see ibid., p. 152. 137. Ibid., p. 156. 138. Ibid., p. 156. 139. See Parsons (1964). See also Parsons (1966) and Parsons (1977 [1966/1971]). 140. Mouzelis (1999), p. 156. 141. Ibid., p. 156. 142. Ibid., p. 157 (italics added). 143. Ibid., p. 157. 144. Cf. Bourdieu’s field theory. See, for example: Bourdieu (1993b [1984]) as well as Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992b). See also, for instance, Susen (2007), esp. pp. 171–180. 145. Mouzelis (1999), p. 157 (italics added). 146. Ibid., p. 157 (italics added).

Part V Intimations of Disciplinarity

9 Disciplinarity and Sociology

In the humanities and social sciences, the critical analysis of different forms of crisis has been on the agenda for some time.1 A key question arising in this respect is to what extent the sociology of crisis needs to involve an in-depth engagement with the (potential or actual) crisis of sociology. Ever since it came into being, sociology, not dissimilar to other academic disciplines, has gone through highs and lows—especially in terms of its status, legitimacy, and originality, but also in terms of its influence on other disciplines and, more generally, on society. Unlike philosophy, sociology, from the beginning of its existence, has had a strong commitment to the empirical study of social phenomena. This real-world orientation is based on the conviction that, in order to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the ways in which different aspects of social reality are constituted, these need to be empirically examined. On this account, a merely theoretical analysis of reality remains speculative to the degree that it fails to provide empirical evidence for the corroboration or falsification of its validity claims. Notwithstanding the respective strengths and weaknesses of the real-world-orientedness of the social sciences across the globe, it appears that sociology—or, to be exact, ‘empirical sociology’2—has been undergoing a crisis in recent years. This ‘crisis of empirical sociology’3 manifests itself in a number of important dimensions, which are worth considering in detail. 1. Social and Transactional Data in the Digital Age One of the remarkable features of the age of ‘postindustrialism’,4 which is inextricably linked to the rise of ‘knowing capitalism’,5 is the pronounced trend towards ‘the proliferation of “social” transactional data’6 that are © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_9

197

198 

S. Susen

gathered, on a regular basis and on a massive scale, by a large variety of private and public institutions. The intensifying influence of ‘metric power’7 is reflected in the ways in which ‘social data’8 and ‘transactional data’9 are systematically used to obtain valuable information about cognitive and behavioural patterns in technologically advanced societies. This tendency—which, arguably, cannot be dissociated from the rise of a powerful ‘technosystem’10— has profound implications for the status of traditional research methods in sociology, especially sample surveys and in-depth interviews. Drawing on these methodological strategies, sociologists, ever since entering the scene of social-scientific data gathering, have been able to claim that they are equipped with ‘distinctive expertise to access the “social” in powerful ways’.11 These ‘traditional’ methods are hermeneutically informed, in the sense that they permit sociologists to account for the meaning-ladenness permeating normatively codified life forms, while being able to shed light on the structural influence of key sociological variables—such as class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability. Given the increasingly widespread use of social and transactional data, however, it appears that these ‘traditional’ claims to expertise-based validity, reliability, and representability are far less secure in the present than they used to be in the past. To put it more provocatively, ‘both the sample survey and the in-depth interview are increasingly dated research methods, which are unlikely to provide a robust base for the jurisdiction of empirical sociologists in coming decades’.12 If this is true, then the ‘politics of method’13 has undergone a shift in the balance of power, making traditional methodological approaches in sociology seem obsolete and more recent modes of data collection, made possible by digital technologies, not only more useful but also more authoritative. The significance of this paradigmatic shift is articulated in the plea for a ‘digital turn’14 in the contemporary social sciences. In the ‘digital age’,15 access to different forms of data—including ‘social data’ and ‘transactional data’—is ‘big business’, making it a powerful tool for gaining insights into people’s preferences and behaviour, notably with regard to consumption patterns.16 Thus, by obtaining ‘routine access to myriad sources of commercial social transactional data’,17 it is possible to produce demographic maps of cultural patterns of cognition and action that predominate in particular sectors of the population in spatiotemporally specific contexts. It is important to point out, however, that each sector is different and that it is not always clear to what extent it is possible for social researchers to gain access to the data generated in a given area. A noticeable trend in this regard is that, in both private and public domains, one finds a considerable

9  Disciplinarity and Sociology 

199

amount of research that does not depend on, and is not controlled by, direct academic involvement. Indeed, numerous institutions—including cultural ones—‘have impressive databases, mailing lists, research projects, and interventions’.18 The standards applied when gathering, processing, and analysing their data are not necessarily those prevalent in the social sciences. This does not mean, however, that their data may not be a rich source of knowledge. On the contrary, the data produced by these institutions are potentially useful, not only to actors operating in non-academic sectors, but also to researchers working in academia. 2. Research with or without Ethics? One of the key ‘advantages’ of non-academic forms of data collection is that they are not subject to the same type of scrutiny as their academic counterparts. This applies not only to their conceptual, theoretical, and methodological degree of sophistication, but also, crucially, to their level of engagement with ethical concerns. One may favour deontological ethics (emphasizing the civilizational role of ‘principles’ and ‘reason’), utilitarian ethics (stressing the socio-ontological benefits derived from focusing on ‘consequences’ and ‘outcomes’), virtue ethics (highlighting the species-constitutive significance of ‘virtues’ and ‘good traits’), or rival approaches in moral philosophy. Irrespective of the strengths and weaknesses of each of these philosophical options, the rigorous consideration of ethical implications forms an integral part of the social sciences in the twenty-first century. Research ethics is crucial to scientific endeavours for a number of reasons: a. Research has different forms and degrees of impact on both the research participants and the researchers. b. Research participants have basic rights (such as human, civil, legal, political, and social rights), which must be respected. c. Researchers represent their discipline and, hence, must ensure they do not bring it into disrepute. It is generally expected, therefore, that academic research is conducted in an ethically proper manner, taking into consideration (a) the safety of both the research participants and the researchers, (b) the rights of research participants, and (c) the integrity of the research undertaken and of the discipline, or disciplines, it represents. Among the key principles underlying research ethics are the following: (a) to avoid causing psychological, physical, or social harm to anyone involved in the research process; (b) to assess the potential or actual

200 

S. Susen

benefit to participants and society; (c) to maintain confidentiality and anonymity; (d) to allow for informed consent; and (e) to ensure participation is voluntary.19 3. The Democratization of Knowledge? To the extent that, with regard to their ethical implications, non-academic modes of data collection are not subject to the same degree of scrutiny as their academic counterparts, the former have, at least at first glance, a competitive advantage over the latter. Non-academic modes of data collection allow for much more straightforward, more rapid, less bureaucratic, and less burdensome ways of gathering, processing, and examining information. At stake are not only the ways in which data may be collected, managed, and analysed, but also the ways in which data may be used, disseminated, and consumed.20 Even if one acknowledges the limitations of non-academic data gathering and diffusion, however, it would be erroneous to follow ‘a “deficit” model’,21 according to which no serious research is conducted in non-academic sectors, implying that academic experts need to be consulted in order to compensate for this lack of epistemic authority. In fact, quite the opposite seems to be the case: in recent years, it has become increasingly common for academic researchers to make use of non-academic sources of data. This is not to suggest that non-academic sectors have ceased to build on academic realms of inquiry. This is to recognize, however, that, in light of the ‘democratization of knowledge’22 in technologically advanced societies, the boundaries between ‘scientific’ and ‘non-scientific’ data are increasingly blurred—not least, because both epistemic spheres draw upon one another and are, by virtue of intensified dialogue across traditional demarcation lines, substantially cross-fertilized. Another significant factor contributing to the democratization of knowledge is the fact that, in recent decades, the three key branches of academic inquiry—that is, the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences—have become socially more inclusive. One may focus on different sociological variables—notably class, ethnicity, gender, age, and/or ability— to measure the impact of social mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion in specific realms of society. Although the field of academic research still has a long way to go, it is hard to deny that, from the mid-twentieth century onwards, it has become socially more inclusive. This tendency means that it is more representative of society than used to be the case. Consequently, it has become more difficult to draw a clear distinction between, on the one hand, a detached academic elite (made

9  Disciplinarity and Sociology 

201

up of white, ‘Western’, well-educated, and socioeconomically privileged men) and, on the other hand, the majority of ordinary people (who, although they may constitute a heterogeneous mass of actors, are largely deprived of the privilege of contributing to, let alone taking on dominant positions in, the game of science). If the business of science has become a socially more inclusive enterprise, then the parameters of accountability and responsibility have shifted. For it has become more difficult, if not impossible, to point the finger at the academic elite when things go wrong, as its members are now far more representative of the general public than they were in the past. Granted, this does not mean that scientists are no longer responsible for their actions, for the knowledge they produce, and for the methods they choose to conduct their research. It indicates nonetheless that, to the extent that they are recruited from a large pool of people with diverse social backgrounds, including members of minority groups, it has become harder to accuse the scientific community of being ‘out of touch’ with reality. For, presumably, this increasingly heterogeneous conglomerate of researchers comprises a large variety of actors from all walks of life. The democratization of knowledge goes hand in hand with the gradual broadening of epistemic horizons. This process is partly due to the rising predominance of ‘real-world-oriented’ and inter- and transdisciplinary (‘Mode 2’) knowledge over ‘self-referential’ and discipline-based (‘Mode 1’) knowledge,23 partly due to the growth of cross-disciplinary collaborations,24 and partly due to the decline of ‘legislative’ knowledge under the pervasive culture of capitalist consumerism.25 Thus, it appears that we have moved from a world in which there was a considerable amount of ‘deference to the internal authority of academic expertise’26 to a world in which there is not only mounting scepticism about traditional notions of scientific expertise but also widespread enthusiasm for the democratic opening and thematic broadening of professional research. 4. The Rise and Demise of Empirical Sociology? It is no accident that, in light of the aforementioned shift, practical devices developed by social scientists are the tools that have commanded particular interest among members of non-­academic communities, in both private and public realms of society.27 The cognitive capacity to grapple with—that is, to describe, to analyse, to interpret, to explain, to assess, and sometimes to predict—particular aspects of social reality is crucial to experts’ ‘practical abilities to diagnose’,28 and to make informed judgements about, constitutive elements of human existence.29 One may consider an array of social research methodologies, such as in-depth interviews, social surveys, or focus

202 

S. Susen

groups—to mention only a few. Sociologists have been remarkably ­successful and ‘highly innovative in conducting applied research and persuading a range of institutions of the effectiveness of their research repertoires’.30 In recent decades, however, the epistemic authority of their discipline appears to have suffered a legitimacy crisis. The ‘crisis of empirical sociology’31—whether one wishes to characterize it as ‘a coming crisis’, ‘an impending crisis’, ‘a recent crisis’, or ‘a current crisis’— has, it seems, ‘not yet been sufficiently appreciated or understood’.32 Arguably, there are several elements of sociology that have been, or still are, undergoing a crisis in the discipline. Rather than focusing exclusively on conceptual, terminological, epistemological, or theoretical issues at stake in contemporary sociology, it is important to consider the state of its methodological strategies, since these appear to be particularly affected by the digitization of information in technologically advanced societies. Such an endeavour is thorny, in the sense that it obliges us to call any attempt to treat sociology as a self-legislating academic discipline, capable of making judgements about the social world from an epistemically superior position, into question. One may rightly insist on the extent to which prominent currents in sociology are characterized by conceptual sophistication, terminological innovation, epistemological reflexivity, and theoretical insightfulness. Yet, self-praise carries the risk of fostering an attitude of complacency. If sociologists are allowed to take ‘refuge in the reassurance of [their] own internal world, [their] own assumed abilities to be more “sophisticated”’33 than researchers from other disciplines, they may end up getting caught up in a false sense of reality, which fails to account for the profound impact of recent technological developments on contemporary societies. Researchers who aspire to work at the cutting-edge of social science in the twenty-first century must not overlook the historical significance of the massive amount of data—including ‘social data’ and ‘transactional data’—generated in, and pervading almost every sphere of, the digital age. An example to illustrate the crisis of sociology is the use of one of its core methodological strategies: the sample survey.34 As a key methodological tool of social research, it continues to form an integral element of sociology curricula across the world. Arguably, one of its principal advantages is that, on the basis of inferential statistics, it permits researchers to identify patterns and regularities, enabling them to make not only empirically substantiated judgements but also—in many cases, fairly accurate—predictions about social developments, notably with regard to behavioural, ideological, and institutional trends. Yet, three fundamental problems with sample surveys have become apparent in recent years:

9  Disciplinarity and Sociology 

203

a. Social reality, especially in ‘Western’ contexts, can be scrutinized from numerous social-scientific angles and with respect to almost every aspect imaginable. In such an intensely researched—if not over-researched—historical setting, ‘response rates have been steadily falling, and it is proving more difficult to obtain response rates of 80 per cent or more’,35 which, in previous decades, appeared to be a standard level of survey participation. Instead of regarding it an honour and a privilege to be asked for one’s opinion on a particular subject, more and more people—across different sectors of the population—perceive it, at best, as a nuisance, interrupting their day-to-day routine, or, at worst, as an intrusion into their inner world of personal preferences and opinions. Granted, one may argue that issues of this sort do not constitute an insurmountable methodological obstacle, since survey statisticians have come up with techniques for providing reasonably reliable estimates of missing data, making it possible to make generalizations even on the basis of biased and incomplete samples.36 It is hard to deny, however, that survey participation practices have significantly changed in recent years—not least due to the radical individualization of social life, which is reinforced, rather than undermined, by the personalized use of digital media, leading to a blurring of the boundaries between the private sphere and the public sphere.37 b. Sample surveys used to be conducted within the physical and legal boundaries of nation-states. Indeed, one may go a step further by positing that ‘[t]he survey emerged as a key device for imagining the nation’.38 Surveys were carried out within the traditional boundaries of nation-states. In fact, in a more proactive sense, the former contributed to the latter’s material and symbolic construction. The age of ‘global flows’,39 however, constitutes an era characterized by the transnational movement of goods, capital, services, labour, and people—a movement that is unprecedented in terms of scope, pace, and complexity. In such a globalized and globalizing context, it is difficult to define, let alone to make generalizations about, traditional notions of ‘national’ trends and developments. Admittedly, ‘national’ samples remain a major reference point, even (and, perhaps, especially) in ambitious comparative social-scientific studies.40 Given increasing levels of demographic heterogeneity characterizing contemporary societies, however, it has become far more problematic to treat the nation-state not only as the ultimate empirical reference point, but also as the main institutional apparatus put in place to represent, to govern, and to control culturally homogeneous populations. To be clear, every ‘nation’ is a relatively arbitrary construct, in the sense that social, political, cultural, linguistic, and historical commonalities—allegedly shared by members of the same ‘imagined

204 

S. Susen

community’—are open to interpretation and can be ideologically mobilized (and, hence, used or misused) in one way or another. Hence, the internal heterogeneity of ‘imagined communities’ is, strictly speaking, not a novel phenomenon. There is no doubt, however, that the emergence of multicultural and multi-ethnic societies is an increasingly widespread trend across the world.41 c. The ‘proliferation of survey research in private companies, especially in areas of market research’,42 is another key factor that has contributed to a rebalancing of power between academic and non-academic sources of data and, crucially, data analysis. Interestingly, there appears to be little communication, let alone cross-fertilization, between academic and non-academic forms of data evaluation in general and survey research in particular. Private forms of data collection, processing, and analysis are largely commodified, in the sense that they are undertaken by and for profit-seeking companies, which have an interest in grasping, and making predictions about, patterns of consumption. Their public—including academic—counterparts, by contrast, are supposed to be motivated not primarily by instrumental, let alone financial, goals but, rather, by a scientific interest in behavioural, ideological, and institutional trends and developments. One may legitimately object that the gradual marketization of the university sector undermines the normative mission of publicly funded research, which is supposed to be conducted to contribute to a better understanding—and, if possible, the enhancement—of particular aspects of society. Even with this caveat in mind, however, the distinction between public research and private research continues to make sense. Thus, the ‘social research categories’ employed by the former may differ fundamentally from the ‘market research categories’ designed by the latter. Whereas publicly financed surveys in the social sciences tend to make use of ‘multivariate analysis’, privately resourced surveys in the market sphere are likely to favour ‘cluster analysis’.43 Measured by the standards of state-of-the-art social science, the former is more sophisticated, rigorous, and reliable than the latter. Arguably, this is one of the reasons why surveys conducted by the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB) tend to be ignored by professional social scientists,44 who, to a greater or lesser extent, tend to assume they possess an expert-based monopoly on research methods. Although a large proportion of actors working in the private sector—including those in corporate marketing departments—have academic backgrounds, social-­scientific standards of conceptual, methodological, empirical, and ethical rigour are ‘largely irrelevant to the powerful bastions of market researchers’,45 who tend to rely on relatively few sociodemographic variables for their investigations.46 In

9  Disciplinarity and Sociology 

205

short, survey research is no longer a data-­generating pursuit monopolized by the academy; it is conducted, to a growing degree, by powerful actors in the private sector, notably by companies that have a commercial interest in gathering valuable data about market behaviour. 5. The Big Challenge Posed by Big Data The contemporary world is characterized by the production of an ever greater amount of digital data, leading to the consolidation of ‘big data economies and ecologies’.47 In technologically advanced societies, powerful institutional actors—irrespective of whether they are public or private, academic or non-­ academic, scientific or non-scientific—have developed, and started to make extensive use of, ‘more effective research tools than sample surveys’.48 Given the rich informational resources to which large proportions of these actors, especially the most powerful economic players, have access, they are in a position to ‘draw on the digital data generated routinely as a by-product of their own transactions: sales data, mailing lists, subscription data, and so forth’.49 Owing to the sheer volume and revealing nature of these informational resources, in the digital age there appears to be little, if any, need to employ seemingly outdated methodological techniques, such as sample surveys. Debates on the respective strengths and weaknesses of different methodological approaches have been part of the social sciences ever since they came into existence. Like any other social research technique, sample surveys suffer from various limitations—notably their tendency to ‘abstract’ respondents from the complex meaning-laden dimensions of their lifeworlds, which are more accurately accounted for by interpretivist approaches, such as ethnomethodological projects, case studies, focus groups, and in-depth interviews, which are commonly combined with different forms of content analysis and critical discourse analysis. In the current era, in which ‘data on whole populations are routinely gathered as a by-product of institutional transactions’,50 the sample survey is largely perceived, at best, as a limited but still suitable methodological technique or, at worst, as a hangover from the past, which, given the alternatives available in the digital age, is no longer of any serious use value. To give a simple example of the merits of routine transactional data over survey data, Amazon.com does not need to market its books by predicting, on the basis of inference from sample surveys, the social position of someone who buys any given book and then offering them other books to buy which they know on the basis of inference similar people also tend to buy. They have a much more

206 

S. Susen

­ owerful tool. They know exactly what other books are bought by people makp ing any particular purchase, and hence they can immediately offer such books directly to other consumers when they make the same purchase. Hence the (irritating, though often tellingly useful) screens offering ‘Other people who have bought x have also bought y’ that confront the Amazon customer. Similar principles are used by supermarkets through data gathered by their loyalty card schemes, where they can identify for any given customer—without knowing anything very much about their personal, ‘social’, characteristics—what other kind of goods they might be liable to buy if they buy, for instance, organic bananas. They can hence bypass the principles of inference altogether and work directly with the real, complete, data derived from all the transactions within their system.51

Comparable tendencies apply to an increasing number of twenty-first-­ century universities, in which students are expected ‘to swipe in’ and ‘to swipe out’, every time they attend and leave a teaching session. Not only does such a swipe system replace traditional registers (based on attendance lists with handwritten signatures or tick boxes), but, moreover, it serves a control and surveillance function, imposed by senior managements of universities and governments of nation-states. This trend effectively extends the regulatory power of the Home Office to the realm of higher education, by converting academics into quasi-replacements for border control officers (as these measures are a way of monitoring class attendance of ‘home’, ‘international’, and ‘overseas’ students). This is just one obvious example illustrating the extent to which digital technologies can be, and have been, employed by institutional actors—not only to generate valuable data about behavioural patterns, but also to make use of the data for the purpose of governance and surveillance,52 as reflected in recent debates on ‘dataveillance’.53 Finally, it would be naïve, and misleading, to overlook the fact that the sample survey, along with other ‘traditional’ social research methods, continues to represent a useful tool of sociological investigation, especially with regard to longitudinal analysis.54 Recognition of its enduring importance, however, does not absolve us from acknowledging that digital technologies— whose incessant development is unparalleled in terms of scope, pace, and complexity—provide powerful ways of gathering, processing, and examining data. These digital technologies have begun to play a pivotal role in contemporary forms of data analysis, and they are likely to continue to do so—at an even more advanced and more commanding level—in the medium- and long-­term future.

9  Disciplinarity and Sociology 

207

6. Sociology in the Digital Age Both quantitative and qualitative methods are affected by the challenges posed by the increasing availability of digital data, both in its ‘social’ and in its ‘transactional’ forms. The demand for an ever more rigorous methods training, as an essential component of sociology curricula across the world, has been on the long list of suggested discipline-specific improvements for some time. This shift towards elevated standards of methodological expertise cannot be divorced from the ambition to make use of digital data generated in both public and private, academic and non-academic, scientific and non-scientific realms of society. Sociology, if it wishes to avoid being forced into redundancy, must grasp the wider impact of major technological changes, while incorporating their transformative potential into its own repertoire of research methods. Instead of ignoring, let alone devaluing or rejecting, the data produced by private actors outside the institutional comfort zone of the academy, sociologists need to find a way to gain access to, to make use of, and to examine these informational resources. This is not to maintain that sociology’s ‘traditional’ methods are obsolete, no longer relevant, or simply incapable of providing useful means for the inquiry into particular aspects of social reality in the twenty-first century. Rather, this is to accept that, similar to its conceptual tools and theoretical frameworks, sociology’s methodological approaches need to be regularly revised and expanded. Just as society constantly develops, so does sociology— especially to the degree that the latter claims to be the principal academic discipline concerned with, and committed to, the critical study of the former. Surely, one of the greatest resources of sociology has always been, and is likely to remain, its distinctive capacity to provide not only insightful theoretical frameworks, designed to make sense of the constitution of society, but also historically informed accounts of major past developments and visionary reflections on possible future trends. Whatever one makes of the impact of the ‘postmodern turn’ on the social sciences,55 one of its most significant consequences is a move away from conceptual system-building, traditionally pursued by grand social theorists and philosophers, towards issue-focused applied research, conducted by empirical sociologists. Instead of opposing ‘theoretical’ and ‘empirical’ dimensions to one another, however, a key challenge for social scientists is to accept—and, importantly, to demonstrate—that these two levels of analysis go hand in hand. Pioneering research programmes in the social sciences are not only conceptually sophisticated, terminologically innovative, epistemologically reflexive, and theoretically insightful, but also methodologically rigorous and empirically substantiated.

208 

S. Susen

Granted, striking a healthy balance between different domains of social-­ scientific investigation is easier said than done. This does not mean, however, that this is not a goal worth pursuing. Even if the numerous valuable—notably conceptual, terminological, epistemological, theoretical, methodological, and empirical—resources of sociology need to be constantly revised and tested against the messy background of incessantly developing social constellations, and even if one comes to the conclusion that, to a large extent, its ‘classical’ resources require radical adjustment in the early twenty-first century, it would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, it is unhelpful to categorize different sociological approaches in terms of rigid oppositions—such as ‘classical’ vs. ‘contemporary’, ‘obsolete’ vs. ‘up-to-date’, ‘conservative’ vs. ‘progressive’, ‘old-fashioned’ vs. ‘cutting-edge’, ‘schematic’ vs. ‘funky’, ‘analogue’ vs. ‘digital’, ‘voluntarist’ vs. ‘structuralist’, ‘accidentalist’ vs. ‘determinist’, or ‘individualist’ vs. ‘holist’. It is more fruitful to compare and to contrast—and, where possible, to combine and to cross-fertilize—major insights from different currents of sociological inquiry, even if, at first glance, these may appear incompatible. The point is not to make a case for the cliché that ‘everyone can learn from everyone’. Rather, the point is to recognize that, ultimately, because—in one way or another—all sociologists are interested in ‘the social’, even the most radically opposed fractions within the discipline have more in common with each other than their advocates may be willing to admit. As long as sociology manages to remain both a critical and a public endeavour, capable of shedding light on the causes and consequences of asymmetrical power relations, while committed to engaging with, learning from, and drawing upon experiences made by real-world actors, it will be able to stay true to the core of its disciplinary identity. It is worth reminding ourselves that sociology’s mission consists not only in describing, analysing, interpreting, and assessing social realities, but also, if required, in changing them. Since sociology forms part of the world with which it is concerned and in which it is embedded, it cannot but embrace the transformative potential of human reality.

Notes 1. See, for example, Cordero (2017a). See also, for instance, Susen (2017c) and Cordero (2017b). In addition, see, for example: Boudon (1972); Boudon (1980 [1971]); Calhoun and Derluguian (2011); Cassano and Dello Buono (2012); Duménil and Lévy (2011); Farrar and Mayes (2013); Fforde (2009); Gouldner (1971); Habermas (1987 [1968b]); Habermas (1988 [1973]);

9  Disciplinarity and Sociology 

209

Holton (1987); House (2019); Jay (2010); Koselleck (1988 [1959]); Lopreato and Crippen (1999); McKie and Ryan (2018); Rauche (1970); Schweppenhäuser et al. (1987); Schweppenhäuser et al. (1989); Sandywell (1996); Sim (2002); Streeck (2011); Tsilimpounidi (2017); Wagner (2010); Walby (2015); Wallerstein (2011a). 2. See, for instance: McKie and Ryan (2018); Pawson (1989). 3. See Savage and Burrows (2007) as well as Savage and Burrows (2009). See also, for example: Burrows and Savage (2014); Crompton (2008); Gouldner (1971); Halford et al. (2013); Halford and Savage (2017); McKie and Ryan (2018); Savage (2018); Webber (2009). 4. On the concept of ‘postindustrialism’, see, for instance: Bell (1973); Kumar (1978); Kumar (1995); Lee and Turner (1996); Rose (1991); Susen (2015a), pp. 3, 18, 34, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 92, 93, 108, 119, 120, 124, 127, 177, 188, 189, 264, 266, and 297. 5. See Thrift (2005). 6. See Savage and Burrows (2007), pp. 885, 890, and 895. 7. See Beer (2016). 8. See Savage and Burrows (2007), pp. 886, 887, 895, and 896. See also, for example, Evans (2005). 9. See Savage and Burrows (2007), pp. 885, 887, 891, 892, 894, and 896. See also, for example, Weikum and Vossen (2002). In addition, see Webber (2009). 10. See Feenberg (2017). See also Ihde (2018), Pilsch (2019), Ritzer (2019), and Susen (2020a). 11. Savage and Burrows (2007), p. 885. 12. Ibid., p. 885. 13. See ibid., pp. 885 and 895–896. 14. On the ‘digital turn’, see, for example: Athique (2013); Baym (2014 [2010]); Belk and Llamas (2013); Burda (2011); Junge et al. (2013); Negroponte (1995); Runnel et al. (2013); Susen (2015a), pp. 34 and 289n175; Westera (2013); Zhao (2005). 15. On the ‘digital age’, see, for instance: Belk and Llamas (2013); Burda (2011); Junge et al. (2013); Negroponte (1995); Runnel et al. (2013); Susen (2015a), pp. 98, 116, 117, 227, and 303n232; Westera (2013); Zhao (2005). 16. On this point, see, for example: Beer (2016); Burrows (2018); Frade (2016); Ruppert (2018). 17. Savage and Burrows (2007), p. 887. On this point, see also Evans (2005). 18. Savage and Burrows (2007), p. 887 (punctuation modified). 19. On research ethics, see, for example: Bulmer (2008 [1998]); Comstock (2012); Farrimond (2013); Iphofen (2009); Iphofen and Tolich (2018); Israel (2015 [2006]); Schnell and Heinritz (2006); Wiles (2013).

210 

S. Susen

20. On this point, see Savage and Burrows (2007), p. 887. 21. Ibid., p. 887. 22. See, for example: Jemielniak (2014); Leitch (2014); Maasen and Weingart (2009 [2005]); Susen and Baert (2017b). 23. On this point, see Gibbons et al. (1994). See also Holmwood (2010a), esp. p.  642. Furthermore, see, for instance: Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000); Fuller (2000); Hessels and van Lente (2008); Nowotny et al. (2001); Shinn (2002); Ziman (2000). 24. On this point, see Lyle (2016) as well as Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn (2008). 25. On this point, see Bauman (1987). 26. Savage and Burrows (2007), p. 888. 27. See ibid., p. 888. 28. Ibid., p. 888. 29. Cf. Abbott (1988). 30. Savage and Burrows (2007), p. 888. Cf. Bryman (2016 [2001]). On in-­depth interviews, see, for example, Brinkmann and Kvale (2015 [2008]). On social surveys, see, for example, Bulmer et al. (1991). On community studies, see, for example, Bell and Newby (1971) as well as Crow (2018). 31. See, for example: McKie and Ryan (2018); Gouldner (1971); Savage (2018); Savage and Burrows (2007); Savage and Burrows (2009); Webber (2009). See also, for instance: Burrows and Savage (2014); Crompton (2008); Halford et al. (2013); Halford and Savage (2017). 32. Savage and Burrows (2007), p. 885. 33. Ibid., p. 887 (quotation modified). 34. On this point, see, for instance: Barnett (2002 [1991]); Dorofeev and Grant (2006); Fink (2003 [1995]); Goldthorpe (2007 [2000]); Halsey (2004); Stopher (2012). 35. Savage and Burrows (2007), p. 890 (italics added). 36. On this point, see ibid., p. 890. 37. Cf. Habermas (1989 [1962]). For useful discussions of the concept of the ‘public sphere’, see, for instance: Calhoun (1992); Fraser (2007a); Geuss (2001); Kögler (2005); Nash (2014); Rabotnikof (1998); Steinberger (1999); Susen (2011d); Susen (2015a), pp. 75, 193, 224–229, 276, 293n3, and 330n440; Volkmer (2014); Weintraub and Kumar (1997). 38. Savage and Burrows (2007), p. 890. 39. See, for instance, Berking (1998). 40. On this point, see, for example, Inglehart and Welzel (2005). 41. On this point, see, for instance: Susen (2010a), pp. 204–208; Susen (2010b), pp.  260–262 and 271–274; Susen (2015a), pp.  8–9, 185, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, and 211. 42. Savage and Burrows (2007), p. 890. 43. On this point, see ibid., p. 890.

9  Disciplinarity and Sociology 

211

44. For an exception, see Savage et al. (1992). 45. Savage and Burrows (2007), p. 890. 46. See ibid., p. 890. 47. See Ruppert (2018). See also, for example: Burrows (2018); Burrows and Savage (2014); Crompton (2008); Frade (2016); Halford et al. (2013); Halford and Savage (2017); Ollion and Boelaert (2015); Petersson and Breul (2018); Savage and Burrows (2009). 48. Savage and Burrows (2007), p. 891. 49. Ibid., p. 891. 50. Ibid., p. 891. 51. Ibid., p. 891 (italics added). 52. See, for example: Bauman and Lyon (2013); Bernal (2016); Deflem (2008); Gilliom and Monahan (2013); Lyon (1994); Lyon (2001); Lyon (2006); Lyon (2018); Monahan (2006); Monahan (2010); Monahan and Wood (2018); Webb (2007); Zuboff (2019). 53. See, for instance: Ashworth and Free (2006); Clarke (1988); Degli Esposti (2014); van Dijck (2014). 54. See, for example: Coleman (1981); Fitzmaurice et al. (2011 [2004]); Hoffman (2015); Menard (2008); Singer and Willett (2003). 55. On this point, see Susen (2015a).

10 Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity

In recent years, more and more researchers and analysts have expressed strong reservations about the development of sociology as a discipline, especially in relation to the impact of interdisciplinarity and audit culture on both its intellectual autonomy and its institutional identity.1 In this respect, the following issues appear to be particularly noteworthy: 1. ‘tendencies to the subversion of sociology as a discipline’,2 implying that the core elements of its existence may have been undermined; 2. ‘the changing relationship between sociology and the growing interdisciplinary area of applied social studies’,3 involving a redefinition of epistemic functions, notably in terms of the difference between ‘exporter subjects’4 and ‘importer subjects’;5 3. ‘an increasingly blurred distinction between sociology as a discipline and the interdisciplinary area of applied social studies’,6 indicating that the former, due to its colonization by the latter, may suffer from a potential loss of intellectual autonomy and institutional identity; 4. ‘a reduced ability to reproduce a critical sensibility within sociology and absorption to the constraints of audit culture’,7 as illustrated in an ever more instrumental relation to the production and dissemination of knowledge. There appears to be a legitimate consensus among critical commentators that the consolidation of the knowledge economy has had, and continues to have, a major impact upon higher education systems in Western countries.8 In particular, it has become common for national governments to shape public © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_10

213

214 

S. Susen

policies in such a way that they contribute to the global competitiveness of their economies in general and of their education systems in particular, ensuring that the latter are integrated into the commodifying logic dominating the former. Put differently, the value rationality (Wertrationalität) of ‘education for the sake of education’ has been gradually colonized by the instrumental rationality (Zweckrationalität) of ‘markets for the sake of markets’. Ironically, however, it seems that the normative transition towards the marketization of education goes hand in hand with the democratization of education: higher education has, at least in principle, become accessible to large sectors of the population, cutting across traditional social boundaries based on class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability. Given the pursuit of global competitiveness, universities in advanced Western societies have undergone ‘a shift from an elite-based to a mass-based system, as an ever higher proportion of young people have been encouraged into higher education in order to develop a highly skilled workforce’.9 1. Audit-Driven Governance Audit-driven modes of control are embedded in ‘neoliberal forms of governance’,10 which are predominantly associated with ‘the “Anglo-American” model of regulation’11 and, thus, with the systemic objective of profit maximization. One of the great paradoxes of these neoliberal forms of governance derives from the fact that they promote both regulation and deregulation: on the one hand, they endorse ‘increased regulation of publicly-funded institutions’;12 on the other hand, they advocate ‘decreased regulation of market-­ based activities’.13 Neoliberalism, then, is inconceivable without two key components: • the solid regulation of, and administrative control over, public institutions whose existence hinges, at least in part, on state-managed financial and infrastructural resources; • the rigorous deregulation, and systematic flexibilization, of markets whose functioning is driven by the preponderance of exchange value over use value, involving the commodification of social relations. Hence, in most Western educational systems, the ubiquity of neoliberalism is reflected in the fact that universities are being simultaneously regulated and deregulated by national governments. On the one hand, the ‘increased centralization within universities and the adoption of hierarchical management structures’14 form part of the neoliberal package. On the other hand, the intensified commodification of universities and the imposition of

10  Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity 

215

exchange-value-oriented principles predominate to such an extent that educational institutions have been converted into money-making machines, whose pedagogical and intellectual missions are effectively subordinated to competitive struggles oriented towards the pursuit of symbolic, economic, and financial capital. It appears that, gradually, ‘[t]he old collegial system, based upon professorial hierarchy, is replaced by a managerial hierarchy, based upon functional representation’.15 This (neo-) managerialist paradigm shift has major implications for ‘criteria of success’ in relation to the measurement of the quality of research, teaching, and administration. As a result, employment and promotion criteria have shifted towards the recognition of professionalized ‘academic’ qualities that, from a managerialist perspective, are of both high use value and high exchange value: raising grant money from external funding bodies; demonstrating that one’s research has a tangible impact upon society in general and upon the academic field in particular; publishing in so-called high-impact journals, preferably in English, or at least in one of the other hegemonic languages in Western academia (such as French and German), or in one of the dominant Indo-European languages spoken in ‘the Global South’ (such as Spanish and Portuguese); promoting one’s status and peer esteem in the academic field, on the basis of public lectures and other strategies of recognition, divulgation, and circulation. In the name of becoming more efficient and flexible organizations, universities have become both centralized—evident in the replacement of Senate by Executive Boards—and bureaucratic, in order to direct the university’s activities to meeting a few, simplified proxy targets.16

The combination of bureaucratic and managerialist centralization and target-­ driven and competition-oriented marketization is indicative of the fact that—in terms of their raison d’être—university systems in ‘the West’ have gradually shifted from ‘value rationality’ (Wertrationalität) to ‘instrumental rationality’ (Zweckrationalität), from ‘education for the sake of education’ to ‘markets for the sake of markets’, from ‘collective ethos’ to ‘hyper-individualism’, from ‘society-as-a-project’ to ‘projects-in-society’, and from ‘democratization’ to ‘commodification’.17 In light of these trends, ‘a core “cultural” underpinning of the collegial system is also displaced within the academy’18: the intellectual spirit permeating research and teaching is increasingly colonized by the functionalist logic of the state and the market,19 as illustrated in the gradual bureaucratization and commodification of higher education. To the extent that professional academics take on the role of ‘self-interested monopolizers of

216 

S. Susen

knowledge’,20 representing ‘self-interested producer groups’21 whose mission consists in obeying, if not promoting, the instrumental imperatives imposed by the state and the market, the civilizational function of universities is reduced to the task of complying with the benchmarks set by the strategically motivated protagonists of neomanagerialist audit cultures, organized around metrics and obsessed with the pursuit of material, symbolic, reputational, and financial profits. 2. The Place of Sociology in the Social Sciences: Between Export and Import If ‘[t]he university is no longer the privileged space for research’22 that it used to be, its revised function and status are due to ‘the increased marketability of knowledge’,23 which is intensified by neoliberal and neomanagerial regimes of governance. In essence, this paradigmatic transition is reflected in ‘a shift from “mode one knowledge” to a new, “mode two knowledge production”’.24 The former designates a conventional conception of expert-led knowledge production, ‘based within universities and organized around disciplines’25 and, thus, undertaken within clearly defined intellectual and institutional boundaries. The latter describes an unconventional conception of expert-led knowledge production, transcending the self-referential realm of universities, as well as cross-cutting between traditional disciplinary comfort zones, requiring a ‘larger process in which discovery, application, and use are closely integrated’.26 It is not the case, however, that ‘mode two knowledge’ will inevitably replace ‘mode one knowledge’; rather, ‘the two modes will co-exist and interact’.27 Although, in practice, the functional boundaries between the two will remain somewhat blurred, it makes sense to differentiate between them, insofar as they represent two fundamentally different models of knowledge generation. In this context, the distinction between exporter subjects28 and importer subjects29 is particularly important: • The former are characterized by the fact that, in addition to having a strong disciplinary identity, they ‘export’ conceptual, methodological, and empirical tools to other subject areas. Classically, these are ‘strong’ and relatively self-referential subjects, some of which have a pronounced theoretical focus— such as economics, anthropology, psychology, and political science. • The latter are defined by the fact that ‘they do not have their own distinctive status as disciplines, but “import” frameworks, concepts and methodologies form other subject areas’.30 Typically, these are ‘interdisciplinary

10  Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity 

217

subjects with an applied, or practice-based, focus’31—such as ‘business studies, social policy, and education’.32 Given its eclectic constitution and transdisciplinary outlook, sociology may be regarded as ‘the most general of the social sciences, or, to put it less politely, the least defined’.33 Viewed in a positive light, sociology constitutes a broad church, providing a transdisciplinary home for scholars from numerous neighbouring disciplines. Viewed in a negative light, sociology represents a diffuse conglomerate of academic approaches concerned with the study of social phenomena from multiple disciplinary and sub-disciplinary angles. To be sure, ‘the very introduction of audit mechanisms as market proxies encourages competition among universities’34 as much as it promotes competition among, and within, academic disciplines. One of the paradoxical situations with which not only sociology but also other disciplines in the social sciences are confronted can be described as follows: • On the one hand, most academic subjects are encouraged to engage in interand transdisciplinary research, thereby overcoming traditional conceptual, methodological, empirical, and institutional boundaries. • On the other hand, most academic subjects are obliged to reassert their disciplinary identities when participating in research assessment exercises, thereby reinforcing traditional conceptual, methodological, empirical, and institutional boundaries. In short, neoliberal governance with a neomanagerialist blend generates a contradictory hermeneutics of both more and less demand for disciplinary identities in academia. 3. Scientificity, Disciplinarity, and Hierarchy Just as there is a hierarchical relation among universities, there is ‘a hierarchical relation among subject areas’,35 with some of them being more prestigious and affluent than others, in terms of both their symbolic capital and their economic capital.36 When comparing the disciplines of sociology and economics, for example, the following becomes evident: one striking similarity between the two is that they tend to be regarded as core social-scientific areas of study; one noteworthy difference between them, however, is that the latter tends to make ‘a greater claim both to disciplinary coherence and to “scientificity”’37 than the former. Put differently, whereas ‘sociology […] has weak control over a claim to methodological distinctiveness’,38 economics has—or, at least, appears to have—relatively strong control over its uniqueness, not

218 

S. Susen

only in ontological terms with respect to its object of study, but also in methodological terms with regard to the idiosyncratic tools it has developed for its research programmes. In light of the above, it would be premature to embrace ‘any celebrations of “transdisciplinarity”, or the supposed openness of sociology to interdisciplinarity’.39 Disciplinary identities and disciplinary boundaries remain significant in an environment in which research performance is classified according to discipline-­specific categories, which continue to structure the production, distribution, circulation, perception, and interpretation of expert knowledge. To be clear, this is not to suggest that trans- or interdisciplinary research is an illusory promise, let alone a detrimental objective to be rejected. Rather, this is to concede that, in the context of metrics-driven assessment exercises, disciplinary structures and reference points—far from having disappeared— remain central in terms of both their intellectual and their institutional power to shape knowledge-generating processes. 4. Disciplinary Identity: Between Unification and Fragmentation The contemporary humanities and social sciences are marked by ‘a hierarchy of knowledges between exporter and importer subjects and between mode 1 and mode 2 knowledges’.40 Irrespective of whether one considers this hierarchy to be real or imagined, legitimate or illegitimate, accurate or misleading, it imposes a two-level pecking order upon academic knowledge-generating processes41: in the age of neoliberalism and neomanagerialism, exporter subjects, which possess strong disciplinary boundaries, and mode 1 knowledges, which are derived from conventional expert-led research with clearly defined intellectual and institutional boundaries, tend to be less influential than importer subjects, which rely on and make use of conceptual and methodological tools as well as empirical data from other disciplines, and mode 2 knowledges, which emanate from an unconventional, applied, practice-based, and inter-, trans-, or multi-disciplinary research focus. Under neoliberal and neomanagerial regimes of governance, it is more lucrative to be ‘useful’, ‘flexible’, and ‘instrumental’ than to be intellectually curious, critical, and insightful. Within the boundaries of a marketized university system, what pays off is what permits academic institutions to make money. Notwithstanding the profound behavioural, ideological, and institutional repercussions of recent developments in Western academia, it is difficult to embrace a meaningful notion of ‘disciplinarity’ without providing a more or less clear conception of the ‘core elements’ defining the discipline in question.

10  Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity 

219

Surely, the fragmentation of sociology into numerous sub-fields of research and expertise—if not into sub-disciplines—poses a serious challenge to the identity, status, and viability of the discipline. The diversification of sociology in terms of its areas of inquiry and expertise is certainly enriching, not least because it illustrates the relevance of the discipline to a large variety of issues in the social world. Indeed, the diversification of its fields of investigation demonstrates that—far from relying on a core canon of dogmas and categorical imperatives founded upon allegedly transcendental truths—sociology, including the development of its most abstract conceptual frameworks, constitutes ‘a product of historically located practices’,42 from which it cannot be dissociated. As a discipline guided by the self-critical exercise of reflexivity,43 sociology needs to explore the epistemological, methodological, and ontological implications of its double-hermeneutic immersion in the world. As such, it has to be prepared to take on the task of examining the ways in which not only the actors it studies but also the researchers who study them are situated in relationally constructed—and, hence, sociohistorically contingent—realities. A truly reflexive sociology, then, faces up to the fact that the critical engagement with the sociological constitution of the world is no less important to its normative mission than the methodical inquiry into the sociological constitution of its own existence as a collective endeavour, drawing on a large pool of experience and knowledge. Sociology, therefore, ‘is a discipline that has to be “achieved”, or continually re-invented, in new circumstances’.44 As such, it needs to be capable of capturing the main issues and challenges with which it is confronted in constantly changing situations and contexts. Of course, there is not much point in reproducing the market-driven rhetoric of ‘cutting-edge research’ for the sake of pretending, rather than proving, that sociology has its finger on the pulse of time. Similar to other academic disciplines, ‘[s]ociology seems to produce a number of co-existing and mutually exclusive (semi) paradigms which continually split and re-form in different combinations’.45 Owing to this perpetual process of diversified paradigm-formation, sociology is in a constant state of flux, in the sense that the discourses shaping its development change over time, no less than the hegemonic and counterhegemonic discourses shaping the development of society as a whole. When ‘sociology is […] undertaken in societies whose very self-understanding is problematic from the point of view of a sociological understandings’,46 it is converted into a sort of collective psychotherapy designed not only to capture but also to criticize the Zeitgeist that fails to comprehend, let alone to problematize, the limitations and fallacies of its own epistemic horizon. While ‘[u]nderstanding the world in order to change

220 

S. Susen

it is a fundamental part of the sociological sensibility’,47 changing the world in order to understand how it can be organized beyond the constraining parameters underlying dominant narratives remains a challenge to which actors can rise by realizing their creative, imaginative, and transformative potential. Instead of locating the sources of its own (circumstantial and/or existential) problems in the intellectual and institutional landscapes of adjacent areas of inquiry, sociology—which is irreducible to a ‘parasite discipline’48—needs to accept its place in a complex network of knowledge production, distribution, exchange, and consumption. Just as its most valuable resources of creation, imagination, and transformation emanate from conceptually and methodologically equipped researchers pursuing sociological investigations, its most significant limitations and fallacies cannot be blamed on the shortcomings and delusions of its neighbouring disciplines, upon whose knowledge it draws and to which it lends its own insights when contributing to dynamic import-­ export cycles of global epistemic processes and structures. Sociology, in the UK and elsewhere, ‘risks absorption to what is its negation’49 if it fails to subvert the trends that undermine both its intellectual autonomy and its institutional identity. It can accomplish this task not simply by criticizing mainstream orthodoxies but, rather, by offering theoretically defensible and practically viable alternatives to hegemonic patterns of functioning, which, as self-fulfilling prophecies, tend to make us believe that it is, and to make us act as if it were, impossible to construct a world that is not based upon everyone’s subordination to the systemic imperatives imposed upon society by the state and the market. * * * The Future of Sociology and the Challenge of Interdisciplinarity The future of sociology is frequently discussed in terms of its capacity to situate itself in the increasingly interdisciplinary research environment that, arguably, characterizes both the natural sciences and the social sciences in the twenty-first century. Unsurprisingly, there is ample evidence to illustrate that sociological inquiry—not only in terms of its theoretical, methodological, and empirical orientations, but also in terms of its intellectual contributions—is influenced by the pursuit of interdisciplinarity.50 One may question whether, in each individual case, this commitment to interdisciplinarity is genuine or merely a form of potentially lucrative window-dressing. A key problem in this respect, however, is the fact that, notwithstanding the

10  Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity 

221

growing demand for and decisive push towards interdisciplinarity across scientific fields, relatively ‘little is known about the realities of working across such diverse disciplinary boundaries’.51 In order to prevent sociology from losing its disciplinary identity and from being relegated to the fringes of the landscape of social-scientific investigations, it is crucial to defend its intellectual and institutional core. This is not to suggest that the epistemic reframing that takes place ‘in shared spaces between disciplines’52 cannot be immensely fruitful. Interdisciplinary collaboration in the academic sphere is not only explicitly incentivized but also generously resourced by both private and public funding bodies, recognizing that the plethora of ‘complex societal challenges cannot be addressed adequately through traditional disciplinary approaches’.53 Just as global problems require global solutions, multifaceted issues whose complexity transcends the boundaries of subject-specific realms of inquiry need to be tackled by establishing interdisciplinary research programmes. It is no accident, then, that the official funding strategy of Research Councils UK asserts that ‘novel, interdisciplinary approaches are needed to solve many, if not all, of the big research challenges over the next 10 to 20 years’.54 Such bold statements make it abundantly clear that, in the early twenty-first century, researchers are increasingly obliged to demonstrate that their projects are designed in such a way that they meet the (by now, almost standard) requirement of interdisciplinarity in a convincing manner. Irrespective of whether or not one conceives of interdisciplinarity as ‘an essential part of the journey’55 and, hence, as an ‘obligatory passage point’,56 it is hard to deny that, in the current academic climate, it is difficult to obtain large amounts of research funding, unless one is prepared to ensure one’s project contributes to crossing—if not challenging—disciplinary boundaries. To be sure, disciplinary boundaries are both real and imagined57: they are real, because they have a practical impact upon the institutional and intellectual horizons underlying scientific variants of knowledge production; at the same time, they are imagined, because both formal and epistemic boundaries between different modes of academic knowledge generation are fabricated and, hence, always relatively arbitrary, rather than representing clear-cut and incontestable separations between isolated and self-sufficient provinces of meaning.58

In other words, we need to recognize that disciplinarity is both a reality and an illusion: its existence is confirmed by the numerous ways in which knowledge is generated within disciplinary boundaries; at the same time, its

222 

S. Susen

existence is undermined by the numerous ways in which knowledge is generated beyond disciplinary boundaries. Ironically, this means that interdisciplinarity is also both a reality and an illusion: its existence is confirmed by the numerous ways in which knowledge is generated beyond disciplinary boundaries; at the same time, its existence is undermined by the numerous ways in which knowledge is generated within disciplinary boundaries. Ultimately, both disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity reinforce the power of disciplinary identities, given that both the former and the latter are inconceivable (and, indeed, would be pointless) without the presence of epistemic horizons, which, as cognitive comfort zones, are based on sets of principles and presuppositions that are shared by members of specific academic disciplines. The purportedly ‘unequivocal benefits of interdisciplinarity’59 for scientific investigations in general and sociology in particular, however, have not been ascertained in an unambiguous manner. The nature of ‘the relation between interdisciplinarity and contemporary modes of academic governance’60 is far from obvious—not least in terms of its implications for behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns shaping the international landscape of knowledge production, circulation, and consumption. On the positive side, it is likely to contribute to the emergence of less tribal and more open-minded modes of inquiry across the large field of increasingly specialized areas of research expertise in the twenty-first century. On the negative side, it is likely to foster increasingly instrumental and grant-driven ways of operating in the academic sector, in which the crossing of disciplinary boundaries, although it opens up new spaces of transepistemic dialogue, is tantamount to a box-­ ticking exercise, reinforced by academic investigators competing for research funding in a neoliberal economic environment, whose main players are motivated by the imperative of impact-oriented profit -maximization. Instead of endorsing a fatalistic account of interdisciplinarity, however, let us identify the opportunities arising from its pursuit. Given its long-standing interest in the social conditions shaping the production of knowledge, sociology is equipped with both the conceptual tools and the methodological strategies necessary to study not only the motivational forces driving research, but also the impact it may have on society. Arguably, this puts sociology—especially the sociology of knowledge—in a privileged position, since it permits the discipline’s researchers to shed light on the social dimensions surrounding, and indeed permeating, all epistemic endeavours, regardless of whether these may be characterized as ‘ordinary’ or ‘scientific’ (or as a combination of these two types of cognitive engagement with the world). A challenging aspect of interdisciplinary collaborations, however, is that, in practice, they are shot through with power dynamics. Rigid and retrograde

10  Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity 

223

modes of interdisciplinary collaboration tend to reproduce and to reinforce ‘the power imbalances and hierarchies of knowledge’61 that dominate the academic world. By contrast, subversive and transformative modes of interdisciplinary collaboration may not only undermine and challenge but also replace them, if only partially and temporarily, with ways of producing knowledge in a genuinely cross-fertilizing fashion. Granted, it may be naïve to assume that there is such a thing as an alliance of equal partners in a world divided by asymmetries of power, including hierarchies of academic disciplines.62 Inevitably, the division—however arbitrary it may appear—between ‘more prestigious’ and ‘less prestigious’ disciplines impacts on the ways in which knowledge is generated, negotiated, exchanged, and recycled across different areas of research. In order for the pursuit of interdisciplinarity to be both credible and fruitful, ‘it must be understood as more than the meeting of disciplines’63 in merely functional terms. Aiming to accomplish this ambition, those engaging in interdisciplinary collaboration are confronted with the challenge of creating ‘new epistemic cultures—new fields of knowledge—that are free from disciplinary dominance’.64 The concept of epistemic culture refers to ‘interiorized processes of knowledge creation’65 experienced and undertaken by members of a particular research community. More specifically, it encompasses ‘those sets of practices, arrangements, and mechanisms bound together by necessity, affinity, and historical coincidence which, in a given area of professional expertise, make up how we know what we know’.66 The production, reproduction, and transformation of an epistemic culture cannot be dissociated from an epistemic field (in which it is spatiotemporally situated), from an epistemic habitus (which is shared by dispositionally equipped members capable of generating and exchanging specific types of knowledge), and from different forms and volumes of epistemic capital (for which asymmetrically positioned actors compete when engaging in cognitive processes oriented towards generating valuable insights into the workings of particular aspects of reality). Admittedly, there are several theoretical accounts that rightly stress the numerous challenges arising from working across epistemic boundaries in an interdisciplinary fashion.67 Yet, they offer little in the way of empirically substantiated insights into these difficulties and dilemmas, let alone into how they may (and may not) be overcome. Serious empirical studies of interdisciplinary collaborations are rare.68 This is surprising, given that—in terms of epistemic findings and scientific discoveries—some of the most stimulating, fruitful, and unforeseen things occur when ‘contrasting epistemic cultures meet in an interdisciplinary project’.69

224 

S. Susen

The meetings of epistemic cultures, which may be described as presuppositional cross-over moments, are not only sociologically interesting but also epistemologically vital, since they can lead to the emergence of hybridized knowledge, whose scientific value consists in the fusion of cognitive horizons, allowing for a multiperspectival understanding of conceptual, methodological, and/or empirical issues that require interdisciplinary collaboration. The cross-­fertilization of epistemic cultures, then, may provide comprehensive answers to questions whose complexity transcends the narrow boundaries of inward-­looking research communities. Interdisciplinary collaborations may involve various modes of interaction, some of which are more important than others. In this regard, at least ‘four scenarios of intersecting knowledge’70 are crucial: (1) conflict, (2) tolerant ambivalence, (3) mutual identification and co-operation, and (4) a fundamental reorientation and recombination of knowledge claims.71 1. The scenario of epistemic conflict occurs when two or more knowledge-­ generating parties involved in a collaborative project clash due to hardly reconcilable, or even irreconcilable, differences. These manifest themselves in the maintenance of intellectual and/or institutional boundaries, which the researchers involved in the intent of collaborative work fail to overcome—usually due to a combination of objective, normative, and subjective factors. 2. The scenario of tolerant ambivalence occurs when two or more knowledge-­ generating parties involved in a collaborative project have presuppositional differences, but nonetheless manage to work together in a more or less effective fashion, by exercising a mutually suitable level of tolerance in relation to the (implicit or explicit) discrepancies that exist between them. In this type of situation, intellectual and/or institutional boundaries are maintained, but without letting them get in the way of fruitful and pluralistic co-operation. 3. The scenario of mutual identification and co-operation occurs when two or more knowledge-generating parties involved in a collaborative project have key presuppositional affinities, in terms of sharing crucial sets of principles and assumptions. This sort of co-purposive interaction is based on degrees of epistemic convergence, coherence, and consistency that allow for relatively smooth and uncomplicated exchanges of knowledge, ideas, insights, and opinions. 4. The scenario of fundamental reorientation and recombination of knowledge claims occurs when two or more knowledge-generating parties involved in a collaborative project work together with the aim of addressing—and,

10  Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity 

225

ultimately, solving—a problem that, although it may be scientifically studied, transcends epistemic boundaries. In this horizon of collaborative and transformative possibilities, the emphasis is not simply on ‘exploration’ and ‘execution’, but, above all, on ‘acceptance’ and ‘application’. Rather than dissociating the intellectual product from its consumers and field of relevance, the point of these endeavours is to establish a firm link between theory and practice, cognition and action, science and society, thereby ensuring that the research conducted has a tangible impact upon the constitution of particular aspects of reality. The aforementioned scenarios are ‘inherently multiscalar and transscalar’,72 meaning that they can unfold in different contexts, develop at different levels, and emerge out of different interactions taking place between academic disciplines and branches of knowledge. Notwithstanding their specificity, however, they are immensely powerful in shaping central paths of knowledge production, circulation, and consumption—not only in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, but also in everyday life. Let us, for the sake of clarity, return to the concept of ‘culture’. By definition, cultures—including its epistemic variants—are in a constant state of flux and, hence, subject to continuous change. Those who generate and represent them cannot, and should not, pretend to be able to remain static, as if they could rely on unshakable presuppositional foundations, were immune to different forms of testing, and could escape the liberating constraints of epistemic fallibility. It may be unrealistic to make a plea for the construction of epistemic cultures that are truly ‘free from disciplinary dominance’,73 just as it may be naïve to believe in the possibility of human life forms that can dispense with asymmetrically structured power relations. Instead of advocating epistemic optimism, which overstates the presence of cognition-based opportunities, or epistemic pessimism, which exaggerates the distortive influence of social hierarchies, it makes sense to endorse epistemic realism, which recognizes that economies of knowledge—including academic ones—have both bright and dark, inclusive and discriminatory, inspiring and alienating, empowering and disempowering aspects. In economies of knowledge, these aspects are asymmetrically distributed, implying that actors, depending on how they are positioned in a particular field, will experience its power structures one way or another (and, hence, either benefit from or be disadvantaged by their stratifying force). Carrying out inter- and transdisciplinary research in a serious manner requires facing up to the significant conceptual, methodological, and empirical challenges arising from such an endeavour.74 Inter- and transdisciplinary

226 

S. Susen

projects are permeated not only by sociological issues concerning the role of power asymmetries and social hierarchies, but also by epistemological issues related to questions of validity, intelligibility, legitimacy, commensurability, and translatability. To the extent that researchers are willing to grapple with these challenges, they stand a chance of converting interdisciplinarity into a fruitful epistemic reality, enabling them not only to conduct investigations capable of crossing stifling academic boundaries, but also to grasp, and potentially to find solutions to, multifaceted theoretical and practical problems in the twenty-first century. Different researchers are guided by different priorities when embarking upon interdisciplinary projects. When sociologists engage in interdisciplinary collaborations, however, it seems that two dimensions are particularly important to their ability to stand their ground and to have a genuine impact on the collective endeavour in which they are involved: • Their capacity to address social problems is crucial to their ability to prove that their work is relevant to resolving real-world issues, especially those that matter to the lives of ordinary people, rather than just to the intellectual preoccupations of experts.75 Without such an ample societal commitment, sociology runs the risk of being marginalized—not only by other academic disciplines, but also by individual and collective actors who occupy hegemonic positions in other social fields, notably in economics, politics, and the media. • Their capacity to create shared discursive spaces is vital to their ability to demonstrate that they have the motivational resources permitting them to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries, while accepting that working across codified realms of knowledge production—and, thus, across different languages, perspectives, and epistemic comfort zones—can be a tension-laden experience fraught with difficulties.76 Without such a bold attempt to establish spheres of dialogue and mutual engagement, sociology runs the risk of isolating itself from the key discursive zones in which problems are conceptually framed, methodologically confronted, and empirically studied.77 To the extent that sociologists, when conducting research or applying for research funding, are driven by the ambition to tick both ‘the social impact box’ and ‘the interdisciplinarity box’,78 they participate in the construction of a neomanagerialist system that requires them to be sufficiently strategic, instrumental, and calculating to position themselves more or less successfully in academic fields in which metrics-driven targets and measurable outcomes

10  Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity 

227

take precedence over intellectual curiosity, creativity, and originality. Insofar as researchers follow this trend, they remain trapped in the stifling logic of point-scoring activities, which they are expected to pursue as entrepreneurial academics aiming to climb up the ladder of professional success. Sociology may be described as both an ‘exporter discipline’ and an ‘importer discipline’.79 As an exporter discipline, it provides human and intellectual capital for adjacent disciplines. As an importer discipline, it attracts and draws upon human and intellectual capital from adjacent disciplines. Of course, one may legitimately argue that, to a greater or lesser extent, this dual function of import-export applies to most—if not all—academic disciplines. In any case, it appears to be a mixed blessing: on the one hand, it permits academic disciplines to transcend their seemingly self-imposed epistemic boundaries by mingling, both intellectually and institutionally, with their counterparts; on the other hand, it creates a disequilibrium, in the sense that some disciplines import more from, and others export more to, contiguous disciplines than others. Their degree of epistemic export depends primarily on the usefulness of their conceptual tools, methodological strategies, empirical data, and explanatory frameworks to other fields of inquiry. Their degree of epistemic import, by contrast, hinges primarily on their need to corroborate the validity of their assumptions and assertions by building on knowledge generated in neighbouring or distant disciplines. • One of the main problems for disciplines that heavily export to other disciplines is that the latter may end up enjoying the intellectual, reputational, and financial rewards that should have been granted, at least partly, to the former. In this scenario, the surplus of symbolic and/or economic capital may be monopolized—not by the originators of particular knowledge, but by those who have been savvy enough to reappropriate it within the intellectual and institutional boundaries of their own epistemic culture. • One of the main problems for disciplines that heavily import from other disciplines is that the former may end up failing to defend a unique epistemico-­cultural core that, in terms of their intellectual autonomy and institutional identity, permits them to distinguish themselves from the latter. In this scenario, a discipline is not only profoundly vulnerable, due to its apparent lack of sovereignty in the landscape of competing modes of knowledge production, but also potentially incapable of passing judgement, with any significant degree of credibility, on the validity of truth claims that they borrow, and upon which they rely, from other disciplines.

228 

S. Susen

To put it crudely, excessive epistemic export may lead to disciplinary prostitution, just as excessive epistemic import may result in disciplinary self-dispossession. A further problem arising from the fact that sociology constitutes, to a large degree, not only an ‘importer discipline’ but also an ‘exporter discipline’ can be described as follows: insofar as its valuable conceptual tools, methodological strategies, and empirical data ‘are drawn upon by other disciplines’,80 it is ‘at risk of being subsumed by other disciplines’,81 which make use of sociology’s academic output in an instrumental fashion. This is not a merely scholastic, let alone cosmetic, issue; rather, this is a serious sociological matter, illustrating the fact that a discipline’s role in shaping the wider research environment in which it operates is inextricably linked to its very constitution as an academic subject. Thus, we are confronted with the following scenario: the more inclusive, eclectic, amorphous, and heterogeneous an academic discipline, the weaker its internal coherence and, hence, the more vulnerable its capacity to define the parameters established to evaluate research performance in an environment of audit mechanisms based on metrics-driven targets and measurable outcomes. Indeed, ‘the decline of sociology’s contribution to research audits’82—which, in the British context, is reflected in the decreasing amount of submissions to the Sociology panel in recent Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercises—effectively means that there is a serious chance that sociology may not be included as a separate, discipline-specific panel in the future.83 This is not to cast doubt on, let alone to argue against, ‘the value of interdisciplinarity per se’.84 Rather, this is to concede that the ‘importing’ and ‘exporting’ dynamics shaping the contemporary research landscape put some disciplines in a precarious position, undermining their intellectual autonomy and institutional identity and, consequently, their academic status and reputational integrity. There is no point, however, in painting an unduly negative picture of the situation in which contemporary sociology finds itself in terms of its disciplinary positioning. The fact that some disciplines and sub-disciplines draw heavily on sociology can be interpreted as a sign of its strength in providing conceptual and methodological roots for fields of inquiry that are inconceivable without its relevance to the study of key aspects of societies, notably with regard to the relationship between human practices and social structures. Moreover, the fact that sociology draws heavily on other disciplines and sub-­ disciplines is symptomatic of its capacity to incorporate knowledge generated outside its comfort zone into its epistemic horizon, reflecting its open-minded attitude towards realms of research that, at first glance, may appear distant

10  Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity 

229

from, but are, upon closer examination, highly relevant to, its areas of investigation. The ideology of ‘impact’—which, predominantly in Anglophone contexts, permeates the audit culture of academic ‘performance’ in the twenty-first century—is toxic to the extent that it converts research into a largely instrumental enterprise, governed by the metrics-driven targets of neomanagerialism and colonized by the systemic imperatives of neoliberalism. Even for the greatest pessimists, however, there are numerous instances that provide a source of hope. Notwithstanding the alarming degree of its systemic colonization, academic life continues to comprise abundant moments and spaces that illustrate ‘why higher education still matters’85—not only to students, researchers, and teaching staff, but also to society as a whole (for there is such a thing as society). If one wishes to put a positive spin on the push for impact-laden and impact-­oriented interdisciplinarity in contemporary academia, one may draw attention to the opportunities arising from this trend, instead of focusing solely on its risks and detrimental effects. This normative ambivalence is particularly noticeable in sociology. ‘If sociology is to be an effective partner in ensuring scientific research achieves societal impact, collaborations must adopt a framing in which its contribution can be valued.’86 Indeed, if there is any academic discipline equipped to pass competent judgement on the interplay of agential and structural forces in the social world, it is sociology. Given its holistic interest in both the constitution and the development of society, sociology is better positioned than any other academic discipline to assess the (potential or actual) impact of scientific research on the world.87 Granted, it is far from obvious to what extent it is possible to give the neoliberal agenda of ‘impact-driven’ and ‘impact-oriented’ scientific research a taste of its own medicine by illustrating the absurdity of an instrumental outlook of this sort. As long as sociology manages to use its critical lens to demonstrate the toxic impact of ‘impact’,88 however, it will succeed in contributing to the construction of a research environment in which it is recognized that the things that really matter to intellectual journeys—that is, not only curiosity, creativity, solidarity, and integrity, but also messiness, confusion, scepticism, ambiguity, uncertainty, affects, emotions, and value rationality—are those that appear to matter the least in the reductive league tables of academic ‘performance’ and ‘excellence’. As critical researchers, we should not fool ourselves into believing that ‘the increasing focus on impact in research will improve the “fortunes” of sociology’.89 It is more realistic to face up to the fact that it will jeopardize its fortunes—that is, it will intensify its ‘misfortunes’.90 If there is anything positive

230 

S. Susen

coming out of all this for sociology, it is that it may be able to turn the ideology of ‘impact’ against itself, by casting light on the detrimental consequences of the neomanagerialization of academia and, more generally, the neoliberalization of society.91 To this end, sociology needs to expose the poisonous conditions created by the ideology of ‘impact’, notably by drawing attention to some of its most obvious effects, such as the following: • short-termism and ‘fast-trackism’ of the publish-or-perish game; • the preponderance of impression management, expressed in individual and institutional forms of window-dressing; • the hypocrisy of the rhetoric of ‘excellence’, especially its use for the euphemistic description of academic standards—for instance, by employing adjectives such as ‘cutting-edge’, ‘ground-breaking’, and/or ‘world-class’; • the autopoietic ethno- and Anglocentrism permeating assessment criteria and ideas about what is supposed to count as ‘valuable’; • the reduction of intellectual value to economic value and, in parallel, of substantive rationality to instrumental rationality; • the quantitative measurement of qualitative dimensions of social research, most (if not all) of which are irreducible to the narrow parameters of number crunching. Irrespective of the politico-economic system under which academic life develops, collaborations across disciplines are never straightforward. This is the case not only due to the burden of translation and adaption, falling on those involved in the process of establishing fruitful interdisciplinary channels of communication and modes of co-operation, but also due to the need to negotiate knowledge production in and through power relations and hierarchies.92 In terms of their constitution, sources of asymmetrically structured practices performed by, and taking place between, knowledge-generating subjects are varied: they can be formal or informal, official or unofficial, explicit or implicit, evident or subjacent, agential or structural, ephemeral or long-­ lasting, peripheral or central, micro-interactional or macro-institutional. Not only when seemingly ignoring but also when genuinely collaborating with one another, ‘disciplines compete for intellectual jurisdiction and the legitimation of particular kinds of expertise’.93 Nowhere is this illustrated more clearly than in the establishment of disciplinary hierarchies. In one way or another, academic disciplines are ranked in all main branches of knowledge— that is, in the humanities, in the social sciences, and in the natural sciences. The hierarchies established between academic disciplines are relatively arbitrary and, hence, highly contentious. Among the most common criteria

10  Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity 

231

invoked to measure the status of a discipline are factors such as the following: ‘history’, ‘legacy’, ‘reputation’, ‘esteem’, ‘value’, ‘relevance’, and/or ‘impact’ (intellectual, epistemic, social, political, economic, cultural, civilizational, etc.)—to mention only a few. Among scholars and researchers, it is a well-­ known fact that sociology tends to be positioned at the lower end of the academic hierarchy.94 Ironically, it is remarkably difficult for sociology to maintain a decent position in the social sciences—despite its foundational mission, expressed in its engagement with the study of ‘the social’, within this branch of inquiry. It is even more challenging for sociology, however, to defend its legitimacy as a discipline in the humanities, let alone the natural sciences. Especially in the humanities and social sciences, the accusation that, most of the time, sociologists state the obvious (and that, moreover, they have a tendency to do so in an unnecessarily complicated, pompous, and codified language) is not uncommon.95 In the natural sciences, one finds the allegation that the entire project of sociology is essentially based on socio-constructivist truisms, which, in terms of the ongoing pursuit of epistemically valuable discoveries, not only fail to take us far, but whose advocates dogmatically reject the central role of biological, genetic, and evolutionary factors in the development of human societies.96 As critical sociologists, then, we need to recognize that validity claims— irrespective of whether they are raised in the world of science or in the world of everyday life—are legitimacy claims.97 ‘The question of whether we consider a statement right or wrong depends not only on what is being said, but also on who says it when, where, and to whom.’98 In other words, the disciplinary framework within which an assertion is made, along with the status of the person making it, will impact on the ways in which it may (or may not) be perceived, interpreted, valued, and assessed by those exposed to it at the receiving end. This communication-theoretic insight obliges us to reflect on the social conditions underlying the production, circulation, and consumption of knowledge: First, given that knowledge is always socially embedded, it is necessarily normative (Erkenntnisnormativität). Second, since knowledge is always generated from a specific position in the social space, even so-called descriptive knowledge is situation-laden (Erkenntnisstandpunkt). Third, to the extent that bodily actors, regardless of whether they are laypersons or experts, take on particular roles in society, knowledge is permeated by the relationally constituted functions fulfilled by those who make use of it in accordance with their contextually defined interests (Erkenntnisfunktion). Fourth, considering that cognitive actors are discursively competing entities, the production of knowledge is permeated by

232 

S. Susen

s­ cientific power struggles (Erkenntniskampf). Fifth, because symbolic and informational resources can be used in various ways and for multiple reasons, the production of knowledge can be instrumentalized for extra-scientific—notably, economic—purposes (Erkenntnisnutzung). In short, the positivist quest for objectivity loses credibility when confronted with the relational constitution of epistemic enquiry. The conditions of knowledgeability are impregnated with normativity, positionality, functionality, conflictuality, and instrumentality.99

Thus, in relation to the economy of truth claims raised and disseminated in the academic field, we need to recognize that interdisciplinary collaboration, far from being reducible to ‘a simple matter of knowledge sharing between disciplines’,100 is pervaded by power-laden dynamics of social positioning. The epistemic claims, and intellectual contributions, made by and within particular academic disciplines are ‘weighted according to what kind of knowledge counts’101 in the eyes of those authorized to pass judgement on their suitability in the kingdom of scientific validity. Both intra- and interdisciplinary collaborations ‘do not occur on a level footing’,102 let alone take place in pure realms of pristine intersubjectivity, as if they were motivated solely by the unforced force of the better argument and, hence, shaped exclusively by the discursive power of communicative rationality.103 Rather, they are as shot through with power dynamics as are all other value-, meaning-, perspective-, and interest-laden interactions in society.104 Human beings have a remarkable capacity to perceive, to represent, and to interpret particular aspects of reality. Yet, they also have a notable capacity to misperceive, to misrepresent, and to misinterpret particular aspects of reality, including the ways in which others, and members of rival epistemic tribes, make sense (or fail to make sense) of that reality. Regardless of whether they do so as laypersons or experts (or both), human subjects—as linguistically equipped entities engaging in symbolically mediated interactions—cannot escape the hermeneutic background upon whose semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic resources they draw when attributing meaning to specific dimensions of their existence. Epistemic tribalism forms part of the evolutionary journey of Homo sapiens, but so does the quest for transcultural and transcontextual dialogue, enabling human beings to transcend the boundaries of intelligibility that pervade the presuppositional background horizons through which they, as meaning-searching creatures, make sense of their own history.

10  Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity 

233

Notes 1. On this point, see, for instance: Holmwood (2010a); Holmwood (2010b); Rosenfeld (2010); Savage (2010). See also, for instance: Power (1994); Power (1997); Smart (2016), esp. pp. 464 and 468–472; Sparkes (2007); Strathern (2000). 2. Holmwood (2010a), p. 639. 3. Ibid., p. 639. 4. See ibid., pp. 639, 640, 642, 643, 644, 646, 647, 648, 654n8, and 654n14. 5. See ibid., pp. 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 648, and 652. 6. Ibid., p. 639. 7. Ibid., p. 639. 8. On this point, see, for example: Bok (2003); Marginson and Considine (2000); Slaughter and Leslie (1997). See also Holmwood (2010a), p. 639. 9. Holmwood (2010a), pp. 639–640 (punctuation modified). 10. Ibid., p. 640 (quotation modified). 11. Ibid., p. 640. On this point, see also Whitley (2000 [1984]). 12. Holmwood (2010a), p. 641 (italics added). 13. Ibid., p. 641 (italics added). 14. Ibid., p. 641. 15. Ibid., p. 641 (italics in original; in the original version, there is no comma after the word ‘hierarchy’; in the original version, the preposition ‘on’, rather than ‘upon’, is used before the word ‘professorial’). 16. Ibid., p. 641 (italics in original). 17. Cf. Susen (2015a), pp.  11, 36, 62, 97, 120, 171, 175–178, 204, 227, and 279. 18. Holmwood (2010a), p. 641. 19. On this point, see Habermas (1981a) and Habermas (1981b). See also Habermas (1987a [1981]) and Habermas (1987b [1981]). Cf. Susen (2007), Chapter 3 (esp. pp. 61–73) and Chapter 4 (esp. pp. 121–125). 20. Holmwood (2010a), p. 642. On this point, see also, for example: Burrage and Torstendahl (1990); Collins (1990); Larson (1977). 21. Holmwood (2010a), p. 642. On this point, see also Mathews (1991). 22. Holmwood (2010a), p. 642. 23. Ibid., p. 642. 24. Ibid., p. 642. See also Gibbons et al. (1994). In addition, see, for instance: Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000); Fuller (2000); Hessels and van Lente (2008); Nowotny et al. (2001); Shinn (2002); Ziman (2000). 25. Holmwood (2010a), p. 642. 26. Gibbons et al. (1994), p. 46 (punctuation modified). On this point, see also: Slaughter and Rhoades (2004); Caswill and Wensley (2007). On this point, see also Holmwood (2010a), p. 642.

234 

S. Susen

27. Holmwood (2010a), p. 642. On this point, see also Alsop (1999). 28. See Holmwood (2010a), pp.  639, 640, 642, 643, 644, 646, 647, 648, 654n8, and 654n14. 29. See ibid., pp. 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 648, and 652. 30. Ibid., pp. 642–643. 31. Ibid., p. 642 (italics added). 32. Ibid., p. 642 (punctuation modified). 33. Abbott (2001b), p. 3. On this point, see also Holmwood (2010a), p. 643. 34. Holmwood (2010a), p. 643. 35. Ibid., p. 644. 36. On power asymmetries between academic disciplines, see, for instance, Fuller (2016), esp. p. 98. 37. Holmwood (2010a), p. 644. 38. Ibid., p. 645. 39. Ibid., p. 647 (italics added). Cf. Jawad et al. (2017), esp. pp. 905–908. 40. Holmwood (2010a), p. 648. 41. On this point, see also Burawoy (2005b). 42. Holmwood (2010a), p. 649. 43. On the concept of ‘reflexivity’, see, for example, Susen (2016b). 44. Holmwood (2010a), p. 649. 45. Ibid., p. 649. 46. Ibid., p. 651. 47. Ibid., p. 651. 48. Ibid., p. 652. On this point, see also Urry (1981). 49. Holmwood (2010a), p. 653. 50. See, for example: Castán Broto et al. (2009); Cooper (2013); Fuller (2016); Holmwood (2010a); Holmwood (2010b); Holmwood (2011b); Holmwood and McKay (2015); Knorr Cetina (2007); Lyle (2016); Oughton and Bracken (2009). 51. Lyle (2016), p. 1169 (italics added). 52. Ibid., p. 1169. 53. Ibid., p. 1169. 54. Research Councils UK (2014). See Lyle (2016), pp. 1169–1170. 55. Lyle (2016), p. 1170. 56. On this formulation, see Latour (1987), pp. 129, 132, 139, 150, 151, 161, 162, and 245. See also Lyle (2016), p. 1170. 57. On this point, see Susen (2015a), p. 66. See also, for example, Susen (2011a), pp. 62–64 and 79–80, and Susen (2013f ), pp. 352–353. 58. Susen (2015a), p. 66 (italics in original). 59. Lyle (2016), p. 1170.

10  Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity 

235

60. Ibid., p. 1170. On this point, see also Cooper (2013). 61. Lyle (2016), p. 1182. Cf. Collyer (2018) and Collyer et al. (2018). 62. On this point, see Susen (2017f ), pp. 6, 7, 28–29, 38, 39, 41, and 44. 63. Lyle (2016), p. 1182. 64. Ibid., p. 1182 (italics added). On the concept of ‘epistemic cultures’, see Knorr-­ Cetina (1999) and Knorr Cetina (2007). 65. Knorr Cetina (2007), p. 363. 66. Ibid., p. 363 (punctuation modified). On this point, see also, for example: Frickel et al. (2017); Seizov and Wildfeuer (2017); Smith-­Doerr et al. (2017), esp. pp. 71–72; Wagner (2018), esp. pp. 9–12. 67. See, for example: Abbott (2001b); Castán Broto et al. (2009); Cooper (2013); Frickel et al. (2017); Fuller (2016); Golinsky (2012); Gutiérrez Rodríguez et al. (2010); Holmwood (2010a); Holmwood (2010b); Holmwood (2011b); Holmwood and McKay (2015); Knorr-Cetina (1999); Knorr Cetina (2007); Lyle (2016); MacMynowski (2007); Oughton and Bracken (2009); Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn (2008). 68. See, for instance: Castán Broto et al. (2009); Duncker (2001); Frickel et al. (2017); Lyle (2016); Oughton and Bracken (2009). 69. Lyle (2016), p. 1172 (italics in original). 70. MacMynowski (2007), p. 20. 71. See ibid., p. 20. On these points, see also Lyle (2016), pp. 1175–1176. 72. MacMynowski (2007), p. 20. 73. Lyle (2016), p. 1182. 74. On this point, see, for instance, Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn (2008). 75. On this point, see Lyle (2016), p. 1183. 76. On this point, see ibid., p. 1183. 77. Cf. Oughton and Bracken (2009). 78. See Lyle (2016), p. 1184. 79. See Holmwood (2010a). See also Inglis (2014), p. 100. 80. Lyle (2016), p. 1170. 81. Ibid., p. 1170. 82. Ibid., p. 1170. On this point, see also, for example: Holmwood (2010a); Holmwood (2010b); Holmwood and McKay (2015); Holmwood and Meer (2016). 83. See Lyle (2016), p.  1170. Cf. Holmwood (2010a), Holmwood (2011b), Holmwood and McKay (2015), and Holmwood and Meer (2016). 84. Lyle (2016), p. 1170. 85. See Back (2016). 86. Lyle (2016), p. 1178.

236 

S. Susen

87. See ibid., p. 1171. On this point, see also Rosenfeld (2010). 88. On this point, see, for instance, Holmwood (2011b). See also, for example: Alstete et al. (2018); Denicolo (2013); Fenby-Hulse et al. (2019); Freudenburg (1986); Freudenburg and Keating (1982); Haux (2019); Reed (2018 [2016]); Woodside (2016). 89. Lyle (2016), p. 1171 (italics in original). 90. On this point, see Holmwood (2010a). See also Holmwood (2010b), Rosenfeld (2010), and Savage (2010). 91. Cf. Loick (2018) and Welsh (2020). 92. See Lyle (2016), p.  1171. Cf. Bourdieu (1988 [1984]), Collyer (2018), Collyer et al. (2018), and Susen (2007), pp. 166–167. 93. Lyle (2016), p. 1171. 94. On this point, see, for instance: Bourdieu (1975b); Susen (2007), pp. 158–167. 95. Cf. Furnham (2005 [1997]), pp.  24–25. Cf. also Giddens (1987a), esp. Chapters 1, 2, and 3. 96. A counterexample, in this respect, is Renwick (2012). 97. On the relationship between ‘validity claims’ and ‘legitimacy claims’, see, for example: Susen (2007), p. 257; Susen (2009b), pp. 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 113, 114, 115, 117, and 119; Susen (2010c), pp. 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, and 116; Susen (2011d), pp. 46, 55, 57, and 58; Susen (2011e), pp. 49, 53, 57, 60, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 75, 77, 80, and 82; Susen (2013e), esp. pp. 200, 207–215, 217–218, 219, 222, and 225–230; Susen (2013f ), esp. pp. 330, 331, 334, 335, 337, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 349, 363, 365, and 369; Susen (2014e), pp. 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, and 100; Susen (2015a), pp.  10, 55, and 200; Susen (2017e), esp. pp.  350–353, 361–362, and 368; Susen (2017f ), pp. 15, 30–31, 39, 42, and 44; Susen (2018b), esp. pp. 6, 9, 11, 13–15, 17, 22–23, 26–27, 30, and 31; Susen (2018c), pp.  44–45, 47–48, and 50–55. See also, for instance: Bourdieu (1971a); Bourdieu (1982a); Bourdieu (1982d); Bourdieu (2002); Bourdieu (1987 [1971]); Bourdieu (1992); Habermas (1984a [1976]); Habermas (1987a [1981]); Habermas (1987b [1981]); Habermas (2001a [1984]); Habermas (2003 [1999]); Habermas (2018 [2009]). 98. Susen (2015a), p. 10 (italics in original). 99. Ibid., p. 61. On this point, see also Susen (2007), pp. 164–165, and Susen (2013f ), p. 224. 100. Lyle (2016), p. 1171. 101. Ibid., p. 1171. 102. Ibid., p. 1171. 103. On this point, see, for instance: Habermas (2001b [1984]), esp. pp. 94–99; Habermas (2001), pp. 13, 44, 45, and 79; Habermas (2018 [2009]), esp. pp. 88, 96, 102, 103, 117, 120, and 156. See also, for example: Allen (2012); Apel (1990 [1985]), pp. 35, 41–42, and 50; Azmanova (2010); Ferrell and

10  Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity 

237

Old (2016); Flynn (2019); Fultner (2001), p. xv; Pellizzoni (2001); Power (2000); Ray (2004), pp.  317–318; Rochlitz (1996); Susen (2007), pp.  88–89, 114, 244, 251, 265, and 286; Susen (2009a), 96–97; Susen (2009b), pp.  111–112; Susen (2010c), pp.  109, 113, and 116; Susen (2015b), pp. 1033–1034; Susen (2018c), p. 51; Thompson (1982), p. 128; Whitton (1992), p. 307. 104. On this point, see, for instance: Susen (2007), esp. Chapters 4–9; Susen (2008a); Susen (2008b); Susen (2009a); Susen (2013e); Susen (2013f ); Susen (2014e); Susen (2014a); Susen (2015a), esp. pp.  117–118; Susen (2015b); Susen (2016e); Susen (2017a); Susen (2017e); Susen (2018b); Susen (2018d).

Part VI Intimations of Hegemony

11 Hegemony and Sociology

Academic disciplines, far from constituting free-floating realms of transcendental knowledge production, are shaped by the hegemonic modes of cognitive and behavioural functioning that are prevalent in the societies in which they are embedded.1 In other words, epistemic developments, including those that are brought about by experts in specialist fields of inquiry, cannot be dissociated from societal developments, including those that, at first glance, may not appear to be related to dynamics of knowledge generation. The question of the future of academic disciplines, therefore, is intertwined with the question of prospective social constellations, whose legitimacy, owing to the incessant struggle between hegemonic and counterhegemonic forces, may be reinforced or undermined. A lot has been written about the future of sociology.2 This matter has been a central issue of discussion not only in recent years, but also, strikingly, in previous decades, suggesting that sociologists have been grappling with key trends and developments in their discipline for quite some time. Some aspects of these accounts are rather optimistic, and others are profoundly pessimistic, expressing a critical attitude not only towards modern societies, but also towards the academic disciplines designed to study them, notably sociology. In several cases, the question of the future of sociology has been directly or indirectly linked to debates on sociology’s history (and futures past),3 social theory’s history,4 the future of social theory,5 the future of society,6 the future of modernity,7 global futures,8 and—last but not least—the sociology of the future.9 To put these thematic foci in perspective, it is important to acknowledge that ‘the future’—broadly defined—is a concept (and, arguably, a reality) that © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_11

241

242 

S. Susen

has been on the agenda for some time and explored from a large variety of angles: in the humanities, by philosophers and historians; in the social sciences, by sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, economists, psychologists, geographers, and demographers; in the natural sciences, by astronomers, biologists, chemists, earth scientists, and physicists; but also outside academia, by artists, designers, policy makers, and political activists.10 Irrespective of whether the contemporary era is regarded as entailing an abundant or, rather, ‘a very limited range of possible future scenarios’,11 it is hard to overlook the fact that, notwithstanding the emancipatory potential inherent in the project of modernity, ‘the twentieth century has left a bleak legacy for the new century’.12 This tension-laden past remains palpable in the present and, given its historical significance, is unlikely to vanish in the coming decades. It is no surprise, then, that prominent scholars in the humanities and social sciences are wary of simplistic—including unjustifiably optimistic—accounts of possible future scenarios.13 1. Narratives of the Future Broadly speaking, there are two—diametrically opposed—narratives of the future: • On the one hand, there is the narrative of decline, according to which there is a considerable volume of evidence corroborating the view that, at best, we are faced with a global crisis of unprecedented scope or, at worst, we are witnessing an unstoppable catastrophe of worldwide reach.14 Such a gloomy outlook seems to be confirmed at several levels: –– socially (the growing lack of social cohesion and solidarity); –– economically (the pauperization and precarization of large parts of the population); –– socioeconomically (rising degrees of inequality, embedded in intersectionally constituted stratification patterns—notably in terms of class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability); –– culturally (the clash of seemingly incompatible life forms); –– politically (the rise of populism and authoritarianism, along with the crisis of liberal democracy); –– ideologically (the increasingly common sense of disillusionment with, and alienation from, mainstream political ideologies); –– medically (the emergence and global spread of incurable human diseases); –– environmentally (the peril of global economic collapse due to climate change);

11  Hegemony and Sociology 

243

–– militarily (the continuous presence of war in numerous regions across the world and the risk of nuclear conflict on a transcontinental scale); –– educationally (the gradual neoliberalization—that is, the commodification, marketization, and managerialization—of education, especially of schools and universities). This—arguably pessimistic, if not fatalistic—discourse suggests that, in the current era, a large proportion of young people are left with a bleak future15 and that, consequently, ‘Western imagination turned decidedly dystopian and utopias are rejected as dangerous illusions’.16 • On the other hand, there is the narrative of improvement, according to which there is a significant amount of evidence supporting the view that, in the worst-case scenario, we are confronted with a bundle of serious global problems that can be resolved or, in the best-case scenario, we are immersed in a horizon of opportunities proving the validity of the Enlightenment story of progress.17 Such a glorious outlook appears to be confirmed at several levels: –– socially (the growing sense of social responsibility); –– economically (the trickling-down and redistribution of wealth, expressed in rising standards of living); –– socioeconomically (falling degrees of inequality, embedded in increasingly egalitarian social structures—notably in terms of class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability); –– culturally (the dialogue between, and blurring of, different life forms); –– politically (the triumph of liberal democracy in most, albeit not all, parts of the world); –– ideologically (the cross-fertilization of a wide range of political ideologies); –– medically (biomedical advances leading to cures for serious human diseases); –– environmentally (higher standards of environmental protection and growing ecological awareness around the globe); –– militarily (broadening and intensifying co-operation between nations and, hence, a reduced risk of armed, let alone nuclear, conflict); –– educationally (the democratization of education, enabling an increasing number of people across the globe to receive not only basic but also high levels of education). This—arguably optimistic—discourse suggests that, in the current era, a large proportion of young people can look forward to a promising future

244 

S. Susen

and that, consequently, Western imagination remains distinctly hopeful and utopias continue to be embraced as yardsticks for the construction of a prosperous, dignified, and worthwhile life.18 Regardless of whether one finds the narrative of decline or the narrative of improvement (or a combination of these two narratives) convincing, there can be little doubt that the ‘interrogation of “the future” is […] a timely undertaking for social scientists’19 and, more generally, for reflexive actors. Experiences of particular types of crisis20 (which may be primarily social, economic, socioeconomic, cultural, political, ideological, medical, environmental, military, or educational) are often crucial in this respect. For these experiences may be the starting point of systematic attempts to engage not only with past constellations that may have triggered, or present constellations that may be affected by, specific kinds of crisis, but also with possible future constellations that may (or may not) result from them. Thus, ‘to shift the analytical angle from looking into the future to looking at the future’21 means to regard the future ‘as an empirical object’22 whose constitution can be studied and whose social-scientific examination deserves to be taken seriously. Far from being reducible to ‘a neutral temporal space into which objective expectations can be projected’,23 however, the future of human existence constitutes a yet-to-be-realized horizon, which is shaped by the confluence of objective, normative, and subjective dimensions. Granted, ‘temporality and the future have been examined by the social sciences’24 for some time. Given its omnipresence in human life, ‘time’ constitutes a central object of scrutiny in several social theories,25 not to mention its place in modern philosophy.26 In this regard, the thematic focus on ‘the future’ is no exception.27 In recent years, there has been ‘a revitalization of interest in the future’28—not least in (and with regard to) the area of sociology. Unsurprisingly, the question of ‘the future of sociology’ cannot be dissociated from the question of ‘the future of society’29 and—perhaps, more broadly— ‘the future of humanity’,30 as illustrated in current debates on the concept of ‘the posthuman’ and the rise of ‘posthumanism’.31 Let us, therefore, reflect on some key issues arising from the critical engagement with recent and possible future trends shaping the development of sociology. 2. Preliminary Remarks on the Future of Sociology As stated above, ‘the future of sociology’ has been discussed for some time, mainly by ‘insiders’—that is, by sociologists themselves, who, by definition, are directly affected by key trends influencing the direction of their discipline. It is striking that, irrespective of the substantial differences between their

11  Hegemony and Sociology 

245

accounts, most of them tend to stress a number of principal challenges, such as the following: • the preponderance of uncertainty—sometimes also referred to as indeterminacy—in central spheres of contemporary societies, including in the academic disciplines concerned with their critical study, notably sociology;32 • the emergence of new modes of production of knowledge, which—in terms of scope, velocity, interconnectedness, testability, and revocability—are unprecedented;33 • the rise of an increasingly utilitarian—that is, instrumental and ‘success’driven—academic culture, which ‘demands immediate “relevance”’,34 while being not only ‘auditable’ in terms of clearly defined targets but also ‘measurable’ in terms of its ‘impact’ on society in general and on the academic field in particular.35 Arguably, the scope, pace, and complexity of these (and other) changes ‘require a strong sociological voice in public and policy debates’36 on the future of the humanities and social sciences. When reflecting on the future of sociology, we may distinguish two key levels that are directly relevant to the past, present, and possible future trends shaping its development as a discipline: institutional and intellectual. With regard to the former, one may ‘ask whether sociology will survive as a discipline at all’37 and, if so, in what form and in what set of socio-structural circumstances. With regard to the latter, one may ‘ask whether there are new ideas to inhabit that structure if it survives’38 and, if so, to what extent the discourses generated within the discipline have the capacity to delineate its future path in a genuinely transformative and proactive, rather than merely corrective and reactive, manner. These two levels of analysis are, ultimately, related to the question of what sociology should (and should not) look like in the future.39 Inevitably, this question touches not only upon the institutional structure and intellectual outlook of the discipline, but also, crucially, upon the methodological tools employed for gathering sociological data. Surely, there is a wide range of research techniques and strategies available to sociologists—each of them with their advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses, benefits and limitations. Noteworthy in this respect is the increasing popularity of visual methods in social research.40 Granted, the employment of visual methods is an integral part of numerous areas of investigation in the contemporary social sciences. Two decades ago, however, visual methods still tended to be looked down upon and perceived as ‘quirky’, ‘unscientific’, and hence largely inappropriate

246 

S. Susen

for the systematic study of social phenomena, let alone social structures. This ‘anti-visualist’ stance is increasingly marginal in twenty-first-century social science, notably in sociology. By now, the use of visual methods tends to be considered an essential component of the social sciences. It did not take long, then, for contemporary social scientists to recognize that ‘[o]ne of the marks of an advanced science is the use of photographic and cinematic methods of recording and analyzing data’.41 Astronomers make photographs of the sky, nuclear physicists take pictures of particle collisions, while chemists and biologists use visual—including microscopic—evidence to examine different components of the natural world. The social sciences ‘have lagged behind the natural sciences in the use of visual materials’42 for quite some time. It is more and more common, however, to scrutinize key elements of the social world (that is, not only people, but, in principle, anything related to the physical organization of the spatiotemporally constituted realms they inhabit) by means of visual methods. The positivist dogma according to which ‘real’ scientists are ‘objective’, ‘impartial’, and ‘unsentimental’43 appears to fuel the idea that taking photographs is an inappropriate way of gathering data, since this immersive process tends ‘to make people [i.e. researchers] sympathetic to’44 their object of inquiry in a way that seems out of place in any academic discipline that claims to be ‘scientific’. It is not only due to the influence of interpretivist and perspectivist currents of thought—including social phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and micro-sociology—that visual methods are widely regarded as a constitutive part of qualitative research programmes in the contemporary social sciences. Their elevated status is also due to the fact that these methods can be used as a source of highly revealing, penetrating, and insightful knowledge about intriguing aspects of the social world, which can be experienced not only by ordinary actors in their everyday lives, but also, importantly, by researchers aiming to study them in a conceptually informed, methodologically rigorous, and empirically substantiated fashion. Similar to other paradigm shifts, this inclusion of visual methods in the toolbox of advanced social sciences is a sign of their openness towards exploring the richness of human life on the basis of eclectic research strategies. 3. What Kind of Future for Sociology? It is difficult, if not impossible, to make reliable predictions about the development of sociology without a solid grasp of its relatively young history as a discipline. Arguably, one central concern that sociology and humanity share is an ‘interest in upholding civil society’45—that is, an interest in maintaining and cultivating the existence of a social sphere shaped, above all, by

11  Hegemony and Sociology 

247

intersubjective encounters based on mutual engagement, human solidarity, communicative rationality, and discursively sustained forms of normativity. The ontological homology between sociology and humanity is indicative of the fact that ‘the social’ and ‘the human’ are inextricably linked. Ever since their discipline came into existence, however, sociologists have explored not only the social constitution of humanity and the human constitution of sociality, but also, crucially, the forces that appear to dislodge, or even to damage, the species-constitutive foundations of our existence. The two most powerful systemic forces with which both classical and contemporary sociologists have grappled for some time are the state and the market. Indeed, it remains one of the principal tasks of sociology to examine both the causes and the consequences of two major societal processes: on the one hand, the administrative regulation of society, which is exerted by the modern state and manifests itself in large-scale bureaucratization; on the other hand, the deregulation of society, which is driven by capitalist markets and reflected in large-scale commodification. Both processes are so powerful that, in the context of modernity, they penetrate into every single sphere of human life. The question remains, then, to what degree sociology—regardless of whether one conceives of it, primarily, in ‘postcolonial’ or ‘decolonial’, ‘globalist’ or ‘connectivist’, ‘canonical’ or ‘anti-canonical’, ‘historical’ or ‘post-historical’, ‘interdisciplinary’ or ‘transdisciplinary’, ‘hegemonic’ or ‘counterhegemonic’ terms—can seriously contest the predominance of the instrumental rationality imposed upon society by the state and the market.46 4. Four Options for Sociology? Contemporary society faces a number of major challenges—notably those of social, political, economic, environmental, military, and demographic nature. For better or for worse, both the state and the market play a pivotal role in shaping the multiple ways in which these challenges are (or are not) confronted in the current era. Sociology, if it wants to be taken seriously as a discipline concerned with the state of the world, needs to position itself in relation to these challenges. Taking on such a complex task, sociology has at least four options: a. There is the option of reformism, associated with the defence of social democracy. In essence, this route permits sociologists to ‘side with the state against the market’,47 using the regulatory instruments and administrative resources of the former to counterbalance the quasi-ubiquitous power of the latter. This approach appears to make sense especially in national

248 

S. Susen

c­ ontexts characterized by a strong and continuing legacy of social-democratic politics, including its interventionist welfare culture. The task of containing ‘the market juggernaut’48 by means of state intervention is not a merely corrective, let alone cosmetic, measure. For in a world in which non-­commodified spaces seem to be disappearing at a faster rate than ever before, it remains crucial to preserve the possibility of creating and protecting alternative social realms that are capable not only of escaping the instrumental logic of the capitalist market, but also of challenging both its pervasiveness and its taken-for-grantedness by virtue of emancipatory social practices and critical imaginaries. b. There is the option of fatalism. If sociologists choose this path, they resign themselves to accepting the status quo—at least for the time being. In this scenario, they ‘bury their heads in the sand’49 and, while hoping for the best, ‘sit tight waiting for the storm to pass’.50 Effectively, this attitude permits sociologists to give in, by concluding that, under the present set of circumstances, there is not much point in trying to subvert, let alone to overthrow, the ‘neoliberal world order’.51 On this account, the systemic forces to which ordinary actors are exposed and by which they are, to a large extent, ruled are so powerful that there appears to be little, if any, space for alternative, let alone emancipatory, practices capable of contesting the legitimacy of the dominant doxa. According to this narrative, there is no realistic chance of the hegemonic Zeitgeist being trumped by a counterhegemonic Zeitreise—that is, it is extremely unlikely that the ‘spirit of the time’ can be seriously challenged by embarking on a utopian mode of ‘time travel’ into a better future. Ultimately, this preference is fatalistic, in the sense that it suggests that, for sociologists, it is virtually impossible to have a substantial impact on the development of society one way or the other. c. There is the combined option of anti-reformism and anti-fatalism. This third choice consists in agitating against the previous two perspectives, on the grounds that both the state and the market can be regarded as ‘the main evils of our time’. On this interpretation, it would be wrong either to use the state as an instrument of damage containment or to let the market continue to rule the world. For both stands fail to provide a radical (and credible) alternative to the current state of affairs. The ‘moral bankruptcy’52 of both options leaves critical sociologists with no choice but to reject any form of acceptance concerning the toxic hegemony of the state and the market. d. There is the option of public sociology.53 This route, which—at least in its radical versions—‘refuses to collaborate with market and state’,54 insists on

11  Hegemony and Sociology 

249

the public role of sociology. While drawing on sociology’s capacity to shape public discourse, it stresses its responsibility to enter into an open dialogue with all members of society. In fact, according to this vision, sociology constitutes a critical, constructive, and imaginative voice of the public itself. On this view, there is no such thing as a value-free or free-floating science. Scientific activities are firmly embedded in social reality; what is more, those pursuing the former should use their precious resources to contribute to enhancing the quality of the latter. Just as ‘science without politics is blind’55 and ‘critique without intervention is empty’,56 sociology without a normative mission—that is, without the ambition to make a difference and to change society for the better—is a pointless endeavour. Sociologists—irrespective of their areas of expertise, intellectual orientations, and ideological persuasions—need ‘to engage directly with society before it disappears altogether’.57 The point is not to predict, in an alarmist fashion, ‘the end of society’ or ‘the end of the social’.58 Rather, the point is to recognize that sociology can, and should, play a pivotal role in protecting society from degenerating into a conglomerate of atomized individuals. In market-driven societies, however, actors are, to a significant degree, interconnected by systemic forces, the development of which tends to escape the regulatory power of democratic decision-making processes. Paradoxically, ‘the age of public sociology’59 constitutes an era in which, due to the quasiubiquitous influence of neoliberalization, both the public and the social are under threat. It is the job of public sociologists to defend the public value of the social sciences, while drawing attention to the detrimental consequences of the desocialization of the human and the dehumanization of the social. It is relatively straightforward to identify this challenge; it could hardly be more difficult, however, to comprehend, let alone to cope with, its complexity. Such a public sociology, then, takes on the task of uncovering the misperceptions, misconceptions, and misrepresentations generated by dominant ideologies,60 while being committed to disclosing and denouncing social injustices, including structural mechanisms reinforcing the discrimination, marginalization, and disempowerment of particular individual or collective actors—due to their class, ethnicity, gender, age, or (dis)ability (or a combination of these or other sociological variables). Public sociology, understood in these terms, ‘can only move forward with the supporting role of a professional science’.61 To this end, it draws upon the conceptual tools, methodological strategies, and empirical data that inform large-scale studies in the social

250 

S. Susen

sciences. Without such a rigorous approach, it would be difficult to produce sophisticated explanatory frameworks capable of exposing the preconceptions of ‘doxa’ and ‘common sense’,62 especially those that are reinforced by the symbolic power of hegemonic discourses. 5. The Pervasive Power of Marketization The marketization of almost every aspect of social life poses a profound challenge to sociology in the early twenty-first century. With regard to the development of modern capitalism, one may distinguish three key levels of commodification: the commodification of labour, money, and land.63 Traditionally, the objective of state regulation was to counter the deepening, and unlimited expansion, of commodification processes. Under neoliberalism, however, the state has substantially contributed to, and indeed both micro- and macro-managed, economic deregulation at a large scale. In other words, neoliberal states have promoted and intensified, rather than undermined, ‘the commodification of labour, money, and land’.64 The creation of ‘fictitious commodities’65 under capitalism implies that the value of goods, products, and services is defined primarily by their exchange value, rather than by their use value.66 This problematic aspect of the capitalist mode of production lies at the heart of Marx’s critique of commodity fetishism.67 The trinity of ‘labour, money, and land’ permits us to distinguish three waves of commodification: first-wave marketization generates a counter-­ movement against the commodification of labour; second-wave marketization generates a counter-movement against the commodification of money; and third-wave marketization generates a counter-movement against the commodification of land or, in a more general sense, of nature.68 The interesting question that arises in this respect is to what extent sociology has responded to each of these stages of historical development. More specifically, it appears that ‘to each wave of marketization there corresponds a distinctive sociology’.69 In terms of their predominant paradigmatic orientation, these phases may be described as ‘utopian’, ‘policy-focused’, and ‘public’ respectively.70 • First-wave marketization coincides with the emergence of sociology as a discipline in the nineteenth century. This period is also associated with the rise of civil society and, hence, with an increasingly vibrant public sphere. In this context, sociology came into existence as a normative—and, hence, essentially, political and moral—endeavour, aiming to defend society against the dehumanizing consequences of the quasi-ubiquitous influence

11  Hegemony and Sociology 

251

of the capitalist market on everyday life, against undemocratic forms of state power, and against the systematic destruction of traditional communities caused by industrialization and urbanization. • Second-wave marketization coincides, roughly, with the end of World War I— that is, with the historical conditions evolving after 1918. This period is characterized by systematic attempts to dislodge the civil, political, and social rights that had been secured by the labour movement, notably through the pressure exercised by trade unions and working-class parties. In this context, sociology began to treat the nation-state as one of its main reference points—not only for its analysis of world politics and the global division of power, but also for its understanding of the state-controlled regulation and market-driven normalization of large-scale societies. • Third-wave marketization coincides with the de facto triumph of neoliberalism in most countries of the ‘Western’ world in the late twentieth century. This most recent phase of marketization ‘rolls back the statist defence of society, taking the offensive against labour rights and social rights’.71 Similar to second-wave marketization, in the period of third-wave marketization the state is centre stage. Yet, whereas the former had triggered ‘an anti-market reaction from the state’,72 the latter provoked—and was significantly shaped by—a pro-market attitude embraced by the state. The former was expressed in different forms of state interventionism and protectionism, involving considerable degrees of economic planning, welfare policies, wage guarantees, and the public (or at least partially public) ownership of key segments of society (such as health services, education, and transport) and of vital means of production (notably in agricultural and industrial sectors). The latter comprises the state’s active implementation of economic policies associated with privatization, denationalization, deregulation, decentralization, and ‘flexibilization’.73 In this latest era of largescale marketization, society is ‘under a double assault from economy and state’.74 In Habermasian terms, the colonization of ‘the lifeworld’ by ‘the system’ is driven by both the money-driven marketization and the powerdriven administration of society. The communicative rationality by which ordinary social relations are sustained is increasingly undermined by the functionalist rationality that lies at the core of capitalist markets and the political states designed to regulate—and, ultimately, to protect—them. In a schematic way, the three aforementioned waves of marketization may be described as follows75:

252 

S. Susen

• The predominant fictitious commodity has shifted from labour (first wave) via money (second wave) to land/nature (third wave). • The main locus of response has shifted from local community (first wave) via nation-state (second wave) to global civil society (third wave). • The principal type of rights at stake has shifted from labour rights (first wave) via social rights (second wave) to human rights (third wave). • The general orientation of sociology has shifted from utopian (first wave) via policy-focused (second wave) to public (third wave). • The prevalent understanding of science has shifted from speculative (first wave) via positivist (second wave) to reflexive (third wave). • The geographical centre of marketization processes has shifted from Western Europe (first wave) via the Unites States of America (second wave) to the ‘semi-periphery’ (third wave). • In terms of world context, the historical situation has shifted from colonialism (first wave) via imperialism (second wave) to globalization (third wave). Granted, the above summary may be criticized for providing an overly schematic—if not simplistic—account of a conglomerate of tension-laden historical forces, the complexity of which can hardly be captured in terms of three ‘waves of marketization’. Indeed, it may be argued that, in the twenty-­ first century, all three waves of marketization—along with their respective characteristics—are simultaneously present: • The three fictitious commodities labour, money, and land/nature are all crucial to the functioning of global capitalism. • Insofar as there is not just one locus of response, sociology addresses key social, political, and economic interactions taking place at local, national, and global levels. • In the current context, there is a large variety of rights that cannot be taken for granted and, to different degrees and in different contexts, continue to be under threat—from labour rights, social rights, and human rights to civil rights, political rights, cultural rights, sexual rights, and numerous other kinds of rights. • In terms of its orientation, sociology has never been—and never will be— unanimously utopian, policy-focused, or public. Ever since it came into existence, sociology has provided a disciplinary umbrella for eclectic areas of expertise, intellectual orientations, and ideological persuasions—and it will continue to be marked by this sense of internal plurality and heterogeneity in the future.

11  Hegemony and Sociology 

253

• There has never been—and there never will be—simply one conception of ‘science’ dominating sociological inquiry. Different intellectual traditions will endorse different conceptions of sociology: speculative, positivist, reflexive, phenomenological, interpretivist, functionalist, or existentialist—to mention only a few options. Sociology—owing to its wide scope of theoretical, methodological, and empirical foci—has provided, and will continue to provide, a home to researchers and scholars with diverse understandings of science. • By definition, capitalism is an economic system that is constantly globalizing. As such, its very existence depends on four geo-economic dynamics: (a) the creation of new markets of production, distribution, and consumption; (b) the expansion of capital across the globe; (c) the borderless exploitation of labour power as ‘human capital’; and (d) the tapping of raw materials and natural resources in different parts of the world.76 Geographical centres of capitalist marketization processes—even though they may shift across space (Western Europe, North America, Asia, etc.) and time (nineteenth century, twentieth century, twenty-first century, etc.)—cannot be isolated from the global context in which they are embedded. • Marketization processes—whether they take place in an era of colonialism, imperialism, or globalization (or otherwise)—are the product of connected histories—that is, of spatiotemporally constituted background horizons that are directly or indirectly linked across local, regional, and continental borders. 6. The Pervasive Power of Marketization vs. the Subversive Power of Sociology? Expectedly, most sociologists are critical of the marketization of society—irrespective of whether, in their research, they focus on its first-wave, second-­ wave, or third-wave causes and consequences. One of the principal features distinguishing third-wave from previous forms of marketization is that its protagonists aim ‘to destroy the barriers to open exchange set up by the nation-state and to constitute an economically unified global order’.77 Third-wave marketization, then, is marked not only by the pronounced tendency to transcend national borders, but also by the ambition to convert capitalism into the unquestionably triumphant economic system of the twenty-first century on a global scale. Far from seeking to bypass, let alone to dismantle or to abolish, the nation-state, third-wave marketization is driven by the strategic target to exploit, and to control, its institutional, ideological, and financial resources for its own purposes. ‘Globalization defines a

254 

S. Susen

hegemonic terrain in which any serious challenge has to be global too.’78 Just as capital is globally organized, labour needs to be globally organized, in order for the latter to pose a serious challenge to the hegemonic power exercised by the former. Political opposition, in order to be effective, has ‘to puncture the universalistic pretence of globalization by revealing its particularistic character’.79 Thus, it has to expose the relatively arbitrary nature of a worldwide dynamic that appears to be, and presents itself as, inevitable. In the face of the seemingly victorious position and unassailable power of neoliberalism on the world stage, public sociology is confronted with the difficult task of ‘proposing an alternative globalization from below—a global civil society that circumvents and transcends the nation-state, spreading multiple social currents across boundaries’.80 This, of course, is not to suggest that the influence, let alone the existence, of the nation-state should be denied or that critical sociologists can pretend to operate outside the sphere of networks shaped by key political and economic players of the modern era. Rather, this is to recognize the possibility of thinking and acting against the stifling logic of mainstream institutional structures and their collective representations, insisting that the construction of a world beyond the dictatorship of the capitalist market—including the superstructural arrangements put in place not only to protect and to maintain, but also to promote and to legitimize it—remains a viable, if not necessary, option. There are alternatives even—or, perhaps, especially—if and when hegemonic systems of domination give the misleading impression that there is no alternative. The plea for a ‘public sociology’,81 therefore, is motivated by the conviction that ‘[s]ociology lives and dies with society’.82 Not only does society represent the main reference point of sociology but, in a more fundamental sense, the former constitutes the raison d’être of the latter. If this premise is accurate, then the following becomes clear: when society is under attack, sociology is under attack too. Paradoxically, however, any attempt to undermine the foundations of society makes sociology stronger. For it is the mission of the latter to draw attention to the pathologies jeopardizing the cornerstones of the former. To the extent that sociologists can no longer rely on the regulatory umbrella of an interventionist state to contain the detrimental impact of market forces, they are obliged to establish meaningful connections with different sectors and actors, in order to prevent society from degenerating into a conglomerate of atomized individuals. If, indeed, the emancipatory foundations of society—such as communicative rationality, democracy, solidarity, reciprocity, and dignity—are weakened by both the state and the market, then it is

11  Hegemony and Sociology 

255

sociology’s responsibility not to serve society in a corrective sense, but, rather, to conserve, to transform, and to defend society in a constitutive sense. A genuinely critical and public sociology, in other words, needs to subvert both the state-induced managerialization and the market-driven commodification of key aspects of social life, by fostering the emancipatory potential inherent in democratically exercised, discursively guided, and creatively inspired forms of human self-governance.

Notes 1. On the concept of ‘hegemony’, see, for example: Agnew (2005); Agnew and Corbridge (1995); Andrews (2017); Bloomfield (1977); Buckley (2013); Butler et al. (2000); Day (2004); Evans (2000); Fowler (1994); Gabay (2013); Joseph (2002); Keohane (2005 [1984]); Laclau and Mouffe (2001 [1985]); Lash (2007); Santos and Rodríguez-Garavito (2005); Schubert (2002). 2. On the future of sociology, see, for example: Baldwin and Baldwin (1980); Beck (1999a); Becker (2000); Bell (1974); Bell (1996); Borgatta (1987); Burawoy (2007); Crook (2003); Eitzen (1991); Giddens (1987b); Golding (2000); Gouldner (1971); Janka (1996); Jawad et al. (2017); Knottnerus and Maguire (1995); Lyle (2016); Soeffner (2012); Tezanos Tortajada (2001); Westwood (2000); Zine (2016). 3. On sociology’s history (and futures past), see, for example: Borch (2012); Halsey (2004); Renwick (2012). 4. On social theory’s history, see, for example: Dahms (2013). Cf. Burke (2005 [1992]). 5. On the future of social theory, see, for example: Gane (2004); Joas and Knöbl (2009 [2004]); Randeria (1999). 6. On the future of society, see, for example: Adkins (2017); Outhwaite (2006). 7. On the future of modernity, see, for example: Hall et al. (1992). 8. On global futures, see, for example: Mignolo (2011). 9. On the sociology of the future, see, for example: Adam (2009); Adam (2010); Adam (2011); Adam and Groves (2007); Atal (1986); Bell (1996); Coleman (2017); Coleman and Richard (2017); Huber and Bell (1971); Michael (2017); Nickel (2012); Shaw (1998); Tutton (2017); Urry (2016); Westwood (2000). 10. On this point, see Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 440. 11. Urry (2010), p. 191. See also Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 440. 12. Urry (2010), p.  191 (quotation modified). See also Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 440.

256 

S. Susen

13. On this point, see, for example: Adam (2011); Adam and Groves (2007); Berardi (2011); Genosko and Thoburn (2011); Urry (2010); Urry (2016); Žižek (2010). 14. On this point, see Coles and Susen (2018). 15. On this point, see, for instance: Adkins (2011); Adkins (2012); Adkins (2014), esp. pp.  527–533; Adkins (2017); Browne and Susen (2014); Coleman and Richard (2017); Giroux (2011); Willetts (2010). 16. Coleman and Richard (2017), p.  440. Cf. Levitas (2011 [1990]) and Levitas (2013). 17. On this point, see Pinker (2018). Cf. Susen (2015a), esp. Chapter 4. For an excellent critique of this project, see, for example, Allen (2016). See also, for instance, Wolff (1994). 18. Cf. Levitas (2011 [1990]) and Levitas (2013). 19. Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 441. 20. On the concept of ‘crisis’ in social and political thought, see, for example, Cordero (2017a). See also, for instance, Susen (2017c) and Cordero (2017b). In addition, see, for example: Boudon (1972); Boudon (1980 [1971]); Calhoun and Derluguian (2011); Cassano and Dello Buono (2012); Duménil and Lévy (2011); Farrar and Mayes (2013); Fforde (2009); Gouldner (1971); Habermas (1987 [1968b]); Habermas (1988 [1973]); Holton (1987); House (2019); Jay (2010); Koselleck (1988 [1959]); Lopreato and Crippen (1999); McKie and Ryan (2018); Rauche (1970); Schweppenhäuser et  al. (1987); Schweppenhäuser et  al. (1989); Sandywell (1996); Sim (2002); Streeck (2011); Tsilimpounidi (2017); Wagner (2010); Walby (2015); Wallerstein (2011a). 21. Brown and Michael (2003), p. 4 (italics in original). On this point, see also Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 441. 22. Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 441. 23. Ibid., p. 441. 24. Ibid., p. 441. 25. See, for instance: Adam (1990); Adam (1995); Adam (1998); Adam (2004); Baert (1992); Baert (2000); Birth (2012); Hassan and Purser (2007); Hassard (1990); Hoy (2009); Rosa (2010); Wajcman and Dodd (2016). 26. See, for example, Heidegger (2001 [1927]) and Heidegger (1992 [1989/1924]). See also, for instance: Bardon (2013); Baron and Miller (2019); Callender (2011); Le Poidevin and MacBeath (1993); Turetzky (1998). 27. See, for instance: Adam (2009); Adam (2010); Adam (2011); Adam and Groves (2007); Atal (1986); Bell (1996); Coleman (2017); Coleman and Richard (2017); Huber and Bell (1971); Michael (2017); Nickel (2012); Shaw (1998); Tutton (2017); Urry (2016); Westwood (2000). 28. Coleman and Richard (2017), p. 441. See also, for example, Schulz (2015). 29. On the future of society, see, for example: Adkins (2017); Outhwaite (2006).

11  Hegemony and Sociology 

257

30. On the future of humanity, see, for example: Chernilo (2017); Fuller (2011); Fuller (2013); Hollis (2015 [1977]); Rees (2018); Susen (2020c); Taylor (1989a). 31. On the concept of ‘the posthuman’ and the rise of ‘posthumanism’, see, for instance: Badmington (2000); Braidotti (2013); Braidotti (2019); Fukuyama (2002); Hayles (1999); Herbrechter (2013 [2009]); Mahon (2017); Nayar (2014); Peterson (2018). 32. On this point, see, for instance, Crook (2003), esp. pp. 8–9, 9–10, and 14. Cf. Susen (2015a), Susen (2016d), and Susen (2017d). 33. On this point, see, for instance, Crook (2003), esp. pp. 8, 9, 11–12, and 14. Cf. Susen (2015a), Susen (2016d), and Susen (2017d). 34. Crook (2003), pp. 8 and 14. 35. On this point, see, for instance, ibid., esp. pp. 9–10 and 13–14. See also, for example: Bailey and Freedman (2011); Burton (2016); Collini (2012); Collini (2017); Crouch (2016); Evans (2004); Furedi (2006 [2004]); Furedi (2017); Holmwood (2010a); Holmwood (2010b); Holmwood (2011a); Holmwood (2011b); Loick (2018); McGettigan (2013); Power (1994); Power (1997); Rosenfeld (2010); Savage (2010); Smart (2016), esp. pp. 464 and 468–472; Sparkes (2007); Strathern (2000); Willetts (2017); Wright and Shore (2017). In addition, see, for instance: Alstete et al. (2018); Denicolo (2013); Fenby-­Hulse et  al. (2019); Freudenburg (1986); Freudenburg and Keating (1982); Haux (2019); Reed (2018 [2016]); Welsh (2020); Woodside (2016). 36. Crook (2003), p. 14. 37. Abbott (2000), p. 296. 38. Ibid., p. 296. 39. See Becker (2000). 40. On visual methods in social research, see, for example: Banks (2007); Banks (2015 [2001]); Hamilton (2006); Knowles and Sweetman (2004); Marion and Crowder (2013); Margolis and Pauwels (2011); Mitchell (2011); Pauwels (2015); Rose (2016 [2001]); Spencer (2011). 41. Becker (2000), p. 333. 42. Ibid., p. 333. 43. See ibid., p. 333. 44. Ibid., p. 333. 45. Burawoy (2007), p. 339. 46. On this point, see Habermas (1981a) and Habermas (1981b). See also Habermas (1987a [1981]) and Habermas (1987b [1981]). In addition, see, for example: Susen (2007), esp. Chapters 1–4; Susen (2009a); Susen (2009b); Susen (2010c); Susen (2011d); Susen (2018c). 47. Burawoy (2007), p. 340. 48. Ibid., p. 340. 49. Ibid., p. 340.

258 

S. Susen

50. Ibid., p. 340. 51. See, for instance: Browne and Susen (2014); Coles (2016); Coles and Susen (2018); Holloway and Susen (2013); Susen (2012a). 52. Burawoy (2007), p. 340. 53. On the concept of ‘public sociology’, see, for example: Burawoy (2005a); Burawoy (2007); Burawoy et al. (2004); Jeffries (2009); Keith (2008); Susen (2015a), p. 7. 54. Burawoy (2007), p. 340. 55. Ibid., p. 340. 56. Ibid., p. 340. 57. Ibid., p. 340. 58. On this point, see Susen (2015a), pp. 83, 88, 89, 92, 242, and 243. On the announcement of ‘the end of “the social”’, see, for instance: Bogard (1987), p.  208; Butler (2002), p.  31; Delanty (2000b), p.  137; Kellner (1989b), p. 85; Smart (1993), pp. 51–62; Toews (2003); Wernick (2000). 59. Burawoy (2007), p. 340. 60. On this point, see Susen (2014c) and Susen (2016c). On the ‘dominant ideology thesis’, see, for instance: Abercrombie et  al. (1980); Abercrombie et  al. (1990); Boltanski (2008); Bourdieu and Boltanski (1976); Bourdieu and Boltanski (2008 [1976]); Browne and Susen (2014); Conde-Costas (1991); Eagleton (2006 [1976]); Eagleton (2007 [1991]); Holloway and Susen (2013); Inglis (2013), esp. pp. 320–322; Inglis and Thorpe (2012), Chapter 3; Larrain (1991 [1983]); Marx and Engels (1953 [1845–1847]); Marx and Engels (2000/1977 [1846]); Rehmann (2004); Reitz (2004); Susen (2008a); Susen (2008b); Susen (2012a); Susen (2013c), pp. 337–338, 340, 345, 349, and 352; Susen (2014 [2015]), esp. pp. 12–21; Susen (2015c); Weber (1995); Žižek (1989); Žižek (1994). 61. Burawoy (2007), p. 340. 62. On the concepts of ‘doxa’ and ‘common sense’, see, for example: Bourdieu and Eagleton (1992); Hamel (2000 [1997]); Holton (2000); Myles (2004); Wacquant (2004a). In addition, see, for example: Susen (2007), pp. 24, 136, 137, 138–141, 146n16, 159, 178, 191, 222, 224, 225, 226, 242, 243, 251, 252, 253, 309, and 312; Susen (2011a), pp. 450, 451, 452, and 457; Susen (2011e), pp. 50 and 82; Susen (2013e), pp. 205, 206, 208, 209, 221, 223, 227, and 228; Susen (2015a), pp. 7, 9, 13, 49, 51, 52, 58, 59, 60, 84, 99, 112, 148, 154, 156, 157, 167, 210, 259, and 270. 63. See Burawoy (2007), p. 340. See also Polanyi (2001 [1944]). 64. Burawoy (2007), p. 344 (punctuation modified). 65. See ibid., p. 344. See also Polanyi (2001 [1944]). 66. On the distinction between ‘use value’ and ‘exchange value’, see, for example, Susen (2012a), pp.  307–308 and 324–325n165. Cf. Haug (1999a) and Marxhausen (1999).

11  Hegemony and Sociology 

259

67. See, for example: Marx (2000/1977 [1857–1858/1941]); Marx (2000/1977 [1859]); Marx and Engels (2000/1977 [1846]); Marx and Engels (1987/1945 [1848]); Marx (2000/1977 [1867]). For an excellent overview, see Marxhausen (1999). 68. See Burawoy (2007), p. 346. 69. Ibid., p. 348 (quotation modified). 70. See ibid., pp. 348–352. 71. Ibid., p. 349. 72. Ibid., p. 349. 73. On this point, see Susen (2015a), p. 124. See also ibid. pp. 125, 130, 133, and 134. On the global influence of deregulated production systems and labour markets, see, for example: Bonefeld and Holloway (1991b); Boron (1999), p.  53; Dolgon (1999), pp.  129–130 and 139–140; Harvey (1989), esp. pp.  292–296; Jameson (1984); Jameson (2007), pp.  215–216; Kellner (2007), pp. 103–106; Piketty (2013); Slott (2002), pp. 420–422; Vakaloulis (2001), pp. 103–121 and 153–172; Williams et al. (2013). 74. Burawoy (2007), p. 349. 75. For an excellent summary of this argument, see ibid., p.  350 (‘Table 1: Sociology versus the Market’). 76. See Susen (2015a), p. 125. 77. Burawoy (2007), p. 349 (quotation modified). 78. Ibid., p. 351 (quotation modified). 79. Ibid., p. 351 (italics added) (quotation modified). 80. Ibid., p. 351 (quotation modified). 81. See, for example: Burawoy (2005a); Burawoy (2007); Burawoy et al. (2004); Jeffries (2009); Keith (2008). 82. Burawoy (2007), p. 352.

12 Hegemony and Counterhegemony

When examining recent and current debates on the state of sociology in the twenty-first century, one may easily get the impression that the issues at stake, the developments described, and the trends identified are unprecedented. When taking a closer look at previous discussions on the state of sociology in the second part of the twentieth century, however, one discovers that, in many respects, the concerns raised in the past, although they may have been rather different at several levels, possess striking similarities with those expressed in the present—notably with regard to the discipline’s ability (or lack thereof ) to play a counterhegemonic role in the construction of reality. It may be partly due to its critical attitude towards the hegemonic, and deeply problematic, aspects of capitalist societies that the ‘rhetoric of despair’1 one encounters in sociology is not an entirely new phenomenon. The anxieties about the fate of their discipline, shared by many sociologists, are not only a reflection of their genuine concern with the social pathologies produced by capitalism. In addition, they are an illustration of their tension-laden engagement with the developments that jeopardize their discipline’s intellectual autonomy and institutional identity. It is no surprise, then, that the status of sociology in general and of sociology departments in particular has been a subject of controversy for some time.2 Comparable to the situation in other academic disciplines, the various challenges faced by sociology are inextricably linked to constantly evolving historical contexts, to which it makes explicit reference and of which it is expected to provide critical accounts. One of the key questions arising in this respect is the extent to which negative perceptions of both itself as a discipline and the historical conditions by which it is surrounded are justified. © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_12

261

262 

S. Susen

If one buys into a pessimistic (or, as some may argue, realistic) narrative about the state in which sociology finds itself at present, then it is, in the best-­ case scenario, enduring a crisis or, in the worst-case scenario, on the wane. If the former is the case, then—while it may be undergoing an intellectual and institutional restructuring process—it will survive in one form or another. If the latter is the case, then—no matter how hard its advocates and protagonists may be mobilizing valuable material, symbolic, reputational, and financial resources to save it from perishing—it will be slowly but surely disappearing from the stage of prominent disciplines in the social sciences. Given that sociology—owing to its interest in the constitution of ‘the social’, including its countless manifestations in the human world—may be regarded as the foundational discipline of the social sciences par excellence, it is difficult to imagine a viable future of this branch of inquiry without it. One may have good reason ‘to believe that sociology departments will be targeted for elimination or downsizing’3 in the near future and that, in fact, they have already been suffering a legitimacy crisis over the past decades. Among the most obvious indicators, taken into account when assessing the ‘health’ of the discipline, are the following: 1. student enrolments; 2. student completion rates; 3. faculty positions; 4. status of women in the discipline; 5. status of ethnic minorities in the discipline; 6. degree programmes and curriculum development; 7. research outputs and publishing trends; 8. citations, both within and outside the discipline; 9. ‘impact’ and ‘visibility’, both within and outside academia; 10. grants and research funding, from both public and private sources; 11. intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaborations; 12. degree of intellectual autonomy and institutional identity, including disciplinary coherence and unity; 13. general reputation, both within and outside academia. It seems that sociology, as a discipline, has been on a downward trend in most (albeit not all) of these areas. Hence, the view that it is in serious trouble is increasingly widespread. In schematic terms, this tendency may be described as follows:

12  Hegemony and Counterhegemony 

263

1. In sociology, the number of student enrolments has gone down, with adjacent disciplines and sub-disciplines (such as criminology, communication and media studies, cultural studies, social psychology, and politics) benefiting from, and/or partly contributing to, this trend. 2. In sociology, student completion rates have declined—notably in less prestigious universities, in which it is more likely that students, while working towards completing their degree programme, are working to cover their maintenance costs, including accommodation. 3. Not only are fewer sociology faculty positions being advertised and retired sociologists less likely to be replaced, but, in addition, more and more sociologists, if they are lucky enough to obtain a job, work on temporary contracts—often under precarious, if not exploitative, conditions. 4. Although sociology, in terms of both staff and student representation, is—similar to social psychology and anthropology, but unlike politics and economics—one of the most ‘feminized’ social-scientific disciplines, it is still characterized by a pronounced gender-specific imbalance of power, especially in relation to professorial appointments and leadership positions. Moreover, some areas of sociological inquiry remain unambiguously male-dominated—in particular social theory, economic sociology, and political sociology. 5. Although sociology, in terms of both staff and student representation, is one of the most culturally diverse social-scientific disciplines, it is still marked by a considerable ethno-specific imbalance of power, especially in relation to professorial appointments and leadership positions. Moreover, some areas of sociological inquiry remain unambiguously dominated by white scholars—in particular social theory, economic sociology, and political sociology. 6. While sociology, across the world, continues to offer exiting and cutting-­ edge degree programmes and curricula, these have become less and less cohesive and more and more fragmented. Unsurprisingly, different sociology departments have different strengths and weaknesses, covering specific areas of expertise in multiple formats and with varying points of emphasis. Crucial in this respect are three cornerstones of sociological inquiry: a.  the development of theoretical frameworks; b.  the design and application of methodological strategies; c.  the collection of data, notably empirical data.

264 

S. Susen

The increasing fragmentation of the discipline is reflected in the proliferation of specialist areas of research, such as the following: –– critical sociology –– cultural sociology –– digital sociology –– economic sociology –– environmental sociology –– historical sociology –– medical sociology –– military sociology –– organizational sociology and sociology of organizations –– political sociology –– rural sociology –– sociology of ability and disability –– sociology of aesthetics –– sociology of age –– sociology of celebrity –– sociology of childhood –– sociology of class –– sociology of communication –– sociology of consumption –– sociology of crime and deviance –– sociology of critique –– sociology of cults –– sociology of culture –– sociology of death and dying –– sociology of development –– sociology of disability –– sociology of education –– sociology of elites –– sociology of emotions –– sociology of everyday life –– sociology of expectations –– sociology of fashion –– sociology of fear –– sociology of food –– sociology of friendship –– sociology of gangs –– sociology of gender

12  Hegemony and Counterhegemony 

–– sociology of gender and sexuality –– sociology of genocide –– sociology of globalization –– sociology of groups –– sociology of happiness –– sociology of health and illness –– sociology of housework –– sociology of human consciousness –– sociology of human rights –– sociology of identity –– sociology of ideology –– sociology of inequality –– sociology of innovation –– sociology of institutions –– sociology of journalism –– sociology of kinship –– sociology of knowledge –– sociology of language –– sociology of law –– sociology of leisure –– sociology of literature –– sociology of loneliness –– sociology of love –– sociology of luck –– sociology of mass media –– sociology of media –– sociology of medicine –– sociology of mental health –– sociology of migration –– sociology of money –– sociology of music –– sociology of nationalism –– sociology of nature –– sociology of news –– sociology of nothing –– sociology of nursing –– sociology of objects –– sociology of outer space –– sociology of personal life –– sociology of place

265

266 

S. Susen

–– sociology of play –– sociology of policing –– sociology of poverty –– sociology of professions –– sociology of punishment –– sociology of race and ethnicity –– sociology of race and racism –– sociology of regulation –– sociology of religion –– sociology of reproduction –– sociology of risk –– sociology of science –– sociology of science and technology –– sociology of sexuality –– sociology of social change –– sociology of social media –– sociology of social movements –– sociology of space –– sociology of sport –– sociology of stigma –– sociology of suffering –– sociology of terrorism –– sociology of the body –– sociology of the family –– sociology of the future –– sociology of the media –– sociology of the senses –– sociology of time –– sociology of translation –– sociology of uncertainty –– sociology of unemployment –– sociology of urban life –– sociology of valuation and evaluation –– sociology of values –– sociology of violence –– sociology of voting –– sociology of vulnerability –– sociology of war –– sociology of water –– sociology of work

12  Hegemony and Counterhegemony 

267

–– sociology of youth –– urban sociology –– etc. These specialist areas of research place different degrees of emphasis on key sociological variables, especially the following: –– class –– ethnicity –– gender –– age –– ability –– etc. These key sociological variables manifest themselves in different modes of domination, notably the following: –– capitalism –– racism –– sexism –– ageism –– ableism –– etc. These modes of domination are challenged by pleas for emancipation, inspired by different political ideologies, such as the following: –– anti-capitalism (for example, communism and socialism) –– anti-racism (for example, anti- and postcolonialism) –– anti-sexism (for example, feminism) –– anti-ageism (for example, egalitarianism) –– anti-ableism (for example, egalitarianism) –– etc. The thematic richness of sociology is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it allows for a comprehensive inquiry into the multilayered and intersectional constitution of the social world; on the other hand, it undermines disciplinary coherence and leads to intellectual, and often institutional, fragmentation.

268 

S. Susen

7. In audit-driven environments, sociologists—just like their colleagues in other academic disciplines—are expected to produce a substantial amount of high-quality research outputs in high-impact journals. As an overall publishing trend, this has led to the hyper-valuation of peer-reviewed journal articles and, in parallel, the gradual devaluation of authored books, edited books, and book chapters. Hand in hand with this development goes the emergence of an implicit or explicit hierarchy of journals and publishers (indexed vs. non-indexed, peer-reviewed vs. non-peer-­ reviewed, established vs. independent, subscription-based vs. open access, etc.), which are classified and measured by citation databases, most of which are heavily biased against the traditional publishing habits and conventions of the humanities (notably books), favouring the citation-­ driven publishing model of the natural sciences (based on peer-reviewed journal articles) instead. Arguably, the social sciences (especially ‘critical’ disciplines, such as sociology and anthropology) are caught up somewhere in the middle. 8. Citations—and, consequently, citation-maximizing strategies—are increasingly important, not only in the natural sciences but also, tellingly, in the humanities and social sciences. This trend does not necessarily prove the preponderance of quantity over quality in the way research outputs are evaluated. It demonstrates, however, that—from the point of view of assessment boards and promotion committees, which tend to follow the hegemonic agenda of metrics-driven academia—the most rigorous, cutting-edge, and original piece of work is worth little, if anything, unless—at least in the long run—it is widely cited. In the world of ‘epistemetrics’,4 the value of research outputs is judged not merely in terms of their intellectual contributions (which, admittedly, may be defined according to different criteria) but, to a growing degree, in terms of the number of citations they generate. This tendency towards the metrics-­ driven assessment of academic work is illustrated in the systematic recording of citations (for instance, on Google Scholar and Scopus) and the measurement of a scholar’s productivity and citation impact, notably by virtue of the so-called h-index (also known as the Hirsch index or Hirsch number). 9. Sociologists—or, for that matter, any other social scientists—are under mounting pressure to demonstrate that, potentially or actually, their research has a verifiable amount of ‘impact’, which can, of course, be measured according to different parameters. The impact of ‘impact’5 on the social sciences in general and on sociology in particular is illustrated in the substantial weight attributed to the category of ‘impact’ in nation-­ wide research assessments (such as the Research Excellence Framework).

12  Hegemony and Counterhegemony 

269

In light of this shift, the ‘performance’ of university departments is evaluated, to a large extent, in terms of ‘research impact’—that is, not simply in terms of its narrow impact on the academic field, but also, crucially, in terms of its wider impact beyond academia (that is, on various non-academic spheres—such as civil society, politics, the media, and the economy). This trend means that ‘impact studies’ are given a disproportionate amount of ‘value’, implying that academic areas in which it is difficult—if not impossible—to prove that particular research projects may (directly or indirectly) influence non-academic sectors in society are being systematically devalued and marginalized. In sociology, the obvious example is ‘social theory’. Social theorists, even those who are exceptionally prolific and produce work of the highest quality, tend to find it difficult to find a ‘legitimate’ place in the ‘impact’-oriented environment of metricsdriven academia. 10. Being able to secure research funding, from either public or private sources, has become one of the standard expectations in the metrics-driven academia promoted by market-oriented governments in neoliberal societies. This trend is indicative of the fact that universities, especially those in Anglophone countries, function as money-making machines—not only because students, who are effectively treated as fee-paying clients, have become one of their main sources of income, but also because academic staff members are supposed to obtain external funding for their research projects. The tendency towards the marketization of academic research manifests itself in increasingly routinized forms of competition—above all, regular competitions for research grants, network grants, research fellowships, research buyouts, and visiting professorships. These are provided by both public sources (such as research councils, professional associations, charities, and government departments) and private sources (such as independent funding bodies and particular sectors of the business community). The gradual normalization of this funding model across the academic sector suggests that key elements associated with traditional conceptions of the university—such as its public mission in providing largely non-commodified modes of social inclusion, educational training, and Bildung in the Humboldtian sense—have been systematically eroded. 11. In the current era, social scientists are expected to be involved in both intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaborations. This dual task is paradoxical in the following sense: on the one hand, research assessment exercises reinforce disciplinary boundaries, because academics are expected to submit their work for evaluation to subject-specific panels; on the other hand, research assessment exercises transcend disciplinary boundaries,

270 

S. Susen

because academics are expected to demonstrate that they are able to work outside their epistemic comfort zones by collaborating with their counterparts from other subject areas. This paradox pervades not only research assessment exercises but also funding application criteria, networking strategies, and teaching curricula. To the degree that this dual process is treated, by many, as a box-ticking exercise, it runs the risk of failing to contribute to the intellectual and institutional enrichment and cross-­ fertilization of academic disciplines. To the extent, however, that it triggers stimulating debates and cutting-edge research capable of overcoming disciplinary boundaries while recognizing their legitimate significance in shaping the development of epistemic communities, it may provide an invaluable source of intellectual imagination, paving the way for scholarly inquiries that are situated in familiar, while tapping into unfamiliar, subject areas. 12. The degree to which social-scientific disciplines are able to assert, and to defend, their intellectual autonomy and institutional identity is a central point of discussion, especially in competition-fostering environments in which—in terms of both research and teaching—some subject areas appear to be more successful than others. The development of a discipline is contingent upon its capacity to import knowledge from, and to export knowledge to, other disciplines. Some disciplines may be more on the ‘importer’ side, and others may be more on the ‘exporter’ side. In practice, however, all disciplines draw on insights from, while sharing their insights with, other disciplines. Crucial in this regard is not only the exchange of conceptual tools, methodological strategies, and empirical data, but also, in many cases, the cross-fertilization of intellectual traditions and institutional facilities. One of the principal challenges faced by contemporary sociology is the task of maintaining a sense of disciplinary coherence and unity, while accepting its internal heterogeneity, resulting from the confluence of diverse research communities, political ideologies, and epistemic perspectives. If sociology fails to maintain an intellectual core and an institutional basis, then it may be undermined by seemingly endless fragmentation, possibly even leading to its dissolution.6 The point is not to contend that sociology would be better off if it did not evolve and move forward by incorporating unorthodox modes of analysis, developed both within and outside the traditional boundaries of its epistemic remit. Rather, the point is to recognize that, while the absorption of largely unfamiliar or newly emerging intellectual interests and intuitions poses not only a challenging but also a worthwhile task for

12  Hegemony and Counterhegemony 

271

any scientific endeavour, sociology needs to adhere to the constitutive elements that lie at the heart of its normative mission as a discipline and, at the same time, distinguish it from other disciplines. Granted, different commentators may hold different views on which facets of sociology deserve to be considered ‘core’ to its disciplinary ‘calling’. The attempt to reach a broad consensus on how to make sense of the major concerns shared by most, if not all, defenders of ‘classical sociology’ is difficult enough.7 It is no less challenging, however, to arrive at such an agreement in relation to ‘contemporary sociology’. Unless it can put its finger on the main features that distinguish its own form of inquiry— including its ‘sociological imagination’8—from other modes of analysis, it will not succeed in defending not only the distinctiveness of its disciplinary spirit, but also the value of its raison d’être. 1 3. Sociology’s general reputation, both within and outside academia, is at stake. Within academia, there is a hierarchy of disciplines. In terms of their respective status, resources, history, and influence, academic disciplines are asymmetrically positioned in the realm of epistemic communities. Unlike philosophy, for example, sociology is a relatively ‘young’—and profoundly ‘modern’—discipline. For scholars concerned with the study of the age-old ‘big issues’ (such as ontology, epistemology, logic, ethics, and aesthetics), sociology may not be in the same ‘league’ as philosophy. The latter has been making significant contributions to the debates on these major areas of human inquiry for more than two thousand years, whereas the former has been grappling with these matters for barely two hundred years. Outside academia, there is also a hierarchy of disciplines. Admittedly, social-­scientific disciplines, unlike their ‘classical’ counterparts in the humanities (such as philosophy), have largely benefited from the rise of the mass media and democratically structured public spheres. The notion that arguments in key areas of public discourse (such as science, politics, and social policy) should be ‘evidence-based’ implies that academic disciplines that are committed to the view that their main propositions must be empirically substantiated can claim a greater degree of legitimacy than their allegedly ‘speculative’ counterparts. Arguably, both the natural sciences and the social sciences fall into the former category, whereas the humanities are, rightly or wrongly, associated with the latter mode of epistemic functioning. Despite its increasing significance in terms of ‘impact’, ‘visibility’, ‘standing’, and ‘participation in public discourse’, sociology continues to

272 

S. Susen

carry the stigma of being an ‘easy subject’, which is—according to this narrative—frequently picked by applicants who are not sure what to study otherwise and/or by those whose pre-university marks are not sufficiently high to be accepted onto a degree programme of one of the ‘difficult subjects’, which have more stringent entry requirements than their ‘soft’ counterparts. Furthermore, sociology is often looked down upon, in the sense that, in the eyes of its unsympathetic critics, it makes remarkably simple and obvious points (such as ‘the rich are getting richer’ and ‘the poorer are getting poorer’) in an unnecessarily convoluted and jargon-based language (notably by introducing neologisms ending in the suffix ‘-ization’, commonly used to describe the processual, agential, and/ or performative nature of almost every component of the social world). Its advocates will insist, however, that, from the very beginning of its existence, sociology has made valuable intellectual contributions—notably in terms of deconstructing dogmas and myths, based on misperceptions, misconceptions, and misrepresentations, and in terms of uncovering underlying structural forces that escape people’s common-sense understanding (or, rather, misunderstanding) of reality. The onus is on sociology to ensure it demonstrates that it deserves to be regarded, and treated, not only as the foundational discipline of the social sciences par excellence, but also as one of the epistemically most relevant, resourceful, and insightful discursive players in modern public spheres. * * * 1. The Future of Sociology: Between Pessimism and Optimism From a pessimistic point of view, sociology departments will be targeted for downsizing, or even for elimination, in the near future, especially in light of the fact that, in several national contexts, this has already occurred on a considerable scale. From an optimistic perspective, sociology departments, although they face significant challenges, will survive the storm, provided they prove capable of adjusting to the new set of circumstances in which they find themselves in the twenty-first century, while capitalizing on the opportunities arising from an age in which evidence-based approaches developed in the social sciences play a pivotal role in setting the political agenda.

12  Hegemony and Counterhegemony 

273

Considering the aforementioned list of challenges faced by sociology, one may distinguish particular and universal types of issues9: • The former type of issues refers to the difficulties experienced by an individual sociology department, owing to its specific staff composition and its unique position within a given institution. If, for instance, a department is part of a university or faculty in which its modules and degree programmes are being systematically excluded from the curricula of neighbouring disciplines, then it is more likely to be institutionally isolated and weakened than if the opposite is the case. • The latter type of issues designates difficulties experienced by most—if not all—sociology departments, leading to behavioural, ideological, and institutional developments that affect the discipline as a whole. If, for example, most—if not all—sociology departments are confronted with the previously mentioned challenges, then they have to live with the consequences of a wider structural trend, although they may end up doing so to different degrees, in different forms, and with different strategic responses. All sociology departments have to grapple with both types of issues. Hence, they are expected to find solutions to problems that are unique to their particular institutions, while aiming to resolve matters that concern most—if not all—sociology departments. 2. The Future of Sociology: Reputational Issues That Will Not Go Away? A common criticism levelled at sociology, by both academics and non-­ academics, is that it is ‘an ill-defined discipline’.10 Given the broad definition of the subject area, which is the social world, it is far from clear what exactly it is that sociologists do and how they are supposed to do it. One may identify substantial overlaps with its neighbouring disciplines—such as criminology, communication and media studies, cultural studies, social psychology, politics, economics, and philosophy. Sociology has made, and continues to make, important contributions to each of these disciplines—as illustrated in the sociology of crime, the sociology of communication and media, cultural sociology and the sociology of culture, the sociology of the self and human interactions, political sociology, economic sociology, and social theory. These ‘problems of perception’11 are not insignificant, in the sense that they indicate that sociologists are often seen as incapable of ‘providing a clearly articulated description of the discipline and its departmental role in specific college and university settings’,12 not to mention its place in society, especially in terms of its usefulness for resolving real-world issues in the twenty-first century.13

274 

S. Susen

An additional challenge is that sociology departments, arguably to a greater degree than contiguous academic fields in the social sciences, have a reputation of being involved in endless personal, reputational, and ideological struggles that take place both within and between institutions.14 One may point out that various other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences—such as philosophy, politics, cultural studies, and anthropology—are also known to be ‘obstreperous on occasion’,15 not least because, in one way or another, they are all concerned with the normative constitution of social existence. In fact, one may go a step further by maintaining that, even if some disciplines may be perceived as more ‘unruly and quarrelsome’16 than others, the art of controversy constitutes not only an essential ingredient but also a motivational driving force of academic life. Still, sociology tends to be portrayed in a radically different light by its fiercest critics, notably by opponents from rival disciplines in the humanities and social sciences—some of whom regard it, at best, as ‘contentious’, or, at worst, as ‘expendable’, especially under neoliberal regimes of governance.17 For a large number of scholars working in and for the discipline, sociology is strongly committed not only to describing, analysing, interpreting, and explaining key aspects of the social world, but also, more importantly, to making value judgements about—and, if desired, changing—the practices and structures by which it is sustained. Owing to this normative mission, sociology may be disadvantaged by what its detractors perceive as its ‘ideological bias’.18 Obviously, one may rightly argue that there is no such thing as an ‘unideological’, let alone ‘unbiased’, discipline. For every epistemic community draws on the shared sets of underlying assumptions that its members make about the constitution of reality. To the extent, however, that sociology is considered—especially by those who are silently or outspokenly suspicious of it—a collective academic venture in which ‘values’ are preponderant over ‘facts’ and in which, correspondingly, ‘value rationality’ and ‘ideology’ play a greater role than ‘fact-checking’ and ‘objectivity’, its advocates will find it difficult to ensure their subject is treated with the respect it deserves. Genuinely critical forms of social-­scientific investigation—rather than allowing themselves to be paralysed by the stifling effects of dogma, doxa, and proselytism—are motivated by the open spirit of discovery, inquiry, and scrutiny. One may demur that there is no academic discipline that is entirely free of dogmatic, doxic, and proselytizing tendencies. Notwithstanding the pivotal role that different sources of epistemic bias and distortion play in the production of knowledge, scientific endeavours tend to be driven by the ambition to reveal truths that, due to their potentially

12  Hegemony and Counterhegemony 

275

hidden nature, may not be immediately obvious to ordinary actors, who, in their daily efforts to attribute meaning to the world, tend to rely on common sense and everyday experiences. Critical sociologists need to concede, however, that their ‘uncovering mission’19—especially (and ironically) if it is defended in the name of ‘ideology critique’20—may be rejected, by some, as ‘ideologically motivated’ and, thus, as a project pursued by researchers ‘with an agenda’, determined to mobilize their normatively charged sets of presuppositions about the constitution of the social world, particularly regarding the existence of asymmetrically structured power relations. It would be erroneous to suggest that there is no room for conservative analysists within sociology. And yet, there is no doubt that, owing to the ‘power-critical spirit’ permeating the sociological imagination, the vast majority of classical and contemporary sociologists are situated on the left of the political spectrum. Given this preponderance of left-wing values, principles, and convictions in large parts of its discourses (expressed not only in ‘big-­ picture’ ideologies, such as centre-left liberalism, socialism, communism, and anarchism, but also in ‘issue-specific’ ideologies, such as feminism and environmentalism), sociology—notwithstanding its internal variety of perspectives—continues to be looked down upon and devalued as ‘too predictable’ by those who are wary of its disciplinary identity. Even if one comes to the conclusion that these negative views of sociology are both inaccurate and misleading, it is important to remind ourselves of the fact that ‘perceptions can be highly significant’.21 One need not be a Goffmanian to recognize that the ‘definition of the situation’22 serves as a performative framework in which social interactions take place. Such a framework is sustained by a combination of objective, normative, and subjective factors.23 As long as ‘sociology and sociology departments are perceived or defined in negative (and overly stereotyped) ways, problems are likely to follow’.24 These problems may have a substantial impact on sociology, causing, in the best-case scenario, its transformation or, in the worst-case scenario, its gradual delegitimization or even its demise. Sociology can exert a substantial degree of influence on the objective, normative, and subjective dimensions of the performative frameworks by which the quality of its intellectual contributions is, rightly or wrongly, assessed. In order to accomplish this, it must seek to ensure that the discursive elements that shape, if not determine, the ways in which it is perceived by both ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ work in its favour, rather than against it. This does not necessarily mean that it is obliged to replace all hegemonic discourses with counterhegemonic ones. It implies, however, that it can challenge the power

276 

S. Susen

of hegemony by exposing the fragility of the seemingly most solid forms of sociality—including those behavioural, ideological, and institutional modes of functioning that, due to their retrograde nature, may undermine the critical spirit permeating sociological inquiry. ‘Probably every living sociologist has heard the complaint that sociology is just “dressed-up” common sense—and not well-dressed at that.’25 This criticism ties in with the aforementioned reservation that many (albeit not all) sociologists have a tendency to make remarkably straightforward points in an unnecessarily complicated language. To put it bluntly, sociology’s public mission may be compromised, if not contradicted, by its tendency to speak, and to communicate in, a quasi-private language. If it is true that, to a large extent, sociology is guilty of ‘the unfortunate use of jargon instead of [plain] English’26 (or any other widely accessible language) and if, in addition, it is culpable of conducting ‘too many qualitative and quantitative investigations of the obvious’,27 then this tendency towards linguistic obscurity, combined with a lack of intellectual originality, may trigger, at best, a profound crisis or, at worst, the demise of the entire discipline—at least in the long run. Granted, the task of inventing alternative imaginaries, capable of challenging hegemonic systems and ideologies, is inextricably linked to the task of inventing alternative languages, capable of breaking out of the symbolic prison of semantic immanence through destabilizing acts of hermeneutic transcendence. The critical theories developed by different members of the Frankfurt School, who are often accused of being ‘elitist’, are a case in point. The creation of quasi-private languages, in other words, may serve a legitimate and counterhegemonic function, notably when subverting dominant modes of being-in-the-world. Still, there is not much point in drawing on sophisticated conceptual tools, employing scholarly methodological strategies, and gathering large amounts of juicy empirical data, unless it can be demonstrated that it is worth embarking on such an uncomfortable journey in the first place. To be clear, there is a difference between ‘studying the obvious’ and ‘stating the obvious’. Often, the most fascinating sociological projects—notably those inspired by symbolic interactionism, social phenomenology, and ethnomethodology—are concerned with the former; but this does not mean that, therefore, they fall into the epistemic trap of the latter. ‘Studying the obvious’ can lead to unexpected, insightful, and valuable findings. ‘Stating the obvious’ is of little, if any, benefit to anyone, unless the obvious is not obvious to everyone. Nevertheless, both options may spark interesting academic and/or non-­ academic debates, to which sociology can and should strive to make original contributions.

12  Hegemony and Counterhegemony 

277

3. The Case for Sociology Sociology needs ‘to demonstrate its utility to society if it is going to be viable in the long run’.28 The danger, obviously, is that sociology ends up reproducing and reinforcing the audit-colonized language of ‘impact’, ‘relevance’, and ‘use value’. Such a strategically motivated, and arguably opportunistic, shift in direction would have little, if anything, to do with the discipline’s radical roots—as expressed, for instance, in Marx’s famous dictum that ‘[t]he philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it’.29 There is nothing intrinsically wrong, let alone retrograde or reactionary, in making a case for ‘a more applied, policy-oriented sociology’,30 as long as a practical approach of this sort is not driven by the implicit or explicit attempt to deprive sociology of its critical spirit. For it is its reflexive—and, where appropriate, subversive—attitude that enables sociological inquiries to call the taken-for-grantedness of social constellations into question. A decisive step in the right direction, permitting the discipline to assert itself in the neoliberal market of competitively structured research and education, is to ‘stop perpetuating the belief that sociology is substantively weak and that sociology departments are in peril’.31 An effective way of achieving this is to focus on the discipline’s significant strengths and virtues, of which there are many and which are expressed in different shapes and forms. • Sociology—arguably, in a more comprehensive, inclusive, and wide-­ ranging manner than any other academic discipline—provides both small-­ picture and big-picture analyses of the ways in which central dimensions of social life are interconnected: its objective, normative, and subjective dimensions; its behavioural, ideological, and institutional dimensions; its foundational, contingent, and ephemeral dimensions—to mention only a few.32 • Its intersectional studies of key sociological variables—such as class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability—are of paramount importance, since they shed light on the relationally organized elements shaping both the constitution and the development of practices and structures underlying the construction of human life forms. • Like no other subject area in the social sciences, sociology is able to provide a truly holistic picture of the multilayered organization of social life, taking into account the numerous facets of human existence: social, economic, cultural, political, technological, educational, physical, environmental, epistemological, ontological, moral, aesthetic, and so on and so forth.

278 

S. Susen

• By definition, sociology is a multiperspectival endeavour. Hence, its broad umbrella permits us to scrutinize crucial aspects of social life from several sub- and cross-disciplinary angles: political sociology, economic sociology, historical sociology, cultural sociology, philosophical sociology, vitalist sociology, digital sociology, environmental sociology, etc.—the list goes on and on. • Given its eclectic research foci, there is a large range of sociological fields of inquiry: the sociology of class and stratification, the sociology of race and ethnicity, the sociology of gender, the sociology of age, the sociology of ability and disability, the sociology of religion, the sociology of science and technology, the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of the body, the sociology of human consciousness, etc.—a long list of thematic foci, suggesting that, in principle, anything that forms part of the social world can be sociologically studied. • Given its pluralistic nature, one finds an extensive collection of explanatory approaches within sociology: positivism and interpretivism, social holism and methodological individualism, materialism and idealism, systems theory and hermeneutics, functionalism and symbolic interactionism, determinism and voluntarism, universalism and particularism, essentialism and constructivism, structuralism and poststructuralism, modernism and postmodernism, humanism and post-/transhumanism—to mention only some examples. • It is a remarkable feature of sociology that it offers an accommodating home for numerous political ideologies (as illustrated in the influence of Marxist sociology, liberal sociology, conservative sociology, feminist sociology, environmental sociology, etc.). • Perhaps most importantly, sociology has a normative mission. Arguably, its critiques of domination (notably of capitalism, racism, sexism, ageism, and ableism) would be pointless without its pleas for emancipation (such as those inspired by Marxism, anti- and postcolonialism, feminism, and egalitarianism). In order for sociology not only to survive but also to thrive in the future, it will have to build on the aforementioned strengths and virtues, which, far from being reducible to instrumental means of symbolic value creation in the academic market, constitute genuine sources of human empowerment—that is, of critical and imaginative modes of thinking about, and acting upon, key

12  Hegemony and Counterhegemony 

279

aspects of social reality. Sociology, as an academic discipline with a normative spirit, needs to continue combining insight with foresight, deconstruction with construction, subversion with transformation, critique with vision, and immanence with transcendence. In an era in which it has become common to treat students as ‘clients’ and ‘customers’, and to perceive teachers and academics as ‘service providers’, there is a danger that sociology degenerates into a form of ‘pop sociology’,33 reducible to a form of entertainment, the consumption of which ‘does not require excessive creative or intellectual efforts’,34 but, rather, invites those on the receiving end, and possibly also those on the producing end, to become— as Pink Floyd famously put it—‘comfortably numb’. If evidence piles up showing that students—including sociology students—have, to a large extent, ‘become uncritical consumers’,35 then those teaching, and conducting research in and for, the subject have a major task on their hands: namely, to demonstrate that the normative spirit of the discipline stands in sharp contrast to the impoverishing and disempowering consequences of the marketization of education. Different sociologists will have different views on what can (or cannot) and should (or should not) be regarded as an essential part—that is, ‘the core’36— of their discipline. Irrespective of one’s take on this debate, however, there is no doubt that sociology, in order to flourish in the future, needs to be able to defend itself as a discipline. To accomplish this, its advocates need to prove that sociology’s raison d’être—the critical study of society—cannot be divorced from the in-depth engagement with the species-constitutive elements of human existence.37 It is ‘from mouth to mouth that we have grown from Mund (mouth) to Mündigkeit (maturity)’.38 The evolution of human cognition is inconceivable with people’s capacity to engage in symbolically mediated processes of mutual recognition. It is from person to person that we have been able to construct a Gesellschaft (society) through the bonding power of Gesellschaftlichkeit (sociality). The development of human life forms is contingent upon the consolidation of social bonds. It is from fellow to fellow that we have brought about the condition of Menschsein (being human) by creating, and continuously drawing upon, a sense of Menschheit (humanity). The history of the human condition cannot be dissociated from our capacity to relate to one another as members of the same species. If sociology loses sight of the species-­constitutive underpinnings of the human condition, it loses sight of itself.

280 

S. Susen

Notes 1. Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 17. 2. See, for example, ibid. 3. Ibid., p. 18. 4. On the concept of ‘epistemetrics’, see Rescher (2006). See also, for example, Fuller (2016), p. 67. 5. On this point, see, for instance, Holmwood (2011b). See also, for example: Alstete et al. (2018); Denicolo (2013); Fenby-Hulse et al. (2019); Freudenburg (1986); Freudenburg and Keating (1982); Haux (2019); Reed (2018 [2016]); Woodside (2016). 6. On this problem, see, for example, Susen and Turner (2011a), esp. p. 9. See also O’Neill and Turner (2001). 7. On this point, see Susen and Turner (2011a). 8. On the concept of ‘sociological imagination’, see Mills (2000 [1959]). On the concept of ‘imagination’ in contemporary sociology, see also, for example: Bhambra (2007a); Burawoy (2000); Delanty (2009); Fuller (2006); Gane and Back (2012); Kerr (2009); Knowles and Sweetman (2004); Magubane (2005); Mesny (1998); Savransky (2017). 9. See Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), esp. pp. 23–24. 10. Ibid., p. 24. 11. See ibid., pp. 24–25. 12. Ibid., p. 24. 13. On this point, see, for example: DeFleur (1992); Gans (1992); Pearman (1992). 14. On this point, see, for instance: DeFleur (1992), p.  4; Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), pp. 24–25. 15. Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 25. 16. Ibid., p. 25. 17. See Kantrowitz (1992). See also Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 25. 18. On this point, see, for instance: D’Antonio (1992); DeFleur (1992); Gans (1992); Hohm (1992); Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 25. 19. On the ‘uncovering mission’ of science, see, for example: Susen (2011a), pp. 448, 449, 452, and 457; Susen (2011e), esp. pp. 47–48, 49–51, 69, and 73–74; Susen (2013b), pp. 91 and 100n33; Susen (2014d), pp. 617, 681, and 749; Susen (2015a), pp. 73, 99, and 168; Susen (2016c), pp. 4–5. 20. On the concept of ‘ideology critique’, see, for example: Apel (1971); Reitz (2004); Simons and Billig (1994). In addition, for instance: Susen (2011d), pp.  449 and 459; Susen (2013f ), p.  228; Susen (2014c); Susen (2015a), pp. 71, 72, 73, 74, 99, 262, 295n28, and 295n29; Susen (2016c), pp. 195, 196, 201–202, 211, 218–219, and 221; Susen (2017 [2014]); Susen (2017d), p. 111. 21. Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 25.

12  Hegemony and Counterhegemony 

281

22. Goffman (1971 [1959]), p. 20. In addition, see Susen (2016f ), esp. pp. 121, 122–123, 128, 132, and 133. See also Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 25. 23. On this point, see Susen (2016f ), pp. 122–123, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, and 136. 24. Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 25. 25. Ibid., p. 25. 26. Gans (1992), p. 5. See Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 26. 27. Gans (1992), p. 5. See Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 26. 28. Kantrowitz (1992), p. 55 (quotation modified). See Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 26. 29. Marx (2000/1977 [1845]), p. 173. Cf. Marx (1971 [1845]). For an excellent analysis of Marx’s ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, see Haug (1999b). See also, for example: Bloch (1971 [1968]), p. 93; Coles and Susen (2018), p. 253; Susen (2010b), pp.  274 and 279n33. In addition, see Turner and Susen (2011), pp. 378–380. 30. Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 26. 31. Ibid., p. 29. On this point, see also Buchner (1993) and Gans (1992). 32. On this point, see Susen (2016e). 33. Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 34. 34. Susen (2011c), p. 192. 35. Knottnerus and Maguire (1995), p. 34. 36. On this point, see ibid., p. 35. 37. For a Grundriß of such an endeavour, see, for example, Susen (2007), Chapter 10. Cf. Chernilo (2017) and Susen (2020c). 38. Susen (2007), p. 82 (quotation modified).

Part VII Intimations of Reflexivity

13 Epilogue: Critical Remarks

The following sections shall provide some critical reflections on the key trends, debates, and challenges covered in the preceding chapters. As should be clear from the previous analysis, the present study is not intended to be a demolition exercise. The point of this epilogue, therefore, is not to demonstrate that the sociological approaches scrutinized in the foregoing chapters are doomed to failure. Rather, the point here is to shed light on their main weaknesses and limitations, which―regardless of their respective strengths and contributions―need to be taken into consideration when examining crucial developments in twenty-first-century sociology. As the preceding inquiry has sought to illustrate, the project of creating a sociology capable of accounting for the interconnectedness of social actors and social structures across time and space is far from straightforward. Indeed, the task of constructing a cutting-edge twenty-­first-­century discipline of this sort is fraught with difficulties. Building on the principal insights from the previous investigation, this epilogue shall draw attention to the complexities and contradictions inherent in, and to the major challenges arising from, such an ambitious endeavour.

Part I: Intimations of Postcoloniality 1. Between Validity and Legitimacy Undoubtedly, postcolonial and decolonial approaches provide valuable insights into the nature of power relations across the world. It is far from obvious, however, whether or not they succeed in making genuinely original © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1_13

285

286 

S. Susen

contributions to the humanities and social sciences. Arguably, their ‘longterm intellectual benefit is dubious’,1 especially in relation to central issues that have been on the agenda of social and political analysis for decades―if not for centuries. It is true that mainstream canons of sociology―notably in the area of social theory―fall short of including marginalized voices in a convincing fashion. Dynamics of inferiorization and superiorization pervade not only society but also both the ideological and the institutional construction of academic disciplines. These power- and interest-laden processes are reflected in the interactional mobilization and asymmetrical valorization of key sociological variables―such as class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability. When affirming, however, that a presumably alternative sociology ‘does offer insights on questions of agency’2 (and, by implication, of structure or, indeed, on other controversial matters in contemporary forms of social and political inquiry), the onus is on its proponents to demonstrate that it makes intellectual contributions worthy of being regarded as innovative and cutting-edge―or even as paradigmatic ‘game changers’. Promoting particular thinkers into the league of leading scholars mainly because of the marginal positions they occupy in a social field is no less discriminatory than defending, or even demoting, those for whom the opposite is true mainly because of the dominant positions from which they benefit within a hierarchically codified realm of epistemic production. This is not to deny the existence of classist, racist, sexist, ageist, and ableist (and various other discriminatory) mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion, by means of which academic institutions and canons are established, illustrating the protectionist and segregationist constitution of knowledge economies in colonial and postcolonial societies. Rather, this is to insist that intellectual contributions should be judged in terms of their epistemic merits, rather than on the basis of the social positions occupied by those who make them. Given their concern with both the construction and the deconstruction of power relations, it remains a central task for critical sociologists―including those endorsing postcolonial and decolonial frameworks of interpretation― to explore the numerous theoretical and practical implications of the fact that validity claims and legitimacy claims are inextricably linked.3 Yet, judgements about the epistemic value of intellectual contributions should be based on the actual or potential insightfulness of the former, rather than on the distortive impact of the latter.

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

287

2. Between Homogeneity and Heterogeneity At the heart of most postcolonial and decolonial approaches in sociology lies a curious paradox: on the one hand, they insist upon the heterogeneity, particularity, and irreducibility of formerly colonized territories and populations; on the other hand, they have a tendency to employ the term ‘the West’ as a homogeneous category, thereby failing to account for the profound social, political, and cultural points of divergence between different ‘Occidental’ regions and nations. This serious shortcoming is ironic, considering the fact that postcolonial and decolonial perspectives aim to deconstruct the normative opposition between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, especially to the degree that it is conceived of in terms of simplistic binaries―such as ‘superior’ vs. ‘inferior’, ‘civilized’ vs. ‘uncivilized’, ‘advanced’ vs. ‘backward’, and ‘developed’ vs. ‘underdeveloped’. The world constitutes a conglomerate of eclectic realities, whose complexity cannot be reduced to a binary division between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’ (or, in a similar manner, between ‘the North’ and ‘the South’). As critical sociologists, we need to avoid ‘the risk of a sloppy reverse essentialism in which Europe and its traditions are treated as a “monolithic entity”’,4 while other continents and regions―such as Africa, Australia, and Latin America―are erroneously homogenized in a similar fashion. We need to resist the temptation to portray ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’ as homogeneous units, let alone monolithic civilizational blocks. While we should remind ourselves of the fact that ‘the understanding of the world by far exceeds the Western understanding of the world’,5 it would be mistaken to assume that there is such a thing as ‘the Western understanding of the world’,6 just as it would be misleading to suggest that there is such a thing as ‘the non-Western understanding of the world’.7 ‘The West’―if one wishes to use such a generalizing term― constitutes a highly heterogeneous conglomerate of civilizational (that is, social, cultural, political, demographic, epistemic, linguistic, religious, scientific, technological, and military) practices, structures, and traditions. The same, of course, is true of ‘the Rest’, broadly classified as ‘the non-West’. Instead of falling into the reductive trap of conceptual binarization, we need to account for the enduring presence of heterogeneity and diversity in a world characterized by unprecedented levels of agential and structural complexity. 3. Between Nationalism and Colonialism The contention that the nation-state can be conceived of ‘as a product of colonialism and not just a product of nationalism (including national oppositions to colonialism)’8 is controversial. Although it is true that, from a historical point of view, the birth of the nation-state and the emergence of colonialism are

288 

S. Susen

interrelated, it is erroneous to portray the former as a mere product of the latter. Not all European nation-states were created primarily, let alone exclusively, as instruments of colonial rule, not even in the case of major colonial powers (such as France, Great Britain, and Spain), and even less so in the case of the ‘latecomers’ (such as Belgium, Germany, and Italy). To conceive of the nation-state per se as a product of colonialism means to subscribe to a narrow view that is tantamount to a considerable historical distortion. Such a reductive interpretation does not stand up to scrutiny, especially if assessed against the evidence with which political sociologists are confronted when studying modern history. Admittedly, the nation-state―which was ‘exported’ from Europe to other continents―was, in many cases, at least partly a product of colonialism. At the same time, however, colonialism was a product of the imperial rule exercised by empires and, subsequently, by expansionist nation-­ states. Similar to other modes of large-scale domination, colonialism had multiple features, causes, and consequences―notably those related to economic, political, ideological, geostrategic, and military interests. Undoubtedly, empires and nation-states were pivotal actors in the spread of colonialism across the world. This does not mean, however, that all nation-states can be reduced to mere products of colonialism.9 4. Between Epistemicide and Genocide The claim that ‘epistemicide is the dark side of the triumph of science’,10 in addition to serving as ‘the intellectual accompaniment to genocide’,11 is both historically and politically questionable. For it puts two forms of annihilation―which, in terms of scope and significance, are profoundly different―on the same level. To be clear, we must not understate, let alone devalue, the importance of epistemicide. Indeed, the systematic silencing―if not obliteration―of already marginalized forms of knowledge across the world is a serious matter, not least because it is symptomatic of a global division of power that is based on arbitrary social mechanisms of inferiorization and superiorization. We must be careful, however, not to put epistemicide on a level with genocide (or to conceive of the former as a mere epiphenomenon of the latter). In modern history, one finds plenty of examples of the deliberate and systematic killing of large sectors of the population―especially of those belonging to specific cultural, ethnic, and/or national groups. To put the persecution of particular social groups on a level with the marginalization or destruction of subaltern knowledge(s), generated by disempowered actors in peripheralized communities or societies, is inaccurate in that, by implication, it attributes the same value to epistemic processes and structures as to human life.

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

289

5. Between Commensurability and Incommensurability There are no individual or collective actors enjoying an ‘in-built’ privilege of epistemic superiority (or, analogously, actors suffering from an ‘inherent’ lack of such privilege). Indeed, ‘just as scholarly and political projects that may have emerged from the experience and needs of white people are not restricted to the latter, so decolonizing projects are not exclusive to those who perhaps most need them’.12 In other words, knowledge produced in ‘the West’ and/or in ‘the North’ may be highly relevant to individuals, communities, and societies in ‘the East’ and/or in ‘the South’―and vice versa. We need to reject any form of essentialist perspectivism (or, if one prefers, perspectivist essentialism), according to which the knowledge generated in one context and/or by one individual or collective actor is incommensurable―and, hence, incompatible―with the knowledge generated in another context and/or by other individual or collective actors. Instead, we need to recognize that epistemic processes and structures are a dialectical affair: they are context-immanent insofar as knowledge is generated within historically specific settings; they are context-transcendent insofar as knowledge can be distributed, consumed, and applied across spatiotemporal boundaries. This is not to deny the fact that dynamics of knowledge production, distribution, consumption, and application are permeated by power relations. This is to insist, however, that the relevance of epistemic insights, which may be derived from micro- or macro-historical events experienced by individual or collective actors, is not necessarily limited to the particular contexts in which they are obtained. Seemingly incommensurable knowledge is often more commensurable than it may appear at first glance. 6. Between Contradictory Performances and Performative Contradictions Postcolonial and decolonial theories suffer from a number of performative contradictions, notably the following: a. One remarkable performative contradiction in postcolonial and decolonial approaches is their Occidental anti-Occidentalism―that is, their tendency to demonize ‘Western’ forms of social and political inquiry, but without being able to offer ‘a categorically non-Western, radically “other” mode of analysis’.13 In other words, while declaring to provide ‘non-Western’ conceptions of the world, postcolonial and decolonial approaches remain, at several levels, caught up in a ‘Western’ intellectual modus operandi. This is reflected in the fact that most of them draw, to a considerable extent, on

290 

S. Susen

the conceptual tools, theoretical frameworks, methodological strategies, and empirical data of ‘Western’ research programmes. b. Another noticeable performative contradiction in postcolonial and decolonial approaches is their rational anti-rationalism―that is, their tendency to portray rationalism as a European language game, while themselves relying on different forms of rationality (notably critical rationality, substantive rationality, discursive rationality, and communicative rationality) to make arguments against ‘Western reason’ or, in a similar fashion, against ‘lazy reason’.14 Instead of demoting rationality to the status of a Western instrument of domination, we need to face up to its ambivalent constitution: some forms of rationality (such as strategic rationality, instrumental rationality, and functionalist rationality) are indeed problematic insofar as they can be mobilized to sustain mechanisms of social domination; other forms of rationality (such as critical rationality, substantive rationality, discursive rationality, and communicative rationality), however, are potentially empowering insofar as they can be mobilized to bring about dynamics of human emancipation. c. An additional, no less significant, performative contradiction in postcolonial and decolonial approaches is their ethnocentric anti-ethnocentrism― that is, their tendency to criticize the alleged ethnocentrism―epitomized in different versions and degrees of Eurocentrism and Western-centrism― of mainstream perspectives and agendas in the humanities and social sciences, while themselves remaining trapped in ethnocentric research patterns. An obvious example illustrating this point is Anglocentrism: the English language constitutes the lingua franca of both ‘mainstream’ and ‘non-­mainstream’ academia.15 Particularly telling in this respect are the bibliographies of putatively ‘alternative’ approaches developed in postcolonial, decolonial, or subaltern studies. The Anglophone field of post- and decolonialism is clearly dominated by bibliographic sources published in English. Key post- and decolonial texts that were originally written in a language other than English tend to be widely cited only if they are available in English translation. Most postcolonial and decolonial scholars from ‘the Global South’ write either in English or in one of the other colonial European languages (such as Spanish, Portuguese, and French), thereby ensuring that they reach a broad (but predominantly Anglophone) audience; or, in many cases, they do both (that is, they write and publish both in their own language and in English). In any case, the status of English as the hegemonic language of the global Anglocentric ‘empire’16 tends to be confirmed and reinforced, rather

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

291

than undermined or subverted, by the majority of Anglophone scholars who consider their approaches to be postcolonial, decolonial, and/or global. This is ironic, to say the least, given the various bold declarations made by researchers seeking to break out of the ethnocentric straitjacket of ‘Western’ mainstream social science. d. A further important performative contradiction in postcolonial and decolonial approaches is their elitist anti-elitism―that is, their tendency to attack different versions and degrees of elitism, while themselves reproducing, and benefiting from, asymmetrical power structures.17 Indeed, when examining the social and educational backgrounds of influential postcolonial, decolonial, and subaltern scholars, the following becomes evident:

i. A large proportion of them belong to privileged groups, casts, and/or classes in their respective countries of origin. ii. A large proportion of them, if they have left their countries of origin for professional and/or personal reasons, are based in Western countries (notably in the USA, Canada, and the UK, but also in continental European countries such as France, Germany, and Spain) and work at prestigious Western universities. iii. As mentioned above, a large proportion of them contribute to Anglocentrism―that is, to the global influence of the English language as one of the most salient features of hegemonic power across the world. This is due to the fact that most of them read, write, publish, teach, and present their works in English―arguably, not only as a sign of social distinction, but also as proof of their capacity to position themselves within the global academic field, which is dominated by English as the lingua franca. e. Another striking performative contradiction in postcolonial and decolonial approaches is their universalist anti-universalism―that is, their tendency to reject any claims to context-transcending validity, while themselves making assertions by drawing on species-constitutive resources of humanity, such as language and communicative rationality. In fact, ‘there is a core element of universality, qua objectivity, in all knowledge projects, even sociologies of knowledge that seek to show the social origins and interests that shape and anchor every body of ideas’.18 Inspired by social constructivism, postcolonial and decolonial scholars may argue against the epistemic pursuit of universal validity (epitomized in the critique of different forms of universalism). When advocating this categorical position, however, they themselves make a claim to universal validity (expressed in the contention that universalism is universally erroneous).

292 

S. Susen

Just as the postmodern assault on metanarratives constitutes a metanarrative in itself,19 the post- or decolonial attack on universalism is embedded in the species-distinctive―and, hence, universal―power of language and communicative rationality. Perhaps, nowhere is this more obvious than in the activity of contributing to the production of scientific knowledge. Critics of universalism may complain about ‘the “abstractness” of generalization’.20 When doing so, however, they need to acknowledge that generalization constitutes ‘the “lifeblood” of social science’21 and that rejecting it means to immobilize those involved in the everyday practice of conducting research.22 Indeed, ‘the use of typifying categories’,23 based on generalizations and articulated in the construction of ideal types,24 forms an integral part of social-scientific inquiry. It is impossible to build ‘a theory that does not generalize, or a generalization that is not abstract: abstraction is what enables generalization, and therefore intellectual and political travelling’.25 Thus, instead of launching a scathing attack on universalism, we should recognize that all forms of scientific research comprise processes of abstraction and generalization, without which it would be inconceivable to provide erudite interpretations and explanations. f. A further, and fairly conspicuous, performative contradiction in postcolonial and decolonial approaches is their relativist anti-relativism―that is, their tendency to oppose relativism, while, in fact, embracing it. Obviously, this ‘relativist anti-relativism’ is inextricably linked to the aforementioned ‘universalist anti-universalism’. In this respect, the tension-laden challenge consists in defending not only a position of anti-relativism without falling into the alleged trap of universalism, but also a position of anti-­universalism without falling into the alleged trap of relativism. Yet, the hostility to relativity and the hostility to universality26 are not easily reconcilable. The idea of endorsing ‘a “broader” rationality […], a more “legitimate” and “fruitful” universality’,27 may sound seductive, but it is far from clear what distinguishes such a presumably more inclusive and more multifaceted approach to both rationality and universality from previous―allegedly critical―perspectives.28 Sceptics may affirm that ‘modernist rationalism requires us to think totalistically, without noticing the constitutive outside of those totalities—the colonized’.29 Yet, we must not ignore the fact that the project of modernity has, from the beginning, included the critique of its own reality and, at least partly, included the marginalized voices within its own normativity.30 Consider, in relation to the problem of ‘relativist anti-relativism’, the following statement:

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

293

A postcolonial approach to historical sociology […] requires address of histories of colonialism and empire in the configuration of understandings of the global. What is in prospect, is not an embrace of relativism, but a recognition that a truly global sociology with universal claims will derive from reconstructing present understandings in the light of new knowledge of the past and the present.31

The main problem with bold statements of this sort is that they tell us remarkably little, if anything, about the specifics of how to construct ‘a truly global sociology’. Would any contemporary critical sociologist seriously deny that ‘present understandings’32 can be reconstructed ‘in the light of new knowledge of the past and the present’33? Obviously, the answer to this question is ‘no’. The notion of ‘a truly global sociology with universal’,34 rather than universalist, claims may sound like a nice idea. It is hard to see, however, how such an endeavour can be pursued without defending a strong sense of universality―that is, without facing up to the main features, and challenges, that we share as members of humanity.35 g. Another profound performative contradiction in postcolonial and decolonial approaches is their essentialist anti-essentialism―that is, their tendency to deconstruct essentialism, while themselves, inadvertently, contributing to its presence in contemporary social and political discourses. This contradiction manifests itself in the following tension: • On the one hand, postcolonial and decolonial approaches convincingly expose, and rightly attack, the multiple ways in which mechanisms of empowerment and disempowerment, superiorization and inferiorization, as well as inclusion and exclusion are legitimized by virtue of the ‘naturalization’ of social differences based on sociological variables― such as class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability. • On the other hand, postcolonial and decolonial approaches contribute to the ‘essentialization’ of social―and, hence, relatively arbitrary―differences, notably when creating juxtapositions such as ‘white sociology’ vs. ‘black sociology’,36 ‘Northern sociology’ vs. ‘Southern sociology’,37 or ‘mainstream sociology’ vs. ‘subaltern sociology’.38 The point is not to deny the unequal distribution of social (that is, material, symbolic, reputational, and financial) resources in academic fields in terms of their intersectional stratification (based on key sociological variables―such as class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability). Rather, the point

294 

S. Susen

is to concede that the very essentialization of social differences that postcolonial and decolonial approaches oppose represents a treacherous process, which, paradoxically, they reinforce when constructing ethnicized categorizations for the critical analysis of scientific activities. These ethnicized categorizations are problematic to the degree that they are not only naturalized, but also employed in such a way that they effectively serve the function of conceptually homogenizing empirically heterogeneous social groups. Within both postcolonial and decolonial narratives, the anti-essentialist (that is, de-essentializing) deconstruction of ideal types goes hand in hand with their essentialist (that is, re-essentializing) construction. h. Another salient performative contradiction in postcolonial and decolonial approaches is their subversive complicity―that is, their tendency to claim to act as a radical and rebellious force while, in many ways, playing into the hands of, and profiting from, the status quo (especially in academia). In addition to purportedly fulfilling a dissident function, their advocates tend to be strongly suspicious of hegemonic practices and structures, whose ubiquity is indicative of actors’ complicity in the unequal distribution of material and symbolic resources in the construction of society. This seemingly ‘radical’ attitude is problematic, however, to the extent that postcolonial and decolonial scholars are themselves actively involved in strengthening the existing state of affairs―notably by ‘playing the game’ of mainstream academia, by buying into the logic of (formal and informal) hierarchies, by building professional careers out of their seemingly ‘marginal’ position within different fields of the humanities and social sciences, and by participating in the competition for material, symbolic, reputational, and financial resources within asymmetrically structured realms of institutionalized and professionalized knowledge production.39 It is puzzling―to say the least―that defenders of postcolonial and decolonial approaches have a tendency to attack ‘mainstream’ currents in the humanities and social sciences, accusing them of different types and degrees of complicity in hegemonic systems of social domination, while― in many cases―reproducing, and benefiting from, the asymmetrical power structures that they vehemently criticize. The first step towards the construction of a truly critical sociology is to recognize that, to a greater or lesser extent, we are all complicit in the production and reproduction of power.40

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

295

Part II: Intimations of Globality 1. Between Global Imaginaries and Global Realities The idea of developing a ‘global sociology’ is a laudable endeavour. Representing one of the most ambitious undertakings in the contemporary social sciences, such a venture reminds us of the fact that a comprehensive exploration of the principal challenges faced by global society requires us to contribute to the construction of a global sociology. To the extent that ‘modern colonial empires encompassed nearly all of the globe’,41 however, contemporary sociology― including its most radical postcolonial and decolonial versions―is firmly embedded in hegemonic patterns of functioning, imposed by dominant actors upon dominated―including subaltern―groups. To put it bluntly, the concept of global sociology may turn out to be a euphemism for Western sociology to the degree that it remains trapped in the limited epistemic horizon of Eurocentric categories, even if its advocates purport to transcend local, national, and regional boundaries. Making a case for a global sociology is one thing; making it a reality is quite another. 2. Between Global Classics and Global Contemporaries At least in principle, the construction of a global sociology permits us to take issue with parochialist frameworks of perception, interpretation, appreciation, and action. Indeed, it invites―if not compels―us to think beyond local, national, and regional boundaries. At the same time, it reminds us of the various social and political dangers arising from all forms of ethnocentrism, notably those that have emanated from, or are intertwined with, the history of colonialism. Short-sighted versions of such a global endeavour, however, run the risk of sharing a major limitation with critics of ‘methodological nationalism’42 if they accuse classical sociology of remaining caught up in the narrow sphere of nation-states and, hence, of failing to account for the global interconnectedness of modern societies. As a close analysis of their key writings reveals, classical sociologists―such as Marx, Durkheim, and Weber―engaged with social and political developments by breaking out of the straitjacket of the nation-state; and they did so both conceptually and empirically. Marx insisted on the global nature of modern capitalism,43 Durkheim highlighted the global nature of the key ingredients of social order,44 and Weber drew attention to the global nature of

296 

S. Susen

rationalization processes.45 All three of them referred to non-European contexts (especially to Asia, Africa, and the Americas, in the case of Marx and Weber; and to Australia, in the case of Durkheim) when substantiating their global vision of modernity. Consider, for instance, the following assertion: ‘perceptions about the globalized nature of the world in which we live are beginning to have an impact within sociology’.46 Statements of this sort are profoundly misleading, given that not only perceptions but also fine-grained examinations of globalized social relations have been an integral ingredient of sociology ever since it came into existence. Since its birth as an academic discipline, sociology―although, admittedly, to a lesser degree than anthropology―has engaged with ‘the world beyond the West’47 (especially Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas), precisely because both its normative mission and its inquisitive spirit transcend the stifling logic of geographical boundaries. Classical sociology, far from being reducible to a parochial language game, has always been a global project and, thus, an endeavour capable of comparing different societies across time and space, thereby exposing not only their specificities but also their high degree of interconnectivity. 3. Between ‘the Global West’ and ‘the Global Rest’ The claim that ‘other cultures constitute the ground of European self-­ realization’48 is hardly sustainable. To be clear, in this context the term ‘other’ is supposed to mean ‘non-European’. On this account, European cultures from outside the European continent have played, and continue to play, a pivotal―or, to be exact, a foundational―role from within the European continent. If this is true, these ‘other’ cultures are of fundamental, rather than marginal, importance to civilizational trends, developments, and achievements in Europe. According to this contention, the former constitute the precondition for the very possibility of the latter. This perspective, then, not only challenges the notion that ‘Europe’ and ‘non-Europe’ can be treated as two separate entities but, in addition, suggests that the roots of European civilization lie outside the European continent. In a critical fashion, this presuppositional framework posits that ‘most discussions of Europe are oriented towards endogenous explanations of who Europeans are and what Europe is’.49 Contrary to this interpretation, however, in the humanities and social sciences (notably in historiography and sociology) one finds plenty of examples demonstrating that the opposite is the case. Indeed, a wide range of rigorous studies of Europe―irrespective of whether they are primarily historical, sociological, cultural, demographic, or otherwise―combine the analysis of

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

297

endogenous factors with the analysis of exogenous factors, thereby highlighting the interconnectedness of different regions and continents across the world, rather than focusing exclusively on the former at the expense of the latter (or vice versa).50 Hence, it would be fair to suggest that most scholarly debates on Europe are oriented towards cross-fertilizing endogenous and exogenous explanations of ‘who Europeans are and what Europe is’,51 instead of endorsing reductive investigative frameworks that advocate one-sided accounts one way or another. As becomes evident when considering the confluence of endogenous and exogenous factors shaping historical developments in particular regions and continents, ‘other’ cultures constitute a key component, rather than ‘the ground’,52 of European self-realization. 4. Between Global Modernity and Global Coloniality It is erroneous to conceive of ‘colonialism as the precondition for’,53 rather than as a central part of, ‘the development of (ideas of ) modernity’.54 Although the former played a major role in the unfolding of the latter, there is no transcendental inevitability attached to the historical nexus between colonialism and modernity. In fact, such a short-sighted view effectively excludes non-colonial (that is, both non-colonizing and non-colonized) regions and countries from the era of modernity. Granted, the impact of colonialism on modern history can hardly be overstated. Notwithstanding its crucial significance for the restructuring of the global division of power in the era of imperialism, however, colonialism does not represent the precondition for, or the foundation of, modernity for several reasons: a. Even if, historically speaking, the rise of modernity and the rise of colonialism were intimately connected, one could argue that―no matter how utopian this might seem―the former could have emerged and developed without the latter. b. Not every key political player of the modern age was a major colonial player―that is, not every European state was a major colonial state (‘big players’: England, France, Spain, Netherlands, and Portugal; ‘latecomers’: Belgium, Germany, and Italy; ‘the often-forgotten’: Courland, Denmark, Knights of Malta, Norway, Russia, Scotland, and Sweden). c. Even in the case of the ‘latecomers’, such as Bismarckian Germany, colonialism was, from the point of view of their political leaders, little more than a geostrategic sideshow of a carrot-and-stick policy that was focused, primarily, on Europe.

298 

S. Susen

d. Not every single aspect of modernity was (or still is) dominated, let alone determined, by the logic of colonialism. In brief, colonialism is not the precondition for, or the foundation of, modernity; rather, the former is a highly significant element of the latter.55 5. Between Global Outlooks and Global Hierarchies A central feature of the contemporary era is the ubiquity of global interconnectedness. Its far-reaching importance manifests itself not only in connected histories and connected societies, but also in connected historiographies and connected sociologies.56 It is crucial to explore the extent to which different dimensions of global interconnectedness are shot through with power relations, notably those that are directly or indirectly shaped by modes of domination linked to colonialism. This ‘re-organization of understanding through the lens of coloniality’57 draws attention to ‘a specific kind of hierarchical ordering’58 that divides the world (socially, culturally, politically, ideologically, territorially, demographically, and economically) into ‘core’ and ‘periphery’. We need to be careful, however, not to convert the notion of global interconnectedness into a fetish of repetitive, self-referential, and proselytizing academic discourse. To suggest that European sociology is futile unless it takes on board non-European sociology, while acknowledging the implicit or explicit connections between them, is not dissimilar to contending that German sociology was pointless until it began to incorporate French sociology (and vice versa)―or, indeed, to maintaining that sociology was doomed to failure until it was systematically cross-fertilized with other disciplines (such as philosophy, history, politics, anthropology, psychology, criminology, and media studies). It is, of course, vital to recognize the significance of the numerous connections that exist between different modes of knowledge production across spatiotemporally contingent contexts and socio-epistemic boundaries. Yet, it would be counterproductive to reject, or even to demonize, particular social-scientific traditions simply because of their alleged incapacity to establish themselves as genuinely global―that is, translocal, transnational, or transregional―intellectual endeavours. 6. Between Global Connections and Global Reconstructions The critical analysis of the profound interconnectedness of local, national, regional, and continental practices and structures is crucial to a comprehensive understanding of historical developments across the world. The sustained effort to account for the wide-ranging implications of this global condition is

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

299

reflected in the attempt to make a case for connected historiographies and connected sociologies. It is far from clear, however, what these approaches add, both conceptually and methodologically, to already existing knowledge concerning the interconnectedness of the world. Let us, in this context, consider the following passage: I have argued elsewhere that this is not an argument for relativism, but rather for the appropriate consideration of new evidence in enabling us to rethink the adequacy of concepts associated with narratives that have now been superseded. It is an argument for the reconstruction of concepts and the reinterpretation of histories in the light of that reconstruction. Put another way, engaging with different histories must move us beyond simple pluralism to make a difference to what we had initially thought. This is the push to reconstruction central to my conception of connected sociologies, whereby understandings are reconstructed as a consequence of the significant new connections identified. To put it most strongly, there is no connection where there is no reconstruction, and no understanding remains unchanged by connection.59

A connectivist perspective, in the sense outlined above, suffers from a number of noteworthy limitations: a. The aforementioned view is not supposed to serve as ‘an argument for relativism’.60 Unless it is specified what kind of universals advocates of such an approach are willing to recognize, however, it does remain relativist. Universal features of human existence are defined by the fact that they exist in all societies, regardless of their spatiotemporally variable specificities. To the degree that defenders of connectivist accounts refuse to engage in the critical exploration of these universal features, their cross-cultural vision, which rightly insists on the far-reaching sociohistorical links between different parts of the world, fails to shed light on the foundational elements of human life forms―that is, on those elements that, in their combination and connectedness, make us distinctively human.61 b. The task of reconstruction is far from new, let alone unprecedented. While the idea of making ‘an argument for the reconstruction of concepts and the reinterpretation of histories in the light of that reconstruction’62 may be a laudable undertaking, it represents an investigative endeavour that, within different fields of research conducted in the humanities and social sciences, has been on the agenda for centuries. There are numerous intellectual traditions that examine social constellations in terms of their spatiotemporal interconnectedness, scrutinizing their historicity on the basis different methods: comparative, hermeneutic, evolutionary, archaeological, and

300 

S. Susen

genealogical―to mention only a few. In critical forms of sociohistorical inquiry, the task of reconstruction has been on the agenda for some time.63 c. The contention that ‘there is no connection where there is no reconstruction, and no understanding remains unchanged by connection’,64 although it may sound provocative, is ultimately untenable. In fact, the opposite is true. There are multiple connections where there is no reconstruction, and many understandings remain unchanged by connections. Connections either do or do not exist, and they do so objectively―that is, irrespective of whether those who are, or are not, directly or indirectly influenced by them are aware of their presence. Because, at several levels, we do fail to comprehend the numerous connections by which we and/or others are shaped in one way or another, there are many substantial (mis-) understandings that do remain unchanged. In many cases, these may be described as (partial or total) ‘misunderstandings’, which, by definition, are sustained normatively (that is, by particular social groups) and/or subjectively (that is, by particular individuals). Both the reconstruction of connections and the connections between reconstructions remain crucial to the pursuit of a critical (and, by implication, globally oriented) social science. Ever since taking on the ambitious task of uncovering underlying historical connections across the world, social scientists have been engaging in connectivist research. The fact, however, that connections can exist without their reconstruction is due to the ineluctable preponderance of objectivity (‘the world as it is’) over normativity (‘the world as it is socially constructed’) and subjectivity (‘the world as it is perceived’).65

Part III: Intimations of Canonicity 1. Between the Condition of Modernity and the Critique of Modernity We must not lose sight of the fact that the critique of modernity constitutes an integral element of the very condition of modernity.66 In classical sociology, one encounters powerful forms of methodical engagement with the deeply problematic dimensions of modernity, such as the following: Marx’s critique of political economy,67 Weber’s critique of bureaucracy and large-scale organization,68 Durkheim’s critique of anomie and the organic division of labour,69 Simmel’s critique of the abstraction of space,70 and Horkheimer’s critique of science71―to mention just some prominent examples.

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

301

The works of these influential thinkers provide not only remarkably detailed and multifaceted descriptions, but also profoundly insightful and critical analyses, of modernity. Granted, their understanding of the role of imperialism and colonialism in shaping modern societies may have been limited. Indeed, their relative―albeit not absolute―lack of engagement with ‘non-­ Western’ realities is indicative of this significant limitation, as reflected in the preponderance of Eurocentric conceptual toolkits, methodological strategies, and empirical data in classical sociology. This does not mean, however, that their major intellectual contributions to the sociological inquiry into both the ‘bright’ and the ‘dark’ sides of modernity can be brushed aside, let alone reduced to ethnocentric expressions of self-referential Western European language games. Of course, the silenced voices of non-Western scholars need to be included in the canons and sub-canons of academic discourse―not simply to obtain a more fine-grained understanding of social realities across the globe, but, crucially, to subvert behavioural, ideological, and institutional mechanisms of exclusion prevalent in established modes of knowledge production, distribution, consumption, and application. Paradoxically, however, such a broadening of perspective runs the risk of narrowing our epistemic frameworks if it is driven by the ambition to give a voice to silenced voices by removing the voice from already amplified voices, simply because the latter may be deemed ‘hegemonic’, while the former may be glorified as ‘counterhegemonic’.72 2. Between Empowerment and Disempowerment The disempowerment of different social groups has been a key issue in sociology ever since it established itself as an academic discipline. Thus, it is, at best, inaccurate or, at worst, misleading to assert that ‘most meso-level and macro-­ level sociology, and indeed much of social theory, has been […] silent on the agency of nonelite subjects’.73 No less problematic is the corresponding claim that ‘[t]his is true even for the sociological subfields where one might expect marginalized groups and actors to be most relevant, such as political sociology, comparative-historical sociology, or studies of globalization’.74 Contrary to this distortive narrative, the exposure of the life conditions of individual and collective actors suffering from varying degrees of marginalization and disempowerment is a central concern in large parts of classical and contemporary sociology. Sociological approaches may study individual and collective actors at different levels―for instance, in terms of the social positions they occupy, the social dispositions they acquire, the personal and shared experiences they make,

302 

S. Susen

and/or the tension-laden lives they live. Irrespective of their explorative focus, however, both classical and contemporary frameworks in sociology have examined, and criticized, the conditions of life encountered, and suffered, by those groups relegated to the fringes of society. At all three principal levels of sociological investigation (that is, at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels), marginalized and disempowered actors have been, and continue to be, researched by several currents of thought―such as Marxism, feminism, critical theory, and conflict theory, as well as, more recently, critical race theory, postcolonial and decolonial studies, and cultural studies. Ever since it came into existence, large parts of sociology have been concerned with uncovering and problematizing different forms of social domination. Admittedly, intersectionalist modes of analysis―illustrated in cross-thematic accounts of classism, racism, sexism, ageism, or ableism―represent a relatively recent phenomenon in sociology. As a multiperspectival discipline, however, sociology has provided a home for numerous long-established traditions of inquiry, grappling with both the constitution and the development of different sources of social domination. 3. Between Rupture and Difference A central aspect of postcolonial and decolonial critiques of classical sociology is the charge that it is based on the following―arguably reductive―assumption: as historical sociologists, we are confronted with ‘a temporal rupture between a premodern past and a modern industrial present, and a qualitative spatial (cultural) differentiation between Europe (and the West) and the rest of the world’.75 On this view, the rise of modernity is inextricably linked not only to the temporal differentiation between ‘a before’ and ‘an after’, but also to the spatial differentiation between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’. These two modes of differentiation, then, are central to the development of the discourse of modernity76―that is, to a narrative that establishes a hierarchy between ‘advanced’ and ‘underdeveloped’ parts of the world. Although it is true that, in mainstream sociological accounts of modernity, rupture and difference77 constitute two major points of reference (whose explanatory centrality is sometimes made explicit, but often remains implicit), a nuanced understanding of their role in classical modernization theories is needed, if we seek to do justice to their complexity. • Rupture: All three ‘founding figures’ of sociology―that is, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber―insist upon the fact that modern life forms emerged out of premodern life forms and that, consequently, the former cannot be dissoci-

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

303

ated from the latter. Far from conceiving of the rise of modern society simply as a moment of clear-cut rupture, they underscore the fact that post-­traditional modes of existence, rather than having emerged out of nowhere, were structurally embedded in types of sociality that preceded them. The present always evolves in the lap of the hitherto-been (im Schoße des Bisherdagewesenen).78 The historicity of modernity is explored, and highlighted, by classical sociology, notably with regard to the tension-laden relationship between continuity and discontinuity.79 Instead of reducing the transition from premodern to modern life forms to a moment of abrupt ‘once-and-­for-all’ rupture, classical sociologists draw attention to the profound entanglement of these two historical stages of development. • Difference: In a similar vein, all three ‘founding figures’ of sociology, far from simply constructing an irrefutable binary between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, stress the global interconnectedness of historical developments. Ever since its consolidation as an academic discipline, sociology―although, to be fair, to a lesser degree than anthropology―has engaged with ‘the world beyond the West’.80 This applies not only to large parts of contemporary sociology (such as historical sociology, political sociology, economic sociology, and cultural sociology) but also to classical sociology. In the writings of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, one finds manifold references to, and an in-depth engagement with, regional and continental realities outside Europe―notably Asia, Australia, Africa, and the Americas. Ever since it entered the stage of academic study and social-scientific investigation, sociology has contributed to both forming and transcending not only disciplinary but also cultural and geographical boundaries, by scrutinizing realities of the ‘here and now’ in relation to the ‘there and before/after’―that is, realities that may appear spatiotemporally remote but, upon close examination, turn out to be deeply interconnected. Contrary to postcolonial and decolonial suspicions, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify any classical or contemporary sociologist who would seriously refuse to ‘recognize “the global” as constituted historically’81 and, at the same time, interdependently. In the context of modernity, both rupture and difference need to be understood in terms of their complexity, rather than being reduced to a dichotomous division between ‘before’ and ‘after’ and/or between ‘us’ and ‘them’, as suggested by distortive (and, arguably, superficial) interpretations of classical and contemporary sociology.

304 

S. Susen

4. Between Epistemology and Historicity Contemporary sociologists may wish to emphasize the fact that ‘epistemology is not ahistorical’.82 Owing to its situatedness in time and space, the study of knowledge ‘has to be geographical in its historicity’83 and, as one may add, historical in its geography. This insistence on the historicity that permeates all― including the most abstract―forms of epistemology, however, has been part of mainstream intellectual discourse for a long time. Hardly any contemporary scholar working in the humanities and/or social sciences would seriously deny the spatiotemporal contingency of knowledge production, circulation, consumption, and application. Surely, it is essential to draw attention to ‘the limits of Western philosophy’84 and, more broadly, of Western intellectual thought. Deeply problematic in this respect is the common lack of critical inquiry into the historical specificities of globally interconnected―including colonial and postcolonial―realities. Arguably, this substantial limitation prevents contemporary researchers from making visible, let alone grasping, ‘the variety of local histories that Western thought […] hid and suppressed’.85 Even if, however, one shares the view that most Western intellectual traditions are culpable of ignoring―if not marginalizing and silencing―non-­ Western currents of thought, it is naïve to accuse them of putting forward ‘ahistorical’ epistemologies, which fail to account for their own social determinacy and spatiotemporal contingency. In philosophy, for instance, ‘hermeneutics has long stressed the importance of historicity for the interpretation of language and meaning’86 as well as, more generally, for the interpretation of human existence. Indeed, the systematic engagement with the socio-ontological significance of spatiotemporal contingency can hardly be more insightful, more in-depth, and more radical than in the writings of influential modern philosophers such as Georg W.  F. Hegel,87 Martin Heidegger,88 and HansGeorg Gadamer.89 Admittedly, their works, as well as those of various other prominent Western intellectuals, suffer from major shortcomings―not least because of their ethnocentrism and their relative lack of familiarity with, let alone consideration of, non-Western epistemic sources. Notwithstanding these limitations, we must recognize that the study of the historical constitution of knowledge production has been on the agenda for a long time, predating the rise of globalist and connectivist approaches in sociology in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.90

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

305

5. Between New Languages and Old Problems Critics of postcolonial and decolonial approaches―including those who are largely sympathetic to their cause91―rightly point out that various substantial charges made against ‘classical’ or ‘mainstream’ sociology ‘have long been standard fare in the “metropolitan” teaching of sociological theory’.92 There are numerous examples to illustrate the validity of this argument: the critique of universalism, the critique of transcendentalism, the critique of teleologism, the critique of determinism, the critique of positivism, the critique of rationalism, the critique of sexism, the critique of ethnocentrism, the critique of colonialism, and the critique of imperialism―to mention only a few. There is a long list of key issues that have been intensely discussed not only by postcolonial and decolonial accounts but also, prior to their emergence, by many other currents of social and political inquiry―notably by those broadly associated with ‘critical’ approaches, such as the following: Marxism, Weberianism, feminism, hermeneutics, social phenomenology, discourse analysis, historical sociology, and critical theory. This is not to overlook the fact that postcolonial and decolonial perspectives have made valuable―and, in many ways, indispensable―contributions to the contemporary humanities and social sciences, especially with regard to our understanding of the enduring presence of colonial and postcolonial power dynamics across the world in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. This is to concede, however, that―as illustrated in preceding sections―several criticisms levelled at ‘classical’ or ‘mainstream’ forms of social and political analysis have been on the agenda for a long time and certainly before postcolonial and decolonial studies entered the realm of academic discourse.93 6. Between Canon Formation and Canon Destruction It is, undoubtedly, important to expose, and to criticize, the power-laden mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion by which dynamics of academic canon formation are shaped, if not determined. Indeed, every disciplinary canon is based on ‘a clear demarcation between privileged insiders and neglected outsiders’,94 between gatekeepers and outcasts, between allegedly legitimate scholars and allegedly illegitimate pseudo-scholars. Even if, however, we concede that canon formation is shaped, or even determined, not only by arguments over epistemic validity but also, often more significantly, by struggles over social legitimacy, this is not a strong enough reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of reducing canon formation to a selection process that merely serves the interests of

306 

S. Susen

hegemonic forces and undermines the interests of counterhegemonic forces within different fields of academia, we need to recognize the following: a. Canon formation can have both negative and positive, detrimental and beneficial, disempowering and empowering aspects for both hegemonic and non-hegemonic actors within different academic fields. Just as canons can be institutionally rigid and intellectually stifling, they can contribute to the emergence of rich traditions of thought, both within and across academic disciplines. b. It is difficult to imagine the functioning of scientific disciplines without some kind of canon formation, since institutionalized modes of scholarly knowledge production are inconceivable without the emergence, and constant transformation, of epistemic paradigms and currents of thought, some of which are more influential, and some of which are less influential, than others. As critical social scientists, we need to shed light on the power-laden mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion, which shape―if not determine―dynamics of canon formation. At the same time, however, we need to avoid demonizing canon formation processes per se, while accepting that they are shaped by struggles for (and against) recognition and, simultaneously, by struggles for (and against) misrecognition.95 Realistically, the past, present, and future of science cannot be dissociated from the emergence of epistemic canons. The point is not to try to get rid of disciplinary and sub-disciplinary canons altogether; rather, the point is to ensure they remain open and inclusive, thereby incorporating as many critical views and intersecting voices as possible.

Part IV: Intimations of Historicity 1. Between Historical and World-Historical Events Even the most Eurocentric scholars in the humanities and social sciences will find it hard to deny that several constitutive components of ‘Western’ life forms have always already existed, often in a similar fashion, in ‘non-Western’ life forms (and vice versa). One may take into consideration numerous examples to illustrate the significance of this point: the presence of indigenous discourses of rights in (pre-) colonized societies; the development of scientific knowledge and medicine in non-Western contexts over centuries, prior to the

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

307

rise of European imperialism; and the emergence of highly sophisticated cultural forms that were subsequently absorbed by civilizations of ‘the Occident’. At the same time, it is important to challenge the ways in which anticolonial revolutions96―such as the Haitian Revolution97 (1791–1804)―have been systematically excluded from mainstream accounts of other major revolutions―such as the French Revolution98 (1789–1799). For such a canonized ‘hierarchy of revolutions’ might give the misleading impression that (a) the former were largely irrelevant to the latter and (b) the former could be reduced to peripheral events, whereas the latter―and the latter only―could be elevated to happenings of ‘world-historical significance’.99 While it is vital to acknowledge that ‘colonizer and colonized are mutually constituted, that the history of European states or any powerful metropolitan states is not separable from the history of their so-called Others’,100 and that both the processual and the structural connections between different territories and populations are not always immediately obvious, it would be erroneous to deny the fact that, in the grand scheme of things, some happenings have been more influential than others. This is not to understate the importance of historical events that occurred in ‘non-Western’ parts of the world or, analogously, to overstate the importance of historical events that occurred in ‘Western’ parts of the world. Rather, this is to recognize that, with regard to their wider significance, events that took place in ‘Western’ countries have, in many cases, shaped world history more profoundly than those that took place elsewhere―not because they were intrinsically more important, but because, owing to cross-continental power constellations, they were more likely to have an impact on societal developments across the globe. Not only from a Eurocentric standpoint, but also from a genuinely global perspective, the French Revolution was more influential than the Haitian Revolution. To be clear, it would be sociologically inaccurate and politically retrograde to diminish the emancipatory potential and paradigmatic weight of the latter by glorifying the world-historical status of the former. Facing up to the profoundly asymmetrical constitution of the global division of power, however, we need to concede that, in terms of their capacity to shape the course of world history, some events play a more pivotal role than others. 2. Between Modernity and Imperialism The link between modernity and imperialism has been central to the emergence of new constellations of power over the past centuries. A common charge made by representatives of postcolonial and decolonial studies is that mainstream accounts of modernity ignore or even ‘suppress the history of

308 

S. Susen

colonialism and imperialism’,101 thereby concealing ‘the West’s entanglements with subject peoples’.102 On this interpretation, standard versions of sociology have not only failed to shed light on the mechanisms underlying the conceptual and empirical marginalization of non-Western societies, but also been complicit in contributing to their peripheralization. It is mistaken, however, to suggest that classical sociologists fall short of conceiving of imperialism or colonialism as ‘independent forces in their own right’,103 let alone as ‘constitutive features of European society’.104 The validity of the claim that ‘imperialism was treated as an outgrowth of modernity rather than constitutive of it’105 is equally questionable, since the whole point of Marxist and neo-Marxist interpretations of modern history is to insist that imperialism was an integral component of capitalist development at an advanced stage.106 The contention that, in classical sociology, ‘[i]mperialism figures either as an abnormality or a result of an already formed European modernity or capitalism’107 does not stand up to scrutiny. In classical sociology―notably within its Marxist and, albeit to a lesser extent, Weberian currents―imperialism is regarded as a key feature, rather than as an outgrowth or aberration, of modernity. As illustrated in their writings, modern sociologists―especially those inspired by Marxist forms of analysis―have for a long time been aware of the fact that without the global interconnectedness of imperialist power structures capitalism would not have emerged in Western Europe from the late seventeenth century onwards in the way it did and subsequently, as part of this pervasive process, spread across the world.108 3. Between Colonizers and Colonized In modern world history, the interconnectedness of colonizers and colonized can hardly be overstated. Yet, despite this crucial nexus, it appears that even seemingly ‘progressive’ approaches tend to fall into the trap of conceptual reductionism. For instance, Foucault’s ‘actual historical narratives and genealogies are problematic from the postcolonial standpoint’,109 insofar as they detach Europe from its colonies, thereby wrongly suggesting that, in the context of modernity, the former can be separated from the latter. If, however, we study modernity ‘as if imperial and colonial history were not also Europe’s history’,110 then we fail to account for the profound interconnectedness of different regions of the world.111 Contrary to such an isolationist and Eurocentric view, we need to concede that ‘so-called “external” colonies of Britain were not “outside” Britain’112 and that, in fact, ‘they were British’.113 Likewise,

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

309

France’s colonies, far from being located ‘outside’ France, were French.114 Indeed, just as the British Empire fought several wars to keep its colonies ‘British’, ‘France fought the bloody Algerian War in the 1950s to “keep Algeria French”’.115 Even if we face up to the deep mutual entanglement of ‘colonizers’ and ‘colonized’, however, we need to accept that it would be both naïve and inaccurate to affirm―in a quasi-essentialist fashion―that British colonies were ‘British’ in the same way as Great Britain (or vice versa) or that French colonies were ‘French’ in the same way as continental France (or vice versa). Notions of ‘authenticity’, ‘purity’, and ‘origin’ are obviously highly problematic, not least in relation to the interpretation of ‘culture’.116 Still, even if we acknowledge that culturalist categorizations―especially if they are embedded in collective imaginaries of nationhood or other forms of large-scale tribalism―are inherently contentious, we need to recognize that colonized territories and populations, irrespective of their degree of colonization, cannot be equated with the constitution of their colonizing powers, by putting ‘colonizers’ and ‘colonized’ in the same ‘national’ category. Indeed, the principal objective of anticolonial struggles is to seek liberation from ‘the colonizers’ by restoring the dignity, autonomy, and specificity of ‘the colonized’. This, of course, is not to deny that ‘the colonized’ should be entitled to the same citizenship rights as ‘the colonizers’. Nor is this to repudiate the fact that the borders of a colonial empire, far from being situated in ‘the homeland’ of ‘the colonizers’, extend to the territories of ‘the colonized’. Rather, this is to posit that it is both conceptually and empirically inadequate to subsume ‘colonizers’ and ‘colonized’ under the same ‘national’ category, as if they constituted a unified entity. It is hard to overstate the moral and political illegitimacy of imperial projects, notably with regard to their ambition to subjugate entire territories and populations in accordance with geostrategic interests. It is precisely such a differential explanatory approach, however, that obliges us to account for the complexity of interconnected, yet also distinct and distinctive, histories, whose particularities cannot be grasped by virtue of bold statements concerning the alleged inseparability of ‘colonizing’ and ‘colonized’ societies. Colonies lie both within and outside―that is, they are constructed both through and beyond―the horizon of the colonizing country. Without this contradictory constellation, there would be no colonial era: paradoxically, both the inseparability and the separability of ‘colonizing’ and ‘colonized’ societies constitute integral features of the tension-laden dynamics shaping the course of modern history.

310 

S. Susen

4. Between National Histories and National Identities The claim that the ‘influx of postwar migrants and refugees’117 represents ‘an indigenous or native narrative internal to national identity’118 of European nation-states and their citizens is problematic for a number of reasons. a. It disregards the fact that, in many cases, the formation of European nation-­states preceded their (direct or indirect) involvement in colonialism. b. It neglects the fact that, irrespective of the normative question of whether this is desirable or undesirable, every nation-state develops hegemonic narratives of cultural belonging, which, in most―albeit not all―cases, reflect the demographic preponderance of an ethnically defined majority group inhabiting ‘the homeland’. c. It overlooks the fact that national identity is indicative of a collective imaginary, which, to a large extent, is not motivated by evidence-based considerations of critical rationality but, rather, sustained by a relatively arbitrary combination of both accurate and inaccurate assumptions about the alleged (cultural, ethnic, linguistic, political, ideological, religious, economic, demographic, territorial, and/or historical) foundations of ‘national unity’. It would be mistaken to deny the deep intertwinement of modernity and coloniality. It would also be flawed, however, not to acknowledge that national identities are hardly ever constructed, let alone promoted, to further a scientifically rigorous understanding of reality. 5. Between Orientalism and Occidentalism As critical sociologists, we need to be wary of any attempt to portray modern history as ‘the product of the West in its actions upon others’,119 as if it constituted the ultimate ideological and geographical reference point of civilizational (that is, social, cultural, political, economic, technological, and scientific) developments across the globe. Surely, the ‘analytic bifurcation of the world’120―which, due to its ethnocentric pursuit of different forms of universalism, implies the paradoxical ‘elision of that bifurcation’121―is problematic, not least because it reduces the complexity of social divisions across the globe to a binary logic, permeating the discursive construction of two diametrically opposed civilizational blocs. To posit, however, that the ‘Orient/Occident divide’122 has ‘removed the “other” from the production of an effective history of modernity’123 means to

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

311

provide a reductive and, ultimately, distortive picture of the intricacies and multilayered ideologies that have emerged in the context of global Western hegemony. To affirm, in addition, that it has therefore ‘removed the very question of the “other” in history’124 and that, furthermore, it has ‘naturalized and justified the West’s material domination of the “other”’125 prevents us from recognizing that, in critical discourses of ‘the Occident’, the global division of power has been systematically studied and problematized within, rather than exclusively outside, the hegemonic spheres of world society. It is both simplistic and fatalistic to contend that every aspect of Western knowledge production―whether it is produced and reproduced at the ordinary, intellectual, or scientific level―remains trapped in considerable, or at least residual, degrees of social domination, sustained by both interest-laden and power-laden processes of naturalization and justification. In numerous cases, both classical and contemporary thinkers―notably sociologists, political scientists, and historians―have been able to paint a nuanced picture of the global matrix of power, including its discriminatory practices and structures. Notwithstanding the influence of the ‘Orient/Occident divide’126 upon the discursive construction of modern worldviews, it will be difficult―if not impossible―to identify any classical or contemporary academic scholar or commentator who would seriously suggest that ‘the East’ and ‘the West’―or, more broadly, ‘the Rest’ and ‘the West’―constitute ‘two disparate, unconnected entities’,127 as erroneously maintained by postcolonial and decolonial critics of so-called Orientalism, most of whom draw upon Said’s prominent writings on this subject.128 Undoubtedly, ‘Orientalists misrepresented the Orient’,129 just as they misrepresented the Occident, while Occidentalists are culpable of the same epistemic fallacy. This does not mean, however, that all discourses that are generated in ‘the West’―or, for that matter, in ‘non-­ Western’ parts of the world―are profoundly shaped, let alone entirely determined, by structures and ‘practices of colonial governance’.130 The point is not to downplay, or even to deny, the impact of colonialism and imperialism upon collective imaginaries and institutions in societies across the world. Rather, the point is to avoid setting up a straw-man argument, in reference to which almost every aspect of social reality is interpreted through the lenses of an explanatory framework that seeks to uncover the logic of colonial and imperial power as if it were both a foundational and a transcendental invariant defining all dimensions of modern life forms. 6. Between the Discovery of Novelty and the Novelty of Discovery As elucidated in the preceding inquiry, epochalist conceptions of change are problematic at several levels. Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of

312 

S. Susen

epochalist perspectives, we need to contextualize the thesis that ‘sociology claimed the “new” and “emergent” as distinctively its own’.131 In fact, other social-­ scientific disciplines (notably political science, economics, anthropology, psychology, geography, media studies, science and technology studies, and linguistics) also demonstrate a remarkable engagement with, and profound interest in, ‘the new’ and ‘the emergent’―not only because they constantly invent and reinvent themselves through the development of innovative paradigms, but also because they explore the developmental nature of particular (notably political, economic, cultural, psychological, geographical, informational, scientific, technological, and linguistic) aspects of the social world. Granted, sociologists may purport to examine and to grasp ‘the new’ and ‘the emergent’ more than their counterparts working in adjacent social-­ scientific disciplines. Ever since its rise to prominence as a widely respected academic field of study, one of sociology’s primary foci of interest has been ‘social change’. It would be wrong, however, not to concede that this applies, to no less a degree, to the aforementioned (and, arguably, to several other) social-scientific disciplines. In one way or another, all of these disciplines acknowledge the wider significance of social change for their objects of investigation, in addition to casting light on both the causes and the consequences of other forms of change―such as political change, economic change, cultural change, psychosocial change, geographical change, informational change, scientific change, technological change, and linguistic change. Notwithstanding the epistemic limitations of epochalist explanatory frameworks, it would be erroneous to overstate the extent to which the emphasis on ‘change’ is more pronounced in sociology than in other social-scientific disciplines.

Part V: Intimations of Disciplinarity 1. Between Inflation and Conflation Sociology, if it seeks to remain a cutting-edge discipline, needs to avoid promoting the inflationary use of key concepts. If this challenge is to be taken seriously, then we must expose ‘the danger in postcolonial critiques of conflating positivism’132―or, for that matter, any other problematic ‘-isms’, such as imperialism, colonialism, or ethnocentrism―‘with disciplinary sociology’.133 Instead of equating sociology with one―or several―of these ‘-isms’, we need to remind ourselves of the critical spirit that has permeated the discipline from the very beginning of its existence. Indeed, systematic critiques of

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

313

positivism―as well as those of imperialism, colonialism, and ethnocentrism― have been an integral part of sociology ever since it entered the scene of socialscientific inquiry, even if, unsurprisingly, their level of sophistication and insight increased significantly over time. Besides, it is worth pointing out that the aforementioned ‘-isms’, since they are internally differentiated and fragmented, are far ‘less cohesive than might be assumed’.134 If, however, we rely on sweeping generalizations concerning the state of an entire academic discipline and its alleged contamination by the corrosive elements of the Zeitgeist by which it is influenced, then we fail to account for its reflexive capacity to question the validity of its own epistemic presuppositions. 2. Between System-Building and System-Demolition A striking feature of a large amount of contemporary sociological approaches is their―in many cases, categorical―opposition to conceptual ‘system-­ building’. The main reason for this kind of scepticism is their distrust in universalist and foundationalist frameworks, which they tend to regard as futile attempts to transcend the context-specific contingency of all claims to epistemic validity, which cannot be done away with by virtue of seemingly timeless conceptual architectures of abstract social theory. Arguably, this simultaneously anti-­universalist and anti-foundationalist attitude is based on a constructivist mind-set that several contemporary agendas―including postcolonial and decolonial ones―share with postmodern and poststructuralist perspectives.135 While one may have good reason to be critical of abstract forms of theorizing, especially of their universalist and foundationalist versions, the question that poses itself is what exactly anti-universalist and antifoundationalist accounts have to offer instead. Indeed, this problem touches upon one of the principal weaknesses of anti-­ universalist and anti-foundationalist approaches in the social sciences― namely, the fact that, although they may provide valuable insights into the specificity and irreducibility of social phenomena, they offer little in the way of a critical theory of society. The task of such a critical theory is not only to describe, to analyse, and to interpret but also to explain, to assess, and―possibly―to make predictions about ‘the constitution, the functioning, and the development of social reality, or of particular aspects of social reality, in a more or less systematic fashion’.136 This is not to suggest that anti-universalist and anti-­foundationalist endeavours do not make any substantial contributions to social theory in the above sense. Rather, this is to concede that, given

314 

S. Susen

their opposition to conceptual ‘system-building’ and their preference for conceptual ‘system-demolition’, their intellectual merits remain necessarily limited, lacking any explicit claims to cross-cultural validity. 3. Between Universality and Particularity The relationship between ‘universality’ and ‘particularity’ is an age-old subject of dispute. More recently, this tension-laden relationship has been re-­examined in the context of debates concerned with the alleged differences between ‘modern’ and ‘postmodern’ epistemologies.137 In this respect, a common feature of connectivist approaches―especially their postcolonial and decolonial variants―is their accusation that ‘the idea of the universal within European thought is based on a claim to universality at the same time as it elides its own particularity’.138 When scrutinizing the variety of intellectual currents available within European thought, however, it becomes evident that this charge is problematic for several reasons: a. There are many different forms of universalism: epistemological universalism, ontological universalism, logical universalism, moral universalism, and aesthetic universalism―to mention only five major areas of inquiry. The key feature that these variants of universalism have in common is that they make claims to universal validity. They diverge, however, insofar as they focus on different aspects of human existence: the nature of knowledge (epistemology), the nature of being (ontology), the nature of argument (logic), the nature of morality (ethics), and the nature of beauty and taste (aesthetics). Within each of these fields of investigation, one finds numerous currents and sub-currents, which are founded on diverging sets of assumptions. If we make the mistake of putting these variants of universalism in one category, we fail to account for their presuppositional specificities. b. Even the strongest defenders of universalism will find it hard to deny that all knowledge claims are raised within spatiotemporally specific horizons of historicity. Thus, the search for ‘the universal’ is not incompatible with the recognition of ‘the particular’, just as the search for ‘the particular’ is not incompatible with the recognition of ‘the universal’. For both levels of analysis are inextricably linked. Scientists may aim to disclose the laws of nature (astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, physics), the laws of society (anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, sociology), or the laws of history (historiogra-

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

315

phy); and philosophers may seek to shed light on the laws of knowledge (epistemology), the laws of being (ontology), the laws of argument (logic), the laws of morality (ethics), or the laws of forms (aesthetics).139

Researchers and intellectuals may make claims to universal validity in relation to the natural world or the social world, in relation to history, or indeed in relation to key areas of philosophical inquiry―such as epistemology, ontology, logic, ethics, or aesthetics. The fact that a statement may, or may not, possess universal validity, however, does not mean that those making it cannot admit that all truth claims are raised within spatiotemporally variable contexts. The contingency of human reality does not determine the cogency of epistemic claims to objective, normative, and/or subjective validity. c. A critical analysis of the relationship between universality and particularity requires us to reflect upon the nexus between validity and legitimacy. The justifiability of an assertion, or a set of assertions, depends not only on what is being said, but also on who said it when, where, and to whom. ‘For objectivity (“What?”) is―inevitably―a matter of social authority (“Who?”), spatiotemporal contextuality (“Where and when?”), and interactional relationality (“To whom?”).’140 What is missing in postcolonial and decolonial approaches is a rigorous account of the intimate relationship between validity and legitimacy,141 notably in terms of its far-reaching consequences for both the construction and the deconstruction of power relations. Hence, ‘the possibility of a new geopolitics of knowledge’142 is inconceivable without an in-depth understanding of the nexus between validity and legitimacy, which permeates the production of symbolic―including epistemic―forms in every society. It is a gross overgeneralization to suggest that, in terms of both its presuppositional underpinnings and its investigative outlook, ‘Western theory’ is universally universalist. It is no less problematic to affirm that this alleged epistemological and methodological predisposition amounts to ‘the first cardinal flaw in Northern thinking’,143 sustained by ‘bold abstraction[s]’144 that represent ‘both the hallmark and [the] method of the “imperial gaze”’.145 Instead, we need to accept that, as indicated above, the role of universalist thought in Western intellectual traditions is highly complex and tension-­ laden. The plea for ‘a new universalism based upon a reconstructed sociology of modernity’146 is, in principle, to be applauded, insofar as it is categorically committed to be ‘open to different voices’.147 If, however, we fail to specify what exactly is ‘universal’ about such a ‘new universalism’, then our

316 

S. Susen

commitment to recognizing different forms and degrees of universality within the history of human societies is merely rhetorical, rather than substantive. 4. Between Inferiorization and Superiorization In Said’s influential study Orientalism,148 we are confronted with a powerful account of the ways in which ‘the West’ has represented, and consistently misrepresented, ‘the Orient’. In this process, the former has not only constructed (and misconstructed) the latter, but also constructed (and misconstructed) itself―both discursively and materially. Of course, this insight is vital in that it illustrates the extent to which imperialist ideologies comprise misrepresentations and misconstructions of both the colonized and the colonizers. More specifically, the inferiorization of the former goes hand in hand with the superiorization of the latter. Thus, we need to acknowledge not only ‘that the West discursively constructs the Orient but also that, in so doing, it constructs its self-understanding at the same time’.149 The ideological creation of ‘the Other’, then, is inextricably linked to a process of self-assertion, by means of which hegemonic forces can define their own identity by defining the identities of the territories and populations that they seek to subjugate. The construction of identity through asymmetrically organized relations of recognition and misrecognition, however, constitutes a well-established theme in modern social and political thought, especially in Hegelian and neo-­ Hegelian circles. What is needed in this regard is an analytically precise understanding of the five cornerstones of the social in general and of the exercise of power in particular: (a) relationality, (b) reciprocity, (c) reconstructability, (d) renormalizability, and (e) recognizability.150 Society constitutes an interactional realm that is brought into existence by relational, reciprocal, reconstructable, renormalizable, and recognizable selves. It is based on networks of sociality, mutuality, transformability, signifiability, and identity, which allow for the emergence of individual and collective modes of engagement oriented towards the construction of meaning-laden realities. All forms of social power― including those embedded in colonial histories and postcolonial realities―are permeated by these five ontological conditions of human coexistence. 5. Between ‘Interests + Desires’ and ‘Justifications + Reasons’ It is true that, from a sociological point of view, a subject’s interest in pursuing desire and desire to pursue interests are integral to the purposive organization of social life. The ambition to cross-fertilize Foucauldian (‘power’), Deleuzian (‘desire’), and Marxist (‘interest’) concerns―epitomized in Spivak’s analytical focus on ‘Power, Desire, Interest’151―is crucial to the attempt to shed light on

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

317

the confluence of multiple factors shaping the asymmetrical distribution of material and symbolic resources across the world. One may conceive of interests as ‘external’, insofar as they are built into the positional structures within which human actors function, and of desires as ‘internal’, insofar as they pervade the dispositional resources through which human actors operate. At the same time, one may conceive of interests as ‘internal’, insofar as they permeate the dispositional―and, hence, motivational―configurations shaping human intentions, decisions, and actions, as well as of desires as ‘external’, insofar as they are stimulated by positional―and, thus, compositional―arrangements influencing human objectives, choices, and performances. In the social world, however, the ‘real interactional situation’152 designates an empirical conglomerate of circumstances in which interests and desires tend to be at least as powerful as justifications and reasons in shaping human practices. If we attach a foundational or determining status to one, some, or all of these elements, we risk falling into the trap of explanatory reductionism. A truly critical theory of power needs to develop a comprehensive account of the multiple factors shaping human action. Such a daunting task requires taking into consideration the socio-ontological role of interests and desires, as well as of justifications and reasons. More specifically, such an analytical undertaking involves taking on the challenge of developing a typology of interests153 and a typology of desires,154 as well as a typology of justifications155 and a typology of rationality,156 without which it is futile to offer a convincing typology of power.157 Owing to their hostility towards the pursuit of theoretical system-building, notably with regard to its implicitly or explicitly universalist variants,158 several ‘counterhegemonic’ approaches tend to call the possibility, let alone the validity, of such typologies into question, not least because they are based on the construction of ‘ideal types’,159 which offer simplified conceptual representations of complex―and, at many levels, messy―empirical realities. Without such typologies, however, it is difficult, if not impossible, to grasp the foundational features of human life forms―that is, their species-constitutive characteristics, which, by definition, transcend the spatiotemporal variability of social constellations and historical contingencies. Of paramount importance in this respect is the tripartite differentiation between (a) objective, (b) normative, and (c) subjective levels of human existence, all of which play a major role in shaping our everyday immersion in reality. As physical beings, we constitute integral elements of the objective world; as cultural beings, we participate in the construction of the normative

318 

S. Susen

world; as individuative beings, we have, by and large, privileged access to our subjective world. These three foundational spheres of human existence permeate every person’s interests, desires, justifications, and reasons. A genuinely comprehensive and critical theory of society needs to explore the confluence of objectivity, normativity, and subjectivity in the human experience, construction, and perception of reality.160 6. Between Nominality and Reality Strictly speaking, the labels ‘historical sociology’, ‘cultural sociology’, ‘political sociology’, ‘economic sociology’, and ‘critical sociology’ are misleading. For it is difficult to conceive of any genuine sociology as ‘non-historical’, ‘non-­ cultural’, ‘non-political’, ‘non-economic’, or ‘non-critical’. Given that every sociology is situated in time and space, every sociology is historical. Given that every sociology is embedded in a horizon of norms, rules, habits, and presuppositions, every sociology is cultural. Given that every sociology is both interest-laden and value-laden, every sociology is political. Given that every sociology emerges out of a realm of exchanges and a market of material and symbolic goods, every sociology is economic. Given that, to a greater or lesser degree, every sociology is committed to the methodical and reflective study of social relations, every sociology is critical. This is not merely a pedantic point, reducible to semantic quibbling or hair-­splitting about linguistic conventions. Rather, this is to recognize that the use of nouns and adjectives, which differs between languages, has profound implications for our understanding of reality, including our conceptions of particular forms of sociology. Admittedly, one may have good reason to draw the following distinctions: ‘historical sociology’ vs. ‘sociology of history’, ‘cultural sociology’ vs. ‘sociology of culture’, ‘political sociology’ vs. ‘sociology of politics’, ‘economic sociology’ vs. ‘sociology of economics’, and ‘critical sociology’ vs. ‘sociology of critique’. One may contend that, in each case, the former is more radical, and more holistic, than the latter (or vice versa). For instance, one may suggest that, ultimately, every aspect of social reality (including sociology) is historical, cultural, political, economic, and/or criticizable. With regard to the label ‘postcolonial’, one may assert that every sociology that emerges in a postcolonial context can be described as ‘postcolonial’, even if it is not explicitly concerned with postcolonial matters. A sociology of postcolonialism (or postcoloniality), by contrast, can legitimately claim to focus on postcolonial issues as its main object of scrutiny. For example, ‘ideology critique’ (or, alternatively, the ‘critique of ideology’) is not called ‘ideological critique’, because―implicitly or explicitly―every type of critique is, in one

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

319

way or another, permeated by presuppositional components that form more or less coherent systems of ideas and ideals, including underlying assumptions and principles. Indeed, every form of ‘ideology critique’ has historical, cultural, political, economic, and critical dimensions. Surely, one may make a case for a historical, cultural, political, economic, and/or critical sociology by suggesting that the particular approach one chooses to develop is not only ‘sociological’ but also primarily ‘historical’, ‘cultural’, ‘political’, ‘economic’, and/or ‘critical’. The same mode of reasoning may be applied to the label ‘postcolonial sociology’ (and its emphasis on ‘the postcolonial’). In fact, a similar line of argument may be employed in relation to the concept of ‘social theory’, although one can rightly object that there is no such thing as an ‘asocial theory’, because any kind of theory―in any academic discipline and in any realm of life―is shaped by social relations, even if it is not explicitly concerned with them. Different languages offer different hermeneutic tools for spatiotemporally contingent and symbolically mediated forms of interaction. Each language has its own morphological, semantic, syntactical, grammatical, phonetic, and pragmatic characteristics.161 This distinctiveness manifests itself, for instance, in the ways in which sociological (as well as other ordinary or scientific) concepts are constructed in German. In the German-speaking humanities and social sciences, the compound noun Gesellschaftstheorie (‘theory of society’) is used instead of the adjective-plus-noun construction gesellschaftliche Theorie (‘social theory’), indicating that there is no such thing as a ‘non-social theory’. All theories (scientific or otherwise) are social, in the sense that, inevitably, they emerge in particular sociohistorical settings and are formulated by socialized individuals. A similar point can be made in relation to different branches of German-­ speaking sociology, known as deutschsprachige Soziologie. The terms Geschichtssoziologie, Kultursoziologie, and Wirtschaftssoziologie are more commonly used than geschichtliche Soziologie, kulturelle Soziologie, and wirtschaftliche Soziologie for a good reason―namely, because they mean different things. The former make―respectively―history, culture, and the economy the explicit centre of sociological attention, whereas the latter imply that a particular disciplinary outlook (in this case, sociology) has historical, cultural, and economic facets. There are, of course, a few exceptions: the terms politische Soziologie and kritische Soziologie are more widely used than the terms Politiksoziologie and Kritiksoziologie. These exceptions make clear that languages, in terms of their grammatical rules and context-specific applications, are never entirely consistent. In several respects, the symbolically mediated representation of reality is as messy as reality itself.

320 

S. Susen

As the preceding reflections illustrate, labels that are employed to describe particular epistemic (including disciplinary and sub-disciplinary) approaches, in specific linguistic contexts, need to be chosen carefully, ensuring the former capture the qualitative specificity of the latter. Every language has advantages and disadvantages in terms of helping those who use it to do so in an illuminating fashion. The language of (and around) disciplinarity is part of this conundrum.

Part VI: Intimations of Hegemony 1. Between Endogenous and Exogenous Domination A significant problem arising from several ‘counterhegemonic’ approaches in sociology lies in the danger of contributing to what may be described as the glorification of ‘the oppressed’. Depending on the specificity of their social condition, oppressed actors may be characterized in different ways: ‘disempowered’, ‘marginalized’, ‘inferiorized’, ‘dominated’, ‘subaltern’, or ‘colonized’―to mention only a few terminological options. Yet, there are important differences not only between ‘the oppressed’ and ‘the oppressors’ but also among ‘the oppressed’ (and, for that matter, among ‘the oppressors’) themselves. These differences reflect potentially high degrees of positional and dispositional heterogeneity. One may examine social conflicts by focusing on different mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion―notably those associated with classist, racist, sexist, ageist, and ableist types of power. Insofar as we, as critical sociologists, are committed to grappling with the complexity of the social, it is our task to shed light on the multilayered constitution of relations of domination, while exploring the manifold possibilities for constructing realms of human emancipation. Colonial formations of power were surely about economic exploitation but they were also about racial difference, religious chauvinism, masculine domination, and attendant cultural or semiotic processes which world-systems theory relegates to analytic irrelevance.162

In an increasingly interconnected world of colonial histories and postcolonial realities, it is right to insist upon the intersectional constitution of power dynamics. It would be mistaken, however, to reduce these power dynamics to

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

321

social practices and structures imposed by exogenous forces upon territories and populations across the globe. Indeed, it is crucial to recognize the extent to which social mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion, owing to endogenous relations of domination, were present in a range of territories and populations before these were controlled or colonized by foreign powers. A major contribution of globalist and connectivist approaches in sociology is to have drawn attention to connected histories and, thus, to the numerous forms in which different parts of the world have always already been interconnected―that is, long before the term ‘globalization’ became a key reference point of social-scientific analysis. We may distinguish several levels of interconnectedness: social, cultural, political, demographic, epistemic, linguistic, religious, scientific, technological, or military―to mention only a few. Given the processual and structural interconnectedness of territories and populations across the world, which spans back to the early stages of human evolution, the very distinction between endogenous and exogenous factors, forces, and sources is questionable: all seemingly ‘internal’ constellations are (directly and/or directly) influenced by ‘external’ constellations, and vice versa. Since power relations―including variants of social domination―already existed in specific territories and populations before they were controlled or colonized by foreign powers, however, it would be naïve, and indeed distortive, to relegate the existence of asymmetrical social arrangements exclusively to exogenous forces. Such a short-sighted interpretation runs the risk of portraying territories and populations that, during particular periods, were partly or completely subjugated by foreign rule as ‘originally free from’ relations of power and domination, as if, in their preceding state of ‘authenticity’, they had constituted ‘uncontaminated’ realms of human empowerment and pristine intersubjectivity. Insofar as globalist approaches in sociology tend to overemphasize the existence of exogenously triggered power relations and to underemphasize the existence of endogenously evolved power relations, they paint a one-sidedly romantic picture of oppressed actors, giving the misleading impression that entire territories and populations were devoid of fundamental contradictions, frictions, and antagonisms before they were colonized by imperialist states. 2. Between ‘Imperial’ and ‘Postimperial’ Epistemologies It is a gross misrepresentation to characterize most―if not all―of Western European intellectual thought as being based on ‘imperial epistemologies’.163 Unsurprisingly, this accusation is levelled, above all, at explanatory approaches that rely on the discursive construction of ‘“foundational” concepts and events within social theory and historical sociology’.164 We are told that a global, and

322 

S. Susen

arguably more inclusive, sociology would seek to incorporate ‘“other” places and traditions of thought’,165 since such an undertaking would ensure that alternative and subaltern forms of agency play a constitutive role not only in the development of global society but also in the pursuit of a global sociology. This vision, however, is flawed for at least two reasons. First, it would be both misleading and insulting to put the works of progressive and, at several levels, radical thinkers (such as Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, Jürgen Habermas, Anthony Giddens, Axel Honneth, Nancy Fraser, and Judith Butler) in the category of ‘imperial epistemologies’ simply because they can be classified as ‘white’, ‘Occidental’, and/ or ‘elitist’ (or in terms of similar ‘hegemonic’ features). Even if they form part of Western canons of thought and even if, admittedly, their engagement with non-European realities is limited, their writings provide invaluable tools for questioning and subverting―rather than reproducing or defending, let alone advocating or celebrating―‘imperial epistemologies’. Second, if we idealize ‘“other” places and traditions of thought’,166 which emerged and developed outside of, or in response to, ‘Western’ spheres of material and ideological control, then we run the risk of underestimating the extent to which non-Western societies―including their diverse realms of knowledge production―are also shaped by conservative, reactionary, and exploitative forces, emanating both ‘from without’ and ‘from within’. Many ‘counterhegemonic’―that is, above all, postcolonial and decolonial― approaches in sociology suffer from a generalized attitude of fatalism towards ‘the West’ and romanticism towards ‘the Rest’, notably in terms of the ongoing struggle between dominant and subaltern forms of agency. This view is deeply ironic, not only because it is based on a simplistic understanding of the relationship between hegemonic and counterhegemonic forces across the world, but also because―contrary to its aim of breaking out of conceptual straitjackets of modern social science―it reinforces the binary categorization of ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, which is accompanied by a normative opposition between ‘bad’ and ‘good’, ‘repressive’ and ‘emancipatory’, ‘imperial’ and ‘liberating’. Granted, it would be mistaken to accuse all ‘counterhegemonic’ approaches of falling into the trap of explanatory reductionism. There is a considerable tendency within postcolonial and decolonial modes of thought, however, to associate ‘the West’ with negative and ‘the Rest’ with positive attributes. This dualistic account gives the erroneous impression that the former is reducible to a force for evil, expressed in the ubiquitous presence of colonialist imperialism, and that the latter is reducible to a force for good, epitomized in a struggle for equality and freedom.

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

323

3. Between Vagueness and Openness Of course, it may sound promising to make a case for ‘intercultural communication’,167 as a means of contributing not only to the broadening of horizons by expanding particular traditions, but also to the fusion of horizons by cross-­ fertilizing different cognitive and behavioural comfort zones. To suggest, however, that such an endeavour forms ‘the basis of another rationality which may legitimately pretend to some universality’168 without specifying what such ‘rationality’ and ‘universality’ presumably consist of is, at best, vague or, at worst, untenable. Unsurprisingly, sociological approaches are often most unpersuasive in the areas of exploration in which they should be able to convince both their advocates and their detractors. In this respect, one noticeable limitation is their lack of clarity concerning the qualitative specificity of emancipatory life forms169―that is, of alternative social constellations and practices capable of challenging the status quo, while enabling actors to experience individual and collective modes of empowerment in accordance with their human, rather than merely personal or group-specific, interests. This is not to suggest that critical thought should aim to provide utopian blueprints, let alone dogmatic recipes, for the construction of a global society based on progressive principles―such as freedom, equality, solidarity, inclusivity, dignity, and democracy. Rather, this is to maintain that an elusive―if not simply rhetorical―commitment to ‘another rationality’,170 which may equip actors to make legitimate claims to ‘some universality’,171 is conceptually thin, methodologically porous, and empirically ambiguous, thereby failing to contribute to the construction of a better society. In this regard, two issues remain major sources of ideological division: (a) goals and objectives, (b) means and strategies. The former concerns the question ‘What do we want?’, whereas the latter relates to the question ‘How do we get there?’. The former illustrates that different actors have different conceptions of ‘the good society’, while the latter is indicative of the fact that different actors have different ideas about how to turn such a society into both a desirable and a viable option. Too often, normative approaches in sociology offer little in the way of in-depth, let alone useful, insight into either of these two levels of analysis. Surely, emancipatory life forms constitute existential conditions that are characterized by a more egalitarian distribution of material and symbolic resources for action, expression, communication, justification, and self-realization.172 One may argue over whether these conditions can, and should, be brought about by virtue of gradual or radical, reformist or revolutionary, peaceful or violent means. It is not enough, however, to posit that we need ‘alternative’ social arrangements.

324 

S. Susen

Arguably, these may emanate from (a) ‘alternative’ forms of knowledge, (b) ‘alternative’ forms of being, (c) ‘alternative’ forms of argument, (d) ‘alternative’ forms of morality, and (e) ‘alternative’ forms of artistic expression―that is, from (a) ‘alternative’ epistemologies, (b) ‘alternative’ ontologies, (c) ‘alternative’ logics, (d) ‘alternative’ ethics, and (e) ‘alternative’ aesthetics. If we fail to face up to the challenge of exploring the qualitative specificity of human emancipation, we will not succeed in dislodging, let alone in breaking free from, the stifling logic of social domination. 4. Between Rhetoric and Reality Another noteworthy problem one encounters when assessing the respective merits of ‘counterhegemonic’ approaches in sociology is the presence of what may be conceived of as empty rhetoric―notably in areas of inquiry that purport to contribute to a better understanding of social conditions enhancing the possibilities for human emancipation. Striking in this regard is the frequent use of terms such as ‘different’, ‘other’, and ‘alternative’, especially in cases where their meaning remains so obscure that it is difficult―if not impossible―to work out what kind of qualities they are supposed to designate. Granted, the imprecise use of key concepts employed to hint at the possibility of engaging in practices and constructing structures beyond domination may be deliberate. Indeed, this option indicates that it would be erroneous, and potentially disastrous, to offer utopian blueprints, based on seemingly clear programmatic agendas and schematic instructions for building social relations that are capable of challenging, and rising above, habitualized logics of power and domination. Reflecting on the dangers attached to the use of elusive language, however, it is worth considering statements such as the following: The goal of the sociology of emergences is to encourage rather than [to] repress contextually specific expressions of social possibility.173

This assertion is so vague that even reactionary political forces could subscribe to it. The aim ‘to encourage […] contextually specific expressions of social possibility’174 is sufficiently elastic to be endorsed by actors from almost any part of the political spectrum. It does not reveal anything of substance about the particularity, let alone the value, of counterhegemonic projects. A common feature of normative approaches making a case for the possibility of individual, collective, and/or human emancipation is their frequent use of remarkably loose, if not nebulous, descriptions. When positing that we

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

325

need to seek ‘alternative ways of thinking about, and representing, subaltern subjects’,175 including the practices and structures by which they may be empowered, it remains a challenging, and equally central, task to provide a detailed analysis not only of the historical conditions under which mechanisms of social domination emerge, but also of the circumstances under which emancipatory modes of existence may become a genuine, rather than merely imaginary, possibility. It is not enough to advocate ‘alternative forms of justice, other ways of living’,176 if one fails to give at least an indication of the principal features characterizing such radically different societal modi operandi, allowing for human fulfilment, empowerment, and ‘the building of communal futures’.177 As critical sociologists, we need to be able to put our finger on the qualitative specificity of emancipatory processes, irrespective of the question of whether these are shaped by particular types of ‘subaltern agency’178 or otherwise. The point is not to generate recipes for emancipation, which―by way of applied dogmatism―lead to repressive variants of behavioural, ideological, and institutional enclosure. Rather, the point is to explore avenues for emancipation, which―by virtue of critical open-mindedness―may contribute to the emergence of life forms characterized by individual and collective empowerment, human fulfilment, and a reasonably egalitarian distribution of material and symbolic resources for action. 5. Between Academic Worth and Economic Value As elucidated in the previous study, sociology’s intellectual autonomy and institutional identity have been severely undermined by the neoliberalization of society in general and the neomanagerialization of academia in particular. Different commentators will have different views on the extent to which sociology will be able not only to survive as a discipline but also to protect its academic integrity, while continuing to play a fruitful role in contributing to the empowerment of individual and collective actors in society. Undoubtedly, given the increased marketability of scientific research in the twenty-first century, it appears that universities have ceased to be the privileged spaces for independent, imaginative, and critical inquiry and pedagogy that they once used (or at least were meant) to be. In this context, we can make a case for a ‘distinctive pragmatics of value-­ setting’,179 which permits us to identify four forms of valorization,180 whose ‘relationships can be articulated as a set of transformations’181:

326 

S. Susen

a. the ‘standard form’,182 which is vital to industrial economies and which allows for the possibility of mass production; b. the ‘collection form’,183 which prevails in enrichment economies and which is based on a narrative attached to an object’s past; c. the ‘trend form’,184 which is crucial to fashion economies and whose principal reference points are contemporary high-profile individuals, such as present-day celebrities; d. the ‘asset form’,185 which is preponderant in financial economies and which is driven by the incentive to re-sell objects for a profit at some point in the future. Unsurprisingly, there are considerable differences between these four forms of valorization. The ‘specific arenas of transaction’186 to which they are attached, however, share one significant feature: the prices of the commodities by which they are sustained ‘can be justified or criticized according to a range of different arguments’.187 The co-articulation of these four forms of valorization is central to the rise of a new type of capitalism: To mark the specificity of the form of capitalism that takes advantage of all four forms of valorization, we will speak of integral capitalism.188

The main reason why this type of multilayered economic organization is not only remarkably robust but also highly adaptable is that its secret of success consists in ‘exploiting new lodes of wealth and interconnecting different ways of valorizing things’,189 ensuring that these are put into circulation for acquiring maximum profit. A key issue that requires the attention of contemporary sociologists, therefore, concerns the numerous ways in which goods can be situated simultaneously in (a) industrial economies of ‘standard forms’, (b) enrichment economies of ‘collection forms’, (c) fashion economies of ‘trend forms’, and (d) financial economies of ‘asset forms’. In fact, the values attributed to an item may differ across ‘form-specific’ economies and across spatiotemporal contexts. Arguably, this multi-level dynamic applies, to use Bourdieusian terminology, to several social fields190―that is, not only to the economic field (and its various sub-fields) but also, for instance, to the academic field.191 To be precise, all four of the aforementioned modes of value-setting may be simultaneously at work in any social field that can, in principle, be colonized by the economic field. In relation to the academic field, the significance of these modes of value-setting manifests itself at different levels:

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

327

a. As in industrial economies, the standard form is prevalent in the academic field. Its pervasive influence on behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns of functioning in academia is illustrated in different processes of standardization vis-à-vis (i) research practices and structures, (ii) outputs and publications, (iii) grant applications and funding bids, (iv) management and administration, as well as (v) education and teaching. To varying degrees, all of them follow standard formats of one kind or another. Most contemporary academic lifeworlds, especially if they are characterized by high degrees of professionalization, are colonized by standardization processes in relation to these (and other) dimensions. Insofar as the academic field―particularly, albeit not exclusively, in Anglo-Saxon countries―is increasingly dominated by the pursuit of metrics-driven targets and measurable outcomes, standardized versions of neoliberal governmentality seem to take precedence over intellectual curiosity, creativity, and ­originality. Large-scale research and teaching institutions―which are not only promoted, but also largely controlled and financed, by modern nation-states―are an essential component of advanced economies, which depend on the supply of an educated workforce, whose knowledge and skills can be measured according to standardized criteria, defined by performance targets and benchmarks. b. As in enrichment economies, the collection form is prevalent in the academic field. One can find several examples demonstrating its importance. Any researcher or intellectual who succeeds in having a major impact on their field of inquiry, to such an extent that they are generally perceived as a ‘leading figure’ whose oeuvre has become an indispensable part of a disciplinary or sub-disciplinary canon, will have a lasting legacy; in extraordinary cases, their work may even be labelled ‘timeless’. Any masterpiece that appears to have an eternal shelf life, because it is commonly regarded as a ‘classic’, can increase in value if it stands the test of time. The hard copy of an important academic book that was personally signed by its author gains in value over time―especially if the respective scholar becomes more and more of a ‘big name’ within, or even outside, their discipline. The original handwritten manuscript of a famous piece of work may become a valuable item, particularly if it was produced by an influential thinker who is widely considered a ‘game changer’ in their field (and, possibly, beyond). In all of these cases, the monetary value of an item is inextricably linked to its symbolic value, which is based on a narrative attached to it. It is no accident that, in many cases, the most prestigious universities are located in centuries-­ old buildings, whose historic value represents, and usually increases, the symbolic (and, consequently, both reputational and finan-

328 

S. Susen

cial) value of the respective institution. In neoliberal regimes of governance, enrichment dynamics―which are reinforced by combining the discursive construction of symbolic value with the strategic creation of economic value―are a noteworthy element of academic life. c. As in fashion economies, the trend form is prevalent in the academic field. Academia is shaped by paradigmatic developments and waves of ever-­ changing intellectual currencies. What is à la mode today may be out of fashion tomorrow, and vice versa. Viewed in a negative light, paradigm-­ surfing is a common feature of academic tribalism and may even be an obstacle to epistemic originality. Viewed in a positive light, paradigm-­ surfing is a precondition for the development (and, from an evolutionary perspective, progress) of scientific knowledge. Irrespective of how one wishes to make sense of the main agential and structural forces behind epistemic tendencies, it is hard to overlook the fact that the academic field is marked by fashion-like trends. Of course, these trends may unfold at different―notably disciplinary, sub-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary―levels of knowledge production, circulation, consumption, and application. There is virtually no research tradition or school of thought that has not been affected by ‘paradigm shifts’ of one sort or another. These are usually associated with particular conceptual, methodological, and/or empirical approaches and indeed with the respective scholars advocating them. The status of some high-profile academics is tantamount to that of celebrity chefs, who are able to decide which dishes feature on the menu and what kinds of ingredients should be used to prepare them. For better or for worse, canon formation in the humanities and social sciences is profoundly shaped by, if not dependent upon, paradigmatic trends setting the agenda and defining the parameters underlying specific research and teaching programmes. d. As in financial economies, the asset form is prevalent in the academic field. The neoliberalization of society is expressed in the neomanagerialization of academia. Academic life has been profoundly affected, and in many respects transformed, by the considerable pressure exerted by benchmark systems of metrics-oriented assessments, including the league tables used for their comparative measurements. Under the umbrella of neomanagerialism, all key realms of academic life―that is, (i) research practices and structures, (ii) outputs and publications, (iii) grant applications and funding bids, (iv) management and administration, as well as (v) education and teaching―are pervaded by the logic of marketization. The language of ‘excellence’ is employed to characterize allegedly high-quality academic milieus and institutions. In this neoliberal climate, successful researchers

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

329

are expected to be, at once, (i) academic entrepreneurs, (ii) publishing machines, (iii) grant grabbers, (iv) efficient round-the-clock administrators, and (v) service providers. Analogously, students are effectively treated as fee-paying ‘clients’ and ‘customers’, for many of whom―owing to the market-driven colonization of their educational lifeworlds―the project of obtaining a university degree is primarily a strategic choice, understood as a financial investment (which may, or may not, pay off), rather than a holistic endeavour, motivated by the pursuit of Bildung in the Humboldtian sense. Deans and Vice Chancellors take on the role of shopkeepers (or, if one prefers, businessmen or businesswomen), competing in an open market for researchers, administrators, teachers, and students. In light of the above, it appears that the package ‘science and education’ has been largely reduced to ‘big business’. In such an environment, what counts, ultimately, is the extent to which academia can be instrumentalized in accordance with systemic imperatives―and, hence, serve as a major source of material, symbolic, reputational, and financial profits. In short, academic economies may be described as ‘integral economies’, in the sense that they function at the same time as (a) industrial economies, (b) enrichment economies, (c) fashion economies, and (d) financial economies. A critical sociology of the pragmatics of value-setting needs to expose the degree to which different forms of valorization are simultaneously at work in any kind of social field that can be colonized by the economic field, including the academic field. When reflecting on the systemic colonization of social fields by the economic field, it may be useful to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, ‘analytical forms’ (such as the ‘standard form’ and the ‘asset form’) and, on the other hand, ‘narrative forms’ (such as the ‘trend form’ and the ‘asset form’).192 In the former case, processes of valorization are based, above all, on calculative considerations concerning use values and exchange values, following the logic of instrumental rationality (Zweckrationalität). In the latter case, processes of valorization are based, above all, on normative considerations concerning symbolic values and reputational values, following the logic of substantive rationality (Wertrationalität).193 In practice, different forms of value-setting tend to overlap. Thus, when drawing a distinction between them, although it may be conceptually sound, we need to keep in mind that, ontologically speaking, these forms of valuesetting intersect. Put differently, their conceptual representation must not be conflated with their ontological actualization. The construction of social fields is unthinkable without the pivotal ‘role of discourse, regardless of whether it

330 

S. Susen

takes an analytical or a narrative form’.194 What is striking when considering the academic field in the context of neoliberal regimes of governance, however, is that the ‘analytical form’ tends to have the upper hand over the ‘narrative form’. In other words, in highly commodified and neomanagerialized academic fields, research and education are dominated by the ‘standard form’ of industrial economies and the ‘asset form’ of financial economies, rather than by the ‘collection form’ of enrichment economies and/or the ‘trend form’ of fashion economies. To be clear, all four of the aforementioned modes of value-setting are crucial to the tension-laden development of the academic field in the twenty-first century. The fact that the two ‘analytical forms’ (‘standard’ and ‘asset’) are more successful in imposing their instrumental logic of functioning on the academic field than the two ‘narrative forms’ (‘collection’ and ‘trend’), however, indicates that the Humboldtian notion that ‘the academic world is [or should be] largely managed by the academic producers themselves’195 has been trumped by the systemic imperatives enforced by neoliberal regimes of governance, leading to the rise of the ‘neoliberal university’.196 If research and education are effectively treated as standardizable assets, and the epistemic accomplishments on which they are based are reduced to fashion-driven collection items whose value is measured primarily in terms of commodifiable degrees of ‘impact’, then the academic field, insofar as it is permeated by the profit-seeking logic of the economic field, is digging its own grave.

Notes 1. McLennan (2013), p. 138 (quotation modified). 2. Go (2013a), p. 10 (italics in original). 3. On the relationship between ‘validity claims’ and ‘legitimacy claims’, see, for example: Susen (2007), p. 257; Susen (2009b), pp. 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 113, 114, 115, 117, and 119; Susen (2010c), pp. 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, and 116; Susen (2011d), pp. 46, 55, 57, and 58; Susen (2011e), pp. 49, 53, 57, 60, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 75, 77, 80, and 82; Susen (2013e), esp. pp. 200, 207–215, 217–218, 219, 222, and 225–230; Susen (2013f ), esp. pp. 330, 331, 334, 335, 337, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 349, 363, 365, and 369; Susen (2014e), pp. 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, and 100; Susen (2015a), pp.  10, 55, and 200; Susen (2017e), esp. pp.  350–353, 361–362, and 368; Susen (2017f ), pp. 15, 30–31, 39, 42, and 44; Susen (2018b), esp. pp. 6, 9, 11, 13–15, 17, 22–23, 26–27, 30, and 31; Susen (2018c), pp.  44–45, 47–48, and 50–55. See also, for instance: Bourdieu (1971a); Bourdieu (1982a); Bourdieu (1982d); Bourdieu (2002); Bourdieu

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

331

(1987 [1971]); Bourdieu (1992); Habermas (1984a [1976]); Habermas (1987a [1981]); Habermas (1987b [1981]); Habermas (2001a [1984]); Habermas (2003 [1999]); Habermas (2018 [2009]). 4. McLennan (2013), pp. 126–127 (italics added). 5. Santos (2014), p. viii (italics added). 6. Ibid., p. viii (italics added). 7. In opposition to the previous point. 8. Bhambra (2014c), p. 473 (italics added). 9. On the complex relationship between modern empires and nation-states, see, for example: Breuilly (2017); Chatterjee (2017); Go (2017); Go and Watson (2019); Hall (2017); Halperin (2017); Kumar (2010); Kumar (2017); Malešević (2017a); Malešević (2017b); Perdue (2017); Steinmetz (2017). See also, for instance: Atzert and Müller (2004); Borón (2005); Burbank and Cooper (2010); Go (2011); Hardt and Negri (2000); Hardt and Negri (2006); Hobsbawm (1969); Hobsbawm (1987); Maldonado-Torres (2004); Mann (2005); Mann (2012); Meyer et al. (1997); Münkler (2007 [2005]); Passavant and Dean (2004); Pieper et al. (2007); Scammell (1981); Seidman (1996); Semmel (1993); Smith (1978); Steinmetz (2005b); Steinmetz (2013). 10. McLennan (2013), p. 125 (italics added). To be clear, McLennan is critical of this (arguably simplistic) view, which he locates in Santos (2007a). 11. McLennan (2013), p. 125 (italics added). To be clear, McLennan is critical of this (arguably simplistic) view, which he locates in Santos (2007a). 12. McLennan (2013), p. 139. On this point, see also Mignolo (2005), p. 114. 13. McLennan (2013), p. 124. 14. On Santos’s concept of ‘lazy reason’, see, for instance: Santos (2004); Santos (2014), pp. 163 and 164–187. 15. On this point, see, for example, Collyer (2018). See also, for instance, Holloway and Susen (2013), pp. 85, 86, 89, 98n4, and 100n35, and Susen (2018d). 16. See Hardt and Negri (2000) as well as Hardt and Negri (2006). See also, for example: Atzert and Müller (2004); Borón (2005); Passavant and Dean (2004); Pieper et al. (2007). Cf. Collyer (2018) and Collyer et al. (2018). 17. Cf. Rivera Cusicanqui (2010), esp. pp. 56–60; see, in particular, her critical remarks on the construction of ‘a small empire within the empire’ [‘un pequeño imperio dentro del imperio’] (ibid., p. 58). 18. McLennan (2013), p. 133 (italics added). 19. On the performative contradiction inherent in anti-metanarrativist metanarratives, see, for instance, Susen (2015a), pp.  255–257. In addition, see, for example: Blackburn (2000), pp. 265 and 268; Butler (2002), pp. 17 and 27–28; Cole (2003), p. 493; Gane and Gane (2007), pp. 129–130; Kellner (2007), pp. 102 and 121; Lyon (1999 [1994]), pp. 98–99; Stewart (1997), pp. 178–183 and 187; Wilterdink (2002), pp. 197 and 206; Zagorin (1999), p. 7; Zammito (2010), p. 299.

332 

S. Susen

20. McLennan (2013), p. 135 (italics added). 21. Ibid., p. 135 (italics added). 22. On this point, see Connell (2007), p.  207. See also McLennan (2013), pp. 135–136. 23. McLennan (2013), p. 136. 24. On the concept of ‘ideal type’, see, for example: Haug et al. (2004); Rosenberg (2016); Susen (2015a), pp. 57, 100, 204, 205, 207, and 217; Swedberg (2018). 25. McLennan (2013), p. 136. 26. See ibid., p. 136. See also, for instance, Allen (2016). 27. McLennan (2013), p.  135. On this point, see also, for example: Dussel (2008 [2000]), p. 346; Mignolo (2000), p. 32; Santos (2010), p. 225. 28. Cf. Habermas (1992a [1988]). 29. McLennan (2013), p. 135. On this point, see Mignolo (2000), pp. 29–30. 30. On this point, see, for example: Frank (1992); Habermas (1996 [1981]); Habermas (1989 [1985/1987]); Honneth et  al. (1992a); Honneth et  al. (1992b); McLellan (1992); Passerin d’Entrèves and Benhabib (1996); Patton (2004), esp. p. 11875; Susen (2015a), pp. 233–235, 241, and 279. 31. Bhambra (2014a), p. 287 (italics added). See also Bhambra (2015), p. 104: ‘[…] this is not an argument for relativism, but rather for the appropriate consideration of new evidence in enabling us to rethink the adequacy of concepts associated with narratives that have now been superseded’. 32. Bhambra (2014a), p. 287. 33. Ibid., p. 287. 34. Ibid., p. 287. 35. Cf. Susen (2007), Chapter 10, as well as Chernilo (2017) and Susen (2020c). 36. See, for instance: Bhambra (2014c), esp. pp. 473, 475, 477, 478, 483, 484, 485, 486, and 487n7; Blauner and Wellman (1973); Bracey et al. (1973); Gilroy (1993); Ladner (1973); Wilson (2006). 37. See, for instance: Connell (2007); Connell (2014); Roniger and Waisman (2002); Santos (2014). 38. See, for instance: Alatas (2006a); Chakrabarty (2002); Chakrabarty (2003); Guha (1984a); Guha and Spivak (1988); Mignolo (2000); Spivak (1988). 39. Cf. Rivera Cusicanqui (2010), esp. pp.  56–60; see, in particular, ibid., pp. 57–58: ‘[…] sin alterar para nada la relación de fuerzas en los “palacios” del Imperio, los estudios culturales de las universidades norteamericanas han adoptado las ideas de los estudios de la subalternidad y han lanzado debates en América Latina, creando una jerga, un aparato conceptual y formas de referencia y contrarreferencia que han alejado la disquisición académica de los compromisos y diálogos con las fuerzas sociales insurgentes. Los Mignolo y compañía han construído [sic] un pequeño imperio dentro del imperio, recuperando estratégicamente los aportes de la escuela de los estudios de la subalternidad de la India y de múltiples vertientes latinoamericanas de reflexión crítica sobre la colonización y la descolonización’.

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

333

40. On this point, see, for example: Holloway (2005 [2002]); Holloway (2007); Holloway (2009a); Holloway (2009b); Holloway (2010); Holloway and Susen (2013); Susen (2007), pp. 136, 191–192, 211, 219, and 262; Susen (2008a); Susen (2008b); Susen (2012a), esp. p. 297; Susen (2014a); Susen (2018b), esp. pp. 9–10. 41. Go (2013a), pp. 3–4. 42. On the concept of ‘methodological nationalism’, see, for example: Chernilo (2006a); Chernilo (2006b); Chernilo (2007a); Chernilo (2007b); Chernilo (2008). See also Fine (2007), pp. ix, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14. In addition, see, for instance: Bhambra (2013), pp. 306–308; Patel (2014), p. 608. 43. See, for instance: el-Ojeili and Hayden (2006); Jellissen and Gottheil (2009); Ramírez (2014); Sakellaropoulos (2009). 44. See, for instance: el-Ojeili and Hayden (2006); Hirsch et al. (2009); Inglis (2011); Inglis and Robertson (2008). 45. See, for instance: el-Ojeili and Hayden (2006); Fiedler (2003); Stengel and Bellin (2001). 46. Bhambra (2013), p. 295 (italics added). 47. Ibid., p.  295. On this point, see also ibid., p.  296. In addition, see Gandhi (1998). 48. Bhambra (2014a), p. 130 (italics added). 49. Ibid., p. 130 (italics added). 50. On this point, see, for instance: Andrews (1902). Arguably, world-systems theory is an example of a perspective that combines the analysis of endogenous factors with the analysis of exogenous factors. See, for example: Arrighi et al. (1989); Babones and Chase-Dunn (2012); Hopkins and Wallerstein (1996); Kardulias (1999); So (1990); Tétreault and Abel (1986); Wallerstein (1974); Wallerstein (1980); Wallerstein (1983); Wallerstein (1989); Wallerstein (1999); Wallerstein (2004a); Wallerstein (2011b); Wallerstein (2015); Wallerstein et al. (2012). 51. Bhambra (2014a), p. 130 (italics added). 52. Ibid., p. 130 (italics added). 53. Ibid., p. 134 (italics added). 54. Ibid., p. 134. 55. On this point, see, for example: • McLennan (2013), p.  129: ‘[…] coloniality is constitutive of modernity […]’ (italics in original). • Mignolo (2007b), p. 464: ‘If coloniality is constitutive of modernity, in the sense that there cannot be modernity without coloniality, then the rhetoric of modernity and the logic of coloniality are also two sides of the same coin’.

334 

S. Susen

56. On this point, see, for example: Bhambra (2007a); Bhambra (2013); Bhambra (2014a). 57. Bhambra (2013), p. 296. 58. Ibid., p. 296. 59. Bhambra (2015), p. 104 (italics added). 60. Ibid., p. 104. 61. Cf. Susen (2007), Chapter 10, as well as Chernilo (2017) and Susen (2020c). 62. Bhambra (2015), p. 104. 63. On this point, see, for example: Bukve (2019), esp. ‘Social Science as Reconstruction of Social Phenomena’ (pp.  29–51) and ‘The Logic and Methodological Rules of Reconstruction’ (pp. 53–72); Dahms and Lybeck (2016); Drysdale (1996); Garz (2000); Habermas (1984b [1976]); Habermas (1990b [1983]); Hesse (1980); Jay (1984); Loveridge1 (1997); Mannheim (1997 [1940/1935]); McCarthy (1981); McCarthy (1991); Outhwaite (2000); Outhwaite (2014b); Outhwaite (2016b). 64. Bhambra (2015), p. 104. 65. On the preponderance of the object (and, by implication, of objectivity), see, for instance: Morgan (2017); Susen (2007), p. 218; Susen (2011b), pp. 186 and 190. On the relationship between objective, normative, and subjective dimensions, see, for example: Susen (2007), pp. 23, 38–39, 43n25, 44n37, 75–88, 104–107, 115, 127n21, 275–302, and 307; Susen (2014b), pp. 349–350 (point 13); Susen (2015a), pp. 6, 8, 18, 45, 52–54, 56, 80–81, 95, 101–103, 110–111, 142, 146, 152, 160, 161, 189, 194, 198–199, 201, 210, 239, 247, 253, and 259; Susen (2016e); Susen (2016f ), pp. 122–123, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, and 136; Susen (2017c), pp. 104–106, 110, 113–115, 118, and 120; Susen (2017d), pp. 109–110; Susen (2018a), pp. 9–10, 53–55, 57–58, 60, 64–65, 69, and 70; Susen (2018b), pp. 6, 10–13, 17, 22–23, 25–26, and 30–31; Susen (2018d), esp. pp. 1278–1279 and 1282; Susen (2020c), pp. 137–138 and 147. 66. On this point, see Susen (2015a), pp.  235–237. On ‘modernity as a self-­ critical project’, see, for example: Adorno and Horkheimer (1997 [1944/1969]); Beck and Lau (2005), pp.  533, 537–540, and 551–554; Bentley (1999), esp. pp.  8–15 and 16–24; Butler (2002), p.  17; Delanty (1999), p. 3; Delanty (2000b), esp. Chapter 1, but also Chapters 2–6; Eadie (2001), p. 577; Durkheim (1966/1951 [1897]); Durkheim (1984 [1893]); Elliott (2000), p. 336; Horkheimer and Adorno (1994 [1944/1969]); Lyon (1999 [1994]), p.  90; Marx (2000/1977 [1857–1858/1941]); Seidman (1994b), pp.  1–2; Simmel (1997 [1903]); Smart (1996), p.  456; Susen (2009b), pp.  104–105; Susen (2010c), pp.  112–113; Susen (2013a), pp.  334–336; Susen (2013f ), pp.  326 and 330–331; Susen and Turner (2011a), esp. p. 6; Torfing (1999), pp. 59–61; Weber (1991 [1948]), esp. pp. 196–244; Wilterdink (2002), pp. 210–212; Zagorin (1999), pp. 6–7. 67. See Marx (2000/1977 [1857–1858/1941]).

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

335

68. See Weber (1991 [1948]), esp. pp. 196–244. 69. See Durkheim (1966/1951 [1897]) and Durkheim (1984 [1893]). 70. See Simmel (1997 [1903]). See also Susen (2013c), pp. 334–336. 71. See Horkheimer (1976). 72. On the relationship between ‘the hegemonic’ and ‘the counterhegemonic’, see, for instance: Susen (2014e), esp. pp. 91–94, 95 (point 11), 96–97, 99, 103–104 (point 8), 104–105 (point 9), 109, and 110; Susen (2016c), esp. pp. 201–202 (point 6), 206, 209–210, 213, 215, 218, 220 (point 6), and 222. 73. Go (2013a), p. 12 (italics added). 74. Ibid., p. 12 (italics added). 75. Bhambra (2013), p. 298 (italics added). 76. On the discourse of modernity, see Habermas (1987 [1985a]). On the concept of ‘modernity’, see, for instance: Bauman (1991); Beck (1992); Beck et  al. (1994); Beck and Lau (2005); Beilharz (2000); Berman (1983 [1982]); Bernstein (1985); Bhambra (2007a); Craib (1997); Delanty (1999); Featherstone et  al. (1995); Giddens (1996 [1971]); Giddens (1991); Habermas (1987 [1985a]); Habermas (1996 [1981]); Hall and Gieben (1992); Hall et  al. (1992); Hawthorn (1987 [1976]); Kellner (1989a); Lichtblau (1999); Morrison (2006 [1995]); Outhwaite (2014a); Sayer (1991); Susen (2015a), esp. pp. 11–18; Thomas and Walsh (1998); Wagner (1994); Wagner (2001); Wagner (2008); Wagner (2012); Walter (2001); Wellmer (1993); Zima (1997); Zima (2000). 77. See Bhambra (2013), p. 298. On this point, see also Bhambra (2007a), esp. pp. 1–12 and 145–155. 78. On this point, see Susen (2007), pp. 34, 56, 59n26, 215, and 290. See also Susen (2015a), p. 143. 79. Cf. Susen (2015a), pp. 143–145. 80. Bhambra (2013), p. 295. On this point, see also ibid., p. 296. In addition, see Gandhi (1998). 81. Bhambra (2013), p. 309. 82. Bhambra (2014a), p. 134 (italics added). 83. Mignolo (2002), p.  67 (italics added). On this point, see also Bhambra (2014a), p. 134. 84. Bhambra (2014a), p. 134. 85. Mignolo (2002), p. 66. On this point, see also Bhambra (2014a), p. 134. 86. Susen (2015a), p. 238 (italics in original, except for the word ‘historicity’, which is not italicized in the original version). 87. See, for example, Hegel (1975 [1837]). See also Köster (1972). 88. See, for example, Heidegger (2001 [1927]) and Heidegger (1992 [1989/1924]). Cf. Thiele (1995). 89. See, for example, Gadamer (1965) and Gadamer (1976). 90. See, for instance: Baum (1977); Bailey (1994); Berger and Luckmann (1967); Bourdieu (1968); Bourdieu (1992); Bourdieu (2002); Bourdieu

336 

S. Susen

(2004 [2001]); Burkitt (1997); Cronin (1997); Fuller (2002 [1988]); Habermas (1987 [1968a]); Habermas (1979); Habermas (1988 [1967/1970]); Haddock (2004); Hamilton (1974); Longhurst (1989); Mannheim (1997 [1952]); Merton (1973 [1945]); Pickering (1997); Ringer (2000 [1990]); Simonds (1978); Susen (2007); Susen (2011e); Susen (2013e); Susen (2015a), esp. Chapters 1, 2, and 4; Susen (2016b); Susen (2017a). 91. See, for instance: McLennan (2003); McLennan (2013). 92. McLennan (2013), p. 123 (italics added). On this point, see also ibid., p. 133. 93. On this point, cf. Susen (2015a), pp. 237–241. 94. Bhambra (2014c), p. 476. On this point, see also Weinsheimer (1991). 95. On this point, see, for example: Susen (2007), pp. 164–165; Susen (2013f ), p. 224; Susen (2015a), p. 61. 96. On this point, see Go (2013a), p. 13. 97. See, for example: Dubois (2004); James (1980 [1938]); Magubane (2005). 98. See, for example: Cobban (1968); Cobban (1999 [1964]); Lefebvre (2005 [1939/1947]); Soboul (1974 [1962]). 99. On this point, see, for example: Armitage (2007); Brisson (2018); Bush (2006); Chakrabarty (2000); Chakrabarty (2003); Chatterjee (1993); Go (2013a), esp. p. 13; Moraña et al. (2008); Skocpol (1979). 100. Go (2013a), p.  14 (italics added). On this point, see also, for example: Bhambra (2007a); Bhambra (2013); Bhambra (2014a); Fanon (2004 [1961]); Memmi (2003 [1957]). 101. Go (2013a), p. 15. 102. Ibid., p. 15. 103. Ibid., p. 15. 104. Ibid., p. 15. 105. Ibid., p. 15 (italics added). 106. See Lenin (2010 [1917]). 107. Go (2013a), p. 15. 108. See, for example: Brewer (1990 [1980]); Mommsen (1980 [1977]); Mommsen and Osterhammel (1986); Noonan (2017); Semmel (1993). 109. Go (2013a), p. 15. See, for instance, Stoler (1995). 110. Go (2013a), p. 16 (italics in original). 111. On this issue, see, for example: Foucault (1979 [1975]); Tilly (1992 [1990]). 112. Go (2013a), p. 17. 113. Ibid., p. 17 (italics in original). 114. On this point, see ibid., p. 17. 115. Ibid., p. 17 (quotation modified). 116. On this point, see, for example: Adorno (2003 [1964]); Boltanski and Esquerre (2017a), pp. 31, 34, 174, 209, 265, 268, 269, 283, 302, 331, 337, 341, 363, 393, 568, and 596; Feldman (2015); Fleming (2009); Lindholm (2008); Varga (2012). See also, for instance: Susen (2007), pp. 109, 139,

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

337

and 184; Susen (2010d), p. 75; Susen (2011a), pp. 60–61 and 70; Susen (2012b), pp.  311 and 325n170; Susen (2013f ), p.  358; Susen (2015a), pp.  41, 42, 99, 230, 245, 259, 264; Susen (2016f ), pp.  54, 73, and 95; Susen (2016b), p.  74; Susen (2016f ), pp.  124, 125, 129, 135, and 136; Susen (2018a), pp. 29–31, 33, 36, and 63–64. 117. Bhabha (1994), p. 6. On this point, see also Bhambra (2013), p. 310. 118. Bhabha (1994), p. 6 (italics added). Cf. Amin (2004). On this point, see also Bhambra (2013), p. 310. 119. Bhambra (2014a), p. 120. 120. Ibid., p. 120. 121. Ibid., p. 120. 122. Ibid., p. 120. 123. Ibid., p. 120 (italics in original). 124. Ibid., p. 120 (italics in original). 125. Ibid., p. 120. 126. Ibid., p. 120. 127. Ibid., p. 121. 128. On this point, see Said (1978). See also, for instance: Said (1979); Said (1981); Said (1982); Said (1983); Said (1989); Said (1993); Said (1994); Said (2000); Said and Viswanathan (2001). In addition, see, for example: Ahmad (1992); Alatas (2006a); Bhabha and Mitchell (2005); Bhambra (2007b); Brennan (2000); Burke and Prochaska (2008); Guhin and Wyrtzen (2013); Hallaq (2018); Irwin (2006); Lockman (2010 [2004]); McLennan (2003); O’Hanlon and Washbrook (2009); Rice (2000); Richardson (1990); Salvatore (1996); Steinmetz (2007a); Turner (1974); Turner (1978); Turner (1994); Turner (2000a); Varisco (2007). 129. Bhambra (2014a), p. 121. 130. Ibid., p. 121. 131. Savage (2009), p. 227 (italics added). 132. Go (2013a), p. 23 (italics added). 133. Ibid., p. 23 (italics added). On this problem, see also, for instance, McLennan (2003) and McLennan (2013). 134. Go (2013a), p. 23. 135. Cf. Susen (2015a), Susen (2016d), and Susen (2017d). 136. Susen (2015a), p. 5 (in the original version, the entire passage appears in italics). 137. See ibid., esp. pp. 40–43. 138. Bhambra (2014a), pp. 138–139 (italics added). 139. Susen (2015a), p. 51. 140. Ibid., p. 10 (italics in original). 141. On the relationship between ‘validity claims’ and ‘legitimacy claims’, see, for example: Susen (2007), p. 257; Susen (2009b), pp. 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 113, 114, 115, 117, and 119; Susen (2010c), pp. 104, 106, 108, 109, 110,

338 

S. Susen

111, 112, 114, 115, and 116; Susen (2011d), pp. 46, 55, 57, and 58; Susen (2011e), pp. 49, 53, 57, 60, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 75, 77, 80, and 82; Susen (2013e), esp. pp. 200, 207–215, 217–218, 219, 222, and 225–230; Susen (2013f ), esp. pp. 330, 331, 334, 335, 337, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 349, 363, 365, and 369; Susen (2014e), pp. 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, and 100; Susen (2015a), pp.  10, 55, and 200; Susen (2017e), esp. pp.  350–353, 361–362, and 368; Susen (2017f ), pp. 15, 30–31, 39, 42, and 44; Susen (2018b), esp. pp. 6, 9, 11, 13–15, 17, 22–23, 26–27, 30, and 31; Susen (2018c), pp.  44–45, 47–48, and 50–55. See also, for instance: Bourdieu (1971a); Bourdieu (1982a); Bourdieu (1982d); Bourdieu (2002); Bourdieu (1987 [1971]); Bourdieu (1992); Habermas (1984a [1976]); Habermas (1987a [1981]); Habermas (1987b [1981]); Habermas (2001a [1984]); Habermas (2003 [1999]); Habermas (2018 [2009]). 142. Bhambra (2014a), p.  139. On this point, see also, for instance: Mignolo (2002); Mignolo (2008 [2002]); Tlostanova and Mignolo (2012). 143. McLennan (2013), p. 131. To be clear, McLennan is critical of this (arguably simplistic) view, which he locates in Connell (2007), p. 44. 144. McLennan (2013), p. 131. Ditto; see Connell (2007), p. 44. 145. McLennan (2013), p. 131. Ditto; see Connell (2007), p. 12. 146. Bhambra (2013), p. 308. 147. Ibid., p. 308. 148. Said (1978). 149. Go (2013a), p. 14 (italics added). 150. See Susen (2007), pp. 192–198. 151. Spivak (1988), p. 271. 152. Cf. Susen’s concept of the ‘real speech situation’; see, for example, Susen (2013d), Susen (2013e), and Susen (2013f ). See also Susen (2007), pp. 144 and 261. 153. For a tentative outline of a typology of interests, see, for example, Susen (2016f ), pp. 130–131. 154. For a tentative outline of a typology of desires, see, for example, Susen (2007), pp. 293–296. 155. For a tentative outline of a typology of justifications, see, for example, Susen (2017e). 156. For a tentative outline of a typology of rationality, see, for example, Susen (2015a), p. 54. See also ibid., pp. 13, 15, 20, 35, 44, 45, 48, 62, 90, 104, 105, 115, 116, 120, 121, 137, 165, 175, 183, 190, 191, 198, 199, 225, 227, 235, 236, 255, 261, 274, 281, and 292n39. 157. For a tentative outline of a typology of power, see, for example, Susen (2014 [2015]), esp. pp. 14 and 20, Susen (2015a), esp. p. 117, and Susen (2018b). In addition, see Susen (2008a) and Susen (2008b). 158. On this point, see, for example, Patel (2014).

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

339

159. See, for example, Bhambra (2014a), pp.  142 and 146. On the concept of ‘ideal type’, see, for example: Haug et al. (2004); Rosenberg (2016); Susen (2015a), pp. 57, 100, 204, 205, 207, and 217; Swedberg (2018). 160. On the relationship between objective, normative, and subjective dimensions, see, for example: Susen (2007), pp.  23, 38–39, 43n25, 44n37, 75–88, 104–107, 115, 127n21, 275–302, and 307; Susen (2014b), pp. 349–350 (point 13); Susen (2015a), pp. 6, 8, 18, 45, 52–54, 56, 80–81, 95, 101–103, 110–111, 142, 146, 152, 160, 161, 189, 194, 198–199, 201, 210, 239, 247, 253, and 259; Susen (2016e); Susen (2016f ), pp. 122–123, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, and 136; Susen (2017c), pp. 104–106, 110, 113–115, 118, and 120; Susen (2017d), pp. 109–110; Susen (2018a), pp. 9–10, 53–55, 57–58, 60, 64–65, 69, and 70; Susen (2018b), pp. 6, 10–13, 17, 22–23, 25–26, and 30–31; Susen (2018d), esp. pp. 1278–1279 and 1282; Susen (2020c), pp. 137–138 and 147. 161. See Susen (2018d) and Susen (2018e). 162. Go (2013a), pp. 8–9 (italics added). 163. See Bhambra et al. (2014), esp. pp. 293 and 299. 164. Ibid., p. 293 (italics added). 165. Ibid., p. 293. 166. Ibid., p. 293. 167. Bhambra (2014a), p. 130 (italics added). 168. Quijano (2007), p. 177 (italics added). On this point, see Bhambra (2014a), pp. 130–131 (italics added). In addition, see, for example: Quijano (2008 [2000]); Quijano (2010 [2007]); Quijano (2014). Moreover, see, for example: Castro-Gómez (2007); Escobar (2007); Grosfoguel (2007); MaldonadoTorres (2007); Mignolo (2007a); Mignolo (2007b); Walsh (2007). 169. Cf. Jaeggi (2018 [2014]). Cf. also Susen (2020b). 170. Quijano (2007), p. 177 (italics added). 171. Ibid., p. 177 (italics added). 172. Cf. Susen (2015b). 173. McLennan (2013), p. 126 (italics added). To be clear, McLennan is critical of this contention. Thus, the above section is meant to be a criticism not of McLennan’s (excellent) article but, rather, of the normative position that he summarizes, and problematizes, in this passage. 174. Ibid., p. 126. 175. Go (2013a), p. 11 (italics added). 176. Vázquez (2011), p.  41 (italics added). On this point, see also Bhambra (2014a), p. 132. 177. Bhambra (2014a), p. 137. 178. On this concept, see, for instance, Go (2013a), p. 10. See also Spivak (1988). 179. Fraser (2017), p.  59 (italics in original). See also Susen (2018a), esp. pp. 8–17.

340 

S. Susen

180. For a useful summary of these four ‘forms of valorization’, see Boltanski and Esquerre (2017b), esp. pp. 69–70. See also ibid., pp. 72–76. On the notion of ‘forms of valorization’ [‘les formes de mise en valeur’], see Boltanski and Esquerre (2017a), Chapter IV.  In the English editions of Boltanski and Esquerre’s writings, the most common translation of the notion ‘mise en valeur’ is ‘valorization’. See, for instance, Boltanski and Esquerre (2017b), pp. 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, and 76. Please note, however, that an alternative (and, in some cases, preferred) translation of this concept is the English term ‘valuation’. See, for instance: Boltanski et  al. (2015); Lamont (2012). 181. Boltanski and Esquerre (2017b), p.  68 (italics in original). Boltanski and Esquerre spell out that they conceive of this ‘set of transformations’ in Claude Lévi-Strauss’s sense of the term. On this point, see Boltanski and Esquerre (2017a), pp.  164–165 and 196. See, in particular, Lévi-Strauss (1962). See also Boltanski and Esquerre (2017a), p. 586n12, and Maniglier (2002), pp. 55–56. On the relevance of Lévi-Strauss’s work to Boltanski and Esquerre’s argument, see, for example: Boltanski and Esquerre (2017a), pp.  120, 164–165, 196, 242, 282, 494, 582, 586, 594, 598, and 609; Boltanski and Esquerre (2017b), pp. 68–69. Cf. Lévi-Strauss (1962); cf. also Lévi-Strauss (1949) and Lévi-­Strauss (1971). 182. On the ‘standard form’ [‘forme standard’], see Boltanski and Esquerre (2017a), esp. Chapter V. More specifically, see ibid., pp. 21, 129, 157, 159, 165, 166, 173, 178, 179, 181, 182–183, 187, 201–242, 234, 295, 357, 394, 395, 429, and 524–526. 183. On the ‘collection form’ [‘forme collection’], see ibid., esp. Chapter VII. More specifically, see ibid., pp.  68, 129, 165, 166, 178, 179, 181–182, 188, 243–325, 349, 352, 401, 403, 404, 417–419, 429, and 527–529. 184. On the ‘trend form’ [‘forme tendance’], see ibid., esp. Chapter IX. More specifically, see ibid., pp. 175, 179, 181, 184, 188, 226, 327–353, 394, 404, and 526–527. 185. On the ‘asset form’ [‘forme actif’], see ibid., esp. Chapter X. More specifically, see pp.  159, 165, 174, 178, 181, 184, 188, 224, 226, 288, 293, 327, 355–372, 394, 395, 399, 401, 442, 484, 493, and 529–530. 186. Boltanski and Esquerre (2017b), p. 70. 187. Ibid., p. 70 (italics added). 188. Ibid., p. 74 (italics in original). On the concept of ‘integral capitalism’, see, for instance: Boltanski and Esquerre (2017a), pp. 26, 375, 399–400, and 566; Boltanski and Esquerre (2017b), pp. 68 and 73–75. 189. Boltanski and Esquerre (2017b), p. 74 (italics added). 190. Cf. Bourdieu’s field theory. See, for example: Bourdieu (1993b [1984]) as well as Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992b). See also, for instance, Susen (2007), esp. pp. 171–180.

13  Epilogue: Critical Remarks 

341

191. On the ‘academic field’ (as well as the ‘intellectual field’ and the ‘scientific field’), see, for example: Bourdieu (1966); Bourdieu (1969); Bourdieu (1971b); Bourdieu (1975b); Bourdieu (1976); Bourdieu (1984c); Bourdieu (1988 [1984]); Bourdieu (1997b); Bourdieu and Passeron (1990 [1970]); Bourdieu et al. (1994). See also, for instance: Medvetz (2018); Ringer (2000 [1990]); Susen (2011e). 192. On the distinction between ‘analytical form’ (or ‘analytical presentation’) and ‘narrative form’ (or ‘narrative presentation’), see also, for example: Boltanski and Esquerre (2017a), pp. 167–170; Boltanski and Esquerre (2017b), p. 69. 193. On the relationship between instrumental rationality (Zweckrationalität) and substantive rationality (Wertrationalität), see Susen (2015a), pp.  11, 62, and 120. 194. Boltanski and Esquerre (2017a), p. 497: ‘rôle du discours, qu’il prenne une forme analytique ou narrative’. 195. Baert (2015), p. 14 (italics added). Cf. Susen (2017f ), pp. 12–13 and 52. 196. On the rise of the ‘neoliberal university’, see, for instance: Enright et al. (2017); Ergül and Coşar (2017); Schuetze et  al. (2012); Slaughter and Rhoades (2000); Smyth (2017); Taylor and Lahad (2018); Turcan et al. (2015).

Conclusion

The main purpose of this book has been to examine key trends, debates, and challenges in twenty-first-century sociology. As should be evident from the previous chapters, the task of providing a balanced account of the state in which sociology finds itself in the contemporary era is far from straightforward. Expectedly, different scholars—who align themselves with different traditions of thought—have different understandings of what sociology is, how it has evolved, and how one can or should make sense of it. The fact that there are numerous (and, in many ways, radically divergent) conceptions of the nature, history, and study of sociology is not surprising, given that the discipline—similar to other realms of investigation—constitutes a conglomerate of intellectual currents, each with its own underlying sets of assumptions, which complement, but also compete with, each other. In one way or another, all of the epistemic frameworks considered in the preceding inquiry share one crucial conviction: namely, that a comprehensive analysis of the challenges faced by global society requires the construction of a sociology capable of accounting for the interconnectedness of social actors and social structures across time and space. The principal arguments discussed in the foregoing chapters shall be summarized in the following sections.

Part I: Intimations of Postcoloniality Chapter 1 has emphasized the world-historical significance of two major events—that is, the colonization and, subsequently, the decolonization of large parts of the world by European powers. The historical coincidence between © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1

343

344 Conclusion

the birth of sociology and the rise of imperialism has noteworthy implications for any effort to grasp the normative constitution of the presuppositional foundations on which Western social-scientific research is based. Sociology, insofar as it is understood as an emancipatory endeavour, is confronted with a twofold challenge: first, to provide a comprehensive critique of the multifaceted impact of colonialism on world history; and, second, to craft viable visions of (and for) a genuinely postcolonial world. Chapter 2 has given a brief overview of prominent fields of study taking on this challenge—namely, postcolonial studies and decolonial studies. Notwithstanding the points of disagreement that may separate them from one another, the diasporic scholars associated with these two areas of analysis—most of whom come, in the former case, from the Middle East and South Asia and, in the latter case, from South America—are united by the ambition to take issue with Eurocentric conceptions of history in general and of modernity in particular. These thinkers and activists have made invaluable contributions to the humanities and social sciences, notably by exposing ideologically ingrained and institutionally solidified types of ethnocentrism, while aiming to overcome both its theoretical and its practical limitations in a visionary, and epistemically inclusive, fashion.

Part II: Intimations of Globality Chapter 3 has scrutinized the implications of the fact that, in the early twenty-first century, societies across the world are increasingly interconnected at multiple levels. Subscribing to the premise that only a truly global sociology is capable of fleshing out the idiosyncratic complexities of global society, a connectivist approach seeks to cast light on the extent to which historical developments are profoundly shaped by multiple social—that is, economic, political, cultural, linguistic, geographical, and demographic—connections. In addition to elucidating the key insights obtained from such a connectivist outlook, this chapter has defended the value of the paradigms of multiple modernities, multiculturalism, and cosmopolitanism, suggesting that, despite their noticeable shortcomings, they offer astute accounts of the global interconnectedness pervading contemporary societies. Finally, as explained in this chapter, the emergence of ‘postcolonial sociology’ and ‘subaltern studies’ reflects a serious effort to examine the normative implications of this global interconnectedness. Chapter 4 has made a case for a connectivist sociology, which regards modernity as a product of the confluence of globally interconnected practices and

 Conclusion 

345

structures. Such a connectivist perspective not only discards the assumption that civilizations constitute distinct and self-sufficient entities, but also deconstructs the notion that the European continent is the cradle of major societal developments associated with modernity. Taking issue with the separation, isolation, and hierarchization of civilizations as building blocks of human existence, this connectivist viewpoint pursues the methodological strategy of ‘provincializing’ Europe by deconstructing its epistemic claims to universality, thereby contributing to the creation of a ‘global social science community’, while rejecting all attempts to invent historical narratives founded on the illusion of evolutionary teleologies.

Part III: Intimations of Canonicity Chapter 5 has centred on canon formation in modern sociology, asking why some scholars have been more successful than others in influencing paradigmatic developments in their discipline and arguing that, curiously, the writings of originally non-Anglophone intellectuals have played a pivotal role in setting ‘Anglo-Saxon’ research agendas in the social sciences. All forms of canon formation—including those taking place in the discipline of sociology—are marked by an asymmetrical distribution of power, as illustrated in the substantial impact of key sociological variables (such as class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability) on the production, circulation, and consumption of academic discourses. Researchers are obliged to position themselves in relation to these discourses, when making conceptual, methodological, and/or empirical contributions to their respective domains of inquiry. Irrespective of the legitimizing functions fulfilled by ‘epistemic gatekeepers’, who are equipped with the capacity to bar ‘outsiders’ from entering the privileged circle of ‘insiders’ of a given realm of culturally codified investigation, sociology has been, and continues to be, an unusually hospitable and adjustable discipline, in the sense that it has provided—and, in all likelihood, will continue to provide—a safe home for scholars from adjacent, and in many cases seemingly distant, areas of study. Chapter 6 has asserted that intellectual canons in mainstream sociology— including its Anglophone variants—have systematically excluded, marginalized, and silenced non-white scholars, as exemplified by the sidelining of ‘African American Pioneers of Sociology’. Processes of canon formation are deeply intertwined with social mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion at work in the academic field. By virtue of these mechanisms, it is decided who is, and who is not, allowed to set, and to control, the (implicit or explicit) rules of

346 Conclusion

validation and recognition. A genuinely critical social science, therefore, needs to uncover the discriminatory dynamics that determine the degree to which some intellectual figures and research traditions are included in, while others are excluded from, hegemonic processes and structures of knowledge production, circulation, and consumption. Mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion that are prevalent in particular academic fields cannot be dissociated from those that exert their stratifying power in the societies in which they are embedded.

Part IV: Intimations of Historicity Chapter 7 has aimed to demonstrate that the sociological study of history deserves to be taken seriously. More specifically, it has defended the view that the academic disciplines of history and sociology need to be combined and cross-fertilized, in order to comprehend the far-reaching implications of the fact that social practices and structures are situated in, and fundamentally conditioned by, constantly shifting background horizons of past occurrences and constellations. If this is the case, then—as affirmed in this chapter—both stagism, which is based on a determinist understanding of history, and presentism, which centres primarily on the present without paying sufficient attention to the crucial role of the past, undermine the historicist spirit permeating the project of sociology. Chapter 8 has grappled with the challenges posed by the doctrine of epochalism—that is, the belief that the current era constitutes a historical stage that is not only fundamentally different from previous ones, but also qualitatively unique and unprecedented, reflecting a radical break with prior forms of societal existence. Moreover, it has discussed the central tenets underlying Parsonian versions of evolutionism and neo-evolutionism—notably the assumption that societal developments are essentially determined by ‘evolutionary universals’, such as differentiation, adaptive upgrading, inclusion, and value generalization. Ultimately, however, both epochalist and evolutionist accounts of social reality, although they offer seemingly convincing ‘catch-all’ explanations of civilizational patterns of development, tend to lose sight of multilayered cultural specificities, which are irreducible to teleological narratives based on the belief in world-historical leaps towards civilizational realizations of global universality.

 Conclusion 

347

Part V: Intimations of Disciplinarity Chapter 9 has assessed the contention that the rise of the digital age—which is characterized by the constant gathering, processing, and analysis of social and transactional data on an unprecedented scale—has triggered the most recent crisis of empirical sociology. In this novel historical context, advanced digital technologies employed outside the academic sector provide powerful ways of collecting, managing, and evaluating data, making traditional methods used in sociology appear, at best, limited or, at worst, obsolete. As highlighted in this chapter, both the causes and the consequences of this shift need to be thoroughly investigated—not only in terms of its ethical, epistemological, and methodological implications, but also in terms of its relevance to the changing status of empirical sociology in increasingly digitized societies. Chapter 10 has reflected on the impact of interdisciplinarity and audit culture on both the intellectual autonomy and the institutional identity of sociology. It has explored the extent to which the growing demand for interdisciplinarity and audit mechanisms, which one encounters both in the natural sciences and in the social sciences, has shaped sociological research agendas in recent years. With this in mind, it has stressed the importance of giving a balanced account of both the empowering and the disempowering features of advanced knowledge economies. Such a measured approach recognizes both the opportunities arising from and the obstacles created by the confluence of intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary practices and structures in managerialized forms of academia.

Part VI: Intimations of Hegemony Chapter 11 has pointed out that the future of society in general and the future of sociology in particular have been important subjects of debate for some time, expressing a critical engagement with hegemonic modes of cognitive and behavioural functioning. Irrespective of whether one favours narratives of decline or narratives of improvement, both sides of the argument tend to be framed by making reference to a number of key (social, economic, socioeconomic, cultural, political, ideological, scientific, medical, environmental, military, and educational) trends and developments. A central question arising in this respect is to what degree sociology will have the capacity to delineate both its intellectual and its institutional future path in a genuinely transformative and proactive, rather than merely corrective and reactive, manner. Having considered different options for the future of sociology, this

348 Conclusion

chapter has come to the following conclusion: as a progressively and publicly oriented discipline, sociology needs to prove capable of challenging, and offering viable alternatives to, both the state-induced managerialization and the market-driven commodification of vital aspects of social life. Chapter 12 has given an overview of the principal issues that pose a serious challenge to sociology’s prospects in the twenty-first century—not least in terms of its ability (or lack thereof ) to play a counterhegemonic role in the construction of reality. Recent and ongoing debates on the state of the discipline are remarkably similar to those that emerged in the second part of the twentieth century. Leaving the terrain of sheer speculation, this chapter has identified and examined major indicators by means of which it is possible to make an informed judgement on the ‘health’ of sociology. The discipline’s development has been affected by both negative and positive trends, all of which need to be taken into consideration if one seeks to provide a balanced account of the state of sociology in the twenty-first century. Drawing on the previous analysis, this chapter has aimed to contribute to this undertaking by proposing a tentative outline of seminal issues upon which contemporary sociologists can, and should, focus when defending their discipline against both internal and external forces that, if ignored, may severely damage its integrity or even lead to its dissolution.

Part VII: Intimations of Reflexivity In the form of an epilogue, Part VII has articulated some critical reflections on the key trends, debates, and challenges covered in the preceding chapters. In doing so, it has focused on a range of problems, demonstrating that the different approaches discussed in this book, regardless of their significant contributions to contemporary forms of sociological analysis, suffer from serious shortcomings. The previous inquiry has not sought to demonstrate that the aforementioned sociological approaches are doomed to failure. Rather, it has aimed to shed light on their main weaknesses and limitations, which—while recognizing, and insisting on, their respective strengths and contributions— need to be taken into consideration when examining crucial developments in twenty-first-century sociology. As illustrated throughout this book, the project of creating a sociology capable of accounting for the interconnectedness of social actors and social structures across time and space is far from straightforward. Most contemporary sociologists may be in agreement about the urgency of this task; they are divided, however, in terms of the specific conceptual, methodological, and empirical approaches they may (or may not) endorse in order to embrace it.

 Conclusion 

349

As should be clear from the foregoing remarks, the plea for an imaginative, innovative, and pioneering twenty-first-century sociology is fraught with difficulties. This book has dealt only with a few, albeit influential, options when embarking on this journey. Obviously, the account offered in this study, even if it may have covered a lot of ground, is by no means exhaustive and is, of course, inevitably partial. Irrespective of its shortcomings, however, it provides a general picture of key trends, debates, and challenges that—for better or for worse—have shaped, and continue to shape, the development of sociology in the twenty-first century. Undoubtedly, the ambition to construct a cutting-edge sociology in the current era may be pursued in a variety of ways. In this respect, one may favour ‘postcolonial’ or ‘decolonial’, ‘globalist’ or ‘connectivist’, ‘canonical’ or ‘anti-canonical’, ‘historical’ or ‘post-historical’, ‘interdisciplinary’ or ‘transdisciplinary’, ‘hegemonic’ or ‘counterhegemonic’ strategies. The list of options outlined above, however, is far from complete. These approaches, which have major theoretical and practical implications, should not be considered mutually exclusive. Instead, they can, and should, be treated as paths and perspectives that can, and should, be combined and cross-fertilized when taking on the difficult task of delineating in which direction(s) sociology can, and should, head in the foreseeable future. Inevitably, such a critical task also involves spelling out how sociology cannot, or at least should not, develop. Faced with this challenge, we must not forget that sociology has been, and continues to be, under attack by external forces, such as the neoliberalization of society and the neomanagerialization of academia. At the same time, we must not underestimate the consequences of the growing internal fragmentation of sociology into countless sub-fields and sub-disciplines, although this trend does not necessarily lead to its gradual disintegration. Not only do these worrying developments jeopardize both the intellectual autonomy and the institutional identity of sociology, but, in addition, they expose the degree to which, in order to allow for its very existence, it needs to be held together by a unifying core of conceptual, terminological, epistemological, methodological, and empirical tools that make it what it is: sociology. It is this core of shared tools—that is, not only of common premises, principles, and convictions, but also of common practices, enactments, and commitments—that make up the disciplinary specificity of sociology, as defined and discussed in the preceding investigation. Let us conclude by emphasizing that the defiant defence of this core of shared discipline-specific tools, for it to be successful, needs to take into account the following insights:

350 Conclusion

• Human beings act upon, make sense of, and construct the world on the basis of objective, normative, and subjective engagements. The domains of objectivity, normativity, and subjectivity constitute the principal spheres in and through which we establish a materially constituted, symbolically mediated, and personally assimilated relationship to the world. • Human beings act upon, make sense of, and construct the world on the basis of behavioural, ideological, and institutional engagements. It is by virtue of our interactional, conceptual, and organizational capacities that we relate to the world in a performative, reflective, and co-ordinative manner. • Human beings act upon, make sense of, and construct the world on the basis of foundational, contingent, and ephemeral engagements. The first type is reflected in foundational fields, which—in terms of their specificity—are indispensable to the emergence of social order. The second type manifests itself in contingent fields, which are potentially significant for, but—in terms of their specificity—not indispensable to, the emergence of social order. The third type is illustrated in ephemeral fields, which are relatively short-lived and—in terms of their specificity—largely irrelevant to the emergence of social order.1 In brief, sociology needs to face up to the fact that the principal modes of being-in-the-world experienced by members of humanity are essential to the discipline’s own forms of inquiry.2 If sociology fails to identify, and to take seriously, the modes of immersion upon which the human condition is based, then it falls short of comprehending the fundamental ways in which we, as a species, engage with the countless facets of our existence. Admittedly, there are numerous—and, in many respects, tension-laden—trends, debates, and challenges shaping the pursuit of sociological inquiry in the twenty-first century. Regardless of their complexity, it remains a central task of any critical sociology to explore the species-constitutive features of humanity and to shed light on the pivotal role they play in the daily construction of society.

Notes 1. On the tripartite distinction between ‘foundational’, ‘contingent’, and ‘ephemeral’ elements of (and engagements with) social life, see, for example: Susen (2013f), p. 236n121; Susen (2014d), pp. 762–763n568; Susen (2016e), pp. 461–463; Susen (2016f), p. 131; Susen (2017a), pp. 144 and 146; Susen (2018b), pp. 25–26. 2. See Susen (2016e).

References

Abbott, Andrew (1988) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Abbott, Andrew (2000) ‘Reflections on the Future of Sociology’, Contemporary Sociology 29(2): 296–300. Abbott, Andrew (2001a) Time Matters: On Theory and Method, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Abbott, Andrew (2001b) Chaos of Disciplines, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Abbott, Lewis Frederick (2011 [1983]) Theories of Industrial Modernization & Development: A Review, Rev. (3rd) Edition, Manchester: Industrial Systems Research. Abell, Peter and Diane Reyniers (2000) ‘On the Failure of Social Theory’, The British Journal of Sociology 51(4): 739–750. Abercrombie, Nicholas, Stephen Hill, and Bryan S.  Turner (1980) The Dominant Ideology Thesis, London: Allen & Unwin. Abercrombie, Nicholas, Stephen Hill, and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) (1990) Dominant Ideologies, London: Unwin Hyman. Aboulafia, Mitchell (1999) ‘A (neo) American in Paris: Bourdieu, Mead, and Pragmatism’, in Richard Shusterman (ed.) Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 153–174. Abraham, M. Francis (1980) Perspectives on Modernization: Toward a General Theory of Third World Development, Washington, DC: University Press of America. Abramson, Paul R. and Ronald Inglehart (1995) Value Change in Global Perspective, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Abromeit, John, York Norman, Gary Marotta, and Bridget María Chesterton (eds.) (2016) Transformations of Populism in Europe and the Americas: History and Recent Tendencies, London: Bloomsbury. Adam, Barbara (1990) Time and Social Theory, Cambridge: Polity. Adam, Barbara (1995) Timewatch: The Social Analysis of Time, Cambridge: Polity. © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1

351

352 References

Adam, Barbara (1998) Timescapes of Modernity: The Environment and Invisible Hazards, London: Routledge. Adam, Barbara (2004) Time, Cambridge: Polity. Adam, Barbara (2009) ‘Futures in the Making: Sociological Practice and Challenge’, in Vincent Jeffries (ed.) Handbook of Public Sociology, Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 429–474. Adam, Barbara (2010) ‘Future Matters: Challenge for Social Theory and Social Inquiry’, Cultura e comunicazione 1: 47–55. Adam, Barbara (2011) ‘Wendell Bell and the Sociology of the Future: Challenges Past, Present and Future’, Futures 43(6): 590–595. Adam, Barbara and Chris Groves (2007) Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics, Leiden: Brill. Adams, Julia, Elisabeth Stephanie Clemens, and Ann Shola Orloff (eds.) (2005a) Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, and Sociology, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Adams, Julia, Elisabeth Stephanie Clemens, and Ann Shola Orloff (2005b) ‘Introduction: Social Theory, Modernity and the Three Waves of Historical Sociology’, in Julia Adams, Elisabeth Stephanie Clemens, and Ann Shola Orloff (eds.) Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, and Sociology, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 1–73. Adkins, Lisa (2011) ‘Practice as Temporalisation: Bourdieu and Economic Crisis’, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays, London: Anthem Press, pp. 347–365. Adkins, Lisa (2012) ‘Out of Work or Out of Time? Rethinking Labor after the Financial Crisis’, South Atlantic Quarterly 111(4): 621–641. Adkins, Lisa (2014) ‘Luc Boltanski and the Problem of Time: Notes Towards a Pragmatic Sociology of the Future’, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘Pragmatic Sociology of Critique’, London: Anthem Press, pp. 517–538. Adkins, Lisa (2017) ‘Speculative Futures in the Time of Debt’, The Sociological Review 65(3): 448–462. Adler-Nissen, Rebecca and Ulrik Pram Gad (eds.) (2013) European Integration and Postcolonial Sovereignty Games: The EU Overseas Countries and Territories, London: Routledge. Adorno, Theodor W. (1972 [1968]) ‘Society’, in Frankfurt Institute for Social Research (ed.) Aspects of Sociology, with a preface by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, trans. John Viertel, Boston: Beacon Press, pp. 16–33. Adorno, Theodor W. (2003 [1964]) The Jargon of Authenticity, trans. Knut Tarnowski and Frederic Will, London: Routledge. Adorno, Theodor W. and Max Horkheimer (1997 [1944/1969]) The Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming, London: Verso. Aglietta, Michel (1979 [1976]) A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience, trans. David Fernbach, London: NLB.

 References 

353

Agnew, John A. (2005) Hegemony. The New Shape of Global Power, Philadelphia, PA|: Temple University Press. Agnew, John A. and Stuart Corbridge (1995) Mastering Space: Hegemony, Territory and International Political Economy, London: Routledge. Ahmad, Aijaz (1992) ‘Orientalism and after: Ambivalence and Cosmopolitan Location in the Work of Edward Said’, Economic and Political Weekly 27: 98–116. Akiwowo, Akinsola A. (1986) ‘Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge from an African Oral Poetry’, International Sociology 1(4): 343–358. Akiwowo, Akinsola A. (1988) ‘Universalism and Indigenisation in Sociological Theory: Introduction’, International Sociology 3(2): 155–160. Alatas, Syed Farid (2006a) Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Sciences: Responses to Eurocentrism, London: SAGE. Alatas, Syed Farid (2006b) ‘Editorial Introduction: The Idea of Autonomous Sociology: Reflections on the State of the Discipline’, Current Sociology 54(1): 5–6. Alatas, Syed Farid (2010) ‘Religion and Reform: Two Exemplars for Autonomous Sociology in the Non-Western Context’, in Sujata Patel (ed.) The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions, London: SAGE, pp. 29–40. Alatas, Syed Farid and Vineeta Sinha (2017) Sociological Theory beyond the Canon, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Alatas, Syed Hussein (2002) ‘The Development of an Autonomous Social Science Tradition in Asia: Problems and Prospects’, Asian Journal of Social Science 30(1): 150–157. Alatas, Syed Hussein (2006c) ‘The Autonomous, the Universal and the Future of Sociology’, Current Sociology 54(1): 7–23. Albrecht, Steffen (2002) ‘Netzwerke als Kapital: Zur unterschätzten Bedeutung des sozialen Kapitals für die gesellschaftliche Reproduktion’, in Jörg Ebrecht and Frank Hillebrandt (eds.) Bourdieus Theorie der Praxis: Erklärungskraft— Anwendung—Perspektiven, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 199–224. Aldrich, Robert (1996) Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Alexander, Jeffrey C. (2013) The Dark Side of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity. Alexander, Martin S., Martin Evans, and John F. V. Keiger (eds.) (2002) The Algerian War and the French Army, 1954–62: Experiences, Images, Testimonies, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Alexander, Martin S. and John F. V. Keiger (eds.) (2002) France and the Algerian War, 1954–62: Strategy, Operations and Diplomacy, London: Frank Cass Publishers. Allen, Amy (2012) ‘The Unforced Force of the Better Argument: Reason and Power in Habermas’ Political Theory’, Constellations 19(3): 353–368. Allen, Amy (2016) The End of Progress: Decolonizing the Normative Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press. Alsop, Adrian (1999) ‘The RAE and the Production of Knowledge’, History of the Human Sciences 12(4): 116–120.

354 References

Alstete, Jeffrey W., Nicholas J.  Beutell, and John P.  Meyer (2018) Evaluating Scholarship and Research Impact: History, Practices and Policy Development, Bingley: Emerald. Amin, Ash (ed.) (1994) Post-Fordism: A Reader, Oxford: Blackwell. Amin, Ash (2004) ‘Multi-Ethnicity and the Idea of Europe’, Theory, Culture & Society 21(2): 1–24. Amin, Ash (2008) Eurocentrism, Delhi: Aakar Books for South Asia. Anderson, Benedict (1991 [1983]) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Revised Edition, London: Verso. Anderson, Perry (1974) Lineages of the Absolutist State, London: New Left Books. Anderson, Walter Truett (ed.) (1996) The Fontana Postmodernism Reader, London: Fontana. Andrews, Charles McLean (1902) Contemporary Europe, Asia, and Africa, London: Williams & Norgate. Andrews, Sean Johnson (2017) Hegemony, Mass Media, and Cultural Studies. Properties of Meaning, Power, and Value in Cultural Production, London: Rowman & Littlefield. Antonio, Robert J. (1989) ‘The Normative Foundations of Emancipatory Theory: Evolutionary versus Pragmatic Perspectives’, American Journal of Sociology 94(4): 721–748. Antonites, Alexander Joseph (1992) ‘Is the Paradigm Concept Compatible with the Human Sciences?’, South African Journal of Philosophy—Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif Vir Wysbegeerte 11(2): 25–31. Apel, Karl-Otto (ed.) (1971) Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Apel, Karl-Otto (1990 [1985]) ‘Is the Ethics of the Ideal Communication Community a Utopia? On the Relationship between Ethics, Utopia, and the Critique of Utopia’, in Seyla Benhabib and Fred R. Dallmayr (eds.) The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 23–59. Appiah, Anthony (2007 [2006]) Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, London: Penguin. Appignanesi, Richard and Chris Garrett (2003 [1995]) Introducing Postmodernism, 2nd Edition, Royston: Icon. Apter, David E. (1992) ‘Democracy and Emancipatory Movements: Notes for a Theory of Inversionary Discourse’, in Jan Nederveen Pieterse (ed.) Emancipations, Modern and Postmodern, London: SAGE, pp. 139–173. Archer, Margaret S. (1988) Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, Margaret S. (1990) ‘Human Agency and Social Structure: A Critique of Giddens’, in Jon Clark, Celia Modgil, and Sohan Modgil (eds.) Anthony Giddens: Consensus and Controversy, London: Falmer, pp. 73–84. Archer, Margaret S. (2000) Being Human: The Problem of Agency, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 References 

355

Archer, Margaret S. (2003) Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archibugi, Daniele (2008) The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Archibugi, Daniele, David Held, and Martin Köhler (eds.) (1998) Re-Imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy, Cambridge: Polity. Armitage, David (2007) ‘From Colonial History to Postcolonial History: A Turn Too Far?’, The William and Mary Quarterly 64(2): 251–254. Arrighi, Giovanni, Terence K. Hopkins, and Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (1989) Antisystemic Movements, London: Verso. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin (2002 [1989]) The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge. Ashworth, Laurence and Clinton Free (2006) ‘Marketing Dataveillance and Digital Privacy: Using Theories of Justice to Understand Consumers’ Online Privacy Concerns’, Journal of Business Ethics 67(2): 107–123. Atal, Yogesh (1986) ‘Sociology and the Future’, International Social Science Journal 38(2): 303–310. Athique, Adrian (2013) Digital Media and Society: An Introduction, Cambridge: Polity. Attir, Mustafa O., Burkart Holzner, and Zdenek Suda (eds.) (1981) Directions of Change: Modernization Theory, Research, and Realities, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Atzert, Thomas and Jost Müller (eds.) (2004) Immaterielle Arbeit und imperiale Souveränität: Analysen und Diskussionen zu Empire, 1. Aufl. Edition, Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. Avineri, Shlomo (ed.) (1968) Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization. His Despatches [sic] and Other Writings on China, India, Mexico, the Middle East and North Africa, Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Axford, Barrie (2013) Theories of Globalization, Cambridge: Polity. Azmanova, Albena (2010) ‘Deliberative Conflict and “The Better Argument” Mystique’, The Good Society 19(1): 48–54. Baber, Zaheer (1991) ‘Beyond the Structure/Agency Dualism: An Evaluation of Giddens’ Theory of Structuration’, Sociological Inquiry 61(2): 219–230. Babones, Salvatore J. and Christopher K.  Chase-Dunn (eds.) (2012) Routledge Handbook of World-Systems Analysis: Theory and Research, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Back, Les (2016) Academic Diary: Or Why Higher Education Still Matters, London: Goldsmiths Press. Bader, Veit-Michael (ed.) (1997) Citizenship and Exclusion, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Badmington, Neil (ed.) (2000) Posthumanism, Houndmills: Palgrave. Baehr, Peter (2002) Founders, Classics, Canons: Modern Disputes over the Origins and Appraisal of Sociology’s Heritage, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Baehr, Peter (2017 [2002]) Founders, Classics, Canons: Modern Disputes over the Origins and Appraisal of Sociology’s Heritage, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge.

356 References

Baert, Patrick (1992) Time, Self and Social Being: Temporality within a Sociological Context, Aldershot: Avebury. Baert, Patrick (ed.) (2000) Time in Contemporary Intellectual Thought, Amsterdam: Elsevier. Baert, Patrick (2005) Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Towards Pragmatism, Cambridge: Polity. Baert, Patrick (ed.) (2010) Conflict, Citizenship and Civil Society, London: Routledge. Baert, Patrick (2015) The Existentialist Moment: The Rise of Sartre as a Public Intellectual Cambridge: Polity. Baert, Patrick and Joel Isaac (2011) ‘Intellectuals and Society: Sociological and Historical Perspectives’, in Gerard Delanty and Stephen P. Turner (eds.) Routledge International Handbook of Contemporary Social and Political Theory, London: Routledge, pp. 200–211. Baert, Patrick and Alan Shipman (2012) ‘Transformation of the Intellectual’, in Fernando Domínguez Rubio and Patrick Baert (eds.) The Politics of Knowledge, London: Routledge, pp. 179–204. Baert, Patrick and Filipe Carreira da Silva (2010 [1998]) Social Theory in the Twentieth Century and Beyond, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity. Bailey, Leon (1994) Critical Theory and the Sociology of Knowledge, New  York: Peter Lang. Bailey, Michael and Des Freedman (eds.) (2011) The Assault on Universities. A Manifesto for Resistance, London: Pluto Press. Baldwin, John D. and Janice I.  Baldwin (1980) ‘Reduction and the Future of Sociology’, Sociological Inquiry 50(2): 93–101. Balibar, Étienne (1982) ‘Classes’, in Gérard Bensussan and Georges Labica (eds.) Dictionnaire critique du marxisme, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 170–179. Banerjee, Supurna and Nandini Ghosh (2018) ‘Introduction. Debating Intersectionalities: Challenges for a Methodological Framework’, South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal 19: 1–17. Banks, Marcus (2007) Using Visual Data in Qualitative Research, London: SAGE. Banks, Marcus (2015 [2001]) Visual Methods in Social Research, 2nd Edition, London: SAGE. Banu, Akcesme and Sayar Özlem (2017) ‘A Foucauldian Response to Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’, Journal of Narrative and Language Studies 5(9): 19–33. Barbalet, Jack M. (1988) Citizenship: Rights, Struggle and Class Inequality, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Bardon, Adrian (2013) A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barnett, Vic (2002 [1991]) Sample Survey: Principles and Methods, 3rd Edition, London: Arnold. Baron, Sam and Kristie Miller (2019) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time, Cambridge: Polity.

 References 

357

Barrelmeyer, Uwe (1997) Geschichtliche Wirklichkeit als Problem: Untersuchungen zu geschichtstheoretischen Begründungen historischen Wissens bei Johann Gustav Droysen, Georg Simmel und Max Weber, Münster: LIT Verlag. Barry, Brian (2001) Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism, Cambridge: Polity. Barry, Christian and Thomas Pogge (eds.) (2005) Global Institutions and Responsibilities: Achieving Global Justice, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bartels, Anke, Lars Eckstein, Nicole Waller, and Dirk Wiemann (2019) ‘Postcolonial Feminism and Intersectionality’, in Anke Bartels, Lars Eckstein, Nicole Waller, and Dirk Wiemann, Postcolonial Literatures in English: An Introduction, Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, pp. 155–167. Baum, Gregory (1977) Truth Beyond Relativism: Karl Mannheim’s Sociology of Knowledge, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. Bauman, Zygmunt (1987) Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Post-Modernity, and Intellectuals, Cambridge: Polity. Bauman, Zygmunt (1991) Modernity and Ambivalence, Cambridge: Polity. Bauman, Zygmunt (1992) Intimations of Postmodernity, London: Routledge. Bauman, Zygmunt (1997) Postmodernity and its Discontents, Cambridge: Polity. Bauman, Zygmunt (1998) Globalization: The Human Consequences, Cambridge: Polity. Bauman, Zygmunt (1999 [1973]) Culture as Praxis, New Edition, London: SAGE. Bauman, Zygmunt (2000a) Community: Seeking Safety In an Insecure World, Cambridge: Polity. Bauman, Zygmunt (2000b) Liquid Modernity, Cambridge: Polity. Bauman, Zygmunt (2005) Liquid Life, Cambridge: Polity. Bauman, Zygmunt (2007) Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge: Polity. Bauman, Zygmunt and David Lyon (2013) Liquid Surveillance: A Conversation, Cambridge: Polity. Baym, Nancy K. (2014 [2010]) Personal Connections in the Digital Age, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity. Beasley-Murray, Jon (2000) ‘Value and Capital in Bourdieu and Marx’, in Nicholas Brown and Imre Szeman (eds.) Pierre Bourdieu: Fieldwork in Culture, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 100–119. Beck, Bernard (1999a) ‘The Future of Sociology’, Sociological Inquiry 69(1): 121–129. Beck, Ulrich (1992) ‘How Modern is Modern Society?’, Theory, Culture & Society 9(2): 163–169. Beck, Ulrich (1992 [1986]) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, trans. Mark Ritter, London: SAGE. Beck, Ulrich (1995 [1988]) Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk, trans. Amos Weisz, Cambridge: Polity. Beck, Ulrich (1998) ‘The Cosmopolitan Manifesto’, New Statesman 20: 38–50. Beck, Ulrich (1999b) World Risk Society, Cambridge: Polity.

358 References

Beck, Ulrich (2000) ‘The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity’, The British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 79–105. Beck, Ulrich (2002a) ‘The Cosmopolitan Society and its Enemies’, Theory, Culture & Society 19(1–2): 17–44. Beck, Ulrich (2002b) ‘The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited’, Theory, Culture & Society 19(4): 39–55. Beck, Ulrich (2003) ‘Toward a New Critical Theory with a Cosmopolitan Intent’, Constellations 10(4): 453–468. Beck, Ulrich (2006 [2004]) The Cosmopolitan Vision, trans. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge: Polity. Beck, Ulrich (2009 [2007]) World at Risk, trans. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge: Polity. Beck, Ulrich (2011) ‘Cosmopolitan Sociology: Outline of a Paradigm Shift’, in Maria Rovisco and Magdalena Nowicka (eds.) The Ashgate Research Companion to Cosmopolitanism, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 17–32. Beck, Ulrich (2012 [2010]) Twenty Observations on a World in Turmoil, trans. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge: Polity. Beck, Ulrich, Anthony Giddens, and Scott Lash (1994) Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, Cambridge: Polity in association with Blackwell. Beck, Ulrich and Christoph Lau (2005) ‘Second Modernity as a Research Agenda: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations in the “Meta-Change” of Modern Society’, The British Journal of Sociology 56(4): 525–557. Beck, Ulrich and Natan Sznaider (2006) ‘Unpacking Cosmopolitanism for the Social Sciences: A Research Agenda’, The British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 1–23. Becker, Howard S. (2000) ‘What Should Sociology Look Like in the (Near) Future?’, Contemporary Sociology 29(2): 333–336. Beer, David (2016) Metric Power, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Beilharz, Peter (2000) Zygmunt Bauman: Dialectic of Modernity, London: SAGE. Beiner, Ronald (ed.) (1995) Theorizing Citizenship, Albany: State University of New York Press. Belk, Russell W. and Rosa Llamas (eds.) (2013) The Routledge Companion to Digital Consumption, London: Routledge. Bell, Colin (1974) ‘Replication and Reality: Or, the Future of Sociology’, Futures 6(3): 253–260. Bell, Colin and Howard Newby (1971) Community Studies: An Introduction to the Sociology of the Local Community, London: Allen and Unwin. Bell, Daniel (1973) The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, New York: Basic Books. Bell, Daniel (1989) ‘“American Exceptionalism” Revisited: The Role of Civil Society’, The Public Interest 95: 38–56. Bell, Daniel (1991 [1976]) ‘The Disjunctions of Cultural Discourse’, in Scott Lash (ed.) Post-Structuralist and Post-Modernist Sociology, Aldershot: Elgar, pp. 328–362.

 References 

359

Bell, Daniel (2000 [1960]) The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties, Revised Edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bell, Wendell (1996) ‘The Sociology of the Future and the Future of Sociology’, Sociological Perspectives 39(1): 39–57. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton (2008 [1985]) Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. With a New Preface, Berkeley: University of California Press. Benhabib, Seyla (1990) ‘Afterword: Communicative Ethics and Contemporary Controversies in Practical Philosophy’, in Seyla Benhabib and Fred R. Dallmayr (eds.) The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 330–369. Benhabib, Seyla (2008) Another Cosmopolitanism, with commentaries by Jeremy Waldron, Bonnie Honig, Will Kymlicka, edited and introduced by Robert Post, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Benjamin, Walter (1968) Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn, edited and with an introduction by Hannah Arendt, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Benjamin, Walter (1999 [1982]) The Arcades Project, trans. Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bennett, William J. (1984) To Reclaim a Legacy: A Report on the Humanities in Higher Education, Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Humanities. Bensussan, Gérard (1982) ‘Émancipation’, in Gérard Bensussan and Georges Labica (eds.) Dictionnaire critique du marxisme, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 382–384. Bentley, Michael (1999) Modern Historiography: An Introduction, London: Routledge. Benton, Ted and Ian Craib (2001) Philosophy of Social Science: The Philosophical Foundations of Social Thought, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Berardi, Franco (2011) After the Future, trans. Arianna Bove, Melinda Cooper, Erik Empson, Enrico, Giuseppina Mecchia, and Tiziana Terranova, edited by Gary Genosko and Nicholas Thoburn, Oakland, CA: AK Press. Berezin, Mabel (2009) Illiberal Politics in Neoliberal Times: Culture, Security and Populism in the New Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann (1967) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, London: Penguin. Berking, Helmuth (1998) ‘Global Flows and Local Cultures. Über die Rekonfiguration sozialer Räume im Globalisierungsprozeß’, Berliner Journal für Soziologie 8(3): 381–392. Berlet, Chip and Matthew Nemiroff Lyons (2000) Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, New York: Guilford Press. Berman, Marshall (1983 [1982]) All That Is Solid Melts Into Air. The Experience of Modernity, London: Verso. Bernal, Paul (2016) ‘Data Gathering, Surveillance and Human Rights: Recasting the Debate’, Journal of Cyber Policy 1(2): 243–264.

360 References

Bernard, Mitchell (2000) ‘Post-Fordism and Global Restructuring’, in Richard Stubbs and Geoffrey R. D. Underhill (eds.) Political Economy and the Changing Global Order, 2nd Edition, Don Mills: Oxford University Press, pp. 152–162. Bernstein, Richard J. (ed.) (1985) Habermas and Modernity, Cambridge: Polity. Bernstein, J. M. (1995) Recovering Ethical Life: Jürgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory, London: Routledge. Bertens, Johannes Willem (1995) The Idea of the Postmodern: A History, London: Routledge. Best, Steven and Douglas Kellner (1997) The Postmodern Turn, New  York: Guilford Press. Betz, Hans-Georg (1994) Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Bhabha, Homi K. (1988) ‘The Commitment to Theory’, New Formations 5: 5–23. Bhabha, Homi K. (ed.) (1990) Nation and Narration, London: Routledge. Bhabha, Homi K. (1994) The Location of Culture, London: Routledge. Bhabha, Homi K. and W. J. T. Mitchell (eds.) (2005) Edward Said: Continuing the Conversation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2007a) Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2007b) ‘Sociology and Postcolonialism: Another “Missing” Revolution?’, Sociology 41(5): 871–884. Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2013) ‘The Possibilities of, and for, Global Sociology: A Postcolonial Perspective’, in Julian Go (ed.) Postcolonial Sociology, Book Series: Political Power and Social Theory, Volume 24, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 295–314. Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2014a) Connected Sociologies, London: Bloomsbury Academic. Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2014b) ‘Introduction: Knowledge Production in Global Context: Power and Coloniality’, Current Sociology 62(4): 451–456. Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2014c) ‘A Sociological Dilemma: Race, Segregation and US Sociology’, Current Sociology 62(4): 472–492. Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2015) ‘Citizens and Others: The Constitution of Citizenship through Exclusion’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 40(2): 102–114. Bhambra, Gurminder K. and Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2017) ‘Introduction: Global Challenges for Sociology’, Sociology 51(1): 3–10. Bhambra, Gurminder K., Robbie Shilliam, and Daniel Orrells (2014) ‘Contesting Imperial Epistemologies: Introduction’, Journal of Historical Sociology 27(3): 293–301. Bhargava, Rajeev (2010) What is Political Theory and Why Do We Need It?, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bhargava, Rajeev and Helmut Reifeld (eds.) (2005) Civil Society, Public Sphere and Citizenship: Dialogues and Perceptions, London: SAGE. Bhatt, Chetan (2013) ‘Book Review Symposium: Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity’, Sociology 47(6): 1229–1232.

 References 

361

Billet, Bret L. (1993) Modernization Theory and Economic Development: Discontent in the Developing World, Westport, CT: Praeger. Birešev, Ana (2017) ‘Review Article: Simon Susen, The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015’, Sociologija LIX(1): 126–130. Birth, Kevin K. (2012) Objects of Time. How Things Shape Temporality, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Blackbourn, David (1998) The Long Nineteenth Century: A History of Germany, 1780–1918, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blackburn, R.  J. (2000) ‘The Philosophy of Historiography?’, History and Theory 39(2): 263–272. Blaser, Mario (2009) ‘Political Ontology: Cultural Studies without “Cultures”?’, Cultural Studies 23(5–6): 873–896. Blauner, Robert and David Wellman (1973) ‘Toward the Decolonization of Social Research’, in Joyce A.  Ladner (ed.) The Death of White Sociology, New  York: Vintage Books, pp. 310–330. Bloch, Ernst (1959) Das Prinzip Hoffnung, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Bloch, Ernst (1971 [1968]) On Karl Marx, trans. John Maxwell, New York: Herder and Herder. Bloomfield, Jon (ed.) (1977) Papers on Class, Hegemony and Party: The Communist University of London, London: Lawrence and Wishart. Bluhm, William Theodore (ed.) (1982) The Paradigm Problem in Political Science: Perspectives from Philosophy and from Practice, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Blumberg, Rae Lesser and Samuel Cohn (eds.) (2016) Development in Crisis: Threats to Human Well-Being in the Global South and Global North, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Boatcă, Manuela (2013) ‘“From the Standpoint of Germanism”: A Postcolonial Critique of Weber’s Theory of Race and Ethnicity’, in Julian Go (ed.) Postcolonial Sociology, Book Series: Political Power and Social Theory, Volume 24, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 55–80. Boatcă, Manuela (2015) Global Inequalities Beyond Occidentalism, Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate. Boatcă, Manuela and Sérgio Costa (2010) ‘Postcolonial Sociology: A Research Agenda’, in Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Manuela Boatcă, and Sérgio Costa (eds.) Decolonizing European Sociology: Transdisciplinary Approaches, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 13–32. Boatcă, Manuela, Sérgio Costa, and Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez (2010) ‘Decolonizing European Sociology: Different Paths Towards a Pending Project’, in Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Manuela Boatcă, and Sérgio Costa (eds.) Decolonizing European Sociology: Transdisciplinary Approaches, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 1–10. Bogard, William (1987) ‘A Reply to Denzin: Postmodern Social Theory’, Sociological Theory 5(2): 206–209.

362 References

Böhler, Dietrich (1990 [1982]) ‘Transcendental Pragmatics and Critical Morality: On the Possibility and Moral Significance of a Self-Enlightenment of Reason’, in Seyla Benhabib and Fred R. Dallmayr (eds.) The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–150. Bohman, James (1997) ‘Reflexivity, Agency and Constraint: the Paradoxes of Bourdieu’s Sociology of Knowledge’, Social Epistemology 11(2): 171–186. Bohman, James (1999) ‘Practical Reason and Cultural Constraint: Agency in Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice’, in Richard Shusterman (ed.) Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 129–152. Bohman, James and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann (eds.) (1997) Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bok, Derek (2003) Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Boltanski, Luc (2008) Rendre la réalité inacceptable. À propos de “La production de l’idéologie dominante”, Paris: Demopolis. Boltanski, Luc (2009) De la critique. Précis de sociologie de l’émancipation, Paris: Gallimard. Boltanski, Luc (2011 [2009]) On Critique: A Sociology of Emancipation, trans. Gregory Elliott, Cambridge: Polity. Boltanski, Luc and Arnaud Esquerre (2017a) Enrichissement. Une critique de la marchandise, Paris: Gallimard. Boltanski, Luc and Arnaud Esquerre (2017b) ‘Enrichment, Profit, Critique: A Rejoinder to Nancy Fraser’, New Left Review 106: 67–76. Boltanski, Luc, Arnaud Esquerre, and Fabian Muniesa (2015) ‘Grappling with the Economy of Enrichment’, Valuation Studies 3(1): 75–83. Boltanski, Luc, Juliette Rennes, and Simon Susen (2014 [2010]) ‘The Fragility of Reality: Luc Boltanski in Conversation with Juliette Rennes and Simon Susen’, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘Pragmatic Sociology of Critique’, trans. Simon Susen, London: Anthem Press, pp. 591–610. Bonefeld, Werner and John Holloway (eds.) (1991a) Post-Fordism and Social Form: A Marxist Debate on the Post-Fordist State, London: Macmillan. Bonefeld, Werner and John Holloway (1991b) ‘Introduction: Post-Fordism and Social Form’, in Werner Bonefeld and John Holloway (eds.) Post-Fordism and Social Form: A Marxist Debate on the Post-Fordist State, London: Macmillan, pp. 1–7. Bonilla, Yarimar (2015) Non-sovereign Futures: French Caribbean Politics in the Wake of Disenchantment, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bonnell, Victoria E. and Lynn Hunt (1999) ‘Introduction’, in Victoria E. Bonnell, Lynn Hunt, and Richard Biernacki (eds.) Beyond the Cultural Turn: New Directions in the Study of Society and Culture, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 1–32. Bonnell, Victoria E., Lynn Hunt, and Richard Biernacki (eds.) (1999) Beyond the Cultural Turn: New Directions in the Study of Society and Culture, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

 References 

363

Borch, Christian (2012) The Politics of Crowds: An Alternative History of Sociology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Borgatta, Edgar F. (1987) ‘The Future of Sociology: The Basis for Optimism’, Sociological Perspectives 30(1): 3–18. Borodina, Svetlana and Oleg Shvyrkov (eds.) (2010) Investing in BRIC Countries: Evaluating Risk and Governance in Brazil, Russia, India, and China, New  York: McGraw-Hill. Boron, Atilio A. (1999) ‘A Social Theory for the 21st Century?’, Current Sociology 47(4): 47–64. Borón, Atilio A. (2005) Empire and Imperialism: A Critical Reading of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, trans. Jessica Casiro, London: Zed. Bottomore, Tom (1991 [1983]) ‘Class’, in Tom Bottomore (ed.) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Reference, pp. 84–87. Bouchet, Dominique (1994) ‘Rails without Ties. The Social Imaginary and Postmodern Culture. Can Postmodern Consumption Replace Modern Questioning?’, International Journal of Research in Marketing 11(4): 405–422. Boudon, Raymond (1972) ‘The Sociology Crisis’, Social Science Information 11(3–4): 109–139. Boudon, Raymond (1980 [1971]) The Crisis in Sociology: Problems of Sociological Epistemology, trans. Howard H. Davis, New York: Columbia University Press. Boulting, Noel E. (2002) ‘Science as a Paradigm in the Formation of Socio-Ethical Judgments’, Social Philosophy Today 18: 45–61. Bourdieu, Pierre (1966) ‘Champ intellectuel et projet créateur’, Les temps modernes 246: 865–906. Bourdieu, Pierre (1968) ‘Structuralism and Theory of Sociological Knowledge’, Social Research 35(4): 681–706. Bourdieu, Pierre (1969) ‘Intellectual Field and Creative Project’, Information (International Social Science Council) 8(2): 89–119. Bourdieu, Pierre (1971a) ‘Une interprétation de la théorie de la religion selon Max Weber’, Archives européennes de sociologie 12(1): 3–21. Bourdieu, Pierre (1971b) ‘Champ du pouvoir, champ intellectuel et habitus de classe’, Scolies 1: 7–26. Bourdieu, Pierre (1975a) ‘La lecture de Marx. Quelques remarques critiques à propos de “Quelques remarques critiques à propos de ‘Lire le capital’”‘, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 5–6: 65–79. Bourdieu, Pierre (1975b) ‘The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason’, Social Science Information 14(6): 19–47. Bourdieu, Pierre (1976) ‘Le champ scientifique’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 8–9 [2–3]: 88–104. Bourdieu, Pierre (1977 [1972]) Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre (1979) ‘Les trois états du capital culturel’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 30: 3–6.

364 References

Bourdieu, Pierre (1980a) Le sens pratique, Paris: Minuit. Bourdieu, Pierre (1980b) ‘Le capital social’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 31: 2–4. Bourdieu, Pierre (1982a) Ce que parler veut dire. L’économie des échanges linguistiques, Paris: Fayard. Bourdieu, Pierre (1982b) Leçon sur la leçon, Paris: Minuit. Bourdieu, Pierre (1982c) ‘L’économie des échanges linguistiques’, in Pierre Bourdieu, Ce que parler veut dire. L’économie des échanges linguistiques, Paris: Fayard, pp. 11–21. Bourdieu, Pierre (1982d) ‘La production et la reproduction de la langue légitime’, in Pierre Bourdieu, Ce que parler veut dire. L’économie des échanges linguistiques, Paris: Fayard, pp. 23–58. Bourdieu, Pierre (1984a) Homo academicus, Paris: Minuit. Bourdieu, Pierre (1984b) ‘Espace social et genèse des “classes”‘, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 52–53: 3–14. Bourdieu, Pierre (1984c) ‘Le hit-parade des intellectuels français ou qui sera juge de la légitimité des juges ?’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 52–53: 95–100. Bourdieu, Pierre (1984 [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bourdieu, Pierre (1986 [1983]) ‘The Forms of Capital’, in John Richardson, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New  York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258. Bourdieu, Pierre (1987 [1971]) ‘Legitimation and Structured Interest in Weber’s Sociology of Religion’, in Scott Lash and Sam Whimster (eds.) Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity, trans. Chris Turner, London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 119–136. Bourdieu, Pierre (1988 [1984]) Homo Academicus, trans. Peter Collier, Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre (1990) In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology, trans. Matthew Adamson, Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre (1990 [1980]) The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre (1992) Language and Symbolic Power, edited and introduced by John B.  Thompson, translated by Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson, Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre (1993a [1984]) ‘The Paradox of the Sociologist’, in Pierre Bourdieu, Sociology in Question, London: SAGE, pp. 54–59. Bourdieu, Pierre (1993b [1984]) ‘Some Properties of Fields’, in Pierre Bourdieu, Sociology in Question, London: SAGE, pp. 72–77. Bourdieu, Pierre (1994a) Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action, Paris: Seuil. Bourdieu, Pierre (1994b) ‘Stratégies de reproduction et modes de domination’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 105: 3–12.

 References 

365

Bourdieu, Pierre (1995a) ‘La cause de la science’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 106–107: 3–10. Bourdieu, Pierre (1995b) ‘Sur les rapports entre la sociologie et l’histoire en Allemagne et en France’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 106–107: 108–122. Bourdieu, Pierre (1997a) Méditations pascaliennes, Paris: Seuil. Bourdieu, Pierre (1997b) Les usages sociaux de la science. Pour une sociologie clinique du champ scientifique, Paris: INRA. Bourdieu, Pierre (1998) La domination masculine, Paris: Seuil. Bourdieu, Pierre (2000 [1997]) Pascalian Meditations, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre (2001a) “Si le monde social m’est supportable, c’est parce que je peux m’indigner”. Entretien avec Antoine Spire, Paris: Éditions de l’Aube. Bourdieu, Pierre (2001b) Science de la science et réflexivité, Paris: Raisons d’agir. Bourdieu, Pierre (2002) ‘Wittgenstein, le sociologisme & la science sociale’, in Jacques Bouveresse, Sandra Laugier, and Jean-Jacques Rosat (eds.) Wittgenstein, dernières pensées, Marseille: Fondation Hugot du Collège de France, Agone, pp. 343–353. Bourdieu, Pierre (2004 [2001]) Science of Science and Reflexivity, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre (2005 [2000]) The Social Structures of the Economy, trans. Chris Turner, Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre (2013 [1978]) ‘Symbolic Capital and Social Classes (Introduction, Translation, and Notes by Loïc Wacquant)’, Journal of Classical Sociology 13(2): 292–302. Bourdieu, Pierre and Luc Boltanski (1976) ‘La production de l’idéologie dominante’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 2–3: 4–73. Bourdieu, Pierre and Luc Boltanski (2008 [1976]) La production de l’idéologie dominante, Paris: Demopolis / Raisons d’agir. Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Chamboredon, and Jean-Claude Passeron (1968) Le métier de sociologue. Préalables épistémologiques, Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales / Mouton. Bourdieu, Pierre and Terry Eagleton (1992) ‘Doxa and Common Life’, New Left Review 191: 111–121. Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Passeron, and Monique de Saint Martin (1994) Academic Discourse: Linguistic Misunderstanding and Professorial Power, trans. Richard Teese, Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1990 [1970]) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, trans. Richard Nice, 2nd Edition, London: SAGE. Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992a) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992b) ‘The Logic of Fields’, in Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 94–115.

366 References

Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992c) ‘Sociology as Socioanalysis’, in Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 62–74. Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992d) ‘Interest, Habitus, Rationality’, in Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 115–140. Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992e) ‘Language, Gender, and Symbolic Violence’, in Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 140–174. Bourne, Craig (2006) A Future for Presentism, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Boyle, Mark and Audrey Kobayashi (2011) ‘Metropolitan Anxieties: A Critical Appraisal of Sartre’s Theory of Colonialism’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36(3): 408–424. Boyne, Roy and Ali Rattansi (eds.) (1990a) Postmodernism and Society, Basingstoke: Macmillan Education. Boyne, Roy and Ali Rattansi (1990b) ‘The Theory and Politics of Postmodernism: By Way of an Introduction’, in Roy Boyne and Ali Rattansi (eds.) Postmodernism and Society, Basingstoke: Macmillan Education, pp. 1–45. Bracey, John H., August Meier, and Elliott Rudwick (1973) ‘The Black Sociologists: The First Half Century’, in Joyce A. Ladner (ed.) The Death of White Sociology, New York: Vintage Books, pp. 3–22. Brah, Avtar and Ann Phoenix (2004) ‘Ain’t I A Woman? Revisiting Intersectionality’, Journal of International Women’s Studies 5(3): 75–86. Braidotti, Rosi (2013) The Posthuman, Cambridge: Polity. Braidotti, Rosi (2019) Posthuman Knowledge, Cambridge: Polity. Breckenridge, Carol A., Sheldon I.  Pollock, and Homi K.  Bhabha (eds.) (2002) Cosmopolitanism, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Brennan, Timothy (1997) At Home in the World: Cosmopolitanism Now, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brennan, Timothy (2000) ‘The Illusion of a Future: Orientalism as Traveling Theory’, Critical Inquiry 26(3): 558–582. Breuilly, John (2017) ‘Modern Empires and Nation-States’, Thesis Eleven 139(1): 11–29. Brewer, Anthony (1990 [1980]) Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge. Brinkmann, Svend and Steinar Kvale (2015 [2008]) InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, 3rd Edition, London: SAGE. Brisson, Thomas (2008) Les intellectuels arabes en France. Migrations et échanges intellectuels, Paris: Dispute. Brisson, Thomas (2018) Décentrer l’Occident. Les intellectuels postcoloniaux chinois, arabes et indiens et la critique de la modernité, Paris: La Découverte. Brock, Gillian (2009) Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 References 

367

Brock, Gillian and Darrel Moellendorf (eds.) (2005) Current Debates in Global Justice, Dordrecht: Springer. Brooks, Thom (ed.) (2008) The Global Justice Reader, Oxford: Blackwell. Brooks, Thom (ed.) (2012) Global Justice and International Affairs, Leiden: Brill. Brown, Garrett Wallace and David Held (eds.) (2010) The Cosmopolitanism Reader, Cambridge: Polity. Brown, Nik and Mike Michael (2003) ‘A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 15(1): 3–18. Brown, Richard Harvey (1994) ‘Rhetoric, Textuality, and the Postmodern Turn in Sociological Theory’, in Steven Seidman (ed.) The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–241. Browne, Craig and Simon Susen (2014) ‘Austerity and Its Antitheses: Practical Negations of Capitalist Legitimacy’, South Atlantic Quarterly 113(2): 217–230. Bryman, Alan (2016 [2001]) Social Research Methods, 5th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buchner, Bradley J. (1993) ‘More on the Harvard Debate’, Footnotes 21(4): 5. Buckley, Karen M. (2013) Global Civil Society and Transversal Hegemony: The GlobalContestation Nexus, London: Routledge. Bukve, Oddbjørn (2019) Designing Social Science Research, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bulmer, Martin (2008 [1998]) ‘The Ethics of Social Research’, in G. Nigel Gilbert (ed.) Researching Social Life, 3rd Edition, London: SAGE, pp. 145–161. Bulmer, Martin, Kevin Bales, and Kathryn Kish Sklar (eds.) (1991) The Social Survey in Historical Perspective, 1880–1940, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burawoy, Michael (2005a) ‘2004 ASA Presidential Address: For Public Sociology’, American Sociological Review 70(1): 4–28. Burawoy, Michael (2005b) ‘Provincializing the Social Sciences’, in George Steinmetz (ed.) The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and its Epistemological Others, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 508–525. Burawoy, Michael (2007) ‘The Future of Sociology’, Sociological Bulletin 56(3): 339–354. Burawoy, Michael [et al.] (2000) Global Ethnography: Forces, Connections, and Imaginations in a Postmodern World, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Burawoy, Michael, Mau-Kuei Chan, and Fei-Yu Hsieh Michelle (eds.) (2010) Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global Sociology, Vols. 1–3. Jointly published by the Institute of Sociology at Academia Sinica, Council of National Associations of the International Sociological Association, and Academia Sinica, Taiwan. Burawoy, Michael, William Gamson, Charlotte Ryan, Stephen Pfohl, Diane Vaughan, Charles Derber, and Juliet Schor (2004) ‘Public Sociologies: A Symposium from Boston College’, Social Problems 51(1): 103–130. Burbank, Jane and Frederick Cooper (2010) Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

368 References

Burchardt, Hans-Jürgen (1996) ‘Die Globalisierungsthese—von der kritischen Analyse zum politischen Opportunismus’, Das Argument 217: 741–755. Burda, Hubert (ed.) (2011) The Digital Wunderkammer: 10 Chapters on the Iconic Turn, Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Burke, Edmund and David Prochaska (eds.) (2008) Genealogies of Orientalism: History, Theory, Politics, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Burke, Peter (2005 [1992]) History and Social Theory, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity. Burkitt, Ian (1997) ‘The Situated Social Scientist: Reflexivity and Perspective in the Sociology of Knowledge’, Social Epistemology 11(2): 193–202. Burrage, Michael and Rolf Torstendahl (eds.) (1990) Professions in Theory and History: Rethinking the Study of the Professions, London: SAGE. Burrows, Roger (2018) ‘“Studying up” in the Era of Big Data’, in Linda McKie and Louise Ryan (eds.) An End to the Crisis of Empirical Sociology? Trends and Challenges in Social Research, London: Routledge, pp. 65–80. Burrows, Roger and Mike Savage (2014) ‘After the Crisis? Big Data and the Methodological Challenges of Empirical Sociology’, Big Data & Society 1(1): 1–6. Burton, Sarah (2015) ‘Book Review: The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences, by Simon Susen, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015’, LSE Review of Books: 1–5. Burton, Sarah (2016) ‘Becoming Sociological: Disciplinarity and a Sense of “Home”‘, Sociology 50(5): 984–992. Bush, Barbara (2006) Imperialism and Postcolonialism, Harlow: Longman. Butler, Christopher (2002) Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Butler, Judith (1990a) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London: Routledge. Butler, Judith (1990b) ‘Gender Trouble, Feminist Theory, and Psychoanalytic Discourse’, in Linda J.  Nicholson (ed.) Feminism/Postmodernism, London: Routledge, pp. 324–340. Butler, Judith (1994 [1990]) ‘Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of “Postmodernism”‘, in Steven Seidman (ed.) The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 153–170. Butler, Judith (1997) Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, London: Routledge. Butler, Judith (1998) ‘Marxism and the Merely Cultural’, New Left Review 227: 33–44. Butler, Judith (1999) ‘Performativity’s Social Magic’, in Richard Shusterman (ed.) Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 113–128. Butler, Judith and Athena Athanasiou (2013) Dispossession: The Performative in the Political, Cambridge: Polity. Butler, Judith, Ernesto Laclau, and Slavoj Žižek (2000) Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left, London: Verso. Buzan, Barry, David Held, and Anthony McGrew (1998) ‘Realism vs Cosmopolitanism: A Debate’, Review of International Studies 24(3): 387–398. Calhoun, Craig (ed.) (1992) Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 References 

369

Calhoun, Craig (1993) ‘Postmodernism as Pseudohistory’, Theory, Culture & Society 10(1): 75–96. Calhoun, Craig (1996) ‘The Rise and Domestication of Historical Sociology’, in Terrence J. McDonald (ed.) The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 305–338. Calhoun, Craig (1998) ‘Explanation in Historical Sociology: Narrative, General Theory, and Historically Specific Theory’, American Journal of Sociology 104(3): 846–871. Calhoun, Craig (2002) ‘Imagining Solidarity: Cosmopolitanism, Constitutional Patriotism, and the Public Sphere’, Public Culture 14(1): 147–171. Calhoun, Craig (2003) ‘Afterword: Why Historical Sociology?’, in Gerard Delanty and Engin F.  Isin (eds.) Handbook of Historical Sociology, London: SAGE, pp. 383–393. Calhoun, Craig (ed.) (2007a) Sociology in America: A History, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Calhoun, Craig (2007b) ‘Social Solidarity as a Problem for Cosmopolitan Democracy’, in Seyla Benhabib, Ian Shapiro, and Danilo Petranovi (eds.) Identities, Affiliations, and Allegiances, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 285–302. Calhoun, Craig and Georgi Derluguian (eds.) (2011) The Deepening Crisis: Governance Challenges after Neoliberalism, New York: New York University Press. Calhoun, Craig, Joseph Gerteis, James Moody, Steven Pfaff, and Indermohan Virk (eds.) (2012 [2002]) Classical Sociological Theory, 3rd Edition, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Calhoun, Craig, Frederick Cooper, and Kevin W.  Moore (eds.) (2006) Lessons of Empire: Imperial Histories and American Power, New York: New Press. Callender, Craig (ed.) (2011) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Callinicos, Alex (1989) Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique, Cambridge: Polity. Campbell, Fiona A. Kumari (2008) ‘Exploring Internalized Ableism Using Critical Race Theory’, Disability & Society 23(2): 151–162. Caneva, K.  L. (2000) ‘Possible Kuhns in the History of Science: Anomalies of Incommensurable Paradigms’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31A(1): 87–124. Cassano, Graham and Richard A.  Dello Buono (eds.) (2012) Crisis, Politics and Critical Sociology, Chicago: Haymarket Books. Castán Broto, Vanesa, Maya Gislason, and Melf-Hinrich Ehlers (2009) ‘Practising Interdisciplinarity in the Interplay between Disciplines: Experiences of Established Researchers’, Environmental Science & Policy 12(7): 922–933. Castells, Manuel (1996) The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Volume I: The Rise of the Network Society, Oxford: Blackwell. Castells, Manuel (1997) The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Volume II: The Power of Identity, Oxford: Blackwell.

370 References

Castells, Manuel (1998) The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Volume III: End of Millennium, Oxford: Blackwell. Castoriadis, Cornelius (1975) L’institution imaginaire de la société, Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Castoriadis, Cornelius (1987 [1975]) The Imaginary Institution of Society, trans. Kathleen Blamey, Cambridge: Polity. Castro-Gómez, Santiago (2007) ‘The Missing Chapter of Empire: Postmodern Reorganization of Coloniality and Post-Fordist Capitalism’, Cultural Studies 21(2–3): 428–448. Caswill, Chris and Robin Wensley (2007) ‘Doors and Boundaries: A Recent History of the Relationship between Research and Practice in UK Organizational and Management Research’, Business History 49: 293–320. Centeno, Miguel A. and Joseph N. Cohen (2010) Global Capitalism: A Sociological Perspective, Cambridge: Polity. Césaire, Aimé (1970 [1955]) Discours sur le colonialisme, 5th Edition, Paris: Présence Africaine. Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2000) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2002) Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2003) ‘Subaltern Studies and Postcolonial Historiography’, in Gerard Delanty and Engin F. Isin (eds.) Handbook of Historical Sociology, London: SAGE, pp. 191–204. Chant, Sylvia H. and Cathy McIlwaine (2009) Geographies of Development in the 21st Century: An Introduction to the Global South, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Chant, Sylvia H. and Cathy McIlwaine (2016) Cities, Slums and Gender in the Global South: Towards a Feminised Urban Future, London: Routledge. Chatterjee, Partha (1993) The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chatterjee, Partha (2017) ‘Empires, Nations, Peoples: The Imperial Prerogative and Colonial Exceptions’, Thesis Eleven 139(1): 84–96. Cheah, Pheng and Bruce Robbins (eds.) (1998) Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling beyond the Nation, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Chen, Hon-Fai (2009) ‘Reflexive Exceptionalism: On the Relevance of Tocqueville’s America for Modern China’, Journal of Classical Sociology 9(1): 79–95. Chernilo, Daniel (2006a) ‘Social Theory’s Methodological Nationalism: Myth and Reality’, European Journal of Social Theory 9(1): 5–22. Chernilo, Daniel (2006b) ‘Methodological Nationalism and its Critique’, in Gerard Delanty and Krishan Kumar (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Nations and Nationalism, London: SAGE, pp. 129–140. Chernilo, Daniel (2007a) A Social Theory of the Nation-State: The Political Forms of Modernity beyond Methodological Nationalism, London: Routledge.

 References 

371

Chernilo, Daniel (2007b) ‘Universalismo y cosmopolitismo en la teoría de Jürgen Habermas’, Estudios Públicos 106: 175–203. Chernilo, Daniel (2008) ‘Classical Sociology and the Nation-State: A Re-Interpretation’, Journal of Classical Sociology 8(1): 27–43. Chernilo, Daniel (2017) Debating Humanity: Towards a Philosophical Sociology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chevallier, Jacques (2008 [2003]) L’État post-moderne, 3e édition, Paris: LGDJ, Collection Droit et Société. Chilcote, Ronald H. and Dale L.  Johnson (eds.) (1983) Theories of Development: Mode of Production or Dependency?, London: SAGE. Chirico, JoAnn (2013) Globalization: Prospects and Problems, London: SAGE. Chomsky, Noam (1999) Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order, New York: Seven Stories Press. Chow, Esther Ngan-ling, Marcia Texler Segal, and Lin Tan (eds.) (2011) Analyzing Gender, Intersectionality, and Multiple Inequalities: Global, Transnational and Local Contexts, Bingley: Emerald. Cilliers, Paul (1998) Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems, London: Routledge. Clark, Terry Nicholls and Seymour Martin Lipset (1996) ‘Are Social Classes Dying?’, in David J. Lee and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) Conflicts about Class: Debating Inequality in Late Industrialism. A Selection of Readings, London: Longman, pp. 42–70. Clarke, Roger (1988) ‘Information Technology and Dataveillance’, Communications of the ACM 31(5): 498–512. Clarke, Susan E. (2008) ‘Community and Problematic Citizenship’, Political Geography 27(1): 22–28. Cobban, Alfred (1999 [1964]) The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution, 2nd Edition, with an introduction by Gwynne Lewis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cobban, Alfred (1968) Aspects of the French Revolution, London: Jonathan Cape. Cole, Mike (2003) ‘Might It Be in the Practice that It Fails to Succeed? A Marxist Critique of Claims for Postmodernism and Poststructuralism as Forces for Social Change and Social Justice’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 24(4): 487–500. Coleman, James Samuel (1981) Longitudinal Data Analysis, New York: Basic Books. Coleman, Rebecca (2017) ‘A Sensory Sociology of the Future: Affect, Hope and Inventive Methodologies’, The Sociological Review 65(3): 525–543. Coleman, Rebecca and Tutton Richard (2017) ‘Introduction to Special Issue of Sociological Review on “Futures in Question: Theories, Methods, Practices”’, The Sociological Review 65(3): 440–447. Coles, Romand (2016) Visionary Pragmatism: Radical and Ecological Democracy in Neoliberal Times, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Coles, Romand and Simon Susen (2018) ‘The Pragmatic Vision of Visionary Pragmatism: The Challenge of Radical Democracy in a Neoliberal World Order’, Contemporary Political Theory 17(2): 250–262.

372 References

Coller, Xavier (2007 [2003]) Canon sociológico, 2ª edición, Madrid: Tecnos. Collini, Stefan (2012) What Are Universities For?, London: Penguin. Collini, Stefan (2017) Speaking of Universities, London: Verso. Collins, Randall (1990) ‘Market Closure and the Conflict Theory of the Professions’, in Michael Burrage and Rolf Torstendahl (eds.) Professions in Theory and History: Rethinking the Study of the Professions, London: SAGE, pp. 24–43. Collins, Randall (1998) The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Collyer, Fran (2010) ‘Origins and Canons: Medicine and the History of Sociology’, History of the Human Sciences 23(2): 86–108. Collyer, Fran (2018) ‘Global Patterns in the Publishing of Academic Knowledge: Global North, Global South’, Current Sociology 66(1): 56–73. Collyer, Fran, Raewyn Connell, João Maia, and Robert Morrell (2018) Knowledge and Global Power: Making New Sciences in the South, Clayton: Monash University Publishing. Comstock, Gary (2012) Research Ethics: A Philosophical Guide to the Responsible Conduct of Research, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conde-Costas, Luis A. (1991) The Marxist Theory of Ideology: A Conceptual Analysis, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Confraria, Hugo, Manuel Mira Godinho, and Lili Wang (2017) ‘Determinants of Citation Impact: A Comparative Analysis of the Global South versus the Global North’, Research Policy 46(1): 265–279. Connell, Raewyn (1997) ‘Why Is Classical Theory Classical?’, American Journal of Sociology 102(6): 1511–1557. Connell, Raewyn (2003) ‘Review Article: Founders, Classics, Canons: Modern Disputes over the Origins and Appraisal of Sociology’s Heritage, by Peter Baehr’, American Journal of Sociology 109(2): 538–540. Connell, Raewyn (2007) Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science, Cambridge: Polity. Connell, Raewyn (2014) ‘The Sociology of Gender in Southern Perspective’, Current Sociology 62(4): 550–567. Connell, Raewyn and Rebecca Pearse (2014 [2009]) Gender: In World Perspective, 3rd Edition, Cambridge: Polity. Cooke, Maeve (1993) ‘Habermas and Consensus’, European Journal of Philosophy 1(3): 247–267. Cooke, Maeve (1994) Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas’s Pragmatics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cooke, Maeve (1997) ‘Are Ethical Conflicts Irreconcilable?’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 23(2): 1–19. Cooke, Maeve (2004) ‘Redeeming Redemption: The Utopian Dimension of Critical Social Theory’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 30(4): 413–429. Cooper, Frederick (2005) Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

 References 

373

Cooper, Geoff (2013) ‘A Disciplinary Matter: Critical Sociology, Academic Governance and Interdisciplinarity’, Sociology 47(1): 74–89. Cordero, Rodrigo (2017a) Crisis and Critique: On the Fragile Foundations of Social Life, London: Routledge. Cordero, Rodrigo (2017b) ‘In Defense of Speculative Sociology: A Response to Simon Susen’, Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 18(1): 125–132. Coronil, Fernando (1996) ‘Beyond Occidentalism: Toward Nonimperial Geohistorical Categories’, Cultural Anthropology 11(1): 51–87. Cox, Oliver Cromwell (1970 [1948]) Caste, Class and Race: A Study in Social Dynamics, New York: Monthly Review Press. Craib, Ian (1997) Classical Social Theory: An Introduction to the Thought of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crompton, Rosemary (2008) ‘Forty Years of Sociology: Some Comments’, Sociology 42(6): 1218–1227. Cronin, Ciaran (1997) ‘Epistemological Vigilance and the Project of a Sociology of Knowledge’, Social Epistemology 11(2): 203–215. Crook, Stephen (2003) ‘Change, Uncertainty and the Future of Sociology’, Journal of Sociology 39(1): 7–14. Crouch, Colin (2016) The Knowledge Corrupters: Hidden Consequences of the Financial Takeover of Public Life, Cambridge: Polity. Crouch, Colin, Klaus Eder, and Damian Tambini (eds.) (2001) Citizenship, Markets, and the State, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crow, Graham (2018) What are Community Studies?, London: Bloomsbury Academic. Crowder, George (2013) Theories of Multiculturalism: An Introduction, Cambridge: Polity. Croxton, Derek (1999) Peacemaking in Early Modern Europe: Cardinal Mazarin and the Congress of Westphalia, 1643–1648, Selinsgrove, NJ: Susquehanna University Press. Croxton, Derek (2013) Westphalia: The Last Christian Peace, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Croxton, Derek and Anuschka Tischer (2002) The Peace of Westphalia: A Historical Dictionary, Westport, CT: Greenwood. Crozier, Brian (1964) Neo-Colonialism, London: Bodley Head. D’Antonio, William V. (1992) ‘Recruiting Sociologists in a Time of Changing Opportunities’, in Terence C. Halliday and Morris Janowitz (eds.) Sociology and Its Publics. The Forms and Fates of Disciplinary Organization, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 99–136. Dahms, Harry F. (ed.) (2013) Social Theories of History and Histories of Social Theory, Bingley: Emerald. Dahms, Harry F. and Eric R.  Lybeck (eds.) (2016) Reconstructing Social Theory, History and Practice, Book Series: Current Perspectives in Social Theory, Volume 35, Bingley: Emerald. Dainotto, Roberto M. (2007) Europe (in Theory), Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

374 References

Das Nair, Roshan and Catherine Butler (eds.) (2012) Intersectionality, Sexuality, and Psychological Therapies: Working with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Diversity, Chichester, West Sussex: BPS Blackwell. Davey, Nicholas (1985) ‘Habermas’ Contribution to Hermeneutic Theory’, Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 16(2): 109–131. Davies, Bronwyn and Rom Harré (1990) ‘Positioning the Discursive Production of Selves’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20(1): 43–63. Davies, William (2014) The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competition, London: SAGE. Dawson, Matt (2017) ‘Book Review: Restoring the Classic in Sociology: Traditions, Texts and the Canon’, Journal of Classical Sociology 17(3): 256–261. Day, Richard J. F. (2004) ‘From Hegemony to Affinity: The Political Logic of the Newest Social Movements’, Cultural Studies 18(5): 716–748. Decoteau, Claire Laurier (2013) ‘Hybrid Habitus: Toward a Post-Colonial Theory of Practice’, in Julian Go (ed.) Postcolonial Sociology, Book Series: Political Power and Social Theory, Volume 24, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 263–293. Deflem, Mathieu (ed.) (2008) Surveillance and Governance: Crime Control and beyond, Bingley: Emerald JAI. DeFleur, Lois B. (1992) ‘Strengthening the Position of Sociology within the University’, Footnotes 20(9): 3–4. Degli Esposti, Sara (2014) ‘When Big Data Meets Dataveillance: The Hidden Side of Analytics’, Surveillance & Society 12(2): 209–225. Delanty, Gerard (1999) Social Theory in a Changing World: Conceptions of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity. Delanty, Gerard (2000a) Citizenship in a Global Age: Society, Culture, Politics, Buckingham: Open University Press. Delanty, Gerard (2000b) Modernity and Postmodernity: Knowledge, Power and the Self, London: SAGE. Delanty, Gerard (2003) Community, London: Routledge. Delanty, Gerard (2009) The Cosmopolitan Imagination: The Renewal of Critical Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Delanty, Gerard (ed.) (2012) Routledge Handbook of Cosmopolitanism Studies, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Delanty, Gerard and Engin F.  Isin (eds.) (2003) Handbook of Historical Sociology, London: SAGE. Delanty, Gerard and Krishan Kumar (eds.) (2006) The SAGE Handbook of Nations and Nationalism, London: SAGE. della Porta, Donatella, Massimiliano Andretta, Lorenzo Mosca, and Herbert Reiter (2006) Globalization from Below: Transnational Activists and Protest Networks, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. DeMartino, George (2000) Global Economy, Global Justice: Theoretical Objections and Policy Alternatives to Neoliberalism, London: Routledge. Denicolo, Pam (ed.) (2013) Achieving Impact in Research, London: SAGE.

 References 

375

Dépelteau, François (2008) ‘Relational Thinking: A Critique of Co-Deterministic Theories of Structure and Agency’, Sociological Theory 26(1): 51–73. Derrida, Jacques (1967) De la grammatologie, Paris: Éditions de Minuit. Derrida, Jacques (1976 [1967]) Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dews, Peter (1999) ‘Communicative Paradigms and the Question of Subjectivity: Habermas, Mead and Lacan’, in Peter Dews (ed.) Habermas: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 87–117. Dicken, Peter (2011 [1986]) Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy, 6th Edition, London: SAGE. Dickens, David R. and Andrea Fontana (eds.) (1994) Postmodernism and Social Inquiry, London: UCL Press. Dirks, Nicholas B. (ed.) (1992) Colonialism and Culture, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Dirlik, Arif (1997) The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Dirlik, Arif (1999) ‘Is There History after Eurocentrism? Globalism, Postcolonialism, and the Disavowal of History’, Cultural Critique(42): 1–34. Dirlik, Arif (2007) Global Modernity: Modernity in the Age of Global Capitalism, Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Dodge, Toby (2003) Inventing Iraq: The Failure of Nation Building and a History Denied, New York: Columbia University Press. Doetsch-Kidder, Sharon (2012) Social Change and Intersectional Activism: The Spirit of Social Movement, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Doherty, Joe, Elspeth Graham, and Mohammed H. Malek (eds.) (1992) Postmodernism and the Social Sciences, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Dolgon, Corey (1999) ‘Soulless Cities: Ann Arbor, the Cutting Edge of Discipline: Postfordism, Postmodernism, and the New Bourgeoisie’, Antipode 31(2): 129–162. Domańska, Ewa (1998) Encounters: Philosophy of History after Postmodernism, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Dorofeev, Sergey and Peter Grant (2006) Statistics for Real-Life Sample Surveys. NonSimple-Random Samples and Weighted Data, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drake, Michael S. (2010) Political Sociology for a Globalizing World, Cambridge: Polity. Drysdale, John (1996) ‘How are Social-Scientific Concepts Formed? A Reconstruction of Max Weber’s Theory of Concept Formation’, Sociological Theory 14(1): 71–88. Du Bois, W. E. B. (1997 [1903]) The Souls of Black Folk, edited with an introduction by David W. Blight and Robert Gooding-Williams, Boston: Bedford Books. Du Bois, W. E. B. (2013 [1935]) Black Reconstruction in America: Toward a History of the Part of which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860–1880, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. du Gay, Paul (2003) ‘The Tyranny of the Epochal: Change, Epochalism and Organizational Reform’, Organization 10(4): 663–684.

376 References

Dubois, Laurent (2004) A Colony of Citizens: Revolution & Slave Emancipation in the French Caribbean, 1787–1804, Chapel Hill, NC: Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA, by the University of North Carolina Press. Dufour, Frédérick Guillaume (2015) La sociologie historique. Traditions, trajectoires et débats, Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec. Duménil, Gérard and Dominique Lévy (2011) The Crisis of Neoliberalism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Duncker, Elke (2001) ‘Symbolic Communication in Multidisciplinary Cooperations’, Science, Technology, & Human Values 26(3): 349–386. Dunne, Michael and Tiziano Bonazzi (eds.) (1995) Citizenship and Rights in Multicultural Societies, Keele: Keele University Press. Durkheim, Émile (1966/1951 [1897]) Suicide: A Study in Sociology, trans. John A. Spaulding and George Simpson, New York: Free Press. Durkheim, Émile (1984 [1893]) The Division of Labor in Society, trans. W. D. Halls, 2nd Edition, New York: Free Press. Durkheim, Émile (1986 [1900–1905]) ‘The Concept of the State’, in Anthony Giddens (ed.) Durkheim on Politics and the State, trans. W. D. Halls, edited with an introduction by Anthony Giddens, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 32–72. Durkheim, Émile (1991 [1957/1950/1890–1900]) Professional Ethics and Civic Morals, trans. Cornelia Brookfield, 2nd Edition, with a new preface by Bryan S. Turner, London: Routledge. Durkheim, Émile (2010 [1924]) Sociology and Philosophy, trans. David Francis Pocock, London: Routledge. Dussel, Enrique D. (1993) ‘Eurocentrism and Modernity’, boundary 2 20(3): 65–76. Dussel, Enrique D. (2000) ‘Europe, Modernity and Eurocentrism’, Nepantla: Views from South 1(3): 465–478. Dussel, Enrique D. (2002) ‘World-System and “Trans”-Modernity’, Nepantla: Views from South 3(2): 221–244. Dussel, Enrique D. (2008 [2000]) ‘Philosophy of Liberation, the Postmodern Debate, and Latin American Studies’, in Mabel Moraña, Enrique D. Dussel, and Carlos A. Jáuregui (eds.) Coloniality at Large: Latin America and the Postcolonial Debate, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 335–349. Duvall, John N. (ed.) (2002) Productive Postmodernism: Consuming Histories and Cultural Studies, Albany: State University of New York Press. Eadie, Jo (2001) ‘Boy Talk: Social Theory and its Discontents’, Sociology 35(2): 575–582. Eagleton, Terry (1995) ‘Where Do Postmodernists Come From?’, Monthly Review 47(3): 59–70. Eagleton, Terry (1996) The Illusions of Postmodernism, Oxford: Blackwell. Eagleton, Terry (2006 [1976]) Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Marxist Literary Theory, New Edition, London: Verso.

 References 

377

Eagleton, Terry (2007 [1991]) Ideology: An Introduction, New and Updated Edition, London: Verso. Edles, Laura Desfor and Scott Appelrouth (2015 [2005]) Sociological Theory in the Classical Era: Text and Readings, 3rd Edition, London: SAGE. Eickelpasch, Rolf (1997) ‘“Kultur” statt “Gesellschaft”? Zur kulturtheoretischen Wende in den Sozialwissenschaften’, in Claudia Rademacher and Gerhard Schweppenhäuser (eds.) Postmoderne Kultur? Soziologische und Philosophische Perspektiven, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 10–21. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah (1999) ‘Multiple Modernities in an Age of Globalization’, Canadian Journal of Sociology 24(2): 283–295. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah (2000a) ‘Multiple Modernities’, Daedalus 129(1): 1–29. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah (2000b) ‘The Civilizational Dimension in Sociological Analysis’, Thesis Eleven 62(1): 1–21. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah (2003) Comparative Civilizations and Multiple Modernities, Leiden: Brill. Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah and Wolfgang Schluchter (1998) ‘Introduction: Paths to Early Modernities—A Comparative View’, Daedalus 127(3): 1–18. Eitzen, D. Stanley (1991) ‘The Prospects for Sociology into the Twenty-First Century’, The American Sociologist 22(2): 109–115. El-Lahib, Yahya (2015) ‘The Inadmissible “Other”: Discourses of Ableism and Colonialism in Canadian Immigration’, Journal of Progressive Human Services 26(3): 209–228. el-Ojeili, Chamsy (2017) ‘Book Review: The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences’, Thesis Eleven 140(1): 122–124. el-Ojeili, Chamsy and Patrick Hayden (2006) Critical Theories of Globalization, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Elbasha, Tamim and Alex Wright (2017) ‘Reconciling Structure and Agency in Strategy-as-Practice Research: Towards a Strong-Structuration Theory Approach’, M@n@gement 20(2): 107–128. Elder-Vass, Dave (2010) The Causal Power of Social Structures: Emergence, Structure and Agency, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elder-Vass, Dave (2008) ‘Searching for Realism, Structure and Agency in Actor Network Theory’, The British Journal of Sociology 59(3): 455–473. Elias, Norbert (1991 [1989]) The Symbol Theory, edited with an introduction by Richard Kilminster, London: SAGE. Elias, Norbert (1996 [1989]) The Germans: Power Struggles and the Development of Habitus in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, edited by Michael Schröter, translated from the German and with a preface by Eric Dunning and Stephen Mennell, Cambridge: Polity. Elias, Norbert (2000 [1994/1939]) The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations, Revised Edition, trans. Edmund Jephcott (with some notes and corrections by the author), edited by Eric Dunning, Johan Goudsblom, and Stephen Mennell, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

378 References

Elias, Norbert (2006 [1969/1933]) The Court Society, trans. Edmund Jephcott, Revised Edition, edited by Stephen Mennell, Dublin: University College Dublin Press. Elias, Norbert (2012 [1970]) What is Sociology?, trans. Grace Morrissey, Stephen Mennell, and Edmund Jephcott, with a foreword by Reinhard Bendix, Dublin: University College Dublin Press. Elias, Norbert and John L. Scotson (1994 [1965]) The Established and the Outsiders: A Sociological Enquiry into Community Problems, 2nd Edition, London: SAGE. Elkana, Yehuda, Ivan Krastev, Elísio Macamo, and Shalini Randeria (eds.) (2002) Unraveling Ties: From Social Cohesion to New Practices of Connectedness, Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag. Elliott, Anthony (2000) ‘The Ethical Antinomies of Postmodernity’, Sociology 34(2): 335–340. Elliott, Anthony (2002) ‘Beck’s Sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment’, Sociology 36(2): 293–315. Elliott, Anthony and John Urry (2010) Mobile Lives, London: Routledge. Elster, Jon (1985) Making Sense of Marx, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Emirbayer, Mustafa and Ann Mische (1998) ‘What Is Agency?’, American Journal of Sociology 103(4): 962–1023. Enright, Eimear, Laura Alfrey, and Steven B. Rynne (2017) ‘Being and Becoming an Academic in the Neoliberal University: A Necessary Conversation’, Sport, Education and Society 22(1): 1–4. Ergül, Hakan and Simten Coşar (eds.) (2017) Universities in the Neoliberal Era: Academic Cultures and Critical Perspectives, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Erikson, Robert (2005) ‘A View from Sweden’, in A. H. Halsey and W. G. Runciman (eds.) British Sociology Seen from Without and Within, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 119–130. Escobar, Arturo (2007) ‘Worlds and Knowledges Otherwise: The Latin American Modernity/Coloniality Research Program’, Cultural Studies 21(2–3): 179–210. Escobar, Arturo (2010) ‘Latin America at a Crossroads: Alternative Modernizations, Post-Liberalism, or Post-Development?’, Cultural Studies 24(1): 1–65. Etherington, Norman (1984) Theories of Imperialism: War, Conquest and Capital, London: Croom Helm. Etzioni, Amitai (1993) The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda, New York: Crown Publishers. Etzioni, Amitai (2018) Happiness is the Wrong Metric: A Liberal Communitarian Response to Populism, Cham: Springer. Etzkowitz, Henry and Loet Leydesdorff (2000) ‘The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University-IndustryGovernment Relations’, Research Policy 29(2): 109–123. Evans, Martin (2005) ‘The Data-Informed Marketing Model and its Social Responsibility’, in Susanne Lace (ed.) The Glass Consumer: Life in a Surveillance Society, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 99–132.

 References 

379

Evans, Mary (2004) Killing Thinking. The Death of the Universities, London: Continuum. Evans, Peter (2000) ‘Fighting Marginalization with Transnational Networks: Counter-Hegemonic Globalization’, Contemporary Sociology 29(1): 230–241. Fabiani, Jean-Louis (1999) ‘Les règles du champ’, in Bernard Lahire (ed.) Le travail sociologique de Pierre Bourdieu : dettes et critiques, Paris: La Découverte & Syros, pp. 75–91. Fach, Wolfgang (2016) ‘Soziologische Theorie—Susen, Simon: The „Postmodern Turn“ in the Social Sciences. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2015’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie & Sozialpsychologie 68(2): 369–371. Factor, Regis A. and Stephen P.  Turner (1977) ‘The Critique of Positivist Social Science in Leo Strauss and Jürgen Habermas’, Sociological Analysis & Theory 7(3): 185–206. Fanon, Frantz (2004 [1961]) The Wretched of the Earth, trans. Richard Philcox, New York: Grove Press. Farran, Sue and Niklas Hultin (2016) ‘Introduction—Special Section: Legal Pluralism and Its Contribution to the Global South-Global North Paradigm’, The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 48(3): 347–353. Farrar, John H. and David G. Mayes (eds.) (2013) Globalisation, the Global Financial Crisis and the State, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Farrell, Frank B. (1994) Subjectivity, Realism, and Postmodernism: The Recovery of the World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farrimond, Hannah (2013) Doing Ethical Research, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Feather, Howard (2016) ‘Book Review: Postmodernity and Antinomialism in the Social Sciences—The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences, by Simon Susen, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015’, Journal of Political Power 9(2): 327–333. Featherstone, Mike (2007 [1991]) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, 2nd Edition, London: SAGE. Featherstone, Mike and Scott Lash (1995) ‘Globalization, Modernity and the Spatialization of Social Theory: An Introduction’, in Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson (eds.) Global Modernities, London: SAGE, pp. 1–24. Featherstone, Mike, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson (eds.) (1995) Global Modernities, London: SAGE. Feenberg, Andrew (2017) Technosystem. The Social Life of Reason, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Feldman, Simon (2015) Against Authenticity: Why You Shouldn’t Be Yourself, Lanham: Lexington Books. Fenby-Hulse, Kieran, Emma Heywood, and Kate Walker (eds.) (2019) Research Impact and the Early Career Researcher: Lived Experiences, New Perspectives, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Ferrara, Alessandro (1987) ‘A Critique of Habermas’ Consensus Theory of Truth’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 13: 39–67.

380 References

Ferrell, Robert E. and Joe Old (2016) ‘The Force of the Better Argument: Americans Can Learn Something from Jürgen Habermas and “Deliberative Democracy”‘, Open Journal of Philosophy 6: 215–238. Fforde, Matthew (2009) Desocialisation: The Crisis of Post-Modernity, Cheadle Hulme: Gabriel. Fiedler, Markus G. (2003) Max Weber und die Globalisierung der Moderne, Berlin: Tenea Verlag. Fieldhouse, D. K. (1982 [1966]) The Colonial Empires: A Comparative Survey from the Eighteenth Century, 2nd Edition, London: Macmillan. Fielding, Nigel G. (2009) ‘Going out on a Limb: Postmodernism and Multiple Method Research’, Current Sociology 57(3): 427–447. Fine, Robert (2003) ‘Taking the “Ism” Out of Cosmopolitanism. An Essay in Reconstruction’, European Journal of Social Theory 6(4): 451–470. Fine, Robert (2007) Cosmopolitanism, London: Routledge. Fink, Arlene (2003 [1995]) How to Sample in Surveys, 2nd Edition, London: SAGE. Firat, A. Fuat and Alladi Venkatesh (1993) ‘Postmodernity: The Age of Marketing’, International Journal of Research in Marketing 10(3): 227–249. Fischer, Michael W. and Paul Hoyningen-Huene (eds.) (1997) Paradigmen: Facetten einer Begriffskarriere, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Fitzmaurice, Garrett M., Nan M. Laird, and James H. Ware (2011 [2004]) Applied Longitudinal Analysis, 2nd Edition, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Fleck, Christian (ed.) (2000) Soziologische und historische Analysen der Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Fleming, Peter (2009) Authenticity and the Cultural Politics of Work: New Forms of Informal Control, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flynn, Jeffrey (2019) ‘Communicative Power’, in Amy Allen and Eduardo Mendieta (eds.) The Cambridge Habermas Lexicon, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–55. Føllesdal, Andreas and Thomas Pogge (eds.) (2005) Real World Justice: Grounds, Principles, Human Rights, and Social Institutions, Dordrecht: Springer. Fornel, Michel de and Cyril Lemieux (eds.) (2007) Naturalisme versus constructivisme, Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS. Foster, Hal (ed.) (1985 [1983]) Postmodern Culture, London: Pluto Press. Foucault, Michel (1978 [1976]) The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: The Will to Knowledge, trans. Robert Hurley, London: Penguin. Foucault, Michel (1979 [1975]) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Foucault, Michel (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, edited by Colin Gordon, translated by Colin Gordon [et al.], Brighton: Harvester Press. Foucault, Michel (1988) Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings 1977–1984, trans. Alan Sheridan and others, edited with an introduction by Lawrence D. Kritzman, London: Routledge.

 References 

381

Foucault, Michel (1988 [1984]) The History of Sexuality. Volume 3: Care of the Self, trans. Robert Hurley, London: Penguin. Foucault, Michel (1997 [1984]) ‘The Ethics of the Concern for the Self as a Practice of Freedom’, in Paul Rabinow (ed.) Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth—Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, trans. Phillis Aranov and Dan McGrawth, New  York: New Press, pp. 281–301. Foucault, Michel (2001 [1961]) Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, trans. Richard Howard, with an introduction by David Cooper, London: Routledge. Foucault, Michel (2002 [1966]) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, London: Routledge. Foucault, Michel (2002 [1969]) Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. A.  M. Sheridan Smith, London: Routledge. Fourie, Elsje (2012) ‘A Future for the Theory of Multiple Modernities: Insights from the New Modernization Theory’, Social Science Information 51(1): 52–69. Fowler, Bridget (1994) ‘The Hegemonic Work of Art in the Age of Electronic Reproduction: An Assessment of Pierre Bourdieu’, Theory, Culture & Society 11(1): 129–154. Frade, Carlos (2016) ‘Social Theory and the Politics of Big Data and Method’, Sociology 50(5): 863–877. Frank, Andre Gunder (1998) ReORIENT: Global Economy in the Asian Age, Berkeley: University of California Press. Frank, Arthur W. (1992) ‘Only by Daylight: Habermas’s Postmodern Modernism’, Theory, Culture & Society 9(3): 149–165. Franklin, Sarah, Celia Lury, and Jackie Stacey (2000) Global Nature, Global Culture, London: SAGE. Fraser, Nancy (2003a) ‘Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation’, in Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth, Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange, trans. Joel Golb, James Ingram, and Christiane Wilke, London: Verso, pp. 7–109. Fraser, Nancy (2003b) ‘Distorted beyond All Recognition: A Rejoinder to Axel Honneth’, in Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth, Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange, trans. Joel Golb, James Ingram, and Christiane Wilke, London: Verso, pp. 198–236. Fraser, Nancy (2007a) ‘Transnationalizing the Public Sphere: On the Legitimacy and Efficacy of Public Opinion in a PostWestphalian World’, in Seyla Benhabib, Ian Shapiro, and Danilo Petranovi (eds.) Identities, Affiliations, and Allegiances, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45–66. Fraser, Nancy (2007b) ‘Re-Framing Justice in a Globalizing World’, in Terry Lovell (ed.) (Mis)recognition, Social Inequality and Social Justice: Nancy Fraser and Pierre Bourdieu, London: Routledge, pp. 17–35.

382 References

Fraser, Nancy (2014 [2007]) ‘Transnationalizing the Public Sphere: On the Legitimacy and Efficacy of Public Opinion in a Post-Westphalian World’, in Kate Nash (ed.) Transnationalizing the Public Sphere, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 8–42. Fraser, Nancy (2017) ‘A New Form of Capitalism? A Reply to Boltanski and Esquerre’, New Left Review 106: 57–65. Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth (2003a) Redistribution or Recognition? A PoliticalPhilosophical Exchange, trans. Joel Golb, James Ingram, and Christiane Wilke, London: Verso. Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth (2003b) ‘Introduction: Redistribution or Recognition?’, in Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth, Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange, trans. Joel Golb, James Ingram, and Christiane Wilke, London: Verso, pp. 1–5. Fraser, Nancy and Linda J.  Nicholson (1994 [1988]) ‘Social Criticism without Philosophy: An Encounter between Feminism and Postmodernism’, in Steven Seidman (ed.) The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 242–261. Frazier, E.  Franklin (1947) ‘Sociological Theory and Race Relations’, American Sociological Review 12(3): 265–271. Frazier, E. Franklin (1968) ‘Racial Problems in World Society’, in Gilbert Franklin Edwards (ed.) E. Franklin Frazier on Race Relations: Selected Writings, edited and with an introduction by G.  Franklin Edwards, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 103–116. Freudenburg, William R. (1986) ‘Social Impact Assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology 12(1): 451–478. Freudenburg, William R. and Kenneth M. Keating (1982) ‘Increasing the Impact of Sociology on Social Impact Assessment: Toward Ending the Inattention’, The American Sociologist 17(2): 71–80. Frickel, Scott, Mathieu Albert, and Barbara Prainsack (eds.) (2017) Investigating Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Theory and Practice across Disciplines, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Friedman, Jonathan (1995) ‘Global System, Globalization and the Parameters of Modernity’, in Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson (eds.) Global Modernities, London: SAGE, pp. 69–90. Friedrich, Rainer (2012) ‘The Enlightenment Gone Mad (I) The Dismal Discourse of Postmodernism’s Grand Narratives’, Arion 19(3): 31–78. Frisby, David and Mike Featherstone (eds.) (1997) Simmel on Culture: Selected Writings, London: SAGE. Fukuyama, Francis (1992) The End of History and the Last Man, London: Penguin. Fukuyama, Francis (2002) Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, London: Profile. Fuller, Steve (2000) The Governance of Science: Ideology and the Future of the Open Society, Buckingham: Open University Press.

 References 

383

Fuller, Steve (2002 [1988]) Social Epistemology, 2nd Edition, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Fuller, Steve (2003) Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science, Cambridge: Icon. Fuller, Steve (2006) The New Sociological Imagination, London: SAGE. Fuller, Steve (2011) Humanity 2.0: What It Means to be Human Past, Present and Future, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fuller, Steve (2013) Preparing for Life in Humanity 2.0, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fuller, Steve (2016) The Academic Caesar: University Leadership is Hard, London: SAGE. Fultner, Barbara (2001) ‘Translator’s Introduction’, in Jürgen Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge: Polity, pp. vii–xxiv. Furedi, Frank (2006 [2004]) Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone? Including ‘A Reply to Furedi’s Critics’, 2nd Edition, London: Continuum. Furedi, Frank (2017) What’s Happened to the University? A Sociological Exploration of Its Infantilisation, London: Routledge. Furnham, Adrian (2005 [1997]) The Psychology of Behaviour at Work. The Individual in the Organization, 2nd Edition, Hove: Psychology Press. Gabay, Clive (2013) Civil Society and Global Poverty: Hegemony, Inclusivity, Legitimacy, London: Routledge. Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1965) Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik, 2. Auflage, Tübingen: Mohr. Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1976) Philosophical Hermeneutics, edited and translated by David E. Linge, Berkeley: University of California Press. Galbraith, John Kenneth (1998 [1958]) The Affluent Society, New Edition, London: Penguin. Gamwell, Franklin I. (1997) ‘Habermas and Apel on Communicative Ethics: Their Difference and the Difference it Makes’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 23(2): 21–45. Gandhi, Leela (1998) Postcolonial Theory. A Critical Introduction, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Gane, Mike and Nicholas Gane (2007) ‘The Postmodern: After the (Non-)Event’, in Pelagia Goulimari (ed.) Postmodernism. What Moment?, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 127–138. Gane, Nicholas (2004) The Future of Social Theory, London: Continuum. Gane, Nicholas (2012) ‘The Governmentalities of Neoliberalism: Panopticism, PostPanopticism and beyond’, The Sociological Review 60(4): 611–634. Gane, Nicholas (2014) ‘Sociology and Neoliberalism: A Missing History’, Sociology 48(6): 1092–1106. Gane, Nicholas (2016) ‘Book Review: The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences, by Simon Susen, Basingstoke and New  York, Palgrave, 2015’, European Societies 18(3): 288–290. Gane, Nicholas and Les Back (2012) ‘C. Wright Mills 50 Years On: The Promise and Craft of Sociology Revisited’, Theory, Culture & Society 29(7–8): 399–421.

384 References

Gans, Herbert (1992) ‘Some Virtues of Sociology’, Footnotes 20(9): 4–5. Gaonkar, Dilip Parameshwar (ed.) (2001) Alternative Modernities, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Gartrell, C. David and John W. Gartrell (2002) ‘Positivism in Sociological Research: USA and UK (1966–1990)’, The British Journal of Sociology 53(4): 639–657. Garz, Detlef (2000) ‘Kritik, Hermeneutik, Rekonstruktion. Über den Stellenwert der Methode bei Jürgen Habermas’, in Stefan Müller-Doohm (ed.) Das Interesse der Vernunft: Rückblicke auf das Werk von Jürgen Habermas seit “Erkenntnis und Interesse”, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 201–217. Gauthier, David (1986) Morals by Agreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gell, Alfred (1998) Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Genosko, Gary and Nicholas Thoburn (2011) ‘Preface: The Transversal Communism of Franco Berardi’, in Franco Berardi, After the Future, trans. Arianna Bove, Melinda Cooper, Erik Empson, Enrico, Giuseppina Mecchia, and Tiziana Terranova, edited by Gary Genosko and Nicholas Thoburn, Oakland, CA: AK Press, pp. 1–8. Geuss, Raymond (1981) The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geuss, Raymond (2001) Public Goods, Private Goods, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ghosh, B. N. (2000) Dependency Theory Revisited, Aldershot: Ashgate. Gibbins, John R. and Bo Reimer (1999) The Politics of Postmodernity: An Introduction to Contemporary Politics and Culture, London: SAGE. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: SAGE. Giddens, Anthony (1972) Politics and Sociology in the Thought of Max Weber, London: Macmillan. Giddens, Anthony (1977) Studies in Social and Political Theory, London: Hutchinson. Giddens, Anthony (1978) Durkheim, Fontana/Collins: London. Giddens, Anthony (ed.) (1986) Durkheim on Politics and the State, trans. W. D. Halls, edited with an introduction by Anthony Giddens, Cambridge: Polity. Giddens, Anthony (1987a) Social Theory and Modern Sociology, Cambridge: Polity. Giddens, Anthony (1987b) ‘Nine Theses on the Future of Sociology’, in Anthony Giddens, Social Theory and Modern Sociology, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 22–51. Giddens, Anthony (1990) The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity. Giddens, Anthony (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity. Giddens, Anthony (1996 [1971]) Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 References 

385

Giddens, Anthony (2000) Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping our Lives, London: Profile. Giddens, Anthony and Jonathan H.  Turner (eds.) (1987) Social Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity. Giddings, Franklin H. (1911) ‘The Relation of Social Theory to Public Policy’, American Journal of Sociology 16(5): 577–592. Gillespie, Alex (1984) ‘G. H. Mead: Theorist of the Social Act’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 14(2): 19–39. Gilliom, John and Torin Monahan (2013) SuperVision: An Introduction to the Surveillance Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gillison, Gillian (2010) ‘Culture: A Post-Concept?’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History xli(2): 243–263. Gilroy, Paul (1993) The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness, London: Verso. Gilroy, Paul (2002 [1987]) There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack. The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation, London: Routledge. Gilroy, Paul (2010) Darker than Blue: On the Moral Economies of Black Atlantic Culture, Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Giroux, Henry A. (2011) ‘Fighting for the Future: American Youth and the Global Struggle for Democracy’, Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 11(4): 328–340. Glaser, Daryl and David M.  Walker (2007) Twentieth-Century Marxism: A Global Introduction, London: Routledge. Go, Julian (2006) ‘Imperial Power and its Limits: America’s Colonial Empire in the Early Twentieth Century’, in Craig Calhoun, Frederick Cooper, and Kevin W.  Moore (eds.) Lessons of Empire: Imperial Histories and American Power, New York: New Press, pp. 201–214. Go, Julian (2011) Patterns of Empire. The British and American Empires, 1688 to the Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Go, Julian (2013a) ‘Introduction: Entangling Postcoloniality and Sociological Thought’, in Julian Go (ed.) Postcolonial Sociology, Book Series: Political Power and Social Theory, Volume 24, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 3–31. Go, Julian (2013b) ‘Sociology’s Imperial Unconscious: The Emergence of American Sociology in the Context of Empire’, in George Steinmetz (ed.) Sociology & Empire. The Imperial Entanglements of a Discipline, Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 83–105. Go, Julian (2013c) ‘For a Postcolonial Sociology’, Theory and Society 42(1): 25–55. Go, Julian (2014) ‘Beyond Metrocentrism: From Empire to Globalism in early US Sociology’, Journal of Classical Sociology 14(2): 178–202. Go, Julian (2016) Postcolonial Thought and Social Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Go, Julian (2017) ‘Myths of Nation and Empire: The Logic of America’s Liberal Empire-State’, Thesis Eleven 139(1): 69–83.

386 References

Go, Julian and Jake Watson (2019) ‘Anticolonial Nationalism. From Imagined Communities to Colonial Conflict’, European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie 60(1): 31–68. Goffman, Erving (1971 [1959]) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Goldhammer, Arthur (2001) ‘Man in the Mirror: Language, the Enlightenment, and the Postmodern’, in Daniel Gordon (ed.) Postmodernism and the Enlightenment: New Perspectives in Eighteenth-Century French Intellectual History, New  York: Routledge, pp. 31–44. Golding, Peter (2000) ‘Forthcoming Features: Information and Communications Technologies and the Sociology of the Future’, Sociology 34(1): 165–184. Goldthorpe, John H. (2007 [2000]) On Sociology, 2nd Edition, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Golinsky, Jan (2012) ‘Thomas Kuhn and Interdisciplinary Conversation: Why Historians and Philosophers of Science Stopped Talking to One Another’, in Seymour H.  Mauskopf and Tad M.  Schmaltz (eds.) Integrating History and Philosophy of Science: Problems and Prospects, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 13–28. Good, James and Irving Velody (1998) ‘Introduction: Postmodernity and the Political’, in James Good and Irving Velody (eds.) The Politics of Postmodernity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–18. Goody, Jack (2004) Capitalism and Modernity. The Great Debate, Cambridge: Polity. Goody, Jack (2006) The Theft of History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goody, Jack (2010 [1998]) Food and Love: A Cultural History of East and West, London: Verso. Gordon, Daniel (ed.) (2001a) Postmodernism and the Enlightenment: New Perspectives in Eighteenth-Century French Intellectual History, New York: Routledge. Gordon, Daniel (2001b) ‘Introduction: Postmodernism and the French Enlightenment’, in Daniel Gordon (ed.) Postmodernism and the Enlightenment: New Perspectives in Eighteenth-Century French Intellectual History, New  York: Routledge, pp. 1–6. Goswami, Manu (2013) ‘“Provincializing” Sociology: The Case of a Premature Postcolonial Sociologist’, in Julian Go (ed.) Postcolonial Sociology, Book Series: Political Power and Social Theory, Volume 24, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 145–175. Goudsblom, Johan and Stephen Mennell (eds.) (1998) The Norbert Elias Reader: A Biographical Selection, Oxford: Blackwell. Gouldner, Alvin Ward (1971) The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, London: Heinemann. Goulimari, Pelagia (ed.) (2007) Postmodernism. What Moment?, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Grabham, Emily (ed.) (2009) Intersectionality and Beyond: Law, Power and the Politics of Location, Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.

 References 

387

Green, December and Laura Luehrmann (2017 [2003]) Comparative Politics of the Global South: Linking Concepts & Cases, 4th Edition, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Grosfoguel, Ramón (2007) ‘The Epistemic Decolonial Turn: Beyond PoliticalEconomy Paradigms’, Cultural Studies 21(2–3): 211–223. Grotius, Hugo (2012 [1625]) On the Law of War and Peace, edited and annotated by Stephen C. Neff, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guha, Ranajit (ed.) (1984a) Subaltern Studies III: Writings on Indian History and Society, Delhi: Oxford University Press. Guha, Ranajit (1984b) ‘Preface’, in Ranajit Guha (ed.) Subaltern Studies III: Writings on Indian History and Society, Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. vii–viii. Guha, Ranajit (1988) ‘On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India’, in Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (eds.) Selected Subaltern Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 37–44. Guha, Ranajit and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (eds.) (1988) Selected Subaltern Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Guhin, Jeffrey and Jonathan Wyrtzen (2013) ‘The Violences of Knowledge: Edward Said, Sociology, and Post-Orientalist Reflexivity’, in Julian Go (ed.) Postcolonial Sociology, Book Series: Political Power and Social Theory, Volume 24, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 231–262. Gunn, Richard (1987) ‘Ernst Bloch’s The Principle of Hope’, Edinburgh Review 76: 90–98. Gunn, Simon (2005) ‘Translating Bourdieu: Cultural Capital and the English Middle Class in Historical Perspective’, The British Journal of Sociology 56(1): 49–64. Günther, Klaus (1998) ‘Communicative Freedom, Communicative Power, and Jurisgenesis’, in Michel Rosenfeld and Andrew Arato (eds.) Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 234–254. Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Encarnación, Manuela Boatcă, and Sérgio Costa (eds.) (2010) Decolonizing European Sociology: Transdisciplinary Approaches, Farnham: Ashgate. Gutting, Gary (ed.) (1980) Paradigms and Revolutions: Appraisals and Applications of Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Haas, Michael (1992) Polity and Society: Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Science Paradigms, New York: Praeger. Habermas, Jürgen (1970) ‘Towards a Theory of Communicative Competence’, Inquiry 13(4): 360–375. Habermas, Jürgen (1971 [1968/1969]) Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics, trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro, London: Heinemann Educational. Habermas, Jürgen (1976) ‘Geschichte und Evolution’, in Jürgen Habermas, Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 200–259. Habermas, Jürgen (1979) ‘History and Evolution’, Telos 39: 5–44.

388 References

Habermas, Jürgen (1981a) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 1. Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Habermas, Jürgen (1981b) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 2. Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Habermas, Jürgen (1981 [1980]) ‘Modernity versus Postmodernity’, New German Critique, trans. Seyla Ben-Habib, 22: 3–14. Habermas, Jürgen (1984a [1976]) ‘What is Universal Pragmatics?’, in Jürgen Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 1–68. Habermas, Jürgen (1984b [1976]) ‘Toward a Reconstruction of Historical Materialism’, in Jürgen Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 130–177. Habermas, Jürgen (1987 [1968a]) Knowledge and Human Interests, trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (1987 [1968b]) ‘The Crisis of the Critique of Knowledge’, in Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans. Jeremy J.  Shapiro, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 1–5. Habermas, Jürgen (1987a [1981]) The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (1987b [1981]) The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2: Lifeworld and System. A Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (1987c [1981]) ‘“Rationality”—A Preliminary Specification’, in Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 8–42. Habermas, Jürgen (1987d [1981]) ‘The Paradigm Shift in Mead and Durkheim: From Purposive Activity to Communicative Action’, in Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 1–2. Habermas, Jürgen (1987e [1981]) ‘The Uncoupling of System and Lifeworld’, in Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 153–197. Habermas, Jürgen (1987f [1981]) ‘The Tasks of a Critical Theory of Society’, in Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 374–403. Habermas, Jürgen (1987 [1985a]) The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, trans. Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (1987 [1985b]) ‘An Alternative Way out of the Philosophy of the Subject: Communicative versus Subject-Centered Reason’, in Jürgen Habermas,

 References 

389

The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, trans. Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 294–326. Habermas, Jürgen (1988 [1963]) ‘Dogmatism, Reason, and Decision: On Theory and Praxis in Our Scientific Civilization’, in Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice, trans. John Viertel, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 253–282. Habermas, Jürgen (1988 [1967/1970]) On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans. Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Habermas, Jürgen (1988 [1971]) ‘Introduction: Some Difficulties in the Attempt to Link Theory and Praxis’, in Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice, trans. John Viertel, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 1–40. Habermas, Jürgen (1988 [1973]) Legitimation Crisis, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (1989 [1962]) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, translated by Thomas Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (1989 [1985/1987]) The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians’ Debate, trans. Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (1990a [1983]) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Habermas, Jürgen (1990b [1983]) ‘Reconstruction and Interpretation in the Social Sciences’, in Jürgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 21–42. Habermas, Jürgen (1990c [1983]) ‘Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification’, in Jürgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 43–115. Habermas, Jürgen (1992) ‘Transcendence from Within, Transcendence in this World’, in Don S.  Browning and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (eds.) Habermas, Modernity and Public Theology, New York: Crossroad, pp. 226–250. Habermas, Jürgen (1992a [1988]) Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays, trans. William Mark Hohengarten, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Habermas, Jürgen (1992b [1988]) ‘Individuation through Socialization: On George Herbert Mead’s Theory of Subjectivity’, in Jürgen Habermas, Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays, trans. William Mark Hohengarten, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 149–204. Habermas, Jürgen (1993 [1990]) ‘Morality, Society, and Ethics: An Interview with Torben Hviid Nielsen’, in Jürgen Habermas, Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 147–176. Habermas, Jürgen (1993 [1991]) ‘Remarks on Discourse Ethics’, in Jürgen Habermas, Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 19–111.

390 References

Habermas, Jürgen (1995) ‘Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism’, Journal of Philosophy 92(3): 109–131. Habermas, Jürgen (1996 [1981]) ‘Modernity: An Unfinished Project’, in Maurizio Passerin d’Entrèves and Seyla Benhabib (eds.) Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity, trans. Nicholas Walker, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 38–55. Habermas, Jürgen (1996a [1992]) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (1996b [1992]) ‘The Sociological Translation of the Concept of Deliberative Politics’, in Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 315–328. Habermas, Jürgen (2000) ‘Nach dreißig Jahren: Bemerkungen zu Erkenntnis und Interesse’, in Stefan Müller-Doohm (ed.) Das Interesse der Vernunft: Rückblicke auf das Werk von Jürgen Habermas seit “Erkenntnis und Interesse”, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 12–20. Habermas, Jürgen (2001) Kommunikatives Handeln und detranszendentalisierte Vernunft, Stuttgart: Reclam, Ditzingen. Habermas, Jürgen (2001a [1984]) On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (2001b [1984]) ‘Truth and Society: The Discursive Redemption of Factual Claims to Validity’, in Jürgen Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 85–103. Habermas, Jürgen (2002 [1981, 1991, 1997]) Religion and Rationality: Essays on Reason, God, and Modernity, trans. Ciaran Cronin, Eric Crump, Peter Dews, Peter P. Kenny, Frederick Lawrence, and Max Pensky, edited and with an introduction by Eduardo Mendieta, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (2003) ‘Toward a Cosmopolitan Europe’, Journal of Democracy 14(4): 86–100. Habermas, Jürgen (2003 [1999]) Truth and Justification, trans. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (2004) ‘Freiheit und Determinismus’, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 52(6): 871–890. Habermas, Jürgen (2008 [2005]) Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays, trans. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (2010 [2008]) An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age, trans. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (2018 [2009]) Philosophical Introductions. Five Approaches to Communicative Reason, trans. Ciaran Cronin, English Edition, Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, Jürgen (2019a) Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie. Band 1: Die okzidentale Konstellation von Glauben und Wissen, Berlin: Suhrkamp. Habermas, Jürgen (2019b) Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie. Band 2: Vernünftige Freiheit. Spuren des Diskurses über Glauben und Wissen, Berlin: Suhrkamp

 References 

391

Habermas, Jürgen and Joseph Ratzinger (2006 [2005]) Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion, trans. Brian McNeil, edited by Florian Schuller, San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Haddock, Adrian (2004) ‘Rethinking the “Strong Programme” in the Sociology of Knowledge’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35(1): 19–40. Halford, Susan, Catherine Pope, and Mark Weal (2013) ‘Digital Futures? Sociological Challenges and Opportunities in the Emergent Semantic Web’, Sociology 47(1): 173–189. Halford, Susan and Mike Savage (2017) ‘Speaking Sociologically with Big Data: Symphonic Social Science and the Future for Big Data Research’, Sociology 51(6): 1132–1148. Hall, John A. (2017) ‘Taking Megalomanias Seriously: Rough Notes’, Thesis Eleven 139(1): 30–45. Hall, John A. (1989) ‘They Do Things Differently There, or, the Contribution of British Historical Sociology’, The British Journal of Sociology 40(4): 544–564. Hall, Stuart (1977) ‘Rethinking the “Base-and-Superstructure” Metaphor’, in Jon Bloomfield (ed.) Papers on Class, Hegemony and Party: The Communist University of London, London: Lawrence and Wishart, pp. 43–72. Hall, Stuart (1992) ‘The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power’, in Stuart Hall and Bram Gieben (eds.) Formations of Modernity, Oxford: Polity in association with Open University, pp. 185–227. Hall, Stuart and Bram Gieben (eds.) (1992) Formations of Modernity, Oxford: Polity in association with Open University. Hall, Stuart, David Held, and Anthony McGrew (eds.) (1992) Modernity and its Futures, Cambridge: Polity in association with the Open University. Hallaq, Wael B. (2018) Restating Orientalism: A Critique of Modern Knowledge, New York: Columbia University Press. Halperin, Sandra (2017) ‘The Imperial City-State and the National State Form: Reflections on the History of the Contemporary Order’, Thesis Eleven 139(1): 97–112. Halsey, A. H. (2004) A History of Sociology in Britain: Science, Literature, and Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halsey, A. H. and W. G. Runciman (eds.) (2005) British Sociology Seen from Without and Within, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hamel, Jacques (2000 [1997]) ‘Sociology, Common Sense, and Qualitative Methodology: The Position of Pierre Bourdieu and Alain Touraine’, in Derek Robbins (ed.) Pierre Bourdieu. Volume III, London: SAGE, pp. 143–159. Hamilton, Peter (1974) Knowledge and Social Structure: An Introduction to the Classical Argument in the Sociology of Knowledge, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hamilton, Peter (ed.) (2006) Visual Research Methods, London: SAGE. Hammond, Philip (2011) ‘Simulation and Dissimulation’, Journal of War and Culture Studies 3(3): 305–318.

392 References

Hansen, Peo (2002) ‘European Integration, European Identity and the Colonial Connection’, European Journal of Social Theory 5(4): 483–498. Hansen, Peo (2004) ‘In the Name of Europe’, Race & Class 45(3): 49–61. Harding, Sandra (1990) ‘Feminism, Science, and the Anti-Enlightenment Critiques’, in Linda J. Nicholson (ed.) Feminism/Postmodernism, London: Routledge, pp. 83–106. Harding, Sandra (1992) ‘Subjectivity, Experience and Knowledge: An Epistemology from/for Rainbow Coalition Politics’, in Jan Nederveen Pieterse (ed.) Emancipations, Modern and Postmodern, London: SAGE, pp. 175–193. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri (2000) Empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri (2006) Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire, London: Penguin Books. Harré, Rom and Luk van Langenhove (1998) Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action, Oxford: Blackwell. Harré, Rom, Fathali M.  Moghaddam, Tracey Pilkerton Cairnie, Daniel Rothbart, and Steven R. Sabat (2009) ‘Recent Advances in Positioning Theory’, Theory & Psychology 19(1): 5–31. Harrington, Austin (2016) German Cosmopolitan Social Thought and the Idea of the West. Voices from Weimar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Errol E. (2000) Apocalypse and Paradigm: Science and Everyday Thinking, Westport, CT: Praeger. Harrison, Trevor (1995) Of passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hartmann, Klaus (1985) ‘Human Agency between Life-World and System: Habermas’s Latest Version of Critical Theory’, Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 16(2): 145–155. Hartung, Heike (2016) ‘Late Style as Exile: De/Colonising the Life Course’, Journal of Aging Studies 39: 96–100. Harvey, David (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, Oxford: Blackwell. Harvey, David (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference, Oxford: Blackwell. Harvey, David (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, David (2006) Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development, London: Verso. Hashemi, Morteza (2017) ‘The Postmodern as a Presence—Book Review: Simon Susen, The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 47(4–5): 370–374. Hassan, Ihab Habib (1987) The Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theory and Culture, Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Hassan, Robert and Ronald E. Purser (eds.) (2007) 24/7: Time and Temporality in the Network Society, Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Hassard, John (ed.) (1990) The Sociology of Time, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

 References 

393

Haug, Frigga (1999a) ‘Gebrauchswert’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) Historischkritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 4), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 1259–1289. Haug, Frigga, Wolfgang Fritz Haug, and Wolfgang Küttler (2004) ‘Idealtypus’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 6/I), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 622–632. Haug, Wolfgang Fritz (1996) ‘Aussichten der Zivilgesellschaft unter Bedingungen neoliberaler Globalisierungspolitik’, Das Argument 217: 665–682. Haug, Wolfgang Fritz (1999b) ‘Feuerbach-Thesen’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 4), Hamburg: ArgumentVerlag, pp. 402–419. Haux, Tina (2019) Dimensions of Impact in the Social Sciences. The Case of Social Policy, Sociology and Political Science Research, Bristol: Policy Press. Hawthorn, Geoffrey (1987 [1976]) Enlightenment and Despair: A History of Social Theory, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hawthorne, Susan (2004) ‘Wild Politics: Beyond Globalization’, Women’s Studies International Forum 27(3): 243–259. Hayles, Katherine (1999) How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hazelrigg, Lawrence (2016) ‘Turning the Circle: Considerations of “the Postmodern Turn” à la Simon Susen’, in Harry F. Dahms and Eric R. Lybeck (eds.) Reconstructing Social Theory, History and Practice, Book Series: Current Perspectives in Social Theory, Volume 35, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 227–274. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1975 [1837]) Lectures on the Philosophy of World History. Introduction: Reason in History, translated from the German ed. of Johannes Hoffmeister by H. B. Nisbet, with an introduction by Duncan Forbes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1977 [1807]) Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A.  V. Miller, with analysis of the text and foreword by J.  N. Findlay, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1990 [1825–1826]) Lectures on the History of Philosophy: The Lectures of 1825–1826, edited by Robert F.  Brown, trans. R. F. Brown and J. M. Stewart with the assistance of H. S. Harris, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Heidegger, Martin (1992 [1989/1924]) The Concept of Time, trans. William McNeill, Oxford: Blackwell. Heidegger, Martin (2001 [1927]) Sein und Zeit, Achtzehnte Auflage, Tübingen: Max-Niemeyer-Verlag. Held, David (2010) Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and Realities, Cambridge: Polity. Held, Joseph (ed.) (1996) Populism in Eastern Europe: Racism, Nationalism, and Society, Boulder: East European Monographs. Helle, Horst J. (2015) The Social Thought of Georg Simmel, London: SAGE.

394 References

Herbrechter, Stefan (2013 [2009]) Posthumanism. A Critical Analysis, London: Bloomsbury Academic. Herz, Martin (1996) Disposition und Kapital: Ein Beitrag zur Bourdieu-Debatte, Wien: Braumüller. Hesse, Mary (1980) Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science, Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press. Hessels, Laurens K. and Harro van Lente (2008) ‘Re-Thinking New Knowledge Production: A Literature Review and a Research Agenda’, Research Policy 37(4): 740–760. Hill, Christopher (1985) The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill. Volume 1: Writing and Revolution in 17th-Century England, Brighton: Harvester. Hill, Christopher (1986a) The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill. Volume 2: Religion and Politics in 17th-Century England, Brighton: Harvester. Hill, Christopher (1986b) The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill. Volume 3: People and Ideas in 17th-Century England, Brighton: Harvester. Hirsch, Paul, Peer C.  Fiss, and Amanda Hoel-Green (2009) ‘A Durkheimian Approach to Globalization’, in Paul S. Adler (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies: Classical Foundations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 223–245. Hirst, Paul and Grahame Thompson (1995) ‘Globalization and the Future of the Nation State’, Economy and Society 24(3): 408–442. Hirst, Paul and Grahame Thompson (1996) Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance, Cambridge: Polity. Hobbes, Thomas (1998 [1642/1647/1651]) On the Citizen, original title: De Cive, edited and translated by Richard Tuck, Michael Silverthorne, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hobsbawm, Eric (1969) Industry and Empire, London: Pelican. Hobsbawm, Eric (1987) The Age of Empire, 1875–1914, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Hobsbawm, Eric (1994) Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991, London: Michael Joseph. Hoffman, Lesa (2015) Longitudinal Analysis: Modeling Within-Person Fluctuation and Change, London: Routledge. Hoggart, Richard (1969) Contemporary Cultural Studies. An Approach to the Study of Literature and Society, Birmingham: University of Birmingham (Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies). Hohm, Charles (1992) ‘Some Reflections on Sociology’s Future in California’, Footnotes 20(2): 5. Holland, Dorothy C., William S. Lachicotte, Debra Skinner, and Carole Cain (2001 [1998]) Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds, New Edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hollinger, Robert (1994) Postmodernism and the Social Sciences: A Thematic Approach, London: SAGE.

 References 

395

Hollis, Martin (2015 [1977]) Models of Man. Philosophical Thoughts on Social Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holloway, John (2005 [2002]) Change the World without Taking Power. The Meaning of Revolution Today, New Edition, London: Pluto Press. Holloway, John (2007) ‘Twelve Theses on Changing the World without Taking Power’, in Phil Hearse (ed.) Take the Power to Change the World: Globalisation and the Debate on Power, London: Socialist Resistance Books, pp. 15–21. Holloway, John (2009a) ‘Why Adorno?’, in John Holloway, Fernando Matamoros Ponce, and Sergio Tischler Visquerra (eds.) Negativity and Revolution: Adorno and Political Activism, London: Pluto Press, pp. 12–17. Holloway, John (2009b) ‘Negative and Positive Autonomism. Or Why Adorno? Part 2’, in John Holloway, Fernando Matamoros Ponce, and Sergio Tischler Visquerra (eds.) Negativity and Revolution: Adorno and Political Activism, London: Pluto Press, pp. 95–100. Holloway, John (2010) Crack Capitalism, London: Pluto Press. Holloway, John and Simon Susen (2013) ‘Change the World by Cracking Capitalism? A Critical Encounter between John Holloway and Simon Susen’, Sociological Analysis 7(1): 23–42. Holmwood, John (2001) ‘Gender and Critical Realism: A Critique of Sayer’, Sociology 35(4): 947–965. Holmwood, John (2007) ‘Sociology as Public Discourse and Professional Practice: A Critique of Michael Burawoy’, Sociological Theory 25(1): 46–66. Holmwood, John (2010a) ‘Sociology’s Misfortune: Disciplines, Interdisciplinarity and the Impact of Audit Culture’, The British Journal of Sociology 61(4): 639–658. Holmwood, John (2010b) ‘Not Only Our Misfortune: Reply to Rosenfeld and Savage’, The British Journal of Sociology 61(4): 671–676. Holmwood, John (ed.) (2011a) A Manifesto for the Public University, London: Bloomsbury Academic. Holmwood, John (2011b) ‘Viewpoint—The Impact of “Impact” on UK Social Science’, Methodological Innovations Online 6(1): 13–17. Holmwood, John and Stephen McKay (2015) ‘As REF 2014 Goes by: A Fight for Cash and Glory’, The Sociological Review Blog Available at: http://www.thesociologicalreview.com/blog/as-ref-2014–goes-by-a-fight-for-cash-and-glory-withapologies-to-casablanca.html. Holmwood, John and Nasar Meer (2016) ‘John Holmwood: Sociology of Structure, Sociology as Structure’, Sociology 50(5): 1002–1011. Holmwood, John and Alexander Stewart (1991) Explanation and Social Theory, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Holton, Robert J. (1987) ‘The Idea of Crisis in Modern Society’, The British Journal of Sociology 38(4): 502–520. Holton, Robert J. (2000) ‘Bourdieu and Common Sense’, in Nicholas Brown and Imre Szeman (eds.) Pierre Bourdieu: Fieldwork in Culture, Boston: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 87–99.

396 References

Holton, Robert J. (2009) Cosmopolitanisms: New Thinking and New Directions, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Holton, Robert J. (2011 [1998]) Globalization and the Nation State, 2nd Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Honneth, Axel (1995 [1992]) The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts, trans. Joel Anderson, Cambridge: Polity. Honneth, Axel (2003a) ‘Redistribution as Recognition: A Response to Nancy Fraser’, in Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth, Redistribution or Recognition? A PoliticalPhilosophical Exchange, trans. Joel Golb, James Ingram, and Christiane Wilke, London: Verso, pp. 110–197. Honneth, Axel (2003b) ‘The Point of Recognition: A Rejoinder to the Rejoinder’, in Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth, Redistribution or Recognition? A PoliticalPhilosophical Exchange, trans. Joel Golb, James Ingram, and Christiane Wilke, London: Verso, pp. 238–267. Honneth, Axel (2007) ‘Recognition as Ideology’, in Bert van den Brink and David Owen (eds.) Recognition and Power: Axel Honneth and the Tradition of Critical Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 323–347. Honneth, Axel, Thomas McCarthy, Claus Offe, and Albrecht Wellmer (eds.) (1992a) Philosophical Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Honneth, Axel, Thomas McCarthy, Claus Offe, and Albrecht Wellmer (eds.) (1992b) Cultural-Political Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hoogheem, Andrew (2010) ‘Postmodernism and Cultural Identities: Conflicts and Coexistence, by Virgil Nemoianu’, Religion and Literature 42(3): 241–244. Hoogvelt, Ankie (2001 [1997]) Globalization and the Postcolonial World. The New Political Economy of Development, 2nd Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hooks, Gregory (ed.) (2016) The Sociology of Development Handbook, Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Hopkins, Terence K. and Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (eds.) (1996) The Age of Transition: Trajectory of the World-System 1945–2025, London: Zed Books; Leichhardt, NSW: Pluto Press. Horkheimer, Max (1976) ‘Traditional and Critical Theory’, in Paul Connerton (ed.) Critical Sociology, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, pp. 206–224. Horkheimer, Max and Theodor W.  Adorno (1994 [1944/1969]) Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Horner, Rory and Khalid Nadvi (2018) ‘Global Value Chains and the Rise of the Global South: Unpacking Twenty-First Century Polycentric Trade’, Global Networks 18(2): 207–237. Horrocks, Chris (1999) Baudrillard and the Millennium, Duxford: Icon. Hostetler, Laura (2001) Qing Colonial Enterprise: Ethnography and Cartography in Early Modern China, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hountondji, Paulin (1995) ‘Producing Knowledge in Africa Today’, African Studies Review 38(3): 1–10.

 References 

397

Hountondji, Paulin (1997 [1994]) ‘Introduction: Recentring Africa’, in Paulin Hountondji (ed.) Endogenous Knowledge: Research Trails, Dakar: CODESRIA, pp. 1–39. House, James S. (2019) ‘The Culminating Crisis of American Sociology and Its Role in Social Science and Public Policy: An Autobiographical, Multimethod, Reflexive Perspective’, Annual Review of Sociology 45(1): 1–26. How, Alan R. (2007) ‘The Author, the Text and the Canon: Gadamer and the Persistence of Classic Texts in Sociology’, Journal of Classical Sociology 7(1): 5–22. How, Alan R. (2016) Restoring the Classic in Sociology: Traditions, Texts and the Canon, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hoy, David Couzens (2009) The Time of Our Lives: A Critical History of Temporality, Cambridge, MA: MIT. Huber, Bettina J. and Wendell Bell (1971) ‘Sociology and the Emergent Study of the Future’, The American Sociologist 6(4): 287–295. Huntington, Samuel P. (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon & Schuster. Hutcheon, Linda (1989) The Politics of Postmodernism, London: Routledge. Hutcheon, Linda (2002) ‘“Acting from the Midst of Identities”: Questions from Linda Hutcheon’, in John N. Duvall (ed.) Productive Postmodernism: Consuming Histories and Cultural Studies, Albany: State University of New  York Press, pp. 199–206. Hutcheon, Linda (2007) ‘Gone Forever, But Here to Stay: The Legacy of the Postmodern’, in Pelagia Goulimari (ed.) Postmodernism. What Moment?, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 16–18. Hutchings, Kimberly and Roland Dannreuther (eds.) (1999) Cosmopolitan Citizenship, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press. Huyssen, Andreas and Klaus R.  Scherpe (eds.) (1993) Postmoderne: Zeichen eines kulturellen Wandels, Hamburg: Rowohlt. Ianni, Octavio (1999 [1995, 1996]) Teorías de la globalización, trans. Isabel Vericat Núñez, cuarta edición, México D.F.: Siglo XXI Editores, UNAM. Ihde, Don (2018) ‘Technosystem: The Social Life of Reason, by Andrew Feenberg (Review)’, Technology and Culture 59(2): 506–508. Imbroscio, David L. (1999) ‘Structure, Agency, and Democratic Theory’, Polity 32(1): 45–66. Inglehart, Ronald (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, Ronald (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, Ronald (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

398 References

Inglis, David (2009) ‘Cosmopolitan Sociology and the Classical Canon: Ferdinand Tönnies and the Emergence of Global Gesellschaft’, The British Journal of Sociology 60(4): 813–832. Inglis, David (2011) ‘A Durkheimian Account of Globalization: The Construction of Global Moral Culture’, Durkheimian Studies / Études Durkheimiennes 17: 103–120. Inglis, David (2013) ‘Bourdieu, Language and “Determinism”: A Reply to Simon Susen’, Social Epistemology 27(3–4): 315–322. Inglis, David (2014) ‘What is Worth Defending in Sociology Today? Presentism, Historical Vision and the Uses of Sociology’, Cultural Sociology 8(1): 99–118. Inglis, David (2019) ‘Book Review: British Social Theory: Recovering Lost Traditions Before 1950 (London: SAGE, 2018, pp.  173+i-ix)’, European Journal of Social Theory 22(4): 567–570. Inglis, David and Roland Robertson (2008) ‘The Elementary Forms of Globality: Durkheim and the Emergence and Nature of Global Life’, Journal of Classical Sociology 8(1): 5–25. Inglis, David and Christopher Thorpe (2012) An Invitation to Social Theory, Cambridge: Polity. Iphofen, Ron (2009) Ethical Decision Making in Social Research. A Practical Guide, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Iphofen, Ron and Martin Tolich (eds.) (2018) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics, London: SAGE. Irwin, Robert (2006) Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and its Discontents, Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press. Isaac, Joel (2017) ‘Back to The Future—Julian Go, Postcolonial Thought and Social Theory (New York, Oxford University Press, 2016) and Simon Susen, The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences (Basingstoke/New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015)’, European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie 58(3): 531–536. Isin, Engin F. (ed.) (2000) Democracy, Citizenship and the Global City, London: Routledge. Isin, Engin F. (2009) ‘Citizenship in Flux: The Figure of the Activist Citizen’, Subjectivity 29: 367–388. Isin, Engin F. and Bryan S. Turner (2007) ‘Investigating Citizenship: An Agenda for Citizenship Studies’, Citizenship Studies 11(1): 5–17. Isin, Engin F. and Patricia K. Wood (1999) Citizenship and Identity, London: SAGE. Israel, Mark (2015 [2006]) Research Ethics and Integrity for Social Scientists. Beyond Regulatory Compliance, 2nd Edition, London: SAGE. Izadi, Partow (1996) ‘A Multicultural Background for World Citizenship’, Futures 28(6–7): 593–596. Jackson, Jeffrey T., Kirsten Dellinger, Kathryn McKee, and Annette Trefzer (2016) ‘Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Global South and Global North’, in Gregory Hooks (ed.) The Sociology of Development Handbook, Oakland, CA: University of California Press, pp. 129–152.

 References 

399

Jacob, Margaret C. (1999) ‘Science Studies after Social Construction: The Turn toward the Comparative and the Global’, in Victoria E. Bonnell, Lynn Hunt, and Richard Biernacki (eds.) Beyond the Cultural Turn: New Directions in the Study of Society and Culture, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 95–120. Jacob, Margaret C. (2006) Strangers Nowhere in the World: The Rise of Cosmopolitanism in Early Modern Europe, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jaeggi, Rahel (2018 [2014]) Critique of Forms of Life, trans. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. James, C. L. R. (1980 [1938]) The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution, New Edition, London: Allison and Busby. Jameson, Fredric (1984) ‘Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism’, New Left Review 146: 53–92. Jameson, Fredric (1988) ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’, in E. Ann Kaplan (ed.) Postmodernism and its Discontents: Theories, Practices, London: Verso, pp. 13–29. Jameson, Fredric (1991) Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, London: Verso. Jameson, Fredric (1998) The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern 1983–1998, London: Verso. Jameson, Fredric (2007) ‘Postscript’, in Pelagia Goulimari (ed.) Postmodernism. What Moment?, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 213–216. Janka, Franz (1996) ‘Die Zukunft der Soziologie’, Sozialwissenschaften und Berufspraxis 19(2): 141–151. Janos, Andrew C. (1986) Politics and Paradigms: Changing Theories of Change in Social Science, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Janos, Andrew C. (1997) ‘Paradigms Revisited: Productionism, Globality, and Postmodernity in Comparative Politics’, World Politics 50(1): 118–149. Jarrett, Alfred Abioseh (1996) The Under-Development of Africa: Colonialism, NeoColonialism and Socialism, Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Jaspers, Karl (1949) Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte, München: R. Piper & Co. Verlag. Jawad, Rana, Paddy Dolan, and Tracey Skillington (2017) ‘Sociology in the 21st Century: Reminiscence and Redefinition’, Sociology 51(4): 904–914. Jay Kilby, R. (2004) ‘Critical Thinking, Epistemic Virtue, and the Significance of Inclusion: Reflections on Harvey Siegel’s Theory of Rationality’, Educational Theory 54(3): 299–313. Jay, Martin (1984) ‘Jürgen Habermas and the Reconstruction of Marxist Holism’, in Martin Jay, Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from Lukács to Habermas, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 462–509. Jay, Martin (2010) ‘Liquidity Crisis: Zygmunt Bauman and the Incredible Lightness of Modernity’, Theory, Culture & Society 27(6): 95–106. Jeffries, Vincent (ed.) (2009) Handbook of Public Sociology, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

400 References

Jellissen, Susan M. and Fred M.  Gottheil (2009) ‘Marx and Engels: In Praise of Globalization’, Contributions to Political Economy 28(1): 35–46. Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014) Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Jenks, Chris (ed.) (1998) Core Sociological Dichotomies, London: SAGE. Jessop, Bob (1991) Fordism and Post-Fordism: A Critical Reformulation, Lancaster: Lancaster Regionalism Group. Jessop, Bob (ed.) (2001) Regulation Theory and the Crisis of Capitalism, 5 Volumes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Jha, Shiva Chandra (1959) Marxist Theories of Imperialism: Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, and Fritz Sternberg, Calcutta: Bookland Private. Joas, Hans (1997 [1980]) G.  H. Mead: A Contemporary Re-Examination of his Thought, trans. Raymond Meyer, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knöbl (2009 [2004]) Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures, trans. Alex Skinner, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jogdand, Prahlad Gangaram and S.  M. Michael (2003) Globalization and Social Movements: Struggle for a Humane Society, Jaipur: Rawat Publications. Jones, Andrew (2010) Globalization: Key Thinkers, Cambridge: Polity. Jones, Paul K. (2019) ‘Insights from the Infamous: Recovering the Social-Theoretical First Phase of Populism Studies’, European Journal of Social Theory 22(4): 458–476. Joseph, Jonathan (2002) Hegemony: A Realist Analysis, London: Routledge. Jullien, Francois (2014 [2008]) On the Universal: The Uniform, the Common and Dialogue between Cultures, trans. Michael Richardson and Krysztof Fijalkowski, Cambridge: Polity. Junge, Barbara, Zane Berzina, Walter Scheiffele, Wim Westerveld, and Carola Zwick (eds.) (2013) The Digital Turn: Design in the Era of Interactive Technologies, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kalb, Don and Gábor Halmai (eds.) (2011) Headlines of Nation, Subtexts of Class: Working-Class Populism and the Return of the Repressed in Neoliberal Europe, New York: Berghahn Books. Kali, Raja and Javier Reyes (2007) ‘The Architecture of Globalization: A Network Approach to International Economic Integration’, Journal of International Business Studies 38(4): 595–620. Kant, Immanuel (2009 [1784]) An Answer to the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’, London: Penguin. Kantrowitz, Barbara (1992) ‘Sociology’s Lonely Crowd’, Newsweek, 3 February: 55. Kardulias, P.  Nick (ed.) (1999) World-Systems Theory in Practice: Leadership, Production, and Exchange, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Keith, Michael (2008) ‘Public Sociology? Between Heroic Immersion and Critical Distance: Personal Reflections on Academic Engagement with Political Life’, Critical Social Policy 28(3): 320–334.

 References 

401

Kelemen, Mihaela and Tuomo Peltonen (2001) ‘Ethics, Morality and the Subject: The Contribution of Zygmunt Bauman and Michel Foucault to “Postmodern” Business Ethics’, Scandinavian Journal of Management 17(2): 151–166. Kellner, Douglas (1989a) Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity, Cambridge: Polity. Kellner, Douglas (1989b) Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond, Cambridge: Polity. Kellner, Douglas (1997) ‘Social Theory and Cultural Studies’, in David Owen (ed.) Sociology after Postmodernism, London: SAGE, pp. 138–157. Kellner, Douglas (2007) ‘Reappraising the Postmodern: Novelties, Mapping and Historical Narratives’, in Pelagia Goulimari (ed.) Postmodernism. What Moment?, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 102–126. Kelly, P. J. (ed.) (2002) Multiculturalism Reconsidered: Culture and Equality and its Critics, Cambridge: Polity. Kendall, Gavin, Ian Woodward, and Zlatko Skrbiš (2009) The Sociology of Cosmopolitanism: Globalization, Identity, Culture and Government, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Keohane, Robert O. (2005 [1984]) After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, New ed. Edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kermode, Frank (1985) Forms of Attention, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kerner, Ina (2012) Postkoloniale Theorien zur Einführung, Hamburg: Junius-Verlag. Kerner, Ina (2017) ‘Relations of Difference: Power and Inequality in Intersectional and Postcolonial Feminist Theories’, Current Sociology 65(6): 846–866. Kerner, Ina (2018) ‘Beyond Eurocentrism. Trajectories towards a Renewed Political and Social Theory’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 44(5): 550–570. Kerr, Keith (2009) Postmodern Cowboy: C.  Wright Mills and a New 21st-Century Sociology, Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. Khory, Kavita R. (ed.) (2012) Global Migration: Challenges in the Twenty-First Century, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kienel, Simone (2007) Der Historikerstreit, Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag. Kilby, Jane and Larry Ray (eds.) (2014) Violence and Society: Toward a New Sociology, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, The Sociological Review. King, Anthony (2009) ‘Overcoming Structure and Agency: Talcott Parsons, Ludwig Wittgenstein and the Theory of Social Action’, Journal of Classical Sociology 9(2): 260–288. Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Knorr-Cetina, Karin (2007) ‘Culture in Global Knowledge Societies: Knowledge Cultures and Epistemic Cultures’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 32(4): 361–375. Knottnerus, J.  David and Brendan Maguire (1995) ‘The Status of Sociology Departments: An Assessment of Their Current and Future Prospects’, Sociological Spectrum 15(1): 17–38. Knowles, Caroline and Paul Sweetman (eds.) (2004) Picturing the Social Landscape: Visual Methods and the Sociological Imagination, London: Routledge.

402 References

Koczanowicz, Leszek (1999) ‘The Choice of Tradition and the Tradition of Choice: Habermas’ and Rorty’s interpretation of Pragmatism’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 25(1): 55–70. Kofman, Eleonore (1995) ‘Citizenship for Some But Not for Others: Spaces of Citizenship in Contemporary Europe’, Political Geography 14(2): 121–137. Kögler, Hans-Herbert (2005) ‘Constructing a Cosmopolitan Public Sphere: Hermeneutic Capabilities and Universal Values’, European Journal of Social Theory 8(3): 297–320. Korkut, Umut (2012) Liberalization Challenges in Hungary: Elitism, Progressivism, and Populism, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Koselleck, Reinhart (1988 [1959]) Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society, Oxford: Berg. Köster, Udo (1972) Literarischer Radikalismus. Zeitbewusstsein und Geschichtsphilosophie in der Entwicklung vom Jungen Deutschland zur Hegelschen Linken, Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum Verlag. Kowalik, Tadeusz (2014) Rosa Luxemburg: Theory of Accumulation and Imperialism, trans. Jan Toporowski and Hanna Szymborska, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Krause, Monika (2019) ‘What is Zeitgeist? Examining Period-Specific Cultural Patterns’, Poetics 76: 1–10. Krishna, Sankaran (2015) ‘Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Destitution: Law, Race, and Human Security’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 40(2): 85–101. Krizsán, Andrea, Hege Skjeie, and Judith Squires (eds.) (2012) Institutionalizing Intersectionality: The Changing Nature of European Equality Regimes, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kron, Thomas (2004) ‘Wolfgang Ludwig Schneider: Grundlagen der soziologischen Theorie. Band I. Weber—Parsons—Mead—Schütz. Band II. Garfinkel—RC— Habermas—Luhmann’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 56(2): 357–359. Kronenberg, Volker (ed.) (2008) Zeitgeschichte, Wissenschaft und Politik: Der “Historikerstreit”—20 Jahre danach, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Kuhn, Axel (2013 [1999]) Die Französische Revolution, 6th Edition, Stuttgart: Reclam. Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012 [1962]) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th Edition, with an introductory essay by Ian Hacking, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kumar, Krishan (1978) Prophecy and Progress: The Sociology of Industrial and PostIndustrial Society, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Kumar, Krishan (1995) From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society: New Theories of the Contemporary World, Oxford: Blackwell. Kumar, Krishan (2010) ‘Nation-States as Empires, Empires as Nation-States: Two Principles, One Practice?’, Theory and Society 39(2): 119–143. Kumar, Krishan (2017) ‘The Time of Empire: Temporality and Genealogy in the Development of European Empires’, Thesis Eleven 139(1): 113–128. Kunow, Rüdiger (2016) ‘Postcolonial Theory and Old Age: An Explorative Essay’, Journal of Aging Studies 39: 101–108.

 References 

403

Küpper, Thomas (2016) ‘Age Mimicry. A Perspective on the Young-Old’, Journal of Aging Studies 39: 121–128. Kurasawa, Fuyuki (2014) ‘An Alternative Transnational Public Sphere? On Anarchist Cosmopolitanism in Post-Westphalian Times’, in Kate Nash (ed.) Transnationalizing the Public Sphere, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 79–97. Küttler, Wolfgang, Alexis Petrioli, and Frieder Otto Wolf (2004) ‘Historischer Materialismus’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 6/I), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 316–334. Kymlicka, Will (2005) ‘Liberal Multiculturalism: Western Models, Global Trends and Asian Debates’, in Will Kymlicka and Baogang He (eds.) Multiculturalism in Asia, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 22–55. Kymlicka, Will (2007) Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, Will and Baogang He (eds.) (2005) Multiculturalism in Asia, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laclau, Ernesto (1992) ‘Beyond Emancipation’, in Jan Nederveen Pieterse (ed.) Emancipations, Modern and Postmodern, London: SAGE, pp. 121–137. Laclau, Ernesto (1996) Emancipation(s), London: Verso. Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe (2001 [1985]) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, 2nd Edition, London: Verso. Ladner, Joyce A. (ed.) (1973) The Death of White Sociology, New York: Vintage Books. Lakomski, Gabriele (1984) ‘On Agency and Structure: Pierre Bourdieu and JeanClaude Passeron’s Theory of Symbolic Violence’, Curriculum Inquiry 14(2): 151–163. Lamont, Michèle (2012) ‘Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation’, Annual Review of Sociology 38(21): 201–221. Lan, Pei-Chia (2014) ‘Compressed Modernity and Glocal Entanglement: The Contested Transformation of Parenting Discourses in Postwar Taiwan’, Current Sociology 62(4): 531–549. Larrain, Jorge (1989) Theories of Development: Capitalism, Colonialism and Dependency, Cambridge: Polity. Larrain, Jorge (1991 [1983]) ‘Ideology’, in Tom Bottomore (ed.) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Reference, pp. 247–252. Larson, Magali Sarfatti (1977) The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis, Berkeley: University of California Press. Las Heras, Jon (2018) ‘Politics of Power: Engaging with the Structure-Agency Debate from a Class-Based Perspective’, Politics 38(2): 165–181. Lasch, Christopher (1979) The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, New York: Norton. Lash, Scott (1985) ‘Postmodernity and Desire’, Theory and Society 14(1): 1–33. Lash, Scott (1990) Sociology of Postmodernism, London: Routledge.

404 References

Lash, Scott (2007) ‘Power after Hegemony: Cultural Studies in Mutation?’, Theory, Culture & Society 24(3): 55–78. Lash, Scott and Celia Lury (2007) Global Culture Industry: The Mediation of Things, Cambridge: Polity. Lash, Scott, Andrew Quick, and Richard H. Roberts (eds.) (1998) Time and Value, Oxford: Blackwell. Lash, Scott and John Urry (1987) The End of Organized Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity. Latour, Bruno (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, Bruno (1990) ‘Postmodern? No, Simply Amodern! Steps Towards an Anthropology of Science’, Studies In History and Philosophy of Science 21(1): 145–171. Latour, Bruno (1993 [1991]) We Have Never Been Modern, trans. Catherine Porter, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Latour, Bruno (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-NetworkTheory, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lawler, Steph (2004) ‘Rules of Engagement: Habitus, Power and Resistance’, The Sociological Review 52(s2): 110–128. Le Poidevin, Robin and Murray MacBeath (eds.) (1993) The Philosophy of Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lea, John (2013) ‘Book Review Symposium: Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity’, Sociology 47(6): 1226–1227. Lebedev, S.  A. (2014) ‘The Basic Paradigms of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science’, Voprosy Filosofii(1): 72–82. Lechner, Frank J. (1991) ‘Simmel on Social Space’, Theory, Culture & Society 8(3): 195–201. Lee, David J. and Bryan S.  Turner (eds.) (1996) Conflicts about Class: Debating Inequality in Late Industrialism. A Selection of Readings, London: Longman. Lee, George (1971) ‘Rosa Luxemburg and the Impact of Imperialism’, The Economic Journal 81(324): 847–862. Lefebvre, Georges (2005 [1939/1947]) The Coming of the French Revolution, translated and with a preface by R.R.  Palmer, with a new introduction by Timothy Tackett, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Leitch, Thomas M. (2014) Wikipedia U: Knowledge, Authority, and Liberal Education in the Digital Age, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lemert, Charles C. (1994 [1990]) ‘Post-Structuralism and Sociology’, in Steven Seidman (ed.) The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 265–281. Lengermann, Patricia Madoo and Jill Niebrugge-Brantley (2001) ‘Classical Feminist Social Theory’, in George Ritzer and Barry Smart (eds.) Handbook of Social Theory, London: SAGE, pp. 125–137. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich (2010 [1917]) Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, London: Penguin.

 References 

405

Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1949) Les structures élémentaires de la parenté, Paris: PUF. Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1962) La pensée sauvage, Paris: Plon. Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1971) L’homme nu. Mythologiques, tome IV, Paris: Plon. Levitas, Ruth (2011 [1990]) The Concept of Utopia, Student Edition, Witney: Peter Lang. Levitas, Ruth (2013) Utopia as Method. The Imaginary Reconstitution of Society, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Lichtblau, Klaus (1999) ‘Differentiations of Modernity’, Theory, Culture & Society 16(3): 1–30. Lindholm, Charles (2008) Culture and Authenticity, Oxford: Blackwell. Lionnet, Françoise and Shumei Shi (eds.) (2011) The Creolization of Theory, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Locke, John (1993 [1924/1689]) Two Treatises of Government, edited by Mark Goldie, London: Everyman. Lockman, Zachary (2010 [2004]) Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalism, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lockshin, R. A. (ed.) (2007) The Joy of Science: An Examination of How Scientists Ask and Answer Questions Using the Story of Evolution as a Paradigm, Dordrecht: Springer. Loick, Daniel (2018) ‘If You’re a Critical Theorist, How Come You Work for a University?’, Critical Horizons 19(3): 233–245. Loja, Ema, Maria Emília Costa, Bill Hughes, and Isabel Menezes (2013) ‘Disability, Embodiment and Ableism: Stories of Resistance’, Disability & Society 28(2): 190–203. Lojkine, Jean (ed.) (2002) Les sociologues critiques du capitalisme : en hommage à Pierre Bourdieu, Paris: Collection Actuel Marx Confrontation, Presses Universitaires de France. Longhurst, Brian (1989) Karl Mannheim and the Contemporary Sociology of Knowledge, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Lopreato, Joseph and Timothy Alan Crippen (1999) Crisis in Sociology. The Need for Darwin, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Lovell, Terry (2003) ‘Resisting with Authority: Historical Specificity, Agency and the Performative Self ’, Theory, Culture & Society 20(1): 1–17. Loveridge1, Ray (1997) ‘Social Science as Social Reconstruction: A Celebration of Discontinuity or a Test of the Resilience of Belief?’, Human Relations 50(8): 879–884. Lugones, María (1999) ‘Tenuous Connections in Impure Communities’, Ethics and the Environment 4(1): 85–90. Lugones, María (2003) Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes: Theorizing Coalition Against Multiple Oppressions, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lugones, María (2007) ‘Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Modern Gender System’, Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 22(1): 186–219. Lugones, María (2010) ‘Toward a Decolonial Feminism’, Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 25(4): 742–759.

406 References

Lugones, María and Joshua Price (2003) ‘The Inseparability of Race, Class, and Gender in Latino Studies’, Latino Studies 1(2): 329–332. Lukes, Steven (1991 [1983]) ‘Emancipation’, in Tom Bottomore (ed.) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Reference, pp. 172–173. Lummis, Charles Douglas (1972) A Critique of the Theory of Modernization, Berkeley: University of California. Lury, Celia (2004) Brands: The Logos of the Global Economy, London: Routledge. Lutz, Helma, Maria Teresa Herrera Vivar, and Linda Supik (eds.) (2011) Framing Intersectionality: Debates on a Multi-Faceted Concept in Gender Studies, Farnham: Ashgate. Luxemburg, Rosa (1913) Die Akkumulation des Kapitals. Ein Beitrag zur ökonomischen Erklärung des Imperialismus, Berlin: Buchhandlung Vorwärts Paul Singer. Lykke, Nina (2010) Feminist Studies: A Guide to Intersectional Theory, Methodology and Writing, London: Routledge. Lyle, Kate (2016) ‘Shaping the Future of Sociology: The Challenge of Interdisciplinarity beyond the Social Sciences’, Sociology 51(6): 1169–1185. Lyon, David (1994) The Electronic Eye. The Rise of Surveillance Society, Cambridge: Polity. Lyon, David (1999 [1994]) Postmodernity, 2nd Edition, Buckingham: Open University Press. Lyon, David (2001) Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life, Buckingham: Open University Press. Lyon, David (ed.) (2006) Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and beyond, Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Lyon, David (2018) The Culture of Surveillance: Watching as a Way of Life, Cambridge: Polity. Lyotard, Jean-François (1984 [1979]) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Brian Massumi, foreword by Fredric Jameson, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Maasen, Sabine and Peter Weingart (eds.) (2009 [2005]) Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, Dordrecht: Springer. MacDonald, Gayle Michelle, Rachael Osborne, and Charles C. Smith (eds.) (2005) Feminism, Law, Inclusion: Intersectionality in Action, Toronto: Sumach Press. MacMynowski, Dena P. (2007) ‘Pausing at the Brink of Interdisciplinarity: Power and Knowledge at the Meeting of Social and Biophysical Science’, Ecology and Society 12(1): 20. Maggio, Jay (2007) ‘“Can the Subaltern Be Heard?”: Political Theory, Translation, Representation, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’, Alternatives 32(4): 419–443. Magubane, Zine (2005) ‘Overlapping Territories and Intertwined Histories: Historical Sociology’s Global Imagination’, in Julia Adams, Elisabeth Stephanie Clemens, and Ann Shola Orloff (eds.) Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, and Sociology, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 92–108.

 References 

407

Magubane, Zine (2014) ‘Science, Reform, and the “Science of Reform”: Booker T Washington, Robert Park, and the Making of a “Science of Society”‘, Current Sociology 62(4): 568–583. Mahler, Anne Garland (2018) From the Tricontinental to the Global South: Race, Radicalism, and Transnational Solidarity, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Mahon, Peter (2017) Posthumanism: A Guide for the Perplexed, London: Bloomsbury Academic. Maldonado-Torres, Nelson (2004) ‘The Topology of Being and the Geopolitics of Knowledge: Modernity, Empire, Coloniality’, City 8(1): 29–56. Maldonado-Torres, Nelson (2007) ‘On the Coloniality of Being: Contributions to the Development of a Concept’, Cultural Studies 21(2–3): 240–270. Malešević, Siniša (2013) Nation-States and Nationalisms: Organization, Ideology and Solidarity, Cambridge: Polity. Malešević, Siniša (2017a) ‘Empires and Nation-States: Beyond the Dichotomy’, Thesis Eleven 139(1): 3–10. Malešević, Siniša (2017b) ‘The Foundations of Statehood: Empires and NationStates in the Longue Durée’, Thesis Eleven 139(1): 145–161. Mandalios, John (2000 [1996]) ‘Historical Sociology’, in Bryan S. Turner (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 2nd Edition, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 389–415. Manent, Pierre (1998 [1994]) The City of Man, with a foreword by Jean Bethke Elshtain, trans. Marc A. LePain, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Maniglier, Patrice (2002) Le vocabulaire de Lévi-Strauss, Paris: Ellipses. Mann, Michael (1986) The Sources of Social Power. Volume 1: A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mann, Michael (1993) The Sources of Social Power. Volume 2: The Rise of Classes and Nation States 1760–1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mann, Michael (1994 [1987]) ‘Ruling Class Strategies and Citizenship’, in Bryan S.  Turner and Peter Hamilton (eds.) Citizenship: Critical Concepts, Volume 1, London: Routledge, pp. 63–79. Mann, Michael (2005) Incoherent Empire, London: Verso. Mann, Michael (2012) The Sources of Social Power. Volume 3: Global Empires and Revolution, 1890–1945, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mann, Michael (2013) The Sources of Social Power. Volume 4: Globalizations, 1945–2011, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mannheim, Karl (1997 [1940/1935]) Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction: Studies in Modern Social Structure, trans. Edward A. Shils, London: Routledge. Mannheim, Karl (1997 [1952]) Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by Paul Kecskemeti, London: Routledge. Marginson, Simon and Mark Considine (2000) The Enterprise University: Power, Governance, and Reinvention in Australia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Margolis, Eric and Luc Pauwels (eds.) (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods, London: SAGE.

408 References

Marion, Jonathan S. and Jerome W.  Crowder (2013) Visual Research. A Concise Introduction to Thinking Visually, London: Bloomsbury. Marshall, Thomas Humphrey (1964a [1963]) Class, Citizenship, and Social Development, with an introduction by Seymour Martin Lipset, Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Marshall, Thomas Humphrey (1964b [1963]) ‘Citizenship and Social Class’, in Thomas Humphrey Marshall, Class, Citizenship, and Social Development, with an introduction by Seymour Martin Lipset, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, pp. 65–122. Marshall, Thomas Humphrey (1981) The Right to Welfare and Other Essays, With an introduction by Robert Pinker, London: Heinemann Educational. Marshall, Victor W. (2007) ‘Advancing the Sociology of Ageism’, Social Forces 86(1): 257–264. Martell, Luke (2010) The Sociology of Globalization, Cambridge: Polity. Martin, Peter J. and Alex Dennis (eds.) (2010) Human Agents and Social Structures, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Marx, Karl (1968 [1862]) ‘Chinese Affairs’, in Shlomo Avineri (ed.) Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization. His Despatches [sic] and Other Writings on China, India, Mexico, the Middle East and North Africa, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, pp. 418–420. Marx, Karl (1971 [1845]) ‘Thesen über Feuerbach’, in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, MEW—Ausgewählte Schriften in zwei Bänden, Volume II, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, pp. 370–372. Marx, Karl (2000/1977 [1845]) ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, in David McLellan (ed.) Karl Marx: Selected Writings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–174. Marx, Karl (2000/1977 [1857–1858/1941]) ‘Grundrisse’, in David McLellan (ed.) Karl Marx: Selected Writings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 379–423. Marx, Karl (2000/1977 [1859]) ‘Preface to A Critique of Political Economy’, in David McLellan (ed.) Karl Marx: Selected Writings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 424–428. Marx, Karl (2000/1977 [1867]) ‘Capital’, in David McLellan (ed.) Karl Marx: Selected Writings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 452–546. Marx, Karl (2010 [1973]) Surveys from Exile, edited and introduced by David Fernbach, preface by Tariq Ali, London: Verso. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (1942) Selected Correspondence, 1846–1895, New York, NY: International Publishers. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (1953 [1845–1847]) Die deutsche Ideologie, Berlin: Dietz. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (1987/1945 [1848]) Manifest der kommunistischen Partei, 54. Auflage, Berlin: Dietz Verlag.

 References 

409

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (2000/1977 [1846]) ‘The German Ideology’, in David McLellan (ed.) Karl Marx: Selected Writings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–208. Marxhausen, Thomas (1999) ‘Fetischcharakter der Ware’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) Historisch-kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 4), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 343–354. Mathews, R.C.O. (1991) ‘The Economics of Professional Ethics: Should the Professions Be More Like Business?’, Economic Journal 101: 737–750. Matthewman, Steve and Douglas Hoey (2006) ‘What Happened to Postmodernism?’, Sociology 40(3): 529–547. Matustik, Martin J. (1989) ‘Habermas on Communicative Reason and Performative Contradiction’, New German Critique 47: 143–172. Mayer-Ahuja, Nicole (2017) ‘Die Globalität unsicherer Arbeit als konzeptionelle Provokation. Zum Zusammenhang zwischen Informalität im “Globalen Süden” und Prekarität im “Globalen Norden”’, Arbeit und Kapitalismus 43(2): 264–296. Mayo, Marjorie (2005) Global Citizens: Social Movements and the Challenge of Globalization, London: Zed. Mazower, Mark (1998) Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century, London: Allen Lane. McCarthy, James and Scott Prudham (2004) ‘Neoliberal Nature and the Nature of Neoliberalism’, Geoforum 35(3): 275–283. McCarthy, Thomas (1973) ‘A Theory of Communicative Competence’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 3(2): 135–156. McCarthy, Thomas (1981) ‘Toward a Reconstruction of Historical Materialism’, in Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 232–271. McCarthy, Thomas (1991) Ideals and Illusions: On Reconstruction and Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Theory, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McClintock, Anne (1995) Imperial Leather: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Colonial Conquest, London: Routledge. Mcevoy, John G. (2007) ‘Modernism, Postmodernism and the Historiography of Science’, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 37(2): 383–408. McGettigan, Andrew (2013) The Great University Gamble: Money, Markets and the Future of Higher Education, London: Pluto Press. McGowan, John P. (1991) Postmodernism and Its Critics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. McGuigan, Jim (2006 [1999]) Modernity and Postmodern Culture, 2nd Edition, Maidenhead: Open University Press. McKenzie, Wark (2007) ‘Goodbye To All That’, in Pelagia Goulimari (ed.) Postmodernism. What Moment?, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 146–153. McKie, Linda and Louise Ryan (eds.) (2018) An End to the Crisis of Empirical Sociology? Trends and Challenges in Social Research, London: Routledge.

410 References

McLellan, David (1992) ‘The Enlightenment Project Revisited’, in Stuart Hall, David Held, and Anthony McGrew (eds.) Modernity and its Futures, Cambridge: Polity in association with the Open University, pp. 327–377. McLennan, Gregor (1981) Marxism and the Methodologies of History, London: NLB. McLennan, Gregor (2003) ‘Sociology, Eurocentrism and Postcolonial Theory’, European Journal of Social Theory 6(1): 69–86. McLennan, Gregor (2013) ‘Postcolonial Critique: The Necessity of Sociology’, in Julian Go (ed.) Postcolonial Sociology, Book Series: Political Power and Social Theory, Volume 24, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 119–144. McLennan, Gregor (2014) ‘Complicity, Complexity, Historicism: Problems of Postcolonial Sociology’, Postcolonial Studies 17(4): 451–464. McLennan, Gregor (2017) ‘Review Article: The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences by Simon Susen, Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015’, European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 4(1): 100–104. McMahon, Charlie (1999) ‘Marxism and Culture’, in Andrew Gamble, David Marsh, and Tony Tant (eds.) Marxism and Social Science, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 195–216. Mead, George Herbert (1925–1926) ‘The Nature of Aesthetic Experience’, The International Journal of Ethics XXXVI: 382–393. Mead, George Herbert (1967 [1934]) Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, edited and with an introduction by Charles W.  Morris, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Medvetz, Thomas (2018) ‘Bourdieu and the Sociology of Intellectual Life’, in Thomas Medvetz and Jeffrey J.  Sallaz (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Pierre Bourdieu, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 454–478. Meehan, Eugene John (1968) Explanation in Social Science. A System Paradigm, Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Meekosha, Helen (2011) ‘Decolonizing Disability: Thinking and Acting Globally’, Disability and Society 26(6): 667–681. Mele, Vincenzo (2017) ‘Book Review: With the Whetted Axe of Reason: Review of Simon Susen’s The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences’, Journal of Classical Sociology 17(1): 70–74. Memmi, Albert (2003 [1957]) The Colonizer and the Colonized, trans. Howard Greenfeld, 3rd Edition, London: Earthscan. Menard, Scott (ed.) (2008) Handbook of Longitudinal Research: Design, Measurement, and Analysis, Amsterdam: Academic Press. Mendelson, Jack (1979) ‘The Habermas-Gadamer Debate’, New German Critique 18: 44–73. Menzel, Ulrich (1992) Das Ende der Dritten Welt und das Scheitern der großen Theorie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Merton, Robert K. (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 References 

411

Merton, Robert K. (1973 [1945]) ‘Paradigm for the Sociology of Knowledge’, in Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mesny, Anne (1998) The Appropriation of Social Science Knowledge by ‘Lay People’: The Development of a Lay Sociological Imagination?, PhD Dissertation, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cambridge, UK, unpublished. Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez (1997) ‘World Society and the Nation-State’, American Journal of Sociology 103(1): 144–181. Meyersohn, Rolf Bernard (1969) Sociology and Cultural Studies: Some Problems, Birmingham: University of Birmingham (Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies). Michael, Mike (2017) ‘Enacting Big Futures, Little Futures: Toward an Ecology of Futures’, The Sociological Review 65(3): 509–524. Mignolo, Walter D. (2000) Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mignolo, Walter D. (2002) ‘The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference’, South Atlantic Quarterly 101(1): 57–96. Mignolo, Walter D. (2003 [1995]) The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, and Colonization, 2nd Edition, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Mignolo, Walter D. (2005) The Idea of Latin America, Oxford: Blackwell. Mignolo, Walter D. (2007a) ‘Introduction: Coloniality of Power and De-Colonial Thinking’, Cultural Studies 21(2–3): 155–167. Mignolo, Walter D. (2007b) ‘Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-Coloniality’, Cultural Studies 21(2–3): 449–514. Mignolo, Walter D. (2008 [2002]) ‘The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference’, in Mabel Moraña, Enrique D. Dussel, and Carlos A. Jáuregui (eds.) Coloniality at Large: Latin America and the Postcolonial Debate, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 225–258. Mignolo, Walter D. (2009) ‘Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom’, Theory, Culture & Society 26(7–8): 159–181. Mignolo, Walter D. (2011) The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options, Durham: Duke University Press. Mignolo, Walter D. (2014) ‘Spirit out of Bounds Returns to the East: The Closing of the Social Sciences and the Opening of Independent Thoughts’, Current Sociology 62(4): 584–602. Mignolo, Walter D. (Comp.), María Lugones, Isabel Jiménez-Lucena, and Madina V. Tlostanova (2008) Género y descolonialidad, Buenos Aires: Ediciones del Signo. Mignolo, Walter D. and Arturo Escobar (eds.) (2010) Globalization and the Decolonial Option, London: Routledge.

412 References

Miller, Andrew John (2003) ‘Pierre Bourdieu and the Perils of Allodoxia: Nationalism, Globalism and the Geopolitics of Intellectual Exchange’, Cultural Studies 17(3/4): 553–571. Miller, Gill (2013) ‘Education for Citizenship: Community Engagement between the Global South and the Global North’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education 37(1): 44–58. Milley, Peter (2002) ‘Imagining Good Organizations: Moral Orders or Moral Communities?’, Educational Management Administration and Leadership 30(1): 47–64. Mills, C. Wright (2000 [1959]) The Sociological Imagination, New Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Miraftab, Faranak and Neema Kudva (eds.) (2014) Cities of the Global South Reader, London: Routledge. Miranda González, María Fernanda (2016) ‘The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences de Simon Susen’, Metapolítica, Año 20, No. 94, Julio-Septiembre: 100–102. Mirza, Heidi Safia (2009) ‘Postcolonial Subjects, Black Feminism, and the Intersectionality of Race and Gender in Higher Education’, Counterpoints 369: 233–248. Mitchell, Claudia (2011) Doing Visual Research, London: SAGE. Mitchell, Gordon R. (2003) ‘Did Habermas Cede Nature to the Positivists?’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 36(1): 1–21. Mittelman, James H. (ed.) (1996) Globalization: Critical Reflections, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Modood, Tariq (2013 [2007]) Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity. Mollett, Sharlene (2017) ‘Irreconcilable Differences? A Postcolonial Intersectional Reading of Gender, Development and Human Rights in Latin America’, Gender, Place & Culture 24(1): 1–17. Mommsen, Wolfgang J. (1980 [1977]) Theories of Imperialism, trans. P.  S. Falla, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Mommsen, Wolfgang J. (1984 [1959]) Max Weber and German Politics, 1890–1920, trans. Michael S. Steinberg, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mommsen, Wolfgang J. (1995 [1990]) Imperial Germany, 1867–1918: Politics, Culture, and Society in an Authoritarian State, trans. Richard Deveson, London: Arnold. Mommsen, Wolfgang J. and Jürgen Osterhammel (eds.) (1986) Imperialism and After: Continuities and Discontinuities, London: Allen & Unwin. Monahan, Torin (ed.) (2006) Surveillance and Security: Technological Politics and Power in Everyday Life, London: Routledge. Monahan, Torin (2010) Surveillance in the Time of Insecurity, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Monahan, Torin and David Murakami Wood (eds.) (2018) Surveillance Studies. A Reader, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 References 

413

Montero, Maritza (2007) ‘The Political Psychology of Liberation: From Politics to Ethics and Back’, Political Psychology 28(5): 517–533. Moraña, Mabel, Enrique D. Dussel, and Carlos A. Jáuregui (eds.) (2008) Coloniality at Large: Latin America and the Postcolonial Debate, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Morawski, Stefan (1996) The Troubles with Postmodernism, London: Routledge. Morgan, Alastair (2017) ‘A Preponderance of Objects: Critical Theory and the Turn to the Object’, Adorno Studies 1(1): 13–30. Morgan, Marcus and Patrick Baert (2015) Conflict in the Academy. A Study in the Sociology of Intellectuals, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Morris, Aldon D. (2007) ‘Sociology of Race and W. E. B. DuBois: The Path Not Taken’, in Craig Calhoun (ed.) Sociology in America: A History, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 503–534. Morrison, Ken (2006 [1995]) Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought, 2nd Edition, London: SAGE. Morrison, Toni (1989) ‘Unspeakable Things Unspoken: The Afro-American Presence in American Literature’, Michigan Quarterly Review, Winter: 1–34. Mouffe, Chantal (ed.) (1992) Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community, London: Verso. Mouzelis, Nicos (1999) ‘Modernity: A Non-European Conceptualization’, The British Journal of Sociology 50(1): 141–159. Mouzelis, Nicos (2000) ‘The Subjectivist-Objectivist Divide: Against Transcendence’, Sociology 34(4): 741–762. Mouzelis, Nicos (2008) Modern and Postmodern Social Theorizing: Bridging the Divide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mudde, Cas and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser (eds.) (2012) Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat or Corrective for Democracy?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Müller-Doohm, Stefan (ed.) (2000) Das Interesse der Vernunft: Rückblicke auf das Werk von Jürgen Habermas seit “Erkenntnis und Interesse”, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Müller-Godeffroy, Heinrich (1981) Paradigmenvergleich in den Sozialwissenschaften. Vorstudien zur alternativen Fundierung der theoretischen Wirtschaftspolitik, Frankfurt am Main: Haag + Herchen. Münkler, Herfried (2007 [2005]) Empires: The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to the United States, trans. Patrick Camiller, Cambridge: Polity. Munslow, Alun (2016) ‘Book Review: The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences, by Simon Susen, Houndmills and New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015’, Rethinking History: 1–3. Murrey, Lucas (2011) ‘Heidegger at Sea: The Tragic Voyage to a Postmodern, Geocentric Name’, Discourse 33(1): 75–100. Myles, John F. (2004) ‘From Doxa to Experience: Issues in Bourdieu’s Adoption of Husserlian Phenomenology’, Theory, Culture & Society 21(2): 91–107.

414 References

Nash, Kate (ed.) (2014) Transnationalizing the Public Sphere, Cambridge: Polity. Naved, Shad (2007) ‘Note: Gayatri Spivak’s Critique of Marxist Value(s)’, Social Scientist 35(1/2): 76–88. Nayar, Pramod K. (2014) Posthumanism, Cambridge: Polity. Nederveen Pieterse, Jan (ed.) (1992a) Emancipations, Modern and Postmodern, London: SAGE. Nederveen Pieterse, Jan (1992b) ‘Emancipations, Modern and Postmodern’, in Jan Nederveen Pieterse (ed.) Emancipations, Modern and Postmodern, London: SAGE, pp. 5–41. Nederveen Pieterse, Jan (1995) ‘Globalization as Hybridization’, in Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson (eds.) Global Modernities, London: SAGE, pp. 45–68. Negroponte, Nicholas (1995) Being Digital, London: Hodder & Stoughton. Nemoianu, Virgil (2010) Postmodernism & Cultural Identities: Conflicts and Coexistence, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. Ngũgĩ, wa Thiong’o (1986) Writing Against Neocolonialism, Wembley: Vita Books. Nicholson, Linda J. (ed.) (1990) Feminism/Postmodernism, London: Routledge. Nickel, Patricia Mooney (2012) ‘Sociology and the Future: Aspiration1’, New Zealand Sociology 27(1): 70–74. Nicolae, Stefan (2019) ‘Sind wir je postmodern gewesen?’, Zyklos 5—Jahrbuch für Theorie und Geschichte der Soziologie: 463–472. Nkrumah, Kwame (1965) Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism, London: Nelson. Nohlen, Dieter (ed.) (2002 [1984]) Lexikon Dritte Welt: Länder, Organisationen, Theorien, Begriffe, Personen, 5th Edition, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Nolte, Ernst (1977) Marxismus, Faschismus, kalter Krieg: Vorträge und Aufsätze 1964–1976, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Nolte, Ernst (1987) Das Vergehen der Vergangenheit: Antwort an meine Kritiker im sogenannten Historikerstreit, Berlin: Ullstein. Noonan, Murray (2017) Marxist Theories of Imperialism. A History, London: I.B. Tauris. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge: Polity. Nuyen, A. T. (1998) ‘The Politics of Emancipation: From Self to Society’, Human Studies 21(1): 27–43. O’Donnell, Guillermo A. (2010a) Democracy, Agency, and the State: Theory with Comparative Intent, Oxford: Oxford University Press. O’Donnell, Mike (ed.) (2010b) Structure and Agency, London: SAGE. O’Hanlon, Rosalind and David Washbrook (2009) ‘After Orientalism: Culture, Criticism, and Politics in the Third World’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 34(1): 141–167.

 References 

415

O’Mahony, Patrick (2018) ‘The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences. Simon Susen. London and New  York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015’, Constellations 25(1): 173–175. O’Neill, John and Bryan S.  Turner (2001) ‘Introduction—The Fragmentation of Sociology’, Journal of Classical Sociology 1(1): 5–12. O’Neill, Jim (2001) ‘Building Better Global Economic BRICs’, Global Economics 66: 1–14. Odora Hoppers, Catherine A. (ed.) (2002) Indigenous Knowledge and the Integration of Knowledge Systems: Towards a Philosophy of Articulation, Claremont, South Africa: New Africa Books. Oliveira, Nuno (2018) ‘Simon Susen (2015), The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences’, Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas 86: 155–159. Oliver, Dawn and Derek Benjamin Heater (1994) The Foundations of Citizenship, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Oliver, Marvarene, Brande Flamez, and Christine McNichols (2011) ‘Postmodern Applications within Latino/a Cultures’, Journal of Professional Counseling, Practice, Theory, & Research 38(3): 33–48. Oliver, Mike (2013) ‘The Social Model of Disability: Thirty Years On’, Disability & Society 28(7): 1024–1026. Ollion, Étienne and Julien Boelaert (2015) ‘Au delà des big data. Les sciences sociales et la multiplication des données numériques’, Sociologie 6(3): 295–310. Olsson, Jan (2016) ‘Agency in New Institutionalism’, in Jan Olsson, Subversion in Institutional Change and Stability: A Neglected Mechanism, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 11–37. Orwell, George (1989 [1945]) Animal Farm. A Fairy Story, London: Penguin. Osamu, Nishitani (2002) ‘Repenser la « fin de l’Histoire »—La Modernité et l’Histoire’, in Henri Meschonnic and Shiguehiko Hasumi (eds.) La modernité après le post-moderne, Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose, pp. 147–155. Osbeck, Lisa and Nancy Nersessian (2010) ‘Forms of Positioning in Interdisciplinary Science Practice and their Epistemic Effects’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 40(2): 136–160. Osborne, Thomas (1998) Aspects of Enlightenment: Social Theory and the Ethics of Truth, London: UCL Press. Osborne, Thomas, Nikolas Rose, and Mike Savage (2008) ‘Editors’ Introduction Reinscribing British sociology: Some Critical Reflections’, The Sociological Review 56(4): 519–534. Osrecki, Fran (2011) Die Diagnosegesellschaft. Zeitdiagnostik zwischen Soziologie und medialer Popularität, Bielefeld: Transcript. Osrecki, Fran (2015) ‘Constructing Epochs: The Argumentative Structures of Sociological Epochalisms’, Cultural Sociology 9(2): 131–146. Oughton, Elizabeth and Louise Bracken (2009) ‘Interdisciplinary Research: Framing and Reframing’, Area 41(4): 385–394.

416 References

Outhwaite, William (1987a) New Philosophies of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical Theory, Basingstoke: Macmillan Education. Outhwaite, William (1987b) ‘Laws and Explanation in Sociology’, in R. J. Anderson, J. A. Hughes, and W. W. Sharrock (eds.) Classic Disputes in Sociology, London: Allen & Unwin Outhwaite, William (1990) ‘Agency and Structure’, in Jon Clark, Celia Modgil, and Sohan Modgil (eds.) Anthony Giddens: Consensus and Controversy, London: Falmer, pp. 63–72. Outhwaite, William (2000) ‘Rekonstruktion und methodologischer Dualismus’, in Stefan Müller-Doohm (ed.) Das Interesse der Vernunft: Rückblicke auf das Werk von Jürgen Habermas seit “Erkenntnis und Interesse”, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 218–241. Outhwaite, William (2006) The Future of Society, Oxford: Blackwell. Outhwaite, William (2009) ‘Canon Formation in Late 20th-Century British Sociology’, Sociology 43(6): 1029–1045. Outhwaite, William (2014a) ‘European Societies’, in Masamichi Sasaki, Jack Goldstone, Ekkart Zimmermann, and Stephen Sanderson (eds.) Concise Encyclopedia of Comparative Sociology, Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, pp. 524–539. Outhwaite, William (2014b) ‘Reconstructive Science and Methodological Dualism in the Work of Jürgen Habermas’, Philosophical Inquiry 38(1–2): 2–18. Outhwaite, William (2015) Social Theory: Ideas in Profile, London: Profile Books. Outhwaite, William (2016a) ‘Remarks on Simon Susen’s The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences’, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 29(4): 423–427. Outhwaite, William (2016b) ‘Reconstructive Science and the European Constitution: Habermas, Citizenship, and the Tension between Facts and Norms’, in Harry F.  Dahms and Eric R.  Lybeck (eds.) Reconstructing Social Theory, History and Practice, Book Series: Current Perspectives in Social Theory, Volume 35, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 211–222. Outhwaite, William (2017) ‘Generations of Critical Theory?’, Berlin Journal of Critical Theory 1(1): 5–27. Owen, David (ed.) (1997) Sociology after Postmodernism, London: SAGE. Parekh, Bhikhu C. (2008) A New Politics of Identity: Political Principles for an Interdependent World, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Parsons, Talcott (1949 [1937]) The Structure of Social Action, New York: Free Press. Parsons, Talcott (1964) ‘Evolutionary Universals in Society’, American Sociological Review 29(3): 339–357. Parsons, Talcott (1966) Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Parsons, Talcott (1971) The System of Modern Societies, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 References 

417

Parsons, Talcott (1977 [1966/1971]) The Evolution of Societies, edited and with an introduction by Jackson Toby, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Parsons, Talcott (1978) Action Theory and the Human Condition, New York: Free Press. Parsons, Talcott (1991 [1951]) The Social System, 2nd Edition, with a new preface by Bryan S. Turner, London: Routledge. Parsons, Talcott and Edward A. Shils (eds.) (1951) Toward a General Theory of Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Parusnikova, Zuzana (1992) ‘Is a Postmodern Philosophy of Science Possible?’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23(1): 21–37. Passavant, Paul A. and Jodi Dean (eds.) (2004) Empire’s New Clothes: Reading Hardt and Negri, London: Routledge. Passerin d’Entráeves, Maurizio (1996) Critique and Enlightenment, Michel Foucault on ‘Was ist Aufklärung?’, Manchester Papers in Politics, 1/96, Manchester: Department of Government, University of Manchester. Passerin d’Entrèves, Maurizio and Seyla Benhabib (eds.) (1996) Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity. Patel, Sujata (ed.) (2010) The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions, London: SAGE. Patel, Sujata (2014) ‘Afterword: Doing Global Sociology: Issues, Problems and Challenges’, Current Sociology 62(4): 603–613. Patterson, M. E. and D. R. Williams (1998) ‘Paradigms and Problems: The Practice of Social Science in Natural Resource Management’, Society & Natural Resources 11(3): 279–295. Patton, Paul (2004) ‘Postmodernism: Philosophical Aspects’, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: 11872–11877. Paulus, Andreas L. (2001) ‘International Law after Postmodernism: Towards Renewal or Decline of International Law?’, Leiden Journal of International Law 14(4): 727–755. Pauwels, Luc (2015) Reframing Visual Social Science: Towards a More Visual Sociology and Anthropology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pauwels, Teun (2014) Populism in Western Europe: Comparing Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, London: Routledge. Pawson, Ray (1989) A Measure for Measures. A Manifesto for Empirical Sociology, London: Routledge. Payne, Geoff, Malcolm Williams, and Suzanne Chamberlain (2004) ‘Methodological Pluralism in British Sociology’, Sociology 38(1): 153–163. Pearman, William (1992) ‘The Invisibility of Sociology: The State of Our Discipline’, Footnotes 20(2): 8. Pease, Bob (2002) ‘Rethinking Empowerment: A Postmodern Reappraisal for Emancipatory Practice’, British Journal of Social Work 32(2): 135–147. Pecourt, Juan (2007) ‘El intelectual y el campo cultural. Una variación sobre Bourdieu’, Revista Internacional de Sociología LXV(47): 23–43. Peillon, Michel (1990) The Concept of Interest in Social Theory, Lewiston: Mellen.

418 References

Pellizzoni, Luigi (2001) ‘The Myth of the Best Argument: Power, Deliberation and Reason’, The British Journal of Sociology 52(1): 59–86. Perdue, Peter C (2017) ‘Reflections on the Transnational and Comparative Imperial History of Asia: Its promises, Perils, and Prospects’, Thesis Eleven 139(1): 129–144. Persaud, Randolph B. and R. B. J. Walker (2015) ‘Introduction to “Special Issue: Race, De-coloniality and International Relations”‘, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 40(2): 83–84. Peterson, Christopher (2018) Monkey Trouble. The Scandal of Posthumanism, New York: Fordham University Press. Petersson, Gustav Jakob and Jonathan D. Breul (eds.) (2018) Cyber Society, Big Data, and Evaluation, Comparative Policy Evaluation, Volume 24, with a foreword by Caroline Heider, London: Routledge. Petrella, Riccardo (1996) ‘Globalization and Internationalization: The Dynamics of the Emerging World Order’, in Robert Boyer and Daniel Drache (eds.) States Against Markets: The Limits of Globalization, London: Routledge, pp. 62–83. Pettit, Philip (1997) Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillips, Anne (2007) Multiculturalism without Culture, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pickering, Andrew (1997) ‘Sociology of Knowledge and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge’, Social Epistemology 11(2): 187–192. Pieper, Marianne, Thomas Atzert, Serhat Karakayali, and Vassilis Tsianos (eds.) (2007) Empire und die biopolitische Wende. Die internationale Diskussion im Anschluss an Hardt und Negri, Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Piketty, Thomas (2013) Le capital au XXIe siècle, Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Pilsch, Andrew (2019) ‘Technosystem: The Social Life of Reason’, Contemporary Political Theory 18(2): 102–105. Pinker, Steven (2011) The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity, London: Penguin. Pinker, Steven (2015) ‘Response to the Book Review Symposium: Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature’, Sociology 49(4): NP3–NP8. Pinker, Steven (2018) Enlightenment Now: A Manifesto for Science, Reason, Humanism, and Progress, London: Penguin Books. Pogge, Thomas (ed.) (2001) Global Justice, Oxford: Blackwell. Poggi, Stefano (2009) ‘The Paradigms in Philosophy and History of Science’, HegelStudien 52 (Supplement): 231–240. Pohl, Christian and Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn (2008) ‘Methodological Challenges of Transdisciplinary Research’, Natures Sciences Sociétés 16(2): 111–121. Polan, Dana (1988) ‘Postmodernism and Cultural Analysis Today’, in E. Ann Kaplan (ed.) Postmodernism and its Discontents: Theories, Practices, London: Verso, pp. 45–58. Polanyi, Karl (2001 [1944]) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, 2nd Beacon Paperback Edition, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

 References 

419

Pomeranz, Kenneth (2000) The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Post, Robert (2008) ‘Introduction’, in Seyla Benhabib, Another Cosmopolitanism, edited and introduced by Robert Post, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–9. Power, Michael (1994) The Audit Explosion, London: Demos. Power, Michael (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Power, Michael (2000) ‘Habermas und das Problem der transzendentalen Argumentation. Eine Neubewertung’, in Stefan Müller-Doohm (ed.) Das Interesse der Vernunft: Rückblicke auf das Werk von Jürgen Habermas seit “Erkenntnis und Interesse”, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 242–273. Pradella, Lucia (2017) ‘Marx and the Global South: Connecting History and Value Theory’, Sociology 51(1): 146–161. Prazniak, Roxann and Arif Dirlik (eds.) (2000) Places and Politics in an Age of Globalization, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Preyer, Gerhard and Michael Sussman (eds.) (2015) Varieties of Multiple Modernities: New Research Design, Leiden: Brill. Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1969 [1851]) General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, trans. John Beverley Robinson, New York: Haskell House Publishers. Putnam, Robert D. (1995) ‘Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America’, Political Science and Politics 28: 664–683. Putnam, Robert D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster. Pyysiäinen, Jarkko, Darren Halpin, and Andrew Guilfoyle (2017) ‘Neoliberal Governance and ‘Responsibilization’ of Agents: Reassessing the Mechanisms of Responsibility-Shift in Neoliberal Discursive Environments’, Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 18(2): 215–235. Quicke, John (1999) ‘The Postmodern Turn: Problems and Possibilities’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 20(2): 281–284. Quijano, Aníbal (1971) Nacionalismo, neoimperialismo y militarismo en el Perú, Buenos Aires: Periferia. Quijano, Aníbal (1990) Modernidad, identidad y utopía en América Latina, Quito: Editorial El Conejo. Quijano, Aníbal (2007) ‘Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality’, Cultural Studies 21(2–3): 168–178. Quijano, Aníbal (2008 [2000]) ‘Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Social Classification’, in Mabel Moraña, Enrique D.  Dussel, and Carlos A.  Jáuregui (eds.) Coloniality at Large: Latin America and the Postcolonial Debate, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 181–224. Quijano, Aníbal (2010 [2007]) ‘Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality’, in Walter D. Mignolo and Arturo Escobar (eds.) Globalization and the Decolonial Option, London: Routledge, pp. 22–32.

420 References

Quijano, Aníbal (ed.) (2014) Des/colonialidad y bien vivir. Un nuevo debate en América Latina, Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma, Editorial Universitaria. Rabinow, Paul and Nikolas Rose (2006) ‘Biopower Today’, BioSocieties 1(2): 195–217. Rabotnikof, Nora (1998) ‘Público-Privado’, Debate Feminista Año 9, Vol. 18: 3–13. Racevskis, Karlis (1993) Postmodernism and the Search for Enlightenment, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Radcliffe, Sarah A. (2015) Dilemmas of Difference: Indigenous Women and the Limits of Postcolonial Development Policy, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Radder, Hans (1997) ‘Philosophy and History of Science: Beyond the Kuhnian Paradigm’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 28(4): 633–655. Rademacher, Claudia and Gerhard Schweppenhäuser (eds.) (1997) Postmoderne Kultur? Soziologische und Philosophische Perspektiven, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Ramazanoglu, Caroline (1997) ‘Review of Stefan Morawski’s The Troubles with Postmodernism (London: Routledge, 1996)’, Sociological Research Online 2(2): http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/2/ramazanoglu.html. Ramírez, Miguel D. (2014) ‘Is Capitalist Globalization Inevitable in the Marxian Paradigm?’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought 36(1): 83–95. Randeria, Shalini (1999) ‘Jenseits von Soziologie und soziokultureller Anthropologie. Zur Ortsbestimmung der nichtwestlichen Welt in einer zukünftigen Sozialtheorie’, Soziale Welt 50(4): 373–382. Randeria, Shalini (2002) ‘Entangled Histories of Uneven Modernities: Civil Society, Caste Solidarities and Legal Pluralism in Post-Colonial India’, in Yehuda Elkana, Ivan Krastev, Elísio Macamo, and Shalini Randeria (eds.) Unraveling Ties: From Social Cohesion to New Practices of Connectedness, Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, pp. 284–311. Rauche, Gerhard Albin (1970) Contemporary Philosophical Alternatives and the Crisis of Truth. A Critical Study of Positivism, Existentialism and Marxism, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Rawls, John (1999 [1971]) A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ray, Larry (1993) Rethinking Critical Theory: Emancipation in the Age of Global Social Movements, London: SAGE. Ray, Larry (1999) Theorizing Classical Sociology, Buckingham: Open University Press. Ray, Larry (2004) ‘Pragmatism and Critical Theory’, European Journal of Social Theory 7(3): 307–321. Ray, Larry (2013) ‘Book Review Symposium: Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity’, Sociology 47(6): 1224–1225. Reddock, Rhoda (2014) ‘Radical Caribbean Social Thought: Race, Class Identity and the Postcolonial Nation’, Current Sociology 62(4): 493–511. Redner, Harry (2013) Beyond Civilization: Society, Culture, and the Individual in the Age of Globalization, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Reed, Kate (2006) New Directions in Social Theory: Race, Gender and the Canon, London: SAGE.

 References 

421

Reed, Mark S. (2018 [2016]) The Research Impact Handbook, 2nd Edition, Huntly, Aberdeenshire: Fast Track Impact. Rees, Martin (2018) On the Future: Prospects for Humanity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rehmann, Jan (2004) ‘Ideologietheorie’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) HistorischKritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 6/I), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 717–760. Reid, Alan, Judith Gill, and Alan M. Sears (eds.) (2010) Globalization, the NationState and the Citizen: Dilemmas and Directions for Civics and Citizenship Education, London: Routledge. Reitz, Tilman (2004) ‘Ideologiekritik’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) HistorischKritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 6/I), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 689–717. Rengger, Nicholas J. (1995) Political Theory, Modernity and Postmodernity: Beyond Enlightenment and Critique, Oxford: Blackwell. Renwick, Chris (2012) British Sociology’s Lost Biological Roots: A History of Futures Past, Foreword by Steve Fuller, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Rescher, Nicholas (2006) Epistemetrics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Research Councils UK (2014) ‘Cross-Council Research’, available at: http://www. rcuk.ac.uk/research/xrcprogrammes/. Reuter, Julia and Paula-Irene Villa (eds.) (2010) Postkoloniale Soziologie. Empirische Befunde, theoretische Anschlüsse, politische Intervention, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. Riach, Graham (2017) Can the Subaltern Speak?, London: Macat / Routledge. Rice, James P. (2000) ‘In the Wake of Orientalism’, Comparative Literature Studies 37(2): 223–238. Richardson, Michael (1990) ‘Enough Said: Reflections on Orientalism’, Anthropology Today 6(4): 16–19. Ries, Al and Jack Trout (2001 [1981]) Positioning. The Battle for Your Mind, 20th Anniversary Edition, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Rigg, Jonathan (2007) An Everyday Geography of the Global South, London: Routledge. Ringer, Fritz (2000 [1990]) ‘The Intellectual Field, Intellectual History, and the Sociology of Knowledge’, in Derek Robbins (ed.) Pierre Bourdieu. Volume III, London: SAGE, pp. 66–86. Ritzer, George (1975a) Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Ritzer, George (1975b) ‘Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science’, The American Sociologist 10(3): 156–167. Ritzer, George (1980 [1975]) Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science, Revised ed. Edition, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Ritzer, George (1981) Toward an Integrated Sociological Paradigm: The Search for an Exemplar and an Image of the Subject Matter, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Ritzer, George (2013 [1993]) The McDonaldization of Society, 20th Anniversary Edition, 7th Edition, London: SAGE.

422 References

Ritzer, George (2019) ‘Technosystem: The Social Life of Reason’, Contemporary Sociology 48(1): 55–57. Ritzer, George and Douglas J. Goodman (2008 [1992]) Classical Sociological Theory, 5th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Ritzer, George and Jeffrey N.  Stepnisky (2018 [2003]) Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics, 5th Edition, London: SAGE. Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia (2010) Ch’ixinakax utxiwa. Una reflexión sobre prácticas y discursos descolonizadores, Buenos Aires: Tinta Limón. Robbins, Derek (2005) ‘The Origins, Early Development and Status of Bourdieu’s Concept of “Cultural Capital”‘, The British Journal of Sociology 56(1): 13–30. Roberts, David D. (2017) ‘Postmodernism, Social Science, and History: Returning to an Unfinished Agenda. Review Article: The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences. By Simon Susen. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015’, History and Theory 56(1): 114–126. Robertson, David and Aynsley Kellow (eds.) (2001) Globalization and the Environment: Risk Assessment and the WTO, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Robertson, Roland (1995) ‘Glocalization: Time–Space and Homogeneity– Heterogeneity’, in Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson (eds.) Global Modernities, London: SAGE, pp. 25–44. Robertson, Roland and Bryan S. Turner (1989) ‘Talcott Parsons and Modern Social Theory—An Appreciation’, Theory, Culture & Society 6(4): 539–558. Robertson, Roland and Bryan S.  Turner (eds.) (1991) Talcott Parsons: Theorist of Modernity, London: SAGE. Rocher, Guy (1974 [1972]) Talcott Parsons and American Sociology, translated by Barbara and Stephen Mennell, London: Nelson. Rochlitz, Rainer (1996) ‘Fonction généalogique et force justificative de l’argumentation’, in Christian Bouchindhomme and Rainer Rochlitz (eds.) Habermas, la raison, la critique, Paris: Cerf, pp. 187–214. Rojek, Chris and Bryan S. Turner (2000) ‘Decorative Sociology: Towards a Critique of the Cultural Turn’, The Sociological Review 48(4): 629–648. Roniger, Luis and Carlos H.  Waisman (eds.) (2002) Globality and Multiple Modernities: Comparative North American and Latin American Perspectives, Brighton: Sussex Academic Press. Rosa, Hartmut (2010) Alienation and Acceleration: Towards a Critical Theory of LateModern Temporality, Malmö: NSU Press. Rosati, Massimo and Kristina Stoeckl (eds.) (2012) Multiple Modernities and Postsecular Societies, London: Routledge. Rose, Gillian (2016 [2001]) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials, 4th Edition, London: SAGE. Rose, Hilary (2013) ‘Book Review Symposium: Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity’, Sociology 47(6): 1227–1229. Rose, Margaret A. (1991) The Post-Modern and the Post-Industrial: A Critical Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 References 

423

Rosenberg, M. Michael (2016) ‘The Conceptual Articulation of the Reality of Life: Max Weber’s Theoretical Constitution of Sociological Ideal Types’, Journal of Classical Sociology 16(1): 84–101. Rosenfeld, Richard (2010) ‘Sociology: A View from the Diaspora’, The British Journal of Sociology 61(4): 666–670. Roudometof, Victor (1997) ‘Unthinking Social Science: The Limits of NineteenthCentury Paradigms’, Sociological Forum 12(4): 661–670. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1996 [1762]) ‘On the Social Contract’, in David Wootton (ed.) Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, pp. 464–534. Rovisco, Maria and Magdalena Nowicka (eds.) (2011) The Ashgate Research Companion to Cosmopolitanism, Farnham: Ashgate. Roy, Ravi K., Arthur Denzau, and Thomas D. Willett (eds.) (2007) Neoliberalism: National and Regional Experiments with Global Ideas, London: Routledge. Rubinstein, David (2001) Culture, Structure & Agency: Toward a Truly Multidimensional Society, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Rubio, Fernando Domínguez and Patrick Baert (eds.) (2012) The Politics of Knowledge, London: Routledge. Ruby, Christian (1990) Le champ de bataille post-moderne, néo-moderne, Paris: L’Harmattan. Ruedy, John (2005 [1992]) Modern Algeria: The Origins and Development of a Nation, 2nd Edition, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Rumford, Chris (2008) Cosmopolitan Spaces: Europe, Globalization, Theory, New York: Routledge. Runciman, W.  G. (1969 [1963]) Social Science and Political Theory, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Runciman, W. G. (1983) A Treatise on Social Theory. Volume 1: The Methodology of Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Runciman, W.  G. (1989) A Treatise on Social Theory. Volume 2: Substantive Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Runciman, W. G. (1997) A Treatise on Social Theory. Volume 3: Applied Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Runciman, W.  G. (2009) The Theory of Cultural and Social Selection, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Runnel, Pille, Pille Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, Piret Viires, and Marin Laak (eds.) (2013) The Digital Turn: User’s Practices and Cultural Transformations, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Ruppert, Evelyn (2018) ‘Big Data Economies and Ecologies’, in Linda McKie and Louise Ryan (eds.) An End to the Crisis of Empirical Sociology? Trends and Challenges in Social Research, London: Routledge, pp. 13–28. Rush, Michael (2017) ‘Book Review: Simon Susen, The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences’, International Sociology 32(2): 204–207.

424 References

Saad-Filho, Alfredo and Deborah Johnston (eds.) (2004) Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader, London: Pluto. Sachsenmaier, Dominic, Jens Riedel, and Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt (eds.) (2002) Reflections on Multiple Modernities: European, Chinese, and Other Interpretations, Leiden: Brill. Said, Edward W. (1978) Orientalism, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Said, Edward W. (1979) The Question of Palestine, New York: Times Books. Said, Edward W. (1981) Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World, London: Rougledge & Kegan Paul. Said, Edward W. (1982) ‘Opponents, Audiences, Constituencies, and Community’, Critical Inquiry 9(1): 1–26. Said, Edward W. (1983) The World, the Text, and the Critic, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Said, Edward W. (1989) ‘Representing the Colonized: Anthropology’s Interlocutors’, Critical Inquiry 15(2): 205–225. Said, Edward W. (1993) Culture and Imperialism, New York, NY: Knopf. Said, Edward W. (1994) Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures, London: Vintage. Said, Edward W. (2000) Reflections on Exile and Other Essays, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Said, Edward W. and Gauri Viswanathan (2001) Power, Politics, and Culture: Interviews with Edward W.  Said, edited and with an introduction by Gauri Viswanathan, New York: Pantheon Books. Saiedi, Nader (1993) The Birth of Social Theory: Social Thought in the Enlightenment and Romanticism, Lanham: University Press of America. Saint-Arnaud, Pierre (2009 [2003]) African American Pioneers of Sociology: A Critical History, trans. Peter Feldstein, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Sakellaropoulos, Spyros (2009) ‘The Issue of Globalization through the Theory of Imperialism and the Periodization of Modes of Production’, Critical Sociology 35(1): 57–78. Salinas, Francisco J. (2016) ‘¿Es posible ordenar la postmodernidad? Apuntes sobre The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences de Simon Susen’, Cuadernos de Teoría Social Año 3, No 3: 66–77. Salvatore, Armando (1996) ‘Beyond Orientalism? Max Weber and the Displacements of “Essentialism” in the Study of Islam’, Arabica 43(3): 457–485. Sandywell, Barry (1996) Reflexivity and the Crisis of Western Reason. Logological Investigations—Volume 1, London: Routledge. Santoro, Marco (2011) ‘From Bourdieu to Cultural Sociology’, Cultural Sociology 5(1): 3–23. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (2004) ‘A Critique of Lazy Reason: Against the Waste of Experience’, in Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (ed.) The Modern World-System in the Longue Durée, Boulder, CO: Paradigm, pp. 157–197.

 References 

425

Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (ed.) (2006) Another Production Is Possible: Beyond the Capitalist Canon, London: Verso. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (ed.) (2007a) Another Knowledge Is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies, London: Verso. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (2007b) ‘Preface’, in Boaventura de Sousa Santos (ed.) Another Knowledge Is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies, London: Verso, pp. vii–xvii. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (2010) ‘From the Postmodern to the Postcolonial—and beyond Both’, in Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Manuela Boatcă, and Sérgio Costa (eds.) Decolonizing European Sociology: Transdisciplinary Approaches, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 225–242. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (2014) Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide, Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa, Roger Dale, and Susan Robertson (2004) ‘Interview with Boaventura de Sousa Santos’, Globalisation, Societies and Education 2(2): 147–160. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa, João Arriscado Nunes, and Maria Paula Meneses (2007) ‘Introduction: Opening up the Canon of Knowledge and Recognition of Difference’, in Boaventura de Sousa Santos (ed.) Another Knowledge Is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies, London: Verso, pp. xvix–lxii. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa and César A. Rodríguez-Garavito (2005) ‘Law, Politics, and the Subaltern in Counter-Hegemonic Globalization’, in Boaventura de Sousa Santos and César A. Rodríguez-Garavito (eds.) Law and Globalization from Below: Towards a Cosmopolitan Legality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–26. Sartre, Jean-Paul (2001 [1964]) Colonialism and Neocolonialism, trans. Steve Brewer, Azzedine Haddour, and Terry McWilliams, London: Routledge. Sarup, Madan (1996) Identity, Culture and the Postmodern World, edited by Tasneem Raja, with a foreword by Peter Brooker, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Sassen, Saskia (2004) ‘Local Actors in Global Politics’, Current Sociology 52(4): 649–670. Savage, Mike (2009) ‘Against Epochalism: An Analysis of Conceptions of Change in British Sociology’, Cultural Sociology 3(2): 217–238. Savage, Mike (2010) ‘Unpicking Sociology’s Misfortunes’, The British Journal of Sociology 61(4): 659–665. Savage, Mike (2018) ‘From the “Coming Crisis” to the “Green Shoots of Recovery”‘, in Linda McKie and Louise Ryan (eds.) An End to the Crisis of Empirical Sociology? Trends and Challenges in Social Research, London: Routledge, pp. 187–195. Savage, Mike, James Barlow, Peter Dickens, and Tony Fielding (1992) Property, Bureaucracy, and Culture: Middle-Class Formation in Contemporary Britain, London: Routledge. Savage, Mike and Roger Burrows (2007) ‘The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology’, Sociology 41(5): 885–899.

426 References

Savage, Mike and Roger Burrows (2009) ‘Some Further Reflections on the Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology’, Sociology 43(4): 762–772. Savransky, Martin (2017) ‘A Decolonial Imagination: Sociology, Anthropology and the Politics of Reality’, Sociology 51(1): 11–26. Sayer, Derek (1991) Capitalism and Modernity: An Excursus on Marx and Weber, London: Routledge. Scammell, Geoffrey Vaughn (1981) The World Encompassed: The First European Maritime Empires c.800–1650, London: Methuen. Schlembach, Christopher (2018) ‘Sozialwissenschaft nach der Postmoderne? Simon Susens Bilanz über den »Postmodern Turn«‘, Zyklos 4—Jahrbuch für Theorie und Geschichte der Soziologie: 535–541. Schmidt, Volker H. (2006) ‘Multiple Modernities or Varieties of Modernity?’, Current Sociology 54(1): 77–97. Schneider, Christopher J. (2004) ‘Integrating Critical Race Theory and Postmodernism Implications of Race, Class, and Gender’, Critical Criminology 12(1): 87–103. Schnell, Martin W. and Charlotte Heinritz (2006) Forschungsethik: Ein Grundlagenund Arbeitsbuch mit Beispielen aus der Gesundheits- und Pflegewissenschaft, Bern: Verlag Hans Huber. Schram, S.  F. (2004) ‘Beyond Paradigm: Resisting the Assimilation of Phronetic Social Science’, Politics & Society 32(3): 417–433. Schubert, J.  Daniel (2002) ‘Defending Multiculturalism: From Hegemony to Symbolic Violence?’, American Behavioral Scientist 45(7): 1099–1102. Schuetze, Hans Georg, William A.  Bruneau, and Garnet Grosjean (eds.) (2012) University Governance and Reform: Policy, Fads, and Experience in International Perspective, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Schulz, Markus S. (2015) ‘Future Moves: Forward-Oriented Studies of Culture, Society, and Technology’, Current Sociology 63(2): 129–139. Schweppenhäuser, Gerhard (1997) ‘Paradoxien des Multikulturalismus’, in Claudia Rademacher and Gerhard Schweppenhäuser (eds.) Postmoderne Kultur? Soziologische und Philosophische Perspektiven, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 181–195. Schweppenhäuser, Gerhard, Dietrich zu Klampen, and Rolf Johannes (eds.) (1987) Krise und Kritik. Zur Aktualität der Marschen Theorie, Lüneburg: zu Klampen. Schweppenhäuser, Gerhard, Rolf Johannes, and Dietrich zu Klampen (eds.) (1989) Krise und Kritik. Zur Aktualität der Marschen Theorie II., Lüneburg: zu Klampen. Scott, John (2018) British Social Theory: Recovering Lost Traditions before 1950, London: SAGE. Seale, Clive (2012 [1998]) ‘Generating Grounded Theory’, in Clive Seale (ed.) Researching Society and Culture, 3rd Edition, London: SAGE, pp. 393–404. Seers, Dudley (1981a) Development of Options: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Dependency Theories in Explaining a Government’s Room to Manoeuvre, Brighton: IDS Publications, Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex.

 References 

427

Seers, Dudley (ed.) (1981b) Dependency Theory: A Critical Reassessment, London: Frances Pinter. Seidman, Steven (ed.) (1994a) The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seidman, Steven (1994b) ‘Introduction’, in Steven Seidman (ed.) The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–23. Seidman, Steven (1994c) ‘The End of Sociological Theory’, in Steven Seidman (ed.) The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–139. Seidman, Steven (1996) ‘Empire and Knowledge: More Troubles, New Opportunities for Sociology’, Contemporary Sociology 25(3): 313–316. Seidman, Steven (2013) ‘The Colonial Unconscious of Classical Sociology’, in Julian Go (ed.) Postcolonial Sociology, Book Series: Political Power and Social Theory, Volume 24, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 35–54. Seizov, Ognyan and Janina Wildfeuer (eds.) (2017) New Studies in Multimodality: Conceptual and Methodological Elaborations, London: Bloomsbury Academic. Semmel, Bernard (1993) The Liberal Ideal and the Demons of Empire: Theories of Imperialism from Adam Smith to Lenin, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Senghaas, Dieter (ed.) (1974) Peripherer Kapitalismus. Analysen über Abhängigkeit und Unterentwicklung, Frankfurt am Main. Sennett, Richard (1998) The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism, New York: Norton. Sewell, William H., Jr. (1992) ‘A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation’, American Journal of Sociology 98(1): 1–29. Sewell, William H., Jr. (1999) ‘The Concept(s) of Culture’, in Victoria E. Bonnell, Lynn Hunt, and Richard Biernacki (eds.) Beyond the Cultural Turn: New Directions in the Study of Society and Culture, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 35–61. Shafer, Byron E. (ed.) (1991) Is America Different? A New Look at American Exceptionalism, Oxford: Clarendon. Shamir, Ronen (2008) ‘The Age of Responsibilization: On Market-Embedded Morality’, Economy and Society 37(1): 1–19. Shaver, Kelly G. (1985) The Attribution of Blame: Causality, Responsibility, and Blameworthiness, New York: Springer-Verlag. Shaw, Martin (1998) ‘The Historical Sociology of the Future’, Review of International Political Economy 5(2): 321–326. Shilling, Chris (1992) ‘Reconceptualising Structure and Agency in the Sociology of Education: Structuration Theory and Schooling’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 13(1): 69–87. Shinn, Terry (2002) ‘The Triple Helix and New Production of Knowledge: Prepackaged Thinking on Science and Technology’, Social Studies of Science 32(4): 599–614.

428 References

Shohat, Ella and Robert Stam (1994) Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media, London: Routledge. Siisiäinen, Martti (2000) ‘Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam’, Paper presented at ISTR Fourth International Conference, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, July 5–8, 26 pages. Silva, Filipe Carreira da (2007a) ‘G. H. Mead: A System in a State of Flux’, History of the Human Sciences 20(1): 45–65. Silva, Filipe Carreira da (2007b) G. H. Mead: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge: Polity. Silva, Filipe Carreira da and Mónica Brito Vieira (2019) ‘Populism as a Logic of Political Action’, European Journal of Social Theory 22(4): 497–512. Silverblatt, Irene (2004) Modern Inquisitions: Peru and the Colonial Origins of the Civilized World, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Silverman, Hugh J. (ed.) (2000) Philosophy and Desire, New York: Routledge. Sim, Stuart (2002) Irony and Crisis: A Critical History of Postmodern Culture, Cambridge: Icon. Simmel, Georg (1997 [1903]) ‘The Sociology of Space’, in David Frisby and Mike Featherstone (eds.) Simmel on Culture: Selected Writings, trans. Mark Ritter and David Frisby, London: SAGE, pp. 137–170. Simonds, A.  P. (1978) Karl Mannheim’s Sociology of Knowledge, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Simons, Herbert W. and Michael Billig (eds.) (1994) After Postmodernism: Reconstructing Ideology Critique, London: SAGE. Singer, Judith D. and John B.  Willett (2003) Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Singh, Jakeet (2019) ‘Decolonizing Radical Democracy’, Contemporary Political Theory 18(3): 331–356. Singh, Raghwendra Pratap (1997) Philosophy Modern and Postmodern, New Delhi: Intellectual Publishing House. Sinha, Vineeta (2003) ‘Decentring Social Sciences in Practice through Individual Acts and Choices’, Current Sociology 51(1): 7–26. Sinhababu, Neil (2017) Humean Nature: How Desire Explains Action, Thought, and Feeling, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sklair, Leslie (1995 [1991]) Sociology of the Global System, 2nd Edition, London: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf. Skocpol, Theda (1979) States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skrbiš, Zlatko and Ian Woodward (2013) Cosmopolitanism: Uses of the Idea, London: SAGE. Slater, David (1992) ‘Theories of Development and Politics of the Post-modern— Exploring a Border Zone’, in Jan Nederveen Pieterse (ed.) Emancipations, Modern and Postmodern, London: SAGE, pp. 283–319. Slaughter, Sheila and Larry L.  Leslie (1997) Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 References 

429

Slaughter, Sheila and Gary Rhoades (2000) ‘The Neo-Liberal University’, New Labor Forum(6): 73–79. Slaughter, Sheila and Gary Rhoades (2004) Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sloterdijk, Peter (2013 [2005]) In the World Interior of Capital: For a Philosophical Theory of Globalization, trans. Wieland Hoban, Cambridge: Polity. Slott, Michael (2002) ‘Does Critical Postmodernism Help us “Name the System”?’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 23(3): 413–425. Smart, Barry (1993) Postmodernity, London: Routledge. Smart, Barry (1996) ‘Postmodern Social Theory’, in Bryan S.  Turner (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 447–480. Smart, Barry (2016) ‘Military-Industrial Complexities, University Research and Neoliberal Economy’, Journal of Sociology 52(3): 455–481. Smith-Doerr, Laurel, Jennifer L.  Croissant, Itai Vardi, and Timothy Sacco (2017) ‘Epistemic Cultures of Collaboration: Coherence and Ambiguity in Interdisciplinarity’, in Scott Frickel, Mathieu Albert, and Barbara Prainsack (eds.) Investigating Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Theory and Practice across Disciplines, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 65–83. Smith, Adam T. (2001) ‘The Limitations of Doxa: Agency and Subjectivity from an Archeological Point of View’, Journal of Social Archeology 1(2): 155–171. Smith, Adrian, Alison Stenning, and Katie Willis (eds.) (2008) Social Justice and Neoliberalism: Global Perspectives, London: Zed. Smith, Kenneth (2017) ‘Book Review: Simon Susen, The “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences’, Irish Journal of Sociology 25(2): 214–219. Smith, Linda Tuhiwai (2012 [1999]) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, 2nd Edition, London: Zed Books. Smith Maguire, Jennifer and Julian Matthews (eds.) (2014) The Cultural Intermediaries Reader, London: SAGE. Smith, Woodruff D. (1978) The German Colonial Empire, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Smyth, John (2017) The Toxic University. Zombie Leadership, Academic Rock Stars and Neoliberal Ideology, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. So, Alvin Y. (1990) Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency, and World-Systems Theory, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Soboul, Albert (1974 [1962]) The French Revolution, 1787–1799. From the Storming of the Bastille to Napoleon, trans. Alan Forrest and Colin Jones, London: NLB. Soederberg, Susanne, Georg Menz, and Philip G. Cerny (eds.) (2005) Internalizing Globalization: The Rise of Neoliberalism and the Decline of National Varieties of Capitalism, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Soeffner, Hans-Georg (2012) ‘Die Zukunft der Soziologie’, in Hans-Georg Soeffner (ed.) Transnationale Vergesellschaftungen, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 47–58.

430 References

Soja, Edward W. (1996) Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-AndImagined Places, Oxford: Blackwell. Solomon, Jack (1998) ‘Our Decentered Culture: The Postmodern Worldview’, in Arthur Asa Berger (ed.) The Postmodern Presence: Readings on Postmodernism in American Culture and Society, Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, pp. 35–50. Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoglu (1994) Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sparkes, Andrew C. (2007) ‘Embodiment, Academics, and the Audit Culture: A Story Seeking Consideration’, Qualitative Research 7(4): 521–550. Spencer, Herbert (1961 [1873]) The Study of Sociology, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Spencer, Stephen (2011) Visual Research Methods in the Social Sciences: Awakening Visions, London: Routledge. Spiegel, Gabrielle M. (2007) ‘Revising the Past / Revisiting the Present: How Change Happens in Historiography’, History and Theory 46(4): 1–19. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1987) In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics, New York: Methuen. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988) ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (eds.) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Basingstoke: Macmillan Education, pp. 271–313. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1990) The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues, edited by Sarah Harasym, London: Routledge. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1999) A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (2008) Other Asias, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Spruill, Charles R. (1983) Power Paradigms in the Social Sciences, Lanham: University Press of America. Staeheli, Lynn A. (2008) ‘Citizenship and the Problem of Community’, Political Geography 27(1): 5–21. Stanfield II, John H. (2010) ‘Du Bois on Citizenship: Revising the “Du Bois as Sociologist” Canon’, Journal of Classical Sociology 10(3): 171–188. Steinberger, Peter J. (1999) ‘Public and Private’, Political Studies 47(2): 292–313. Steinmetz, George (2002) ‘Precoloniality and Colonial Subjectivity: Ethnographic Discourse and Native Policy in German Overseas Imperialism, 1780s–1914’, in Diane E.  Davis (ed.) Political Power and Social Theory, Volume 15, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 135–228. Steinmetz, George (ed.) (2005a) The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and its Epistemological Others, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Steinmetz, George (2005b) ‘Return to Empire: The New US Imperialism in Comparative Historical Perspective’, Sociological Theory 23(4): 339–367. Steinmetz, George (2007a) The Devil’s Handwriting: Precoloniality and the German Colonial State in Qingdao, Samoa, and Southwest Africa, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 References 

431

Steinmetz, George (2007b) ‘The Historical Sociology of Historical Sociology: Germany and the United States in the Twentieth Century’, Sociologica 3: http:// www.sociologica.mulino.it/doi/10.2383/25961. Steinmetz, George (2009) ‘Neo-Bourdieusian Theory and the Question of Scientific Autonomy: German Sociologists and Empire, 1890s–1940s’, in Diane E. Davis and Julian Go (eds.) Political Power and Social Theory, Volume 20, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 71–132. Steinmetz, George (ed.) (2013) Sociology & Empire. The Imperial Entanglements of a Discipline, Durham: Duke University Press. Steinmetz, George (2017) ‘Empire in Three Keys: Forging the Imperial Imaginary at the 1896 Berlin Trade Exhibition’, Thesis Eleven 139(1): 46–68. Stengel, Oliver and Susanne Bellin (2001) Max Weber und die Globalisierung der okzidentalen Rationalität, München: GRIN Verlag. Stewart, Gordon T. (1997) ‘Reply’, Past and Present 157(1): 178–190. Stoler, Ann Laura (1995) Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Stopher, Peter R. (2012) Collecting, Managing, and Assessing Data Using Sample Surveys, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strathern, Marilyn (ed.) (2000) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics, and the Academy, London: Routledge. Streeck, Wolfgang (2011) ‘The Crises of Democratic Capitalism’, New Left Review 71: 5–29. Sujatha, B. (ed.) (2006) BRIC Economies: Opportunities and Challenges (Brazil, Russia, India and China), Hyderabad, India: ICFAI University Press. Susen, Simon (2007) The Foundations of the Social: Between Critical Theory and Reflexive Sociology, Oxford: Bardwell Press. Susen, Simon (2008a) ‘Poder y anti-poder (I–III)’, Erasmus: Revista para el diálogo intercultural 10(1): 49–90. Susen, Simon (2008b) ‘Poder y anti-poder (IV–V)’, Erasmus: Revista para el diálogo intercultural 10(2): 133–180. Susen, Simon (2009a) ‘Between Emancipation and Domination: Habermasian Reflections on the Empowerment and Disempowerment of the Human Subject’, Pli: The Warwick Journal of Philosophy 20: 80–110. Susen, Simon (2009b) ‘The Philosophical Significance of Binary Categories in Habermas’s Discourse Ethics’, Sociological Analysis 3(2): 97–125. Susen, Simon (2010a) ‘Los movimientos sociales en las sociedades complejas’, in Celia Basconzuelo, Teresita Morel, and Simon Susen (eds.) Ciudadanía territorial y movimientos sociales. Historia y nuevas problemáticas en el escenario latinoamericano y mundial, Río Cuarto: Ediciones del ICALA, pp. 149–226. Susen, Simon (2010b) ‘The Transformation of Citizenship in Complex Societies’, Journal of Classical Sociology 10(3): 259–285. Susen, Simon (2010c) ‘Remarks on the Concept of Critique in Habermasian Thought’, Journal of Global Ethics 6(2): 103–126.

432 References

Susen, Simon (2010d) ‘Meadian Reflections on the Existential Ambivalence of Human Selfhood’, Studies in Social and Political Thought 17: 62–81. Susen, Simon (2011a) ‘Kritische Gesellschaftstheorie or kritische Gesellschaftspraxis? Robin Celikates, Kritik als soziale Praxis. Gesellschaftliche Selbstverständigung und kritische Theorie (Frankfurt am Main, Campus Verlag, 2009)’, Archives Européennes de Sociologie / European Journal of Sociology 52(3): 447–463. Susen, Simon (2011b) ‘Bourdieu and Adorno on the Transformation of Culture in Modern Society: Towards a Critical Theory of Cultural Production’, in Simon Susen and Bryan S.  Turner (eds.) The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays, London: Anthem Press, pp. 173–202. Susen, Simon (2011c) ‘Afterword: Concluding Reflections on the Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu’, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays, London: Anthem Press, pp. 367–409. Susen, Simon (2011d) ‘Critical Notes on Habermas’s Theory of the Public Sphere’, Sociological Analysis 5(1): 37–62. Susen, Simon (2011e) ‘Epistemological Tensions in Bourdieu’s Conception of Social Science’, Theory of Science 33(1): 43–82. Susen, Simon (2012a) ‘“Open Marxism” against and beyond the “Great Enclosure”? Reflections on How (Not) to Crack Capitalism’, Journal of Classical Sociology 12(2): 281–331. Susen, Simon (2012b) ‘Une sociologie pragmatique de la critique est-elle possible? Quelques réflexions sur De la critique de Luc Boltanski’, Revue Philosophique de Louvain 110(4): 685–728. Susen, Simon (ed.) (2013a) Special Issue: ‘Bourdieu and Language’, Social Epistemology 27(3–4): 195–393. Susen, Simon (2013b) ‘Comments on Patrick Baert and Filipe Carreira da Silva’s Social Theory in the Twentieth Century and Beyond—Towards a “HermeneuticsInspired Pragmatism”?’, Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 14(1): 80–101. Susen, Simon (2013c) ‘The Place of Space in Social and Cultural Theory’, in Anthony Elliott (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Social and Cultural Theory, London: Routledge, pp. 333–357. Susen, Simon (2013d) ‘Introduction: Bourdieu and Language’, Social Epistemology 27(3–4): 195–198. Susen, Simon (2013e) ‘Bourdieusian Reflections on Language: Unavoidable Conditions of the Real Speech Situation’, Social Epistemology 27(3–4): 199–246. Susen, Simon (2013f ) ‘A Reply to My Critics: The Critical Spirit of Bourdieusian Language’, Social Epistemology 27(3–4): 323–393. Susen, Simon (2014a) ‘15 Theses on Power’, Philosophy and Society 25(3): 7–28. Susen, Simon (2014b) ‘The Place of Space in Social and Cultural Theory’, in Anthony Elliott (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Social and Cultural Theory, London: Routledge, pp. 333–357.

 References 

433

Susen, Simon (2014c) ‘Luc Boltanski: His Life and Work—An Overview’, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘Pragmatic Sociology of Critique’, London: Anthem Press, pp. 3–28. Susen, Simon (2014d) ‘Luc Boltanski and His Critics: An Afterword’, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘Pragmatic Sociology of Critique’, London: Anthem Press, pp. 613–801. Susen, Simon (2014e) ‘Reflections on Ideology: Lessons from Pierre Bourdieu and Luc Boltanski’, Thesis Eleven 124(1): 90–113. Susen, Simon (2014 [2015]) ‘Towards a Dialogue between Pierre Bourdieu’s “Critical Sociology” and Luc Boltanski’s “Pragmatic Sociology of Critique”‘, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘Pragmatic Sociology of Critique’, trans. Simon Susen, London: Anthem Press, pp. 313–348. Susen, Simon (2015a) The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Susen, Simon (2015b) ‘Emancipation’, in Michael Gibbons, Diana Coole, Elisabeth Ellis, and Kennan Ferguson (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, Volume 3, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1024–1038. Susen, Simon (2015c) ‘Une réconciliation entre Pierre Bourdieu et Luc Boltanski est-elle possible ? Pour un dialogue entre la sociologie critique et la sociologie pragmatique de la critique’, in Bruno Frère (ed.) Le tournant de la théorie critique, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, pp. 151–186. Susen, Simon (2016a) Pierre Bourdieu et la distinction sociale. Un essai philosophique, Oxford: Peter Lang. Susen, Simon (2016b) ‘The Sociological Challenge of Reflexivity in Bourdieusian Thought’, in Derek Robbins (ed.) The Anthem Companion to Pierre Bourdieu, London: Anthem Press, pp. 49–93. Susen, Simon (2016c) ‘Towards a Critical Sociology of Dominant Ideologies: An Unexpected Reunion between Pierre Bourdieu and Luc Boltanski’, Cultural Sociology 10(2): 195–246. Susen, Simon (2016d) ‘Further Reflections on the “Postmodern Turn” in the Social Sciences: A Reply to William Outhwaite’, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 29(4): 429–438. Susen, Simon (2016e) ‘Scattered Remarks on the Concept of Engagement: A SocioPhilosophical Approach’, Philosophy and Society 27(2): 459–463. Susen, Simon (2016f ) ‘Reconstructing the Self: A Goffmanian Perspective’, in Harry F.  Dahms and Eric R.  Lybeck (eds.) Reconstructing Social Theory, History and Practice, Book Series: Current Perspectives in Social Theory, Volume 35, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 111–143. Susen, Simon (2017a) ‘Hermeneutic Bourdieu’, in Lisa Adkins, Caragh Brosnan, and Steven Threadgold (eds.) Bourdieusian Prospects, London: Routledge, pp. 132–159. Susen, Simon (2017b) ‘No Exit from Brexit?’, in William Outhwaite (ed.) Brexit: Sociological Responses, London: Anthem Press, pp. 153–182.

434 References

Susen, Simon (2017c) ‘Between Crisis and Critique: The Fragile Foundations of Social Life à la Rodrigo Cordero’, Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 18(1): 95–124. Susen, Simon (2017d) ‘Following the Footprints of the “Postmodern Turn”: A Reply to Gregor McLennan’, European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 4(1): 104–123. Susen, Simon (2017e) ‘Remarks on the Nature of Justification: A Socio-Pragmatic Perspective’, in Charlotte Cloutier, Jean-Pascal Gond, and Bernard Leca (eds.) Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations: Contributions from French Pragmatist Sociology, Book Series: Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 52, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 349–381. Susen, Simon (2017f ) ‘Reflections on Patrick Baert’s The Existentialist Moment: The Rise of Sartre as a Public Intellectual ’, in Simon Susen and Patrick Baert, The Sociology of Intellectuals: After ‘The Existentialist Moment’, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–122. Susen, Simon (2017 [2014]) ‘Reflexões sobre a ideologia: as lições de Pierre Bourdieu e Luc Boltanski’, Perspectivas: Revista de Ciências Sociais 49(1): 101–137 (trans. Fernando Bee and Raphael Concli). Susen, Simon (2018a) ‘The Economy of Enrichment: Towards a New Form of Capitalism?’, Berlin Journal of Critical Theory 2(2): 5–98. Susen, Simon (2018b) ‘The Seductive Force of “Noumenal Power”: A New Path (or Impasse) for Critical Theory?’, Journal of Political Power 11(1): 4–45. Susen, Simon (2018c) ‘Jürgen Habermas: Between Democratic Deliberation and Deliberative Democracy’, in Ruth Wodak and Bernhard Forchtner (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics, London: Routledge, pp. 43–66. Susen, Simon (2018d) ‘Language’, in Bryan S. Turner, Chang Kyung-Sup, Cynthia F.  Epstein, Peter Kivisto, William Outhwaite, and J.  Michael Ryan (eds.) The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory, Volume III, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1278–1290. Susen, Simon (2018e) ‘Saussure, Ferdinand de’, in Bryan S. Turner, Chang KyungSup, Cynthia F. Epstein, Peter Kivisto, William Outhwaite, and J. Michael Ryan (eds.) The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory, Volume V, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 2001–2006. Susen, Simon (2020a) ‘No Escape from the Technosystem?’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 46(6): 734–782. Susen, Simon (2020b) ‘The Resonance of Resonance: Critical Theory as a Sociology of World-Relations?’, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 33(3): 309–344. Susen, Simon (2020c) ‘Intimations of Humanity and the Case for a Philosophical Sociology’, Journal of Political Power 13(1): 123–160. Susen, Simon and Patrick Baert (2017a) The Sociology of Intellectuals: After ‘The Existentialist Moment’, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

 References 

435

Susen, Simon and Patrick Baert (2017b) ‘Introduction: Key Issues in the Sociology of Intellectuals’, in Simon Susen and Patrick Baert, The Sociology of Intellectuals: After ‘The Existentialist Moment’, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. vii–xi. Susen, Simon and Bryan S.  Turner (eds.) (2011a) The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays, London: Anthem Press. Susen, Simon and Bryan S.  Turner (2011b) ‘Introduction to the Special Issue on Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt’, Journal of Classical Sociology 11(3): 229–239. Susen, Simon and Bryan S. Turner (2011c) ‘Introduction: Preliminary Reflections on the Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu’, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays, London: Anthem Press, pp. xiii–xxix. Swartz, David (2013) Symbolic Power, Politics, and Intellectuals: The Political Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Swedberg, Richard (2005a) Interest, Maidenhead: Open University Press. Swedberg, Richard (2005b) ‘Can There Be a Sociological Concept of Interest?’, Theory and Society 34(4): 359–390. Swedberg, Richard (2018) ‘How to Use Max Weber’s Ideal Type in Sociological Analysis’, Journal of Classical Sociology 18(3): 181–196. Sztompka, Piotr (2011) ‘Another Sociological Utopia’, Contemporary Sociology 40(4): 388–396. Sztompka, Piotr (ed.) (2015 [1994]) Agency and Structure: Reorienting Social Theory, London: Routledge. Tamm, Marek and Laurent Olivier (eds.) (2019) Rethinking Historical Time: New Approaches to Presentism, London: Bloomsbury Academic. Tang, Shiping P. (2011) ‘Foundational Paradigms of Social Sciences’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 41(2): 211–249. Taylor, Charles (1989a) Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, Charles (2002) ‘Modern Social Imaginaries’, Public Culture 14(1): 91–124. Taylor, Charles (2004) Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Taylor, Charles and Amy Gutmann (1992) Multiculturalism and ‘The Politics of Recognition’: An Essay, with commentary by Amy Gutmann, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Taylor, David (1989b) ‘Citizenship and Social Power’, Critical Social Policy 9(26): 19–31. Taylor, Yvette, Sally Hines, and Mark E. Casey (eds.) (2011) Theorizing Intersectionality and Sexuality, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Taylor, Yvette and Kinneret Lahad (eds.) (2018) Feeling Academic in the Neoliberal University: Feminist Flights, Fights and Failures, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Tétreault, Mary Ann and Charles Abel (eds.) (1986) Dependency Theory and the Return of High Politics, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Tezanos Tortajada, José Félix (2001) ‘Reflexiones sobre el presente y el futuro de la sociología’, Revista Española de Sociología 1: 33–48.

436 References

Therborn, Göran (1995) European Modernity and Beyond: The Trajectory of European Societies, 1945–2000, London: SAGE. Therborn, Göran (2003) ‘Entangled Modernities’, European Journal of Social Theory 6(3): 293–305. Thiele, Leslie Paul (1995) Timely Meditations: Martin Heidegger and Postmodern Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Thijssen, Peter (ed.) (2013) New Public Spheres: Recontextualizing the Intellectual, Farnham: Ashgate. Thomas, Helen and David F.  Walsh (1998) ‘Modernity/Postmodernity’, in Chris Jenks (ed.) Core Sociological Dichotomies, London: SAGE, pp. 363–390. Thomassen, Bjørn (2012) ‘Anthropology and Its Many Modernities: When Concepts Matter’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 18(1): 160–178. Thompson, E. P. (1994) Making History: Writings on History and Culture, New York: New Press. Thompson, John B. (1982) ‘Universal Pragmatics’, in John B. Thompson and David Held (eds.) Habermas: Critical Debates, London: Macmillan, pp. 116–133. Thompson, Simon and Paul Hoggett (eds.) (2012) Politics and the Emotions: The Affective Turn in Contemporary Political Studies, New York: Continuum. Thrift, Nigel (2005) Knowing Capitalism, London: SAGE. Tilly, Charles (1978) From Mobilization to Revolution, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Tilly, Charles (1992 [1990]) Coercion, Capital, and European States, A.D. 990–1992, Revised Edition, Oxford: Blackwell. Tlostanova, Madina V. and Walter D. Mignolo (2012) Learning to Unlearn: Decolonial Reflections from Eurasia and the Americas, Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Toews, David (2003) ‘The New Tarde: Sociology after the End of the Social’, Theory, Culture & Society 20(5): 81–98. Toews, David (2016) ‘Book Review / Compte rendu: Simon Susen. ‘The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015’, Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie 41(1): 101–104. Toffler, Alvin (1964) The Culture Consumers. A Study of Art and Affluence in America, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Tomlinson, John (1999) Globalization and Culture, Cambridge: Polity. Torfing, Jacob (1999) New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Žižek, Oxford: Blackwell. Toulmin, Stephen (1990) Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity, New York: Free Press. Touraine, Alain (2001 [1999]) Beyond Neoliberalism, trans. David Macey, Cambridge: Polity. Trautsch, Asmus (2004) ‘Glauben und Wissen. Jürgen Habermas zum Verhältnis von Philosophie und Religion’, Philosophisches Jahrbuch 111(1): 180–198. Treviño, A.  Javier (ed.) (2001) Talcott Parsons Today. His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

 References 

437

Treviño, A. Javier (ed.) (2016) The Anthem Companion to Talcott Parsons, London: Anthem Press. Trowler, Vicki (2014) ‘May the Subaltern Speak? Researching the Invisible “Other” in Higher Education’, European Journal of Higher Education 4(1): 42–54. Tsilimpounidi, Myrto (2017) Sociology of Crisis: Visualising Urban Austerity, London: Routledge. Tucker, Spencer C. (ed.) (1998) Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War. A Political, Social, and Military History, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Turcan, Romeo V., John E. Reilly, and Larisa Bugaian (eds.) (2015) (Re)Discovering University Autonomy. The Global Market Paradox of Stakeholder and Educational Values in Higher Education, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Turetzky, Philip (1998) Time, London: Routledge. Turner, Bryan S. (1974) Weber and Islam: A Critical Study, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Turner, Bryan S. (1978) Marx and the End of Orientalism, London: Allen & Unwin. Turner, Bryan S. (ed.) (1993) Citizenship and Social Theory, London: SAGE. Turner, Bryan S. (1994) Orientalism, Postmodernism and Globalism, London: Routledge. Turner, Bryan S. (1994 [1990]) ‘Outline of a Theory of Citizenship’, in Bryan S.  Turner and Peter Hamilton (eds.) Citizenship: Critical Concepts, Volume 1, London: Routledge, pp. 199–226. Turner, Bryan S. (ed.) (2000a) Readings in Orientalism, London: Routledge. Turner, Bryan S. (2000b) ‘Liberal Citizenship and Cosmopolitan Virtue’, in Andrew Vandenberg (ed.) Citizenship and Democracy in a Global Era, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, pp. 18–32. Turner, Bryan S. (2000c) ‘Cosmopolitan Virtue: Loyalty and the City’, in Engin F.  Isin (ed.) Democracy, Citizenship and the Global City, London: Routledge, pp. 129–147. Turner, Bryan S. (2002) ‘Cosmopolitan Virtue, Globalization and Patriotism’, Theory, Culture & Society 19(1–2): 45–63. Turner, Bryan S. (2006) ‘Body’, Theory, Culture & Society 23(2/3): 223–228. Turner, Bryan S. (2009) ‘T.H. Marshall, Social Rights and English National Identity’, Citizenship Studies 13(1): 65–73. Turner, Bryan S. and Simon Susen (eds.) (2011) Special Issue: Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt, Journal of Classical Sociology 11(3): 229–335. Turner, Jonathan H. (2013) Theoretical Sociology: 1830 to the Present, London: SAGE. Tutton, Richard (2017) ‘Wicked Futures: Meaning, Matter and the Sociology of the Future’, The Sociological Review 65(3): 478–492. Tyler, Imogen (2015) ‘Dis/Ability Studies: Theorising Disablism and Ableism’, Disability & Society 30(4): 659–662. Urry, John (1981) ‘Sociology as a Parasite: Some Vices and Virtues’, in Philip Abrams, Rosemary Deem, Janet Finch, and Paul Rock (eds.) Practice and Progress: British Sociology 1950–1980, London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 25–38.

438 References

Urry, John (1995) Consuming Places, London: Routledge. Urry, John (2000a) Sociology beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century, London: Routledge. Urry, John (2000b) ‘Editor’s Introduction: Sociology Facing the Millenium’, The British Journal of Sociology 5(1): 1–3. Urry, John (2003) Global Complexity, Cambridge: Polity. Urry, John (2010) ‘Consuming the Planet to Excess’, Theory, Culture & Society 27(2–3): 191–212. Urry, John (2011) Climate Change and Society, Cambridge: Polity. Urry, John (2016) What Is the Future?, Cambridge: Polity. Vakaloulis, Michel (2001) Le Capitalisme post-moderne : Eléments pour une critique sociologique, Paris: Collection Actuel Marx Confrontation, Presses Universitaires de France. Valkonen, Sanna and Sandra Wallenius-Korkalo (2016) ‘Practising Postcolonial Intersectionality: Gender, Religion and Indigeneity in Sámi Social Work’, International Social Work 59(5): 614–626. van Dijck, José (2014) ‘Datafication, Dataism and Dataveillance: Big Data between Scientific Paradigm and Ideology’, Surveillance & Society 12(2): 197–208. van Dyk, Silke (2016) ‘The Othering of Old Age: Insights from Postcolonial Studies’, Journal of Aging Studies 39: 109–120. van Dyk, Silke and Thomas Küpper (2016) ‘Postcolonial Perspectives in Aging Studies: Introduction’, Journal of Aging Studies 39: 81–82. van Langenhove, Luc and Rom Harré (1993) ‘Positioning in Scientific Discourse’, in Rom Harré (ed.) Anglo-Ukrainian Studies in the Analysis of Scientific Discourse: Reason and Rhetoric, Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, pp. 1–20. van Raaij, W. Fred (1993) ‘Postmodern Consumption’, Journal of Economic Psychology 14(3): 541–563. Vandenberg, Andrew (ed.) (2000) Citizenship and Democracy in a Global Era, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press. Varela, Charles R. (1999) ‘Determinism and the Recovery of Human Agency: The Embodying of Persons’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 29(4): 385–402. Varga, Somogy (2012) Authenticity as an Ethical Ideal, New York: Routledge. Varisco, Daniel Martin (2007) Reading Orientalism: Said and the Unsaid, Seattle, Washington, DC: University of Washington Press. Vattimo, Gianni (1988 [1985]) The End of Modernity: Nihilism and Hermeneutics in Post-Modern Culture, trans. Jon R. Snyder, Cambridge: Polity. Vázquez, Rolando (2011) ‘Translation as Erasure: Thoughts on Modernity’s Epistemic Violence’, Journal of Historical Sociology 24(1): 27–44. Veer, Peter van der (2001) Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in India and Britain, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Vertovec, Steven and Robin Cohen (eds.) (2002) Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context and Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vidyarthi, Govind (1988) Cultural Neocolonialism, Ahmedabad: Allied Publishers.

 References 

439

Volkmer, Ingrid (2014) The Global Public Sphere: Public Communication in the Age of Reflective Interdependence, Cambridge: Polity. Vorländer, Hans, Maik Herold, and Steven Schäller (2018) PEGIDA and New RightWing Populism in Germany, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Vostal, Filip (2014) ‘Towards a Social Theory of Acceleration: Time, Modernity, Critique’, Revue européenne des sciences sociales 52(2): 235–249. Wacquant, Loïc (2004a) ‘Critical Thought as Solvent of Doxa’, Constellations 11(1): 97–101. Wacquant, Loïc (2004b [1997]) ‘Lire “Le Capital” de Pierre Bourdieu’, in Louis Pinto, Gisèle Sapiro, and Patrick Champagne (eds.) Pierre Bourdieu, sociologue, Paris: Fayard, pp. 211–230. Wacquant, Loïc (2013) ‘Symbolic Power and Group-Making: On Pierre Bourdieu’s Reframing of Class’, Journal of Classical Sociology 13(2): 274–291. Wagner, Caroline S. (2018) The Collaborative Era in Science: Governing the Network, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wagner, Peter (1992) ‘Liberty and Discipline: Making Sense of Postmodernity, or, Once Again, Toward a Sociohistorical Understanding of Modernity’, Theory and Society 21(4): 467–492. Wagner, Peter (1994) A Sociology of Modernity: Liberty and Discipline, London: Routledge. Wagner, Peter (2001) Theorizing Modernity: Inescapability and Attainability in Social Theory, London: SAGE. Wagner, Peter (2008) Modernity as Experience and Interpretation: A New Sociology of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity. Wagner, Peter (2010) ‘Critique and Crisis Reconsidered, Reflections on Luc Boltanski’s De la critique (Paris: Gallimard, 2009)’, Archives Européennes de Sociologie / European Journal of Sociology 51(3): 473–478. Wagner, Peter (2012) Modernity: Understanding the Present, Cambridge: Polity. Wajcman, Judy and Nigel Dodd (eds.) (2016) The Sociology of Speed: Digital, Organizational, and Social Temporalities, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Walby, Sylvia (2015) Crisis, Cambridge: Polity. Waldron, Jeremy (2000) ‘What is Cosmopolitan?’, Journal of Political Philosophy 8(2): 227–243. Wallaschek, Stefan (2015) ‘In Dialogue: Postcolonial Theory and Intersectionality’, Momentum Quarterly—Zeitschrift für sozialen Fortschritt 4(4): 218–232. Waller, John C. (2006) ‘Paradigms Explained: Rethinking Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science’, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 28(1): 83–84. Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (1974) The Modern World-System—Volume 1: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, New York: Academic Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (1980) The Modern World-System—Volume 2: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750, New York: Academic Press.

440 References

Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (1983) Historical Capitalism, London: Verso. Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (1989) The Modern World-System—Volume 3: The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730–1840s, San Diego: Academic Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (1999) The End of the World as We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (2001 [1991]) Unthinking Social Science: The Limits of Nineteenth-Century Paradigms, 2nd Edition, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (2004a) World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (ed.) (2004b) The Modern World-System in the Longue Durée, Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (2011a) ‘Dynamics of (Unresolved) Global Crisis’, in Craig Calhoun and Georgi Derluguian (eds.) Business as Usual: The Roots of the Global Financial Meltdown, New York: New York University Press, pp. 69–88. Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (2011b) The Modern World-System IV: Centrist Liberalism Triumphant, 1789–1914, Berkeley: University of California Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (ed.) (2015) The World is Out of Joint: WorldHistorical Interpretations of Continuing Polarizations, Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice, Carlos Antonio Aguirre Rojas, and Charles C.  Lemert (2012) Uncertain Worlds: World-Systems Analysis in Changing Times, with translations by George Ciccariello and Jose A.  Mota Lopes, Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Walsh, Catherine (2007) ‘Shifting the Geopolitics of Critical Knowledge: Decolonial Thought and Cultural Studies ‘Others’ in the Andes’, Cultural Studies 21(2–3): 224–239. Walsh, David F. (1998) ‘Structure/Agency’, in Chris Jenks (ed.) Core Sociological Dichotomies, London: SAGE, pp. 8–33. Walsh, Peter William and David Lehmann (2020) ‘Academic Celebrity’, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Online First: 1–26. Walter, Tony (2001) ‘Reincarnation, Modernity and Identity’, Sociology 35(1): 21–38. Walzer, Michael (1995) Toward a Global Civil Society, Providence: Berghahn. Ward, Lester F. (1903) Pure Sociology: A Treatise on the Origin and Spontaneous Development of Society, New York: The Macmillan Company. Waters, Malcolm (1997) ‘Inequality after Class’, in David Owen (ed.) Sociology after Postmodernism, London: SAGE, pp. 23–39. Webb, Maureen (2007) Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World, San Francisco, CA: City Lights. Webber, Richard (2009) ‘Response to “The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology”: An Outline of the Research Potential of Administrative and Transactional Data’, Sociology 43(1): 169–178.

 References 

441

Weber, Max (1921) Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, Tubingen: Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Weber, Max (1976 [1924/1909/1896]) The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations, trans. Richard Iva Frank, London: NLB. Weber, Max (1978 [1922]) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Berkeley: University of California Press. Weber, Max (1980 [1922]) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriß der Verstehenden Soziologie, 5. Auflage, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Weber, Max (1991 [1948]) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, translated, edited, and with an introduction by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, with a new preface by Bryan S. Turner, London: Routledge. Weber, Max (1994 [1895]) ‘The Nation State and Economic Policy (Inaugural Lecture)’, in Peter Lassman and Ronald Speirs (eds.) Weber: Political Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–28. Weber, Max (2001a/1930 [1904–05]) ‘Author’s Introduction’, in Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons, London: Routledge, pp. xxviii–xIii. Weber, Max (2001b/1930 [1904–05]) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons, London: Routledge. Weber, Thomas (1995) ‘Basis’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 2), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 27–49. Weffort, Francisco and Aníbal Quijano (1973) Populismo, marginalización y dependencia. Ensayos de interpretación sociológica, San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Universitaria Centroamericana. Weikum, Gerhard and Gottfried Vossen (2002) Transactional Information Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and the Practice of Concurrency Control and Recovery, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Weiner, Bernard (1995) Judgments of Responsibility. A Foundation for a Theory of Social Conduct, New York: Guilford Press. Weinsheimer, Joel (1991) Philosophical Hermeneutics and Literary Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press. Weintraub, Jeff Alan and Krishan Kumar (eds.) (1997) Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Weiss, Ulrich (1997) ‘Emanzipation’, in Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.) Historischkritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Band 3), Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, pp. 272–290. Wellmer, Albrecht (1993) Endspiele. Die unversöhnliche Moderne, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Welsh, John (2020) ‘Dispossessing Academics: The Shift to “Appropriation” in the Governing of Academic Life’, European Journal of Social Theory 23(3): 350–369.

442 References

Went, Robert (2004) ‘Economic Globalization Plus Cosmopolitanism?’, Review of International Political Economy 11(2): 337–355. Wernick, Andrew (2000) ‘From Comte to Baudrillard: Socio-Theology after the End of the Social’, Theory, Culture & Society 17(6): 55–75. Wertheim, Wim F. (1992) ‘The State and the Dialectics of Emancipation’, in Jan Nederveen Pieterse (ed.) Emancipations, Modern and Postmodern, London: SAGE, pp. 257–281. Westera, Wim (2013) The Digital Turn: How the Internet Transforms our Existence, Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse. Westwood, Sally (2000) ‘Re-Branding Britain: Sociology, Futures and Futurology’, Sociology 34(1): 185–202. Wharton, Amy S. (1991) ‘Structure and Agency in Socialist-Feminist Theory’, Gender and Society 5(3): 373–389. White, Jay Dixon (ed.) (1977) The General Systems Paradigm: Science of Change and Change of Science. Proceedings of the Annual North American Meeting, Denver, February 21–25, 1977, Washington, DC: Society for General Systems Research. White, Paul (1999) ‘Ethnicity, Racialization and Citizenship as Divisive Elements in Europe’, in Ray Hudson and Allan M. Williams (eds.) Divided Europe: Society and Territory, London: SAGE, pp. 210–230. Whitley, Richard (2000 [1984]) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Whitton, Brian J. (1992) ‘Universal Pragmatics and the Formation of Western Civilization: A Critique of Habermas’s Theory of Human Moral Evolution’, History and Theory 31(3): 299–313. Wickham, Gary (2007) ‘Expanding the Classical in Classical Sociology’, Journal of Classical Sociology 7(3): 243–265. Wieringa, Saskia and Horacio Sívori (eds.) (2013) The Sexual History of the Global South: Sexual Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America, London: Zed Books. Wilder, Gary (2005) The French Imperial Nation-State: Negritude and Colonial Humanism between the Two World Wars, University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Wiles, Rose (2013) What are Qualitative Research Ethics?, London: Bloomsbury Academic. Willetts, David (2010) The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children’s Future—And Why They Should Give It Back, London: Atlantic Books. Willetts, David (2017) A University Education, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, Huw Lloyd and Carl Death (eds.) (2017) Global Justice, Oxon: Routledge. Williams, Robert C. (2010) ‘Confusing History’, History and Theory 49(2): 304–309. Williams, Steve, Harriet Bradley, Ranji Devadson, and Mark Erickson (2013) Globalization and Work, Cambridge: Polity. Willis, Katie (2011 [2005]) Theories and Practices of Development, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge. Willmott, Hugh (1992) Breaking the Paradigm Mentality, Manchester: Manchester School of Management.

 References 

443

Wilson, Francille Rusan (2006) The Segregated Scholars: Black Social Scientists and the Creation of Black Labor Studies, 1890–1950, Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. Wilterdink, Nico A. (2002) ‘The Sociogenesis of Postmodernism’, Archives Européennes de Sociologie / European Journal of Sociology 43(2): 190–216. Winant, Howard (2007) ‘The Dark Side of the Force: One Hundred Years of the Sociology of Race’, in Craig Calhoun (ed.) Sociology in America: A History, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 535–571. Windrow, Martin (1997) The Algerian War, 1954–1962, colour plates by Mike Chappell, London: Osprey Military. Wodak, Ruth (ed.) (2013) Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse, London: Bloomsbury. Woddis, Jack (1967) An Introduction to Neo-Colonialism, London: Lawrence & Wishart. Wolbring, Gregor (2008) ‘The Politics of Ableism’, Development 51(2): 252–258. Wolff, Kurt Heinrich (ed.) (1964 [1950]) The Sociology of Georg Simmel, translated, edited, and with an introduction by Kurt H.  Wolff, New  York: Free Press of Glencoe, Collier-Macmillan. Wolff, Larry (1994) Inventing Eastern Europe. The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Woodiwiss, Anthony (1990) Social Theory after Postmodernism: Rethinking Production, Law and Class, London: Pluto. Woodside, Arch G. (ed.) (2016) Bad to Good: Achieving High Quality and Impact in Your Research, Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Woodward, Ian, Zlatko Skrbis, and Clive Bean (2008) ‘Attitudes Towards Globalization and Cosmopolitanism: Cultural Diversity, Personal Consumption and the National Economy’, The British Journal of Sociology 59(2): 207–226. Wright, Susan and Cris Shore (eds.) (2017) Death of the Public University? Uncertain Futures for Higher Education in the Knowledge Economy, New York: Berghahn Books. Yar, Majid (2001) ‘Recognition and the Politics of Human(e) Desire’, Theory, Culture & Society 18(2/3): 57–76. Yeĝenoĝlu, Meyda (2005) ‘Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism in a Globalized World’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(1): 103–131. Young, Iris Marion (1994 [1989]) ‘Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship’, in Bryan S.  Turner and Peter Hamilton (eds.) Citizenship: Critical Concepts, Volume 2, London: Routledge, pp. 386–408. Young, Iris Marion (1997) Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and Policy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Young, Robert (2001) Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell. Young, Robert (2003) Postcolonialism. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Young, Robert (2004 [1990]) White Mythologies: Writing History and the West, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge.

444 References

Zagorin, Perez (1999) ‘History, the Referent, and Narrative: Reflections on Postmodernism Now’, History and Theory 38(1): 1–24. Zammito, John (2010) ‘Discipline, Philosophy, and History’, History and Theory 49(2): 289–303. Zembylas, Michalinos (2018) ‘Revisiting Spivak’s “Can the Subaltern Speak” through the Lens of Affect Theory’, Qualitative Research Journal 18(2): 115–127. Zephaniah, Benjamin (2001) Too Black, Too Strong, Newcastle upon Tyne: Bloodaxe. Zhao, Shanyang (2005) ‘The Digital Self: Through the Looking Glass of Telecopresent Others’, Symbolic Interaction 28(3): 387–405. Zima, P.  V. (1997) Moderne/Postmoderne: Gesellschaft, Philosophie, Literatur, Tübingen: Francke. Zima, P. V. (2000) Theorie des Subjekts: Subjektivität und Identität zwischen Moderne und Postmoderne, Tübingen: Francke. Ziman, John (2000) Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zimmerman, Claire (2011) ‘Absent or Deferred? Utopia and Desire in Postmodern Architecture’, Oxford Art Journal 34(2): 297–302. Zimmermann, Harm-Peer (2016) ‘Alienation and Alterity: Age in the Existentialist Discourse on Others’, Journal of Aging Studies 39: 83–95. Zine, Magubane (2016) ‘American Sociology’s Racial Ontology: Remembering Slavery, Deconstructing Modernity, and Charting the Future of Global Historical Sociology’, Cultural Sociology 10(3): 369–384. Žižek, Slavoj (2000) ‘Class Struggle or Postmodernism? Yes, please!’, in Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau, and Slavoj Žižek, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left, London: Verso, pp. 90–135. Žižek, Slavoj (1989) The Sublime Object of Ideology, London: Verso. Žižek, Slavoj (ed.) (1994) Mapping Ideology, London: Verso. Žižek, Slavoj (2010) Living in the End Times, London: Verso. Zolo, Danilo (1997) Cosmopolis: Prospects for World Government, Cambridge: Polity. Zuboff, Shoshana (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power, London: Profile Books.

Index of Names

A

Abbott, Andrew, 190n40, 210n29, 234n33, 235n67, 257n37, 351 Abbott, Lewis Frederick, 20n51, 351 Abel, Charles, 20n55, 333n50, 351 Abell, Peter, 165n30, 435 Abercrombie, Nicholas, 258n60, 351 Aboulafia, Mitchell, 124n128, 351 Abraham, M. Francis, 20n51, 351 Abrams, Philip, 437 Abramson, Paul R., 191n68, 351 Abromeit, John, 122n99, 351 Adam, Barbara, 190n40, 255n9, 256n13, 256n25, 256n27, 351, 352 Adams, Julia, 120n13, 164n1, 168n119, 352, 406 Adamson, Matthew, 364 Adkins, Lisa, 255n6, 256n15, 256n29, 352, 433 Adler, Paul S., 394 Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, 93n121, 352 Adorno, Theodor W., 119n10, 168n124, 322, 334n66, 336n116, 352, 396 Aglietta, Michel, 190n53, 352 Agnew, John A., 255n1, 353 Aguirre Rojas, Carlos Antonio, 440 Ahmad, Aijaz, 337n128, 353 © The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1

Akiwowo, Akinsola A., 71n57, 71n62, 353 Alatas, Syed Farid, 62, 72n65, 72n68, 72n69, 123, 140n12, 142n44, 332n38, 337n128, 353 Alatas, Syed Hussein, 62, 71n64, 353 Albert, Mathieu, 235n66–68, 382, 429 Albrecht, Steffen, 51n159, 353 Albrow, Martin, 174 Aldrich, Robert, 121n36, 353 Alexander, Jeffrey C., 93n111, 353 Alexander, Martin S., 22n108, 353 Alfrey, Laura, 378 Allen, Amy, 19n29, 49n117, 72n75, 141n25, 236n103, 256n17, 332n26, 353, 380 Alsop, Adrian, 234n27, 353 Alstete, Jeffrey W., 236n88, 257n35, 280n5, 354 Amin, Ash, 73n104, 90n18, 188n29, 190n53, 337n118, 354 Anderson, Benedict, 193n106, 193n107, 354 Anderson, Joel, 396 Anderson, Perry, 160, 168n104, 354 Anderson, R. J., 416 Anderson, Walter Truett, 191n54, 354 445

446 

Index of Names

Andreski, Stanislaw, 125n145 Andretta, Massimiliano, 189n35, 374 Andrews, Charles McLean, 333n50, 354 Andrews, Sean Johnson, 255n1, 354 Antonio, Robert J., 119n10, 354 Antonites, Alexander Joseph, 124n142, 354 Apel, Karl-Otto, 72n75, 141n25, 141n27, 236n103, 280n20, 354 Appelrouth, Scott, 119n2, 377 Appiah, Anthony, 70n41, 354 Appignanesi, Richard, 191n54, 354 Apter, David E., 119n10, 354 Aranov, Phillis, 381 Arato, Andrew, 387 Archer, Margaret S., 21n65, 354, 355 Archibugi, Daniele, 70n41, 355 Armitage, David, 22n86, 336n99, 355 Arrighi, Giovanni, 20n55, 333n50, 355 Ashcroft, Bill, 21n72, 355 Ashworth, Laurence, 211n53, 355 Atal, Yogesh, 255n9, 256n27, 355 Athanasiou, Athena, 124n137, 167n68, 368 Athique, Adrian, 209n14, 355 Attir, Mustafa O., 20n51, 355 Atzert, Thomas, 123n124, 331n9, 331n16, 355, 418 Avineri, Shlomo, 120n24, 120n26, 122n89, 122n91, 355, 408 Axford, Barrie, 188n33, 355 Azmanova, Albena, 72n75, 141n25, 236n103, 355 B

Baber, Zaheer, 21n65, 355 Babones, Salvatore J., 20n55, 333n50, 355 Back, Les, 235n85, 280n8, 355, 383 Bader, Veit-Michael, 143n78, 355 Badmington, Neil, 257n31, 355 Baehr, Peter, 123n127, 140n12, 355, 372 Baert, Patrick, 124n144, 143n78, 165–166n51, 188n33, 189n35,

210n22, 256n25, 341n95, 356, 413, 423, 432, 434, 435 Bailey, Leon, 335n90, 356 Bailey, Michael, 165n47, 257n35, 356 Baldamus, Wilhelm O. H., 125n145 Baldwin, Janice I., 255n2, 356 Baldwin, John D., 255n2, 356 Bales, Kevin, 210n30, 367 Balibar, Étienne, 20n44, 90n20, 356 Banerjee, Supurna, 19n42, 356 Banks, Marcus, 257n40, 356 Banu, Akcesme, 47n48, 356 Barbalet, Jack M., 143n78, 356 Barbu, Zevedei, 125n145 Bardon, Adrian, 256n26, 356 Barlow, James, 211n44, 425 Barnett, Vic, 210n34, 356 Baron, Sam, 256n26, 356 Barrelmeyer, Uwe, 120n13, 164n1, 357 Barry, Brian, 70n40, 357 Barry, Christian, 142n51, 357 Bartels, Anke, 19n42, 357 Basconzuelo, Celia, 431 Baum, Gregory, 335n90, 357 Bauman, Zygmunt, v, 93n110, 116, 117, 123n114, 154, 156, 164n24, 166n58, 174, 187n7, 188n33, 189n36, 210n25, 211n52, 335n76, 357 Baym, Nancy K., 209n14, 357 Bean, Clive, 71n41, 443 Beasley-Murray, Jon, 51n159, 357 Beck, Bernard, 255n2, 357 Beck, Ulrich, ix, ixn8, x, 20n51, 64, 70n41, 72n82, 89n5, 116, 117, 123n114, 154, 156, 166n51, 166n62, 166n64, 174, 176, 187n7, 188n30–33, 189n35, 189n38, 192n81, 334n66, 335n76, 357, 358 Becker, Howard S., 255n2, 257n39, 257n41, 358 Beer, David, 209n7, 209n16, 358 Beilharz, Peter, 123n114, 187n7, 335n76, 358

  Index of Names 

Beiner, Ronald, 143n73, 358 Belk, Russell W., 209n14, 209n15, 358 Bell, Colin, 210n30, 255n2, 255n9, 256n27, 358 Bell, Daniel, 140n9, 164n24, 73, 174, 190n50, 191n63, 209n4, 358 Bell, Wendell, 255n9, 256n27, 359, 397 Bellah, Robert N., vi, 192n74, 359 Bellin, Susanne, 333n45, 431 Benhabib, Seyla, 49n116, 70n41, 141n27, 332n30, 354, 359, 362, 369, 381, 390, 417, 419 Benjamin, Walter, 171, 187n15, 322, 359 Bennett, William J., 141n18, 359 Bennington, Geoffrey, 406 Bensussan, Gérard, 119n10, 356, 359 Bentley, Michael, 334n66, 359 Benton, Ted, 46n37, 359 Berardi, Franco, 256n13, 359, 384 Berezin, Mabel, 122n99, 359 Berger, Arthur Asa, 430 Berger, Peter L., 335n90, 359 Berking, Helmuth, 210n39, 359 Berlet, Chip, 122n101, 359 Berman, Marshall, 123n112, 187n7, 335n76, 359 Bernal, Paul, 189n36, 211n52, 359 Bernard, Mitchell, 188n29, 190n53, 360 Bernstein, J. M., 141n27, 360 Bernstein, Richard J., 123n112, 187n7, 335n76, 360 Bertens, Johannes Willem, 187n8, 360 Berzina, Zane, 209n14, 209n15, 400 Best, Steven, 191n54, 360 Betz, Hans-Georg, 122n101, 360 Beutell, Nicholas J., 236n88, 354 Bhabha, Homi K., xvi, 6, 19n27, 21n80, 26, 30–31, 45n10, 45n13, 47n59, 47n61, 47n63–65, 47n69, 70n28, 73n103, 73n104, 89n8, 91n39,

447

337n117, 337n118, 337n128, 360, 366 Bhambra, Gurminder K., 19n19, 20n43, 20n50, 21n62, 22n88, 22n98, 45n1, 45n16, 46n28, 28n46, 46n28, 46n33, 46n34, 46n38, 47n52, 47n57, 47n60–62, 47n69, 47n70, 48n89, 48n108, 49n114, 49n117, 49n118, 49n124, 49n132, 49n134–136, 51n161, 51n162, 51n166, 52n201, 69n2, 69n4–8, 69n12, 69n13, 69n15, 69n17, 69n18, 70n20, 70n21, 70n28, 70n29, 70n33, 70n35, 71n42, 71n43, 71n49, 71n55–58, 71n63, 72n68–70, 72n72, 72n73, 72n77, 72n79, 72n81, 72n83, 72n88, 73n89, 73n91, 73n94, 73n95, 73n103–105, 73n118, 73n119, 90n21, 91n39, 91n60, 91n64, 92n71, 92n73, 92n86, 92n95, 93n114, 93n122, 93n133, 119n2, 123n112, 140n1, 140n5, 140n6, 140n10, 140n13, 140n15, 140n16, 141n17–19, 141n21, 141n24, 141n26, 142n29, 142n34, 142n36, 142n37, 142n45, 143n56, 143n73, 144n74, 143n78, 144n79, 144n81, 144n82, 144n85, 144n89, 144n92, 144n102–104, 144n108, 145n116, 145n118, 187n7, 280n8, 331n8, 332n31, 332n32, 332n36, 333n42, 333n46, 333n48, 333n51, 333n56, 333n57, 333n59, 333n62, 333n64, 335n75–77, 335n80–85, 336n94, 336n100, 337n117–119, 337n128, 337n129, 337n138, 338n142, 338n146, 338n159, 339n163, 339n167, 339n168, 339n176, 339n177, 360

448 

Index of Names

Bhargava, Rajeev, 89n7, 143n73, 360 Bhatt, Chetan, 47n51, 360 Biernacki, Richard, 362, 399, 427 Billet, Bret L., 20n51, 361 Billig, Michael, 280n20, 428 Birešev, Ana, 190n54, 361 Birth, Kevin K., 256n25, 361 Blackbourn, David, 121n59, 121n62, 161n65, 361 Blackburn, R. J., 191n55, 191n69, 331n19, 361 Blamey, Kathleen, 370 Blaser, Mario, 71n48, 361 Blauner, Robert, 140n15, 140n16, 141n17, 332n36, 361 Bloch, Ernst, 48n101, 281n29, 361 Bloomfield, Jon, 255n1, 361, 391 Bluhm, William Theodore, 124n144, 361 Blumberg, Rae Lesser, 19n32, 361 Boatcă, Manuela, 22n98, 23n118, 52n198, 52n199, 72n88, 91n39, 119n2, 123n105, 123n109, 235n67, 361, 387, 425 Boelaert, Julien, 211n47, 415 Bogard, William, 258n58, 361 Böhler, Dietrich, 141n27, 362 Bohman, James, 21n65, 70n41, 362 Bok, Derek, 233n8, 362 Boli, John, 411 Boltanski, Luc, v, vi, 142–143n53, 166n61, 191n55, 191n69, 258n60, 336n116, 339–340n180, 340n181, 340n182, 340n186, 340n188, 340n189, 341n192, 341n194, 362, 365 Bonazzi, Tiziano, 143n78, 376 Bonefeld, Werner, 188n29, 190n53, 259n73, 362 Bonilla, Yarimar, 93n121, 362 Bonnell, Victoria E., 164n24, 362, 399, 427

Borch, Christian, 255n3, 363 Borgatta, Edgar F., 255n2, 363 Borodina, Svetlana, 123n125, 188n32, 363 Boron, Atilio A., 123n124, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 259n73, 331n9, 331n16, 363 Bottomore, Tom, 20n44, 90n20, 363, 403, 406 Bouchet, Dominique, 46n37, 164n19, 164n24, 363 Bouchindhomme, Christian, 422 Boudon, Raymond, 208n1, 256n20, 363 Boulting, Noel E., 124n144, 363 Bourdieu, Pierre, v, xix, 22n92, 39, 50n153, 50n159, 116, 117, 124n144, 125n146, 154, 156, 157, 165n50, 165–166n51, 166n61, 167n69, 175, 191n55, 191n69, 194n144, 236n92, 236n94, 236n97, 258n60, 258n62, 330–331n3, 335n90, 338n141, 340n190, 340n191, 363–366 Bourne, Craig, 167n86, 366 Bouveresse, Jacques, 365 Boyer, Robert, 418 Boyle, Mark, 23n116, 366 Boyne, Roy, 187n8, 191n54, 366 Bracey, John H., 332n36, 366 Bracken, Louise, 234n50, 235n67, 235n68, 235n77, 415 Bradley, Harriet, 189n33, 189n34, 190n51, 442 Brah, Avtar, 19n42, 366 Braidotti, Rosi, 257n31, 366 Breckenridge, Carol A., 70n41, 366 Brennan, Timothy, 70n41, 337n128, 366 Breuilly, John, 331n9, 366 Breul, Jonathan D., 211n47, 418 Brewer, Anthony, 18n10, 120n31, 336n108, 336

  Index of Names 

Brewer, Steve, 425 Brinkmann, Svend, 210n30, 366 Brisson, Thomas, 19n19, 20n50, 22n86, 48n97, 50n140, 50n154, 71n47, 72n80, 72n88, 73n118, 89n1, 336n99, 366 Brock, Gillian, 142n51, 366, 367 Brookfield, Cornelia, 376 Brooks, Thom, 142n51, 367 Brosnan, Caragh, 433 Brown, Garrett Wallace, 70n41, 367 Brown, Nicholas, 357, 395 Brown, Nik, 256n21, 367 Brown, Richard Harvey, 191n54, 367 Browne, Craig, 46n29, 145n117, 189n34, 190n51, 256n15, 258n51, 258n60, 367 Browning, Don S., 389 Bruneau, William A., 426 Bryman, Alan, 210n30, 367 Buchner, Bradley J., 281n31, 367 Buckley, Karen M., 255n1, 367 Bugaian, Larisa, 437 Bukve, Oddbjørn, 334n63, 367 Bulmer, Martin, 209n19, 210n30, 367 Burawoy, Michael, 62, 71n56, 91n46, 188n33, 189n34, 189n35, 190n51, 234n41, 255n2, 257n45, 257n47, 258n52–54, 258n59, 258n61, 258n63, 258n64, 259n68, 259n74, 259n77, 259n81, 259n82, 280n8, 367 Burbank, Jane, 119n8, 331n9, 367 Burchardt, Hans-Jürgen, 188n33, 368 Burda, Hubert, 209n14, 209n15, 368 Burke, Edmund, 337n128, 368 Burke, Peter, 164n1, 255n4, 368 Burkitt, Ian, 335n90, 368 Burrage, Michael, 233n20, 368, 372 Burrows, Roger, 209n3, 209n6, 209n8, 209n9, 209n11, 209n16, 209n17, 209n18, 210n20,

449

210n26, 210n30, 210n31, 210n32, 210n35, 210n38, 210n42, 211n45, 211n47, 211n48, 368, 425, 426 Burton, Sarah, 165n47, 190n54, 257n35, 368 Bush, Barbara, 18n10, 22n86, 120n31, 336n99, 368 Butler, Catherine, 20n45, 69n11, 90n22, 188n33, 190n54, 374 Butler, Christopher, 20n45, 46n37, 188n33, 191n54, 255n1, 258n58, 331n19, 334n66, 368 Butler, Judith, 46n29, 116, 124n139, 156, 164n24, 167n68, 322, 368, 444 Buzan, Barry, 70n41, 188n33, 189n35, 368 C

Cain, Carole, 394 Cairnie, Tracey Pilkerton, 392 Calhoun, Craig, 71n41, 91n39, 119n2, 120n13, 123n110, 124n144, 140n9, 164n1, 164n19, 165n42, 167n94, 167n101, 168n115, 168n117, 187n1, 208n1, 210n37, 256n20, 368, 369, 385, 413, 440, 443 Callender, Craig, 256n26, 369 Callinicos, Alex, 191n54, 369 Camiller, Patrick, 413 Campbell, Fiona A. Kumari, 20n47, 369 Caneva, K. L., 125n144, 369 Carlebach, Julius, 125n148 Casey, Mark E., 435 Casiro, Jessica, 363 Cassano, Graham, 208n1, 256n20, 369 Castán Broto, Vanesa, 125n144, 234n50, 235n67, 235n68, 369

450 

Index of Names

Castells, Manuel, 116, 124n135, 166n63, 156, 171, 175, 187n17, 187n18,187n19, 189n35, 369, 370 Castoriadis, Cornelius, 164n19, 370 Castro-Gómez, Santiago, 339n168, 370 Caswill, Chris, 234n26, 370 Centeno, Miguel A., 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 370 Cerny, Philip G., 189n34, 190n51, 429 Césaire, Aimé, 6, 19n21, 370 Chakrabarty, Dipesh, 19n19, 20n50, 21n76, 22n86, 23n121, 47n48, 70n28, 72n88, 73n125, 74n132, 91n39, 91n46, 91n61, 120n13, 164n1, 332n38, 336n99, 370 Chamberlain, Suzanne, 417 Chamboredon, Jean-Claude, 365 Champagne, Patrick, 439 Chan, Mau-Kuei, 367 Chant, Sylvia H., 19n32, 370 Chase-Dunn, Christopher K., 20n55, 333n50, 355 Chatterjee, Partha, 22n86, 123n107, 123n110, 331n9, 336n99, 370 Cheah, Pheng, 71n41, 370 Chen, Hon-Fai, 140n9, 370 Chernilo, Daniel, 71n41, 72n78, 91n45, 119n2, 142n41, 168n124, 257n30, 281n37, 332n35, 333n42, 334n61, 370, 371 Chesterton, Bridget María, 351 Chevallier, Jacques, 70n40, 371 Chilcote, Ronald H., 20n55, 371 Chirico, JoAnn, 188n33, 371 Chomsky, Noam, 189n34, 190n51, 371 Chow, Esther Ngan-ling, 69n11, 371 Cilliers, Paul, 191n54, 371 Clark, Jon, 354, 416 Clark, Terry Nicholls, 20n44, 90n20, 371

Clarke, Roger, 211n53, 371 Clarke, Susan E., 143n78, 371 Clemens, Elisabeth Stephanie, 168n119, 352, 406 Cloutier, Charlotte, 434 Cobban, Alfred, 21n85, 70n25, 120n11, 336n98, 371 Cohen, Joseph N., 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 370 Cohen, Percy, 125n145 Cohen, Robin, 71n41, 440 Cohn, Samuel, 19n32, 361 Cole, Mike, 331n19, 371 Coleman, James Samuel, 211n54, 371 Coleman, Rebecca, 255n9, 255n10, 255n11, 255n12, 256n15, 256n16, 256n19, 256n21, 256n22, 256n27, 256n28, 371 Coles, Romand, 189n34, 190n51, 256n14, 258n51, 281n29, 371 Coller, Xavier, 124n127, 140n12, 372 Collier, Peter, 364 Collini, Stefan, 165n47, 257n35, 372 Collins, Randall, 166n51, 233n20, 372 Collyer, Fran, 19n32, 124n127, 140n12, 141n20, 235n61, 236n92, 331n15, 331n16, 372 Comstock, Gary, 209n19, 372 Comte, Auguste, 31, 97, 442 Conde-Costas, Luis A., 258n60, 372 Confraria, Hugo, 19n32, 372 Connell, Raewyn, ixn4, x, xvi, 18n16, 19n19, 20n45, 20n50, 23n119, 26, 31, 32, 45n11, 47n71, 47n74, 48n77, 62, 72n67, 90n22, 91n39, 91n66, 119n2, 124n127, 140n12, 142n42, 142n43, 142n50, 142n52, 143n54, 235n61, 236n92, 332n22, 332n37, 338n143, 338n144, 338n145, 372

  Index of Names 

Connerton, Paul, 396 Considine, Mark, 233n8, 407 Cooke, Maeve, 141n27, 193n108, 372 Coole, Diana, 433 Cooper, Frederick, 19n19, 20n50, 71n48, 119n8, 120n21, 331n9, 367, 369, 372, 385 Cooper, Geoff, 234n50, 235n60, 235n67, 373 Corbridge, Stuart, 255n1, 353 Cordero, Rodrigo, 168n124, 208n1, 256n20, 373, 434 Coronil, Fernando, 123n109, 373 Coşar, Simten, 341n196, 378 Costa, Maria Emília, 405 Costa, Sérgio, 22n98, 72n88, 91n39, 235n67, 361, 387, 425 Cox, Oliver Cromwell, xviii, 127, 140n4, 373 Craib, Ian, 22n99, 46n37, 119n2, 120n16, 123n114, 124n129, 187n7, 335n76, 359, 373 Crippen, Timothy Alan, 209n1, 256n20, 405 Croissant, Jennifer L., 235n66, 429 Crompton, Rosemary, 209n3, 210n31, 211n47, 373 Cronin, Ciaran, 335n90, 358, 373, 389, 390, 399 Crook, Stephen, 165n47, 255n2, 257n32, 257n33, 257n34, 257n36, 373 Crouch, Colin, 143n78, 165n47, 257n35, 373 Crow, Graham, 210n30, 373 Crowder, George, 70n40, 373 Crowder, Jerome W., 257n40, 408 Croxton, Derek, 120n12, 373 Crozier, Brian, 18n10, 373 Crump, Eric, 390 Cumming, John, 352

451

D

D’Antonio, William V., 280n18, 373 Dahms, Harry F., 255n4, 334n63, 373, 393, 416, 433 Dahrendorf, Ralf, 125n45 Dainotto, Roberto M., 19n19, 20n50, 373 Dale, Roger, 371, 425 Dallmayr, Fred R., 354, 359, 362 Dannreuther, Roland, 71n41, 143n78, 397 Das Nair, Roshan, 20n45, 69n11, 90n22, 374 Davey, Nicholas, 141n27, 374 Davies, Bronwyn, 165n51, 374 Davies, William, 189n34, 190n51, 374 Davis, Diane E., 430, 431 Davis, Howard H., 363 Dawson, Matt, 123n125, 140n12, 374 Day, Richard J. F., 255n1, 374 Dean, Jodi, 123n122, 331n9, 331n16, 417 Death, Carl, 142n51, 442 Decoteau, Claire Laurier, 19n19, 20n50, 72n88, 374 Deem, Rosemary, 437 Deflem, Mathieu, 189n36, 211n52, 374 DeFleur, Lois B., 280n13, 280n14, 280n18, 374 Degli Esposti, Sara, 211n53, 374 Delanty, Gerard, 46n37, 71n41, 91n39, 120n13, 123n112, 143n78, 164n1, 187n7, 188n33, 189n34, 193n6, 258n58, 280n8, 334n66, 335n76, 356, 369, 370, 374 della Porta, Donatella, 189n35, 374 Dellinger, Kirsten, 398 Dello Buono, Richard A., 208n1, 256n20, 369

452 

Index of Names

DeMartino, George, 189n34, 190n51, 374 Denicolo, Pam, 236n88, 257n35, 280n5, 374 Dennis, Alex, 21n65, 408 Denzau, Arthur, 189n34, 190n51, 423 Dépelteau, François, 21n65, 375 Derber, Charles, 367 Derluguian, Georgi, 208n1, 256n20, 369, 440 Derrida, Jacques, v, 27, 46n35, 46n36, 375 Devadson, Ranji, 189n33, 189n34, 190n51, 442 Deveson, Richard, 412 Dews, Peter, 124n128, 375, 390 Dicken, Peter, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 375 Dickens, David R., 191n54, 375 Dickens, Peter, 211n44, 425 Dirks, Nicholas B., 120n21, 375 Dirlik, Arif, 50n140, 50n154, 71n47, 71n48, 72n80, 73n118, 89n1, 90n10, 375, 419 Dodd, Nigel, 256n25, 439 Dodge, Toby, 120n123, 375 Doetsch-Kidder, Sharon, 69n11, 375 Doherty, Joe, 191n54, 375 Dolan, Paddy, 234n39, 399 Dolgon, Corey, 188n23, 188n29, 189n34, 190n51, 190n53, 259n73, 375 Domañska, Ewa, 191n54, 375 Dorofeev, Sergey, 210n34, 375 Drache, Daniel, 418 Drake, Michael S., 188n23, 375 Drysdale, John, 334n63, 375 Du Bois, W. E. B., vi, xviii, 127, 133, 140n2, 375, 413, 430 du Gay, Paul, 187n1, 375 Dubois, Laurent, 21n84, 70n26, 336n97, 376

Dufour, Frédérick Guillaume, 120n13, 164n1, 376 Duménil, Gérard, 208n1, 256n20, 376 Duncker, Elke, 235n68, 376 Dunne, Michael, 143n78, 376 Durkheim, Émile, vi, xviii, xix, 14, 31, 97–99, 101, 103–106, 110–112, 114, 116, 121n39, 121n42, 121n44, 121n45, 121n46, 121n50, 121n51, 121n52, 122n93, 122n96, 123n116, 173, 295, 296, 300, 302, 303, 334n66, 334n69, 373, 376 Dussel, Enrique D., 75, 90n12, 332n27, 376, 411, 413, 419 Duvall, John N., 164n24, 376, 397 E

Eadie, Jo, 334n66, 376 Eagleton, Terry, 191n54, 191n55, 191n69, 258n60, 258n62, 365, 376, 377 Ebrecht, Jörg, 353 Eckstein, Lars, 357 Eder, Klaus, 373 Edles, Laura Desfor, 119n2, 377 Edwards, Gilbert Franklin, 382 Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich, 234n50, 235n67, 235n68, 369 Eickelpasch, Rolf, 164n24, 377 Eiland, Howard, 359 Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah, viii, ixn5, x, 70n39, 71n42, 71n47, 89n6, 123n122, 136, 144n91, 377, 424, 435, 437 Eitzen, D. Stanley, 255n2, 377 El-Lahib, Yahya, 20n47, 377 el-Ojeili, Chamsy, 190n54, 333n43–45, 377 Elbasha, Tamim, 21n65, 377 Elder-Vass, Dave, 21n65, 377

  Index of Names 

Elias, Norbert, v, viii, xix, 97, 101, 116, 120n17, 121n47, 124n132, 125n148, 377, 378 Elkana, Yehuda, 90n9, 378, 420 Elliott, Anthony, 171, 187n20, 188n23, 188n32, 188n33, 334n66, 378, 432 Elliott, Gregory, 362 Ellis, Elisabeth, 433 Elster, Jon, 122n89, 378 Emirbayer, Mustafa, 21n65, 378 Engels, Friedrich, 120n25, 122n90, 258n60, 259n67, 400, 408, 409 Enright, Eimear, 341n196, 378 Epstein, Cynthia F., 434 Ergül, Hakan, 341n196, 378 Erickson, Mark, 189n33, 189n34, 190n51, 442 Erikson, Robert, 164n23, 378 Escobar, Arturo, 48n105, 49n123, 71n48, 73n88, 142n48, 339n168, 378, 412, 419 Esquerre, Arnaud, 336n116, 339n180, 340n181, 340n182, 340n186, 340n188, 340n189, 340n192, 341n194, 362, 382 Etherington, Norman, 18n10, 120n31, 378 Etzioni, Amitai, 192n73, 378 Etzkowitz, Henry, 210n23, 233n24, 378 Evans, Martin, 209n8, 209n17, 353, 378 Evans, Mary, 165n47, 257n35, 379 Evans, Peter, 255n1, 379 F

Fabiani, Jean-Louis, 165n50, 379 Fach, Wolfgang, 190n54, 379 Factor, Regis A., 141n27, 379

453

Falla, P. S., 412 Fanon, Frantz, vi, 6, 19n23, 22n88, 47n68, 336n100, 379 Farran, Sue, 19n32, 379 Farrar, John H., 208n1, 256n20, 379 Farrell, Frank B., 191n54, 379 Farrimond, Hannah, 209n19, 379 Feather, Howard, 190n54, 379 Featherstone, Mike, 90n10, 120n16, 123n112, 124n127, 164n24, 187n7, 188n33, 189n34, 189n35, 190n51, 335n76, 379, 382, 414, 422, 428 Feenberg, Andrew, 209n10, 379, 397 Feldman, Simon, 336n116, 379 Feldstein, Peter, 424 Fenby-Hulse, Kieran, 236n88, 257n35, 280n5, 379 Ferguson, Kennan, 433 Fernbach, David, 352, 408 Ferrara, Alessandro, 141n27, 379 Ferrell, Robert E., 72n75, 141n25, 236n103, 380 Fforde, Matthew, 208n1, 256n20, 380 Fiedler, Markus G., 333n45, 380 Fieldhouse, D. K., 119n8, 380 Fielding, Nigel G., 46n37, 380 Fielding, Tony, 211n44, 425 Fijalkowski, Krysztof, 400 Finch, Janet, 437 Fine, Robert, 71n41, 72n78, 91n45, 333n42, 380 Fink, Arlene, 210n34, 380 Firat, A. Fuat, 46n37, 380 Fischer, Michael W., 124n142, 380 Fiss, Peer C., 394 Fitzmaurice, Garrett M., 211n54, 380 Flamez, Brande, 415 Fleck, Christian, 120n13, 164n1, 380 Fleming, Peter, 336n116, 380 Flynn, Jeffrey, 72n75, 141n25, 237n103, 380 Flyvbjerg, Bent, Bent, ixn10, x

454 

Index of Names

Føllesdal, Andreas, 142n51, 380 Fontana, Andrea, 191n54, 375 Forchtner, Bernhard, 434 Fornel, Michel de, 124n144, 380 Forrest, Alan, 429 Foster, Hal, 164n24, 380 Foucault, Michel, v, vi, xix, 15, 22n102, 116, 124n133, 156, 166n59, 176, 308, 336n111, 380, 381, 401 Fourie, Elsje, 20n51, 70n39, 89n6, 381 Fowler, Bridget, 255n1, 381 Frade, Carlos, 209n16, 211n47, 381 Frank, Andre Gunder, 123n110, 381 Frank, Arthur W., 49n116, 332n30, 381 Frank, Richard Iva, x, 441 Franklin, Sarah, 164n24, 381 Fraser, Nancy, 46n37, 69n11, 116, 120n12, 124n137, 124n138, 156, 166n66, 166n67, 188n33, 192n80, 210n37, 322, 339n179, 361, 381, 382, 396 Frazier, E. Franklin, vi, xviii, 127, 133, 140n3, 382 Free, Clinton, 211n53, 355 Freedman, Des, 165n47, 257n35, 356 Frère, Bruno, 433 Freudenburg, William R., 236n88, 257n35, 280n5, 382 Frickel, Scott, 235n66–68, 382, 429 Friedman, Jonathan, 90n10, 188n33, 382 Friedrich, Rainer, 119n10, 382 Frisby, David, 120n16, 124n127, 382, 428 Fukuyama, Francis, 175, 191n55, 191n69, 257n31, 382 Fuller, Steve, 124n144, 166n51, 210n3, 233n24, 234n36, 234n50, 235n67, 257n30, 280n4, 280n8, 335n90, 382, 383, 421

Fultner, Barbara, 72n75, 141n25, 141n27, 237n103, 383, 390 Furedi, Frank, 165n47, 257n35, 383 Furnham, Adrian, 236n95, 383 G

Gabay, Clive, 255n1, 383 Gad, Ulrik Pram, 93n121, 352 Gadamer, Hans-Georg, v, 304, 335n89, 383 Galbraith, John Kenneth, 174, 191n61, 383 Gamble, Andrew, 410 Gamson, William, 367 Gamwell, Franklin I., 141n27, 383 Gandhi, Leela, 69n3, 72n88, 333n47, 335n80, 383 Gane, Mike, 188n33, 331n19, 383 Gane, Nicholas, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 191n54, 255n5, 280n8, 331n19, 383 Gans, Herbert, 280n13, 280n18, 281n26, 281n27, 281n31, 384 Gaonkar, Dilip Parameshwar, 89n7, 384 Garrett, Chris, 191n54, 354 Gartrell, C. David, 168n113, 384 Gartrell, John W., 168n113, 384 Garz, Detlef, 334n63, 384 Gauthier, David, 88, 93n131, 384 Gehlen, Arnold, v Gell, Alfred, 21n65, 384 Gellner, Ernest, v, 125n148 Genosko, Gary, 256n13, 359, 384 Gerteis, Joseph, 369 Geuss, Raymond, 141n27, 210n37, 384 Ghosh, B. N., 20n55, 384 Ghosh, Nandini, 19n42, 356 Gibbins, John R., 187n8, 384 Gibbons, Michael, 210n23, 233n24, 233n26, 384, 414, 433

  Index of Names 

Giddens, Anthony, v, vi, xix, 22n99, 51n174, 69n14, 92n72, 116, 117, 119n2, 121n38, 121n42, 123n114, 154, 156, 166n62, 166n64, 171, 174, 187n7, 187n21, 188n30, 188n31, 188n33, 189n35, 192n81, 236n95, 255n2, 322, 335n76, 376, 384, 385 Giddings, Franklin H., 18n16, 385 Gieben, Bram, 45n15, 123n114, 187n7, 335n76, 391 Gilbert, G. Nigel, 367 Gill, Judith, 421 Gillespie, Alex, 124n130, 385 Gilliom, John, 189n36, 211n52, 385 Gillison, Gillian, 164n24, 385 Gilroy, Paul, 20n43, 45n15, 90n21, 332n36, 385 Giroux, Henry A., 256n15, 385 Gislason, Maya, 234n50, 235n67, 235n68, 369 Glaser, Daryl, 120n31, 385 Go, Julian, 18n1, 18n2, 18n11, 18n16, 18n17, 19n19, 19n20, 19n28, 19n30, 19n33, 19n35, 19n39, 19n40, 20n48, 20n50, 20n52, 20n53, 20n56, 20n58, 20n59, 21n63, 21n66–69, 21n74–77, 21n80–82, 21n83, 22n86, 22n87, 22n89, 22n93–95, 22n100–103, 22n109, 23n114, 23n116, 23n117, 23n120, 23n121, 46n21, 70n27, 72n88, 91n39, 123n110, 141n17, 330n2, 331n9, 333n41, 335n73, 336n96, 336n99–101, 336n107, 336n109, 336n110, 336n112, 337n132, 337n134, 338n149, 339n162, 339n175, 339n178, 360, 361, 374, 385–387, 398, 410, 427, 431 Goffman, Erving, 281n22, 386 Golb, Joel, 381, 382, 396

455

Goldhammer, Arthur, 119n10, 386 Golding, Peter, 255n2, 386 Goldstone, Jack, 416 Goldthorpe, John H., 165n30, 174, 191n59, 210n34, 386 Golinsky, Jan, 235n67, 386 Gond, Jean-Pascal, 434 Good, James, 191n55, 191n69, 386 Goodman, Douglas J., 119n2, 422 Goody, Jack, 154, 165n44, 386 Gordon, Daniel, 119n10, 386 Goswami, Manu, 91n46, 386 Gottheil, Fred M., 333n43, 400 Goudsblom, Johan, 124n130, 377, 386 Gouldner, Alvin Ward, 208n1, 209n3, 210n31, 255n2, 256n20, 386 Goulimari, Pelagia, 191n54, 383, 386, 397, 399, 401, 409 Grabham, Emily, 69n11, 386 Graham, Elspeth, 191n54, 375 Grant, Peter, 210n34, 375 Green, December, 19n32, 387 Greenfeld, Howard, 410 Griffiths, Gareth, 355 Grosfoguel, Ramón, 339n168, 387 Grosjean, Garnet, 426 Grossberg, Lawrence, 430 Grotius, Hugo, 88, 93n125, 387 Groves, Chris, 255n9, 256n13, 256n27, 352 Guha, Ranajit, 21n74, 21n75, 46n32, 47n48, 91n39, 332n38, 387 Guhin, Jeffrey, 45n13, 122n84, 337n128, 387 Guilfoyle, Andrew, 419 Gunn, Richard, 48n101, 387 Gunn, Simon, 51n159, 387 Günther, Klaus, 141n27, 387 Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Encarnación, 72n88, 91n39, 235n67, 361, 387, 425 Gutmann, Amy, 70n40, 435 Gutting, Gary, 125n142, 387

456 

Index of Names

H

Haas, Michael, 125n142, 387 Habermas, Jürgen, v, vi, xix, 46n37, 47n54, 49n116, 71n41, 72n75, 92n112, 116, 119n10, 123n114, 124n130, 124n134, 141n25, 141n27, 144n91, 156, 166n60, 167n89, 176, 181, 187n7, 191n54, 192n78, 193n108–110, 208n1, 210n37, 233n19, 236n97, 236n103, 256n20, 257n46, 322, 331n3, 332n28, 332n30, 334n63, 335n76, 335n90, 338n141, 379, 383, 387–391 Haddock, Adrian, 335n90, 391 Haddour, Azzedine, 425 Halford, Susan, 209n3, 210n31, 211n47, 391 Hall, John A., 120n13, 164n1, 168n107, 331n9, 391 Hall, Stuart, 20n44, 45n15, 90n20, 123n114, 125n148, 144n84, 168n103, 187n7, 255n7, 335n76, 391, 410 Hallaq, Wael B., 337n128, 391 Halliday, Terence C., 373 Halls, W. D., 376, 384 Halmai, Gábor, 122n99, 400 Halperin, Sandra, 331n9, 391 Halpin, Darren, 419 Halsey, A. H., 164n23, 165n30, 165n43, 168n105, 210n34, 255n3, 378, 391 Hamel, Jacques, 258n62, 391 Hamilton, Peter, 257n40, 336n90, 391, 407, 437, 443 Hammond, Philip, 188n33, 191n55, 191n69, 391 Hansen, Peo, 93n121, 392 Harding, Sandra, 119n10, 392 Hardt, Michael, 123n124, 331n9, 331n16, 392

Harré, Rom, 166n51, 374, 392, 438 Harrington, Austin, 71n41, 167n85, 392 Harris, Errol E., 125n144, 392 Harrison, Trevor, 122n101, 392 Hartmann, Klaus, 21n65, 392 Hartung, Heike, 20n46, 392 Harvey, David, 164n24, 171, 187n22, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 259n73, 392 Hashemi, Morteza, 191n54, 392 Hassan, Ihab Habib, 164n24, 191n54, 392 Hassan, Robert, 256n25, 392 Hassard, John, 256n25, 392 Hasumi, Shiguehiko, 415 Haug, Frigga, 70n19, 258n66, 332n24, 338n159, 393 Haug, Wolfgang Fritz, 189n34, 190n51, 281n29, 393, 403, 409, 421, 441 Haux, Tina, 236n88, 257n35, 280n5, 393 Hawthorn, Geoffrey, 22n99, 119n2, 119n10, 123n114, 187n7, 335n76, 393 Hawthorne, Susan, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 393 Hayden, Patrick, 333n43–45, 377 Hayles, Katherine, 257n31, 393 Hazelrigg, Lawrence, 191n54, 393 He, Baogang, 70n40, 403 Hearse, Phil, 395 Heater, Derek Benjamin, 143n78, 415 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 83, 92n85, 106, 173, 304, 335n87, 393 Heidegger, Martin, 256n26, 304, 335n88, 393 Heinritz, Charlotte, 209n19, 426 Held, David, 70–71n41, 187n7, 188n33, 189n35, 355, 367, 368, 391, 393, 410, 436

  Index of Names 

Held, Joseph, 122n101, 393 Helle, Horst J., 120n16, 124n129, 393 Herbrechter, Stefan, 257n31, 394 Herold, Maik, 439 Herrera Vivar, Maria Teresa, 406 Herz, Martin, 51n159, 394 Hesse, Mary, 334n63, 394 Hessels, Laurens K., 210n23, 233n24, 394 Heywood, Emma, 236n88, 379 Hill, Christopher, 68, 74n129, 394 Hill, Stephen, 351 Hillebrandt, Frank, 353 Hines, Sally, 435 Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude, 210n24, 235n67, 235n74, 418 Hirsch, Paul, 333n44, 394 Hirst, Paul, 188n33, 394 Hoban, Wieland, 429 Hobbes, Thomas, 88, 93n126, 394 Hobsbawm, Eric, 68, 74n131, 93n111, 119n8, 331n9, 394 Hoel‐Green, Amanda, 394 Hoey, Douglas, 46n37, 409 Hoffman, Lesa, 211n54, 394 Hoggart, Richard, 45n15, 394 Hoggett, Paul, 47n55, 436 Hohengarten, William Mark, 389 Hohm, Charles, 280n18, 394 Holland, Dorothy C., 21n65, 394 Hollinger, Robert, 191n54, 394 Hollis, Martin, 257n30, 395 Holloway, John, 51n163, 51n164, 70n40, 188n29, 190n53, 258n51, 258n60, 259n73, 331n15, 333n40, 362, 395 Holmwood, John, 69n7, 70n19, 73n94, 91n46, 165n26, 165n28, 165n47, 210n23, 233n1, 233n2, 233n8, 233n9, 233n12, 233n18, 233n20, 233n21, 233n22, 233n25, 234n26–28, 234n33,

457

234n34, 234n37, 234n40, 234n42, 234n44, 234n49, 234n50, 235n67, 235n79, 235n82, 235n83, 236n88, 236n90, 257n35, 280n5, 395 Holton, Robert J., 71n41, 209n1, 256n20, 258n62, 395, 396 Holzner, Burkart, 355 Honneth, Axel, 49n116, 116, 119n10, 124n137, 124n138, 156, 166n66, 166n67, 176, 192n80, 322, 332n30, 381, 382, 396 Hoogheem, Andrew, 164n24, 396 Hoogvelt, Ankie, 19n19, 20n50, 21n62, 52n201, 72n88, 188n33, 396 Hooks, Gregory, 19n32, 396, 399 Hopkins, Terence K., 20n55, 333n50, 355, 396 Horkheimer, Max, 119n10, 300, 334n66, 335n71, 352, 396 Horner, Rory, 19n32, 396 Horrocks, Chris, 188n33, 191n55, 192n69, 396 Hostetler, Laura, 123n108, 396 Hountondji, Paulin, 91n47, 91n57, 397 House, James S., 209n1, 256n20, 397 How, Alan R., 124n127, 140n12, 397 Howard, Richard, 381 Hoy, David Couzens, 256n25, 397 Hoyningen-Huene, Paul, 125n144, 380 Hsieh Michelle, Fei-Yu, 367 Huber, Bettina J., 255n9, 256n27, 397 Hudson, Ray, 442 Hughes, Bill, 405 Hughes, J. A., 416 Hultin, Niklas, 19n32, 379 Hunt, Lynn, 164n24, 362, 399, 427 Huntington, Samuel P., 45n27, 175, 192n70, 397 Hurley, Robert, 380, 381

458 

Index of Names

Hutcheon, Linda, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 191n54, 397 Hutchings, Kimberly, 71n41, 143n78, 397 Huyssen, Andreas, 164n24, 188n33, 397 I

Ianni, Octavio, 188n33, 397 Ihde, Don, 209n10, 397 Imbroscio, David L., 21n65, 397 Inglehart, Ronald, 175, 191n68, 210n40, 351, 397, 398 Inglis, David, 71n41, 90n10, 120n13, 124n127, 140n12, 164n1, 164n20, 164n21, 165n26, 165n27, 165n29, 165n31, 165n34, 165n38, 165n48, 166n52, 166n57, 167n69, 167n70, 167n78, 167n82, 167n83, 167n87, 167n90, 167n93, 167n95, 167n98, 167n102, 168n108, 168n112, 168n114, 168n116, 168n118–120, 168n122, 168n126, 168n128, 187n1, 235n79, 258n60, 333n44, 398 Ingram, James, 381, 382, 396 Iphofen, Ron, 209n19, 398 Irwin, Robert, 337n128, 398 Isaac, Joel, 165n51, 191n54, 356, 398 Isin, Engin F., 91n39, 120n13, 143n78, 144n103, 164n1, 369, 370, 374, 398, 437 Israel, Mark, 209n19, 398 Izadi, Partow, 143n78, 398 J

Jackson, Jeffrey T., 19n32, 398 Jacob, Margaret C., 71n41, 164n24, 188n33, 399

Jaeggi, Rahel, 339n169, 399 James, C. L. R., 21n84, 70n26, 336n97, 399 Jameson, Fredric, 164n24, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 191n54, 259n73, 399, 406 Janka, Franz, 255n2, 399 Janos, Andrew C., 125n144, 188n33, 399 Janowitz, Morris, 373 Jarrett, Alfred Abioseh, 18n10, 399 Jaspers, Karl, 144n91, 399 Jáuregui, Carlos A., 376, 411, 413, 419 Jawad, Rana, 234n39, 255n2, 399 Jay Kilby, R., 141n27, 399 Jay, Martin, 141n27, 209n1, 256n20, 334n63, 399 Jeffries, Vincent, 258n53, 259n81, 352, 400 Jellissen, Susan M., 333n43, 400 Jemielniak, Dariusz, 210n22, 400 Jenks, Chris, 22n90, 168n127, 190n49, 400, 436, 440 Jephcott, Edmund, 377, 378 Jessop, Bob, 188n29, 190n53, 400 Jha, Shiva Chandra, 120n31, 400 Jiménez-Lucena, Isabel, 411 Joas, Hans, 124n128, 255n5, 400 Jogdand, Prahlad Gangaram, 188n33, 400 Johannes, Rolf, 209n1, 426 Johnson, Dale L., 20n55, 371 Johnston, Deborah, 189n34, 190n51, 424 Jones, Andrew, 188n33, 400 Jones, Colin, 429 Jones, Paul K., 122n99, 400 Joseph, Jonathan, 255n1, 400 Jullien, Francois, 70n40, 400 Junge, Barbara, 209n14, 209n15, 400

  Index of Names  K

Kalb, Don, 122n101, 400 Kali, Raja, 189n35, 400 Kant, Immanuel, 105, 119n10, 400 Kantrowitz, Barbara, 280n17, 281n28, 400 Kaplan, E. Ann, 399, 418 Karakayali, Serhat, 418 Kardulias, P. Nick, 20n55, 333n50, 400 Keating, Kenneth M., 236n88, 257n35, 280n5, 382 Keiger, John F. V., 22n108, 353 Keith, Michael, 258n53, 259n81, 400 Kelemen, Mihaela, 46n37, 401 Kellner, Douglas, 123n114, 164n24, 187n7, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 191n54, 191n55, 192n69, 258n58, 259n73, 331n19, 335n76, 360, 401 Kellow, Aynsley, 188n32, 422 Kelly, P. J., 70n40, 401 Kendall, Gavin, 71n41, 401 Kenny, Peter P., 390 Keohane, Robert O., 255n1, 401 Kermode, Frank, 141n18, 401 Kerner, Ina, 19n19, 19n42, 20n50, 48n97, 50n140, 50n154, 71n47, 72n80, 72n88, 73n118, 89n1, 401 Kerr, Keith, 280n8, 401 Khaldun, Ibn, viii Khory, Kavita R., 70n40, 401 Kienel, Simone, 93n112, 401 Kilby, Jane, 47n51, 401 King, Anthony, 21n65 Kivisto, Peter, 434 Knöbl, Wolfgang, 255n5, 400 Knorr Cetina, Karin, 234n50, 235n64, 235n65, 235n67, 401 Knottnerus, J. David, 255n2, 280n1, 280n9, 280n14, 280n15, 280n17, 280n18, 280n21,

459

281n22, 281n24, 281n26, 281n27, 281n28, 281n30, 281n33, 281n35, 401 Knowles, Caroline, 257n40, 280n8, 401 Kobayashi, Audrey, 23n116, 366 Koczanowicz, Leszek, 141n27, 402 Kofman, Eleonore, 143n78, 402 Kögler, Hans-Herbert, 71n41, 210n37, 402 Köhler, Martin, 355 Korkut, Umut, 122n101, 402 Koselleck, Reinhart, 209n1, 256n20, 402 Köster, Udo, 335n87, 402 Kowalik, Tadeusz, 120n31, 402 Krastev, Ivan, 378, 420 Krause, Monika, 187n1, 402 Krishna, Sankaran, 20n43, 90n21, 402 Krizsán, Andrea, 69n11, 402 Kron, Thomas, 124n130, 402 Kronenberg, Volker, 93n112, 402 Kudva, Neema, 19n32, 412 Kuhn, Axel, 21n85, 120n11, 402 Kuhn, Thomas S., vii, ixn2, 21n85, 125n142, 386, 402, 439 Kumar, Krishan, 46n37, 193n106, 209n4, 210n37, 331n9, 370, 374, 402, 441 Kunow, Rüdiger, 20n46, 402 Küpper, Thomas, 20n46, 403, 438 Kurasawa, Fuyuki, 120n12, 403 Küttler, Wolfgang, 167n89, 393, 403 Kvale, Steinar, 210n30, 366 Kymlicka, Will, 70n40, 359, 403 Kyung-Sup, Chang, ix, ixn9, x, 434 L

Laak, Marin, 209n14, 209n15, 423 Labica, Georges, 356, 359 Lace, Susanne, 378 Lachicotte, William S., 394

460 

Index of Names

Laclau, Ernesto, 119n10, 167n68, 255n1, 368, 403, 444 Ladner, Joyce A., 332n36, 361, 366, 403 Lahad, Kinneret, 341n196, 435 Lahire, Bernard, 379 Laird, Nan M., 211n54, 380 Lakomski, Gabriele, 21n65, 403 Lamont, Michèle, 340n180, 403 Lan, Pei-Chia, 91n66, 403 Langenhove, Luk van, 166n51, 392 Larrain, Jorge, 20n55, 258n60, 403 Larson, Magali Sarfatti, 233n20, 403 Las Heras, Jon, 21n65, 403 Lasch, Christopher, 175, 192n76, 403 Lash, Scott, 47n55, 90n10, 164n24, 166n64, 174, 187n7, 188n23, 188n28, 188n30, 188n31, 188n33, 189n34, 189n35, 190n40, 190n41, 190n51, 190n54, 192n81, 255n1, 358, 364, 379, 382, 403, 404, 414, 422 Lassman, Peter, 441 Latour, Bruno, 116, 124n136, 156, 166n65, 175, 188n33, 188n35, 234n56, 404 Lau, Christoph, 123n114, 166n64, 187n7, 188n30, 188n31, 188n33, 189n35, 192n81, 334n66, 335n76 Laugier, Sandra, 365 Lawler, Steph, 165n49, 404 Lawrence, Frederick, 388–390 Le Poidevin, Robin, 256n26, 404 Lea, John, 47n51, 404 Lebedev, S. A., 125n144, 404 Leca, Bernard, 434 Lechner, Frank J., 120n16, 124n129, 404 Lee, David J., 20n44, 90n20, 209n4, 371, 404 Lee, George, 120n31, 404

Lefebvre, Georges, 21n85, 70n25, 120n11, 336n98, 404 Lehmann, David, 125n145, 440 Leitch, Thomas M., 210n22, 404 Lemert, Charles C., 46n37, 404, 440 Lemieux, Cyril, 125n144, 380 Lengermann, Patricia Madoo, 119n2, 404 Lenhardt, Christian, 389 Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, 103, 120n31, 336n106, 404 Leslie, Larry L., 233n8, 428 Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 340n181, 404, 405 Levitas, Ruth, 256n16, 256n18, 405 Lévy, Dominique, 208n1, 256n20, 376 Leydesdorff, Loet, 210n23, 233n24, 378 Lichtblau, Klaus, 123n114, 187n7, 335n76, 405 Limoges, Camille, 210n23, 233n24, 233n26, 384 Lindholm, Charles, 336n116, 405 Lionnet, Françoise, 19n19, 20n50, 405 Lipset, Seymour Martin, 20n44, 90n20, 371, 408 Llamas, Rosa, 209n14, 209n15, 358 Locke, John, 88, 93n127, 405 Lockman, Zachary, 337n128, 405 Lockshin, R. A., 125n144, 405 Loick, Daniel, 236n91, 257n35, 405 Loja, Ema, 20n47, 405 Lojkine, Jean, 51n159, 405 Longhurst, Brian, 336n90, 405 Lopreato, Joseph, 209n1, 256n20, 405 Lovell, Terry, 21n65, 381, 405 Loveridge1, Ray, 334n63, 405 Luckmann, Thomas, 335n90, 359 Luehrmann, Laura, 19n32, 387 Lugones, María, xvi, 35, 40–45, 48n106, 51n160, 51n162, 51n168, 51n175, 405, 411 Luhmann, Niklas, v, 176, 181

  Index of Names 

Lukes, Steven, 119n10, 406 Lummis, Charles Douglas, 20n51, 406 Lury, Celia, 164n24, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 381, 404, 406 Lutz, Helma, 69n11, 70n40, 406 Lutz-Bachmann, Matthias, 70n41, 362 Luxemburg, Rosa, 103, 120n31, 404, 406 Lybeck, Eric R., 334n63, 373, 393, 416, 433 Lykke, Nina, 69n11, 406 Lyle, Kate, 210n24, 234n50, 234n51, 234n54, 234n55, 234n56, 234n59, 235n61, 235n63, 235n67, 235n68, 235n69, 235n71, 235n73, 235n75, 235n78, 235n80, 235n83, 235n84, 235n86, 236n89, 236n92, 236n93, 236n100, 255n2, 406 Lyon, David, 189n36, 211n52, 331n19, 334n66, 357, 406 Lyons, Matthew Nemiroff, 122n101, 359 Lyotard, Jean-François, v, 49n113, 406 M

Maasen, Sabine, 210n22, 406 Macamo, Elísio, 378, 420 MacBeath, Murray, 256n26, 404 MacDonald, Gayle Michelle, 69n11, 406 Macey, David, 436 MacMynowski, Dena P., 235n67, 235n70, 235n72, 406 Madsen, Richard, 192n74, 359 Maggio, Jay, 47n48, 406 Magubane, Zine, 21n84, 70n26, 91n60, 91n64, 120n13, 120n20, 164n1, 280n8, 336n97, 406, 407, 444

461

Maguire, Brendan, 165n24, 255n2, 280n1, 280n9, 280n14, 280n15, 280n17, 280n18, 280n21, 281n22, 281n24, 281n26–28, 281n30, 281n33, 281n35, 401 Mahler, Anne Garland, 19n32, 407 Mahon, Peter, 257n31, 407 Maia, João, 235n61, 236n92, 372 Maldonado-Torres, Nelson, 331n9, 339n168, 407 Malek, Mohammed H., 191n54, 375 Malešević, Siniša, 193n106, 331n9, 407 Mandalios, John, 168n109, 407 Manent, Pierre, 168n124, 407 Maniglier, Patrice, 340n181, 407 Mann, Michael, 143n78, 154, 160, 165n45, 168n106, 331n9, 407 Mannheim, Karl, 125n148, 334n63, 336n90, 407 Marginson, Simon, 233n8, 407 Margolis, Eric, 257n40, 408 Marion, Jonathan S., 257n40, 408 Marotta, Gary, 351 Marsh, David, 410 Marshall, Thomas Humphrey, 20n44, 90n20, 143n73, 143n78, 408 Marshall, Victor W., 20n46, 408 Martell, Luke, 188n33, 408 Martin, Peter J., 21n65, 408 Martins, Hermínio, v, 125n145 Marx, Karl, vi, xviii, xix, 14, 31, 97–99, 101–103, 110–112, 114, 116, 120n25, 122n89, 122n90, 123n115, 173, 258n60, 259n67, 281n29, 295, 296, 302, 303, 334n66, 334n67, 408, 409 Marxhausen, Thomas, 258n66, 259n67, 409 Massumi, Brian, 406 Matamoros Ponce, Fernando, 395

462 

Index of Names

Mathews, R.C.O., 233n21, 409 Matthewman, Steve, 46n37, 409 Matthews, Julian, 165n24, 429 Matustik, Martin J., 141n27, 409 Mauskopf, Seymour H., 386 Maxwell, John, 361 Mayer-Ahuja, Nicole, 19n32, 409 Mayes, David G., 208n1, 256n20, 379 Mayo, Marjorie, 188n33, 409 Mazower, Mark, 93n111, 409 McCarthy, James, 189n34, 190n51, 409 McCarthy, Thomas, 141n27, 334n63, 388, 389, 396, 409 McClintock, Anne, 120n21, 409 McDonald, Terrence J., 369 Mcevoy, John G., 46n37, 409 McGettigan, Andrew, 165n47, 257n35, 409 McGowan, John P., 191n54, 409 McGrawth, Dan, 381 McGrew, Anthony, 187n7, 188n33, 189n35, 368, 391, 410 McGuigan, Jim, 164n24, 409 McIlwaine, Cathy, 19n32, 370 McKay, Stephen, 234n50, 235n67, 235n82, 235n83, 395 McKee, Kathryn, 398 McKenzie, Wark, 188n33, 409 McKie, Linda, 209n1, 209n2, 209n3, 210n31, 256n20, 368, 410, 423, 425 McLaughlin, Kevin, 359 McLellan, David, 49n116, 119n10, 332n30, 408–410 McLennan, Gregor, 19n19, 20n50, 23n120, 47n72, 47n76, 48n78, 48n84, 48n90–95, 48n97, 48n102, 48n103, 49n121, 50n139, 50n141–143, 50n149, 50n154–157, 52n198–200, 52n202, 70n34, 73n88, 167n89, 187n1, 191n54, 330n1, 331n4,

331n10–13, 331n18, 331n20, 332n22, 332n23, 332n25, 332n27, 332n29, 333n55, 336n91, 336n92, 337n128, 337n133, 338n143–45, 339n173, 410 McMahon, Charlie, 164n24, 410 McNeil, Brian, 391 McNeill, William, 393 McNichols, Christine, 415 McWilliams, Terry, 425 Mead, George Herbert, 97, 116, 124n130, 385, 389, 400, 410, 428 Medvetz, Thomas, 341n191, 410 Meehan, Eugene John, 125n144, 410 Meekosha, Helen, 142n43, 410 Meer, Nasar, 235n82, 235n83, 395 Meier, August, 366 Mele, Vincenzo, 191n54, 410 Memmi, Albert, 6, 19n22, 22n88, 336n100, 410 Menard, Scott, 211n54, 410 Mendelson, Jack, 141n27, 410 Mendieta, Eduardo, 380, 390 Meneses, Maria Paula, 425 Menezes, Isabel, 405 Mennell, Stephen, 124n132, 377, 378, 386, 422 Menz, Georg, 189n34, 190n51, 429 Menzel, Ulrich, 20n55, 410 Merton, Robert K., vi, 125n144, 336n90, 411 Meschonnic, Henri, 415 Mesny, Anne, 280n8, 411 Meyer, John P., 236n88, 354 Meyer, John W., 331n9, 411 Meyer, Raymond, 400 Meyersohn, Rolf Bernard, 45n15, 411 Michael, Mike, 255n9, 256n27, 256n21, 256n27, 367, 411 Michael, S. M., 188n33, 400

  Index of Names 

Mignolo, Walter D., xvi, 35, 37–40, 48n105, 49n123, 49n132, 49n133, 49n135, 50n141, 50n142, 50n156, 50n158, 51n160, 73n88, 90n15, 91n39, 142n48, 143n71, 255n8, 331n12, 332n27, 332n29, 332n38, 333n55, 335n83, 335n85, 338n142, 339n168, 411, 412, 419, 436 Miller, A. V., 393 Miller, Andrew John, 166n51, 412 Miller, Gill, 19n32, 412 Miller, Kristie, 256n26, 356 Milley, Peter, 141n27, 412 Mills, C. Wright, vi, 280n8, 383, 401, 412, 441 Mira Godinho, Manuel, 372 Miraftab, Faranak, 19n32, 412 Miranda González, María Fernanda, 191n54, 412 Mirza, Heidi Safia, 19n42, 412 Mische, Ann, 21n65, 378 Mitchell, Claudia, 257n40, 412 Mitchell, Gordon R., 141n27, 412 Mitchell, W. J. T., 45n13, 337n128, 360 Mittelman, James H., 188n33, 412 Modgil, Celia, 354, 416 Modgil, Sohan, 354, 416 Modood, Tariq, 70n40, 412 Moellendorf, Darrel, 142n51, 367 Moghaddam, Fathali M., 392 Mollett, Sharlene, 19n42, 412 Mommsen, Wolfgang J., 18n10, 120n31, 121n63, 121n69, 336n108, 412 Monahan, Torin, 189n36, 211n52, 385, 412, 413 Montero, Maritza, 142n47, 413 Moody, James, 369 Moore, Kevin W., 369, 385

463

Moraña, Mabel, 22n86, 73n88, 90n12, 336n99, 376, 411, 413, 419 Morawski, Stefan, 164n24, 413, 420 Morel, Teresita, xiii, 431 Morgan, Alastair, 334n65, 413 Morgan, Marcus, 166n51, 413 Morrell, Robert, 235n61, 236n92, 372 Morris, Aldon D., 125n154, 140n5, 413 Morrison, Ken, 22n99, 119n2, 123n114, 187n7, 335n76 Morrison, Toni, 141n18, 141n21 Morrissey, Grace, 378 Mosca, Lorenzo, 189n35, 374 Mouffe, Chantal, 143n78, 255n1, 403, 413 Mouzelis, Nicos, 19n19, 20n50, 22n92, 188n33, 192n88, 193n89, 193n90, 193n97, 193n103, 193n111, 193n113, 193n115–120, 194n122, 194n124, 194n133, 194n140, 194n145, 413 Mudde, Cas, 122n101, 413 Müller, Jost, 123n124, 331n9, 331n16, 355 Müller-Doohm, Stefan, 47n54, 384, 390, 413, 416, 419 Müller-Godeffroy, Heinrich, 125n144, 413 Muniesa, Fabian, 362 Münkler, Herfried, 331n9, 413 Munslow, Alun, 191n54, 413 Murrey, Lucas, 46n37, 413 Myles, John F., 258n62, 414 N

Nadvi, Khalid, 19n32, 396 Nash, Kate, 210n37, 382, 403, 414 Naved, Shad, 46n34, 414 Nayar, Pramod K., 257n31, 414

464 

Index of Names

Nederveen Pieterse, Jan, 90n10, 119n10, 188n33, 354, 392, 403, 414, 428, 442 Negri, Antonio, 123n124, 331n9, 331n16, 363, 392 Negroponte, Nicholas, 209n14, 209n15, 414 Nelson, Cary, 430 Nemoianu, Virgil, 70n40, 164n24, 396, 414 Nersessian, Nancy, 166n51, 415 Neustadt, Ilya, 125n148 Newby, Howard, 210n30, 358 Ngũgı ̃, wa Thiong’o, 18n10, 414 Nice, Richard, 363–365 Nicholsen, Shierry Weber, 389 Nicholson, Linda J., 46n37, 69n11, 124n137, 166n66, 368, 382, 392, 414 Nickel, Patricia Mooney, 255n9, 256n27, 414 Nicolae, Stefan, 191n54, 414 Niebrugge-Brantley, Jill, 119n2, 404 Nkrumah, Kwame, 18n10, 414 Nohlen, Dieter, 20n55, 414 Nolte, Ernst, 93n112, 414 Noonan, Murray, 18n10, 120n31, 336n108, 414 Norman, York, 351 Nowicka, Magdalena, 71n41, 358, 423 Nowotny, Helga, 210n23, 233n24, 233n26, 384, 414 Nunes, João Arriscado, 425 Núñez, Isabel Vericat, 397 Nuyen, A. T., 119n10, 414 O

O’Neill, Jim, 123n125, 415 O’Donnell, Guillermo A., 21n65, 414 O’Donnell, Mike, 21n65, 414

Odora Hoppers, Catherine A., 142n46, 415 Offe, Claus, 396 O’Hanlon, Rosalind, 337n128, 414 Old, Joe, 72n75, 141n25, 237n103, 380 Oliveira, Nuno, 191n54, 415 Oliver, Dawn, 143n78, 415 Oliver, Marvarene, 69n11, 415 Oliver, Mike, 20n47, 415 Olivier, Laurent, 167n86, 435 Ollion, Étienne, 211n47, 415 Olsson, Jan, 21n65, 415 O’Mahony, Patrick, 191n54, 415 O’Neill, John, ixn3, x, 280n6, 415 Orloff, Ann Shola, 168n119, 352, 406 Orrells, Daniel, 360 Orwell, George, 142n32, 415 Osamu, Nishitani, 191n55, 192n69, 415 Osbeck, Lisa, 166n51, 415 Osborne, Rachael, 406 Osborne, Thomas, 119n10, 165n32, 187n1, 415 Osrecki, Fran, 187n1, 192n83, 415 Osterhammel, Jürgen, 18n10, 120n31, 336n108, 412 Oughton, Elizabeth, 234n50, 235n67, 235n68, 235n77, 415 Outhwaite, William, 21n65, 51n174, 69n14, 73n88, 92n72, 123n114, 123n127, 124n128, 124n131, 124n140, 124n144, 125n148, 125n151, 125n153, 125n155, 140n12, 165n46, 166n57, 187n7, 191n54, 255n6, 256n29, 334n63, 335n76, 416, 433, 434 Owen, David, 191n54, 396, 401, 416, 440 Özlem, Sayar, 47n48, 356

  Index of Names  P

Parekh, Bhikhu C., 70n40, 192n71, 416 Parsons, Talcott, vi, vii, viii, 181, 193n89, 193n113–117, 194n119–121, 194n131, 194n139, 401, 416, 417, 441 Parusnikova, Zuzana, 46n37, 417 Passavant, Paul A., 123n124, 331n9, 331n16, 417 Passerin d’Entráeves, Maurizio, 49n116, 119n10, 332n30, 390, 417 Passeron, Jean-Claude, 166n61, 340n191, 365 Patel, Sujata, 19n19, 20n50, 21n62, 52n201, 62, 71n56, 89n1, 89n2, 89n5, 90n11, 90n15, 90n16, 90n19, 90n23, 90n27, 90n37, 91n40, 91n43, 91n48, 91n58, 91n60, 91n62, 91n65, 91n67, 142n44, 333n42, 338n158, 353, 417 Patterson, M. E., 125n144, 417 Patton, Paul, 49n116, 332n30, 417 Paulus, Andreas L., 188n33, 191n55, 192n69, 417 Pauwels, Luc, 257n40, 408, 417 Pauwels, Teun, 122n99, 417 Pawson, Ray, 209n2, 417 Payne, Geoff, 164n23, 417 Pearman, William, 280n13, 417 Pearse, Rebecca, 47n71, 372 Pease, Bob, 119n10, 417 Pecourt, Juan, 166n51, 417 Peillon, Michel, 47n54, 417 Pellizzoni, Luigi, 72n75, 141n25, 237n103, 418 Peltonen, Tuomo, 46n37, 401 Pensky, Max, 390 Perdue, Peter C., 331n9, 418

465

Persaud, Randolph B., 19n19, 20n43, 20n50, 21n62, 52n201, 90n21, 143n64, 143n72, 418 Peterson, Christopher, 257n31, 418 Petersson, Gustav Jakob, 211n47, 418 Petranovi, Danilo, 369, 381 Petrella, Riccardo, 188n33, 418 Petrioli, Alexis, 167n89, 403 Pettit, Philip, 88, 93n132, 418 Pfaff, Steven, 369 Pfohl, Stephen, 367 Philcox, Richard, 379 Phillips, Anne, 70n40, 418 Phoenix, Ann, 19n42, 366 Pickering, Andrew, 335n90, 418 Pieper, Marianne, 123n124, 331n9, 331n16, 418 Piketty, Thomas, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 259n73, 418 Pilsch, Andrew, 209n10, 418 Pinker, Steven, 47n51, 256n17, 360, 404, 418, 420, 422 Pinto, Louis, 439 Pocock, David Francis, 376 Pogge, Thomas, 142n51, 357, 380, 418 Poggi, Stefano, 125n144, 418 Pohl, Christian, 210n24, 235n67, 235n74, 418 Polan, Dana, 164n24, 418 Polanyi, Karl, 258n63, 258n65, 418 Pollock, Sheldon I., 366 Pomeranz, Kenneth, 120n21, 123n110, 419 Pope, Catherine, 209n3, 210n31, 211n47, 391 Popper, Karl, 125n148, 383 Porter, Catherine, 404 Post, Robert, 71n41, 359 Power, Michael, 72n75, 141n25, 165n47, 233n1, 237n103, 257n35, 419 Pradella, Lucia, 19n32, 119n2, 419

466 

Index of Names

Prainsack, Barbara, 235n66, 235n67, 235n68, 382, 429 Prazniak, Roxann, 90n10, 419 Preyer, Gerhard, 70n39, 89n6, 419 Price, Joshua, 51n160, 405 Prochaska, David, 337n128, 368 Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph, 88, 93n129, 419 Prudham, Scott, 189n34, 190n51, 409 Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, Pille, 209n14, 209n15, 423 Purser, Ronald E., 256n25, 392 Putnam, Robert D., 192n74, 419 Pyysiäinen, Jarkko, 144n115, 419 Q

Quick, Andrew, 190n40, 404 Quicke, John, 46n37, 191n54, 419 Quijano, Aníbal, xvi, 20n43, 20n44, 35, 36, 48n104, 48n107, 49n120, 49n121, 49n122, 73n88, 75, 90n13, 90n20, 90n21, 122n101, 142n48, 339n168, 339n170, 419, 420, 441 R

Rabinow, Paul, 144n115, 381, 420 Rabotnikof, Nora, 210n37, 420 Racevskis, Karlis, 119n10, 420 Radcliffe, Sarah A., 19n42, 420 Radder, Hans, 125n144, 420 Rademacher, Claudia, 164n24, 377, 420, 426 Ramazanoglu, Caroline, 165n24, 420 Ramirez, Francisco O., 411 Ramírez, Miguel D., 333n43, 420 Randeria, Shalini, 90n9, 91n39, 255n5, 378, 420 Rattansi, Ali, 187n8, 191n54, 366

Ratzinger, Joseph, 124n134, 166n60, 391 Rauche, Gerhard Albin, 209n1, 256n20, 420 Rawls, John, 88, 93n130, 390, 420 Ray, Larry, 47n51, 72n75, 119n2, 119n10, 141n25, 141n27, 237n103, 401, 420 Reddock, Rhoda, 91n66, 420 Redner, Harry, 188n33, 420 Reed, Kate, 124n125, 140n12, 420 Reed, Mark S., 236n88, 257n35, 280n5, 421 Rees, Martin, 257n30, 421 Rehg, William, 390 Rehmann, Jan, 258n60, 421 Reid, Alan, 71n41, 421 Reifeld, Helmut, 143n73, 360 Reilly, John E., 437 Reimer, Bo, 187n8, 384 Reiter, Herbert, 189n35, 374 Reitz, Tilman, 258n60, 280n20, 421 Rengger, Nicholas J., 119n10, 421 Rennes, Juliette, 143n53, 362 Renwick, Chris, 236n96, 255n3, 421 Rescher, Nicholas, 280n4, 421 Reuter, Julia, 142n45, 421 Rex, John, v, 125n148 Reyes, Javier, 189n35, 400 Reyniers, Diane, 165n30, 351 Rhoades, Gary, 233n26, 341n196, 429 Riach, Graham, 47n48, 421 Rice, James P., 337n128, 421 Richard, Tutton, x, 255n9, 255n10–12, 256n15, 256n16, 256n19, 256n21, 256n22, 256n27, 256n28, 371, 437 Richardson, John, 364 Richardson, Michael, 337n128, 400, 421 Riedel, Jens, 424 Ries, Al, 166n51, 421 Rigg, Jonathan, 19n32, 421

  Index of Names 

Ringer, Fritz, 166n51, 335n90, 340n191, 421 Ritter, Mark, 357, 428 Ritzer, George, 119n2, 125n144, 175, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 191n66, 209n10, 404, 421, 422 Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia, 331n17, 332n39, 391, 421, 422 Robbins, Bruce, 70n41, 370 Robbins, Derek, 51n159, 422, 433 Roberts, David D., 191n54, 422 Roberts, Richard H., 190n40, 404 Robertson, David, 188n32, 422 Robertson, Roland, 71n41, 90n10, 187n7, 188n33, 192n89, 333n44, 379, 382, 398, 414, 422 Robertson, Susan, 425 Robinson, John Beverley, 419 Rocher, Guy, 192n89, 422 Rochlitz, Rainer, 72n75, 141n25, 237n103, 422 Rock, Paul, 437 Rodríguez-Garavito, César A., 72n88, 91n39, 235n67, 255n1, 425 Rojek, Chris, 165n24, 165n25, 422 Roniger, Luis, 70n39, 89n6, 332n37, 422 Rosa, Hartmut, 256n25, 422 Rosat, Jean-Jacques, 365 Rosati, Massimo, 70n39, 89n6, 422 Rose, Gillian, 257n40, 422 Rose, Hilary, 47n51, 422 Rose, Margaret A., 46n37, 209n4, 422 Rose, Nikolas, 144n115, 187n1, 415, 420 Rosenberg, M. Michael, 70n19, 332n24, 338n159, 423 Rosenfeld, Michel, 387 Rosenfeld, Richard, 165n47, 233n1, 236n87, 236n90, 257n35, 423 Rothbart, Daniel, 392 Roudometof, Victor, 125n144, 423

467

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 88, 93n128, 423 Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristóbal, 122n101, 413 Rovisco, Maria, 71n41, 358, 423 Roy, Ravi K., 189n34, 190n51, 423 Rubinstein, David, 21n65, 423 Rubio, Fernando Domínguez, 166n51, 356, 423 Ruby, Christian, 189n35, 423 Rudwick, Elliott, 366 Ruedy, John, 120n32, 423 Rumford, Chris, 71n41, 423 Runciman, W. G., 154, 160, 164n23, 165n43, 168n105, 378, 391, 423 Runnel, Pille, 209n14, 209n15, 423 Ruppert, Evelyn, 209n16, 211n47, 423 Rush, Michael, 191n54, 423 Ryan, Charlotte, 367 Ryan, J. Michael, 434 Ryan, Louise, 209n1–3, 210n31, 256n20, 368, 410, 423, 425 Rynne, Steven B., 378 S

Saad-Filho, Alfredo, 189n34, 190n51, 424 Sabat, Steven R., 392 Sacco, Timothy, 235n66, 429 Sachsenmaier, Dominic, 70n39, 89n6, 424 Said, Edward W., xvi, 6, 19n25, 20n58, 26–27, 45n8, 45n13, 45n14, 91n39, 122n84, 123n108, 144n83, 311, 316, 337n128, 338n148, 424 Saiedi, Nader, 119n10, 424 Saint Martin, Monique de, 365 Saint-Arnaud, Pierre, 20n43, 90n21, 140n5, 142n36, 424 Sakellaropoulos, Spyros, 333n43, 424 Salinas, Francisco J., 191n54, 242

468 

Index of Names

Sallaz, Jeffrey J., 410 Salvatore, Armando, 337n128, 424 Sanderson, Stephen, 416 Sandywell, Barry, 209n1, 256n20, 424 Santoro, Marco, 167n69, 424 Santos, Boaventura de Sousa, xvi, 19n19, 20n50, 23n111, 23n119, 26, 33–35, 45n12, 48n87, 48n88–94, 48n96–99, 48n101, 48n102, 91n39, 199n2, 119n10, 124n127, 140n12, 255n1, 331n5, 331n10, 331n11, 331n14, 332n27, 332n37, 360, 424, 425 Sapiro, Gisèle, 439 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 18n10, 425 Sarup, Madan, 165n24, 425 Sasaki, Masamichi, 416 Sassen, Saskia, 188n33, 425 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 434 Savage, Mike, 165n47, 187n1, 187n2, 187n5, 187n11, 187n14, 187n16, 187n17, 187n19, 188n24, 188n25, 189n37, 189n39, 190n41–43, 190n45, 190n50, 190n52, 191n56, 191n59, 191n60, 191n64, 191n67, 192n77, 192n82, 192n84, 209n3, 209n6, 209n8, 209n9, 209n11, 209n17, 209n18, 210n20, 210n26, 210n30, 210n31, 210n32, 210n35, 210n38, 210n42, 211n44, 211n45, 211n47, 211n48, 233n1, 236n90, 257n35, 337n131, 368, 391, 415, 425, 426 Savransky, Martin, 48n89, 280n8, 426 Sayer, Derek, 22n99, 119n2, 123n114, 187n7, 335n76, 426 Scammell, Geoffrey Vaughn, 331n9, 426 Schäller, Steven, 439

Scheiffele, Walter, 209n14, 209n15, 400 Scherpe, Klaus R., 164n24, 188n33, 397 Schlembach, Christopher, 191n54, 426 Schluchter, Wolfgang, 70n39, 71n47, 89n6, 144n91, 377 Schmaltz, Tad M., 386 Schmidt, Volker H., 70n39, 89n6, 426 Schneider, Christopher J., 69n11, 426 Schnell, Martin W., 209n19, 426 Schor, Juliet, 367 Schram, S. F., 125n144, 426 Schubert, J. Daniel, 255n1, 426 Schuetze, Hans Georg, 341n196, 426 Schulz, Markus S., 256n28, 426 Schüssler Fiorenza, Francis, 389 Schwartzman, Simon, 210n23, 233n24, 233n26, 384 Schweppenhäuser, Gerhard, 70n40, 165n24, 209n1, 256n20, 377, 420, 426 Scotson, John L., 124n132, 378 Scott, John, 124n127, 164n20, 426 Scott, Peter, 210n23, 233n24, 233n26, 384, 414 Seale, Clive, 168n121, 426 Sears, Alan M., 421 Seers, Dudley, 20n55, 426, 427 Segal, Marcia Texler, 371 Seidman, Steven, 22n100, 46n37, 70n33, 73n88, 119n2, 119n3, 119n8, 119n9, 120n18, 120n21, 120n22, 120n25, 120n26, 120n28, 120n33, 121n37, 121n39, 121n40, 121n42–46, 121n48, 121n50, 121n51, 121n53, 121n61, 121n64, 121n69, 122n72, 122n80, 122n82, 122n85, 122n89, 122n92, 122n94, 122n96, 122n97, 122n102, 123n106, 123n110, 123n111, 123n119,

  Index of Names 

123n122, 123n123, 190n48, 190n49, 191n54, 331n9, 334n66, 367, 368, 382, 404, 427 Seizov, Ognyan, 235n66, 427 Semmel, Bernard, 18n10, 120n31, 331n9, 336n108, 427 Senghaas, Dieter, 20n55, 427 Sennett, Richard, 174, 175, 192n75, 427 Sewell, William H., Jr., 21n65, 165n24, 427 Shafer, Byron E., 140n9, 427 Shamir, Ronen, 145n115, 427 Shanin, Teodor, 125n148 Shapiro, Ian, 369, 381 Shapiro, Jeremy J., 387, 388 Sharrock, W. W., 416 Shaver, Kelly G., 144n115, 427 Shaw, Martin, 255n9, 256n27, 427 Sheridan, Alan, 380 Shi, Shumei, 19n19, 20n50, 405 Shilliam, Robbie, 360 Shilling, Chris, 21n65, 427 Shils, Edward A., 193n89, 193n113, 407, 417 Shinn, Terry, 210n23, 233n24, 427 Shipman, Alan, 165n51, 356 Shohat, Ella, 23n120, 428 Shore, Cris, 165n47, 257n35, 443 Shusterman, Richard,351, 362, 368 Shvyrkov, Oleg, 123n123, 188n32, 363 Siisiäinen, Martti, 51n159, 428 Silva, Filipe Carreira da, 122n101, 124n130, 188n33, 189n35, 356, 428, 432 Silverblatt, Irene, 119n8, 123n122, 428 Silverman, Hugh J., 47n55, 428 Sim, Stuart, 165n24, 209n1, 256n20, 428 Simmel, Georg, vi, xix, 31, 97, 101, 116, 120n16, 124n129, 300, 334n66, 335n70, 428 Simonds, A. P., 336n90, 428

469

Simons, Herbert W., 280n20, 428 Simpson, George, 376 Singer, Judith D., 211n54, 428 Singh, Jakeet, 71n48, 428 Singh, Raghwendra Pratap, 46n37, 428 Sinha, Vineeta, 62, 72n66, 123n127, 140n12, 188n30, 353, 428 Sinhababu, Neil, 47n55, 428 Sívori, Horacio, 19n32, 442 Skillington, Tracey, 234n39, 399 Skinner, Alex, 400 Skinner, Debra, 394 Skinner, G. William, ixn6, x Skjeie, Hege, 402 Sklair, Leslie, 188n33, 428 Sklar, Kathryn Kish, 210n30, 367 Skocpol, Theda, 22n86, 70n27, 159, 167n96, 336n99, 428 Skrbis, Zlatko, 71n41, 401, 428, 443 Slater, David, 119n10, 428 Slaughter, Sheila, 233n8, 233n26, 341n196, 428, 429 Sloterdijk, Peter, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 429 Slott, Michael, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 259n73, 259n73, 429 Smart, Barry, 46n37, 165n47, 188n33, 189n34, 190n51, 233n1, 257n35, 258n58, 334n66, 404, 429 Smith Maguire, Jennifer, 165n24, 429 Smith, A. M. Sheridan, 381 Smith, Adam T., 21n65, 429 Smith, Adrian, 189n34, 190n51, 429 Smith, Charles C., 69n11, 406 Smith, Kenneth, 191n54, 429 Smith, Linda Tuhiwai, 91n39, 142n49, 429 Smith, Woodruff D., 121n59, 331n9, 429 Smith-Doerr, Laurel, 235n66, 429 Smyth, John, 341n196, 429 Snyder, Jon R., 438

470 

Index of Names

So, Alvin Y., 20n51, 20n55, 333n50, 429 Soboul, Albert, 21n85, 70n25, 120n11, 336n98, 429 Soederberg, Susanne, 189n34, 190n51, 429 Soeffner, Hans-Georg, 255n2, 429 Sohn-Rethel, Alfred, 125n145 Soja, Edward W., 47n64, 430 Solomon, Jack, 46n37, 165n24, 430 Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoglu, 143n78, 430 Sparkes, Andrew C., 165n47, 233n1, 257n35, 430 Spaulding, John A., 376 Speirs, Ronald, 441 Spencer, Herbert, 101, 120n14, 430 Spencer, Stephen, 257n40, 430 Spiegel, Gabrielle M., 188n33, 430 Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, xvi, 6, 19n25, 19n33, 21n67, 21n68, 21n79, 26–30, 45n9, 46n31, 46n32, 46n34, 46n37, 46n40, 47n48, 47n49, 316, 332n38, 338n151, 339n178, 375, 387, 406, 414, 430 Spruill, Charles R., 125n144, 430 Squires, Judith, 402 Stacey, Jackie, 188n33, 381 Staeheli, Lynn A., 143n78, 430 Stam, Robert, 23n120, 428 Stanfield II, John H., 124n17, 140n12, 143n78, 430 Stark, Jerry A., 389 Steinberg, Michael S., 412 Steinberger, Peter J., 210n37, 430 Steinmetz, George, 18n16, 19n19, 20n50, 91n39, 119n8, 120n13, 120n21, 121n63, 164n1, 167n77, 167n82, 167n84, 331n9, 331n9, 337n128, 367, 385, 430, 431 Stengel, Oliver, 333n45, 431

Stenning, Alison, 189n34, 190n51, 429 Stepnisky, Jeffrey N., 119n2, 422 Stewart, Alexander, 70n20, 395 Stewart, Gordon T., 331n19, 431 Stoeckl, Kristina, 70n39, 89n6, 422 Stoler, Ann Laura, 20n43, 20n45, 22n102, 90n21, 90n22, 336n109, 431 Stopher, Peter R., 210n34, 431 Strathern, Marilyn, 165n47, 233n1, 257n35, 431 Streeck, Wolfgang, 209n1, 256n20, 431 Stubbs, Richard, 360 Suda, Zdenek, 355 Sujatha, B., 123n125, 431 Sullivan, William M., 192n74, 359 Supik, Linda, 406 Susen, Simon, v–ix, ixn1, ixn3, ixn5, x, 19n34, 20n44, 20n52, 21n64, 21n73, 22n91, 22n92, 22n99, 46n39, 46n30, 46n37, 47n54–56, 47n64, 47n75, 48n83, 48n101, 49n112, 19n113, 49n116, 50n148, 50n153, 51n159, 51n163–165, 51n174, 52n208, 69n1, 69n11, 69n14, 70n19, 70n39, 70n40, 71n41, 71n42, 71n54, 72n75, 72n76, 73n90, 74n128, 89n4, 89n6, 20n90, 90n26, 90n32, 91n39, 91n42, 92n72, 92n85, 92n94, 93n111, 93n113, 119n1, 119n2, 119n4, 119n6, 119n10, 120n16, 120n27, 121n60, 122n93, 122n101, 123n114, 123n118, 124n129, 124n130, 125n144, 125n146, 125n147, 125n149, 125n150, 125n152, 141n25, 141–142n27, 142n28, 142n33, 142n41, 142–143n53, 143n73, 143n78, 144n88,

  Index of Names 

144n107, 145n117, 164n15, 165n24, 165n25, 165n33, 165n37, 166n51, 167n77, 167n85, 168n124, 138n125, 187n7, 187n8–10, 187n13, 188n24, 188n33, 189n34, 190n47, 190n49, 190n51, 190–191n54, 191n55, 192n69, 192n87, 193n102, 193n108, 194n123, 194n132, 194n144, 208n1, 209n4, 209n10, 209n14, 209n15, 210n22, 210n37, 210n41, 211n55, 233n17, 233n19, 234n43, 234n57, 234n58, 235n62, 236n92, 236n94, 237n97–99, 237n103, 237n104, 256n14, 256n15, 256n17, 256n20, 257n30, 257n32, 257n33, 257n46, 258n51, 258n53, 258n58, 258n60, 258n62, 258n66, 259n73, 259n76, 280n6, 280n7, 280n19, 280n20, 281n22, 281n23, 281n29, 281n32, 281n34, 281n37, 281n38, 330n3, 331n15, 331n19, 332n24, 332n30, 332n35, 333n40, 334n61, 334n65, 334n66, 335n70, 335n72, 335n76, 335n78, 335n79, 335n86, 336n90, 336n93, 336n95, 336–337n116, 337n135, 337n136, 337n139, 337–338n141, 338n150, 338n152, 338n153–157, 338n159, 339n160, 339n161, 339n169, 339n172, 339n178, 340n190, 341n191, 341n193, 341n195, 350n1, 350n2, 352, 361, 362, 367, 368, 371, 373, 379, 383, 392, 395, 398, 410, 413, 415, 422, 431–435, 437 Sussman, Michael, 70n39, 89n6, 419

471

Swartz, David, 166n51, 435 Swedberg, Richard, 47n54, 70n19, 332n24, 338n159, 435 Sweetman, Paul, 257n40, 280n8, 401 Swidler, Ann, 192n74, 359 Szeman, Imre, 357, 395 Sznaider, Natan, 70n41, 72n82, 166n64, 189n38, 192n81, 358 Sztompka, Piotr, 21n65, 72n72, 435 Szymborska, Hanna, 402 T

Tambini, Damian, 373 Tamm, Marek, 167n86, 435 Tan, Lin, 371 Tang, Shiping P., 125n144, 435 Tant, Tony, 410 Tarnowski, Knut, 352 Taylor, Charles, 70n40, 164n19, 257n30, 435 Taylor, David, 143n78, 435 Taylor, Yvette, 20n45, 69n11, 90n22, 341n196, 435 Teese, Richard, 365 Tétreault, Mary Ann, 20n55, 333n50, 435 Tezanos Tortajada, José Félix, 255n2, 435 Therborn, Göran, 90n9, 436 Thiele, Leslie Paul, 335n88, 436 Thijssen, Peter, 166n51, 436 Thoburn, Nicholas, 256n13, 359, 384 Thomas, George M., 411 Thomas, Helen, 123n114, 187n7, 335n76, 436 Thomassen, Bjørn, 50n140, 50n154, 71n47, 71n48, 72n80, 73n118, 89n1, 436 Thompson, E. P., 68, 74, 436 Thompson, Grahame, 188n33, 394 Thompson, John B., 72n75, 141n25, 237n103, 364, 436

472 

Index of Names

Thompson, Simon, 47n55, 436 Thorpe, Christopher, 258n60, 398 Threadgold, Steven, 433 Thrift, Nigel, 209n5, 436 Tiffin, Helen, 355 Tilly, Charles, vi, 159, 169n97, 336n111, 436 Tipton, Steven M., 192n74, 359 Tischer, Anuschka, 120n12, 373 Tischler Visquerra, Sergio, 395 Tlostanova, Madina V., 49n123, 142n48, 143n71, 338n142, 411, 436 Toews, David, 165n24, 189n35, 191n54, 258n58, 436 Toffler, Alvin, 174, 191n62, 436 Tolich, Martin, 209n19, 398 Tomlinson, John, 189n33, 436 Toporowski, Jan, 402 Torfing, Jacob, 46n37, 189n33, 334n66, 436 Torstendahl, Rolf, 233n20, 368, 372 Toulmin, Stephen, 71n41, 436 Touraine, Alain, 189n34, 190n51, 391, 436 Trautsch, Asmus, 142n27, 436 Trefzer, Annette, 398 Treviño, A. Javier, 193n89, 436, 437 Trout, Jack, 166n51, 421 Trow, Martin, 210n23, 233n24, 233n26, 384 Trowler, Vicki, 47n48, 437 Tsianos, Vassilis, 418 Tsilimpounidi, Myrto, 209n1, 256n20, 437 Tucker, Spencer C., 167n92, 437 Turcan, Romeo V., 341n196, 437 Turetzky, Philip, 256n26, 437 Turner, Bryan S., ix, ixn3, ixn5, x, xiii, 20n44, 22n99, 50n153, 51n159, 70n39, 71n41, 71n42, 89n6, 90n20, 119n2, 125n147, 141n27, 143n73, 143n78,

144n103, 165n24, 165n25, 166n62, 189n33, 193n89, 209n4, 280n6, 280n7, 281n29, 334n66, 337n128, 351, 352, 356, 362, 371, 376, 398, 404, 407, 415, 417, 422, 429, 432–435, 437, 441, 443 Turner, Chris, 364, 365 Turner, Jonathan H., 166n62, 385 Turner, Stephen P., 141n27, 356, 379 Tutton, Richard, 255n9, 256n27, 371, 437 Tyler, Imogen, 20n47, 437 U

Underhill, Geoffrey R. D., 360 Urry, John, 125n155, 171, 174, 187n1, 187n20, 188n23, 190n40, 190n41, 190n42, 234n48, 255n9, 255n11, 255n12, 256n13, 256n27, 378, 404, 437, 438 V

Vakaloulis, Michel, 46n37, 189n33, 189n34, 190n51, 259n73, 438 Valkonen, Sanna, 20n42, 438 van den Brink, Bert, 396 van Dijck, José, 211n53, 438 van Dyk, Silke, 20n46, 20n46, 438 van Langenhove, Luc, 166n51, 392, 438 van Lente, Harro, 210n23, 233n24, 394 van Raaij, W. Fred, 46n37, 438 Vandenberg, Andrew, 143n78, 437, 438 Vardi, Itai, 235n66, 429 Varela, Charles R., 21n65, 438 Varga, Somogy, 336n116, 438 Varisco, Daniel Martin, 337n128, 438

  Index of Names 

Vattimo, Gianni, 165n24, 438 Vaughan, Diane, 367 Vázquez, Rolando, 339n176, 438 Veer, Peter van der, 120n21, 123n107, 123n122, 438 Velody, Irving, 191n55, 191n69, 386 Venkatesh, Alladi, 46n37, 380 Vertovec, Steven, 71n41, 438 Vidyarthi, Govind, 18n10, 438 Vieira, Mónica Brito, 122n101, 428 Viertel, John, 352, 389 Viires, Piret, 209n14, 209n15, 423 Villa, Paula-Irene, 142n45, 421 Virk, Indermohan, 369 Viswanathan, Gauri, 45n14, 337n128,424 Volkmer, Ingrid, 210n37, 439 von Bismarck, Otto, 106 Vorländer, Hans, 122n101, 439 Vossen, Gottfried, 209n9, 441 Vostal, Filip, 187n1, 439 W

Wacquant, Loïc, 50n153, 51n159, 125n146, 166n61, 194n144, 258n62, 340n190, 365, 366, 439 Wagner, Caroline S., 235n66, 439 Wagner, Peter, 123n114, 176, 187n7, 187n9, 190n44, 192n79, 209n1, 235n66, 256n20, 335n76, 439 Waisman, Carlos H., 70n39, 89n6, 332n37, 422 Wajcman, Judy, 256n25, 439 Walby, Sylvia, 209n1, 256n20, 439 Waldron, Jeremy, 71n41, 359, 439 Walker, David M., 120n31, 385 Walker, Kate, 236n88, 379 Walker, Nicholas, 390 Walker, R. B. J., 19n19, 20n43, 20n50, 21n62, 52n201, 90n21, 143n64, 143n64, 143n72, 418 Wallaschek, Stefan, 20n42, 439

473

Wallenius-Korkalo, Sandra, 20n42, 438 Waller, John C., 125n144, 439 Waller, Nicole, 357 Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice, 20n55, 75, 90n14, 91n39, 125n144, 209n1, 256n20, 333n50, 355, 396, 424, 439, 440 Walsh, Catherine, 339n168, 440 Walsh, David F., 21n65, 123n114, 187n7, 335n76, 436, 440 Walsh, Peter William, 125n145, 440 Walter, Tony, 123n112, 187n7, 335n76, 440 Walzer, Michael, 71n41, 440 Wang, Lili, 372 Ward, Lester F., 101, 120n15, 440 Ware, James H., 211n54, 380 Washbrook, David, 337n128, 414 Waters, Malcolm, 20n44, 90n20, 440 Watson, Jake, 21n83, 141n17, 331n9, 386 Weal, Mark, 209n3, 210n31, 211n47, 391 Webb, Maureen, 189n36, 211n52, 440 Webber, Richard, 209n3, 209n9, 210n31, 440 Weber, Max, vi, viii, ix, x, xviii, xix, 14, 31, 97–99, 101, 106, 108–110, 112, 114, 116, 121n66, 121n70, 122n71, 121n76, 122n77, 122n78, 122n78, 122n81, 123n117, 173, 175, 258n60, 295, 296, 300, 302, 303, 334n66, 334n68, 363, 364, 375, 380, 423, 424, 441 Weber, Thomas, 441 Weffort, Francisco, 48n107, 122n101, 441 Weikum, Gerhard, 209n9, 441 Weiner, Bernard, 145n115, 441 Weingart, Peter, 210n22, 406 Weinsheimer, Joel, 141n23, 336n94, 441

474 

Index of Names

Weintraub, Jeff Alan, 210n37, 441 Weiss, Ulrich, 119n10, 441 Weisz, Amos, 357 Wellman, David, 140n15, 140n16, 141n17, 332n36, 361 Wellmer, Albrecht, 123n114, 187n7, 335n76, 396, 441 Welsh, John, 236n91, 257n35, 441 Welzel, Christian, 191n68, 210n40, 398 Wensley, Robin, 234n26, 370 Went, Robert, 71n41, 442 Wernick, Andrew, 165n24, 258n58, 442 Wertheim, Wim F., 119n10, 442 Westera, Wim, 209n14, 209n15, 442 Westerveld, Wim, 209n14, 209n15, 400 Westwood, Sally, 255n2, 255n9, 256n27, 442 Wharton, Amy S., 21n65, 442 Whimster, Sam, 364 White, Jay Dixon, 125n144, 442 White, Paul, 143n78, 442 Whitley, Richard, 233n11, 442 Whitton, Brian J., 72n75, 141n25, 237n103, 442 Wickham, Gary, 119n2, 442 Wiemann, Dirk, 357 Wieringa, Saskia, 19n32, 442 Wilder, Gary, 120n21, 121n36, 442 Wildfeuer, Janina, 235n66, 427 Wiles, Rose, 209n19, 442 Wilke, Christiane, 381, 382, 396 Will, Frederic, 352 Willett, John B., 211n54, 428 Willett, Thomas D., 189n34, 190n51, 423 Willetts, David, 165n47, 256n15, 257n35, 442 Williams, Allan M., 442 Williams, D. R., 125n142, 417 Williams, Huw Lloyd, 142n51, 442 Williams, Malcolm, 417

Williams, Robert C., 191n55, 192n69, 442 Williams, Steve, 189n33, 189n34, 190n51, 259n73, 442 Willis, Katie, 20n51, 189n34, 190n51, 429, 442 Willmott, Hugh, 125n144, 442 Wilson, Francille Rusan, 332n36, 443 Wilterdink, Nico A., 331n19, 334n66, 443 Winant, Howard, 125n154, 140n5, 443 Windrow, Martin, 22n108, 443 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 365, 401 Wodak, Ruth, 122n122, 434, 443 Woddis, Jack, 18n10, 443 Wolbring, Gregor, 20n47, 443 Wolf, Frieder Otto, 167n89, 403 Wolff, Kurt Heinrich, 120n16, 124n129, 443 Wolff, Larry, 19n29, 193n96, 256n17, 443 Wood, David Murakami, 189n36, 211n52, 413 Wood, Patricia K., 143n78, 144n103, 398 Woodiwiss, Anthony, 191n54, 443 Woodside, Arch G., 236n88, 257n35, 280n5, 443 Woodward, Ian, 71n41, 401, 428, 443 Wootton, David, 423 Wright, Alex, 21n65, 377 Wright, Susan, 165n47, 257n35, 443 Wyrtzen, Jonathan, 45n13, 122n84, 337n128, 387 Y

Yar, Majid, 47n55, 70n40, 443 Yeĝenoĝlu, Meyda, 71n41, 443 Young, Iris Marion, 69n11, 143n78, 443 Young, Robert, 19n20, 19n39, 73n88, 91n39, 443

  Index of Names  Z

Zagorin, Perez, 331n19, 334n66, 444 Zammito, John, 331n19, 444 Zembylas, Michalinos, 47n48, 444 Zephaniah, Benjamin, 19n24, 444 Zhao, Shanyang, 209n14, 209n15, 444 Zima, P. V., 123n114, 187n7, 335n76, 444 Ziman, John, 210n23, 233n24, 444 Zimmerman, Claire, 47n55, 444 Zimmermann, Ekkart, 416

475

Zimmermann, Harm-Peer, 20n46, 444 Zine, Magubane, 255n2, 406, 407, 444 Žižek, Slavoj, 20n44, 90n20, 167n68, 256n13, 258n60, 368, 444 Zohn, Harry, 359 Zolo, Danilo, 71n41, 444 zu Klampen, Dietrich, 209n1, 426 Zubaida, Sami, 125n148 Zuboff, Shoshana, 189n36, 211n52, 444 Zwick, Carola, 209n14, 209n15, 400

Index of Subjects1

A

Abilities/ability, 8, 12, 13, 28, 40, 118, 130, 134, 137, 138, 182, 198, 200–202, 213, 214, 226, 242, 243, 249, 261, 264, 267, 277, 278, 286, 293, 345, 348 Ableist, 286, 320 anti-ableism, 267 Absolutist states, 105, 354 Academia, 69, 174, 199, 215, 217, 218, 229, 230, 242, 262, 268, 269, 271, 290, 294, 306, 325, 327–329, 347, 349 Academic(s), v–vii, xviii–xxii, 3, 6, 17, 18, 26, 45, 62, 65, 75, 79, 80, 97, 98, 117, 118, 128, 152, 154, 155, 158–161, 177, 197, 199–202, 204–207, 215, 217–219, 221–223, 225–232, 234n36, 241, 245, 246, 261, 268–271, 273, 274, 276–279, 286, 291, 293, 296, 298, 301, 303, 305, 306, 311–313, 319, 325–330, 332n39, 340n191, 345–347, 355, 364, 365, 372,

373, 378, 383, 400, 428–430, 435, 440, 441 Accidentalist, 208 Accomplishments civilizational accomplishments, 112 epistemic accomplishments, 330 Accountability, 201, 431 Action(s) cognition and, 198, 225 ethnocentric schemes of, 89 forms of being, action, and reflection, 40 frameworks of perception, interpretation, appreciation, and, 295 human action, 317 material and symbolic resources for, 325 material and symbolic resources for action, expression, communication, justification, and self-realization, 323 patterns of, 182 patterns of action and reflection, 30 patterns of cognition and action, 198

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s) 2020 S. Susen, Sociology in the Twenty-First Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38424-1

477

478 

Index of Subjects

Action(s) (cont.) social actions, 29, 395, 401, 416 speech and, 31 theory of communicative action, 176, 383, 388, 390 Activities/activity, 3, 77, 88, 98, 106, 156, 214, 215, 227, 249, 292, 294, 388 Actor(s) actors operating in non-academic sectors, 199 actors working in the private sector, 204 asymmetrically positioned actors, 13, 223 bodily actors, 231 cognitive actors, 231 critical actors, 37 culturally divergent actors, 30 diametrically opposed actors, 13 different actors, 177, 323 disempowered actors, 288, 302 dominated actors/dominant actors, 13, 295 groups of actors, 98 hegemonic and non-hegemonic actors, 306 hegemonic or counterhegemonic actors, 33 heterogeneous mass of actors, 201 human actors, 11, 29, 34, 317 individual and collective actors, xxi, 7, 8, 11, 13, 30, 35, 65, 86, 100, 140, 226, 301, 325 institutional actors, 205, 206 marginalized actors, 12, 13, 39 marginalized and disempowered actors, 302 marginalized groups and actors, 301 niche actors, 13 non-European actors, 67 non-Western actors, 38 oppressed actors, 320, 321

ordinary actors, 14, 27, 29, 149, 246, 248, 275 peripheralized actors, 68 pivotal actors, 288 postcolonial actors, 5 powerful actors, 205 private actors, 207 privileged actors, 139 real-world actors, 208 reflexive actors, 244 sets of actors, 172 social actors, 42, 129 social actors and social structures, xv, xxiii, 133, 285, 343, 348 variety of actors, 201 Actor-network theory/actor network theory, 377, 404 Actuality the philosophical actuality of sociology, 168n124 the sociological actuality of philosophy, 168n124 Adaptability, 99 Adaptation, 181 Adaptive upgrading, 182, 346 Adjustment, 112, 208 Age ageism, 98, 128, 134, 267, 278, 302, 408 anti-ageism, 267 Ageist, 286, 320 Aesthetic(s), 163, 264, 271, 277, 314, 315, 324, 358, 410 aesthetic universalism, 314 Africa Africa and Asia, 4, 100 East Africa, 107 North Africa, 355, 408 South Africa, 123n126 South West Africa, 107 African African American, xviii, 127, 130–131, 345, 424

  Index of Subjects 

African American Pioneers of Sociology, xviii, 127, 130–131, 345, 424 African and Native Americans, 128 African continent, 103 Agency the agency of colonized and postcolonial subjects, 11 alternative and subaltern forms of, 67, 322 concept of, 10 the concept of ‘agency’ in modern social and political thought, 21n65 ‘core agency’, 13 crucial forms of, 11 dispositional forms of, 11 human agency, 29, 354, 392, 438 individual and collective agency, 63, 134 modes of, 82, 150 moral agency, 106 of nonelite subjects, 301 nonhuman forms of, 11 ‘peripheral agency’, 13 positional forms of, 11 the power-laden constitution of agency, 11 questions of, 12, 286 reconceptualization of, 10 structural forms of, 11 subaltern agency, 11–13, 66, 325 typology of, 11 unconscious forms of, 11 the West’s own agency, 12 worldly agency, 151 Agenda(s) academic agenda, 3 agendas in the humanities and social sciences, 290 agendas of privileged, white, Western, male, middle-or old-aged, and highly educated experts, 98

479

‘Anglo-Saxon’ research agendas in the social sciences, 345 behavioural, ideological, and institutional agendas, 15 civilizational agenda, 60 contemporary agendas, 313 disciplinary agenda, xix France’s colonial agenda, 103 hegemonic agenda, 88 hegemonic agenda of metrics-driven academia, 268 neoliberal agenda, 229 neomanagerialist agendas, 154 political agenda, 272 ‘postcolonizing’ and ‘decolonizing’ agendas, 43 praxis-oriented agendas, 77 programmatic agendas, 155, 324 research agendas, xxi, 9, 152, 345, 347, 358, 361, 394 sociological agenda, 160 sociological research agendas, xxi, 9, 347 Western agendas, 29 Western agendas of ‘subject creation’, 29 Agent(s) human agents, 408 of human freedom, 114 sub-agent, 41 subject/agent, 41 sub-subject/sub-agent, 41 world-historical agents of human progress, 115 Agential, 229, 230, 272, 287, 328 Agentic, 12 AGIL (Parsons), 181 Agreement, vi, 271, 348, 384 Agricultural, 251 Ahistorical, 304 Algeria, 15, 103, 309, 423 Algerian, 15, 88, 309, 353, 443 Alienating, 225

480 

Index of Subjects

Alienation, 100, 103, 242, 422, 444 Alliance, 223 Ambiguity, 229, 429 Ambivalence normative ambivalence, 229 tolerant ambivalence, 224 America Anglo-America, 133 North America, vi, viii, 115, 169, 253 South America, xvi, 25, 344 American African American, xviii, 127, 130–131, 345, 424 American exceptionalism, 128, 140, 358, 427 American Journal of Sociology, 161, 354, 369, 372, 378, 385, 411, 427 American Sociological Review, 161, 367, 382, 416 Anglo-American, ix, 4, 63, 78, 127, 133, 151, 158, 159, 162, 173–175, 214 Latin American, 32, 76, 175, 376, 378, 422 North American, vii, viii, 76, 422, 442 US-American, 127, 128, 160, 161 Americans African and Native Americans, 128 ‘Black Americans’, 139 ‘Native Americans’, 128, 139 Americas (the Americas), 113, 296, 303, 351, 413, 426 Anarchism, 99, 275 Anglo/AngloAnglo-America, 133 Anglo-American, ix, 4, 63, 78, 127, 133, 151, 158, 159, 162, 173–175, 214 Anglocentric, 117, 290

Anglocentrism, xviii, 117, 230, 290, 291 Anglo-European, 115 Anglophone, xviii, 117, 229, 269, 290, 291, 345 Anglo-Saxon, 175, 186, 327, 345 Animal(s), vi, 11, 130, 415 Animal-like, 41 Annihilation, 7, 34, 138, 139, 183, 288 Anomaly, 154, 369 Anomie, 300 Anonymity, 200 Antagonism, 14, 321 Anthropocentric, 34 Anthropocentrism, 28 Anthropological, 384, 431, 436 Anthropology, vi, viii, 3, 6, 44, 59, 79, 80, 82, 84, 97, 118, 119n7, 152, 177, 216, 263, 268, 274, 296, 298, 303, 312, 314, 404, 417, 424, 426, 436 social anthropology, 80 Antianti-and postcolonialism, 267, 278 anti-ableism, 267 anti-ageism, 267 anti-canonical, xxiii, 247, 349 anti-capitalism, 43, 267 anti-determinism, 150 anti-elitism, 291 anti-elitist, 68 anti-Enlightenment, 392 anti-essentialism, 293 anti-essentialist, 294 anti-ethnocentrism, 290 anti-Eurocentric, xx, 179 anti-Eurocentrism, 179 anti-fatalism, 248 anti-foundationalist, 313 anti-market, 251 anti-Marxist, 159 anti-metanarrativist, 331n19

  Index of Subjects 

anti-Occidentalism, 289 anti-parochial, 32 anti-poder, 431 anti-power, 27 anti-racism, 43, 267 anti-rationalism, 290 anti-reformism, 248 anti-relativism, 292 anti-relativist, 179 anti-sexism, 267 anti-sociology, 17 anti-universalism, 291, 292 anti-universalist, 313 anti-visualist, 246 Antinomies/antinomy, 14, 17, 50n153, 378, 379 Anxieties, 113, 261, 366 Apparatus(es) institutional apparatus, 203 modern apparatus, 42 of value-coding, 27 Applicability, 35, 86 Appreciation, 33, 34, 202, 295, 422 Arbitrary, xviii, 15, 37, 40, 42, 44, 45, 86, 129, 150, 151, 179, 203, 221, 223, 230, 254, 288, 293, 310 Architecture(s) conceptual architecture, 55, 313 disciplinary architectures, 83 of globalization, 55, 400 ideological architecture, 57 postmodern architecture, 444 Aristocracy sociological aristocracy, 162 Arrangement(s) ‘alternative’ social arrangements, 323–324 asymmetrical social arrangements, 321 normative arrangements, 172 social arrangements, 86, 89, 180, 323

481

socioculturally specific arrangements, 177 sociopolitical arrangements, 139 superstructural arrangement, 254 Art(s) and affluence, 436 and agency, 384 in the age of electronic reproduction, 381 the art of controversy, 274 Artistic, 58, 324 Artists, 242 Asia(s) Central Asia, 111 Eurasia, 111, 436 Other Asias, 430 South Asia, xvi, 25, 344 Southeast Asia, 104, 115 Asian Asian age, 381 Asian-centric, 23n116 Asian debates, 403 Asian Journal of Social Science, 353 Asian social sciences, 353 Asiatic empires, 102 mode of production, 111 period, 111 societies, 111 Assemblage(s) historical assemblages, 77 intersectional assemblages, 56 Assemblies, 105 Asset form(s), 326, 328–330, 340n185 Assimilate(d), 10, 86, 150, 350 Assimilation, 138, 426 Astronomy, 314 Atomized, 249, 254 Attachment, 111 Australia, 287, 296, 303, 407 Australian, 76 Authenticated, 30 Authenticity, 31, 129, 309, 321

482 

Index of Subjects

Authoritarian, 87, 412 Authoritarianism, 87, 242 Authority the authorizing force of authority, 139 epistemic authority, 200, 202 intellectual authority, 162 internal authority, 201 the internal authority of academic expertise, 201 patriarchal authority, 112 political authority, 108 social authority, 36, 79, 315 symbolic authority, 177, 178 traditional sources of authority, 99 Autonomous, 62, 63, 102, 353 Autonomy from heteronomy to autonomy, 100 individual and collective autonomy, 82 intellectual autonomy, xxi, xxii, 3, 213, 220, 227, 228, 261, 262, 270, 325, 347, 349 lack of, 62 scientific autonomy, 431 university autonomy, 437 Awareness, 153, 163, 243, 390 B

Background(s) academic backgrounds, 204 background condition, 114 background horizon, 79, 163, 232, 253, 346 disciplinary backgrounds, 118 hermeneutic background, 232 messy background, 208 motivational background, 4 multicultural background, 398 social and educational backgrounds, 291 social backgrounds, 201

socioeconomic, ethnic, genderspecific, generational, educational, or dispositional background, 130 Base the ‘base-and-superstructure’ metaphor, 391 economic base, 102 robust base for the jurisdiction of empirical sociologists, 198 Behaviour, vii, 181, 198, 205, 374, 383, 415, 438 Behavioural, xvii, xx–xxii, 5, 8, 11, 13, 15, 29, 42, 58, 61, 75, 83, 112, 128, 134, 139, 140, 150, 169, 180, 198, 202, 204, 206, 218, 222, 241, 273, 276, 277, 301, 323, 325, 327, 347, 350 Belgium, 4, 88, 107, 288, 297, 417 Belief, xx, 34, 150, 169, 277, 346, 405 Belonging cultural belonging, 310 social logic of solidarity, cohesion, and belonging, 186 Benefit, xx, 130, 132, 138, 139, 199, 200, 222, 225, 245, 263, 271, 276, 286, 291, 294 Berlin, 101, 380, 390, 406, 408, 409, 414, 416, 431, 434 Bias distortive impact of, 77 epistemic bias, 274 ideological bias, 274 internalist bias, 109 Biased, 7, 203, 268 unbiased, 274 Bildung, 269, 329 Binary/binaries analytical binaries, 10 binaries and hierarchies, 41 binary categories, 115, 431 binary categories (and practices), 42 binary categorization of ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 322

  Index of Subjects 

binary civilizational division, 113 binary civilizational division and hierarchy, 113 binary codings, 44 binary constructions, 15 binary distinction between ‘ontologies’ and ‘phenomenologies’, 152 binary division, 86 binary division between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 115, 287 binary interpretation, 112 binary logic, 310 binary schemes, 173 binary stereotypification, 113 binary worldview, 114 colonial and neocolonial binaries, 80 civilizational binaries, 113 an irrefutable binary between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 303 the ‘modern’ vs. ‘traditional’ binary, 115 the modern/tradition binary, 114 role of binaries, 14 simplistic binaries, 287 value-laden binaries, 8 Biological, 231, 409, 421 Biology, 314 Blochian, 34 Body/bodies administrative bodies, 105 external funding bodies, 215 funding bodies, 215, 221, 269 of ideas, 291 independent funding bodies, 269 people’s bodies, 42 private and public funding bodies, 221 reason and body, 79 of research, 6 sociology of the body, 266, 278 virtual bodies, 393

483

Boundaries/boundary academic boundaries, 226 blurring of the boundaries between the private sphere and the public sphere, 203 boundaries between intellectual currents, 45 boundaries between ‘scientific’ and ‘non-scientific’ data, 200 boundaries of a given field, 160 boundaries of a marketized university system, 218 boundaries of intelligibility, 232 boundaries of national societies, 56 boundaries of subject-specific realms of inquiry, 221 cultural and geographical boundaries, 303 cultural and ideological boundaries, 36 cultural boundaries, 81 disciplinary boundaries, 44, 152, 162, 218, 221, 222, 226, 269, 270 disciplinary identities and boundaries, 44 empirical boundaries, 88 epistemic boundaries, 43, 97, 221, 223, 225, 227, 298 ethnocentric boundaries, 33 extensive boundaries, 88 external boundary conditions, 181 formal and epistemic boundaries, 221 functional boundaries, 216 geographical–such as local, national, regional, and continental– boundaries, 58, 67, 81, 83, 137, 298 geographical boundaries, 296, 303 ideological and institutional boundaries, 44 institutional boundaries, 44, 216–218, 224, 227

484 

Index of Subjects

Boundaries/boundary (cont.) intellectual and institutional boundaries, 216, 218, 220, 224, 227 local, national, and regional boundaries, 295 local, national, regional, and continental boundaries, 58, 67 material and symbolic boundaries of nation-states, 88 physical and legal boundaries of nation-states, 203 socio-epistemic boundaries, 298 spatiotemporal boundaries, 85, 289 traditional boundaries, 270 traditional boundaries of nationstates, 203 traditional conceptual, methodological, empirical, and institutional boundaries, 217 traditional social boundaries, 214 Bourdieusian, 14, 40, 326, 432, 433 Bourgeoisie, 32, 375 Brazil, 115, 123n126, 363, 431 BRIC countries, 115, 363 Britain (Great Britain), 101, 102, 288, 309 British British academia, 174 British colonies, 309 British context, xix, 160, 162, 169, 176, 228 British counterparts, 175 British Empire, 88, 101, 309 British epochalism, 176 The British Journal of Sociology, x, 351, 358, 377, 384, 387, 391, 395, 398, 413, 418, 422, 423, 425, 438, 443 British Journal of Sociology of Education, 371, 419, 427, 429 British Market Research Bureau (BMRB), 204

British nationality, 174 British representative, 116 British rival, 104 British social science, 160 British social theory, 164n20, 398, 426 British sociologists, 163, 174 British sociology, v, xviii, xix, 116–119, 151–155, 162, 163, 169, 174, 378, 391, 415–417, 421, 425, 437 British sociology journals, 174 non-British scholars, xviii, 117 Broadening, xviii, 12, 130, 201, 243, 301, 323 Brussels, 101 Bureaucracy/bureaucracies, 109, 300, 425 Bureaucratic, 114, 200, 215 Bureaucratization, 99, 100, 215, 247 Business big business, 198, 329 business community, 269 business leaders, 107 business studies, 217, 400 businessmen, 329 businesswomen, 329 C

Cambodia, 104 Cameroon, 107 Canada, 291, 392 Canon(s) academic institutions and, 286 broadening of a, xviii, 130 core canon of dogmas and categorical imperatives, 219 deceptive canon, 39 disciplinary and sub-disciplinary canons, 306, 327 epistemic canon, xvii, 97, 306 expanding the canon, 83

  Index of Subjects 

integrity of ‘the canon’, 129 intellectual canons in mainstream sociology, xviii, 345 mainstream canons, 28, 76 mainstream canons of sociology, 286 mainstream sociological canons, 131 sub-canons, 301 of theorists, 116 of thought, 322 US sociological canon, 127, 133 Canon building, 123n127, 128, 140n12 Canon destruction between canon formation and canon destruction, 305–306 Canon formation in classical sociology, 98 disciplinary canon, 129, 305 in the humanities and social sciences, 328 in late twentieth-century British sociology, 116–119 in sociology, xviii, 116 Canonical anti-canonical, xxiii, 247, 349 non-canonical, 130 scholars, 167n69 status, 27 thinkers, 156 trinity, 98 Canonicity club of, 129 defining and redefining canonicity, 118 determining canonicity, 129 and exclusivity, xviii, 127–145 intimations of, xvii–xix, 300–306, 345–346 and sociology, xvii, 97–125 Canonization decanonization, 86 disciplinary canonization, 155 of knowledge, 98

485

of sociological thought, 116 Canonize(d), 154, 307 canonized discipline, 100 Capacities/capacity to adapt to processes of commodification, 103 to address social problems, 226 to bar ‘outsiders’ from entering the privileged circle of ‘insiders’, 345 to be ‘political’, 137 of capital to expand across, and to take hegemonic control of, the globe, 68 to claim legitimacy, 105 cognitive capacity, 201 to contribute to the reproduction of an overarching system, 182 to convert, 100, 160 to create shared discursive spaces, 226 to define the parameters, 228 to delineate, xxii, 245, 345 distinctive capacity, 207 to engage, 11, 279 to exercise hegemonic influence, 17 to focus on the large-scale industrialization of its own society, 106 fulfilment of one’s capacities as a human being, 130 fundamental capacities, 11 to generate processes of social harmonization, involving the emergence of dominant values, norms, and conventions, 181 ‘human’ capacities, 138 to imagine the possibility of a reality beyond the limited horizon of normative parameters dictated by the hegemonic powers of contemporary history, 38 immersive capacity, 11 to import knowledge, 270

486 

Index of Subjects

Capacities/capacity (cont.) incapacity, 298 to incorporate, 118 to incorporate knowledge, 228 to interact with the environment and to cope with external boundary conditions, 181 interpretive capacity, 11 for large-scale social integration, 185 for large-scale system integration, 185 to maintain, and to draw upon, vital sources of social cohesion, notably habitualized patterns of behaviour, 181 to minimize the influence of counterhegemonic discourses, 7 to misperceive, to misrepresent, and to misinterpret, 232 our interactional, conceptual, and organizational capacities, 350 people’s capacity to convert themselves into protagonists of their own destiny, 100 to perceive, to represent, and to interpret, 232 performative capacity, 11 to pervade almost every aspect of mainstream forms of knowledge production, 75 to play a beneficial role in the construction of counterhegemonic–and, hence, subversive and potentially empowering–socio-epistemic orders, 18 to position themselves within the global academic field, 291 of privilege, 139 to project its power, 103 reflexive capacity, 313 to relate to one another, 279

to rise above mere subsistence, 138 to set goals for the future, to make decisions in accordance with these goals, and to resolve goal conflicts, 181 to set the agenda, 26 to shape human life forms, 180 to shape public discourse, 249 to shape the course of world history, 173, 307 to situate itself, 220 transformative capacity, 11 Capital capacity of capital, 68 ‘capital’ vs. ‘labour’, 41 economic capital, 40, 217, 227 epistemic capital, 223 expansion of capital, 102, 107, 253 human and intellectual capital, 152, 227 human capital, 107, 253 social capital, 175, 419, 428 symbolic and/or economic capital, 227 symbolic capital, 160, 217, 365 symbolic, economic, and financial capital, 215 transnational movement of goods, capital, services, labour, and people, 203 unequal distribution of capital (notably social, cultural, educational, symbolic, linguistic, epistemic, political, and economic capital), 40 universalist histories of capital, 12, 68 value and capital, 357 Western values, technology, and capital, 178

  Index of Subjects 

Capitalism anti-capitalism, 43, 267 and colonialism, 103 colonialism and, 40 development of, 103 disorganized capitalism, 171 global capitalism, 103, 133, 252, 370, 375, 392 history of, 103 industrial capitalism, 99, 102, 109 integral capitalism, 326, 340n188 internationalization of, 103 ‘knowing capitalism’, 197, 436 modern capitalism, 250, 295 nature of, 103 new type of, 326 productive forces of, 114 spirit of, 109, 441 spread of, 102 variant of, 87 Western capitalism, 179 Capitalist consumerism, 201 development, 82, 178, 308 developmental paths, 178 economy, 102 empires, 102 exploitation, 42 imperialism, 111 market, 247, 248, 251, 253, 254 marketization, 253 mode of production, 180, 250 nations, 178 order, 103 political economies, 102 precapitalist, 102 precapitalist empires, 102 societies, 261 thinking, 40 world, 76, 440 non-capitalist, 178 Catastrophe(s), xxii, 186, 242 Categorical imperative(s), 219

487

Categories/category, 12, 27, 28, 31, 32, 40–42, 59, 85, 89, 115, 131, 134, 151, 204, 208, 218, 219, 268, 271, 287, 289, 291, 292, 295, 309, 314, 322, 373, 389, 431 Categorization(s), 31, 294, 309, 322 Causal, 114, 135, 377 Causalist monocausalist, 8 Causalities/causality, 152, 427 Celebrities/celebrity academic celebrities, 117, 440 present-day celebrities, 326 sociology of celebrity, 264 Celebrity chefs, 328 Celebrity status, vii, 116 Centralization, 108, 214, 215 Centre(s), viii, 7, 9, 63, 80, 108, 110, 118, 184, 251–253, 275, 319, 346, 394, 411 Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham, 26 Centuries/century, vii, viii, x, xv, xvi, xix, xxi–xxiii, 4–7, 9, 17, 25, 31, 41, 45, 56, 76, 79, 80, 82, 85, 87, 97, 99–103, 106, 108, 112, 114–119, 133, 154, 158, 161, 170, 173–175, 186, 199, 200, 202, 206–208, 220–222, 226, 229, 242, 250–253, 261, 272, 273, 285, 286, 299, 304–308, 325, 327, 330, 343, 344, 348–350, 356, 361, 363, 366, 370, 377, 380, 385, 386, 394, 396, 399, 401, 409, 416, 419, 423, 431, 432, 438–440 Certainties ontological certainties, 156 scientifically substantiated certainties, 177

488 

Index of Subjects

Challenge(s), vi, vii, x, xv, xvi, xix, xxi–xxiii, 4, 7, 8, 11, 18, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 35, 43, 45, 59, 63, 67, 68, 75, 76, 81, 87, 113, 132, 134, 135, 155, 158–162, 175, 179, 182, 184, 205–207, 219–232, 245, 247–250, 254, 261, 270, 272–275, 285, 292, 293, 295, 296, 307, 312, 317, 324, 343, 344, 346, 348–350, 352, 356, 360, 367–369, 371, 391, 401, 402, 406, 409, 410, 417, 418, 423, 425, 431, 433 Change(s) account of change, 174, 176 change idiom, 176 civilizational changes, 102 climate change, 242, 438 conceptions of, 311, 425 continuous change, 225 cosmetic changes, 65 cultural change, 312, 392, 398 directions of change, 355 distinctive national framings of change, 176 economic change, 312 emphasis on ‘change’, 312 epochal change, 170, 172, 375 epochalist change, 174 epochalist conceptions of change, 311 epochalist interpretations of change, 175 fluctuation and change, 394 fundamental forms of change, 176 game changers, 286, 327 geographical change, 312 global social change, 77 historical change, 170 idioms of change, 173 impermeable or immune to change, 129 informational change, 312

institutional change, 415 intellectual change, 372 language of ‘change’, 176–178 linguistic change, 312 meta-change, 358 modeling change, 428 the nature of, let alone the reasons for, change, 177 other forms of change, 312 political and administrative changes, 112 political and social change, 102 political change, 312, 397 psychosocial change, 312 resist change, 112 of science, 442 science of change, 442 scientific change, 312 social change, 77, 100, 102, 149, 160, 169, 266, 312, 317, 375, 429 sociology of social change, 266 structural changes, 111 substantial change, 112 technological change, 207, 312 theories of change, 399 unceasing change, 111 value change, 351 Chaotic, 150, 151 Charismatic, 109 Chemistry, 314 Childhood sociologists, 131 sociology/sociology of childhood, 131, 264 Children, 131, 442 China, viii, x, 102, 104, 110–113, 115, 123n124, 355, 363, 370, 396, 408, 419, 428, 431 Chinese, 112, 180, 408, 424 Christian Christian Europe, 113 non-Christian, 113 Christianity, 110

  Index of Subjects 

Citation(s), 262, 268, 372 Cities/city, 101, 110, 355, 370, 375, 391, 398, 407, 408, 412, 437, 440 Citizen(s) ‘extra-European’ citizens, 66 ‘proper citizen’, 138 French citizens, 104 fully fledged citizens, 66 sub-citizen, 31 world citizen, 32 Citizenship, xix, 32, 109, 134–140, 185, 186, 309, 355, 356, 358, 360, 371, 373, 374, 376, 397, 398, 402, 407, 408, 412, 413, 415, 416, 421, 430, 431, 435, 437, 438, 442, 443 Citizenship rights, 309, 356 City-states, 110, 391 Civilization(s), viii, x, xvii, 13, 27, 41, 76, 85, 108, 109, 115, 136, 175, 183, 185, 192n70, 296, 306, 307, 345, 377, 381, 389, 397, 420, 441–443 Civilizational, xvii, 7, 9, 26, 35, 37, 55, 60, 65, 66, 102, 104, 110–114, 116, 135–137, 159, 178, 180, 183, 199, 216, 231, 287, 296, 310, 346, 377 Civilizing mission, 42, 103, 115 Civilizing process, 105, 377 Civilizing transformation, 42 Civil rights, 252 Civil society, 106, 246, 250, 252, 254, 269, 356, 358, 360, 367, 383, 420, 440 Clash of civilizations, 175, 192n70, 397 of seemingly incompatible life forms, 242 Class class, ethnicity, gender, age, and ability, 40, 118, 134, 198, 200,

489

214, 242, 243, 249, 277, 286, 293, 345 colonial class, 36 coloniality of class and ethnicity, 43 intersection of gender/class/race, 42 middle-class, 98, 387, 425 sociology of, 264, 278 and stratification, 160, 278 working-class, vi, 41, 131, 251, 400 world-class, 230 Classic(s) a ‘classic’, 327 the best of the classics, 163 global classics, 295–296 restoring the classic in sociology, 374, 397 the worst of the classics, 163 Classical sociology, vii, x, xviii, 5, 64, 98, 99, 101, 108, 110, 112, 119n2, 156, 157, 271, 295, 296, 300–303, 308, 365, 370, 371, 374, 385, 397, 398, 401, 410, 415, 420, 423, 427, 430–432, 435, 437, 439, 442 Classification(s), 5, 33, 38, 419 Climate academic climate, 221 intellectual climate, 174 neoliberal climate, 328 political climate of uncertainty, 113 sociopolitical climate, 155 Climate change, 242, 438 Closure, 159, 372 Code(s), 38, 105 Cognition, 78, 198, 225, 279 Cognitive, xxi, xxii, 16, 33, 45, 75, 77, 87, 179, 198, 201, 222–224, 231, 241, 323, 347 Cohesion, 181, 186, 242, 378, 420 Collaboration(s), ix, 201, 221–224, 226, 229, 230, 232, 262, 269, 382, 429 Collapse, 174, 175, 242, 419

490 

Index of Subjects

Collection form, 326, 327, 330, 340n183 Collective, xvii, xxi, 7, 8, 11–13, 15, 30, 33, 35, 39, 42, 43, 63, 65, 69, 81, 82, 86, 89, 100, 102, 106, 111, 115, 128, 134, 137, 138, 140, 152, 169, 176, 177, 180, 215, 219, 226, 249, 254, 274, 289, 301, 309–311, 316, 323–325 Cologne, 101 Colonial, viii, 4, 5, 7–11, 13–15, 17, 33, 36–38, 40–43, 51n162, 55, 56, 59, 65–68, 76, 80, 85, 88, 102–107, 128, 133–136, 286, 288, 290, 295, 297, 304, 305, 308, 309, 311, 316, 320, 355, 370, 380, 385–387, 392, 396, 402, 405, 409, 411, 427–431, 442 Colonialism, viii, xvi, xviii, xix, 3, 4, 7–9, 14, 32, 36, 37, 40, 56, 57, 61, 65, 67, 68, 86–88, 103–105, 107, 110, 127, 128, 130, 134, 136, 179, 252, 253, 287–288, 293, 295, 297, 298, 301, 305, 308, 310–313, 344, 355, 366, 372, 375, 377, 399, 403, 408, 425 Coloniality of class and ethnicity, 43 concept of, 76 de-coloniality, 42, 411, 418 of gender, 43 global coloniality, 133–134, 297–298 horizon of, 98 lens of, 56, 75, 298 modernity and, 35, 38, 40, 65, 66, 310 and postcoloniality, 67 of power, 36, 411, 419 power, race, and coloniality, 132 of the social, 43

Colonization, xv, 4, 5, 42, 78, 100, 107, 186, 213, 229, 251, 309, 329, 343, 411 Colonize, 42 Colonized, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 40–42, 57, 59, 104, 110, 128, 130, 214, 215, 229, 287, 292, 306–309, 316, 320, 321, 326, 327, 329, 410, 424 Colonizer(s), 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 40, 41, 57, 104, 110, 307–309, 316, 410 between colonizers and colonized, 110, 308–309 Colonizing, 6, 36, 42, 59, 104, 128, 186, 309 Comfort zone(s), 44, 207, 216, 222, 226, 228, 270, 323 Commensurability, 226, 289 Commitment(s), vi, xx, 26, 38, 87, 130, 152, 156, 179, 186, 197, 220, 226, 316, 323, 349, 359, 360 Commodification, xxii, 33, 103, 154, 173, 214, 215, 243, 247, 250, 255, 348 Commodities/commodity, 102, 250, 252, 326 Commodity fetishism, 250 Common sense/common-sense, 15, 26, 55, 179, 242, 250, 258n62, 272, 275, 276, 391, 395 Communication(s), vi, 36, 89, 171, 204, 230, 231, 263, 264, 273, 323, 354, 371, 376, 386, 388, 439 Communism, 87, 99, 267, 275, 384 Communist, 87, 111, 361, 391 Community/communities Anglo-American community of social-scientific researchers, 127 business community, 269

  Index of Subjects 

communication community, 354 community life, 175 ‘community of fate’ (Schicksalsgemeinschaft), 180 community studies, 210n30, 355, 358, 373 decline of, 175 economic community, 108 epistemic communities, 98, 270, 271, 274 global social science community, xvii, 81, 345 imagined communities, 88, 180, 204, 354, 386 large-scale community, 138 local communities, 40, 252, 358 multicultural community, 88 national communities, 66 non-academic communities, 201 peripheralized communities, 288 political community, 66, 88, 355 research communities, 223, 224, 270 scientific community, vii, 201 traditional communities, 251 Competition, 7, 59, 103, 104, 116, 186, 215, 217, 269, 270, 294, 374 Competitiveness, 214 Complexification, 116 Complexities/complexity, xvi, xxiii, 8, 12, 83, 100, 103, 113, 152, 153, 156, 158, 172, 180, 182, 183, 203, 206, 221, 224, 245, 249, 252, 285, 287, 302, 303, 309, 310, 320, 344, 350, 371, 410, 429, 438 Confidentiality, 199 Configuration(s), 29, 67, 88, 158, 293, 317 Conflation, 85 between inflation and conflation, 312–313

491

Conflict(s) conflict theory, 302, 372 deliberative conflict, 355 epistemic conflict, 224 goal conflicts, 181 nuclear conflict, 243 social conflicts, 320, 396 Conflictuality, 232 Connected alternative connected histories, 87 events, 135 globally connected modes of social domination, 43 histories, xvi, xvii, 13, 15, 37, 60, 66, 82–89, 134–137, 253, 298, 321 historiographies, 13, 298, 299 history of encounters, 37 multifaceted factors and relations shaping connected societies and connected histories, 15 project of connected–and, hence, diversified–sociologies, 80 project of connected sociologies, 86 project of developing ‘connected sociologies’, 135 societies, xvi, 13, 15, 40, 298 sociologies, xvi, 13, 56, 83, 86, 87, 134–137, 298, 299, 360 Connectedness, 89, 176, 299, 378, 420 Connectivist, xvi, xvii, xxiii, 15, 27, 37, 58, 59, 61, 64, 65, 84, 87, 88, 135, 136, 247, 299, 300, 304, 314, 321, 344, 345, 349 Connectivity globality and, xvii, 75–93 Consciousness double consciousness, 385 false consciousness, 130 global consciousness, 55 historical consciousness, 153, 155 historically informed consciousness, 155

492 

Index of Subjects

Consciousness (cont.) human consciousness, 265, 278 moral consciousness, 389 of postcolonial peoples, 7 reflexive consciousness, 155 sociology of human consciousness, 265, 278 strong consciousness of historical complexity, 153 Consensus, 213, 271, 354, 372, 379, 416 Consent informed consent, 200 Conservatism, 99, 389 Conservative, vii, 17, 87, 128, 208, 275, 278, 322 Consistency, 224 Constitutionalism, 109 Constraint(s), 98, 105, 114, 213, 225, 362 Constructedness, 86 Construction(s), xv, xviii, xxiii, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15–18, 30, 33, 34, 38, 39, 41–43, 55–58, 61, 63–65, 67, 78, 80, 81, 84–86, 89, 98, 103, 112–115, 127, 130–132, 135–137, 179, 182, 186, 203, 225, 226, 229, 244, 254, 261, 277, 279, 286, 292, 294, 295, 298–300, 310, 311, 315–319, 321, 323, 328, 329, 331n17, 343, 348, 350, 359, 398, 399 Constructivism, 278 social constructivism, 291 Constructivist deconstructivist, 77 socio-constructivist, 28, 231 Consumerism, 201 Consumption, xx, 5, 29, 58, 78, 81, 99, 107, 134, 157, 198, 204, 220, 222, 225, 231, 253, 264, 279, 289, 301, 304, 328, 345, 346, 358, 363, 438, 443

Contemporaries, v, vi, viii, xvi, xix–xxi, xxiii, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 56, 59–61, 64–66, 68, 69, 98, 99, 110, 112, 114, 116, 117, 127, 132–134, 149, 151, 153–158, 162, 163, 169–176, 178, 180, 185, 198, 202, 203, 205, 206, 208, 218, 222, 228, 229, 242, 245–247, 270, 271, 275, 280n8, 286, 293, 295, 298, 301–305, 311, 313, 326, 327, 343, 344, 348, 351, 354, 356, 358, 359, 368, 371, 379, 384, 391, 394, 400, 402, 405, 409, 411, 418, 420, 422, 425, 427, 428, 435, 436, 444 global contemporaries, 295–296 Contestation, 129, 137, 367 Contextual/contextually, 35, 81, 176, 231, 324 transcontextual, 232 Contextuality, 79, 315 Contextualization, 150 Contextualize/contextualized, 5, 312 Contextualizing, 159, 436 Continent(s) African continent, 103 American continent, 25 dark continent, 409 European continent, xvii, 42, 66, 85, 103, 104, 114, 115, 296, 345 Continental/continentally continental borders, 253 continental Europe, v, 169 continental European countries, 291 continental European nationality, 174 continental France, 309 cross-continental, 58, 66, 307 transcontinental, xvii, 80, 243 tricontinental, 407

  Index of Subjects 

Contingency/contingencies, 77, 81, 86, 101, 136, 150, 155, 304, 313, 315, 317, 368, 444 Continuities/continuity, 161, 303, 412 Contradiction(s) fundamental contradictions, 101, 321 performative contradiction(s), 289–294, 331n19, 409 Contradiction-ridden, 15 Control, 7, 12, 13, 32, 36, 42, 68, 76, 104, 128, 185, 203, 206, 214, 217, 253, 322, 343, 374, 380, 441 Controversies/controversy, xv, 6, 14, 15, 62, 78, 93n112, 129, 169, 170, 261, 274, 286, 287, 354, 359, 362, 416 Convention(s), vii, 30, 58, 86, 139, 150, 175, 181, 183, 268, 318 Conventional, vi, 14, 32, 33, 43, 56, 60, 108, 128, 135, 216, 218 Co-operation, 224, 230, 243, 376, 401 Co-ordinative, 348 Cosmopolitan, 63, 64, 75, 87, 110, 156 Cosmopolitanism, 65, 70n41, 72n76, 344, 354, 358, 359, 366–369, 374, 380, 393, 396, 399, 401, 403, 419, 423, 428, 438, 442, 443 paradigm of cosmopolitanism, xvii, 60, 63–64 Counterhegemonic, viii, xxii, xxiii, 7, 9, 18, 33, 63, 83, 219, 241, 247, 248, 261, 275, 276, 301, 306, 317, 320, 322, 324, 335n72, 348, 349 Counterhegemony hegemony and counterhegemony, xxii, 261–281 Counterproductive, 10, 39, 50n153, 298

493

Countries/country, 6, 17, 25, 35, 65, 66, 81, 104, 107, 112, 113, 115, 123n126, 128, 159, 175, 178, 180, 184, 213, 251, 269, 291, 297, 307, 309, 327, 352, 363 Courland, 297 Creative, 58, 81, 220, 279, 363 Creativity, 34, 227, 229, 327 Credibility, 227, 232 Creole peoples, 39 Crime(s), 87, 264, 273, 374 Crisis/crises, ix, xix–xxii, 87, 151, 197, 202, 242, 244, 256n20, 262, 276, 347, 352, 361, 363, 368, 369, 373, 376, 379, 380, 386, 388, 389, 395, 397, 399, 400, 402, 405, 410, 420, 423–426, 428, 434, 437, 439, 440 Critical, vi, viii, xx, xxii, xxiii, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14–17, 28, 30, 33, 37–39, 55, 61, 65, 77, 80, 102, 113, 117, 130, 133, 135, 140, 151, 153–156, 163, 172, 176, 184, 185, 190n54, 197, 205, 207, 208, 213, 218, 219, 229, 231, 241, 244, 245, 248, 249, 253–255, 261, 264, 268, 274–279, 285–341, 346–353, 356, 358, 360, 362, 363, 366, 368, 369, 372–375, 377, 378, 383–385, 387, 388, 392, 394–397, 399–401, 405, 407, 409, 412, 413, 415, 416, 420, 422, 424, 426–429, 431–437, 439, 440, 443 Critical sociologist(s), xx, 33, 55, 231, 248, 254, 275, 286, 287, 293, 310, 320, 325 Critical sociology, 12, 15, 140, 163, 184, 185, 264, 294, 318, 319, 329, 350, 369, 373, 396, 424, 433 Critical theorist(s), 39, 405

494 

Index of Subjects

Critical theory, 6, 16, 276, 302, 305, 313, 317, 318, 353, 356, 358, 360, 377, 384, 388, 392, 396, 401, 405, 409, 413, 416, 420, 422, 431, 432, 434 Criticism(s), ix, 28, 47n51, 151, 153, 155, 167n69, 273, 276, 305, 339n173, 372, 375, 376, 379, 382, 383, 389, 401, 402, 414, 434 Critique(s), vi, xvi, 8, 19n29, 27, 28, 39, 42, 56, 68, 77, 85, 103, 104, 131, 133, 155, 157, 172, 249, 250, 256n17, 275, 278, 279, 280n20, 291, 292, 300, 302, 305, 312, 318, 319, 344, 352, 354, 356, 357, 359, 361–364, 366, 369–371, 373, 375, 379, 388, 391, 392, 395, 399, 402, 405, 406, 408–410, 414, 417, 421, 422, 424, 428, 430–434, 438, 439, 442, 443 Crosscross-border, 59 cross-continental, 58, 66, 307 cross-council, 421 cross-cultural, 36, 59, 185, 299, 314 cross-cutting, 216 cross-disciplinary, 201, 278 cross-fertilization/cross-fertilize/ cross-fertilized/cross-fertilizing, xix, 25, 28, 63, 99, 200, 204, 208, 223, 224, 243, 270, 297, 298, 316, 323, 346, 349 cross-over, 224 cross-regional/crossregionally, 63, 66 cross-spatial, 153 cross-temporal, 153 cross-thematic, 302 Cult(s) ‘the cult of God’, 111 ‘the cult of the individual’, 111

‘the cult of the tribe’, 111 sociology of cults, 264 Cultural annihilation, 7 beings, 317 belonging, 310 boundaries, 81 Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham, 26 change, 312, 392, 398 concerns, 85 core ‘cultural’ underpinning of the collegial system, 215 cross-cultural, 36, 185, 299 cross-cultural developments, 59 cross-cultural validity, 314 ‘the cultural’, 80 ‘cultural essence’, 31 ‘cultural inferiority’, 36 ‘cultural’ vs. ‘natural’, 41 cultural or semiotic processes, 9, 320 ‘cultural superiority’, 36 developments, 58 differentiation, 57, 302 epistemico-cultural core, 227 and ethnic terms, 106 forces, 160 forms, 307 and geographical boundaries, 303 global cultural variations, 60 identities, 31, 79, 106, 396, 414 and ideological boundaries, 36 level, 99, 100 logic, 186, 399 milieu, 31 and national contexts, 81 nature, 58 non-cultural, 318 particularity, 36, 40 pattern or tradition, 136 patterns of cognition and action, 198

  Index of Subjects 

political, cultural, and economic elite, 106, 107 political, cultural, and economic infrastructure, 107 practices, 179 rights, 252 social, political, cultural, and ‘racial’ hierarchies, 36 sociology, vii, 80, 86, 264, 273, 278, 303, 318, 398, 415, 424, 425, 433, 444 specificities, 183, 346 statements, 31 stereotypes, 176 studies, vii, 3, 6, 26, 118, 152, 263, 273, 274, 302, 354, 361, 370, 374, 376, 378, 385, 387, 394, 397, 401, 403, 407, 411, 412, 419, 440 and symbolic aspects, 9 traditions, 30 transcultural, 183–185, 232 turn, 152, 164, 362, 399, 422, 427 values, 85 Culturalist, 309 Culturally codified investigation, 345 codified life forms, 172 codified reference point, 150 constituted realities, 84 constructed, 78 cross-culturally equivalent features, 36 culturally codified, 150, 172, 345 divergent actors, 30 diverse social-scientific disciplines, 263 eclectic, 62 and educationally privileged position, 32 incomplete, 17 ‘intra’-culturally shared rules and conventions, 30

495

specific constructions, 179 specific imaginings and imaginaries, 34 variable, 11 varied constitution of the social world, 61 Culture(s) academic cultures, 245, 378 and agency, 354 audit cultures, xxi, 154, 213, 216, 229, 347, 395, 430, 431 and authenticity, 405 Black Atlantic culture, 385 [c]olonial culture, 104 colonialism and, 375 common culture, 112 concept of, 225 consumer culture, 379 ‘Culture: A Post-Concept?’, 385 ‘culture of imperialism’, 31 culture, structure and agency, 423 decentered culture, 430 of dominance, 16 epistemic cultures, 223–225, 227, 235n64, 401, 429 and equality, 357, 401 and ethnicity, 132 European cultures, 87, 296 fieldwork in, 357, 395 French culture, 104 global culture, 381 global culture industry, 404 globalization and, 436 in global knowledge societies, 401 identity of, 30 and imperialism, 424 interpretation of, 309, 430 knowledge cultures, 401 Latino/a cultures, 415 local cultures, 359 the location of culture, 30, 360 Marxism and culture, 410 moral culture, 398

496 

Index of Subjects

Culture(s) (cont.) multiculturalism without culture, 418 of narcissism, 403 neomanagerialist audit cultures, 216 ‘Oriental’ cultures, 115 ‘other’ cultures, 35, 61, 296, 297 pervasive culture of capitalist consumerism, 201 the place of culture in social theory, 354 ‘postmaterialist’ culture, 175 the ‘postmaterialist culture’ thesis, 191n68 postmodern culture/post-modern culture, 363, 380, 409, 428, 438 power, politics, and culture, 424 as praxis, 357 public culture, 369, 435 shift, 397 Simmel on, 382, 428 sociologies of culture/sociology of culture, 80, 86, 264, 273, 318 of surveillance, 406 Theory, Culture & Society, 174, 354, 357, 358, 369, 381, 383, 399, 403–405, 411, 414, 422, 436–438, 442, 443 transformation of, 432 various cultures, 62 Culture-constitutive, 175 Curiosity, 227, 229, 327 Cynic(s), 114 Cynical, 88 D

Data, vi, xx, xxi, 33, 39, 43, 44, 86, 97, 117, 132, 161, 197–200, 202–207, 218, 227, 228, 245, 246, 249, 270, 276, 290, 301, 347, 356, 359, 378 Dataveillance, 206, 355, 371, 374, 438

Death sociology of death and dying, 264 Debate(s), vi, x, xv, xviii, xxii, xxiii, 6, 14, 35, 43, 62, 117, 151, 154, 164n1, 170, 179, 205, 206, 241, 244, 245, 261, 270, 271, 276, 279, 297, 314, 332n39, 343, 347–350, 359, 362, 367, 368, 376, 386, 389, 395, 420 Debureaucratization, 173 Decanonization, 86 Decentralization, 108, 173, 251 Decentre, 28, 366 Decentring, 60, 428 Decline of community, 175 of different emperors in China, 112 imperial retrenchment and decline, 4 of international law, 417 of ‘legislative’ knowledge, 201 narratives of decline, xxi, 242, 244, 347 of national varieties of capitalism, 429 of social capital, 175 of sociology’s contribution to research audits, 228 Decolonial, xvi, xxiii, 25, 35–45, 55, 56, 60, 68, 85, 132, 134, 247, 285–287, 289–295, 302, 303, 305, 306, 311, 313–315, 322, 344, 349, 387, 405, 411, 412, 419, 426, 436, 440 anti-capitalism, 43 anti-racism, 43 approaches, 44, 285, 287, 289–294, 305, 315, 322 critique, 302 deconstruction, 43 endeavour, 39 epistemic shift, 37 facets of early modern, modern, and late modern history, 56

  Index of Subjects 

feminism, 43, 405 frameworks, 25 frameworks of interpretation, 286 freedom, 411 imagination, 426 insights, 43 in intent and practice, 85 options, 411 perspectives, 25, 287, 305 post-and decolonial texts, 290 postcolonial and decolonial, 25, 43–45, 56, 60, 68, 285–287, 289–295, 302, 303, 305, 307, 311, 313–315, 322 postcolonial and decolonial accounts, 305 postcolonial and decolonial approaches, 44, 285, 287, 289–294, 305, 315, 322 postcolonial and decolonial critics of so-called Orientalism, 311 postcolonial and decolonial critiques of classical sociology, 302 postcolonial and decolonial modes of thought, 322 postcolonial and decolonial narratives, 294 postcolonial (and decolonial) present, 55 postcolonial and decolonial scholars, 290, 291, 294 postcolonial and decolonial suspicions, 303 postcolonial and decolonial variants, 314 postcolonial, decolonial, and/or global, 291 postcolonial, decolonial, or subaltern studies, 290 post-or decolonial attack on universalism, 292 project, 39

497

reflections, 436 sociology, 134 struggles, 36, 37, 40, 43 studies, xvi, 25, 35–45, 60, 302, 305, 307, 344 theories, 289 theorists, 40 thinking, 134 thought, 132, 440 turn, 387 venture, 39 versions, 295 ways of engaging with reality, 38 Decoloniality/de-coloniality, 25–52, 133, 134, 411, 418 condition of decoloniality, 36 emancipatory space of decoloniality, 42 focus of decoloniality, 133 grammar of de-coloniality, 411 ‘postcoloniality’ and ‘decoloniality’, xvi, 25–52 project of de-coloniality, 42 race, de-coloniality and international relations, 418 Decolonization, vi, xv, 4–7, 36, 37, 42, 86, 128, 129, 132, 133, 343, 361 Decolonized, 38 Decolonizing, 43, 289, 353, 361, 387, 410, 425, 428, 429 Deconstruction, xviii, 43, 86, 130, 279, 286, 294, 315, 409 Deconstructivist, 77 Deductivist, 9, 83 Delegitimization, 275 Deleuzian, 28, 316 Deliberation, 31, 418, 434 Deliberative assemblies, 105 civic role, 105 Demarcation, 129, 305 Demarcation lines, 200

498 

Index of Subjects

Democracy citizenship and democracy, 437, 438 cosmopolitan democracy, 355, 369 deliberative democracy, 380, 434 global surveillance and democracy, 440 law and democracy, 387, 390 liberal democracy, 242, 243 radical and ecological democracy, 371 radical democracy, 371, 413, 428 social democracy, 247 war and democracy, 392 Democratic Capitalism, 431 decision-making processes, 34, 249 deliberation, 31, 434 democratically, 255 democratically structured public spheres, 271 German Democratic Party (DDP), 108 opening, 201 politics, 248, 403 processes of deliberation and decision-making, 31 social-democratic politics, 248 theory, 397 undemocratic, 251 undemocratic forms of state power, 251 Democratization from ‘democratization’ to ‘commodification’, 215 of education, 214, 243 of expertise, 406 of knowledge, 200–201 Demographic/demographically, xvi, 4, 29, 55, 56, 66, 110, 116, 133, 135, 137, 180, 183, 185, 198, 203, 204, 247, 287, 296, 298, 310, 321, 344 Denationalization, 251

Denaturalization, 86 Denmark, 297 Dependence, 12, 100 Dependency theories/dependency theory, 9, 20n55, 32, 83, 384, 426, 427, 435 Deregulated, 214, 259 Deregulation, 173, 214, 247, 250, 251 Description(s), 98, 114, 136, 179, 230, 273, 301, 324 Designers, 242 Desire(s), 5, 28–31, 316–318, 338n154, 403, 428, 431, 443, 444 Destabilized, 78 Destabilizing, 276 Destandardization, 86 Destiny, 5, 12, 69, 100, 128 Destruction canon destruction, 305–306 of particular life forms, 56 of social relations, 32 of subaltern knowledge(s), 288 of traditional communities, 251 of traditional localisms, 183 Destructive, 10 Determinacy determinacy of human agency, 29 social determinacy, 304 spatiotemporal determinacy, 43 structural determinacy, 150 tension-laden relationship between determinacy and indeterminacy, 153 Determinants, 152, 372 Determinism, 8, 278, 305, 390, 398, 438 anti-determinism, 150 critique of determinism, 305 monocausalist explanatory determinism, 8 Determinist(ic), 109, 208, 346 Deutsches Reich, 106

  Index of Subjects 

Development(s) of the academic field in the twentyfirst century, 330 of academic fields, xix of all human societies, 183 behavioural, ideological, and institutional trends and developments, 204, 273 capitalist development, 82, 178, 308 civilizational development(s), xvii, 26, 35, 111, 112, 159 civilizational trends, developments, and achievements in Europe, 296 of contemporary sociology, xvi cross-cultural developments, 59 crucial developments in twenty-firstcentury sociology, 285, 348 cultural developments, 58, 59 curriculum development, 262 development of (ideas of ) modernity, 37, 297 disciplinary development, 97 of a discipline, 270 of the discipline, 118 the discipline’s development, xxiii, 348 of the discourse of modernity, 302 of a ‘distinctive social science research infrastructure’, 170 of empirical research methods, 170 endogenous developments, 135 endogenous European development, 58 of epistemic communities, 270 epistemic developments, 241 European developments, 66 evolutionary societal development, 182 of the ‘global’, 65 of global capitalism, 103 of global society, 82, 322 historical development, 25, 176, 177, 250

499

historical developments, xviii, 84, 85, 87, 110, 114, 136, 150, 158, 297, 298, 303, 344 historical stages of development, 303 horizon of arbitrary, unpredictable, chaotic, directionless, and irreducible development, 151 horizon of unavoidable, predictable, progressive, directional, and universal developments, 151 of human life forms, 279 of human societies, 181, 231 ideological trends and developments, 159 of innovative paradigms, 312 intellectual developments, 157 of interconnected societies, 40 internal and external developments, 57 key developments, 99 key developments in ‘the West’, 65 key trends and developments, 241 of knowledge production, 129 large-scale historical developments, 158 large-scale social development, 58 large-scale societal developments, 173 long-term and large-scale developments, 154 major past developments, 207 of market strategies, xx methodological development, 177 of modern capitalism, 250 of modern imperial states, 102 modernization-development paradigms, 9 of a movement of liberal imperialism in late nineteenth-century Germany, 108 ‘national’ trends and developments, 203 ‘new’ developments, xx

500 

Index of Subjects

Development(s) (cont.) non-synchronous developments, 10 and organization of modernity, 101 and organization of modern societies, 103 of our conceptual categories, 89 paradigmatic developments, 45, 118, 174, 328, 343 paradigmatic or institutional developments, 160 the path to social, cultural, political, economic, and technological development, 7 of practices and structures, 277 of racially differentiated traditions within US sociology over the twentieth century, 133 realities and narratives of development in general and of change in particular, xx recent developments in Western academia, 218 the relatively rapid and successful development of ‘the West’, 109 repetitive, recurrent, and perpetual patterns of development, 171 of scientific knowledge and medicine in non-Western contexts over centuries, 306 social and ideological developments, 33 social and political developments, 295 social development, 9, 58, 59, 133, 178, 408 social developments, 150, 176, 202 of social realities, 34, 149 of social reality, 35, 313 societal developments, xvi, xvii, 60, 82, 156, 173, 241, 307, 345, 346 societal trends and developments, 153 of society, 219, 229, 248, 440

sociohistorical developments, 114 in sociology, 149 of sociology, xx, 5, 97, 178, 213, 244, 246, 349 of sociology in the twenty-first century, 349 sociology of development, 264, 396, 399 stage theory of civilizational development, 111 of stratified societies, 9 technological developments, 202 of their discipline, xxi of theoretical frameworks, 263 ‘Third-World Development’, 178, 351 Western-specific pattern of development, 178 wider cultural, political, ideological, and economic developments, 159–160 in world history, 135 worrying developments, 349 Developmental, 178, 181, 312 Dialectic(s) creative dialectics, 81 dialectic of temporal circumgression, 133 of emancipation, 442 of Enlightenment, 352 master-slave dialectic, 83, 92n85 of secularization, 391 Dialectical, 289 Dialogical, 36 Dialogue, 243 across traditional demarcation lines, 200 intercultural dialogue, 37 open dialogue, 249 spheres of dialogue, 226 transcontextual dialogue, 232 transepistemic dialogue, 222 Diasporic scholars, xvi, 25, 344

  Index of Subjects 

Dichotomies/dichotomy, 14, 17, 39–43, 111, 135, 137, 162, 163, 178, 303, 400, 407, 436, 440, 441 Difference, 6, 9, 11, 14, 25, 40, 57, 114, 156, 213, 217, 224, 244, 249, 276, 293, 294, 299, 302–303, 314, 320, 326, 367, 370, 383, 392, 401, 411, 412, 420, 425, 443 between rupture and difference, 302–303 Differentiation, 57, 60, 105, 112, 140, 180–186, 302, 317, 346, 405 concept of differentiation, 182 high degrees of differentiation, 180 institutional differentiation, 181–182, 184 interactional differentiation, 140 levels of differentiation, 185 modernity and institutional differentiation, 181–182 modes of differentiation, 57, 302 processes of differentiation, 181 qualitative spatial (cultural) differentiation, 57, 302 social differentiation, 105, 112 societal differentiation, 60 spatial differentiation, 57, 302 structural-functional differentiation, 181, 183 temporal differentiation, 57, 302 tripartite differentiation, 317 Digital age, vi, xx, 197–199, 202, 205, 207–208, 209n15, 347, 357, 404 data, 205, 207 media, 203, 355 sociology, 264, 278 technologies, vi, xx, 198, 206, 347 turn (‘digital turn’), 198, 209n14, 400, 423, 442 Digitization of information, 202

501

Dignity, 130, 254, 309, 323 Direction(s), 66, 98, 117, 183, 244, 277, 349, 355, 362, 396, 399, 420, 421, 427 Directional, 85, 151 Directionless, 151 Directionlessness, 150 Disability, 131, 138, 264, 278, 369, 405, 410, 415, 437 Disabled, 131 Disciplinarity disciplinarity and sociology, xx, 197–211 inertia of disciplinarity, 33 and interdisciplinarity, xxi, 213–237, 373 intimations of disciplinarity, xx–xxi, 312–320, 347 language of (and around) disciplinarity, 320 scientificity, disciplinarity, and hierarchy, 217–218 Disciplinary activity, 3 agenda, xix approaches, 221, 361, 387, 425 architectures, 83 boundaries, 44, 152, 161, 218, 221, 222, 226, 269, 270 ‘calling’, 271 canonization, 155 canons, 129, 135 coherence, 217, 262, 267, 270 coherence and unity, 262, 270 comfort zones, 216 confluence of intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary practices and structures, 347 cross-disciplinary, 201 cross-disciplinary angles, 278 development, 97 distinction, 79 divides, 83

502 

Index of Subjects

Disciplinary (cont.) dominance, 223, 225 edifices, 83 fields, 3 focus, 174 fortune, 119 framework, 231 hierarchies, 230 horizon, 44 identities, xviii, 44, 78, 97, 152, 155, 163, 208, 216–222, 275 identities and boundaries, 44 inter-and transdisciplinary projects, 225–226 inter-and transdisciplinary research, 217, 225 interdisciplinary, xxiii, 213, 216–218, 220–224, 226, 230, 232, 247, 267, 269, 328, 347, 349, 382, 385, 386, 389, 401, 415, 429 interdisciplinary channels of communication, 230 interdisciplinary collaboration(s), 221–224, 226, 232, 262, 269, 382, 429 interdisciplinary fashion, 223 interdisciplinary project, 223, 226 interdisciplinary research environment, 220 interdisciplinary research programmes, 221 inter-, trans-, or multi-disciplinary research focus, 218 intra-and interdisciplinary collaborations, 232, 262, 269 knowledge, 18 mode of investigation, 130 organization of knowledge, 136 outlook, 319 perspective, 98 position, xxi positioning, 228

prostitution, 228 self-dispossession, 228 sociology, 312 specificity, 97, 347 spirit, 271 structure, 59 structures and reference points, 218 sub-disciplinary, 45, 217, 306, 320, 327, 328 and sub-disciplinary, 45, 217, 306, 320 and sub-disciplinary angles, 217 and sub-disciplinary canons, 306, 327 transdisciplinary, xxiii, 201, 247, 328, 349, 361, 387, 425 transdisciplinary outlook, 6, 217 transdisciplinary project, xix, 226 transdisciplinary research, 217, 225, 418 umbrella, 252 Discipline(s), v–vii, ix, xv, xviii, xix, xxi–xxiii, 3–5, 17, 18, 44, 55, 59, 62–64, 75, 80, 82, 84, 89, 97, 98, 100, 101, 116–118, 119n7, 128, 130, 131, 133, 152–154, 156, 159, 162, 163, 174, 175, 177, 197, 199, 202, 207, 208, 213, 216–223, 225–232, 241, 244–247, 250, 261–264, 268, 270–274, 276, 279, 298, 302, 306, 312, 325, 327, 343, 345, 348–351, 353, 369, 375, 380, 382, 385, 395, 417, 429, 431, 439, 444 academic discipline(s), v, xix, xxi, xxii, 17, 18, 45, 75, 79, 98, 128, 152, 177, 197, 202, 207, 217, 219, 222, 223, 225–230, 232, 234n36, 241, 245, 246, 261, 268, 270, 271, 274, 277, 279, 286, 296, 301, 303, 306, 313, 319, 346

  Index of Subjects 

adjacent disciplines, vi, xviii, 119, 152, 227, 263 of anthropology, 80 canonized discipline, 100 chaos of disciplines, 351 collaborations across disciplines, 230 contiguous disciplines, 227 ‘critical’ disciplines, 268 cutting-edge discipline, 312 cutting-edge twenty-first-century discipline, 285 discipline-based, 201 discipline-specific, 207, 218, 228, 349 distant disciplines, 227 exporter discipline, 152, 227, 228 foundational discipline, xxii, 262, 272 fragmentation of the discipline, 264 ‘health’ of the discipline, xxii, 262 hierarchy of disciplines, 271 hospitable and adjustable discipline, 345 ill-defined discipline, 273 importer discipline, 152, 227, 228 interplay between disciplines, 369 knowledge sharing between disciplines, 232 ‘less prestigious’ disciplines, 223 mainstream academic disciplines, 17 meeting of disciplines, 223 a more inclusive discipline, 130 multiperspectival discipline, 302 neighbouring disciplines, 84, 118, 175, 177, 217, 220, 273 normative spirit of the discipline, 279 no such thing as an ‘unideological’, let alone ‘unbiased’, discipline, 274 ‘parasite discipline’, 220 progressively and publicly oriented discipline, 348

503

prominent disciplines, 4, 262 rival disciplines, 274 scientific disciplines, 128, 306 shared spaces between disciplines, 221 social-scientific discipline(s), xix, 82, 89, 119n7, 263, 270, 271, 312 of sociology, ix, 101, 345 sociology as a discipline, xxii, 213, 250, 262 sociology as a self-legislating academic discipline, 202 soulless discipline, 152 state of the discipline, xxii, 348, 353 sub-discipline(s), 118, 119, 154, 161, 162, 219, 228, 263, 349 theory and practice across disciplines, 382, 429 a ‘useful’ discipline, 154 Discourse(s) of ableism and colonialism, 377 academic discourse, 80, 298, 301, 305, 345, 366 alternative discourses, 353 analysis, 9, 205, 305 Anglo-American discourse, 127 colonialist and neocolonialist discourses, 115 contemporary intellectual discourses, 28 conventional discourses, 128 counterhegemonic discourses, 7, 219 critical discourse analysis, 205 critical discourses of ‘the Occident’, 311 cultural discourse, 358 dismal discourse, 382 dominant discourses, 27 ethics, 389, 431 ethnographic discourse, 430 of European nation-states, 88 existentialist discourse, 444

504 

Index of Subjects

Discourse(s) (cont.) hegemonic and counterhegemonic discourses, 219 hegemonic discourse, 7, 40, 44, 138, 250, 275 ideological discourse, 56 intellectual discourses of the Enlightenment, 100 inversionary discourse, 354 local discourses of rights, 13 mainstream academic discourse, 80 mainstream discourses in British sociology, 174 mainstream intellectual discourse, 304 of modernity, 114, 123n114, 302, 335n76, 388, 389 Occidentalist and Orientalist discourses, 113 Orientalist discourses, 28 parenting discourses, 403 philosophical discourse of modernity, 123n114, 388, 389 politics and discourse, 443 ‘postcolonial discourse analysis’, 9 and power, 391 psychoanalytic discourse, 368 public discourse, 62, 249, 271, 395 of rights in (pre-) colonized societies, 13, 306 role of discourse, 329 scientific discourse, 438 social and political discourses, 112, 293 sociological discourses, 154, 171, 174, 176 of sociology, 77 theories of discourse, 436 theory of law and democracy, 390 Western discourses, xviii, 27, 28 Western discourses of modernity, 30 ‘wider discourses of emancipation and equality’, 138 world of discourses, 63

Discoveries/discovery between the discovery of novelty and the novelty of discovery, 311–312 epistemically valuable discoveries, 231 scientific discoveries, 223 Discursive construction, 67, 98, 310, 311, 321, 328 distinction, 135 driving forces, 43 elements, 275 environments, 419 and institutional landscape, 162 invention, 115 opposition, 115 place, 89 players, 272 power, 232 process, 130 production, 374 rationality, 290 realms of social-scientific inquiries, 44 redemption, 390 spaces, 226 zones, 226 Disease(s), 242, 243 Disembodied, 11, 28 Disempowered, 9, 13, 38, 89, 288, 302, 320 Disempowering, xxi, 17, 56, 103, 139, 225, 279, 306, 347 Disempowerment, 16, 138, 140, 219, 249, 293, 301–302, 431 Disenchanted world, 114 Disillusionment, 242 Disintegration, 5, 349 Disobedience, 38, 411 Disorder, 67 Disordering, 171 Disposition(s), 11, 160, 301, 394

  Index of Subjects 

Dispositional, 11, 28, 29, 130, 223, 317, 320 Dispute(s), xv, 93n112, 314, 355, 366, 372, 416 Distinctiveness, 217, 271, 319 Distortion(s), 68, 274, 288 Distortive, 34, 77, 115, 136, 225, 286, 301, 303, 311, 321 Distribution, xviii, 5, 10, 17, 29, 33, 39, 40, 58, 75, 78, 81, 99, 107, 108, 134, 218, 220, 243, 253, 289, 293, 294, 301, 317, 323, 325, 345 Diversality, 37 Diversification of sociology, 219 Diversity, 16, 33, 34, 62, 113, 287, 374, 403, 443 Division(s) asymmetrical division of power, 4, 132 binary civilizational division, 113, 114 binary division between insiders and outsiders, 86 binary division between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 115, 287 ‘a civilizational division and hierarchy’, 113 colonial division of influence, 134 colonial division of power, 136 conceptual divisions in the social sciences, 14 dichotomous division between ‘before’ and ‘after’ and/or between ‘us’ and ‘them’, 303 of expert labor, 351 global division of labour, 44 global division of power, 7–9, 17, 55, 68, 104, 115, 130, 139, 251, 288, 297, 307, 311 ideological division, 323 instruments of domination, 86 international division of power, 4

505

of labour, 44, 106, 107, 114, 132, 183, 300 social divisions across the globe, 310 transcontinental division of power, 80 Doctrinal, 98, 163 Doctrine of epochalism, 346 Dogma(s), 219, 246, 272, 274 Dogmatic, 98, 155, 163, 274, 323 Dominant, 7, 8, 13, 27, 30, 40, 41, 63, 75, 82, 83, 89, 106, 128, 130, 131, 136, 138, 154, 155, 180, 181, 186, 201, 215, 220, 248, 249, 276, 286, 295, 322, 351, 362, 365, 366, 433 Dominated, xviii, 13, 31, 36, 41, 83, 98, 99, 105, 110, 118, 129, 131, 263, 290, 291, 295, 298, 320, 327, 330 Domination coexisting and overlapping modes of domination, 134 colonial and neocolonial forms of domination, 40 colonial and postcolonial types of domination, 8 colonial forms of domination, 9, 40 ‘complex domination’, 143n53 critique of domination, 42, 278 critique of social domination, 132 emancipation and domination, 431 between endogenous and exogenous domination, 320–321 ethnocentric domination, 78 forms of domination, 9, 40, 82, 109 global structures of domination, 86 global systems of domination, 36 hegemonic systems of domination, 254 humanistic conception of domination, 130 imperial domination, 16

506 

Index of Subjects

Domination (cont.) imperialist and neoimperialist systems of domination, 81 legal-rational forms of domination, 109 logic of social domination, 324 major forms of social domination, 134 masculine domination, 9, 320 mechanisms of domination, 10, 133 mechanisms of social domination, 132, 290, 325 modes of domination, 134, 267, 298 modes of large-scale domination, 288 power and domination, 34, 154, 186, 321, 324 practices and structures of domination, 130 relations of domination, 133, 320, 321 ‘simple domination’, 142n53 social domination, 8, 43, 131, 134, 290, 294, 302, 311, 321, 324, 325 sources of social domination, 302 structures beyond domination, 324 structures of domination, 83, 130 symbolic domination of the ‘other’, 26 systems of domination, 36, 81, 83, 86, 132, 254 traditional and charismatic forms of domination, 109 transnational structures of domination, 5 variants of social domination, 321 Western instrument of domination, 290 the West’s material domination of the ‘other’, 311 world domination, 413

Doxa, 128, 131, 134, 154, 157, 186, 248, 250, 258n62, 274, 365, 414, 429, 439 Doxic, 98, 163, 274 Dynamics of academic canon formation, 305 of canon formation, xvii, 306 colonial and imperial dynamics, 43 colonial and postcolonial dynamics, 8 colonial and postcolonial power dynamics, 305 discriminatory dynamics, 346 evolutionary dynamics, 176 of empire, 59 endogenous dynamics, 135 enrichment dynamics, 328 evolutionary dynamics, 176 ‘extra-European’ dynamics, 66 geo-economic dynamics, 253 global dynamics of knowledge, x, 31, 132, 372 global dynamics of power, 83 globally interconnected dynamics, 58 of human emancipation, 290 imperial dynamics, 43, 101 ‘importing’ and ‘exporting’ dynamics, 228 of inferiorization and superiorization, 286 of institutionalization, 182 of knowledge generation, 241 of knowledge production, distribution, consumption, and application, 289 long-term historical dynamics, 153, 163 of positioning, 155 power dynamics, 44, 129, 222, 232, 305, 320 power-laden dynamics of social positioning, 232

  Index of Subjects 

structural dynamics, 185 tension-laden dynamics, 309 Dynamism, 32, 111, 112, 173 Dystopian, 243 E

Earth science, 314 East the East, xvi, 10, 25, 109, 112, 114, 289, 311, 386, 393, 411 East Africa, 107 Middle East, xvi, 25, 111, 133, 344, 355, 405, 408 Eastern European societies, 178 Eclectic, 6, 62, 117, 217, 228, 246, 252, 278, 287 Ecological, 42, 243, 357, 371 Economic base, 102 capital, 40, 217, 223, 227 change, 312 community, 98, 108, 270, 271, 274 crisis, 352 deregulation, 250 development, 160, 361 dimensions of imperialism, 8 ‘The Economic Foundations of “Imperialism”’ (Weber), 109 ‘the economic’/the economic, 99, 184, 186, 404, 409 elite, 106, 107 establishment, 159 exploitation, 320 field, 326, 329, 330 geo-economic dynamics, 253 geo-economic objectives, 107 global economic collapse, 242 globalization, 442 history, 28 imperatives, 186 infrastructure, 107 integration, 400

507

interests, 28 level, 99 logic, 186 and material elements, 9 modes of exploitation, 9 nature, 58 neoliberal economic environment, 222 non-economic, 180, 184, 318 non-economic factors, 109 organization, 108, 111, 186, 326 origins, 418 planning, 251 players, 205, 254 policies, 251, 441 politico-economic system, 230 realm, 184 sociology, 263, 264, 273, 278, 303, 318 structures of modernity, 61 symbolic, economic, and financial capital, 215 system, 253 theories of imperialism, 103 value, 230, 325–330 wealth, 39 Western international economic interests, 28 Economically an economically unified global order, 253 economically self-sufficient, 102 socioeconomically privileged, 201 Economies/economy academic economies, 329 advanced economies, 327 advanced knowledge economies, xxi, 347 big data economies, 205, 423 BRIC economies, 431 capitalist economy, 102 capitalist political economies, 102 critique of political economy, 103, 300, 409

508 

Index of Subjects

Economies/economy (cont.) data economies, 205, 423 of enrichment, 362, 434 enrichment economies, 326, 327, 329, 330 fashion economies, 326, 328–330 financial economies, 326, 328–330 ‘form-specific’ economies, 326 geo-politics of economy, 39 global economy, 374, 381, 406 industrial economies, 326, 327, 329, 330 integral economies, 329 international economy, 394 of knowledge, 225 knowledge economy, xx, xxi, 213, 286, 347, 443 large-scale economies, 185 market-driven economies, 186 moral economies, 385 political economy, 102, 103, 300, 353, 360, 387, 396, 400, 401, 408, 427, 442 and society, 108, 394, 427, 441 and state, 251 of truth claims, 232 world economy, 375, 419, 439, 440 Economist(s), 175, 242 Economistic, 109 Education bureaucratization and commodification of higher education, 215 colonial education system, 68 commodification of education, 154, 215 democratization of education, 214, 243 higher education, 206, 213–215, 229, 355, 359, 362, 409, 412, 422, 429, 437, 443 high levels of education, 243 marketization of education, 214, 279

research and education, 154, 277, 330 for the sake of education, 214, 215 science and education, 329 sociology of education, 264, 364, 371, 419, 427, 429 systems, 68, 213, 214 Educational, xxii, 40, 130, 180, 214, 215, 244, 269, 277, 291, 329, 347, 387, 399, 408, 412, 437 Educationalism, 32 Educator, 39 Egalitarian, 81, 131, 243, 323, 325, 357 Egalitarianism, 267, 278 Egypt, 110, 180 Egyptian, 76 Eighteenth century/eighteenth-century, 99, 380, 386 Elastic, 324 Elasticity, 99 Elitism, 162, 291, 402 anti-elitism, 291 Elitist, 276, 291, 322 anti-elitist, 68 Emancipate, 17 Emancipating, 7, 12 Emancipation(s) avenues for emancipation, 325 concept of ‘emancipation’, 119n10, 142n33 discourses of emancipation, xviii, 138 dynamics of human emancipation, 290 empowerment and emancipation, 138 human emancipation, 33, 86, 100, 130, 290, 320, 324 pleas for emancipation, 267, 278 possibilities for human emancipation, 324 processes of emancipation, 100

  Index of Subjects 

promise of emancipation, 130 realms of human emancipation, 320 recipes for emancipation, 325 specificity of human emancipation, 324 Western discourses of emancipation, xviii Emancipatory endeavour, 344 ‘force for good’, 10 foundations of society, 254 life forms, 12, 323 modes of existence, 325 movements, 354 potential, 10, 30, 40, 242, 255, 307 practice, 39, 132, 417 processes, 325 signifier, 28 social practices, 248 society, 43 sociology, 34 space, 42 space of decoloniality, 42 theory, 354 transformations, 16 Embedded, vi, xvi, xix, xxi, 16, 40, 43, 56, 63, 67, 76, 77, 128, 134, 150, 171, 177, 208, 214, 231, 241–243, 249, 253, 292, 295, 303, 309, 316, 318, 346 Embodied, 108, 151 dismbodied, 11, 28 Embodiment, 405, 430 Emotional, 41 Emotions, 229, 436 sociology of emotions, 264 Empirical/empirically, xv, xx, 3, 9, 14, 26, 27, 33, 37, 39, 43, 44, 57, 63, 66, 67, 75, 77, 78, 84, 86, 88, 97, 101, 113, 114, 117, 129, 152, 158, 170, 172, 177, 197, 198, 201–204, 207, 208, 216–218, 220, 223–228, 244,

509

246, 249, 253, 263, 270, 271, 276, 290, 294, 295, 301, 308, 309, 317, 323, 328, 345, 347–349, 358, 368, 410, 411, 417, 423, 425, 426, 440 Empiricism, 77 Empiricist, 76, 160 Empowered, 13, 325 Empowering, xxi, 18, 56, 82, 139, 225, 290, 306, 347 Empowerment, xxi, 16, 33, 35, 42, 134, 138, 140, 278, 293, 301–302, 321, 323, 325, 417, 431 Enclosure, 325, 432 End (the end) of the continuum, 178 end of the social/end of ‘the social’, 249, 258n58, 436, 442 of history, 174, 175, 191n55, 191n69, 382 of ideology, 359 of imperialism, 4 lower end of the academic hierarchy, 231 of millennium, 370 of modernity, 438 of organized capitalism, 404 of Orientalism, 437 of progress, 353 of society, 249 of sociological theory, 427 of the world as we know it, 440 of World War I, 251 of World War II, 4, 169, 173 Engagement(s) behavioural, ideological, and institutional engagements, 350 cognitive engagement with the world, 222 concept of engagement, 433 critical engagement with key societal transformations, 102

510 

Index of Subjects

Engagement(s) (cont.) critical engagement with the sociological constitution of the world, 219 empirical engagement, 152 with ethical concerns, 199 foundational, contingent, and ephemeral engagements, 350 with imperial realities, 101 methodical engagement with empirical realities, 158 mutual engagement, 226, 247 with non-Western contexts, 32, 306, 353 with non-Western societies, 80 objective, normative, and subjective engagements, 349 with the past, xix, 153–155 rules of engagement, 155, 404 sociology’s engagement, 6 state’s engagement in warfare, 105 with the study of ‘the social’, 231 systematic engagement, 110, 304 tripartite distinction between ‘foundational’, ‘contingent’, and ‘ephemeral’ elements of (and engagements with) social life, 194n132, 350n1 England, 4, 297, 394 English, 27, 68, 93n112, 109, 116, 180, 184, 215, 276, 290, 291, 339n180, 357, 387, 390, 437 Enlightened to-be-enlightened, 39 Enlightener(s), 39 Enlightenment, xxii, 11, 82, 87, 100, 105, 110, 114, 119n10, 130, 185, 243, 352, 382, 386, 393, 396, 400, 402, 410, 415, 417, 418, 420, 421, 424, 443 Entertainment, 279 Entities/entity, xvii, 27, 28, 34, 55, 85, 136, 137, 231, 232, 287, 296, 309, 311, 316, 345

Environment(s), 102, 107, 158, 161, 181, 218, 220, 222, 228, 229, 268–270, 329, 352, 369, 405, 419, 422 Environmental/environmentally, xxii, 55, 110, 186, 242–244, 247, 264, 277, 278, 347, 369 Environmentalism, 99, 275 Ephemeral, 150, 183, 194n132, 230, 277, 350, 350n1 Epicentre, 8, 35, 81 Epiphenomenon, 12, 288 Epistemetrics, 268, 280n4, 421 Epistemic, xvii, xviii, xx, xxi, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 29, 30, 35, 37–40, 43–45, 49, 59, 62, 63, 68, 76, 77, 79–81, 85, 87, 97–100, 110, 116–118, 130, 131, 135–137, 157, 162, 177–179, 200–202, 213, 219–228, 231, 232, 235n64, 241, 270, 271, 274, 276, 286–289, 291, 295, 298, 301, 304–306, 311–313, 315, 320, 321, 328, 330, 343, 345, 387, 399, 401, 411, 415, 429, 438 Epistemicide, 33, 288, 425 Epistemological decolonization, 36, 128 habit, 40 issues, 226 others, 367, 430 politico-epistemological perspective, 26 presuppositions, 76 project of de-linking, 37 reflexivity, 202 tensions, 432 underpinnings, 97 universalism, 314 value, 55 vigilance, 373 Epistemologies/epistemology ‘ahistorical’ epistemologies, 304 ‘alternative’ epistemologies, 324

  Index of Subjects 

between ‘imperial’ and ‘postimperial’ epistemologies, 321–322 differences between ‘modern’ and ‘postmodern’ epistemologies, 314 geo-politics of epistemology, 39 hegemonic epistemologies, 16 and historicity, 304 ‘imperial’ and ‘postimperial’ epistemologies, 321–322 imperial epistemologies, 67, 321, 322, 360 imperialist epistemologies, 67, 136 new epistemologies, 37 Northern epistemologies, 33, 425 social epistemology, xiii, 362, 368, 373, 383, 398, 418, 432 sociological epistemologies, 63, 363 of the South, 33, 425 universalist epistemologies, 38 Epoch(s) consolidation of an epoch, 171 constructing epochs, 415 current epoch, 162 new epoch, 169, 171, 176 present epoch, 155, 169 Epochalism Anglo-American sociological epochalism, 173 British epochalism, 176 doctrine of epochalism, 346 epochalism and sociology, 173–176 paradigmatic turn towards epochalism, xix, 169 paradoxes of epochalism, 170–172 sociological epochalism, 173–175, 415 versions of epochalism, 174, 175 Epochalist accounts, 176 announcements, 174 change, 174 conceptions of change, 311 conceptions of ‘the present’, 172 and evolutionist accounts of social reality, 346

511

explanatory frameworks, 312 forms of analysis, 169 forms of inquiry, 170 interpretations of change, 175 modes of social thought, 169 narratives, 175 perspectives, 169, 312 reading of contemporary society, 175 readings of contemporary society, 172 Zeitgeist, 174 Equality, vi, 130, 138, 322, 323, 357, 401, 402 Erkenntnis Erkenntnisfunktion, 231 Erkenntniskampf, 232 Erkenntnisnormativität, 231 Erkenntnisnutzung, 232 Erkenntnisstandpunkt, 231 Erkenntnis und Interesse, 384, 390, 413, 416, 419 Essentialism, 278, 287, 289, 424 anti-essentialism, 293 Essentialist, 289, 293, 294, 309 anti-essentialist, 294 Essentialization, 293, 294 Essentialize/essentializing de-essentialize, 37, 294 re-essentializing, 294, 297 Eternal, 171, 327 Ethical Antinomies, 378 concerns, 199 conflicts, 372 decision making, 398 ideal, 438 implications, 199, 200 life, 360 political-ethical, 38 research, 379 rigour, 204 socio-ethical judgments, 363

512 

Index of Subjects

Ethics ‘alternative’ ethics, 324 business ethics, 355, 401 communicative ethics, 354, 359, 362, 383 deontological ethics, 199 discourse ethics, 389, 431 professional ethics, 376, 409 research ethics, 199, 209n19, 372, 398, 442 of social research, 367 of truth, 415 utilitarian ethics, 199 Ethnic, 56, 106, 130, 133, 135, 139, 140, 262, 288, 310, 443 Ethnicity, xviii, 8, 28, 40, 43, 76, 118, 130, 132, 134, 137, 138, 198, 200, 214, 242, 243, 249, 266, 267, 277, 278, 286, 293, 345, 361, 442 Ethnocentric, xvii, 10, 16, 28, 32, 33, 35, 38, 55, 62, 64, 65, 78–80, 83, 85, 87, 89, 114, 115, 179, 290, 291, 301, 310 Ethnocentrism, 28, 32, 65, 77, 78, 98, 182, 290, 295, 304, 305, 312, 313, 344 Ethno-conscious, 75 Ethos collective ethos, 215 Eurasia, 111, 436 Eurocentric, xvi, xx, 5, 15, 23n116, 33, 36, 37, 39, 59–61, 64, 68, 77, 79, 83, 84, 110, 113, 115, 132, 135, 136, 172, 179, 183–185, 295, 301, 306–308, 344 Eurocentrism, 31, 39, 43, 56, 59–61, 64, 65, 75, 78, 85, 115, 179, 184, 290, 353, 354, 375, 376, 401, 410, 419, 428 Europe Christian Europe, 113 continental Europe, v, 169

dominance of Europe, 132 Eastern Europe, 393, 443 Europe and the West, 57 ‘non-Europe’, 296 ‘provincialize’ Europe, 81 ‘provincializing’ Europe, xvii, 345 Western Europe, 31, 112, 180, 183–185, 252, 253, 308, 360, 417 European academy, 85 affair, xvii, 76 and Anglo-American modes of knowledge generation, 78 and Anglo-American states, 4 Anglo-European, 115 Anglo-European world dominance, 115 anxieties, 113 cities, 101 civilization, xvii, 183, 296 continent, xvii, 42, 66, 85, 103, 104, 114, 115, 296, 343 continental European nationality, 174 counterparts, 128 countries, 291 cultural values, 85 culture(s), 87, 296 developments, 58, 66 empires, 88, 402 encounter, 85 endogenous European development, 58 Enlightenment, 130 [European] authoritarian practice, 87 expansion, 5 experience, 76 explanations, 85 expression of modern subjecthood, 139 ‘extra-European’, 66

  Index of Subjects 

history/histories, 65, 86, 100 ideas, 81 imperialism, 88, 114, 307 imperial states, 113 Indo-European languages, 215 intellectuals, 28 intellectual thought, 321 language game, 290, 301 languages, 290 late-comers, 184 men, 138 modernity, 37, 60, 61, 76, 84, 85, 87, 115, 308, 436 narrative, 88 nation-state(s), 88, 101, 104, 288, 310 non-European, 10, 41, 64, 79, 178, 296, 413 non-European actors, 67 non-European civilizations, 183 non-European contexts, 296 non-European life forms, 35, 115 non-European parts of the world, 61, 185 non-European realities, 322 non-European regions, 180 non-European sociology, 298 origins of modernity, 25, 59 or Western events, 58 or Western forms of existence, 58 or Western forms of hegemonic power, 59 or Western phenomenon, 58 or ‘Western’ territories, 132 polities, 88 powers, xv, 110, 343 predecessors, 110 pre-1989 Eastern European societies, 178 progress, 84 project, 40, 88 project of modernity, 105 self-realization, 35, 296, 297

513

social and political thought, 64 social science, 63 societies, 66, 178, 308, 383, 416, 436 sociology, 14, 298, 361, 387, 425 state(s), 13, 66, 88, 297, 307, 436 thought, 80, 314 tradition, 87 tradition of sociology, 117 universalisms, 81 Western European language games, 301 Western European life, 110 Western European modernity, 34 women, 138 Europeanization, 57 Everyday experiences, 275 geography, 421 immersion in reality, 317 life, 30, 42, 98, 118, 225, 231, 251, 264, 386, 406, 412 lives, 12, 35, 86, 246 normativity, 16 practice of conducting research, 292 practices, 129, 292 reality of empire, 101 sociology of everyday life, 264 thinking, 392 Evils force for evil, 10, 322 the main evils of our time, 248 Evolution, 59, 85, 178, 279, 321, 387, 388, 405, 417, 442 Evolutionary, 38, 84, 111, 169, 176, 178, 181–185, 231, 232, 299, 324, 328, 345, 346, 354, 416 Evolutionism, xx, 111, 113, 115, 173, 176, 178, 179, 346 neo-evolutionism, xx, 178, 346 Evolutionist, 9, 16, 32, 115, 178, 346

514 

Index of Subjects

Exception(s), v, 23, 97, 103, 105, 106, 108, 117, 154, 175, 178, 211n44, 244, 319, 370 Exceptionalism American exceptionalism, 128, 140n9, 358, 427 German exceptionalism, 106 reflexive exceptionalism, 370 Exceptionality, 61 Exchange(s), 16, 29, 105, 214, 215, 220, 223, 224, 253, 270, 318, 329, 381, 382, 387, 396, 400, 412 Exchange value, 214, 215, 250, 258n66, 329 Exclusion(s), xviii, xix, 29, 80, 128–131, 133, 134, 137–140, 160, 162, 182, 200, 286, 293, 301, 305, 306, 320, 321, 345, 346, 356, 360 Exclusivity canonicity and exclusivity, xviii, 127–145 practices and structures of exclusivity, 127 Existential, 220, 323, 432 Existentialism, 420 Existentialist, 253, 356, 434, 435, 444 Expansion, 4, 5, 32, 99, 102, 107, 136, 250, 253, 353, 440 Expansionism, 105, 108 Expansionist, 104, 105, 288 Experience(s), vi, xvii, 37, 40, 65, 76, 82, 86, 89, 128, 130, 131, 171, 177, 208, 219, 225, 226, 244, 275, 289, 301, 318, 323, 352, 353, 359, 369, 379, 392, 410, 414, 424, 426, 439 Experiential, 10 Experiment(s), 76, 423 Expert(s), xviii, 15, 26, 39, 44, 55, 62, 98, 118, 179, 200, 201, 204, 216, 218, 226, 231, 232, 241

Expertise, 151, 174, 198, 201, 207, 219, 222, 223, 230, 249, 252, 263, 351, 424 Expert knowledge, 179, 218 Explanation(s) ‘catch-all’ explanations of civilizational patterns of development, 346 endogenous and exogenous explanations, 297 endogenous explanations, 35, 296 erudite interpretations and explanations, 292 European explanations, 85 hegemonic patterns of explanation, 78 in historical sociology, 369 internalist explanation of Occidental modernization, 109 laws and explanation in sociology, 416 models of explanation, 59 patterns of description, interpretation, and explanation, 98 in social science, 410 and social theory, 395 sociological explanation, 109 standardized explanations of social change, 100 universalist frameworks of explanation, 83 Explanatory adequacy, 136 approach(es), 60, 61, 63, 135, 157, 170, 177, 278, 309, 321 centrality, 302 deductivist explanatory logic, 9 force, 181 framework(s), 57, 65, 75, 111, 156, 157, 227, 250, 311, 312 models, 175

  Index of Subjects 

monocausalist explanatory determinism, 8 paradigms, xvi persuasiveness, 158 reductionism, 57, 158, 317, 322 task, 184 Exploitation borderless exploitation of labour power, 107, 253 capitalist exploitation, 42 economic exploitation, 320 modes of exploitation, 9 of overseas labour, 107 practices and structures of exploitation, oppression, and domination, 7 processes of exploitation, 103 systematic exploitation, 4, 58 systematic exploitation of territories and populations, 4 Export between export and import, 216–217 epistemic export, 227, 228 import-export, 227 import-export cycles, 220 knowledge, 270 trend, 152 F

Fabricated, 76, 221 Factual, 26, 59, 177, 390 Fallacies/fallacy, 219, 220, 311 False consciousness, 130 dilemma, 168n124 necessity, 150 sense of reality, 202 Familiar, 101, 107, 270 Family sociology of the family, 266 Fascism, v, 87, 99

515

Fascist, 87 Fatalism, 248, 322 Fatalistic, xxi, 59, 222, 243, 248, 311 Fate, 103, 158, 180, 261, 373 Fear(s), 113, 264 Feeling(s), 7, 370, 428, 435 Female, 41, 42, 118, 131 Feminism, 6, 43, 44, 99, 267, 275, 278, 302, 305, 357, 368, 382, 392, 405, 406, 412, 414 Feminist, 31, 118, 278, 368, 401, 404–406, 435, 442 Fetish, 298 Fetishism, 250 Fictitious commodities, 250, 252 Field(s) of academia, 306 academic field(s), xviii, xix, 62, 155, 160, 161, 215, 227, 232, 245, 269, 274, 291, 293, 306, 312, 326–330, 345, 346 academic field of study, 312 of academic research, 200 Anglophone field of post-and decolonialism, 290 anti-Marxist sociological field, 159 boundaries of a given field, 160 Bourdieu’s field theory, 194n144, 340n190 of British sociology, 154 competing academic fields worldwide, 62 construction of social fields, 329 contingent fields, 350 converted from sub-fields into leading fields of social and political inquiry, 69 of decolonial studies, 35 disciplinary fields, 3 economic field, 326, 329, 330 ephemeral fields, 350 epistemic field, 223 of feminist theory, 118

516 

Index of Subjects

Field(s) (cont.) foundational fields, 350 general sociological field, 158, 159 global academic field, 291 global field of knowledge production, 62 of the humanities and social sciences, 294, 299 of imperial rivalry, 107 of inquiry, 17, 152, 227, 228, 241, 278, 327 institutionalized fields of academic inquiry, 97 intellectual field, 159, 363, 421 of investigation, 97, 219, 314 large field of increasingly specialized areas of research expertise, 222 logic of fields, 365 neighbouring fields of academic inquiry, 6 neighbouring fields of investigation, 97 new fields of knowledge, 223 particular field, 78, 225 of the philosophy of the social sciences, 118 political field, 159 of postcolonial studies, xvi, 26, 134 prominent fields of study, 344 properties of fields, 364 of relevance, 225 of research, 219, 299 research fields, 118 of restricted, as opposed to mass, consumption, 157 scientific field(s), vii, 221, 363 social field(s), 11, 160, 226, 286, 326, 329 of social theorists, 118 of social theory, xviii, 118 sociological field(s), 159, 160 sociological field of ideas supportive of historical approaches to social issues, 158

sociological fields of inquiry, 278 of sociology, 160, 162, 174 specialist fields of inquiry, 241 specialist sub-field, xix of ‘subaltern studies’, 67 sub-field(s), xix, 69, 118, 161, 326, 349 sub-field of historical sociology, 158, 160 sub-fields of inquiry, 17 sub-fields of research and expertise, 219 sub-fields of sociology, 13 systemic colonization of social fields, 329 theory, 194n144, 340n190 Field-specific, 78 Fixity, 31 Flexibilization, 214, 251 Flexible organizations, 215 specialization, 174 Flux, 30, 102, 170, 173, 182, 219, 225, 398, 428 Forms of existence, 42, 58 Foucauldian, 28, 31, 316, 357 Foundational, xxii, 67, 101, 109, 118, 136, 181, 183, 185, 194, 231, 262, 272, 277, 296, 299, 311, 317, 318, 321, 350, 435 Foundationalism Foundationalist, 313 Fragility, 37, 276, 362 Fragmentation, x, 173, 218–220, 264, 267, 270, 349, 415 France, 4, 15, 88, 102–104, 106, 184, 288, 291, 297, 309, 353, 356, 359, 365, 366, 405, 427, 428, 438 Francophone, 175 Franco-Prussian War, 106 Frankfurt School, 276, 384 Freedom communicative freedom, 387 decolonial freedom, 411

  Index of Subjects 

from dependence to freedom, 100 equality and freedom, 322 human freedom, 114 practice of freedom, 381 theory of freedom, 418 unconditional subjective freedom, 34 Freirean liberation educationalism, 32 French Army, 353 the British and French, 107 Caribbean, 376 Caribbean politics, 362 citizens, 104 colonialism, 104 colonies, 103, 309 culture, 104 Enlightenment, 386 French Regulation School, 173 French Revolution(s), 13, 58, 82, 87, 100, 103, 120, 180, 185, 307, 371, 404, 430 and German, 215 historiography, 149 imperialism, 104 imperial nation-state, 442 intellectual history, 386 ‘keep Algeria French’/’to keep Algeria French’, 15, 309 nationals, 104 overseas expansion, 353 pragmatist sociology, 434 scepticism, 176 social theorists, 175 sociology, 298 state, 15 French-speaking, 31 Frictions, 44, 321 Friendship sociology of friendship, 264 Fulfilment human fulfilment, 325 of one’s capacities as a human being, 130

517

Functionalism Durkheim’s sociological functionalism, 111 and symbolic interactionism, 278 Functionalist logic of the state and the market, 215 mechanisms, 181 rationality, 181, 185, 251, 290 reason, 388 roles of ‘functionalist’ and ‘communicative’ rationality, 186 structural-functionalist and modernization theories, 159 Functionality, 232 Future(s) of academic disciplines, 241 after the future, 359, 384 back to the future, 398 a better future, 248 for big data research, 391 big futures, 411 children’s future, 442 communal futures, 325 conditions, 173 constellations, 244 of critical theory, 360 digital futures, 391 ecology of futures, 411 events, 34, 169 events and developments, 34 feminised urban future, 370 fight for the future, 444 fighting for the future, 385 foreseeable future, 349 future-facing mode of apprehension, 171 future of the open society, 382 future-oriented present, 163 and futurology, 442 global futures, 241, 255n8, 411 of global historical sociology, 444 goals for the future, 181 of higher education, 409

518 

Index of Subjects

Future(s) (cont.) historical sociology of the future, 427 a history of futures past, 421 of human existence, 244, 299 of the humanities and social sciences, 245 of humanity, 244, 257n30 illusion of a future, 366 intellectual developments, 157 little futures, 411 in the making, 352 matters, 352 medium-and long-term future, 206 of modernity, 241, 257n7 modernity and its futures, 391, 410 moves, 426 narratives of the future, xxi, 242–246 of the nation state, 394 near future, 262, 272, 358 non-sovereign futures, 362 options for sociology, xxii past, 241, 255n2 past, present, and future, 178 the past, present, and future of science, 306 past, present, and possible future developments in sociology, 149 past, present, and possible future developments of social realities, 149 past, present, and possible future trends, xv, 245 past, present, and possible future trends, debates, and challenges shaping the pursuit of sociological inquiry, xv, 350 path, xxii, 245, 347 possible future, viii, xv, 149, 155, 207, 242, 244, 245 posthuman future, 382 for presentism, 366 promising future, 243

prospects, 401, 421 in question, 371 recent and possible future trends shaping the development of sociology, 244 regard the future ‘as an empirical object’, 244 scenarios, 242 of social theory, 241, 255n5, 383 of society, 241, 244, 255n6, 256n29, 347, 416 for sociology, 246–247 of sociology, xv, xxi, 220–232, 241, 244–246, 255n2, 272–276, 347, 351, 353, 356–359, 363, 367, 373, 384, 406 sociology and the future, 355, 414 sociology of the future, 241, 255n9, 266, 352, 359, 371, 386, 427, 437 sociology’s future, 394 speculative futures, 352 study of the future, 397 for the theory of multiple modernities, 381 ‘to shift the analytical angle from looking into the future to looking at the future’ trends, xv, 207, 244, 245 uncertain futures for higher education in the knowledge economy, 443 viable future, 185, 262 wicked futures, 437 G

Game(s) changer(s), 286, 327 European language game, 290, 301 imperial game, 107 parochial language game, 296 ‘playing the game’ of mainstream academia, 294

  Index of Subjects 

postcolonial sovereignty games, 352 private language games, 118 publish-or-perish game, 230 rules of the game, 139 of science, 201 ‘the only game in town’, 156 Western European language games, 301 Gatekeepers, 129, 305, 345 Gegenwartsmacher, 151 Gemeinschaft Gemeinschaft versus Gesellschaft, 173 Schicksalsgemeinschaft, 180 Gender, vi, vii, 8, 28, 36, 40, 42, 43, 76, 118, 130, 131, 134, 137, 138, 152, 198, 200, 214, 242, 243, 249, 263–265, 267, 277, 278, 286, 293, 345, 366, 368, 370–372, 395, 405, 406, 409, 412, 420, 426, 438, 442, 444 Gender-based, 42 Gendered, 8, 134 Gender-specific, 28, 36, 130, 263 Genealogical, 300 Genealogies/genealogy, 15, 128, 163, 308, 368, 402 Generality, 182 Generalization(s), 182, 203, 292, 313, 346 Generational, 130 Genocide, 33, 106, 265, 288 Geographic(al)/geographically, xvi, 26, 33, 58, 102, 111, 132, 135, 185, 252, 253, 296, 303, 304, 310, 312, 344, 392 Geographies/geography, 3, 6, 23n116, 82, 104, 118, 152, 177, 304, 312, 370, 371, 392, 402, 412, 421, 430 German colonial empire, 429 colonial state, 430 colonies, 106, 107

519

cosmopolitan social thought, 392 emigrants, 107 establishment, 106 Europeans speaking German or a Germanic language, 106 evolutionism, 176 exceptionalism, 106 expansionism, 108 German and Anglo-American academic environments, 158 German Critique, 388, 409, 410 German Democratic Party (DDP), 108 German Empire (Deutsches Reich), 106 Ideology, 409 imperialism, 104 nation, 106 nation-state, 106 overseas imperialism, 430 politics, 412 social theorists, 176 sociologists, 431 sociology, 298, 431 state, 106 word, 109 Germanic language, 106 pan-Germanic project, 106 Germanism ‘pan-Germanism’, 106 standpoint of Germanism, 361 German-speaking humanities and social sciences, 319 side, 31 sociology, 319 Germany Bismarckian Germany, 297 history of Germany, 361 imperial Germany, 412 late nineteenth-century Germany, 108 populism in Germany, 439 West Germany, 93n112, 160

520 

Index of Subjects

Geschichtsschreibung, 151 Gesellschaft, 279, 377, 398, 441, 444 Gemeinschaft versus Gesellschaft, 173 Gesellschaftlichkeit, 279 Gesellschaftstheorie, 319, 432 Global academic field, 291 Anglocentric ‘empire’, 290 antiterrorism, 133 capitalism, 103, 133, 252, 370, 375, 392 civil society, 252, 254, 367, 441 cognitive justice, 16 the colonial global, 65 the ‘colonial global’, 55 coloniality, 133, 297 -colonial matrix of power, 133 competitiveness, 214 condition(s), 58, 298 connections, 66, 298 -connectivist, 64, 136 consciousness, 55 context, viii, 40, 59, 63, 185, 253, 360 cosmopolitan sociology, 63 crisis, xxi, 242, 440 cultural variations, 60 development of the ‘global’, 65, 82, 103, 322 diversity, 62 division of power, 7–9, 17, 55, 68, 104, 115, 130, 139, 251, 288, 297, 307, 311 division of power and resources, 9 dynamics, 83 dynamics of knowledge, x, 31, 132, 372 dynamics of power, 83 economic collapse, 242 emergence of the global within sociology, 83 endeavour, 295 environmental catastrophes, 186

epistemic processes and structures, 220 field, 62, 107 field of imperial rivalry, 107 field of knowledge production, 62 flows, 203, 359 futures, 241, 255n8, 411 genuinely global, 27, 59, 62, 179, 298, 307 between global classics and global contemporaries, 295 between global connections and global reconstructions, 298 between global imaginaries and global realities, 295 global modernities, 75, 297–298, 375, 380, 382, 414, 422 between global modernity and global coloniality, 297 global/national, 80 between global outlooks and global hierarchies, 298 hegemony, 10 historical perspective, 30 histories, 67 inequality/inequalities, 7, 10, 361 influence, 105, 259n73, 291 influence of deregulated production systems and labour markets, 259n73 influence of the English language, 291 interconnectedness, ix, xvii, 13, 55, 59, 295, 298, 303, 308, 342, 344 interconnectedness of historical developments, 303 interconnectedness of imperialist power structures, 308 interconnectedness of modern societies, 295 interconnections, 83, 136 justice, 132, 142n51, 357, 366, 367, 374, 418, 442

  Index of Subjects 

level(s), 33, 75, 83, 252 ‘local’ vs. ‘global, 117 matrix of power, 311 multiculturalism, 61 multicultural sociology, 61, 62 narratives, 86 nature of modern capitalism, 295 nature of rationalization processes, 295 nature of the key ingredients of social order, 295 the ‘newly’ global, 65 North, 7, 10, 19n32, 31, 101, 132, 361, 372, 379, 398, 412 order, 253, 360, 371 our global (postcolonial) age, 25, 57 outlook, 62, 298 past and the global present, 55 periphery, 132 perspective, 55, 132, 307, 351, 429 players, 100 preponderance, 28 problems, xxii, 221, 243 processes, 64 production of knowledge, 80 project, 296 research project, 134 scale, xvii, 5, 56, 60, 103, 107, 134, 156, 253 in scope, 85 significance, 66, 82, 86 social change, 77 social justice, 16 social science community, xvii, 81, 345 society, xv, xvi, 3, 10–12, 33, 55, 67, 76, 82, 295, 322, 323, 343, 344 sociology, xvi, xvii, 10, 21n62, 27, 36, 43, 52n201, 55–57, 59, 63, 75–78, 82–89, 98, 132–134, 293, 295, 322, 344, 360, 367, 417 solutions, 221

521

South, 7, 10, 19n32, 32, 132, 215, 290, 361, 370, 372, 379, 387, 396, 398, 407, 412, 419, 421, 442 spread of incurable human diseases, 242 structures of domination, 83, 86 struggles, 9, 12, 17, 385 system, 4, 36, 382, 428 systems of domination, 36 ‘the global’ as constituted historically, 303 between ‘the Global West’ and ‘the Global Rest’, 296 triumph of liberalism in the late twentieth century, 175 umbrella of ideas and research, 133 understandings of the global, 67, 293 of understandings of the global, 67, 293 universality, 346 universe, 4, 63 vision of modernity, 296 Western hegemony, 311 world, 56 Globalism, 375, 385, 412, 437 Globalist, xxiii, 247, 304, 321, 349 Globality age of polycentric globality, 116 and connectivity, xvii, 75–93 intimations of globality, xvi–xvii, 295–300, 344–345 and sociology, xvi, 55–74 Globalization/globalisation age of globalization, 377, 419, 420 alternative globalization, 254 architecture of globalization, 55, 400 from below, 254, 374, 425 beyond globalization, 393 capitalist globalization, 420 challenge of globalization, 409

522 

Index of Subjects

Globalization/globalisation (cont.) counter-hegemonic globalization, 379, 425 economic globalization, 442 internalizing globalization, 429 later phase of globalization, 60 philosophical theory of globalization, 429 of sociology, 62 sociology of globalization, 265, 408 studies of globalization, 301 theories of globalization, 355, 377 Globe across the globe, xv, 15, 17, 58, 60, 63, 76, 107, 113, 133, 180, 197, 243, 253, 301, 307, 310, 321 all of the globe, 4, 295 around the globe, 243 non-Western parts of the globe, 16 Glocalization, 422 Glorification, 36, 320 Goal attainment, 181 God(s) reason, God, and modernity, 390 ‘the cult of God’, 111 Goffmanian, 275, 433 Goods, 38, 58, 104, 105, 134, 203, 206, 250, 318, 326, 384 Governance academic governance, 222, 373 audit-driven governance, 214 colonial governance, 311 contemporary modes of academic governance, 222 human self-governance, 255 neoliberal and neomanagerial regimes of governance, 216, 218 neoliberal forms of governance, 214 neoliberal governance, 217, 419 neoliberal regimes of governance, 274, 328, 330 of science, 382 and surveillance, 206

surveillance and governance, 374 university governance, 426 Government(s), 206, 213, 214, 269, 378, 401, 405, 417, 418, 426, 444 Governmental, 106 Governmentality/ies, 327, 383 Grammar(s), 16, 396, 411 Grammatical, 58, 319 Grand narrative(s), 9, 86, 382 Great Britain, 101, 102, 288, 309 Greco-Roman, 76 Greece, 110 Grundriß, 281n37, 441 Guarantee(s) of epistemic validity, 177 wage guarantees, 251 H

Habermasian, 251, 431 Habitualized, 30, 128, 181, 324 Habitus, 363, 366, 374, 377, 404 epistemic habitus, 223 Happiness, 378 sociology of happiness, 265 Harm, 199 Hegelian, 159, 316 Hegemonic counterhegemonic, viii, xxii, xxiii, 7, 9, 18, 33, 63, 83, 219, 241, 247, 248, 261, 275, 276, 301, 306, 317, 320, 322, 324, 335n72, 348, 349 and counterhegemonic discourses, 219 and counterhegemonic forces, 241, 322 and counterhegemonic forms and contents of knowledge production, 63 counter-hegemonic globalization, 379, 425

  Index of Subjects 

hegemonic account, 59, 130 hegemonic agenda, 88, 268 hegemonic agenda of metrics-driven academia, 268 hegemonic control, 68 hegemonic ‘core’, 9 hegemonic conventions of judgement and evaluation, 86 hegemonic discourse(s), 7, 40, 44, 138, 219, 250, 275 hegemonic doxa, 154 hegemonic epicentre, 8 hegemonic epistemologies, 16 ‘hegemonic’ features, 322 hegemonic forces, 27, 306, 316 hegemonic form of ethnocentric and evolutionist universalism, 16 hegemonic ideology, 34 hegemonic imposition of behavioural, ideological, and institutional modes of functioning, 5 hegemonic influence, 15, 17, 41, 62, 78, 109, 113, 160, 186 hegemonic influence of Anglophone sociology, xviii, 117 hegemonic ‘-isms’, 128 hegemonic language of the global Anglocentric ‘empire’, 290 hegemonic languages in Western academia, 215 hegemonic material and symbolic forces, 39 hegemonic modes of cognitive and behavioural functioning, xxi, xxii, 241, 347 hegemonic modes of knowledge production, distribution, exchange, and consumption, 29 hegemonic narratives of cultural belonging, 310 hegemonic or counterhegemonic actors, 33

523

hegemonic parameters of validity, 29 hegemonic patterns of explanation and interpretation, 78 hegemonic patterns of functioning, 220, 295 hegemonic position(s), 7, 26, 59, 60, 63, 110, 115, 226 hegemonic posture, 16 hegemonic power(s), 4, 8, 9, 11, 38, 59, 133, 254, 291 hegemonic practices, 43 hegemonic practices and structures, 294 hegemonic processes and structures of knowledge production, xviii hegemonic processes and structures of knowledge production, circulation, and consumption, 346 hegemonic representations, 136 hegemonic role of the state and the market in neoliberal societies, xxii hegemonic sociopolitical arrangements of ‘the West’, 139 hegemonic spheres of world society, 311 hegemonic systems and ideologies, 276 hegemonic systems of domination, 254 hegemonic systems of social domination, 294 hegemonic terrain, 254 ‘hegemonic West’, 67 hegemonic work of art, 381 hegemonic Zeitgeist, 248 non-hegemonic, 306 and non-hegemonic actors, 306 relationship between ‘the hegemonic’ and ‘the counterhegemonic’, 335n72 Hegemonist, 115 Hegemonize, 64

524 

Index of Subjects

Hegemony concept of ‘hegemony’, 255n1 global hegemony of ‘the West’, 10 global Western hegemony, 311 hegemony and counterhegemony, xxii, 261–281 hegemony and sociology, xxi, 241–259 hegemony of the dominant forms, 63 hegemony of ‘the West’, 10, 15 intimations of hegemony, xxi–xxiii, 320–330, 347–348 political hegemony, 178 power of hegemony, 15 schemes of doxa and hegemony, 131 toxic hegemony of the state and the market, 248 transversal hegemony, 367 Hellenistic Egypt, 180 Hermeneutic(s)/hermeneutically, 198, 217, 219, 232, 276, 278, 299, 304, 305, 319, 374, 383, 402, 416, 432, 433, 438, 441 Heterogeneity, 12, 16, 30, 113, 203, 204, 252, 270, 287, 320, 422 Heterogeneous, 118, 201, 228, 287, 294 Heteronomy, 100 Hierarchies/hierarchy, 17, 32, 33, 36, 38, 40, 41, 56, 57, 113, 115, 129, 179, 215, 217–218, 223, 225, 226, 230, 233n15, 268, 271, 294, 298, 302, 307 Hierarchization, xvii, 61, 85, 345 Hindu, 175 Historian(s), 41, 87, 93n112, 114, 242, 311, 386, 389 Historical, vii, xv, xvii–xx, xxii, xxiii, 3–6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 25, 27, 30, 33, 35, 38, 39, 55–61, 65, 67, 68, 76–78, 81–87, 99–116, 120n13, 132–134, 136–139,

149–151, 153–163, 164n1, 169, 170, 173–177, 180, 183, 202, 203, 219, 223, 242, 247, 250, 252, 261, 264, 278, 287–289, 293, 296–298, 300–308, 310, 317–319, 321, 325, 343–347, 349, 352, 356, 360, 367, 369, 370, 373, 374, 387, 388, 391, 398, 401, 405–407, 409, 427, 430, 431, 435, 438, 440, 443, 444 Historicist spirit, xix, 163, 346 Historicity awareness of historicity, 153 between epistemology and historicity, 304 geographical in its historicity, 304 historicity and novelty, xix, 169–194 historicity and sociology, xix, 149–168 historicity of modernity, 303 historicity of social reality, xix historicity of society, 161 ‘the historicity of the oppressing ← → resisting relation’ (Lugones), 43 historicity of the terminologies and methodologies employed to collect and to examine data within disciplinary boundaries, 161 historicity permeating different elements of social reality, 160 historicity permeating the human condition, 151 importance of historicity, 161, 304 importance of historicity for the interpretation of language and meaning, 304 intimations of historicity, xix–xx, 306–312, 346 proper understanding of the historicity, 151

  Index of Subjects 

spatiotemporally constituted horizons of historicity, 150 spatiotemporally specific horizons of historicity, 314 Histories across the world, 113 alternative connected histories, 87 colonial and imperial histories, 66 colonial and postcolonial histories, 15, 370 colonial histories, 15, 308, 316, 320, 355 of colonialism, 3, 14, 32, 65, 67, 86, 88, 136, 293, 295 connected histories, xvi, xvii, 13, 15, 37, 60, 66, 82–89, 134–137, 253, 298, 321 consuming histories, 376, 397 different histories, 137, 299 disconnected histories, 89 of enslavement, dispossession, and annihilation, 138 events and histories, 135 global histories, 67 imperial histories, 66, 369, 385, 418 intellectual and material histories, 25 intertwined histories, 27, 88, 406 local histories, 37, 304, 411 multicultural histories of colonialism, 88 national histories, 89, 310 other histories, xvii, 82 parochial European histories, 86 purified national histories, 89 reinterpretation of histories, 137, 299 separate histories, 134, 135 of social theory, 393 universalist histories of capital, 12, 68 Historikerstreit, 87, 93n112, 401, 402, 414 Historiographies/historiography, 3, 6, 13, 25, 44, 68, 149, 151, 296,

525

298, 299, 314, 359, 361, 370, 387, 409, 430 History academic disciplines of history and sociology, 346 of Asiatic empires, 102 of capitalism, 103 center of history, 114 colonial history, 15, 308, 316, 320, 355 of colonialism, 3, 14, 32, 295 of colonialism and imperialism, 14 colonial, postcolonial, and decolonial facets of early modern, modern, and late modern history, 56 of ‘the colonized’, 57 of ‘the colonizers’, 57 confusing history, 442 connected history of encounters, 37 connectivist understanding of history, 88 the continent’s own history, 109 course of history, 6, 38, 66, 177, 180 course of world history, 112, 173, 307 critical history, 397, 424, 428 cultural history, 386 determinist understanding of history, 346 diametrically opposed conceptions of history, 151 each local history and its narrative of decolonization, 37 early American history, 376 the end of history, 174, 175, 191n55, 382 the ‘the end of history’ thesis, 191n69 ethnocentric and monolithic accounts of history, 65 Eurocentric conceptions of history, xvi, 344

526 

Index of Subjects

History (cont.) Eurocentric (mis-) representations of ‘modern’ history, 37 Europe’s history, 15, 308 European history, 65, 86, 100 of European states, 13, 307 French intellectual history, 386 of French overseas expansion, 353 of futures past, 421 of Germany, 361 hegemonic powers of contemporary history, 38 histories of social theory, 373 history and sociology, xix, 149, 346, 352, 406 history and tradition, 128 history as a conglomerate of occurrences determined by a ‘set of universal laws’, 149 history as ‘an open horizon of arbitrary, unpredictable, chaotic, directionless, and irreducible developments’, 151 history as ‘a structured and structuring horizon of unavoidable, predictable, progressive, directional, and universal developments’, 151 history from above, 12, 68 history from below, 12, 68 ‘history-led’, 160 history of ‘Black Americans’, ‘Native Americans’, ‘Indígenas’, or other inferiorized ethnic ‘minorities’, 139 human history, 111, 184 of the human condition, 279 of human societies, 316 of the human species, 177 imperial and colonial history, 15, 308 imperial history, 66, 369, 385, 418 Indian history, 387

of insanity, 381 intellectual and economic history, 28 laws of, 314 mainstream accounts of contemporary history, 59 mainstream accounts of history, 140 mainstream history, 41 mainstream narratives of modern history, 35 mainstream versions of history, 128 making history, 436 methodologies of history, 410 military history, 437 a missing history, 383 modern European history, 100 modern history, 35, 37, 40, 56, 57, 67, 82, 87, 99, 106, 114, 288, 297, 308–310 of modernity, 26, 64, 310 of neoliberalism, 392 ‘non-Western history’, 163 periphery of history, 114 of philosophy, 393 philosophy of history, 375 of the philosophy of time, 356 place of peripheralized ‘others’ in the history of modernity, 64 postcolonial history, 15, 355, 370 ‘a postideological science of society and history’, 113 of power, 68, 407 precolonial, colonial, and postcolonial history, 15 premodern phase in history, 42 pseudohistory, 369 recent world history, 59 representations and misrepresentations of history, 68 of science, 369, 418, 420 sexual history, 442 of sexuality, 380, 381, 431 social history, 15, 151, 154 social theory’s history, 241, 255

  Index of Subjects 

of society, 113, 154, 155 sociological study of history, xix, 346 sociological understanding of history, 149 sociology of, xv, xviii, 97, 149, 155, 241, 318, 363, 372, 391 standard narratives of contemporary history, 180 study history sociologically, 149 teleologically determined history, 12 of temporality, 397 of their so-called Others, 13, 307 of the twentieth century, 106 the very question of the ‘other’ in, 311 of violence, 47n51 of violence and humanity, 360, 404, 418, 420, 422 Western-centric teleological conception of, 32 ‘Western history’, 163 world history/world-history, xvi, 59, 82, 110, 112, 135, 173, 307, 308, 344, 367, 393 writing of, 82 young history, 106, 246 Holistic, 229, 277, 318, 329 Holocaust, 93n112 Homogeneity, 287, 422 Homogeneous, 31, 55, 172, 203, 287 Homological, 6 Homology, 247 Homo sapiens, 181, 232 Hope, 106, 128, 229, 244, 371, 387 Horizontal, 81 Hospitality, 118 Hostility, 292, 317 Humanities/humanity, 3, 25, 26, 55, 65, 69, 75, 79, 132–134, 149–151, 154, 160, 170, 174, 197, 200, 218, 225, 230, 231, 242, 244–247, 257n30, 268,

527

271, 274, 279, 286, 290, 291, 293, 294, 296, 299, 304–306, 319, 328, 344, 350, 359, 360, 371, 383, 404, 418, 420–422, 434 Humboldtian, 269, 329, 330 Humean, 428 Hungary, 402 Hybrid, 75, 374 Hybridity, 31 Hybridization, 414 Hybridized, 99, 224 Hyperhyper-individualism, 175, 215 hyper-individualized, 170 hyper-valuation, 268 Hypostatized, 156 I

Ideal(s), 9, 57, 87, 104–106, 129, 132, 141n27, 186, 319, 354, 362, 393, 409, 427, 435, 438, 443 Idealism, 278 Idealist, 100 Idealize, 322 Idealizing, 10 Ideal type(s), 57, 70n19, 83–85, 89, 156, 292, 294, 317, 322n24, 338n159, 423, 435 Ideal-typical, 84, 175 Identification, xx, 224 Identities/identity, vi, vii, xviii, xix, xxi, xxii, 3, 14, 30, 31, 40, 42, 44, 51n163, 66, 78, 79, 89, 97, 100, 106, 112, 135, 136, 152, 155, 162, 163, 208, 213, 216–222, 227, 228, 261, 262, 265, 270, 275, 310, 316, 325, 347, 349, 368, 369, 381, 392, 394, 396–398, 401, 414, 416, 420, 425, 435, 437, 440

528 

Index of Subjects

Ideological academic legitimators, 159 architecture, 57 bias, 274 boundaries, 36 construction of a ‘civilizing mission’, 103 construction of ‘separate histories’, 135 construction of ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 136 control, 322 cornerstone of European societies, 66 creation of ‘the Other’, 316 critique, 318 discourse, 56 discrepancies, 156 division, 323 frameworks, 115 function, 41 and geographical reference point, 26, 310 imaginaries, 66 leaders, 55 parameters, 45 persuasions, 249, 252 power, 38 principles, 99 struggles, 274 superstructure, 102 territory, 155 trends and developments, 159 postideological, 113 ‘a postideological science of society and history’, 113 unideological, 274 Ideologically ideologically defensible, 5 ideologically ingrained, 344 ideologically mobilized, 204 ideologically motivated, 179, 275 ideologically motivated fabrications, 179

Ideologies ‘big-picture’ ideologies, 275 dominant ideologies, 7, 8, 136, 138, 249, 258n60, 351, 433 hegemonic systems and ideologies, 276 imperialist ideologies, 316 ‘issue-specific’ ideologies, 275 mainstream political ideologies, 242 major political ideologies, 7, 99 modern ideologies, 35 multilayered ideologies, 311 political ideologies, xxii, 7, 99, 242, 243, 267, 270, 278 ‘sub-major’ political ideologies, 99 Ideologization, 99 Ideology critique of, 275, 280n20, 318, 319, 428 dominant ideology, 7, 8, 136, 138, 249, 258n60, 351, 433 dominant ideology thesis, 258n60, 351 end of ideology, 359 German ideology, 409 goals and ideology, 7 hegemonic ideology, 34 ideology of ‘impact’, xxi, 229, 230 mapping ideology, 444 Marxist theory of ideology, 372 neoliberal ideology, 429 question of ideology, 28 recognition as ideology, 396 sociology of ideology, 265 sublime object of ideology, 444 Idiosyncrasies, 59, 109, 135 Illness, 265 Illusion(s), 28, 150, 221, 222, 243, 345, 366, 376, 409, 440 Illusory, 130, 218 Imaginaries/imaginary between global imaginaries and global realities, 295

  Index of Subjects 

both the imaginary and the factual organization of the modern world, 26 collective imaginary, 42, 309–311 culturally specific imaginings and imaginaries, 34 a genuine, rather than merely imaginary, possibility, 325 ideological imaginaries, 66 imaginary constraints, 98 imaginary construction of ‘the other’, 115 imaginary construction of a binary civilizational division, 113 imaginary institution of society, 370 imaginary reconstitution of society, 405 imperial imaginary, 431 modern social imaginaries, 435 self-referential imaginary, 114 social imaginary, 151, 363, 435 theoretical and practical constructions of collective historical imaginaries, 39 Imagination(s) colonizers’ imaginations, 8 concept of ‘imagination’, 280n8 intellectual imagination, 270 sociological imagination, 271, 275, 280n8, 360, 383, 401, 411, 412 Western imagination, 243, 244 Imaginative, 220, 249, 278, 325, 349 Immanence, 29, 39, 276, 279 Imperialism age of imperialism, xv, xix, 5, 414 age of neoimperialism, 132 between modernity and imperialism, 307–308 capitalist imperialism, 111 colonial imperialism, 102 colonialism and imperialism, 14, 308, 311

529

colonialist imperialism, 102, 322 critique of imperialism, 305 culture and imperialism, 424 economic dimensions of imperialism, 8 ‘The Economic Foundations of “Imperialism”’ (Weber), 109 economies theories of imperialism, 103 empire and imperialism, 363 end of imperialism, 4 epistemic imperialism, 5, 80 era of imperialism, 110, 297 European imperialism, 88, 114, 307 form of imperialism, 4 French imperialism, 104 German imperialism, 104 German overseas imperialism, 430 high imperialism, 4, 5 impact of imperialism, 404 imperialism and postcolonialism, 368 liberal imperialism, 108 Marxist theories of imperialism, 366, 400, 414 modern imperialism, 37 modernity and imperialism, 307–308 neoimperialism, 7, 18n10, 132, 419 ‘the new imperialism’, 6 new US imperialism, 430 rise of imperialism, 99–101, 344 role of imperialism, 110, 301 sociology of imperialism, 109 study of imperialism, 103 theories of imperialism, 103, 366, 378, 400, 412, 414, 427 Western forms of imperialism, 5 Western imperialism, 59 Imperialist, 5, 29, 67, 81, 100, 105, 106, 136, 308, 316, 321 Imperialistic, 7

530 

Index of Subjects

Import between export and import, 216–217 epistemic import, 227, 228 import-export, 227 import-export cycles of global epistemic processes and structures, 220 ‘import’ frameworks, 216 ‘Importing’ and ‘exporting’ dynamics, 228 Impossibility, 39, 110 Improvement, xxii, 207, 243, 244, 347 Impulse(s), 41, 157 Inclusion, xviii, xix, 63, 89, 128–132, 134, 137–140, 182, 186, 200, 246, 269, 286, 293, 305, 306, 320, 321, 345, 346, 399, 406 Inclusivity, 323, 383 Incommensurability, 11, 34, 289 Incommensurable, 289, 369 Incongruity, xx Independence, 5, 7, 15 Indeterminacy determinacy and indeterminacy, 153 reflexivity and indeterminacy, 173 India, 102, 104, 111, 115, 123n126, 332n39, 355, 363, 387, 408, 420, 431, 438 Indian, 32, 103, 383, 387, 423 Indigenization ‘the “indigenization” of the social sciences’, 62 of sociology, 62 Individual(s), v, xxi, 7, 8, 11–13, 15, 30, 33, 35, 43, 59, 63, 65, 81, 82, 86, 100, 105, 112, 134, 137, 138, 140, 180, 220, 226, 230, 249, 254, 273, 289, 300, 301, 316, 319, 323–326, 383, 420, 428 Individualism, 112, 175, 179, 215, 278, 359

Individualist, 112, 208 Individualization, 99, 100, 171, 203 Individualized hyper-individualized, 170 Industrialism, 32, 114, 170, 371, 404 postindustrialism, xx, 170, 197, 209n4 Industrialization, 58, 66, 99, 106, 107, 184, 251 Industries/industry, 378, 394, 404 Inequalities/inequality, xviii, 7, 9, 10, 40, 63, 76, 80, 132, 134, 140, 242, 243, 265, 356, 361, 371, 381, 401, 404, 440 Inevitability, 37, 297 Inferior, 8, 14, 17, 32, 287 Inferiority, 36 Inferiorization, 31, 56, 286, 288, 293, 316 between inferiorization and superiorization, 316 Inferiorized, 13, 16, 134, 139, 140, 320 Inferiorizing, 17 Inflation between inflation and conflation, 312–313 Influence, xviii, xx, 3, 7, 9, 15–17, 31, 38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 56, 60–62, 76, 78, 79, 82, 99, 103–105, 107, 109, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118, 128, 132, 134, 136, 152, 158–160, 174, 176, 186, 197, 198, 220, 225, 246, 249, 250, 254, 259n73, 269, 271, 275, 278, 291, 300, 311, 313, 321, 327 Information/informational, xx, 44, 173, 198, 200, 202, 205, 207, 232, 312, 363, 369–371, 381, 386, 441 Injustice(s), 40, 84, 134, 249

  Index of Subjects 

Innovation, x, 112, 202, 265, 378, 395 Inquiry, x, xv, xx, 3, 6, 13, 17, 27, 28, 30, 44, 68, 69, 81, 85, 97, 117, 118, 128, 131, 152, 160, 161, 170, 171, 178, 200, 207, 208, 219–222, 227–228, 231, 241, 246, 253, 262, 263, 267, 270, 271, 274, 276–278, 285, 286, 289, 292, 300–302, 304, 305, 311, 313–315, 324, 325, 327, 343, 345, 348, 350, 352, 355–357, 366, 375, 387, 389, 403, 416, 424 Insiders, 86, 129, 244, 275, 305, 345 Instability, v, vii, 31 Institution(s), vii, 14, 32, 76, 104, 185, 198, 199, 202, 214, 215, 265, 273, 274, 286, 311, 327, 328, 357, 370, 380 Institutional/institutionally, xvii, xxi, xxii, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 29, 42–45, 58, 60, 61, 75, 83, 100, 112, 127, 128, 134, 136, 140, 150, 152, 160–162, 169, 174, 180–186, 202–207, 213, 216–218, 220–222, 224, 227, 228, 230, 245, 253, 254, 261, 262, 267, 270, 273, 276, 277, 286, 301, 306, 325, 327, 344, 347, 349, 350, 415 Institutionalization, 99, 182 Institutionalized, 78, 97, 161, 179, 184, 294, 306 Instrumental communicative (rather than instrumental) rationality, 181 instrumental enterprise, 229 instrumental imperatives, 216 instrumental, let alone financial, goals, 204 instrumental logic, 248, 330 instrumental means, 278 instrumental outlook, 229

531

instrumental rationality, 38, 100, 109, 181, 214, 215, 230, 247, 290, 329, 341 instrumental reason, 154 instrumental relation, 213 Instrumentalized, 232, 329 Instrumentality, 232 Instrumentally driven, 155 Integration European integration, 352, 392 integration of knowledge systems, 415 international economic integration, 400 large-scale social integration, 185 large-scale system integration, 185 processes of integration, 181 social integration, 181, 185, 193n108 system integration, 181, 185, 193n108 Integrationist, 65 Integrity, 16, 129, 136, 199, 228, 229, 325, 348 Intellectual(s), v, xviii, xxi, xxii, 3, 6, 10–12, 14, 25, 26, 28, 30–33, 35, 38, 39, 43–45, 65, 69, 80, 81, 87, 88, 93n112, 97, 100–103, 106, 116, 117, 119, 128, 131, 149, 152–157, 159, 162, 163, 169, 173–177, 213, 215, 216, 218, 220, 221, 224–232, 245, 249, 252, 253, 261, 262, 267, 268, 270, 272, 275, 276, 279, 286, 288, 289, 292, 298, 299, 301, 304, 306, 311, 314, 315, 321, 325, 327, 328, 343, 345–347, 349, 356, 357, 363, 372, 383, 386, 410, 412, 413, 421, 424, 428, 434–436, 442 Intelligibility, 226, 232 Interact/interacting, 40, 181, 216

532 

Index of Subjects

Interaction(s), 11, 30, 43, 224, 225, 232, 252, 273, 275, 276, 278, 286, 315–317, 319, 383, 390, 444 Interactional, 30, 34, 79, 140, 186, 230, 286, 315–317, 350 Interactionism, vii, 276, 278 Interconnectedness, ix, xv, xvii, xxiii, 13, 55, 57–59, 113, 245, 285, 295, 297–299, 303, 308, 321, 343, 344, 348 Interconnectivity, 296 Interdependence, 106, 439 Interdisciplinarity, xxi, 213–237, 347, 369, 373, 395, 406, 429 Interdisciplinary, xxiii, 213, 216, 218, 220–224, 226, 230, 232, 247, 262, 269, 328, 347, 349, 382, 385, 386, 398, 401, 415, 429 Interest(s) between ‘interests + desires’ and ‘justifications + reasons’, 316 commercial interest, 205 concept of interest in social theory, 417 in the constitution of ‘the social’, 262 of counterhegemonic forces, 306 defence of national interests, 108 economic, political, ideological, geostrategic, and military interests, 288 of European nation-states, 88 every person’s interests, 318 as ‘external’, 317 in the future, 244 general interest, 6 geopolitical interests of the West, 113 geostrategic interests, 309 of hegemonic forces, 305–306 of hegemonic powers, 9 holistic interest, 229 human interests, 388

human, rather than merely personal or group-specific, interests, 323 of individual and collective actors, 86 intellectual interests, 270 ‘interest’ and ‘desire’, 29, 30, 317 as ‘internal’, 317 long-standing interest, 222 in maintaining and cultivating the existence of a social sphere, 246 of the nation-state, 108 particular interests, 77, 81, 201 power, desire, interest, 28, 316 scientific interest, 204 sociological concept of, 435 a subject’s interest in pursuing desire and desire to pursue interests, 29, 316 typology of interests, 47n54, 317, 338n153 universal interests, 81 in upholding civil society, 246 Western international economic interests, 28 Interest-driven, 7 Interest-laden, 79, 232, 286, 311, 318 International, vii, 4, 28, 62, 100, 105, 106, 206, 222, 353, 355, 356, 363, 366–368, 372, 380, 393, 394, 400, 403, 408, 410, 416–418, 423, 426–428, 433, 434, 438, 440, 442 Internationalization, 103, 418 Internet, 442 Interpretation(s), xxii, 8, 15, 30, 33, 44, 64, 65, 76, 78, 84, 88, 93n112, 98, 101, 111, 112, 114, 117, 124n144, 136, 137, 151, 153, 160, 168n107, 173, 175, 204, 218, 248, 286, 288, 292, 295, 296, 299, 303, 304, 308, 309, 321, 363, 371, 389, 402, 424, 430, 439, 440 Interpretive, 11, 57, 60, 103, 108, 117, 441

  Index of Subjects 

Interpretivism, 278 Interpretivist, 205, 246, 253 Intersectional/intersectionally, 9, 43, 56, 76, 83, 131, 140, 156, 242, 267, 277, 293, 302, 320, 375, 401, 406 Intersectionalist, 8, 56, 131, 302 Intersectionality, vi, 19–20n42, 40, 41, 69n11, 356, 357, 366, 371, 374, 386, 402, 406, 412, 435, 438, 439 Intersubjective/intersubjectively, 42, 77, 181, 247 Intersubjectivity, 129, 232, 321 Intervention(s), 9, 115, 133, 199, 248, 249, 251, 254, 396, 421 Interventionism state interventionism, 251 Interventionist interventionist state, 254 interventionist welfare culture, 248 Intimations of canonicity, xvii–xix, 300–306, 345–346 of disciplinarity, xx–xxi, 312–320, 347 of globality, xvi–xvii, 295–300, 344–345 of hegemony, xxi–xxiii, 320–330, 347–348 of historicity, xix–xx, 306–312, 346 of postcoloniality, xv–xvi, 285–294, 343–344 of postmodernity, 357 of reflexivity, xxiii, 348–350 Intricacies/intricacy, 10, 25, 153, 172, 311 Intuitions, 270 Intuitive, 29, 150 Invention, 114, 171, 407 Investment, 329 Invisible, 139, 352, 437 Iran, 180 Iraq, 375 Irony, xviii, 130, 428

533

Irreducibility, 12, 16, 36, 287, 313 Irreducible, 16, 36, 41, 114, 150–152, 158, 220, 230, 346 Islam, 113, 424, 437 Islamic, 76, 175, 180 Isolation, xvii, 27, 45, 56, 57, 66, 85, 176, 345 Isolationist, 308 Italy, 4, 107, 288, 297 J

Japan, 115 Japanese, 175 Judgement(s) about the social world, 202 competent judgement, 229 empirically substantiated judgements, 202 hegemonic conventions of judgement and evaluation, 86 informed judgement(s), 201, 348 of responsibility, 441 socio-ethical judgments, 363 of taste, 364 value judgements, 179, 274 Justice, 8, 15, 16, 30, 33, 40, 84, 103, 105, 113, 132–135, 152, 156, 249, 302, 325, 355, 357, 366, 367, 371, 374, 380, 381, 392, 418, 420, 425, 429, 442 Justifiability, 315 Justification(s) patterns of, 115 and reasons, 317, 318 self-justification, 11, 115, 138 typology of justifications, 317, 338n155 K

Kapitalismus versus Sozialismus/ Kommunismus, 173 Knights of Malta, 297

534 

Index of Subjects

Knowledge academic knowledge, 218, 221, 372 access to and accumulation of knowledge, 39 advanced knowledge economies, xxi, 345 already existing knowledge, 299 ‘alternative’ forms of knowledge, 324 alternative loci of knowledge production, 67 another knowledge, 33, 425 archaeology of knowledge, 381 asymmetrically structured realms of institutionalized and professionalized knowledge production, 294 Atlantic knowledge, 78 branches of knowledge, 225, 230 broader politics of knowledge production, 131 canonization of knowledge, 98 canon of knowledge, 425 central paths of knowledge production, circulation, and consumption, 225 classification, distribution, circulation, interpretation, and commodification of knowledge, 33 codified realms of knowledge production, 226 common knowledge, 400 corpus of established knowledge regarding the ‘social’, 76 counterhegemonic mode of knowledge production, 83 critical knowledge, 440 critique of knowledge, 388 dangerous knowledge, 398 decline of ‘legislative’ knowledge, 201 decolonization of knowledge, 37

democratization of knowledge, 200, 201 descriptive knowledge, 231 development of knowledge production, 129 disciplinary knowledge, 18 disciplinary organization of knowledge, 136 disciplinary structure of knowledge production, 59 diverse realms of knowledge production, 322 the dominance of Europe and the US in the production of knowledge, 132 dominant channels of knowledge production, 75 dominant politics of knowledge production, 128 dynamics of knowledge generation, 241 dynamics of knowledge production, distribution, consumption, and application, 289 economies of knowledge, 225 emergence of hybridized knowledge, 224 empire and knowledge, 427 endogenous knowledge, 79, 397 ethnocentric modes of knowledge production, 79 Eurocentred knowledges, 67 Eurocentred matrix of knowledge, 38 Eurocentred nature of knowledge production, 67 Eurocentric types of knowledge generation, 79 European and Anglo-American modes of knowledge generation, 78 experience and knowledge, 219, 392

  Index of Subjects 

expert knowledge, 179, 218 expert-led knowledge production, 216 export knowledge, 270 free-floating realms of transcendental knowledge production, 241 geopolitics of knowledge, 38, 315, 407, 411 global dynamics of knowledge, x, 31, 132, 372 global field of knowledge production, 62 global knowledge, 401 global production of knowledge, 80 hegemonic and counterhegemonic forms and contents of knowledge production, 63 hegemonic modes of knowledge production, distribution, exchange, and consumption, 29 hegemonic processes and structures of knowledge production, circulation, and consumption, 346 hierarchies of knowledge, 223 hierarchy of knowledges, 218 historical constitution of knowledge production, 304 historically-situated form of knowledge production, 153 historical-sociological knowledges, 157 import knowledge, 270 incommensurable knowledge, 289 indigenous knowledge, 80, 132, 415 institutionalized modes of scholarly knowledge production, 306 insurrection of subjugated knowledges, 39 interiorized processes of knowledge creation, 223 international landscape of knowledge production, circulation, and consumption, 222

535

intersecting knowledge, 224 knowledge across the globe, 17, 76 knowledge and human interests, 388 knowledge and skills, 327 knowledge and social structure, 391 knowledge claims, 224, 314 knowledge corrupters, 373 knowledge cultures, 401 knowledge economies, xx, xxi, 213, 286, 347, 443 knowledge frameworks, 80 knowledge generated in neighbouring or distant disciplines, 227 knowledge-generating parties, 224 knowledge-generating processes, 218 knowledge-generating subjects, 230 knowledge, information, and services, 173 knowledge of the Other, 5 knowledge production, xviii, 17, 18, 29, 33, 38, 45, 59, 62, 63, 67, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 128, 129, 131, 153, 216, 220–222, 225–227, 230, 241, 289, 294, 298, 301, 304, 306, 311, 322, 328, 346, 360, 394 knowledge projects, 291 knowledge sharing, 232 knowledge systems, 415 knowledge that is applicable to non-Western parts of the globe, 16 landscape of competing modes of knowledge production, 227 laws of knowledge, 162, 315 levels of knowledge production, circulation, consumption, and application, 328 mainstream forms of knowledge production, 75 mainstream modes of knowledge production, 33

536 

Index of Subjects

Knowledge (cont.) marginalization or destruction of subaltern knowledge(s), 288 marginalized forms of knowledge, 288 marketability of knowledge, 216 mechanisms of knowledge production, 81 models of knowledge generation, 216 ‘mode one knowledge’, 216 modern knowledge, 391 modes of academic knowledge generation, 221 modes of knowledge production, 17, 18, 29, 33, 38, 79, 227, 298, 301 modes of knowledge production, distribution, consumption, and application, 301 mode 1 knowledges, 218 mode 2 knowledges, 218 mode 1 and mode 2 knowledges, 218 monoculture of knowledge, 33 nature of knowledge, 67, 314 network of knowledge production, distribution, exchange, and consumption, 220 new fields of knowledge, 223 new geopolitics of knowledge, 38, 315 new knowledge of geopolitics, 38 new knowledge of the past and the present, 293 new modes of knowledge production, 38 new modes of production of knowledge, 245 new production of knowledge, 384, 427 ordinary and common-sense knowledge, 179 Orientalist knowledge, 16

particular knowledge, 16, 227 politics of knowledge, 128, 131, 315, 356, 423 postcolonial modes of knowledge production, 17, 18 posthuman knowledge, 366 power and knowledge, 68, 406 processes and institutions of knowledge across the globe, 76 processes of knowledge production, 85 production, circulation, and consumption of knowledge, 231 production, distribution, and consumption of knowledge, 81 the production, distribution, circulation, consumption, reproduction, and recycling of knowledge, 78 production, distribution, classification, stratification, and consumption of knowledge, 5 production of knowledge, 80, 135, 231, 232, 245, 274, 353, 384, 427 production of scientific knowledge, 98, 292 relationship between colonial knowledge and colonial power, 135 relationship between power and knowledge, 68 research-based and expert knowledge, 179 revealing, penetrating, and insightful knowledge, 246 rich diversity of knowledges in the world, 34 rich source of knowledge, 199 rising predominance of ‘real-worldoriented’ and inter-and transdisciplinary (‘Mode 2’) knowledge over ‘self-referential’

  Index of Subjects 

and discipline-based (‘Mode 1’) knowledge, 201 role of ‘paradigms’ in the production, circulation, reception, and interpretation of knowledge, 124n42 scientific knowledge, 44, 76, 77, 98, 292, 306, 328, 418 scientific knowledge and medicine, 306 scientific knowledge production, 45, 77 a shift from ‘mode one knowledge’ to a new, ‘mode two knowledge production’, 216 social science knowledge, 411 sociological knowledge, 157, 363 sociologies of knowledge, 291 sociology of scientific knowledge, 418 spatiotemporal contingency of knowledge production, circulation, consumption, and application, 304 specific types of knowledge, 223 study of knowledge, 304 subaltern knowledges, 411 subject of knowledge, 28 uneven distribution of knowledge, 39 violences of knowledge, 387 Western knowledge production, 311 will to knowledge, 380 worlds and knowledges, 378 Knowledgeability conditions of knowledgeability, 232 L

Labour [labor], 36, 41, 44, 76, 102, 106, 107, 114, 132, 183, 203, 250–254, 259n73, 300 Language game(s), 118, 290, 296, 301

537

Language(s), 39, 58, 68, 78, 104, 106, 176–178, 215, 226, 231, 272, 276, 277, 290–292, 304, 318–320, 324, 328, 356, 364, 366, 372, 386, 398, 432, 434 between new languages and old problems, 305 Laos, 104 Latecomers, 106, 288, 297 Latency, 181 Latin America, viii, 287, 378, 411–413, 419, 442 Latin American/Latin-American modernity/coloniality research program, 378 perspectives, 422 studies, 376 writings, 32 Law(s) feminism, law, inclusion, 406 international law, 417 law and democracy, 388, 390 law of war and peace, 387 law, race, and human security, 402 laws and explanation in sociology, 416 laws of argument, 163, 315 laws of being, 163, 315 laws of forms, 163, 315 laws of history, 314 laws of knowledge, 162, 315 laws of morality, 163, 315 laws of nature, 314 laws of society, 314 rational law, 109 repressive laws, 112 sociology of law, 265 state of law, 109 underlying laws, 84 universal laws, 149 unofficial law, 379 unshakable laws of structural determinacy, 150

538 

Index of Subjects

Lawfulness, 84, 85 Lawlessness, 150 Laypersons, 15, 33, 98, 231, 232 Left/’left’, vii, 102, 108, 132, 242, 243, 275, 291, 368 Legitimacy, xxii, 7, 35, 63, 86, 87, 98, 105, 116, 129, 131, 134, 139, 157, 169, 177, 182, 197, 202, 226, 231, 241, 248, 262, 271, 285–286, 305, 309, 315, 367, 381–383 Legitimacy claim(s), 231, 236n97, 286, 330n3, 337n141 Legitimation, 108, 182, 230, 364, 389 Legitimization delegitimization, 275 self-legitimization, 128 Leisure sociology of leisure, 265 LGBT sociologists, 131 Liberal and conservative historians, 87 and conservative scholars, 87 imperialism, 108 liberal Enlightenment, 105 liberal stance, 108 white male metropolitan liberal bourgeoisie, 31–32 Liberalism centre-left liberalism, 275 centrist liberalism, 440 modernism and, 113 neoliberalism, 171, 173, 174, 214, 218, 229, 250, 251, 254, 369, 371, 374, 376, 383, 392, 409, 423, 424, 429, 436 political liberalism, 390 post-liberalism, 378 socialism and liberalism, 7 triumph of liberalism, 175 Liberation, 32, 42, 43, 130, 132, 309, 376, 413 Liberté, égalité, fraternité, 103

Liberty, 130, 439 Life/lives, xxii, 3, 8, 10, 12, 13, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35–38, 41, 42, 56, 58, 82, 98, 100–103, 105, 110, 112, 115, 118, 132, 149, 172, 175, 176, 179–181, 183, 185, 194n32, 198, 201, 203, 225, 229–231, 242–244, 246, 247, 250, 251, 255, 264–266, 274, 277–279, 288, 292, 299, 301–303, 306, 311, 316, 317, 319, 323, 325, 327–329, 348, 350n1, 357, 359, 360, 365, 367, 373, 379, 383, 386, 392, 397–400, 403, 406, 410, 412, 418, 422, 423, 433, 434, 439, 441 Life form(s), 8, 10, 12, 13, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 56, 58, 62, 105, 110, 112, 115, 132, 172, 175, 176, 179–181, 183, 185, 198, 225, 242–244, 246, 247, 250, 277, 279, 299, 302, 303, 306, 311, 317, 319, 323, 325 Lifeworld(s), 38, 42, 85, 88, 149, 181, 185, 205, 251, 327, 329, 388 Linearity, 84, 85, 150 Lingua franca, 290, 291 Linguistic(s)/linguistically, xvi, 3, 4, 11, 29, 40, 58, 59, 133, 137, 151, 180, 203, 232, 276, 287, 312, 318, 320, 321, 344, 365 Liquid Life, 357 modernity, 156, 357 surveillance, 357 times, 357 Literary studies, 3, 6 Literature and philosophy, 174 reviews, 78, 394 sociology of, 265

  Index of Subjects 

Local, 12, 13, 16, 17, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, 58–60, 67, 81, 83, 86, 117, 137, 252, 253, 295, 298, 304, 358–360, 371, 402, 411, 418, 425 Localism, 111 Logic(s), 10, 16, 36, 37, 40, 41, 82, 84, 108, 115, 139, 152, 158, 163, 176, 178, 180, 184, 186, 214, 215, 227, 248, 254, 271, 294, 296, 298, 310, 311, 314, 315, 324, 328–330, 333n55, 334n63, 364, 365, 374, 385, 389, 399, 411, 413, 428 Logical, 314 London, x, 101, 102, 351–387, 391–410, 412–444 Long-term, 3, 84, 105, 153, 154, 163, 176, 206 Love sociology of, 265 Loyalty, 107, 206, 437 M

Macro/macro‘abstract macro-historical evolutionary subject’, 38 at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels, 13, 302 both micro-and macromanaged, 250 macro-historical, 38, 289 macro-historical stage, 60 macro-institutional, 230 macro-level, 302 macro-level of sociological analysis, 13, 176 meso-level and macro-level sociology, 301 micro-or macro-historical events, 289

539

Mainstream academia, 290, 294 academic disciplines, 17 academic discourse, 80 accounts of contemporary history, 59 accounts of history, 140 accounts of modern intellectual thought, 100 accounts of modernity, 61, 307 accounts of other major revolutions, 13, 307 ‘alternative mainstream’, 83 approaches, 10, 33 approaches in the social sciences, 33 both ‘mainstream’ and ‘nonmainstream’ academia, 290 British sociology, 153 canons, 76 canons of social and political thought, 28 canons of sociology, 286 celebratory narratives, 138 ‘classical’ or ‘mainstream’ forms of social and political analysis, 305 ‘classical’ or ‘mainstream’ sociology, 305 comparative historical analysis, 57 conferences, 161 currents in the humanities and social sciences, 294 discourses in British sociology, 174 enthusiasm, 174 European social and political thought, 64 forms of knowledge production, 75 forms of narrating ‘history from above’, 68 historical narrative, xvii historiography, 68 history, 68, 128, 140 institutional structures, 254 intellectual discourse, 304

540 

Index of Subjects

Mainstream (cont.) intellectual thought, 31, 39, 43 interpretation, 76 modes of knowledge production, 33 narratives, 59, 85 narratives of modern history, 35 narratives of modernity, 65, 87 orthodoxies, 220 perspectives and agendas in the humanities and social sciences, 290 political ideologies, 242 readings of modernity, 88 social and political thought, 137 social researchers, 160 social science, 76, 77, 83, 135, 291 sociological accounts of modernity, 57, 302 sociological canons, 131 sociological circles, xix sociological tradition, 132 sociological wisdoms, 15 sociologists, 32 sociology, viii, xviii, 3, 67, 128, 133, 178, 293, 305, 345 that is, largely Eurocentric–accounts of the nation-state, 68 versions of history, 128 ‘Western’ mainstream social science, 291 Western sociologists, xviii Malaysia, 123n124 Male, xviii, 31, 41, 42, 98, 116, 118, 129, 263 Malta, 297 Managerial, 215 Managerialist, 215 Margin(s), xvii, 9, 28, 33, 66, 82, 118, 157, 160–162 Marginality, 30 Marginalization, xviii, 7, 9, 14, 31, 63, 129–131, 139, 154, 249, 288, 301, 308, 379 Marginalize, 139

Marginalized, xix, 12, 13, 39, 62, 65, 89, 134, 140, 157, 226, 269, 286, 288, 292, 301, 302, 320, 345 Marginalizing, 17, 304 Market(s), xx, xxii, 58, 81, 82, 102, 107, 108, 184, 186, 204, 205, 214–217, 219, 220, 247–249, 251, 253–255, 259n73, 259n75, 269, 277, 278, 318, 329, 372, 373, 409, 418, 429, 437 Marketing, 204, 355, 363, 378, 380 Marketization of academic research, 269 of almost every aspect of social life, 250 capitalist marketization processes, 253 commodification, marketization, and managerialization, 243 of education, 214, 279 first-wave marketization, 250 forms of marketization, 253 gradual marketization of the university sector, 204 latest era of large-scale marketization, 251 logic of marketization, 328 processes, 252, 253 money-driven marketization, 251 most recent phase of, 251 the pervasive power of, 250–253 second-wave marketization, 250, 251 of society, 253 target-driven and competitionoriented marketization, 215 third-wave marketization, 250, 251, 253 wave of, 250 Marketized, 218 Marxism, 44, 103, 159, 278, 302, 305, 368, 385, 399, 401, 410, 420, 430, 432 neo-Marxism, 32

  Index of Subjects 

Marxist(s), vii, 9, 28, 31, 38, 68, 87, 102, 103, 109, 159, 160, 278, 308, 316, 362, 363, 366, 369, 371, 376, 399, 400, 403, 406, 414 Materialism, 278, 387, 388, 403, 409 historical materialism, 111, 159 Materialist presuppositions, 159 Matrix colonial matrix of power, 38, 133–134 Eurocentred matrix of knowledge, 38 global-colonial matrix of power, 133–134 power matrix, 36 McDonaldization, 175, 421 Measurable, 245 Measurable outcomes, 226, 228, 327 Measure(d), 200, 204, 231, 248, 268, 327, 330, 347, 417 Measurement, 215, 230, 268, 328, 410 Media communication and media studies, 263, 273 digital media, 203, 355 mass media, 271, 354 sociology of communication and media, 273 sociology of mass media, 265 sociology of media, 265 sociology of social media, 266 sociology of the media, 266 studies, 118, 152, 263, 273, 298, 312 Mediated, 11, 16, 30, 36, 59, 177, 181, 232, 279, 319, 350 Medicine, 229, 306, 372 sociology of, 265 Memories/memory collective memories, xvii, 82, 128, 137 colonization of, 42

541

individual and collective memories, 137 mediated by, 177 sociological memory, 131 ‘Western’ collective memories, xvii, 82 Menschheit, 279 Menschsein, 279 Meso/mesomeso-level, 176 meso-level and macro-level sociology, 301 micro-, meso-, and macro-levels, 302 micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of sociological analysis, 13 Mesopotamia, 110 Messiness, 229 Mestizo, 39 Metanarrative(s), 12, 35, 113n49, 158, 173, 292, 331n19 Metaphysical, 76, 389 Method(s) empirical research methods, 170 method of the ‘imperial gaze’, 315 methodologies and methods, 77 photographic and cinematic methods, 246 politics of method, 198, 367, 430 quantitative and qualitative methods, 207 repertoire of research methods, 207 research methods, xx, 78, 170, 198, 204, 206, 207, 367, 391, 408, 430 rigorous methods training, 207 sociological methods, vi, 159 sociology’s ‘traditional’ methods, 207 structuralist and deconstructivist methods, 77 survey methods, 177 theories and methods, vi, 75 traditional methods, xxi, 198, 207, 347

542 

Index of Subjects

Method(s) (cont.) traditional methods used in sociology, xxi, 347 traditional research methods in sociology, xx, 198, 206 visual methods, 245, 246, 257n40, 356, 401 Methodical, 158, 219, 300, 318 Methodological individualism, 278 Methodologies/methodology critical methodologies, 385 decolonization of, 132 decolonizing methodologies, 429 ethnomethodology, vii, 246, 276 of history, 410 ‘ideal type’ methodology of comparative historical sociology, 83 inventive methodologies, 371 and methods, 77 qualitative methodology, 391 social research methodologies, 201 of social theory, 423 standard methodology of ideal types, 84 visual methodologies, 422 Metrocentric, 23n116 Metrocentrism, 16, 385 Mexico, 123n126, 355, 397, 408 Miami, 62 Micro/microboth micro-and macro-managed, 250 micro-interactional, 230 micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of sociological analysis, 13 micro-level, the meso-level, or the macro-level of sociological analysis, 176 the micro-, meso-, and macrolevels, 13, 302 micro-or macro-historical events, 289 micro-sociology, 246

Migration migration to Europe, 89 sociology of, 265 Military, xxii, 4, 26, 29, 32, 55, 105, 106, 110, 116, 133, 137, 180, 183, 244, 247, 264, 287, 288, 321, 347, 437, 443 Mind, xxi, 41, 77, 204, 329, 347, 410, 421, 443 mind and reason, 41 Mind-set, 35, 313 Minorities/minority ethnic ‘minorities’, 139, 262 minority groups, 201 minority populations, 13 social minorities, 128 Misrecognition, 29, 306, 316 Misrepresentation(s), 7, 15, 26, 68, 112, 249, 272, 316, 321 Mobilization From Mobilization to Revolution (Tilly), 436 of idioms of change, dynamism, and transformation, 173 interactional mobilization, 286 social mobilization, 183, 184 Modern advanced modern societies, 179 age, 43, 297, 384 Algeria, 423 and colonizing parts of the world, 59 and postmodern, 354, 392, 403, 413, 414, 428, 442 and postmodern social theorizing, 413 and traditional, 79 apparatus, 42 capitalism, 250, 295 China, 370, 396 colonial empires, 4, 295 colonial/modern gender system, 405 colonialism, 107

  Index of Subjects 

complex relationship between modern empires and nationstates, 331n9 condition, x, 173 disputes, 355, 372 early modern China, 396 early modern Europe, 373, 399 early modern, modern, and late modern history, 56 emancipations, modern and postmodern, 354, 392, 403, 414, 428, 442 empires and nation-states, 288, 331n9, 366, 407 era, 254 European history, 100 features, 183 feudal-modern nexus, 108 forms of citizenship, 139 historiography, 359 history, 35, 37, 40, 56, 57, 67, 82, 87, 99, 106, 114, 288, 297, 308–310 identity, 435 ideologies, 35 imperial states, 102 imperialism, 37 industrial present, 57, 302 inquisitions, 428 institutional forms, 185 intellectual thought, 11, 14, 100 knowledge, 391 large-scale societies, 180 late modern age, 384 late modern or postmodern, 150 late modern reflexivity, 156 late-modern temporality, 422 life forms, 8, 105, 302, 303, 311 man, 41 nation-state, 180, 327 non-modern forms of existence, 42 Occidental form, 109 pattern, 17

543

period, 110 philosophers, 304 philosophy, 244, 417 political thought, 423 postmodern assault on metanarratives, 292 postmodern turn, 207, 360, 361, 367, 368, 377, 379, 382, 383, 392, 393, 398, 404, 410, 412, 413, 415, 416, 419, 422–424, 426, 427, 429, 433, 434, 436 pre-or non-modern large-scale societies, 180 premodern life forms, 302 premodern man/woman, 41 premodern past, 57, 302 premodern phase in history, 42 premodern small-and large-scale forms of human existence, 181 premodern social formations, 105 processes of colonization, 42 promise of emancipation, 130 public spheres, 272 questioning, 363 researchers, xix revolutions, 58 science, 17, 18 a single ‘great divide’ between the pre-modern and [the] modern, 157 social and political thought, 21n65, 316 social imaginaries, 435 social order, 358 social science, 322 social structure, 407 social theory, 10, 361, 384, 422, 429 social thought, 413 societies, xvii, 17, 84, 103, 178, 179, 181, 186, 241, 295, 301, 416 sociologists, 308 sociology, vi, xvii, 44, 344, 384

544 

Index of Subjects

Modern (cont.) state, 106, 247 ‘the study of modern (European— later to be extended to Western) society’, 79 subject, 138, 139 subjecthood, 139 subjects, 138, 139 temporal rupture between a premodern past and a modern industrial present, 57, 302 uniqueness, 157 (Western) world, 17 world history, 308 world order, 105 world, ix, 6, 9, 26, 105, 112, 308, 419 world-system, 424, 439, 440 worldviews, 311 Modernism, 39, 278, 409 Modernist, 32, 38, 57, 172, 292, 358 Modernities all modernities, 184 alternative modernities, 61, 75, 384 early modernities, 377 entangled modernities, 75, 436 global modernities, 75, 379, 382, 414, 422 hybrid modernities, 75 many modernities, 436 multiple modernities, viii, x, xvii, 39, 60–62, 65, 70n39, 75, 83, 136, 343, 377, 381, 419, 422, 424, 426 non-convergent modernities, 60 paradigm of multiple modernities, xvii, 60–62 separate modernities, 67 uneven modernities, 420 virtual modernities, 185 Modernity abnormality of, 15 age of, 105, 358

between global modernity and global coloniality, 297–298 between modernity and imperialism, 307–308 between the condition of modernity and the critique of modernity, 300–301 both a non-or anti-Eurocentric and a non-or anti-relativist conception of modernity, 179 both the ‘bright’ and the ‘dark’ sides of modernity, 301 capitalism and modernity, 386, 426 caricatured ‘modernity’, 156 colonialism and, 297 coloniality and, 35, 419 common (Eurocentered) modernity, 61 compressed modernity, x, 403 concept of, 56, 156, 178, 184 condition of, 67, 173, 300–301 consequences of, 384 construction of, 89, 182 context of, xvii, 36, 100, 106, 170, 172, 247, 303, 308 critical sociology of, 184 critical understanding of, 65 critique of, 49n135, 300–301 dark side of, 38, 353 dawn of, 153 deconstructing modernity, 444 development and organization of, 101 dialectic of, 358 differentiations of, 405 discourse of, 30, 114, 123n114, 302, 335n76, 388, 389 end of, 438 endogenous European origins of, 25 era of, 297 ethnocentric accounts of, 87 Eurocentered modernity, 61, 65, 67 Eurocentric conception of, 59

  Index of Subjects 

Eurocentrism and, 376 European modernity, 34, 37, 60, 61, 76, 84, 85, 87, 115, 436 European modernity or capitalism, 308 European origins of, 25, 59 European project of, 40, 105 evolutionary-universal features of, 184 experience of, 359 formations of, 391 future of, 241 Giddens’s conception of ‘modernity’, 51n174, 69n14, 92n72 globally dominant Anglo-Saxon modernity, 186 global modernity, 297–298 global vision of, 296 Habermas and, 360 habitations of, 370 hidden agenda of, 436 historicity of, 303 history of, 26, 64, 310 interpretations of, 65 intertwinement of modernity and coloniality, 66, 310 key features of, 114 lack of, 139 late modernity, 151, 171 late modernity or postmodernity, 151, 170, 171, 174, 357, 374, 379, 380, 386, 388, 392, 399, 403, 406, 421, 429, 436, 439 late-, post-, liquid-, secondmodernity, 156 Latin American modernity/ coloniality research program, 378 lightness of, 399 liquid modernity, 156, 357 mainstream narratives of, 65, 87 mainstream readings of, 88 mainstream sociological accounts of modernity, 57, 302

545

Mignolo’s critique of modernity, 49n135 modernity and ambivalence, 357 modernity and coloniality, 35, 40, 65, 66, 310 modernity and institutional differentiation, 181–182 modernity and its futures, 391, 410 modernity and postmodernity, 374, 421 modernity and self-identity, 384 modernity and sociology, 82, 178–180 modernity and the nation-state, 180 modernity and the world, 183–184 modernity as a self-critical project, 334n66 modernity as an unfinished project, 49n116 modernity as experience and interpretation, 439 modernity beyond Eurocentrism, 184–186 modernity versus postmodernity, 388 modernity/coloniality, 38, 40, 378 modernity/modernization, 179 modernity’s epistemic violence, 438 modernity-tradition, 44 modes of, 185 monologic or imbalanced reality of, 186 naked modernity, 87 narratives of, 30, 65, 85, 87 nature of, 80, 173 new modernity, 357 non-Eurocentric understanding of, xx ‘Occident = modernity’, 111, 113 one modernity, 60, 61, 185 ‘original’ form of, 85 originary modernity, 61 origin of, 64 outgrowth of, 15, 308 paradigm of, 66

546 

Index of Subjects

Modernity (cont.) parameters of, 382 pathological varieties of, 87 periodizing dichotomies between earlier and later modernity, 162 philosophical discourse of, 123n114, 388, 389 political forms of, 370 polylogic or balanced ideal of, 186 polylogic/balanced forms of, 186 postmodernity, 151, 170, 171, 174, 357, 374, 378–380, 384, 386, 388, 392, 399, 403, 406, 421, 429, 436, 439 predominant narratives of, 85, 150 pre-modernity, 156, 157 [a] pre-modernity/[b] (high) modernity/[c] late (or post-) modernity, 157 problematic dimensions of, 300 project of, 31, 36, 40, 59, 105, 242, 292, 390, 417 rationality and, 364 reason, God, and, 390 reflexive (or late) modernity, 171 religion and, 438 remaking modernity, 352, 406 rethinking modernity, 360 rhetoric of, 333n55, 411 rise of, 37, 57, 79, 85, 99, 100, 102, 110, 163, 181, 183, 185, 297, 302 second age of, 358 second modernity, 156, 358 self-understanding of, 173 singular modernity, 60 sociological understanding of, 99 sociology of, 64, 184, 315, 439 specificity of, 180 standard notions of, 40 theorizing modernity, 439 theory of, 176 timescapes of, 352

‘trans’-modernity, 376 understanding of, 60, 65, 99, 179, 439 unfinished project of, 36, 390, 417 variants of, 61, 186 varieties of, 87, 426 version of, 157 Western and in non-Western variants of, 186 Western European modernity, 34 Western modernity, 109, 183–185, 411 Modernization alternative modernization, 378 classical modernization theories, 302 colonialism and modernization, 355, 408 conventional modernization theories, 60 failed modernization in the East, 112 industrial modernization, 351 modernity/modernization, 179 modernization processes, 185 modernization theories, 9, 20n51, 60, 83, 159, 178, 302, 355, 361, 381 modernization-development paradigms, 9 new modernization theory, 381 Occidental modernization, 109 reflexive modernization, 358 theory of modernization, 406 Monetary value, 327 Money grant money, 215 labour, money, and land, 250, 252 sociology of money, 265 Money-driven, 251 Money-making, 215, 269 Monocausalist, 8 Monolithic/monolithically, xvii, 55, 60, 65, 158, 287

  Index of Subjects 

Monopolize/monopolized, 66, 205, 215, 227 Monopolizers of knowledge, 215–216 Monopoly, 177, 204 Moral moral agency, 106 moral and political illegitimacy, 309 moral communities, 412 moral conditions, 105 moral consciousness, 389 moral contexts, 392 moral culture, 398 moral economies, 385 moral evolution, 442 moral function, 105 moral grammar, 396 moral order, 105, 412 moral relativism, 179 moral role, 105 moral significance, 362 moral universalism, 314 relativism bankruptcy, 248 relativism philosophy, 199 trap of cultural, moral, and/or epistemic relativism, 178 Morality, 163, 314, 315, 324, 362, 389, 401, 427 Movement(s) antisystemic movements, 355 counterhegemonic movements, 9 counter-movement, 250 emancipatory movements, 354 fluctuating movement, 31 global social movements, 420 labour movement, 251 liberation movements, 132 movement of liberal imperialism, 108 newest social movements, 374 social movements, vi, 13, 58, 400, 409 social movement studies, 13 sociology of social movements, 266

547

spirit of social movement, 375 transnational movement of goods, capital, services, labour, and people, 203 Multimulti-disciplinary, 218 multi-ethnic, 204 multi-ethnicity, 354 multi-faceted, 15, 103, 221, 226, 292, 301, 344, 406 multi-level, 326 Multicultural, 61, 62, 88, 204, 376, 398, 403 Multiculturalism, 65, 70n40, 344, 357, 373, 401, 403, 412, 418, 426, 428, 435 paradigm of multiculturalism, xvii, 60–63 Multifaceted, 15, 103, 221, 226, 292, 301, 344 Multilayered, xvi, 13, 75, 79, 83, 84, 150, 152, 267, 277, 311, 320, 326, 346 Multiperspectival, 6, 224, 278, 302 Multiplicity, 34, 60, 63, 89 Multitude, 5, 392 Mund, 279 Mündigkeit, 279 Music sociology of music, 265 Mutuality, 316 Myth(s), 14, 37, 66, 272, 370, 385, 418 N

Narrative(s) about the state, 262 of ‘American exceptionalism’, 128, 358 attached to an object’s past, 326 attached to it, 327 of both dominant and dominated social groups, 131

548 

Index of Subjects

Narrative(s) (cont.) of change, 177 of decline, xxi, 242, 244, 347 of decolonization, 37 of development, xx form(s), 329, 330, 340n192 of the future, xxi, 242 of historical development, 177 of improvement, xxii, 243, 244, 347 of national, and European, identity, 89 official narratives, 135 ordinary narratives, 26 postcolonial and decolonial narratives, 294 predominant narratives of late modernity or postmodernity, 151 predominant narratives of modernity, 85 seemingly disconnected histories, territories, and narratives, 89 shared narratives, 86 of social development, 59 standard narratives, 67, 86, 139, 180 standard narratives of contemporary history, 180 subaltern or postslavery narratives, 30 teleological metanarratives, 173 teleological narratives, 346 of the Western nation, 31 Narrative(s) classical sociological narratives, 173 distortive narrative, 301 dominant historical narrative, 138 dominant narrative(s), 30, 89, 220 dominant narratives of modernity, 30, 85 epochalist narrative, 175 ethnocentric narrative, 85 European narrative, 88 evolutionist narrative, 32 global narrative, 86

grand narratives, 9, 36, 382 hegemonic narrative, 310 historical narrative(s), xvii, 15, 25, 65, 68, 84, 85, 138, 308, 345, 401 historical narratives and genealogies, 15, 308 historical narratives and historiographical traditions, 25 ideal-typical narrative, 84 indigenous or native narrative, 66, 310 mainstream celebratory narrative, 138 mainstream historical narrative, xvii mainstream narratives, 35, 59, 65, 85, 87 mainstream narratives of modern history, 35 mainstream narratives of modernity, 65, 87 metanarrative(s), 12, 35, 49n113, 158, 173, 292, 331n19 metanarrative in itself, 292 modernist narrative, 57 Nationalism methodological nationalism, ix, 63, 79, 91n45, 295, 333n42, 370 nationalism and colonialism, 287–288 between nationalism and colonialism, 287–288 product of nationalism, 128, 287 sociology of nationalism, 265 Nationalist, 64, 108 Nationalistic, 64 Nationality, 8, 174 Nation state(s)/nation-state(s), 5, 12, 43, 66, 68, 81, 88, 101, 104, 106, 108, 127, 128, 180, 184, 185, 203, 206, 251–254, 287, 288, 295, 310, 327, 331n19, 366, 371, 394, 396, 402, 407, 411, 421, 441, 442

  Index of Subjects 

Natural, xxi, 11, 41, 58, 107, 117, 132, 140, 200, 220, 225, 230, 231, 242, 246, 253, 268, 271, 315, 347 Naturalization, 83, 86, 293, 311 Natural science, xxi, 200, 220, 225, 230, 231, 242, 246, 268, 271, 347 Natural world, 246, 315 Nature cultural nature, 58 culture and nature, 79 developmental nature, 312 economic nature, 58 globalized nature, 55, 296 global nature, 295, 381 hidden nature, 275 land/nature, 252 laws of nature, 314 linguistic nature, 58 ‘nature, the savage and the woman’, 33 pluralistic nature, 278 political nature, 35, 58 sociology of nature, 265 Necessity degrees of necessity, 84 illusions of false necessity, 150 by necessity, 223 of sociology, 150, 410 Negation, 7, 220, 367 self-negation, 7 Negative to associate ‘the West’ with negative and ‘the Rest’ with positive attributes, 322 negative light, 217, 328 negative perception, xxii, 261 negative perceptions of sociology, xxii negative and positive trend, xxiii, 348 negative and positive trends affecting the discipline’s development, xxiii

549

negative side, 222 negative views of sociology, 275 and positive autonomism, 395 Negativity and revolution, 395 Neo/neo(neo) American, 351 neo-Bourdieusian, 431 neocolonial, 9, 40, 80, 134 neocolonialism, 7, 18n10, 36, 414, 425, 438 neocolonialist, 115 neocolonized, 7 neo-evolutionism, xx, 178, 346 neo-Hegelian, 316 neoimperialism, 7, 18n10, 132, 419 neoimperialist, 5, 81 neoliberal, xxii, 214, 216–218, 222, 229, 237, 248, 250, 269, 274, 277, 328–330, 341n196, 359, 371, 378, 400, 409, 419, 429, 435 neoliberalism, 171, 173, 174, 214, 218, 229, 250, 251, 254 neoliberalization, 230, 243, 249, 325, 328, 347, 369, 371, 374, 376, 383, 392, 409, 423, 424, 429, 436 neologisms, 171, 272 neomanagerial, 216, 218 neomanagerialism, 218, 229, 328 neomanagerialist, 154, 216, 217, 226 neomanagerialization, 230, 325, 328, 349 neomanagerialized, 330 neo-Marxism, 32 neo-Marxist, 38, 308 néo-moderne, 423 neo-Weberian, 160 Netherlands, 88, 107, 297, 417

550 

Index of Subjects

Network(s) actor network theory, 377, 404 approach, 400 global networks, 396 grants, 262, 269 of interdependence, 106 of knowledge production, distribution, exchange, and consumption, 29, 220 of networks, 254 protest networks, 374 of sociality, mutuality, transformability, signifiability, and identity, 316 of socially structured situations, 182 society, 171, 369, 392 transnational networks, 379 Network(s) epistemic networks, 45 Networking strategies, 270 Newly Industrialized Countries (NICs), 123n124 Nigeria, 180 Nineteenth and twentieth centuries, 4, 25, 377 Nineteenth century/nineteenthcentury, 17, 80, 101, 102, 108, 250, 253, 361, 419, 423, 440 Nominality, 318–320 between nominality and reality, 318–320 Nonlinearity, 150 Norm(s), vii, 17, 36, 175, 181, 318, 390, 416 Normalization, 27, 131, 251, 269 Normalizing, 30 Normative ambivalence, 229 antinomy, 17 approaches, 323, 324 argument, 84 arrangements, 172 challenge, 8 characterized as normative, 177

cogency of epistemic claims to objective, normative, and/or subjective validity, 315 cognitive, normative, and evaluative ‘high ground’, 87 combination of objective, normative, and subjective factors, 224, 275 commitment, 130 conceptual hierarchy, 32 confluence of objective, normative, and subjective dimensions, 244 considerations, 329 constellations, 139 constitution, 274, 344 cornerstone, 36 driving force, 63 foundations, 353, 354 framework, 59, 105 grounds, 179 hierarchy, 41, 115 human existence, 317 implications, xvi, 6, 62, 344 limitation, 61 mission, 67, 135, 155, 204, 219, 249, 271, 274, 278, 296 objective, normative, and subjective, xx, 114, 192n87, 224, 244, 275, 277, 334n65, 338n160, 349 objective, normative, and subjective dimensions, xx, 192n87, 244, 275, 277, 334n65, 339n160 (i) objective (ii) normative, and (iii) subjective dimensions, 177 objective, normative, and subjective engagements, 349 objective, normative, and subjective factors, 224, 275 objective, normative, and subjective standards, 114 opposition, 8, 287, 322 parameter, 38, 138, 179 power, 11 practices, 137

  Index of Subjects 

principles, 104 project, 10 question, 310 relationship between objective, normative, and subjective dimensions, 192n87, 334n65, 339n160 spirit, 279 standards, 34 task, 10, 13, 37, 83 tool, 41 transition, 214 tripartite differentiation between (a) objective (b) normative, and (c) subjective levels of, 317 vocation, 154 world, 85, 135, 219, 317, 347 yardsticks, 16 Normativity, 16, 37, 77, 186, 232, 247, 292, 300, 318, 350 Norway, 297 Nothing, viii, 265, 277 sociology of nothing, 265 Novelty discovery of novelty, 311–312 between the discovery of novelty and the novelty of discovery, 311–312 historicity and novelty, xix, 169–194 novelty of discovery, 311–312 novelty of the contemporary age, 171 paradox of an ever-renewing novelty, 171 principle of ever-renewing novelty, 171 unprecedented degree of novelty, 171 O

Object(s) central object of examination, 13 empirical object, 244 of inquiry, 85, 128, 246 of investigation, 312 preponderance of objects, 300, 413 preponderance of the object, 334n65

551

to re-sell objects for a profit, 326 of scrutiny, 244, 318 sociology of objects, 265 special object, 158 of study, 218 subject and object, 79 sublime object of ideology, 444 of time, 361 turn to the object, 413 Objective both the objective and the normative implications, xvi characterized as objective, 177 combination of objective, normative, and subjective factors, 224, 275 confluence of objective, normative, and subjective dimensions, 244 epistemic claims to objective, normative, and/or subjective validity, 315 expectations, 244 ‘impartial’, and ‘unsentimental’, 246 lack of material, symbolic, reputational, and financial profits, 162 normative, and subjective dimensions, xx, 192n87, 244, 275, 277, 334n65, 339n160 normative, and subjective engagements, 349 normative, and subjective standards, 114 ‘objective’ vs. ‘subjective’, 41, 117 relationship between objective, normative, and subjective dimensions, 192n87, 334n65, 339n160 relationship between (i) objective (ii) normative, and (iii) subjective dimensions, 117 tripartite differentiation between (a) objective (b) normative, and (c) subjective levels of human existence, 317 world, 317

552 

Index of Subjects

Objectivism empiricism, objectivism, and universalism, 77 subjectivism and objectivism, 14 Objectivist, 76, 413 Objectivity, 77, 79, 85, 232, 274, 291, 300, 315, 318, 334n65, 350 linguistic obscurity, 276 Obsolescence, 171 Occident, 26, 27, 59, 108–115, 135, 307, 310, 311 Occidental, 109, 112, 113, 287, 289, 322 Occidentalism, 43, 113, 289, 310–311, 361, 373 between Orientalism and Occidentalism, 310–311 Occidentalist Occidentalist and Orientalist discourses, 113 Occidentalist and Orientalist misperceptions, misconceptions, and misrepresentations, 112 Occidentalist form of ethnocentrism, 78 Occidentalist modes of functioning, 38, 39 Omnipresence, 4, 134, 171, 244 Ontologies/ontology ‘alternative’ ontologies, 324 distinction between ‘ontologies’ and ‘phenomenologies’, 152 political ontology, 361 Open-minded, 222, 228, 325 Open-mindedness, 325 Openness, 150, 159, 218, 246 between vagueness and openness, 323–324 Opportunistic, 277 Opportunities/opportunity, ix, xxi, xxii, 82, 106, 136, 152, 222, 225, 229, 243, 272, 347, 373, 391, 427, 431

Optimism, 28, 225, 272–273, 363 Optimistic, 101, 160, 163, 168, 241–243, 272 Order(s) changing global order, 360 Chinese social order, 112 civic order, 105, 106 and civilization, 41, 66, 115, 381 colonial order of things, 431 contemporary order, 391 disorders, 67, 171 economically unified global order, 253 emerging world order, 418 global order, 253, 360, 371 interactional order, 34 international moral order, 105 international order, 105, 106 modern social order, 358 modern world order, 105 moral orders, 105 national political order, 66 neoliberal world order, 248, 371 new international order, 105 order of things, 381, 431 (dis)orders, 38 orders and disorders of coloniality and postcoloniality, 67 orders of worth, value, and appreciation, 33 pecking order(s), 186, 218 social order, 112, 155, 295, 350, 358 socio-epistemic orders, 17, 18 world capitalist order, 103 world order, 105, 113, 248, 371, 397, 418 Ordering(s) disordering, 171 hierarchical ordering, 56, 131, 298 institutional orderings, 60 reorderings, 135 Ordinary actors, 14, 27, 29, 149, 246, 248, 275

  Index of Subjects 

extraordinary cases, 327 extraordinary infrastructural powers, 180 intellectual, or scientific level, 311 narratives, 26 people, 26, 201, 226 social relations, 251 Organization both the imaginary and the factual organization of the modern world, 26 disciplinary organization, 136, 373 disciplinary organization of knowledge, 136 the economically self-sufficient and geographically secluded organization of village life, 102 economic organization, 108, 111, 186, 326 ethnic-and, arguably, ‘racial’organization, stratification, and segregation of the discipline, 133 the individual in the organization, 383 the intellectual and social organization of the sciences, 442 large-scale organization, 183, 300 mode of social, political, cultural, and economic organization, 186 of modernity, 101 of modern societies, 103 modes of social life or organization which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards, 56, 82 multilayered economic organization, 326 multilayered organization of social life, 277 physical organization, 246 political, cultural, ideological, linguistic, economic, military,

553

demographic, and territorial organization of foreign lands and regions, 4 purposive organization of social life, 29, 316 re-organization of understanding through the lens of coloniality, 56, 298 social, ecological, and cosmological organization, 42 social, economic, cultural, political, ideological, linguistic, demographic, and military organization, 180 studies, 394 Organizational digital, organizational, and social temporalities, 439 interactional, conceptual, and organizational capacities, 350 level, 99, 100 reform, 375 sociology and sociology of organizations, 264 UK organizational and management research, 370 Organizations efficient and flexible organizations, 215 good organizations, 412 organizational sociology and sociology of organizations, 264 sociology of organizations, 264, 434 study of organizations, 434 Orient, 16, 26, 27, 108, 109, 111–115, 135, 310, 311, 316 Orientalism, 26, 110, 113, 310–311, 316, 353, 366, 368, 391, 398, 405, 414, 421, 424, 437, 438 between Orientalism and Occidentalism, 310–311

554 

Index of Subjects

Orientalist(s) categories, 12 discourses, 28, 113 knowledge, 16 Occidentalist and Orientalist misperceptions, misconceptions, and misrepresentations, 112 and Orientalist discourses, 113 reflexivity, 387 Origin(s) and canons, 372 colonial origins, 428 countries of origin, 291 of cultural change, 392 culturally eclectic and globally spread origins of sociology, 62 endogenous European origins of modernity, 25 European origins of modernity, 25, 59 of the European worldeconomy, 439 Europe as the origin of a modernity which is subsequently globalized, 64 monolithic origin, xvii the origin and spontaneous development of society, 440 the origin and spread of nationalism, 354 the origins and appraisal of sociology’s heritage, 355, 372 origins of sociology, viii, 62, 133 political and economic origins, 418 social origins, 291 Originality, 31, 32, 38, 63, 197, 227, 276, 327, 328 Orthodox Marxist approaches, 109, 159 positions, 87 unorthodox modes of analysis, 270 Orthodoxies, 220 mainstream orthodoxies, 220

Othering the othering of old age, 438 transborder ‘othering’, 113, 137 Other(s)/the Other(s)/’other(s)’ Citizens and Others, 360 citizenship for some but not for others, 402 decolonial thought and cultural studies ‘others’ in the Andes, 440 epistemological Others, 367, 430 existentialist discourse on others, 444 history of their so-called Others, 13, 307 the inadmissible ‘other’, 377 knowledge of the Other, 5 ‘Other people’, 104, 206 researching the invisible ‘Other’, 437 Ottoman Empire, 102 Ottomans, 113 Outlook(s) connectivist outlook, xvi, 344 critical outlook, 163 disciplinary outlook, 6, 217, 319 empirical outlook, 67, 75 Eurocentric outlook, 5, 132 global outlook, 62, 298 between global outlooks and global hierarchies, 298 gloomy outlook, 242 glorious outlook, 243 instrumental outlook, 229 intellectual outlook, 245 investigative outlook, 315 self-referential outlook, 64 transdisciplinary outlook, 6, 217 Outsiders, 86, 118, 129, 152, 275, 305, 345, 378 Ownership, 102, 138, 251

  Index of Subjects  P

Pace, 169, 174, 203, 206, 245 Pace of social transformations, 174 Paradigm(s) basic paradigms, 404 communicative paradigms, 375 concept, 354 cosmopolitanism, xvii, 60, 63–69 epistemic paradigms, 306 explained, 439 explanatory paradigms, xvi foundational paradigms, 435 the Global South-Global North paradigm, 379 of the human condition, 193n113 incommensurable paradigms, 369 innovative paradigms, 312 Kuhnian paradigm, 420 (neo-) managerialist paradigm shift, 215 marginalization of paradigms, 63 Marxian paradigm, 420 Mentality, 442 modernity, 66 modernity/coloniality paradigm, 40 modernization-development paradigms, 9 multiculturalism, xvii, 60–63 multiple modernities, xvii, 60–62, 136 of multiple modernities, multiculturalism, and/or cosmopolitanism, 65, 342 multiple modernities paradigms, 39 new major paradigm, 171 nineteenth-century paradigms, 423, 440 paradigm-formation, 219 paradigm-laden, 77 paradigm-seeking, 117 paradigm-surfing, 328

555

in philosophy and history of science, 418 political-economy paradigms, 387 politics and paradigms, 399 power paradigms, 430 and problems, 361 revisited, 399 and revolutions, 387 role of ‘paradigms’ in the production, circulation, reception, and interpretation of knowledge, 124n144 science, 392, 421, 442 scientific paradigm, 438 of ‘separate histories’, 134, 135 shift, 105, 149, 152, 215, 246, 328, 358, 388 social science paradigms, 387 sociological paradigm, 421 systems paradigm, 442 Paradigmatic, xix, 9, 12, 26, 38, 39, 45, 60, 81, 118, 160, 161, 169, 173, 174, 198, 216, 250, 286, 307, 328, 345 Paradoxical/paradoxically, 18, 44, 98, 117, 150, 157, 170, 217, 249, 254, 269, 294, 301, 309, 310 Paradox/paradoxes, xviii, xix, 170–172, 214, 270, 287, 362, 364, 437 Paris, 101, 104, 351, 356, 359, 362, 364–366, 370, 371, 375, 379, 380, 404, 405, 407, 415, 418, 422, 423, 433, 438, 439 Parochial, 10, 25, 32, 64, 80, 86, 178, 295, 296 Parsonian, xx, 178, 346 Partiality, 77 Participation, 185, 186, 200, 203, 271, 381 Particularism, 179, 278 Particularist/particularistic, 115, 138, 254

556 

Index of Subjects

Particularities/particularity alleged lawlessness, unpredictability, nonlinearity, directionlessness, or particularity of historical processes, 150 cultural particularity, 40 degree of autonomy, particularity, and incommensurability, 11 diffuse and diverse particularities, 86 heterogeneity, particularity, and irreducibility of formerly colonized territories and populations, 287 historical particularity, 150, 184 normativity, subjectivity, and particularity, 77 particularity, heterogeneity, and irreducibility, 16 plurality and particularity, 34 relationship between ‘universality’ and ‘particularity’, 314, 315 sociocultural particularity, 36 sociohistorical particularities, 184 socioperspectival particularity, 38 between universality and particularity, 314–316 Particularize, 80 Passion-driven, 41 Pathological, 33, 87 Pathologies, 254, 261 Pauperization pathologies, 254 social pathologies, 261 Peace, 105, 106, 362, 373, 387 Peaceful, 323 Perceive(d), viii, 79, 86, 108, 118, 152, 159, 162, 203, 205, 231, 232, 245, 274, 275, 279, 300, 327 Perception(s) about the globalized nature of the world, 55, 296 negative perceptions, 261

negative perceptions of sociology as a discipline, xxii parochialist frameworks of perception, 295 problems of perception, 273 of reality, 318 Performance(s), 29, 30, 218, 228, 229, 269, 289–294, 317, 327 Performative, 11, 66, 272, 275, 331n19, 350, 368 Performative contradiction(s), 289–294, 409 Period(s), v, xix, 4, 5, 101, 105, 110–112, 132, 160, 162, 163, 169, 170, 173, 174, 177, 250, 251, 321, 402 Periodization, 157, 162–163, 167n69, 424 Periodize ‘the will to periodize’, xix, 162 Periodizing dichotomies, 162 inclinations, 162 labels, xix periodizing claims, 162 precision, 6 schemes, 158 Persia, 102, 110, 111, 113 Personal, vii, 100, 177, 203, 206, 265, 274, 291, 301, 323, 357, 400, 427, 443 Personalistic, 108 Personalized, 203 Perspectival multiperspectival, 6, 224, 278, 302 socioperspectival, 38 Perspective(s), ix, xvii, 8, 11–16, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 37, 55, 60, 61, 64–66, 68, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 87, 89, 98, 103, 108, 132, 135, 136, 139, 150, 169, 178, 215, 226, 232, 241, 248, 270, 272, 275, 287, 290, 292, 296, 299,

  Index of Subjects 

301, 305, 307, 312, 313, 328, 333n50, 345, 349, 351, 354, 356, 358–361, 363, 367, 368, 370, 372, 373, 378, 379, 382, 386, 387, 393, 397, 398, 403, 404, 416, 422, 426, 427, 429, 430, 433, 434, 438, 441 Perspective-laden, 79 Perspectivism essential perspectivism, 289 Perspectivist currents of thought, xvii, 9, 25, 60, 63, 246, 302, 304, 306 essentialism, 289 Persuasiveness explanatory persuasiveness, 158 Peru, 428 Pessimism, 225, 272–273 Pessimist(s), 229 Pessimistic, xxii, 241, 243, 262, 272 Phenomenological, 253 Phenomenologies/phenomenology, 152, 253, 374, 392, 393, 414 social phenomenology, 246, 276, 305 Philippines, 123n126 Philosophical, 28, 99, 100, 110, 115, 116, 123n114, 168n124, 185, 199, 278, 315, 359, 371, 372, 381–383, 387–390, 395, 396, 416, 417, 420, 429, 431, 433, 434, 441 Philosophies/philosophy and classics, 152 the ‘false dilemma’ between sociology and philosophy, 168n124 literature and philosophy, 174 modern philosophy, 244 moral philosophy, 199 of the social sciences, 118, 356, 392, 409, 435 the sociological actuality of philosophy, 168n124

557

and sociology, 162 Western philosophy, 304 Physical, 29, 76, 172, 199, 203, 246, 277, 317, 389, 409 Physics, 314 Pink Floyd, 279 Pluralism legal pluralism, 379, 420 methodological pluralism, 417 simple pluralism, 137, 299 Pluralist/pluralistic, 32, 224, 278 Plurality, 34, 136, 150, 252 Pluralized, 28, 100 Pluralizing, 83, 132 Pluriversality, 37 Policies/policy alternatives, 374 cyber policy, 359 debates, 245 development, 354 domestic policies, 88, 103 economic policies, 251, 441 entry policies, 152 foreign policies, 108 insurance policy, 85, 157 makers, 175, 242 protectionist policies, 128 public policies, 385, 397 research policy, 372, 378, 394 self-insurance policy, 85 social policy, 217, 271, 393, 400, 435 welfare policies, 251 Policy-focused, 250, 252 Policy-oriented, 277 Polish, 116 Political action, 428 Activism, 395 activists, 242 and administrative changes, 112 agenda, 272 analysis, 60, 286, 305

558 

Index of Subjects

Political (cont.) authoritarianism, 87 authority, 108 being political or nonpolitical, 139 capitalist political economies, 102 change, 312, 397 civic, political, and social citizenship, 109 climate of uncertainty, 113 community, 66, 88, 355 configurations, 88 contemporary social and political discourses, 293 conventional social and political research patterns, 32 cultural, and economic elite, 106, 107 cultural, and economic infrastructure, 107 cultural-political, 396 decision-making, 31, 34, 249, 406 and economic establishment, 159 and economic players, 254 economy, 102, 103, 300, 353, 360, 387, 396, 400, 401, 408, 427, 442 and epistemological decolonization and self-determination, 128 field, 159 forces, 8, 106, 324 geography, 371, 402, 430 geopolitical competition, 103 geopolitical dominance, 113 geopolitical interests, 113 hegemony, 178 ideas, 359 ideologies, xxii, 7, 99, 242, 243, 267, 270, 278 implications, 136 inclusion, 138 independent social and political process, 101 inquiry, 69, 286, 289, 305

instrument, 129 intellectual and political controversy, 93n112 intellectual and political elite, 128 and intellectual forces, 88 leaders, 297 level, 99 liberalism, 390 life, 400 logic, 186, 374 logic of citizenship, 186 mainstream social and political thought, 137 ‘major’ political ideologies, 7, 99 modern social and political thought, 21n65, 316 moral and political illegitimacy, 309 nature, 35, 58 ‘non-political’, 139, 318 ‘nonpolitical’ domain, 137 Ontology, 361 opposition, 254 order, 66 philosophy, 439, 443 player, 297 ‘political’ domain, 137 political-ethical, 38 political-philosophical, 381, 382, 396 power, 5, 360, 361, 374, 379, 385–387, 410, 427, 430, 431, 434 principles, 416 programmes, 99 projects, 289 psychology, 413 revolutions, 58 rights, 252 sciences, 3, 6, 44, 82, 84, 97, 118, 175, 177, 216, 312, 314, 361, 393, 411, 419 scientists, 114, 242, 311 social and political analysis, 60, 286, 305

  Index of Subjects 

social and political categories of modernity, 134 social and political dangers, 295 social and political developments, 295 social and political discourses, 112, 293 social and political inquiry, 69, 286, 289, 305 social and political thought, 21n65, 28, 64, 137, 256n20, 316, 432 and social change, 102 sociologists, 288 sociology, 127, 263, 264, 273, 278, 288, 301, 303, 318, 375, 410, 434, 435 sociopolitical, 61 sociopolitical arrangements, 139 sociopolitical climate, 155 sociopolitical consequences, 127 sociopolitical framework, 139 sociopolitical or economic structures of modernity, 61 sociopolitical system, 139 sovereigns, 102 spectrum, 275, 324 states, 251 structure of modernity, 56 studies, 430, 436 styles, 397 ‘sub-major’ political ideologies, 99 superstructure, 111 terms, 106 theory, 353, 356, 360, 371, 384, 406, 418, 421, 423, 428 thought, 21n65, 28, 64, 137, 256n20, 316, 423, 432, 433 travelling, 292 unification, 106 Western social and political thought, 28 worldview, 108 writings, 102, 441

559

Politically charged, 129 constituted, 137 ‘non-Western societies’ appear as economically, politically and culturally incomplete, 17 questionable, 288 retrograde, 31, 307 Politics of ableism, 443 of big data and method, 381 of the British Empire, 102 comparative politics, 387, 399 comparative politics of the Global South, 387 contemporary politics and culture, 384 cosmopolitics, 370 of crowds, 363 cultural politics, 380, 430 cultural politics of race and nation, 385 deliberative politics, 390 of difference, 40, 51n164, 367 and discourse, 443 of diversality, 37 of diversity, 403 ecological politics, 357 and economics, 263 economics, politics, and the media, 226 of emancipation, 414 French Caribbean politics, 362 geo-politics/geopolitics, 38, 39, 315, 407, 411, 413, 440 geopolitics of critical knowledge, 440 geo-politics of epistemology, 39 geopolitics of knowledge, 38, 315, 407, 411 German politics, 412 global politics, 425 high politics, 435

560 

Index of Subjects

Politics (cont.) of human, 443 of identity, 40, 51n163, 416 identity politics, 381, 416 illiberal politics, 359 of knowledge, 128, 131, 356, 423 of knowledge production, 128, 131 language and politics, 434 of location, 386 of methods, 198, 367, 430 new geopolitics of knowledge, 38, 315 of Orientalism, 405 and paradigms, 399 of the performative, 368 of pluriversality, 37 politics, culture, and economics, 108 of the post-modern, 428 of postmodernism, 366, 397 of postmodernity, 384, 386 postmodern politics, 436 of power, 403 radical democratic politics, 403 rainbow coalition politics, 392 of reality, 426 of recognition, 40, 51n165, 435 religion and politics, 394 science without politics, 249 sexual politics, 442 social-democratic politics, 248 sociology of politics, 318 technological politics, 412 of the West’s troubled relation to the non-West, 113 wild politics, 393 of work, 380 world politics, 251, 399 Polities European polities, 88 Polycentric/polycentrically, 41, 116, 133, 156, 396 Polylogic, 186 Poor, 41

Popular, xix, 174 unpopular, 154 Popularity, vii, 245 Population(s), 4, 5, 13, 36, 42, 66, 89, 104, 118, 138, 180, 183, 198, 203, 205, 214, 242, 287, 288, 307, 309, 316, 321 Populism, 113, 242, 351, 359, 360, 378, 392, 393, 400, 402, 413, 417, 428, 439, 441, 443 Portugal, 88, 107, 297 Portuguese, 68, 215, 290 Position(s), xx–xxii, 3, 5, 7, 11, 16, 18, 26, 30, 32, 36–38, 47n51, 55, 56, 59, 60, 62, 63, 68, 84, 87, 89, 98, 104, 106–108, 110, 113, 115, 117, 129, 131, 138, 139, 154, 160–162, 174, 179, 184, 201, 202, 205, 222, 226, 228, 231, 247, 254, 263, 273, 286, 291, 292, 294, 301, 339n173, 345, 374, 391 Positional, 11, 28, 29, 317, 320 Positionality, vi, 232 positive anything positive coming out of all this for sociology, 229–230 to associate ‘the West’ with negative and ‘the Rest’ with positive attributes, 322 light, 217, 328 negative and positive autonomism, 395 negative and positive trends, 346 negative and positive trends affecting the discipline’s development, xxiii side, 222 spin, 229 Positivism critique of positivism, 305 and interpretivism, 278 Positivist/positivistic, 160, 161, 232, 246, 252, 253, 379, 412

  Index of Subjects 

Positivity epistemic positivity, 77 objectivity, and universality, 77, 85 Possibilities/possibility, vi, ix, xv, xx, 12, 15, 35, 38, 39, 43, 59, 62, 88, 98, 110, 139, 225, 248, 254, 296, 315, 317, 320, 324–326, 360, 362, 394, 419 Postcolonial actors, 5 analysis, 8, 127 approaches, xvi, 6, 9, 10, 293 approach to historical sociology, 293 aura, 375 concerns, 6, 9 context, 318 critique(s), 27, 131, 312, 316, 410 debate, 376, 411, 413, 419 and decolonial accounts, 305 decolonial, and subaltern scholars, 291 and decolonial approaches, 44, 285, 287, 289–294, 305, 315, 322 and decolonial critics of so-called Orientalism, 311 and decolonial critiques of classical sociology, 302 and decolonial frameworks of interpretation, 286 and decolonial modes of thought, 322 and decolonial narratives, 294 decolonial, or subaltern studies, 290 and decolonial perspectives, 25, 287, 305 and decolonial scholars, 290, 291, 294 and decolonial studies, 43, 45, 60, 302, 305, 307, 344 and decolonial suspicions, 303 and decolonial theories, 289 and decolonial variants, 314 and decolonial versions, 295 demands and insights, 7

561

development policy, 420 discourse analysis, 9, 205, 305 dynamics, 8 era, 132 feminism, 357 feminist theories, 401 histories, 15, 355, 370 historiography, 370 intersectionality, 20n42, 438 intersectional reading, 412 issues, 3, 318 literatures, 357 matters, 318 modes of knowledge production, 17, 18 moment, 59 nation, 420 neocolonized world, 7 our global (postcolonial) age, 25, 57 peoples, 7 period, 132 perspective, 11, 14, 16, 65, 360, 438 postcolonial and decolonial, 25, 43–45, 56, 60, 68, 285–287, 289–295, 302, 303, 305, 307, 311, 313–315, 322 the ‘postcolonial modern’, 59 power dynamics, 305 practices, 3 present, 65, 66 project, 18 realities, 3, 4, 85, 304, 316, 320 reason, 430 societies, 7, 14, 286 sociologist, 386 sociology, ix, xvii, 64–67, 72n88, 132, 319, 344, 360, 361, 374, 385–387, 410, 427 sovereignty games, 352 standpoint, 15, 308 states, 5 studies, xvi, 3, 4, 6, 8–10, 25–27, 134, 344, 410, 438

562 

Index of Subjects

Postcolonial (cont.) subjects, 11, 12, 412 themes, 9 theories/theory, 3, 9, 14, 16, 23n116, 26, 30, 31, 383, 402, 410, 439 thought, 7, 8, 370, 385, 398 types of domination, 8 universe, 76 world, xvi, 8, 17, 18, 80, 86, 344, 396 Postcoloniality coloniality and postcoloniality, 67 and decoloniality, xvi, 25–52 exploration of postcoloniality, 3 historical condition of postcoloniality, 6 intimations of postcoloniality, xv–xvi, 285–294, 343–344 no such thing as a universal understanding of postcoloniality, 7 research on postcoloniality, 3 role of postcoloniality, 6 second moment of postcoloniality, 6 and sociology, xv, 3–23 sociology of postcolonialism (or postcoloniality), 318 study of postcoloniality, 3 Post/postlate (or post-) modernity, 157 post-and decolonial, 290 post-and decolonialism, 290 post-classical, xv postcolonial, ix, xvi, xxiii, 3–12, 14–18, 20n42, 23n116, 25–27, 30, 31, 43–45, 55–57, 59, 60, 64–69, 72n88, 76, 80, 86, 127, 131, 132, 134, 247, 285–287, 289–295, 302–305, 307, 308, 311–316, 318–320, 322, 344, 349, 352, 355, 357, 360, 361, 370, 374–376, 383, 385–387,

396, 398, 401, 402, 410–413, 419, 420, 425, 427, 430, 438, 439 postcolonialism, 3, 6, 8–10, 17, 27, 44, 68, 130, 267, 278, 318, 360, 368, 375, 443 postcoloniality, xv–xvi, 3–23, 25–52, 67, 285, 318, 343–344, 385 post-Fordism, 170, 171, 173, 174, 354, 360, 362, 400 postgraduate, ix, 161 posthuman, 244, 366, 382, 393 posthumanism, 244, 257n31, 355, 394, 407, 414, 418 postideological, 113 postimperialist, 132 post-independence, 7 postindustrial, 173 postindustrialism, xx, 170, 197, 209n4 postmodern, vii, xix, 117, 150, 157, 158, 207, 292, 313, 314, 354, 360, 361, 363, 367, 368, 370, 376, 377, 379–383, 386, 392, 393, 397–399, 401, 403, 404, 406, 409, 410, 412–417, 419, 422–430, 433, 434, 436, 438, 442, 444 postmodernism, vii, 6, 39, 44, 170, 174, 278, 354, 366, 368, 369, 371, 375, 376, 379, 380, 382, 383, 386, 392, 394, 396, 397, 399, 401, 403, 409, 413, 414, 416–418, 420, 422, 426, 428–430, 437, 440, 443, 444 postmodernity, 151, 157, 170, 171, 174, 357, 374, 378–380, 384, 386, 388, 392, 399, 403, 406, 421, 429, 436, 439 postslavery, 30 post-something era, 170 poststructuralism, vii, 6, 27, 39, 44, 278, 371

  Index of Subjects 

poststructuralist, 31, 38, 313 post-traditional, 178, 303 post-/transhumanism, 278 postwar, 66, 310, 403 Potential(s), 4, 10, 30, 40, 82, 105, 155, 197, 199, 207, 208, 213, 220, 229, 242, 255, 286, 307, 440 Poverty, 266, 383 Power(s) almost unlimited power, 105 anti-power, 27 asymmetrical distribution of power, xviii, 345 asymmetrical division of power, 4, 132 asymmetries, 226, 234n36 asymmetries of power, 223 balance of epistemic power, 9 balance of power, 198, 263 bonding power of Gesellschaftlichkeit (sociality), 279 centralization and monopolization of power, 108 classist, racist, sexist, ageist, and ableist types of power, 320 colonial formations of power, 320 coloniality of power, 36, 411, 419 colonial matrix of power, 38, 133–134 colonial power(s), 10, 11, 42, 128, 135, 288 colonizing powers, 42, 104, 309 constellations of power, 307 to control, 13 critical theory of power, 317 decentralization and distribution of power, 108 desire, interest, 28, 316 of disciplinary identities, 222 discursive power of communicative rationality, 232 disempowered, 9, 13, 38, 89, 288, 302, 320

563

disempowering, xxi, 17, 56, 103, 139, 225, 279, 306, 347 disempowerment, 16, 138, 140, 249, 293, 301–302, 431 division of power, 4, 7–9, 17, 55, 68, 80, 104, 115, 130, 132, 136, 139, 251, 288, 297, 307, 311 of dominant ideologies, 7 of the dominant ideology, 7 and domination, 34, 154, 186, 321, 324 dynamics, 44, 129, 222, 232, 305, 320 empowered, 13, 325 empowering, xxi, 18, 56, 82, 139, 225, 290, 306, 347 the empowering power of power, 139 empowerment, xxi, 16, 33, 35, 42, 134, 138, 140, 278, 293, 301–302, 321, 323, 325, 417, 431 epistemic power, 9, 17, 68 ethno-specific imbalance of power, 263 European powers, xv, 110, 343 exercised by imperial states, 42 exercise of power, 108, 316 foreign powers, 4, 105, 321 forms of social power, 316 gender-specific imbalance of power, 263 global-colonial matrix of power, 133–134 global division of power, 7–9, 17, 55, 68, 104, 115, 130, 139, 251, 288, 297, 307, 311 global division of power and resources, 9 global dynamics of power, 83 global matrix of power, 311 global power, 113, 353, 372 hegemonic powers, 4, 8, 9, 11, 38, 59, 133, 254, 291

564 

Index of Subjects

Power(s) (cont.) of hegemony, 15, 250 history of power, 68, 407 ideological power, 38 imbalance of power, 223, 263 imperial powers, 8, 16, 104, 107, 311, 385 institutional power, 218 international division of power, 4 and knowledge, 68, 406 labour power, 107, 253 of language and communicative rationality, 292 limits of metropolitan (i.e. imperial or colonial) power, 11 logic of colonial and imperial power, 311 material power, 105 matrix, 36 maximization, 86 metric power, vi, xx, 198, 358 metropolitan political power, 5 of neoliberalism, 254 overarching power, 8 perpetual Western power, 12 pervasive power, 75, 250–255 pervasive power of marketization, 250–255 the pervasive power of marketization vs. the subversive power of sociology, 253–255 power-critical spirit, 275 power-laden, 11, 79, 128, 135, 232, 305, 306, 311 of proleptic reason, 34 purposive power of their Verstand, the normative power of their Vernunft, and the evaluative power of their Urteilskraft, 11 pursuit of power, 86, 106 quest for power, 63 realms of power, 41 rebalancing of power, 204

re-empowerment, 12, 42 regimes of power, 100 regulatory power, 206 regulatory power of democratic decision-making processes, 249 relation(s), 7, 9, 17, 43, 56, 131, 132, 134, 208, 225, 230, 275, 285, 286, 289, 298, 315, 321 repressive power, 42 social power and epistemic power, 68 state power, 108, 251 stratifying power, 346 structures, 36, 43, 132, 225, 291, 294, 308 struggles, 232, 377 symbolic power of hegemonic discourses, 250 transcontinental division of power, 80 typology of power, 317, 338n157 underpowered, 151 world powers, 103, 106, 107 Powerful, vi, xxi, xxii, 4, 13, 30, 42, 107, 113, 140, 156, 158, 163, 198, 204–206, 225, 247, 248, 300, 307, 316, 317, 347 Practical, 14, 18, 29, 39, 117, 134, 169, 201, 221, 226, 277, 286, 342, 349, 359, 362, 367, 398 Practice(s), xvii, 3, 7, 11, 31, 33, 34, 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 57, 59, 60, 62, 68, 75, 77, 78, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 98, 104, 115, 117, 127, 129, 130, 132, 136–138, 150, 155, 163, 179, 203, 216, 219, 222, 223, 225, 228, 230, 248, 270, 274, 277, 287, 292, 294, 298, 311, 317, 321, 323–325, 327–329, 342, 344, 346, 347, 349, 352, 354, 355, 361–364, 370, 371, 373, 374, 377, 378, 381, 382, 389, 393, 395, 399, 400, 402, 415–418, 420, 423, 428, 429, 433, 437, 438, 441, 442

  Index of Subjects 

Pragmatic(s), 16, 58, 232, 319, 325, 329, 352, 354, 362, 371, 372, 383, 388, 390, 433, 434, 436, 442 Precarious, 89, 162, 228, 263 Precarization, 242 Preconceptions, 250 Predictability historical predictability, 84 historical unpredictability, 150 relative predictability, 182 unpredictability, 150 Prediction(s), 186, 202, 204, 246, 313 Prejudiced, 77 Preparedness, 132 Present, xv, xix, xx, 5, 20n42, 25, 34, 55, 57, 64–66, 68, 84, 116, 127, 149–151, 153, 155, 163, 169, 171, 172, 174–176, 178, 183, 198, 242, 244, 245, 248, 254, 261, 262, 285, 291, 293, 302, 303, 306, 321, 346, 352, 383, 385, 430, 431, 437, 439 Presentism, xix, 151–158, 163, 346, 366, 398, 435 Presentist, xix, 153, 156, 158, 163 Principle(s), 5, 7, 18, 32, 36, 86, 89, 99, 103, 104, 117, 171, 199, 206, 214, 215, 222, 224, 246, 247, 275, 278, 295, 315, 319, 323, 326, 349, 356, 380, 387, 402, 416 Private actors, 207 companies, 204 forms of data collection, 204 goods, 384 language games, 118 ownership, 102, 138 property, 102 public and private, 207, 262, 430, 441 public and private sources, 262 and public domains, 198 and public funding bodies, 221

565

and public institutions, 198, 214 public or private, 139, 205, 269 public or private sources, 269 and public realms of society, 201 ‘public’ vs. ‘private’, 41 quasi-private language(s), 276 research, 204 sector, xx, 204, 205 sources, 262, 269 sphere, 138, 203 Privatization, 251 Privilege(s) access to privilege, 82 to be asked for one’s opinion, 203 of being regarded as fully fledged members of the club of canonicity, 129 both a privilege and a stigma, 162 of contributing, 201 of epistemic superiority, 289 essential ‘human’ privileges, 138 of human beings, 10 the privileging capacity of privilege, 139 realm of privilege, 137 Privileged access to our subjective world, 318 actors, 139 circle of ‘insiders’ of a given realm of culturally codified investigation, 345 culturally and educationally privileged position in society, 32 demarcation between privileged insiders and neglected outsiders, 129, 305 epistemic position, 16 groups, casts, and/or classes, 291 position(s), 32, 36, 62, 139, 222 socioeconomically privileged, 200 space for research, 216 spaces for independent, imaginative, and critical inquiry and pedagogy, 325

566 

Index of Subjects

Privileged (cont.) status of ‘would-be legislators’, 117 white, Western European, middleclass men, 98 white, Western, male, middle-or old-aged, and highly educated experts, 98 Problematizations, 172 Process(es), vi, xv, xvii, xviii, xx, xxi, 4–6, 9, 12, 16, 17, 30, 31, 34, 38, 42, 57, 59, 64, 66, 67, 76, 77, 81, 83–87, 89, 98–106, 112, 113, 128–130, 135, 138, 139, 150, 153, 155, 156, 172, 176, 181–183, 185, 199, 201, 216, 218–220, 223, 230, 246, 247, 249, 250, 252, 253, 262, 270, 279, 286, 288, 289, 292, 294, 296, 305, 306, 308, 311, 316, 320, 325, 327, 329, 345, 346, 377 Production of an effective history of modernity, 26, 310 another production, 33, 425 Asiatic mode of production, 111 both the production and the reproduction of intersectionally constituted power relations, 9 capitalist mode of production, 180, 250 circulation, and consumption of knowledge, 231 circulation, reception, and interpretation of knowledge, 124n144 and dissemination of knowledge, 213 distribution, classification, stratification, and consumption of knowledge, 5 and distribution of knowledge across the globe, 17

epistemic production, 118, 286 forces of production, 102, 173 global production of knowledge, 80 of knowledge, 80, 135, 222, 231, 232, 245, 274, 353, 384, 427 knowledge production, xviii, 17, 18, 29, 33, 38, 45, 59, 62, 63, 67, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 128, 129, 131, 153, 216, 220–222, 225–227, 230, 241, 281, 294, 298, 301, 304, 306, 311, 322, 328, 346, 360, 394 markets of production, distribution, and consumption, 107, 253, 326 means of production, 102, 251 mode of production, 76, 102, 111, 180, 250, 371 of the modern/tradition binary, 114 modes of production, 111, 134, 159, 245, 424 patterns of production, 99 of power, 294 and reproduction of goods, 38 and reproduction of power dynamics, 44 of scientific knowledge, 98, 292 of symbolic-including epistemicforms, 315 systems, 259n73 Productivist, 186 Professional, vii, 157, 162, 201, 204, 215, 223, 227, 249, 269, 291, 294, 376, 395, 409, 415 Professionalized, 215, 294 Profit(s), 103, 140, 162, 186, 214, 216, 222, 326, 329, 362, 371 Progress civilizational progress, 7, 9 end of progress, 353 Enlightenment story of progress, xxii, 243 European progress and superiority, 84

  Index of Subjects 

‘grand ethnographies’ of social progress, 32 human progress, 115 path of progress, 115 practice and progress, 437 prophecy and progress, 402 protagonists of progress, 115 of reason, 363 social progress, 32 social progress and human advancement, 113 Progressive, 10, 32, 56, 84, 100, 114, 130, 151, 208, 308, 322, 323, 377 Progressiveness, xvii, 76 Progressivism, 402 Project(s) alternative project, 34 ambitious project, 63, 86 as ‘a postideological science of society and history’, 113 cognitive projections, 45 collaborative project, 224 colonial project(s), 88, 107 of connected-and, hence, diversifiedsociologies, 80 of connected sociologies, 86 counterhegemonic project(s), 7, 324 of creating a sociology capable of accounting for the interconnectedness of social actors and social structures across time and space, xxiii, 285, 348 creative project, 363 culturist projects, 80 decanonization, 86 of de-coloniality, 42 decolonial project, 39 of decolonization, 36, 86 decolonizing projects, 289 of deconstruction, 86 of denaturalization, 86 of developing ‘connected sociologies’, 135

567

Enlightenment project, 410 epistemological project of de-linking, 37 ethnomethodological projects, 205 European project, 88 European project of modernity, 40, 105 explorative project, 67 global project, 296 global research project, 134 of global sociology, 77 of a ‘global sociology’, 55–56 of a ‘Greater France’, 104 imperial project(s), 309 inter-and transdisciplinary projects, 225–226 interdisciplinary project(s), 223, 226 knowledge projects, 291 of modernity, 31, 36, 40, 59, 105, 242, 292, 390, 417 modernity as a self-critical project, 334n66 normatively ambitious project, 85–86 normative project, 10 of obtaining a university degree, 329 pan-Germanic project, 106 polluted projections of the East, 114 postcolonial project, 18 radical projects, 38 research projects, 134, 199, 269 scholarly and political projects, 289 from ‘society-as-a-project’ to ‘projects-in-society’, 215 of sociology, xix, 17, 231, 346 of a sociology of knowledge, 373 of a ‘subaltern historiography’, 68 of ‘the canon’, 131 transdisciplinary project, xix tribalist intellectual project, 30 unfinished project, 49n116, 390 unfinished project of decolonization, 36

568 

Index of Subjects

Project(s) (cont.) unfinished project of Enlightenment, 396 unfinished project of modernity, 36, 390, 417 world-historical project of driving social progress and human advancement, 113 Projection(s) cognitive projections, 45 projections of the East, 114 Projects-in-society, 215 Proletariat sociological proletariat, 162 Properties/property, 102, 111, 138, 139, 354, 364, 425 Prosperous, 5, 244 Protection, 85, 243 Protectionism, 251 Protectionist, 128, 152, 286 Protestant, 109, 184, 441 Pseudohistory, 369 Pseudo-scholars, 129, 305 Psychological, 8, 9, 29, 199, 312, 374 Psychology, 44, 82, 118, 119n7, 132, 152, 216, 263, 273, 298, 312, 314, 383, 392, 413, 438 Public advocate, 104 aspects, 99 discourse, 62, 249, 271, 395 domains, 198 endeavour, 208 funding bodies, 221 the general public, 201 institutions, 198, 214 lectures, 215 life, 41, 373 mission, 269, 276 or private, 139, 205, 269 policies, 385, 397 and policy debates, 245 and private, 207, 430, 441

and private realms, 201 and private sources, 262, 269 the public and the social, 249 the public itself, 249 public (or at least partially public) ownership, 251 ‘public’ vs. ‘private’, 41 research, vi, 204 role of sociology, 249 sociologists, 249 sociology, xxii, 248, 249, 254, 255, 258, 352, 367, 400 sources, 269 sphere(s), 32, 41, 138, 203, 210n37, 250, 271, 272, 360, 368, 369, 381, 382, 389, 402, 403, 414, 432, 436, 439 value, 249 Publication(s), viii, 22n92, 62, 174, 327, 328, 400, 426 Purpose conscious or unconscious allencompassing purpose, 150 extra-scientific-notably, economicpurposes (Erkenntnisnutzung), 232 of governance and surveillance, 206 Purposive, 11, 29, 316, 388 co-purposive, 224 Q

Qualitative/qualitatively, xx, 57, 115, 169, 175, 207, 230, 246, 276, 302, 320, 323–325, 346, 356, 366, 391, 398, 430, 442, 444 Quantitative/quantitatively, 151, 161, 207, 230, 276 Quasieffacement, 139 essentialist, 309 independent, 135 omnipotent, 117 private, 276

  Index of Subjects 

religious, xviii, 97 replacement, 206 ubiquitous, 247, 249, 250 R

‘Race’, 8, 40, 42, 76, 118, 131, 132, 266, 278, 302, 360, 361, 369, 373, 382, 385, 392, 402, 405, 407, 409, 412, 413, 418, 420, 426, 431, 443 Racialization, 42, 442 Racialized, 8, 10, 31, 33, 42, 56, 134 Racializing, 43 ‘Racial’/’racially’, vi, 9, 36, 38, 61, 118, 133, 320, 382, 443, 444 Racism, 40, 41, 128, 134, 266, 267, 278, 302, 393 anti-racism, 43, 267 Racist, 286, 320 Radical, vi, vii, xx, 15, 17, 28, 30–32, 35, 38, 42, 44, 56, 64, 65, 83, 89, 108, 130, 132, 134, 150, 152, 155, 169, 179, 203, 208, 248, 277, 294, 295, 304, 318, 322, 323, 346, 360, 371, 403, 413, 420, 428 Rational, 12, 41, 109, 290, 387 Rationalism anti-rationalism, 290 critique of rationalism, 305 modernist rationalism, 292 Occidental rationalism, 109 Rationalität Handlungsrationalität, 388 Wertrationalität, 38, 154, 173, 214, 215, 329, 341n193 Zweckrationalität, 38, 154, 173, 214, 215, 329, 341n193 Rationality another rationality, 323 attributes of rationality, 138 a ‘broader’ rationality, 292

569

communicative rationality, 32, 181, 185, 186, 232, 247, 251, 254, 290–292 critical rationality, 37, 290, 310 discursive rationality, 290 forms of rationality, 290 ‘functionalist’ and ‘communicative’ rationality, 186 functionalist rationality, 181, 185, 251, 290 implicit rationality, 85 instrumental rationality, 38, 100, 109, 181, 214, 215, 230, 247, 290, 329, 341n193 metonymic rationality, 34 rationality and universality, 292 religion and rationality, 390 strategic rationality, 290 substantive rationality, 230, 290, 329, 341n193 typology of rationality, 317, 338n156 value rationality, 38, 214, 215, 229, 274 Rationalization, 99, 114, 296, 388 Raw materials, 107, 253 Real complete, data, 206 and imagined, 44, 45, 221, 430 interactional situation, 317 ‘[…] makes that world real and makes it what it is […]’, 151 or imagined, 218 real-life concern, 152 ‘real’ scientists, 246 real-world actors, 208 real-world issues, 226, 273 real-world orientation, 197 real-world-oriented, 197, 201 real-world-orientedness, 197 speech situation, 129, 142n28, 338n152, 432

570 

Index of Subjects

Realism critical realism, 172, 395 epistemic realism, xxi, 225 realism and common sense, 26 sociological realism, 184 Realist/realistic, 161, 229, 248, 262, 400 Reality/ies analysis of reality, 197 aspects of reality, 11, 84, 223, 225, 232 complexity of intersectionally constituted, and hence polycentrically organized, realities, 156 conception of reality, 42 constantly shifting realities, 33 constitution of reality, 274 construction of reality, 261, 348, 359 critique of its own reality, 292 culturally constituted realities, 84 eclectic realities, 287 empirical realities, 158, 317 epistemic reality, 226 Eurocentric misrepresentations of reality, 15 everyday reality the reality of ‘failed modernization in the East’ (Seidman), 112 experiences of reality, 131 false sense of reality, 202 fragility of reality, 362 global realities, 295 historicization of reality, 155 human experience, construction, and perception of reality, 318 human realities, 38, 43, 59, 78, 86, 131, 152, 208, 315 ideals and realities, 393 imperial realities, 101 itself, 319 judgements about reality, 86

lifeworlds of their own (partially or entirely dispossessed) realities, 88 local realities, 34 making it a reality, 295 meaning-laden realities, 316 myth and reality, 370 between nominality and reality, 318 non-European realities, 322 ‘non-Western’ modes of relating and attributing meaning to reality, 17 ‘non-Western’ realities’, 301 normative-that is, value-laden, meaning-laden, perspectiveladen, interest-laden, powerladen, and tension-laden-realities, 79 ‘out of touch’ with ‘reality’, 201 particular aspects of reality, 11, 223, 225, 232 part of reality, 135 people’s common-sense understanding (or, rather, misunderstanding) of reality, 272 plurality of irreducible and contextdependent realities, 150 politics of reality, 426 possibility of a reality beyond the limited horizon of normative parameters dictated by the hegemonic powers of contemporary history, 38 postcolonial realities, 3, 4, 85, 304, 316, 320 preponderance of the reality by which they are surrounded, 34 realities and narratives, xx realities of the ‘here and now’, 303 realities of working across such diverse disciplinary boundaries, 221 a reality and an illusion, 221, 222 the reality and the consequences of decolonization, 6

  Index of Subjects 

reality of ‘colonialism’, 4 reality of life, 423 reality of modernity, 186 reality of social exclusion, 134, 138 regional and continental realities outside Europe, 303 relationally constituted realities, 31, 155 relationally constructed-and, hence, sociohistorically contingentrealities, 172, 219 replication and reality, 358 reproductive immanence in reality, 39 between rhetoric and reality, 324–325 social construction of reality, 359 social reality/ies, xvii, xix, 8, 11, 17, 28, 30, 34, 35, 89, 131, 149, 152, 160, 197, 201, 203, 207, 208, 249, 279, 301, 311, 313, 318, 346 social (that is, value-, meaning-, perspective-, interest-, power-, and tension-laden) realities, 13 spatiotemporal realities, 66 spheres of human reality, 43 symbolically mediated representation of reality, 319 their own reality, 85 understanding of reality, 310, 318 Reason(s) age of reason, 381 axe of reason, 410 and body, 79 civilizational role of ‘principles’ and ‘reason’, 199 communicative reason, 390, 409 every person’s interests, desires, justifications, and reasons, 318 faith and reason, 390 functionalist reason, 388 god, and modernity, 390

571

in history, 393 instrumental reason, 154 between ‘interests + desires’ and ‘justifications + reasons’, 316–318 justifications and reasons, 317, 318 language and reason, 372 lazy reason, 33, 34, 290, 424 ‘lazy reason’ (Santos), 48n98, 331n14 mind and reason, 41 the nature of, let alone the reasons for, change, 177 postcolonial reason, 430 and power, 353 power, deliberation and reason, 418 practical reason, 362 professional and/or personal reasons, 291 progress of reason, 363 progress, science, reason, and cosmopolitan attitudes, 110 proleptic reason, 34 public use of reason, 390 and the rationalization of society, 388 reason-guided, 41 ‘reasons behind sociology’s perpetual legitimacy crisis’, xxii reasons behind the rise of Western modernity, 109 reasons for their actions, 11 and religion, 391 and rhetoric, 438 self-enlightenment of reason, 362 social life of reason, 379, 397, 418, 422 subject-centered reason, 388 substantive reason, 154 toxic variant of reason, 33 Western reason, 290, 424 Reasoning, 138 mode of reasoning, 319 Reciprocity, 254, 316

572 

Index of Subjects

Recognition asymmetrically organized relations of recognition and misrecognition, 316 Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition, 176 discovery and recognition, 137 epistemic influence and recognition, 17 of the epistemological value and agency of the world beyond the West, 55 of historical connections, 137 intellectual influence and recognition, 128 of intertwined histories and overlapping territories, 88 level of recognition, 116 misrecognition, 29, 306, 316 mutual recognition of ‘the dominant’ and ‘the dominated’, 83 politics of recognition, 40, 51n165, 435 of professionalized ‘academic’ qualities, 215 rules of validation and recognition, 345–346 strategies of recognition, divulgation, and circulation, 215 by struggles for (and against) misrecognition, 306 struggles for (and against) recognition, 306 symbolically mediated processes of mutual recognition, 279 of ‘the particular’, 314 of ‘the universal’, 314 Recombination, 224 Reconstruction(s) both the reconstruction of connections and the connections between reconstructions, 300 comprehensive reconstruction, 64

of concepts, 137, 299 construction, and constant reconstruction, of interconnected and interdependent societies, 8 between global connections and global reconstructions, 298 global reconstructions, 298–300 multiplication—rather than reconstruction—of ideal type formulations, 84 no reconstruction, 137, 299, 300 the reconstruction of connections and the connections between reconstructions, 300 revolutions and reconstructions, 394 of social phenomena, 334n63 task of reconstruction, 299, 300 Redemption, 372, 390 acts of sociohistorical redemption, 115 Redistribution, 243, 381, 382, 396 Reductionism conceptual reductionism, 308 explanatory reductionism, 57, 158, 317, 322 Reductionist, xx, 153 Reductive, 67, 113–115, 156, 163, 172, 178, 185, 229, 287, 288, 297, 302, 311 Reflexive (third wave), 252 actors, 244 -and, where appropriate, subversiveattitude, 277 attitude, 155 capacity, 313 consciousness, 155 epistemologically reflexive, 207 exceptionalism, 370 (or late) modernity, 171 modernization, 358 perspective, 397 self-reflexive understandings, 163 sociology, 219, 364–366, 431

  Index of Subjects 

spirit, 155 understanding, 163 Reflexivity conceptually sophisticated reflexivity, 30 critical reflexivity, 38 epistemological reflexivity, 202 and indeterminacy, 173 intimations of reflexivity, xxiii, 348–350 late modern reflexivity, 156 self-critical exercise of reflexivity, 219 Reform, vi, 353, 375, 392, 407, 426 Reformation, 82, 87, 110 Reformism, 247 Reformist, 65, 83, 323 Regime(s) European equality regimes, 402 of governance, 216, 218, 274, 328, 330 illegitimate regimes of power, repression, and domination, 100 neoliberal and neomanagerial regimes of governance, 216, 218 neoliberal regimes of governance, 274, 328, 330 totalitarian regimes, 87 Region(s), 4, 25, 38, 58, 64–66, 76, 81, 111, 180, 243, 287, 297, 308 Regionalism, 400 Regional/regionally cross-regional, 63 cross-regionally, 66 transregional, 298 Regressive, 150 Regular, 171, 198, 269 Regularities/regularity, 202 Regulation(s) administrative regulation of society, 247 ‘Anglo-American’ model of regulation, 214 capitalist regulation, 352

573

and deregulation, 173, 214, 247, 250, 251 deregulation, and systematic flexibilization, of markets, 214 deregulation of society, 247 economic deregulation, 250 French Regulation School, 173 of gender-specific norms and practices, 36 of market-based activities, 214 of, and administrative control over, public institutions, 214 of publicly-funded institutions, 214 sociology of regulation, 266 state-controlled regulation, 251 state regulation, 250 theory, 400 of time, 172 Regulatory, 206, 247, 249, 254, 398 Reification of ‘the Other’, 16 Reinterpretation, 64, 137, 299 Relation hierarchical relation among subject areas, 217 hierarchical relation among universities, 217 instrumental relation to the production and dissemination of knowledge, 213 intersubjective relation, 42 ‘[…] intimate relation[s] between “the historical” and “the social”’ (Mandalios), 161 the non-West’s troubled relation to the West, 113 relation between interdisciplinarity and contemporary modes of academic governance, 222 relation to the spirit world […], 42 ‘the historicity of the oppressing resisting relation’ (Lugones), 43 the West’s troubled relation to the non-West, 113

574 

Index of Subjects

Relational, 232, 316 Relationality, 79, 315, 316 Relationally, 31, 86, 155, 163, 219, 231, 277 Relations asymmetrically organized relations of recognition and misrecognition, 316 asymmetrically structured relations established between individual and collective actors, 8 contractual relations, 105 of difference, 401 of domination, 133, 320, 321 human relations, 405 international relations, 418 market relations, 82 multifaceted factors and relations shaping connected societies and connected histories, 15 between places and peoples, 136 of power and domination, 321 power relations, 7, 9, 17, 43, 56, 131, 132, 134, 208, 225, 230, 275, 285, 286, 289, 298, 315, 321 race relations, 382 ‘relations between colonizer and colonized, metropole and colony, center and periphery’ (Go), 14 social relations, 32, 56, 83, 135, 214, 251, 296, 318, 319, 324 university-industry-government relations, 378 world-relations, 434 Relationship(s) changing relationship between sociology and the growing interdisciplinary area of applied social studies, 213 between colonial and postcolonial dynamics, 8 between colonial knowledge and colonial power, 135

complex relationship between modern empires and nationstates, 331n9 between ethics, utopia, and the critique of utopia, 354 between globality and sociology, 55 between hegemonic and counterhegemonic forces, 241, 322 hidden relationship between Orientalist knowledge and imperial power, 16 between human practices and social structures, 228 between instrumental rationality (Zweckrationalität) and substantive rationality (Wertrationalität), 341n193 intimate relationship between validity and legitimacy, 315 between modernity and colonialism, 56 between modernity and coloniality, 40 between objective, normative, and subjective dimensions, 192n87, 334n65, 339n160 between (i) objective (ii) normative, and (iii) subjective dimensions, 177 between postcoloniality and intersectionality, 19n42 between power and knowledge, 68 between research and practice in UK organizational and management research, 370 tension-laden relationship between continuity and discontinuity, 303 tension-laden relationship between determinacy and indeterminacy, 153 between ‘the Global North’ and ‘the Global South’, 7 between ‘the hegemonic’ and ‘the counterhegemonic’, 335n72

  Index of Subjects 

unequal relationship between ‘the colonizers’ and ‘the colonized’, 4 between universality and particularity, 314–316 between ‘universality’ and ‘particularity’, 314 between ‘validity claims’ and ‘legitimacy claims’, 236n97, 330n3, 337n141 between violence and society, 47n51 to the world, 350 Relativism anti-Eurocentric relativism, xx, 184 anti-relativism, 292 cognitive relativism, 179 epistemic relativism, 178 form(s) of relativism, 179 moral relativism, 179 Relativist, 179, 292, 299 Relativistic, 179 Relativity, 78, 292 Relativization, 155 Reliability, 198 Religion, 79, 99, 353, 363, 390, 391, 394, 396, 436, 438 sociology of religion, 266, 278, 364 Religious, 3, 9, 36, 180, 184, 287, 310, 320, 321 Reorientation, 224 Repetitiveness, 176 Representation(s) conceptual representation, 172, 317, 329 functional representation, 215 staff and student representation, 263 symbolically mediated representation of reality, 319 Representational, 9, 60 Reproduction of an overarching system, 182 behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns of reproduction, 140

575

both the production and the reproduction of intersectionally constituted power relations, 9 control of reproduction, 42 daily production and reproduction of power dynamics, 44 in education, 365 electronic reproduction, 381 of globally spread structures of domination, 83 means of subsistence and reproduction, 138 modes of reproduction, 161 processes of reproduction, 182 production and reproduction of goods, 38 production, distribution, circulation, consumption, reproduction, and recycling of knowledge, 78 production, reproduction, and transformation of an epistemic culture, 223 reproduction of social systems, 181 social reproduction, 102 sociology of reproduction, 266 and transformation of racialized hierarchies, 56 Reproductive immanence, 39 Republic Roman Republic, 100 Weimar Republic, 158 Republican ideals, 104 Republicanism, 418 Reputation, 109, 231, 262, 271, 274 Reputational, 155, 162, 216, 227, 228, 262, 273, 274, 293, 294, 327, 329 Research academic research, 199, 200, 269 agendas, xxi, 9, 152, 345, 347, 358, 361, 394 amount of research, 199 applied research, 202, 207

576 

Index of Subjects

Research (cont.) assessment exercises, 217, 269, 270 assessments, 217, 268–270 audits, 228 -based, 179 British Market Research Bureau (BMRB), 204 buyouts, 269 categories, 204 challenges, 221 community/ies, 223, 224, 270 connectivist research, 300 councils, 269 critical research in sociology, 5 currents, 133, 380 currents of research, 80 cutting-edge research, 219, 270 decolonization of social science research, 128, 129 directions, 98 eclectic body of research, 6 and education, 154, 277, 330 empirical research, 117, 170 environment, 220, 228, 229 epistemic conditions for fruitful research, 44 ethics, 199, 209n19, 372, 398, 442 expertise, 222 expert-led research, 218 fellowships, 269 fields, 118 fields of research, 219, 299 foci, 278 focus, 218 funding, 221, 222, 226, 262, 269 grants, 269 historical research, viii, 162 hypotheses, 78 impact, 269, 354, 379, 421 infrastructure, 170 inter-and transdisciplinary research, 225 issue-focused applied research, 207

landscape, 228 level of research, 79 market research, 204 methodologies, 201 methods, xx, 78, 170, 198, 201, 204, 206, 207, 367, 391, 408, 430 objectives, 78 with or without ethics, 199 outputs, 262, 268 papers, 161 participants, 199 patterns, 32, 290 performance, 218, 228 on postcoloniality, 3 practices and structures, 327, 328 in private companies, 204 private research, 204 privileged space for research, 216 process, 200 professional research, 201 programmes, xv, 26, 43, 82, 207, 218, 221, 246, 290 project(s), 134, 199, 269 publicly funded research, 204 public research, vi, 204 questions, 78 realms of research, 228 repertoires, 202 research process, 199 results, 78 scientific research, 229, 292, 325 social research, 43, 62, 201, 202, 204–206, 230, 245, 257n40, 352, 356, 361, 363, 367, 368, 398, 410, 423, 425 social-scientific research, xxi, 5, 127, 344 sociological research, xxi, 9, 69n11, 169, 347, 384, 420 sociological theory and research, 4 specialisms, 118 specialist areas of research, 264, 267

  Index of Subjects 

strategies, 246 sub-fields of research and expertise, 219 survey research, 204, 205 and teaching, 215, 270, 327, 328 teaching, and administration, 215 and teaching institutions, 327 and teaching programmes, 328 technique, 205, 245 techniques and strategies, 245 theory without research, 117 tools, vi, 205 topics, 78 tradition(s), xviii, 25, 63, 328, 346 trans-or interdisciplinary research, 218 Western social-scientific research, 344 without theory, 117 Research Councils UK, 221, 234n54, 421 Researcher(s) academic researchers, 200 and analysts, 213 conceptually and methodologically equipped researchers, 220 contemporary researchers, 157, 304 critical researchers, 14, 133, 229 the discipline’s researchers, 222 early career researcher, 379 established researchers, 369 and experts, 26 experts and researchers, 44, 62 and intellectuals, 117, 315 mainstream social researchers, 160 market researchers, 204 modern researchers, xix and scholars, 159, 253 scholars and researchers, 130, 231 social researchers, 27, 75, 160, 198 social-scientific researchers, 127 successful researchers, 328 ‘with an agenda’, 275 working in academia, 199

577

Research Excellence Framework (REF), 228, 268, 395 Residence periods of residence, 101 Resignification subversive resignification, 27 Resource(s) administrative resources, 247 asymmetrical allocation of resources, 40 ‘classical’ resources, 208 dispositional resources, 29, 317 distortive resources, 34 human and nonhuman resources, 180 informational resources, 205, 207, 232 institutional, ideological, and financial resources, 253 material and symbolic resources, 10, 40, 129, 138, 294, 317, 323, 325 material resources, 102 material, symbolic, reputational, and financial resources, 155, 262, 293, 294 motivational resources, 226 natural and human resources, 58, 132 natural resources, 107, 253, 417 numerous–notably material, cultural, linguistic, and educational–resources, 180 power and resources, 9 precious resources, 249 range of resources, 182 resources of sociology, 207, 208 semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic resources, 232 social and epistemic resources, 130 socially relevant resources, 12, 134 species-constitutive resources, 291 state-managed financial and infrastructural resources, 214

578 

Index of Subjects

Resource(s) (cont.) symbolic and informational resources, 232 symbolic, material, and territorial resources, 36 unequal distribution of resources, 75 unequal distribution of social (that is, material, symbolic, reputational, and financial) resources in academic fields, 293 valuable resources, 220 Resourced privately resourced, 204 resourced by both private and public funding bodies, 221 Resourceful, 272 Responsibility, 33, 105, 201, 243, 249, 255, 357, 378, 419, 427, 441 Rest (the rest/’the rest’/’the Rest’), 7–10, 14, 16, 17, 27, 44, 57, 58, 65, 80, 113, 115, 135, 136, 287, 296, 302, 303, 311, 322, 391, 424 Revolution(s) another ‘missing’ revolution, 360 anticolonial revolutions, 13, 307 biotechnology revolution, 382 a canonized ‘hierarchy of revolutions’, 307 French Revolution, 13, 58, 82, 87, 100, 103, 120n11, 180, 185, 307, 371, 404, 429 Haitian Revolution, 13, 58, 307 Industrial Revolution, 82, 87, 185 major revolutions, 13, 307 the meaning of revolution today, 395 from mobilization to revolution, 436 modern revolutions, 58 negativity and revolution, 395 other revolutions, 58 paradigms and revolutions, 387 political revolutions, 58

principal revolution, 185 and reconstructions, 394 San Domingo Revolution, 399 scientific, industrial, political, ideological, and philosophical revolutions, 185 scientific revolutions, vii, x, 82, 87, 185, 402 silent revolution, 175, 397 social movements and revolution, 58 social revolutions, 428 writing and revolution, 394 Revolutionary, 323 Rhetoric decorative rhetoric, 130, 156 empty rhetoric, 324 market-driven rhetoric of ‘cuttingedge research’, 219 and reality, 324–325 reductive and decorative rhetoric, 156 reductive rhetoric of periods, 163 between rhetoric and reality, 324–325 ‘rhetoric of despair’, viii, xxii, 261 rhetoric of ‘excellence’, 230 rhetoric of modernity, 333n55, 411 Rhetorical pirouettes, 172 speculation, 42 Richness of human life, 246 intellectual richness, 119 thematic richness of sociology, 267 Right(s) abstract categories of membership and rights, 134 to act, 138 basic rights, 138, 199 to be free, 130 citizenship rights, 309, 356 civil, political, and social rights, 251 civil rights, 252

  Index of Subjects 

collectively recognized rights, 138 cultural rights, 252 discourses of rights, 13, 306 distribution of rights, 108 human, civil, legal, political, and social rights, 199 human rights, 179, 252, 265, 359, 380, 412 labour rights, 251, 252 political rights, 252 property rights, 138 of research participants, 199 sexual rights, 252 social rights, 199, 251, 252, 437 sociology of human rights, 265 type of rights, 252 variety of rights, 252 Rightness, 16 Right-wing right-wing and conservative fractions of the country’s intellectual and political elite, 128 right-wing intellectuals, 106 right-wing populism, 113, 359, 360, 392, 439, 443 Risk(s) absorption, 220 of armed, let alone nuclear, conflict, 243 of narrowing our epistemic frameworks, 301 of nuclear conflict, 243 of a sloppy reverse essentialism, 287 society, ix, x, 171, 176, 189n38, 357, 358 sociology of risk, 266, 378 world risk society, ix, x, 357, 358 Ritualized, 30 Roman Greco-Roman, 76 Roman Empire, 108, 110 Roman Republic, 110 Romantic, 321

579

Romanticism, 322, 424 Romanticization, 12 Romanticized, 10 Rome, viii Ancient Rome, 180, 413 Rule(s) colonial rule, 288 of engagement, 155, 404 fit for rule, 41 foreign rule, 321 of the game, 139 grammatical rules, 319 imperial rule, 288 ‘intra’-culturally shared rules and conventions, 30 methodological rules of reconstruction, 334n63 ‘patrimonial rule’, 108 standards, rules, and principles, 86 underlying social mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion, xviii, 128 of validation and recognition, 345–346 Ruler, 108 Rupture clear-cut rupture, 303 a moment of abrupt ‘once-and-forall’ rupture, 303 rupture and difference, 57, 302–303 between rupture and difference, 302–303 temporal rupture, 57, 302 Russia, 107, 112, 115, 297, 363, 428, 431 S

Safety, 199, 357 Sceptic(s), 117, 292 Sceptical, 158 Scepticism, 176, 179, 201, 229, 313 Scholastic, 9, 12, 29, 76, 228

580 

Index of Subjects

School of thought, 328 Science(s) advanced science, 246 ‘alternative traditions in social science’, 132 Anglo-American and European social science, 63 Anglo-American social science, 159 ‘a postideological science of society and history’, 113 applied science, 132 autonomous or alternative social science traditions, 62 British social science, 160 business of science, 201 conception of ‘science’, 253 contemporary social sciences, xx, 15, 151, 198, 245, 246, 295 counterproductive antinomies in the social sciences, 50 critical social science, 346 critique of science, 300 ‘decolonization of social science research’, 128, 129 earth science, 314 the ethnocentric straitjacket of ‘Western’ mainstream social science, 291 ‘ethnoscience’, 80 the far-reaching influence of science, 99 game of science, 201 global social science community, xvii, 81, 345 ‘hegemonocentric’ social science, 64 humanities and/or social sciences, 304 humanities and social sciences, 25, 26, 55, 65, 69, 75, 79, 149, 154, 160, 170, 197, 218, 231, 242, 245, 268, 274, 286, 290, 294, 296, 299, 305, 306, 319, 328, 344

the impact of the ‘postmodern turn’ on the social sciences, 207 the ‘indigenization’ of the social sciences, 62 infrastructure of the social sciences, 170 the ‘lifeblood’ of social science, 292 mainstream social science, 76, 77, 83, 135, 291 the margins of the humanities and social sciences, 160 the margins of the social sciences, 157 the mission of social science, 154 modern science, 17, 18 natural sciences, xxi, 200, 220, 225, 230, 231, 242, 246, 268, 271, 347 the nature of the science behind the corpus of established knowledge regarding the ‘social’, 77 the past, present, and future of science, 306 philosophy of the social sciences, 118, 356, 392, 409, 435 pioneering research programmes in the social sciences, 207 the place of sociology in the social sciences, 216–217 political science, 3, 6, 44, 82, 84, 97, 118, 175, 177, 216, 312, 314, 361, 393, 411, 419 positivistic science, 161 professional science, 249 the rise of science, 109 science and education, 329 science and religion, 79 science and society, 225 science of the modern (Western) world, 17 science without politics, 249 social science community, xvii, 81, 345 social-science concepts, 179

  Index of Subjects 

the social science market, 81 social science research infrastructure, 170 social science thought, 18 sociology of science, 266, 278, 411 sociology of science and technology, 266, 278 standard social science, 38 state-of-the-art social science, 204 the ‘traditional’ social sciences, 169 triumph of science, 33, 288 twenty-first-century social science, 246 the ‘uncovering mission’ of science, 280n19 understanding of science, 252 understandings of science, 253 value-free or free-floating science, 249 Western science, 179 Western social science, 62, 179 the world of science, 231 Science and technology science and technology studies, 312 sociology of science and technology, 266, 278 Scientific activities, 249, 294 advice, 406 autonomy, 431 change, 312 civilization, 389 community, vii, 201 disciplines, 128, 306 discourse, 438 discoveries, 223 endeavour, 199, 271, 274 expertise, 201 field, vii, 221, 340, 363 interest, 204, 323 investigations, 222 knowledge, 44, 76, 77, 98, 292, 306, 328, 418

581

knowledge production, 77 level, 311 non-scientific, 179, 200, 205 and non-scientific realms of society, 207 paradigm, 438 power struggles, 232 research, 229, 292, 325 Scientific Revolution, vii, x, 82, 87, 185, 402 social-scientific, 45 social-scientific analysis, 321 social-scientific angles, 203 social-scientific areas of study, 217 social-scientific concepts, 375 social-scientific data, 198 social-scientific discipline(s), xix, 82, 89, 119n7, 263, 270, 271, 312 social-scientific examination, 244 social-scientific inquiry/ies, 44, 292 social-scientific investigation(s), 208, 221, 274, 303 social-scientific research, xxi, 5, 127, 344 social-scientific researchers, 127 social-scientific standards, 204 social-scientific studies, 203 social-scientific traditions, 298 tools, 162 validity, 232 value, 224 variants, 222 Scientifically, 177, 225, 310 Scientificity, 15, 217 Scientist(s) Anglo-American social scientists, 175 black social scientists, 443 contemporary social scientists, 39, 155, 246 critical social scientists, 33, 306 earth scientists, 242 modern-day social scientists, 178

582 

Index of Subjects

Scientist(s) (cont.) political scientists, 114, 242, 311 ‘real’ scientists, 246 situated social scientist, 368 social scientist(s), 14, 33, 39, 67, 80, 155, 175, 178, 201, 204, 207, 244, 246, 268, 269, 300, 306, 368, 398, 414, 443 Scotland, 297 Secularism, 112 Secularization, 99, 109, 391 Segregation, 127, 131, 133, 137, 186, 286, 360 Segregationist protectionist and segregationist constitution of knowledge economies in colonial and postcolonial societies, 286 segregationist sociology, 132–133 Selfalienation, 139 assertion, 316 aware, 155 conception, 128 confidence, 128 contained, 29, 83 critical, 151, 219, 334n66 criticism, 98 defeating, 40 defined, 17 dispossession, 228 enlightenment, 362 evident, 83 formation, 29 fulfilling, 220 glorifying, 114 governance, 255 identity, 384 imposed, 227 indulgent, 114, 115, 152 insurance policy, 85 interested, 215, 216 justification, 11, 115, 138

legislating, 202 legitimization, 128 legitimizing, 17, 86 negation, 7 ownership, 138 praise, 202 proclaimed, 37 realization, 35, 82, 100, 296, 297 referential, 10, 29, 64, 80, 98, 114, 136, 201, 216, 298, 301 reflexive, 163 regarding, 87 selection, 129 stigmatization, 36 sufficient, xvii, 5, 102, 221, 345 understanding(s), 83, 155, 173, 219, 316 valorization, 36 Selfselves (the self ) care of the self, 381 concern for the self, 381 discursive production of selves, 374 mind, self and society, 410 people’s senses of self, 42 presentation of self in everyday life, 386 reconstructing the self, 433 relational, reciprocal, reconstructable, renormalizable, and recognizable selves, 316 self and society, 384, 410 from self to society, 414 sense of self, 100 the sociology of self and human interactions, 273 sources of the self, 435 time, self and social being, 356 Semiotic, 8, 9, 320 Sensibility/ies of contemporary sociologists, 158 critical sensibility within sociology, 213 sociological sensibility, 220

  Index of Subjects 

Sensitivity context-specific sensitivity, 32 epistemic sensitivity, 30 Sens pratique, 30, 364 Sens théorique, 30 Separation(s), xvii, 14, 68, 80, 85, 108, 136, 137, 221, 345 Service providers, 279, 329 Services, 105, 134, 173, 203, 250, 251, 279, 329, 377 goods and services, 58, 134 Seventeenth century, 41, 56, 82, 85, 114, 308 Sexism, 40, 41, 64, 98, 128, 134, 267, 278, 302, 305 Sexist, 286, 320 Sexual History, 442 orientation, 131 politics, 442 rights, 252 violation, 42 Sexuality, vi, 36, 40, 76, 131, 265, 266, 374, 380, 381, 409, 431, 435 Short-term, 3 Short-termism, 230 Signifiability, 316 Signifier(s), 28, 39 Similarity/ies, 217, 261 Singularity, 34, 61 Sinic, 175 Situatedness, 25, 26, 153, 176, 304 Situation(s) constantly changing situations, 219 definition of the situation, 275 historical situation, 252 ideal speech situation, 129, 141 ironic situation, 157 paradoxical situations, 217 real interactional situation, 317 real speech situation, 129, 142n28, 338n152, 433 socially structured situations, 182 type of situation, 224

583

Situation-laden, 231 Slavery colonialism and slavery, 65 subaltern or postslavery, 30 Social (‘the social’) action(s), 29, 395, 401, 416 class(es) (see Class) conflict(s), 320, 396 democracy, 247 movements (see Movement(s)) Social-democratic politics, 248 Socialism colonialism, neo-colonialism and socialism, 400 communism/socialism, 99 state socialism, 87, 174, 175 Socialist socialist-feminist, 442 state-socialist, 178, 180 Sociality, 101, 150, 151, 247, 276, 279, 303, 316 Socialization, 390 desocialization, 248 Social science(s), v, vii, ix, x, xiii, xvii, xx–xxii, 3, 4, 14, 15, 18, 25, 26, 31, 33, 38, 39, 43–45, 50n153, 55, 62–65, 69, 75–77, 79, 81, 83, 100, 114, 118, 127–129, 132, 135, 149, 151, 154, 157, 159–161, 169, 170, 172, 175, 177, 179, 197–200, 202, 204, 205, 207, 216–218, 220, 225, 230, 231, 242, 244–246, 249, 262, 268, 271, 272, 274, 277, 286, 290–292, 294–296, 299, 300, 304–306, 313, 319, 322, 328, 334, 344–347, 353, 355, 356, 358, 359, 361, 363, 367, 368, 372, 375, 377, 379, 381, 383, 387, 389, 391–393, 395, 397–399, 405, 406, 409–413, 415–417, 422, 423, 426, 428–430, 432, 433, 435, 436, 440

584 

Index of Subjects

Social theorists, vi, 117, 118, 155, 157, 162, 175, 176, 207, 269 Social theory/social theories abstract social theory, 313 ‘asocial theory’, 319 British social theory, 164n20, 398, 426 classical and conventional social theories, 33 concept of ‘social theory’, 319 contemporary social theory, 14, 157 empirically unsubstantiated ‘social theory’, 152 the future of social theory, 241, 255n5, 383 histories of social theory, 373 history, 241, 373, 393 modern social theory, 10, 384, 422 a ‘more inclusive social theory’, 32 ‘non-social theory’, 319 traditional social theory, 11 Society-as-a-project, 215 Sociological actuality of philosophy, 168 agenda, 160 American Sociological Review, 161, 367, 382, 416 analysis, 13, 156, 176, 349, 377, 379, 395, 403, 431, 432, 435 Anglo-American sociological epochalism, 173 anti-Marxist sociological field, 159 approach(es), xxiii, 60, 65, 82, 83, 135, 208, 285, 301, 313, 323, 348 aristocracy, 162 assumption, xvii, 76 attempts, 65 attention, 319 canonization of sociological thought, 116 categories, 131 classicality, 98

classical sociological narratives, 173 composition of the field of social theorists, 118 constitution, 219 constitution of the world, 219 contemporary sociological analyses of Western conceptions of time, 172 contemporary sociological discourse, 171, 176 cosmopolitanism, 64 critical sociological analysis, 156 critique of German imperialism, 104 data, 245 dimension, 44 discourse(s), 154, 171, 174, 176 dominant sociological conceptualizations, 130 Durkheim’s sociological functionalism, 111 epistemologies, 63, 363 epochalism, 173–175, 415 equivalent, 162 explanation, 109 fields, 158–160, 278 fields of inquiry, 278 framework, 181 general sociological field, 159 general sociological field of ideas, 158 historically oriented sociological studies, 158 historical-sociological critique of classical theory, 157 ‘historical-sociological knowledges’, 157 historico-sociological terms, 110 imagination, 271, 275, 280n8, 360, 383, 401, 411, 412 implications, 108, 181 implications of imperialism, 108 inquiry/inquiries, xv, xx, 131, 208, 220, 253, 263, 276, 277, 301, 350, 356, 358

  Index of Subjects 

International Sociological Association, 62, 367 investigation(s), vii, 157, 206, 220, 302 issues, 226 key sociological oppositions, 117 key sociological problems, 158 lens, 17 mainstream sociological accounts of modernity, 57, 302 mainstream sociological canons, 131 mainstream sociological circles, xix mainstream sociological tradition, 132 mainstream sociological wisdoms, 15 matter, 228 memory, 131 methods, vi, 159 national traditions of sociological research, 169 new sociological epochal labels, 173 point of view, 316 postcolonial critique of mainstream sociological canons, 131 procedures, 33 profession, 162 projects, 31, 276 proletariat, 162 realism, 184 research agendas, xxi, 9, 347 sensibility, 220 significance of connected histories, 60 sociological accounts industrialization, 66 standard sociological approaches, 135 study of history, xix, 346 subfields, 301 theories and methods, 75 theory and research, 4 theory/theories, vi, 4, 75, 85, 117, 305, 353, 361, 367, 369, 375, 377, 382, 395, 422, 427, 430

585

thought, 116, 127, 385 understanding of history, 149 understanding of modernity, 99 understandings, vi, 99, 149, 219 US sociological canon, 127, 133 variable(s), 8, 40, 83, 118, 130, 134, 198, 200, 249, 267, 277, 286, 293, 345 voice, 245 Sociologies/sociology of ability and disability, 264, 278 of absences, 34 academic output, 228 of aesthetics, 264 ‘African American Pioneers of Sociology’, xviii, 127, 345, 424 of age, 278 age of public sociology, 249 The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations (Weber), viii, x, 108, 441 alternative sociology, 286 American Journal of Sociology, 161, 354, 369, 372, 378, 385, 411, 427 Anglo-American sociology, ix, 133, 173 Anglophone sociology, xviii, 117 and anthropology, 79, 268, 417 anti-sociology, 17 applied, policy-oriented sociology, 277 approaches in sociology, 10, 80, 198, 287, 304, 320–324 approach to postcolonial issues, 3 birth of sociology, xv, 5, 344 Black sociology, 131, 293 of the body, 266, 278 both the intellectual autonomy and the institutional identity of sociology, 347, 349 branches of sociology, 3, 80, 161

586 

Index of Subjects

Sociologies/sociology (cont.) British sociology, v, xviii, xix, 116–119, 151–155, 162, 163, 169, 174, 378, 391, 416, 417, 421, 425, 437 British sociology journals, 174 canon formation in British sociology, xviii canon formation in late twentiethcentury British sociology, 116–119 canon formation in modern sociology, xvii, 345 canon formation in sociology, xviii, 116 canonicity and sociology, xvii, 97–125 capable of accounting for the interconnectedness of social actors and social structures across time and space, xv, xxiii, 285, 343, 348 capacity to shape public discourse, 249 the case for sociology, 277–279 of celebrity, 264 challenges faced by sociology, 261, 273 changing relationship between sociology and the growing interdisciplinary area of applied social studies, 213 of childhood, 264 ‘childhood sociology’, 131 of class, 264, 278 of class and stratification, 278 classical and contemporary sociology, 301, 303 classical, canonical, and conventional versions of sociology, 14 ‘classical’ or ‘mainstream’ sociology, 305

classical sociology, vii, x, xiii, xviii, 5, 64, 98, 99, 101, 108, 110, 112, 119, 156, 157, 271, 295, 296, 300–303, 308, 365, 370, 371, 374, 385, 397, 398, 402, 411, 412, 415, 423, 427, 430–432, 435, 437, 439, 442 of communication, 264, 273 of communication and media, 273 comparative historical sociology/ comparative-historical sociology, 61, 83, 84, 301 comparative historical sociology of multiple modernities, 61 Comparative Studies in Society and History, 154, 414 complicity, 10 connected sociology, xvi, 13, 56, 83, 86, 87, 134–137, 298, 299, 360 connectivist conception of sociology, 84 connectivist sociology, xvii, 64, 344 conservative analysists within sociology, 275 conservative sociology, 278 constitution of sociology, 55, 65, 423 construction of a sociology capable of accounting for the interconnectedness of social actors and social structures across time and space, xv, 343 of consumption, 264 contemporary sociology, vi, viii, xvi, xix, 6, 9, 98, 116, 117, 155, 162, 169, 171, 176, 178, 202, 228, 270, 271, 280, 295, 301, 303, 351, 358, 379, 405, 422, 427, 435, 437 conventional sociology, 43, 135 cosmopolitan sociology, 63, 64, 358, 398

  Index of Subjects 

‘counterhegemonic’ approaches in sociology, 320, 324 of crime, 264, 273 of crime and deviance, 264 of crisis, 197, 437 crisis of empirical sociology, 197, 202, 347, 368, 410, 423, 425, 426, 441 crisis of sociology, 197, 202 critical and public sociology, xxii, 255 critical sociology, 12, 15, 140, 163, 184, 185, 264, 294, 318, 319, 329, 350, 369, 373, 396, 424, 433 of critique, xiii, 264, 318, 352, 362, 433 of cults, 86, 264 culturally eclectic and globally spread origins of sociology, 62 cultural sociology, vii, 80, 86, 264, 273, 278, 303, 318, 398, 415, 424, 425, 433, 444 of culture, 80, 85, 264, 273, 318 curricula, 202, 207 cutting-edge sociology, 349 cutting-edge twenty-first-century sociology, xxiii of death and dying, 264 decline of sociology’s contribution to research audits, 228 decolonial sociology, 134 decorative sociology, 152, 165, 422 departments, 118, 261–263, 272–275, 277, 401 of development, 264, 396, 399 development of contemporary sociology, xvi development of sociology, xx, 5, 97, 178, 213, 244, 246, 349 development of sociology as a discipline, 213 developments in twenty-first-century sociology, 285, 348

587

different conceptions of sociology, 253 in the digital age, 207–208 digital sociology, 264, 278 of disability, 131, 264 disciplinarity and sociology, xx, 197–211 disciplinary agenda, xix disciplinary horizon of sociology, 44 disciplinary position of sociology, xxi disciplinary sociology, 312 disciplinary specificity of sociology, 349 as a discipline, xxii, 213, 250, 262 discipline of sociology, ix, 101, 345 discourse of sociology, 77 distinctive sociology, 250 diversification of sociology, 219 dominant disciplinary and conceptual contours of sociology, 82 in the early twenty-first century, 250 and economics, 217 of economics, 318 economic sociology, 263, 264, 273, 278, 303, 318 Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (Weber), 108, 441 ecumenical sociology, 86 of education, 264, 364, 371, 419, 427, 429 elements of sociology, 202 of elites, 264 emancipatory sociology, 34 emergence of sociology as a discipline in the nineteenth century, 250 emergence of the global within sociology, 83 of emergences, 34, 324 of emotions, 264

588 

Index of Subjects

Sociologies/sociology (cont.) empirical sociology, xx, 197, 198, 201–205, 207, 347, 368, 410, 417, 423, 425, 426, 440 engagement, 6 environmental sociology, 264, 278 epistemic canon in sociology, xvii, 97 epistemic comfort zone of sociology, 44 epochalism and sociology, 173–176 essence/surface distinctions in sociology, 152 European sociology, 14, 298, 361, 387, 425 European tradition of sociology, 117 of everyday life, 264 of expectations, 264, 367 explanatory approaches within sociology, 278 faculty positions, 263 ‘false dilemma’ between sociology and philosophy, 168n124 of the family, 266 of fashion, 264 of fear, 264 female sociology, 131 feminist sociology, 278 field of sociology, 160, 162, 174 of food, 264 formation of sociology, 65 forms of sociology, xv, 161, 318, 348 ‘fortunes’ of sociology, 229 ‘founding figures’ of European sociology, 14 founding figures of sociology/‘founding figures’ of sociology, xviii, xix, 97, 98, 163, 302, 303 fragmentation of sociology, x, 219, 349, 415 French sociology, 298 of friendship, 264

of the future, 241, 255n9, 266, 352, 359, 371, 386, 427, 437 future for sociology, 246–247 future of sociology, xv, xxi, 220–232, 241, 244–246, 255n2, 272–276, 347, 351, 353, 356–359, 363, 367, 373, 384, 406 future options for sociology, xxii of gangs, 264 of gender, 264, 265, 278, 372 of gender and sexuality, 265 of genocide, 265 German sociology, 298, 431 German-speaking sociology, 319 global-connectivist sociology, 64 global cosmopolitan sociology, 63 global diversity of sociology, 62 globalist and connectivist approaches in sociology, 304, 321 globalist and connectivist approaches in sociology in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, 304 globalist approaches in sociology, 321 globality and sociology, xvi, 55–74 of globalization, 265, 408 globalization of sociology, 62 globally cosmopolitan sociology, 63 global multicultural sociology, 61, 62 global sociology, xvi, xvii, 10, 21n62, 27, 36, 43, 52n201, 55–57, 59, 63, 75–78, 82–89, 98, 132–133, 293, 295, 322, 344, 360, 366, 367, 417 of groups, 265 of happiness, 265 of health and illness, 265 ‘health’ of sociology, 348 hegemonic influence of Anglophone sociology, xviii, 117 hegemony and sociology, xxi, 241–259

  Index of Subjects 

historical approaches within sociology, 159 historically oriented sociology/ historically-oriented sociology, 158, 159, 161 historical sociology, xix, 61, 67, 83, 84, 101, 109, 110, 112, 120n13, 149–151, 154, 157–162, 164n1, 264, 278, 293, 296, 301–303, 305, 318, 321, 352, 360, 369, 370, 374, 391, 406, 407, 427, 431, 438, 444 historical understanding of sociology, 149 historicist spirit of sociology, 163 historicity and sociology, xix, 149–168 historiography and sociology, 296 of history, 146, 318, 431 history (and futures past), 241 history and sociology, xix, 149, 346, 352, 406 of housework, 265 of human consciousness, 265, 278 and humanity, 246, 247 of human rights, 265 idea of a critical and public sociology, xxii of identity, 265 ideological and institutional boundaries of sociology, 44 of ideology, 265 ‘imagination’ in contemporary sociology, 280n8 of imperialism, 109 increasingly blurred distinction between sociology as a discipline and the interdisciplinary area of applied social studies, 213 indigenization of sociology, 62 of inequality, 265 of innovation, 265 of institutions, 265

589

integrationist conceptions of sociology, 65 intellectual autonomy and institutional identity, 325 intellectual canons in mainstream sociology, xviii, 345 internal fragmentation of sociology, 349 of journalism, 265 Journal of Historical Sociology, 154, 360, 438 key trends, debates, and challenges in twenty-first-century sociology, xv, 343 of kinship, 265 of knowledge, 222, 265, 278, 353, 356, 357, 359, 362, 368, 373, 391, 405, 407, 411, 418, 421, 428 lack of a multicultural approach in sociology, 62 of language, 265 late twentieth-century British sociology, 116–119 of law, 265 of leisure, 265 liberal sociology, 278 of literature, 265 of loneliness, 265 of love, 265 of luck, 265 mainstream British sociology today, 153 mainstream canons of sociology, 286 mainstream sociology, viii, xviii, 3, 67, 128, 133, 178, 293, 305, 345 ‘mainstream sociology’ vs. ‘subaltern sociology’, 293 Marxist sociology, vii, 278 of mass media, 265 of media, 265 of the media, 266

590 

Index of Subjects

Sociologies/sociology (cont.) medical sociology, 264 of medicine, 265 of mental health, 265 meso-level and macro-level sociology, 301 methodological approaches, 207 metropolitan standpoint, 16 micro-sociology, 246 of migration, 265 military sociology, 264 mission, 208 of modernity, 64, 184, 315, 439 modernity and sociology, 82, 178–180 modern sociology, vi, xvii, 44, 345, 384 of money, 265 of music, 265 of nationalism, 265 national traditions of sociology, 151, 158, 169 of nature, 265 nature of sociology, xv, 153 negative perceptions of sociology, xxii negative views of sociology, 275 of news, 265 non-European sociology, 298 normative approaches in sociology, 323 ‘Northern sociology’ vs. ‘Southern sociology’, 293 of nothing, 265 of nursing, 265 of objects, 265 one sociology studying many social worlds, 63 openness of sociology, 218 options for sociology, xxii, 247 organizational sociology and sociology of organizations, 264 orientation of sociology, 252

origins of sociology, viii, 62, 133 of outer space, 265 panel in recent Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercises, 228 parsonian sociology, xx past, present, and possible future developments in sociology, 149 perpetual legitimacy crisis, xxii of personal life, 265 philosophical actuality of sociology, 168n124 philosophical sociology, 278, 371, 434 philosophy and sociology, 162 of place, 265 place of sociology in the social sciences, 216–217 of play, 266 plea for an imaginative, innovative, and pioneering twenty-firstcentury sociology, 349 of policing, 266 political sociology, 127, 263, 264, 273, 278, 301, 303, 318, 375, 410, 434, 435 of politics, 318 pop sociology, 279 postcolonial and decolonial critiques of classical sociology, 302 postcolonial approach to historical sociology, 293 of postcolonialism (or postcoloniality), 318 postcoloniality and sociology, xv, 3–23, 385 postcolonial sociology, ix, xvii, 64–67, 72n88, 132, 319, 344, 360, 361, 374, 385–387, 410, 427 of poverty, 266 presentism and sociology, 151–158 of professions, 266 project of sociology, xix, 17, 231, 346

  Index of Subjects 

prominent currents in sociology, 202 pro-sociology, 17 prospects in the twenty-first century, 348 public mission, 276 public role of sociology, 249 public sociology, xxii, 248, 249, 254, 255, 258n53, 352, 367, 368, 400 of punishment, 266 pursuit of sociology, 67 of race and ethnicity, 118, 266, 278 of race and racism, 266 ‘radical’ conception of sociology, 83, 84 raison d’être, 279 reflexive sociology, xiii, 219, 364–366, 431 ‘reformist’ conception of sociology, 83, 84 of regulation, 266 of religion, 266, 278, 364 of reproduction, 266 research directions in sociology, 98 resources of sociology, 207, 208 responsibility, 255 rise and demise of empirical sociology, 201–205 rise of sociology, 99–101 the rise of sociology and the rise of imperialism, 99–101, 344 of risk, 266, 378 roots of sociology, 98 rural sociology, 264 of science, 266, 411 of science and technology, 278 segregationist sociology, 132–133 of the self and human interactions, 273 self-aware and historically-sensitive sociology, 155 as a self-legislating academic discipline, 202

591

self-understanding of sociology, 83 of the senses, 266 of sexuality, 131, 266 of social change, 266 of social media, 266 of social movements, 266 a sociology capable of accounting for the interconnectedness of social actors and social structures across time and space, xv, xxiii, 285, 343, 348 ‘sociology of disability’, 131, 264 a sociology that is ‘open to different voices’, 64 of space, 266, 428 of sport, 266 standard versions of sociology, 308 state of sociology, xxii state of sociology in the second part of the twentieth century, 261 state of sociology in the twenty-first century, 261, 348 status of sociology, 261, 401 status of traditional research methods in sociology, xx, 198 of stigma, 266 students, 263, 279 study of sociology, xv, 343, 430 sub-fields of sociology, 13 subversion of sociology as a discipline, 213 subversive power of sociology, 253 success story, 118 of suffering, 266 system of practices, 77 task of reconstructing sociology, 64 of terrorism, 266 textbooks, 56 thematic richness of sociology, 267 of time, 266, 392 ‘traditional’ methods, 207 of translation, 266

592 

Index of Subjects

Sociologies/sociology (cont.) in the twenty-first century, x, 261, 348, 349 twenty-first-century sociology, xv, xxiii, 285, 343, 348, 349 of uncertainty, 266 of unemployment, 266 of urban life, 266 urban sociology, 267 US-American sociology, 127 US sociology, 127, 130, 133, 159, 360, 385 of valuation and evaluation, 266, 403 of values, 266 of violence, 266 vitalist sociology, 278 of voting, 266 of vulnerability, 266 of war, 266 of water, 266 Weber’s historical sociology, 109, 110, 112 Western sociology, viii, 16, 295, 386 ‘white sociology’ vs. ‘black sociology’, 293 wings of sociology, 161 without a normative mission, 249 of work, 266 working-class sociology, 131 work of translation, 34 of youth, 267 Socio/socioSocioanalysis, 366 socio-constructivist, 28, 231 sociocultural, 36, 109 socioculturally, 177 sociodemographic, 204 socioeconomic, xxii, 130, 131, 244, 347 socioeconomically, 201, 242, 243 socio-epistemic, xviii, 17, 18, 298 socio-ethical, 363 sociogenesis, 443

sociogenetic, 377 sociohistorical, 16, 34, 56, 68, 104, 114, 115, 156, 163, 176, 184, 299, 300, 319, 439 sociohistorically, 36, 172, 219 socio-legal, 118, 152 socio-ontological, 16, 77, 134, 181, 183, 199, 304, 317 socioperspectival, 38 socio-philosophical, 433 sociopolitical, 61, 127, 139, 155 socio-pragmatic, 434 socio-structural, 245 socio-theology, 442 Solidarité mécanique versus solidarité organique, 173 Solidarity, 111, 114, 130, 186, 229, 242, 247, 254, 323, 369, 407, 420 Solidity intellectual solidity, 153 Solution(s), vi, 17, 36, 65, 221, 226, 270, 273, 348 South Africa, 123n124, 415 Sovereign(s) new sovereign, self-sufficient, and prosperous societies, 5 non-sovereign futures, 362 political sovereigns, 102 sovereign subjects, 28, 100 Sovereignty external sovereignty, 105 internal sovereignty, 105 lack of sovereignty, 227 national sovereignty, 105 postcolonial sovereignty, 352 subjective sovereignty, 28 Sozialismus/Kommunismus, 173 Soziologie deutschsprachige Soziologie, 319 geschichtliche Soziologie, 319 Geschichtssoziologie, 319 Kritiksoziologie, 319

  Index of Subjects 

kritische Soziologie, 319 kulturelle Soziologie, 319 Kultursoziologie, 319 Politiksoziologie, 319 politische Soziologie, 319 wirtschaftliche Soziologie, 319 Wirtschaftssoziologie, 319 Space(s), xv, xxiii, 3, 14, 23n116, 30, 31, 37, 42, 62, 131, 172, 216, 221, 222, 226, 229, 231, 244, 248, 253, 265, 266, 285, 296, 300, 304, 318, 325, 343, 348, 353, 392, 402, 404, 422, 423, 428, 432 Spain, 88, 107, 288, 291, 297 Spanish, 68, 175, 215, 290 Species, 34, 81, 177, 279, 350 human species, 81, 177 Species-constitutive, 16, 115, 199, 247, 279, 291, 317, 350 Species-distinctive, 292 Spirit(s) anti-elitist spirit, 68 critical spirit, 275–277, 312, 433 disciplinary spirit, 271 Eurocentric spirit, 64 historicist spirit, xix, 163, 346 inquisitive spirit, 296 intellectual spirit, 215 normative spirit, 279 open spirit of discovery, inquiry, and scrutiny, 274 pioneering spirit, 152 power-critical spirit, 275 reflexive spirit, 155 spirit of capitalism, 109, 441 spirit of epistemic imperialism, 5 the spirit of Luc Boltanski, xiii, 352, 433 ‘spirit of the time’, 248 spirit world, 42 Spiritual, 42 Sprachanschauung, 151

593

Stability instability, v, vii, 31 institutional stability, 161 point of stability, 170 social stability, 182 Stagism, xix, 163, 346 Standardizable assets, 330 Standardization destandardization, 86 dogmatization, standardization, and normalization of conceptual and methodological toolkits, 131 processes, 327 processes of standardization, 327 Standardized criteria, 327 explanations of social change, 100 versions of neoliberal governmentality, 327 Standard(s) academic standards, 230 consolidation of standards, rules, and principles, 86 elevated standards of methodological expertise, 207 expectations in the metrics-driven academia promoted by marketoriented governments in neoliberal societies, 269 fare, 305 format, 327 forms, 326, 327, 329, 330, 340n182 higher standards of environmental protection and growing ecological awareness around the globe, 243 level of survey participation, 203 maintenance of standards, 129 methodology of ideal types, 84 narratives, 67, 86, 139, 180 normative standards, 34 notions of modernity, 40

594 

Index of Subjects

Standard(s) (cont.) objective, normative, and subjective standards for the description, analysis, and assessment of sociohistorical developments, 114 the (by now, almost standard) requirement of interdisciplinarity, 221 rising standards of living, 243 social science, 38 sociological accounts, 66 sociological approaches, 135 social-scientific standards of conceptual, methodological, empirical, and ethical rigour, 204 standards of state-of-the-art social science, 204 traditions, conventions, standards, and culturally codified reference points, 150 versions of sociology, 308 State(s) absolutist states, 105, 354 active implementation of economic policies, 251 of ‘authenticity’, 321 authoritarian state, 412 city-state, 110, 391 colonial state, 105, 297, 430 communism, 87 complex relationship between modern empires and nationstates, 331n9 concept of the state, 376 control, 104, 251 co-operating states, 100 deliberative civic role of the state, 105 of the discipline, xxii, 348, 353 double assault from economy and state, 251 empire-state, 385 engagement in warfare, 105

European and Anglo-American states, 4 European imperial states, 113 European states(s), 13, 66, 88, 297, 307, 436 external sovereignty, 105 of flux, 30, 102, 173, 182, 219, 225, 428 French state, 15 functionalist logic of the state and the market, 215 German state, 106 Greek city-states, 110 hegemonic role of the state and the market in neoliberal societies, xxii history of European states, 13, 307 imperial city-state, 391 imperial or despotic state, 111 imperial states, 36, 42, 66, 88, 99, 100, 102, 107, 113 internal sovereignty, 105 intervention, 248, 251 interventionism and protectionism, 251 interventionist state, 254 of law, 109 against the market, 247 against markets, 418 military function of the state, 105 military role of the state, 105 modern state, 106, 247 nation-states, 5, 12, 43, 66, 68, 81, 88, 101, 104, 106, 108, 127, 128, 180, 184, 185, 203, 206, 251–254, 287, 288, 295, 310, 327, 331n9, 366, 370, 371, 402, 407, 411, 421, 442 neoliberal states, 250 of our discipline, 417 of play, 159 players, 101, 103 political state, 251 postcolonial states, 5

  Index of Subjects 

post-Fordist state, 362 power, 108, 251 powerful metropolitan states, 13, 307 powerful states, 4 regulation, 250 socialism, 87, 174, 175 and social revolutions, 428 the state and the market, xxii, 215, 216, 220, 247, 248, 254 the state as an instrument of damage containment, 248 state-controlled regulation, 251 state-induced managerialization, xxii, 255, 348 state-managed financial and infrastructural resources, 214 state of an entire academic discipline, 313 the state of sociology, xxii, 261, 348 state-of-the-art social science, 204 the state of the discipline, xxii, 348, 353 the state’s bold and proactive involvement in the spread of modern colonialism, 107 state-socialist countries, 178, 180 and their citizens, 66, 310 Unites States of America (USA), ix, 4, 127, 128, 130–133, 159–161, 175, 252, 291, 352, 360, 384, 385, 432 Western nation-states, 43, 66 of the world, 247 Status, vi, vii, xviii, xx, xxii, 7, 26, 27, 69, 77, 78, 88, 97, 101, 104, 109, 116, 117, 131, 138, 149, 154, 159, 160, 162, 164n1, 197, 198, 215, 216, 219, 228, 231, 246, 248, 261, 262, 271, 290, 294, 307, 317, 323, 328, 347, 401, 422 Stigma, 162, 266, 272

595

Straitjacket(s) behavioural, ideological, and institutional straitjackets, 8 conceptual and methodological straitjackets, 10 conceptual straitjackets of modern social science, 322 epistemic straitjackets of mainstream academic disciplines, 17 ethnocentric straitjacket of mainstream social science, 83 ethnocentric straitjacket of Orientalist discourses, 28 ethnocentric straitjacket of ‘Western’ mainstream social science, 291 ethnocentric straitjackets, 38, 179 ethnocentric straitjackets of Occidentalist modes of functioning, 38 Eurocentric straitjacket, 136 stifling straitjacket of ‘hierarchical dichotomy’, 43 straitjacket of the nation-state, 295 Strategic aim, 180 Bismarck’s strategic approach, 106 choice, 329 creation of economic value, 328 geostrategic, 288, 297, 309 geostrategic interests, 309 management, 367 responses, 273 target, 253 Strategically, 78, 216, 277 Strategies/strategy as-practice research, 377 citation-maximizing strategies, 268 development of market strategies in the private sector of the economy, xx funding strategy, 221 legitimization strategy, 169 means and strategy/ies, 7, 323

596 

Index of Subjects

Strategies/strategy (cont.) methodological strategy/ies, xvii, 37, 81, 85, 97, 198, 202, 222, 227, 228, 249, 263, 270, 276, 290, 301, 345 methodological strategy of ‘provincializing’ Europe by deconstructing its epistemic claims to universality, xvii, 345 Mignolo’s methodological strategy, 37 networking strategies, 270 range of research techniques and strategies available to sociologists, 245 research strategies, 246 ruling class strategies, 407 socialist strategy, 403 strategies of recognition, divulgation, and circulation, 215 Structural agential and structural forces, 229, 328 agential or structural, 230 changes, 111 complexity, 183, 287 connections, 307 determinacy, 150 determinants, 152 disparities, 40 dynamics, 185 forces, 11, 229, 272, 328 forms of agency, 11 inequalities, 9 influence, 198 infrastructural powers, 180 and institutional foundations, 112 interplay of agential and structural forces in the social world, 229 mechanisms, 249 patterns, 76, 176 patterns of stratification, 76 processual and structural interconnectedness, 321

socio-structural circumstances, 245 structural-functional differentiation, 181, 183 structural-functionalist, 159 transformation, 389 trend, 273 Structuralism, 44, 278, 363 Structuralist, 77, 208 Structuration, 355, 377, 427 intersectional structuration, 41 Structure(s) Agency, 355, 403, 440 and agency, 375, 377, 401, 414, 427, 442 argumentative structures, 415 base-and-superstructure, 391 causal power of social structures, 377 hegemonic processes and structures of knowledge production, xviii, 336 hegemonic processes and structures of knowledge production, circulation, and consumption, 346 hierarchical management structures, 214 human practices and social structures, xvii, 31, 82, 228 ideological superstructure, 102 imperialist power structures, 308 imperial structures, 127 infrastructure, 61, 107, 111 infrastructure of the social sciences, 170 institutional structures, 45, 245, 254 intellectual structures, 117 interconnectedness of social actors and social structures across time and space, xv, xxiii, 285, 343, 348 mainstream institutional structures, 254 material and ideological infrastructures, 61

  Index of Subjects 

non-European actors and structures, 67 political, cultural, and economic infrastructure, 107 political superstructure, 111 positional structures, 29, 317 power structures, 36, 43, 132, 225, 291, 294, 308 practices and structures, 40, 57, 59, 68, 83, 88, 98, 104, 163, 274, 277, 294, 298, 311, 321, 325, 327, 328, 346, 347 practices and structures of domination, oppression, subjugation, and exploitation, 130 practices and structures of exclusivity, 127 practices and structures of exploitation, oppression, and domination, 7 practices, structures, and traditions, 287 research practices and structures, 327, 328 of social action, 416 social actors and social structures, xv, xxiii, 133, 285, 343, 348 social and political structure of modernity, 56 social infrastructure, 111 social norms, structures, and values, 17 social practices and structures, 163, 321, 346 social science research infrastructure, 170 social structures, vi, xv, xvii, xxiii, 31, 56, 82, 133, 181, 228, 243, 246, 285, 343, 348, 354, 365, 377, 391, 407, 408 social structures of the economy, 365 societal practices and structures, 40

597

sociology of structure, sociology as structure (Holmwood and Meer), 395 sociopolitical or economic structures of modernity, 61 structure of scientific revolutions (Kuhn), vii, x, 402 structures and practices of colonial governance, 311 structures beyond domination, 324 structures of domination, 83, 86, 130 superstructure, 102, 111, 391 symbolically mediated practices and structures, 59 theory of structure, 427 transnational structures of domination, 5 units or structures, 182 Structure(s) asymmetrical power structures, 132, 291, 294 confluence of globally interconnected practices and structures, 68 confluence of human practices and social structures, xvii confluence of intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary practices and structures in managerialized forms of academia, 347 control of structures of social authority, 36 culturally variable and asymmetrically organized practices, structures, and arrangements, 11 disciplinary structure of knowledge production, 59 disciplinary structures, 59, 218 discriminatory structures, 139 division of a unit or structure in a social system, 182

598 

Index of Subjects

Structure(s) (cont.) egalitarian social structures, 243 ensembles of practices and structures, 57 epistemic processes and structures, 220, 288, 289 global epistemic processes and structures, 220 globally interconnected practices and structures, 68 hegemonic practices and structures, 294 Structured ‘a structured and structuring horizon of unavoidable, predictable, progressive, directional, and universal developments’, 151 asymmetrically structured, 8, 58, 63, 83, 134, 225, 230, 275, 294 asymmetrically structured constellation, 56 asymmetrically structured forms of individual and collective agency, 63 asymmetrically structured modes of production, distribution, circulation, and consumption of goods and services, 134 asymmetrically structured power relations, 225, 275 asymmetrically structured practices, 230 asymmetrically structured realms of institutionalized and professionalized knowledge production, 294 asymmetrically structured relations established between individual and collective actors, 8 asymmetrically structured social relations, 83 communicatively structured lifeworlds, 38

competitively structured research and education, 277 democratically structured public spheres, 271 interest, 364 intersectionally structured, 140 network of socially structured situations, 182 normatively structured, 177 unequally, 78 Structuring racialized structuring of the social world, 134 restructuring, 262, 297, 360 structured and structuring, 151 structuring of the field, 160 Struggle(s) for access to material, symbolic, reputational, and financial resources, 155 within ‘a Northern container’, 132 anticolonial struggles, 309 class struggle, 444 colonial struggles, 88 competitive struggles oriented towards the pursuit of symbolic, economic, and financial capital, 215 decolonial struggles, 36, 37, 40, 43 of decolonization, 133 endless personal, reputational, and ideological struggles, 274 for equality and freedom, 322 for global influence, 105 global struggle for democracy, 385 global struggles, 9, 12, 17 for a humane society, 400 incessant struggle between hegemonic and counterhegemonic forces, 241 local and global struggles, 12, 17 local and global struggles for epistemic influence and recognition, 17

  Index of Subjects 

for (and against) misrecognition, 306 of the nations with each other, 108 ongoing struggle between dominant and subaltern forms of agency, 322 oriented towards both individual and collective forms of human liberation, 43 over historical and social meaning, 27 over social legitimacy, 305 power struggles, 232, 377 for recognition, 396 for (and against) recognition, 306 for the re-empowerment of the colonized, 42 rights, struggle and class inequality, 356 scientific power struggles, 232 for social justice and struggles for cognitive justice, 33 for the soul of science, 383 tension-laden struggle, 63 Style of thought, 171 Subcanons and sub-canons, 301 citizen, 31 and cross-disciplinary, 278 currents, 314 de-and/or sub-humanization, 36 disciplinary, 45, 217, 306, 320, 327, 328 discipline(s), 118, 119, 154, 161, 162, 219, 228, 263, 349 field(s), xix, 13, 17, 69, 118, 158, 160, 161, 219, 301, 326, 349 human, 31 major, 99 ontological, 28 subject/agent, 41 Subaltern agency, 11–13, 66, 325

599

dominated-including subalterngroups, 295 forces, 12 forms of agency, 67, 322 historiography, 68 knowledge(s), 288, 411 or postslavery narratives, 30 scholars, 291 sociology, 293 studies, ix, xvii, 13, 30, 67–69, 290, 344, 370, 387 subject, 12, 27, 30, 36, 325 subjectivities, 36 Subaltern (‘the subaltern’) ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ (Spivak), 27, 421, 430, 444 ‘the periphery of the subaltern’, 63 Subalterneity, 30 Subalternized, 36 Subject(s), academic subject(s) ‘difficult subjects’, 272 ‘easy subject’, 272 exporter subjects, 213, 216, 218 hierarchy of knowledges between exporter and importer subjects, 218 importer subjects, 213, 216, 218 interdisciplinary subjects, 216–217 knowledge-generating subjects, 230 niche subject, 13 ‘strong’ and relatively self-referential subjects, 216 subject area(s), 216, 217, 270, 273, 277 subject-specific panels, 269 Subject(s), actor-subjects abstract macro-historical evolutionary subject, 38 colonized and postcolonial subjects, 11 colonized subjects, 10 concept of ‘the subject’, 28 the concept of ‘the Subject’, 28

600 

Index of Subjects

Subject(s), actor-subjects (cont.) the decentering of the subject, 27 formation of subjects, 29 human subject(s), 10, 11, 30, 31, 40, 89, 232, 431 modern subject(s), 138, 139 morality and the subject, 401 nonelite subjects, 13, 301 philosophy of the subject, 388 rational subject, 12 separation between ruler and subjects, 108 sovereign subject, 28, 100 subaltern subject(s), 12, 27, 30, 36, 325 subject/agent, 41 subject and object, 79 subject capable of speech, action, self-justification, reflection, and reasoning, 138 subject of knowledge, 28 the subject of the West, 28 a subject possessing qualities of a ‘proper citizen’, 138 subjects capable of liberating themselves, 100 subjects capable of speech and action, 31 the subject’s external mode of self-formation, 29 a subject’s interest, 29, 316 the subject’s internal mode of self-formation, 29 subjects who refuse selfalienation, 139 sub-subject/sub-agent, 41 Third World subject, 27, 28 the West as Subject, 28 Western efforts (and failures) to problematize the subject, 27 Western subject, 28 Subject-centered reason, 388 Subject creation, 29

Subject-effects, 28 Subjective characterized as subjective, 177 combination of objective, normative, and subjective factors, 224, 275 confluence of objective, normative, and subjective dimensions, 244 epistemic claims to objective, normative, and/or subjective validity, 315 objective, normative, and subjective dimensions, xx, 192n87, 244, 275, 277, 334n65, 339n160 objective, normative, and subjective engagements, 349 objective, normative, and subjective standards, 114 ‘objective’ vs. ‘subjective’, 41, 117 relationship between objective, normative, and subjective dimensions, 192n87, 334n65, 339n65 relationship between (i) objective (ii) normative, and (iii) subjective dimensions, 177 sovereignty, 28 tripartite differentiation between (a) objective (b) normative, and (c) subjective levels of human existence, 317 unconditional subjective freedom, 34 world, 318 Subjectivism, 14 Subjectivist, 413 Subjectivity/ies, 36, 42, 77, 129, 139, 232, 300, 318, 350, 375, 379, 381, 389, 392, 398, 429, 430 Subject matter, 421 Subject peoples, 14, 308 Subject-specific realms of inquiry, 221

  Index of Subjects 

Subject(s), subject(s) of discussion of contention, 14 of controversy, 169, 261 of debate, 347 of dispute, 314 of knowledge, 28 Subversion, 98, 213, 279, 368 Subversive complicity, 294 forms, 38 power, 253–255 practices, 155 resignification, 27 sense, 77 and transformative, 223 variants, 17 Success, viii, xxii, 39, 118, 180, 215, 227, 245, 326 Successors, 108, 110 Success story, 118, 180 Superior, 8, 14, 17, 32, 55, 104, 106, 115, 152, 182, 202, 287 Superiority, 36, 37, 84, 129, 162, 178, 179, 289 Superiorization, 56, 286, 288, 293, 316 between inferiorization and superiorization, 316 Superiorized/superiorizes, 13 Superstructural, 254 Superstructure the ‘base-and-superstructure’ metaphor, 391 ideological superstructure, 102 political superstructure, 111 Surface(s) essence/surface distinctions, 152 surface level, 152 Survey(s) data, 205 participation, 203 participation practices, 203 publicly financed surveys, 204 research, 204, 205

601

sample survey(s), 177, 187n5, 198, 202, 203, 205, 206, 356, 375, 431 sample survey methods, 177 social surveys, 201, 210n30 statisticians, 203 [t]he survey, 203 Suspicion(s), 80, 88, 303 postcolonial and decolonial suspicions, 303 Sweden, 297, 378 Symbolic/symbolically and/or economic capital, 227 authority, 177, 178 capital, 160, 217, 365 construction, 57, 136, 203 economic, and financial capital, 215 forces, 39 goods, 318 and informational resources, 232 interactionism, vii, 276, 278 material and symbolic boundaries, 88 material and symbolic construction, 136, 203 material and symbolic ‘domination of the “other”’, 27 material and symbolic facets, 16 material and symbolic inequality, 63 material and symbolic processes, 113 material and symbolic re-empowerment, 12 material and symbolic resources, 10, 40, 129, 138, 294, 317, 323, 325 material, and territorial resources, 36 materially anchored and symbolically mediated forms of interaction, 30 material, symbolic, reputational, and financial profits, 162, 216, 329 mediated, 30, 279, 319, 350 mediated and materially situated, 36 mediated horizons, 16

602 

Index of Subjects

Symbolic/symbolically (cont.) mediated interactions, 11, 232 mediated practices and structures, 59 mediated representation of reality, 319 power, 250, 364, 435, 439 prison of semantic immanence, 276 resources, 10, 40, 129, 138, 294, 317, 323, 325 stratified landscapes, 38 value(s), 278, 327–329 value creation, 278 System(s) alternative system, 182 belief systems, 150 benchmark systems of metricsoriented assessments, 154, 328 ‘chasm between “pre-modern” and “modern” social systems’, 157 coherent systems of ideas and ideals, 319 collegial system, 215 colonial education system, 68 colonial gender system, 42 colonial/modern gender system, 405 ‘complex interaction of economic, racializing, and gendering systems’, 43 complex systems, 132, 371 cultural statements and systems, 31 dependency and world-systems theories, 9 dependency, world-systems, and postcolonial theories, 9 deregulated production systems, 259n73 discriminatory social system, 139 distinction between ‘social integration’ and ‘system integration’, 193n108 economic system, 253 education systems, 68, 213, 214

exploitative system, 87 formal systems of colonialism and empire, 127 global system, 4, 382, 428 global systems of domination, 36 hegemonic systems and ideologies, 276 hegemonic systems of domination, 254 higher education systems in Western countries, 213 imperialist and neoimperialist systems of domination, 81 industrial systems research, 351 institutional systems, 60 integration, 181, 185, 193n108 international system, 100 knowledge systems, 415 large-scale system integration, 185 lifeworld and system, 388 between life-world and system, 392 major political ideologies and systems, 7 marketized university system, 218 mass-based system, 214 modern world-system, 424, 439, 440 national systems, 100, 378 neomanagerialist system, 226 old collegial system, 215 overarching system, 182 overemphasis of system, 181 paradigm, 410 politico-economic system, 230 processes and systems, 67 of professions, 351 religious value systems, 36 reproduction of social systems, 181 social system(s), vii, 38, 139, 158, 181, 182, 417 sociology’s system of practices, 77 sociopolitical system, 139 in a state of flux, 428

  Index of Subjects 

swipe system, 206 system-building, 14, 207, 313–314, 317 between system-building and system-demolition, 313–314 system-demolition, 313–314 the system of modern societies, 416 systems of domination, 36, 81, 83, 86, 132, 254 systems of thought, 45 systems theory, vii, viii, 278 transactional information systems, 441 triumphant economic system, 253 uncoupling of system and lifeworld, 388 university systems in ‘the West’, 215 utility-driven social systems, 38 Western educational systems, 214 world-systems analysis, 9, 355, 440 world-systems theory, 9, 20n55, 39, 320, 333n50, 400, 429 Systemic Antisystemic, 355 colonization, 229, 329 competition between socialism and liberalism, 7 complexity, 182 forces, 247–249 framework, 180 imperatives, 220, 229, 329, 330 imperatives of neoliberalism, 229 neglect or absence of imperial dynamics, 101 objective of profit maximization, 214 processes of inclusion and exclusion, 182 ‘systemic’ vs. ‘social’, 185 unparalleled degrees of systemicnotably large-scale administrativecomplexity, 100 Systemically, 181

603

T

Taipei, 62 Taken-for-grantedness, 83, 98, 134, 155, 248, 277 Target(s) clearly defined targets, 245 metrics-driven targets, 226, 228, 229, 327 performance targets, 327 proxy targets, 215 strategic target, 253 Target-driven, 215 Targeted, 262, 272 Target-specific, 155 Taste (aesthetics), 314 Technological change(s), 207, 312 development(s), 7, 202 forces, 11 politics, 412 superiority, 178 Technologically, 115 advanced societies, xx, 198, 200, 202, 205 Technologies/technology advanced digital technologies, vi, xx, 347 biotechnology, 382 digital technologies, vi, xx, 198, 206, 347 information and communications technologies, 386 information technology, 371 interactive technologies, 400 science and technology, 266, 278, 427 science and technology studies, 312 sociology of science and technology, 266, 278 Technosystem, 198, 379, 397, 418, 422, 434

604 

Index of Subjects

Teleological idea, 38 metanarratives, 173 narratives, 346 Western-centric teleological conception of history, 32 Teleologically determined history, 12 oriented, 85 Teleologies/teleology evolutionary teleologies, 345 historical teleology, 85 Teleologism critique of teleologism, 305 Temporalities/temporality conceptual accounts of temporality, 172 critical history of temporality, 397 disruptive temporality, 31 empirical accounts of temporality, xx, 172 and the future, 244 and genealogy, 402 how things shape temporality, 361 incongruity between theoretical and empirical accounts of temporality, xx late-modern temporality, 422 social temporalities, 439 within a sociological context, 356 theorization of temporality, 172 time and temporality in the network society, 392 Territorial assaults upon Africa and Asia, 4 dispossession, appropriation, and usurpation, 84 expansion, 136 organization of foreign lands and regions, 4 resources, 36 Territoriality, 411 Territorially, 32, 56, 298

Tertiary sector, 173 Testability, 245 Textual, 9, 59 Thailand, 123n126 Theoretical analysis of reality, 197 complexity, 172 conceptual, theoretical, and methodological degrees of sophistication, 199 constitution of sociological ideal types, 423 critical-theoretical perspectives, 30 debates, xviii discrepancy between theoretical sophistication and empirical simplification, 172 empirical, and historical dimensions, 78 and empirical investigations, 411 focus, 216 frameworks, 172, 207, 263, 290 incongruity between theoretical and empirical accounts of temporality, xx insightfulness, 202 issues, 202 methodological, and empirical foci, 253 and methodological orientations and practices of the social sciences, 77 objections, 374 positions, 161 and practical constructions of collective historical imaginaries, 39 and practical implications, 286, 349 and practical problems, 226 and practical tools, 169 social-theoretical, 400 sociology, 437 system-building, 317 task of uncovering, 134

  Index of Subjects 

theoretical account(s), 190n41, 223 ‘theoretical’ and ‘empirical’ dimensions, 207 ‘theoretical’ vs. ‘practical’, 117 Theoretically, 27, 118, 129, 186, 207, 220 Theorization, 172 Theorizing, 31, 313, 358, 405, 406, 413, 420, 435, 439 Theory/ies abstract social theory, 313 actor-network theory/actor network theory, 377, 404 anthropological theory, 384 any kind of theory, 319 ‘asocial theory’, 319 -based, 117 Bourdieu’s field theory, 194n144, 340n190 British social theory, 164n20, 398, 426 of capitalist regulation, 352 of change, 399 of civilizational development, 111 classical modernization theories, 302 classical social theory, 373 classical sociological theory, 369, 422 classical theory, 157, 372 co-deterministic theories of structure and agency, 375 of colonialism, 366 of communicative action, 176, 383, 388, 390 complexity theory, 172 conflict theory, 302, 372 consensus theory of truth, 379 contemporary social, xx, 14, 15, 39, 151, 155–157, 163, 198, 245, 246, 293, 295 contemporary social and political theory, 356 conventional modernization theories, 60

605

critical modernist Euro-theory, 38 critical race theory, 302, 369, 426 critical social theory, 372, 374, 396 critical theory/ies, 6, 16, 276, 302, 305, 313, 317, 318, 353, 356, 358, 360, 377, 384, 388, 392, 396, 401, 405, 409, 413, 416, 420, 422, 431, 432, 434 critical theory of society, 313, 318, 388 dependency and world-systems theories, 9, 429 dependency theory/ies, 9, 20n55, 32, 83, 384, 426, 427, 435 dependency, world-systems, and postcolonial theories, 9 of development, 371, 403, 428 of discourse, 436 economic theories of imperialism, 103 emancipatory theory, 354 feminist theory, 118, 368, 442 field of social theory, xviii, 118 future of social theory, 241, 255n5, 383 general theory, 351, 369, 417 general theory of Third World development, 351 of globalization, 355, 377 global theory of intellectual change, 372 hermeneutic theory, 374 historically specific theory, 369 of ideology, 372 of imperialism, 103, 366, 378, 400, 412, 414, 424, 427 inclusive social theory, 32 of industrial modernization & development, 351 intersectional and postcolonial feminist theories, 401 of inversionary discourse, 354 of justice, 355, 420

606 

Index of Subjects

Theory/ies (cont.) Marxist literary theory, 376 Marxist theory of ideology, 372 and method, vi, 75, 351 methodologies and methods, 77 of modernity, 176 modernization theory/ies, 9, 20n51, 60, 83, 159, 178, 302, 355, 361, 381 modern social theory, 10, 384, 422 of multiculturalism, 373 of multiple modernities, 61, 83, 381 new theories, 402, 436 ‘non-social theory’, 319 of pluralized ‘subject-effects’, 28 political theory, 353, 356, 360, 371, 384, 406, 418, 421, 423, 428 postcolonial and decolonial theories, 289 postcolonial theory/ies, 3, 9, 14, 16, 23n116, 26, 30, 31, 383, 402, 410, 439 postmodern social theory, 361, 413, 429 and practice, 225, 355, 382, 389, 429 of practice, 362, 363, 374 of recognition, 176 reconstructing social theory, 373, 393, 416, 433 and research, 4, 355, 364 ‘research without theory is blind, and theory without research is empty’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant), 117 of risk society, 176 social theories of history, 373 social theory, xviii, 10, 11, 14, 32, 33, 39, 67, 76, 118, 152, 164n20, 241, 244, 255n4, 255n5, 263, 269, 273, 286, 301, 313, 319, 321, 351, 352, 354, 356, 360, 361, 363, 367, 368,

370, 372–374, 376, 379–387, 392, 393, 395, 396, 398, 400–402, 404, 407, 410, 415–417, 419, 420, 422–424, 426–437, 439, 441–443 social theory’s history, 241, 255n4 of society, 313, 318, 319, 388 sociological theories and methods, 75 sociological theory and research, 4 sociological theory/ies, vi, 4, 75, 85, 117, 305, 353, 361, 367, 369, 375, 377, 382, 395, 422, 427, 430 Southern theory, viii, x, 31, 132, 372 structural-functionalist and modernization theories, 159 of structuration, 355 systems theory, vii, viii, 39, 278, 320 time and social theory, 351 traditional social theory, 11 traveling theory, 366 underdevelopment theories, 83 Western-centric critical theory, 16 ‘Western theory’, 315 ‘white theory boys’, xviii, 32, 98, 118 ‘white-theory-boys syndrome’, xviii, 32, 98, 118 world-systems theory, 9, 20n55, 39, 320, 333n50, 400, 429 These versus Antithese, 173 Thinking alternative ways of thinking, 12, 325 critical and imaginative modes of thinking, 278 decolonial thinking, 134 historical thinking, 163 ‘metropole’-centered thinking, 23n116 modern, colonial, capitalist thinking, 40

  Index of Subjects 

Northern thinking, 315 possibility of thinking, 254 speculative epochal thinking, 170 urban-centered thinking, 23n116 Third Space (Bhabha), 30 Third World First-Third worlds, 44 Third-World-centrism, 179 Third-World countries, 178 Third-World development, 178, 351 Third-World subject, 27, 28 Third-Worldist proposals, 179 Thought(s) alternative traditions of thought, 128 Bourdieusian thought, 433 corpus of thought, 159 cosmopolitan social thought, 392 critical thought, 323, 439 current of thought, xvii, 9, 25, 60, 63, 161, 246, 302, 304, 306 decolonial thought, 132, 440 dominant modes of thought, 40 economic thought, 420 epochalist modes of social thought, 169 European Enlightenment thought, 130 European social and political thought, 64 European thought, 80, 314 form of thought, 23n116 Habermasian thought, 431 Hegelian thought, 159 independent thought, 411 intellectual thought, 11, 14, 31, 39, 43, 100, 176, 304, 321, 356 interpretivist and perspectivist currents of thought, 246 mainstream intellectual thought, 31, 43 mainstream social and political thought, 137

607

Marxist thought, 363, 403, 406 modern intellectual thought, 11, 14, 100 modern political thought, 423 modern social and political thought, 21n65, 316 modern social thought, 413 national traditions of intellectual thought, 176 non-scientific modes of thought, 179 non-Western currents of thought, 304 philosophical thoughts, 395 postcolonial and decolonial modes of thought, 322 postcolonial thought, 7, 8, 370, 385, 398 and practice, 441 [r]acialized forms of thought, 7 radical Caribbean social thought, 420 school of thought, 328 social and political thought, 21n65, 28, 64, 137, 256n20, 316, 432 social science thought, 18 social thought, 169, 359, 392, 393, 413, 420, 424 sociological thought, 116, 127, 385 style of thought, 171 systems of thought, 45 traditions of thought, xvi, 6, 27, 67, 128, 306, 322, 341 universalist thought, 315 Western canons of thought, 322 Western European intellectual thought, 322 Western intellectual thought, 304 Western social and political thought, 28 Western thought, 304 Thought experiments, 76

608 

Index of Subjects

Time across time, 159 across time and space, xv, xxiii, 285, 296, 343, 348 conceptions of time, 172 concept of time, 393 in contemporary intellectual thought, 356 contemporary understandings and regulations of time, 172 ‘dissolves time by disordering the sequence of events and making them simultaneous’, 171 of empire, 402 historical time, 12, 435 homogeneous, serial time, 31 of insecurity, 412 ‘linear conceptions of “empty, homogeneous” time’ (Savage), 172 Matters, 351 modernity, critique, 439 objects of time, 361 of our lives, 397 philosophy of time, 356, 369, 404 problematizations of time, 172 problem of time, 352 pulse of time, 219 self and social being, 356 situatedness in time and space, 304 social analysis of time, 351 and social theory, 351 sociology of time, 266, 392 -space, 422 and space, xv, xxiii, 172, 285, 296, 304, 318, 343, 348 ‘spirit of the time’, 248 and temporality, 392 test of time, 327 in time and over time, 160 and value, 404 Western conceptions of time, 172 Time-laden, 163

Time travel, 248 Tolerance, 224 Totalitarian, 87 regimes, 87 Totalitarianism, 87 Totality/ies, 34, 35, 49n112, 292, 399 Tradition(s), x, xvi, xviii, 6, 9, 25, 27, 30, 44, 57, 58, 62, 63, 67, 80, 81, 87, 103, 111, 113, 114, 117, 127, 128, 130–133, 136, 150, 151, 158, 160, 169, 173, 176, 178, 253, 270, 287, 298, 299, 302, 304, 306, 315, 322, 323, 328, 343, 346, 347, 353, 358, 374, 376, 396–398, 402, 417, 426 Traditionalism, 111–113, 115 Traditional/traditionally, vi, xx, xxi, 7, 10, 11, 23n116, 32, 43, 59, 79, 99, 108, 109, 111, 115, 117, 168, 178, 183, 198, 200, 201, 203, 206, 207, 214, 216, 217, 221, 250, 251, 268–270, 347, 396 Transaction(s), 205, 206, 326, 355, 366, 375, 405, 420 Transcendence hermeneutic transcendence, 276 immanence with transcendence, 279 transformative transcendence, 39 from within, transcendence in this world, 389 Transcendent context-transcendent, 77, 86, 289 Transcendental allegedly transcendental truths, 219 goal, 150 inevitability, 297 invariant, 312 knowledge, 241 pragmatics, 362 pretensions, 80 Transcendentalism, 28, 305

  Index of Subjects 

Transdisciplinarity, 218 Transformability, 316 Transformation(s), vi, 4, 16, 42, 56, 58, 98, 102, 112, 114, 169, 172–174, 183, 220, 223, 275, 279, 306, 325, 340n181, 351, 356, 389, 403, 418, 423, 427, 431, 432 Transformative, xxii, 8, 11, 39, 77, 155, 207, 208, 220, 223, 225, 245, 347 Transition(s), xx, 100, 111, 112, 214, 216, 303, 396 Transitional, 103 Translation burden of translation and adaption, 230 intercultural translation, 33, 35 sociology of translation, 266 work, 34 work of translation, 34 Transnational, 4, 58, 203, 298, 371, 374, 379, 403, 407, 418 Travelling/traveling, 292, 366 Trend(s), vii, x, xv, xxii, xxiii, 84, 116, 152, 153, 159, 175, 197, 198, 202–204, 206, 207, 215, 220, 227, 229, 241, 244, 245, 261–263, 268, 269, 273, 285, 296, 326, 328–330, 343, 347–350, 368, 403, 410, 423, 425 Trend form(s), 326, 328–330, 340n184 Tribal, 222 Tribalism academic tribalism, 328 epistemic tribalism, 232 large-scale tribalism, 309 Tribalist, 30 Trivializing, 17 Truth(s) already existing truths, 65 claims, 81, 227, 232, 315

609

economy of truth claims, 232 transcendental truths, 219 uncomfortable truth(s), 44, 87 validity of truth claims, 227 Turkey, 123n126 Twentieth century/twentieth-century (20th-century), viii, xv, xvi, xxii, 4–7, 9, 25, 31, 87, 97, 100, 101, 106, 116–119, 133, 158, 161, 170, 173–175, 200, 242, 251, 253, 261, 348, 356, 377, 385, 394, 409, 416, 431, 432 Typology/ies of agency, 11 of desires, 47n55, 317, 338n154 dual typology, 109 of interests, 47n54, 317, 338n153 of justifications, 317, 338n155 of power, 317, 338n157 of rationality, 317, 338n156 U

Überaltern (the überaltern) ‘the centre of the überaltern’, 63 Ubiquity of electronic and satellite communication, 171 of global interconnectedness, 298 of imperial realities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, 101 of neoliberalism, 214 Uncertainty age of uncertainty, 357, 414 political climate of uncertainty, 113 preponderance of uncertainty, 245 sociology of uncertainty, 266 Unconscious colonial unconscious, 427 imperial unconscious, 385 Unconsciously, 29, 139, 154, 170, 182

610 

Index of Subjects

Understanding(s) adequate understanding of modernity, 60 alternative understanding of the emergence of the global within sociology, 83 analytically precise understanding of the five cornerstones of the social in general and of the exercise of power in particular, 316 a better understanding–and, if possible, the enhancement–of particular aspects of society, 204 a better understanding of social conditions enhancing the possibilities for human emancipation, 324 comprehensive–that is, nonreductive and genuinely global– understanding of modernity, 179 comprehensive understanding of historical developments, 298 comprehensive understanding of paradigmatic developments in the social sciences, 45 comprehensive understanding of the ways in which different aspects of social reality are constituted, 197 configuration of understandings of the global, 67, 293 connectivist understanding of history, 88 connectivist understanding of human reality, 59 contemporary society’s selfunderstandings, 155 contemporary understandings and regulations of time, 172 contemporary understandings of the human subject, 10 critical understanding of modernity, 65

critical understanding of postcolonial practices, 3 determinist understanding of history, 346 dialogical practices oriented towards mutual understanding, 36 different understandings of what sociology is, 343 diverse understandings of science, 253 evolutionist understanding of societal development, 178 fine-grained understanding of social realities across the globe, 301 historically informed understandings of the present, 176 historical understanding of social reality, xix historical understanding of society, 149 historical understanding of sociology, 149 in-depth understanding of the nexus between validity and legitimacy, 315 intersectionalist understanding of human reality, 131 intersectionalist understanding of social reality, 8 many understandings, 300 multiperspectival understanding of conceptual, methodological, and/ or empirical issues, 224 non-Eurocentric understanding of modernity, xx ‘no understanding remains unchanged by connection’, 137, 299, 300 nuanced understanding, 302 our understanding of history, 68 our understanding of reality, 318 our understanding of the enduring presence of colonial and

  Index of Subjects 

postcolonial power dynamics across the world in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, 305 our understanding of the spatiotemporal horizon, 137 particular understandings, 137 people’s common-sense understanding (or, rather, misunderstanding) of reality, 272 present understandings, 293 prevalent understanding of science, 252 proper understanding of the historicity that permeates the human condition, 151 radically curtailed understandings of the historical forces, 153 reflexive understanding of the inevitably contested nature of those dynamics, 163 re-organization of understanding through the lens of coloniality, 56, 298 scientifically rigorous understanding of reality, 310 self-understanding, 155, 219, 316 self-understanding of modernity, 173 self-understanding of sociology, 83 simplistic understanding of the relationship between hegemonic and counterhegemonic forces across the world, 322 sociohistorical understanding of modernity, 439 sociological understanding of history, 149 sociological understanding of modernity, 99 sociological understandings, 219 sophisticated and self-reflexive understandings, 163

611

sophisticated understanding of long-term historical processes, 153 sophisticated understanding of the contemporary world, 153 specific understandings of Europe and the rest of the world, 16 truly critical and comprehensive understanding of the contemporary age, 61 twentieth-century understandings of social development, 9 understanding civilizational developments in the modern world, 112 understanding of the nature of global struggles and social inequalities in the contemporary age, 9 understanding of the role of imperialism and colonialism in shaping modern societies, 301 understanding of the roots of sociology, 98 understanding of the statecontrolled regulation and market-driven normalization of large-scale societies, 251 understanding of the world, 16, 287 (mis-) understandings, 300 understandings of how the global came to be constituted as such, 65 understanding the dominant politics of knowledge production current within the academy, 128 universal understanding of postcoloniality, 7 Western understanding of the world, 16, 287 Unification, 106, 218–220

612 

Index of Subjects

Uniqueness claim to uniqueness, 76 claim to ‘uniqueness’ and ‘progressiveness’, xvii modern uniqueness, 157 ‘the sociocultural uniqueness of Occidental civilization’, 109 of the West, 183 United Kingdom (UK), xix, 26, 88, 118, 153, 154, 160, 162, 174, 177, 220, 221, 234n54, 291, 370, 384, 395, 421 United States/United States of America (US/USA), 127, 128, 130–133, 159–161, 175, 291, 352, 360, 384, 385, 413, 430, 431 Unity a balanced unity of the discipline, 63 disciplinary coherence and unity, 262, 270 national unity, 106, 310 Universalism(s) aesthetic universalism, 314 anti-universalism, 291, 292 attack on universalism, 292 compromise between universalism and particularism, 179 critique of different forms of universalism, 291 critique of universalism, 305 defenders of universalism, 314 empiricism, objectivism, and universalism, 77 empty universalism, 130 epistemological universalism, 314 ethnocentric and evolutionist universalism, 16 Eurocentric universalism, xx, 184 European universalisms, 81 and indigenisation, 353 logical universalism, 314 moral universalism, 314 new universalism, 64, 315

new universalism of a globally cosmopolitan sociology, 63 ontological universalism, 314 reductive forms of universalism, 178 universalism and particularism, 179, 278 universalist anti-universalism, 291, 292 variants of universalism, 314 Universalist anti-universalism, 291, 292 anti-universalist, 313 approach, 16 assumptions, 10 conceptions of citizenship, 138 concepts, 179 cosmology of Western social and political thought, 28 epistemologies, 38 Eurocentrism, 179 and foundationalist, 313 and foundationalist frameworks, 313 frameworks of citizenship, 136 frameworks of explanation, 83 histories of capital, 12, 68 models of citizenship, 134, 138, 139 pretensions of mainstream social science, 76 sense, 115 thought, 315 universally universalist, 315 variants, 317 Universalistic, 81 pretence, 254 Universality alleged lawfulness, predictability, linearity, teleology, or universality of historical processes, 85 claims to epistemic positivity, objectivity, and universality, 77 claims to universality, xvii, 38, 345 claim to universality, 35, 314

  Index of Subjects 

claims to context-transcendent universality, 86 contingency, hegemony, universality, 368, 444 core element of universality, 291 degrees of universality, 316 epistemic claims to universality, xvii, 345 epistemic universality, 79 historical universality, 85, 158 monolithically constituted Zeitgeist of world-historical universality, 158 a more ‘legitimate’ and ‘fruitful’ universality, 292 overarching logic of speciesconstitutive universality, 16 positivity, objectivity, and universality, 77, 85 presumed logic of universality, 36 pretentious vocabularies of universality, 84 rationality and universality, 292, 323 relationship between universality and particularity, 315 some universality, 323 strong sense of universality, 293 superior levels of universality, 182 between universality and particularity, 314–316 universality of Western European modernity, 34 world-historical leaps towards civilizational realizations of global universality, 346 Universalization universalization of parochial European histories, 86 Universal/the universal citizenship, 443 pragmatics, 388, 436, 442 Universal(s)/the universal appearance of universal inclusion, 134

613

‘a truly global sociology with universal’, rather than universalist, claims, 293 capacity of capital, 68 centrality, 82 claims to universal validity, 314, 315 developments, 151 of European thought, 80 evolutionary-universal, 184, 185 evolutionary universals, 181–183, 185, 346, 416 features, 184 features of human existence, 299 the idea of the universal within European thought, 314 interests of the human species, 81 kind of universals, 299 laws, 149 linear and universal template, 9 parameter, 17 ‘particular’ vs. ‘universal’, 117 recognition of ‘the universal’, 314 relevance, 85 search for ‘the universal’, 314 seemingly universal, but essentially parochial, parameters, 178 seemingly universal claims, 134 significance, 85, 173 types of issues, 273 understanding of postcoloniality, 7 on the universal, 86, 400 universal character, 179, 184, 185 universal/particular, 80 validity, 81, 291, 314, 315 Universe/universes civilizational universes, 136 global universe, 4 global universe of asymmetrically structured forms of individual and collective agency, 63 postcolonial universe, 76 representational universe, 60

614 

Index of Subjects

Unpredictability alleged lawlessness, unpredictability, nonlinearity, directionlessness, or particularity of historical processes, 150 historical unpredictability, 150 Unpredictable, 150, 151 Unwillingness, 14, 139 Urteilskraft, 11 Usefulness, 4, 227, 273 Use value, 205, 214, 215, 250, 258n66, 277, 329 Utilitarian, 245 Utilitarian ethics, 199 Utility, 277 Utility-driven, 38 Utopian blueprints, 323, 324 dimension of critical social theory, 372 ideals, 87 mode of ‘time travel’, 248 Utopia/utopias, 243, 244, 354, 405, 419, 435, 444 V

Vagueness between vagueness and openness, 323–324 Validation, 346 Validity of bold contentions, 176 claims to validity, 16 context-transcending validity, 291 cross-cultural validity, 314 of the Enlightenment story of progress, xxii, 243 epistemic validity, 38, 77, 81, 136, 177, 305, 313 of essence/surface distinctions in sociology, 152 of ethnocentric and monolithic accounts of history, 65

evidence-based validity, 131 expertise-based validity, reliability, and representability, 198 factual claims to validity, 390 hegemonic parameters of validity, 29 of ‘imperialistic ways of knowing’, 7 intimate relationship between validity and legitimacy, 315 and legitimacy, 285–286, 315 legitimacy and applicability, 35 of mainstream-that is, largely Eurocentric-accounts of the nation-state, 68 nexus between validity and legitimacy, 315 objective, normative, and/or subjective validity, 315 parameters of validity, 29, 63 questions of validity, intelligibility, legitimacy, commensurability, and translatability, 226 quotidian exchange of value-laden claims to validity, 16 relationship between ‘validity claims’ and ‘legitimacy claims’, 337n141 schemes of validity, 86 scientific validity, 232 of tacit or overt paradigms of ‘separate histories’, 134 of truth claims, 227 of universalist assumptions, 10 universal validity, 81, 291, 314, 315 between validity and legitimacy, 285–286, 315 Validity claims relationship between ‘validity claims’ and ‘legitimacy claims’, 236n97, 330n3, 337n141 validity claims and legitimacy claims, 286 Valorization, 10, 16, 36, 160, 286, 325, 326, 329, 339–340n180 Value(s) authoritarian values, 87

  Index of Subjects 

and capital, 357 chains, 396 change, 351 changing values core values, 136 cosmopolitan values, 87 creation, 278 in cultural production, 354 culture-constitutive conventions, norms, and values, 175 dominant values, norms, and conventions, 181 economic value, 230, 325–330 educational values, 437 epistemic value of intellectual contributions, 286 epistemological value, 55 European cultural values, 85 exchange value(s), 214, 215, 250, 258n66, 329 face value, 177 generalization, 182, 346 of goods, products, and services, 250 highest-ranking values, 108 historic value, 327 human values, 376 intellectual value, 230 of interdisciplinarity, 228 of its raison d’être, 271 judgements, 179, 274 left-wing values, 275 Marxist value(s), 414 monetary value, 327 orders of worth, value, and appreciation, 33 of the paradigms of multiple modernities, multiculturalism, and cosmopolitanism, 344 pattern, 182 principles, values, and imperatives, 7 progressive values, 100 progressive (or at least nominally progressive) values, 130

615

public value of the social sciences, 249 rationality, 38, 214, 215, 229, 274 religious value systems, 36 reputational values, 329 of research outputs, 268 scientific value, 224 social norms, structures, and values, 17 sociology of values, 266 spheres, 186 symbolic value, 278, 327–329 symbolic (and, consequently, both reputational and financial) value, 327–328 of their area of investigation, genre, or sub-discipline, 162 of their intellectual contributions, 162, 268 theory, 419 time and value, 404 use value, 205, 214, 215, 250, 258n66, 277 use values, 329 values attributed to an item, 326 of ‘Western civilization’, 129 Western values, 178 Value-coding, 27 Value-free, 77, 249 Value-laden, 8, 16, 77, 79, 318 Value-oriented, 215 Value-relevant, 85 Value-setting, 325, 326, 329, 330 Variability, 317 Variable(s) sociodemographic variables, 204 sociological variable(s), 8, 40, 83, 118, 130, 134, 198, 200, 249, 267, 277, 286, 293, 343 Varieties/variety, xvi, 33, 60, 62, 67, 87, 132, 159, 176, 185, 198, 201, 219, 242, 252, 275, 304, 314, 345

616 

Index of Subjects

Verifiable, 268 Vernunft, 11, 384, 388, 390, 413, 416, 419 Verstand, 11 Vertical, 81 Viability, 219 Vietnam, 104 Vietnam War, 159, 437 Virtual bodies, 393 modernities, 185 Virtue ethics(s), 199 Virtues, 33, 37, 40, 76, 136, 185, 199, 200, 248, 268, 277, 278, 293, 309, 313, 323, 325, 345, 350, 384, 399, 437 Visibility, 262, 271, 417 Visible, 12, 33, 139, 304 Visual data, 356 materials, 246, 422 methodologies, 422 methods, 245, 246, 257n40, 356, 401, 422 methods in social research, 245 research, 408, 412 research methods, 391, 408, 430 social science, 417 sociology, 417 visual-including microscopicevidence, 246 Visualising, 437 Visualist anti-visualist, 246 Vocabulary, 16, 84 Voiceless, 28, 64 Voices already amplified voices, 301 alternative voices, 62 the ambition to give a voice to silenced voices by removing the voice from already amplified voices, 301

colonized voices, 128 a critical, constructive, and imaginative voice of the public, 249 different voices, 64, 315 exogenous voices, 12 to give a voice to hitherto marginalized autonomous, and alternative ways of doing social science, 62 to give voice to voices, 12 indigenous voices, 128 intersecting voices, 306, 443 marginalized experiences, viewpoints, and voices, 65 marginalized voices, 286, 292 new voices, 65 non-canonical voices, 130 non-Western voices, 12 of privileged, white, Western European, middle-class men, 98 silenced voices, 301 a strong sociological voice in public and policy debates, 245 ‘the voice of the voiceless’, 64 ‘the voices and arguments of thinkers of the Global South’, 32 from Weimar, 392 Volatility, 149 Voluntarism, 278 Voluntarist, 208 W

War(s) Algerian War, 15, 309 and democracy, 392 Franco-Prussian War, 106 law of war and peace, 387 presence of war in numerous regions across the world, 243 sociology of war, 266 two World Wars, 442

  Index of Subjects 

Vietnam War, 159 World War I, 107, 251 World War II, 4, 106, 160, 169, 173, 177 Weakness(es), xxiii, 63, 151, 172, 197, 199, 205, 245, 263, 285, 311, 313, 348, 426 Wealth access to and accumulation of economic wealth, 39 new lodes of wealth, 326 trickling-down and redistribution of wealth, 243 uneven distribution of wealth, 39 wealth creation, 32, 186 Weberian, 160, 308 neo-Weberian, 160 Weberianism, 305 Weltanschauung, 151 Weltmacher, 151 Wertrationalität, 38, 154, 214, 215, 329, 341n193 Wertrationalität versus Zweckrationalität, 173 West (the West/‘the West’) beyond the West, 55, 296, 303 binary division between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 115, 287 centrality of the West, 65 construction of ‘the West’, 16, 58, 136 developments in ‘the West’, 65 dichotomy between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 17 differentiation between Europe (and the West) and the rest of the world, 57, 302 Europe and the West, 57 fatalism towards ‘the West’ and romanticism towards ‘the Rest’, 322 global hegemony of ‘the West’, 10 hegemonic sociopolitical arrangements of ‘the West’, 139

617

hegemony of ‘the West’, 10, 15 idea of the West, 392 ideological construction of ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 136 inequalities between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 7 normative opposition between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 8, 287 official historical narratives of ‘the West’, 68 product of the West, 26, 310 ‘purifying constructions of the West’, 114 ‘to reject the (self-proclaimed) epistemic superiority of the West’, 37 a self-contained version of the West, 29 simplistic opposition between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 10 spatial differentiation between ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 57, 302 specificity of ‘the West’, 109 the subject of the West, or the West as Subject, 28 ‘the West’ and ‘the Rest’, 7–10, 14, 17, 27, 57, 65, 113, 115, 135, 136, 287, 302, 303, 322 ‘the West’ vs. ‘the Rest’, 14 ‘the world beyond the West’, 55, 296, 303 ‘uniqueness of the West’, 183 the West and the Rest, 391 Western academia, 215, 218 ‘a European (and Western) phenomenon’, 60 agendas, 29 canons, 322 capitalism, 179 categories, 12 civilization, 13, 109, 129, 306, 442 civilizational supremacy, 37

618 

Index of Subjects

Western (cont.) conceptions of time, 172 cosmologies, 39 countries, 35, 112, 213, 291, 307 dewesternization, 37 discourse, 27, 28 discourses of emancipation, xviii discourses of modernity, 30 educational systems, 214 efforts, 27 Europe, 31, 112, 180, 183–185, 252, 253, 308 European, 34, 98, 110, 301, 321 ‘European’ and ‘Western’, 64 European intellectual thought, 321 European language games, 301 European life forms, 110 European modernity, 34, 37, 60, 61, 76, 84, 85, 87, 115, 308, 436 events, 58 forms of existence, 58 forms of hegemonic power, 59 forms of imperialism, 5 genocidal Western mythology, 38 hegemony, 311 history, 163 imagination, 243, 244 imperialism, 59 instrument of domination, 290 intellectual modus operandi, 289 intellectual production, 28 intellectuals, 87 intellectual thought, 304 intellectual traditions, 87, 304, 315 international economic interests, 28 knowledge production, 311 life forms, 175, 306 models of citizenship, xix modernity, 109, 183–185, 411 modern (Western) world, 17 nation, 31 ‘national communities’, 66 nation-state(s), 43, 66

‘non-European’ and ‘non-Western’, 64 non-Western actors, 38 non-Western and/or non-white scholars, 118 non-Western contexts, 32, 306 ‘non-Western’ life forms, 13, 306 ‘non-Western’ modes of relating and attributing meaning to reality, 17 non-Western parts of the globe, 16 non-Western societies, 17, 32, 80, 112, 178, 185, 308, 322 ‘non-Western’ societies, 27 non-Western voices and perspectives, 12 perspectives, 64 phenomenon, 58, 60 philosophy, 304 players, 133 power(s), 12, 15 proselytizers, 115 reason, 290, 424 routes of evolution, 178 science, 179 social and political thought, 28 social science, 62 social-scientific research, 344 societies, 17, 32, 79, 80, 174, 178, 185, 214 sociologists, xviii sociology, viii, 16, 295, 386 subject, 28 ‘the West’, 7–10, 14–17, 26–29, 37, 55, 57, 58, 61, 65, 68, 80, 109, 113–115, 135, 136, 139, 153, 179, 183–186, 215, 287, 289, 296, 302, 303, 308, 310, 311, 316, 322, 391, 392, 443 ‘the Western code’, 38 understanding, 16, 287 understanding of the world, 16, 287 universities, 128, 291 values, 178 versions of modernity, 184

  Index of Subjects 

ways of seeing things, 7 ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ countries and regions, 25 Western-centric, 172, 178 Western-centric critical theory, 16 Western-centric teleological conception of history, 32 Western-centrism, 290 ‘Western’ civilizations, 13 ‘Western’ collective memories, xvii, 82 ‘Western’ countries, 307 ‘Western’ forms of social and political inquiry, 289 Westernization, 184, 185 ‘Western’ mainstream social science, 291 ‘Western’ parts of the world, 43, 307 ‘Western’ research programmes, 290 ‘Western’ social-science concepts, 179 Western-specific, 184, 185 Western-specific pattern of development, 178 ‘Western’ spheres of material and ideological control, 322 ‘Western’ territories, 132 ‘Western theory’, 315 ‘Western’ world, 251 white/Western, xviii, 118 world, viii, 17, 79, 251 Westphalia Congress of Westphalia, 373 Peace of Westphalia, 373 Treaty of Westphalia, 100, 120n12 Westphalian/post-Westphalian postWestphalian/post-Westphalian world, 381, 382 post-Westphalian times, 403 Will (the will) to knowledge, 380 to periodize, xix, 162

619

Work(s) academic work, 268 of both classical and contemporary mainstream sociologists, 32 of canonical thinkers, 156 ‘classical’ works of its ‘founding figures’, 178 collaborative work, 224 cultural politics of work, 380 of Edward Said, 353 of Enrique D. Dussel, Aníbal Quijano, and Immanuel M. Wallerstein, 75 essential works of Foucault, 381 for evaluation, 269 famous piece of work, 327 of the ‘founding figures’ of sociology, viii, 97, 98, 163, 302 globalization and work, 442 ground-breaking works, 97, 98 hegemonic work, 381 of the highest quality, 269 of its ‘founding figures’, 98, 178 of Jürgen Habermas, 416 key works, 116 key works of classical sociologists, 114 Lévi-Strauss’s work, 340n181 ‘Luc Boltanski: His Life and Work’, 433 major works of classical sociologists, 14–15 of Martin Albrow, Zygmunt Bauman, Ulrich Beck, Scott Lash, and John Urry, 174 of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, 99, 110 of Marxist scholars, 160 of Max Weber, 175 of non-British scholars, xviii numerous works, 67 original piece of work, 268 out of work, 352

620 

Index of Subjects

Work(s) (cont.) personal consequences of work in the new capitalism, 427 of progressive and, at several levels, radical thinkers, 322 social work, 417, 438 sociology of work, 266 of ‘the classics’, 100 of Theda Skocpol and Charles Tilly, 159 their work(s), 26, 35, 154, 155, 161, 226, 269, 291, 304, 327 of these influential thinkers, 301 of these sociologists, 101 of translation, 34 translation work, 34 of Ulrich Beck, 189n38 at work, xviii, 98, 226, 326, 329, 345, 383 Workers, 102 Work ethic Protestant work ethic, 184 Working-class parties, 251 populism, 400 sociologists, 131 See also Class World(s) academic world, vi, 223, 330 across the world, xvi–xviii, 4, 5, 32, 41, 44, 56, 58, 66, 75, 78, 79, 81, 87, 99, 100, 102–104, 110, 113, 117, 118, 153, 202, 204, 207, 243, 263, 285, 288, 291, 297, 298, 300, 305, 308, 311, 317, 321, 322, 344 analytic bifurcation of the world, 310 around the world, 14 being-in-the-world, 276, 350 changing the world, 220, 395 changing world, 374 civilized world, 428

cognitive engagement with the world, 222 colonial capitalist world, 76 contemporary world, 39, 132, 134, 153, 185, 205, 402s developing world, 361 different parts of the world, 78, 107, 253, 299, 321 disenchanted world, 114 double-hermeneutic immersion in the world, 219 end of the world, 440 of ‘epistemetrics’, 268 epistemological value and agency of the world beyond the West, 55 First World, 83 free of colonial and neocolonial forms of domination, 40 globalized nature of the world, 55, 296 globalized world, 443 hierarchy between ‘advanced’ and ‘underdeveloped’ parts of the world, 57, 302 human world, 262 inner world, 203 insecure world, 357 interconnectedness of the world, 299 interconnected world, 320 interconnected world of colonial histories and postcolonial realities, 320 interdependent world, 416 internal world, 202 of intersectionally constituted struggles, 43 lifeworld/life-world, 38, 42, 85, 88, 149, 181, 185, 205, 251, 327, 329, 388, 392 modern and colonizing parts of the world, 59 modernity and the world, 183–184

  Index of Subjects 

modern world, ix, 6, 9, 26, 105, 112, 308, 311, 367, 419, 424, 425, 430, 439, 440 modern (Western) world, 17 of nations, 105 natural world, 246, 315 New World, xviii non-Western conceptions of the world, 289 ‘non-Western’ parts of the world, 307, 311 non-Western understanding of the world, 287 normative world, 317–318 objective world, 317 Old World, xviii, 130 other parts of the world, 59, 60, 109, 183 ‘our contemporary global world’, 56 perspective of the world, 32, 89 physical and social world, 172 position in the world, 26 ‘postcolonial neocolonized world’, 7 postcolonial world, xvi, 8, 17, 18, 80, 86, 344, 396 postmodern world, 367, 425, 430 post-Westphalian world, 382 post-9/11 world, 440 present world, 183 real-world actors, 208 real-world issues, 226, 273 real-world orientation, 197 real-world-oriented, 201 real-world-orientedness, 197 regions of the world, 76, 308 relationship to the world, 350 rest of the world, 16, 57, 58, 302, 424 rule the world, 248 runaway world, 385 of science, 231 social world, 34, 35, 61, 63, 113, 134, 172, 202, 219, 229, 246, 267, 272–275, 278, 312, 315, 317

621

sociological constitution of the world, 219 spirit world, 42 state of the world, 247 of strangers, 354 ‘studying the non-West or the non-European […] world’, 10 subjective world, 318 ‘the world as it is’, 300 ‘the world as it is perceived’, 300 ‘the world as it is socially constructed’, 300 ‘the world beyond the West’, 55, 296, 303 Third World, 27, 28, 44, 62, 83, 351, 375, 414 Third-World-centrism, 179 Third-World countries, 178 Third-World development, 178 Third-World subject, 27, 28 traditional and colonized parts of the world, 59 in turmoil, 358 understanding of the world, 16, 287 views of the world, 81 ‘Western’ parts of the world, 43, 307, 311 Western understanding of the world, 16, 287 Western world, viii, 17, 79, 251 ‘Western’ world, 251 world at risk, 251 a world capitalist order, 103 a world characterized by unprecedented levels of agential and structural complexity, 287 a world divided by asymmetries of power, 223 a world dominated by imperial states, 99 the world in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, 305 world of discourses, 63

622 

Index of Subjects

World(s) (cont.) world of everyday life, 231 a world organized by imperial states, 100 World citizen, 32 World-class, 230 World constructor, 151 World context, 252 World dominance Anglo-European world dominance, 115 World domination, 413 World economy/world-economy, 375, 419, 439 capitalist world-economy, 440 World empire, 103 World government, 444 World-historical agents, 115 events, 84, 306–307 between historical and worldhistorical events, 306–307 leaps, 346 project, 113 scheme, 10 significance, 13, 58, 65, 84, 307, 343 status, 307 universality, 158 World history/world-history course of world history, 112, 173, 307 empires in world history, 367 impact of colonialism on world history, xvi, 344 modern world history, 308 philosophy of world history, 393 recent world history, 59 Worldly agency, 151 World order emerging world order, 418 modern world order, 105 neoliberal world order, 248 remaking of world order, 397

World perspective, 372 World political economy, 401 World politics, 251, 399 World population, 89 World power(s), 103, 106, 107 World-relations, 434 World-renowned, 174 World risk society, ix, x, 357, 358 World society, 63, 311, 382, 411 World stage, 42, 115, 180, 254 World systems/world-systems analysis, 9, 355, 440 dependency, world-systems, and postcolonial theories, 9 theory/ies, 9, 20n55, 39, 320, 333n50, 400, 429 World Trade Organization (WTO), 422 Worldview(s) modern worldviews, 311 postmodern worldview, 430 reductive binary worldview, 113 reductive worldview, 115 Weber’s political worldview, 108 World War(s) World War I, 107, 251 World War II, 4, 106, 160, 169, 173, 177 Worth academic worth, 325–330 between academic worth and economic value, 325–330 orders of worth, 33 orders of worth, value, and appreciation, 33 Y

Yardstick(s), 244 cognitive and normative yardsticks, 16 Yet-to-be-realized, 244 Young history, 106, 246

  Index of Subjects 

Young people, 214, 243 Youth sociology of youth, 267 Z

Zaire, 180 Zeitgeist epochalist Zeitgeist, 174

623

hegemonic Zeitgeist, 248 Zeitgeist-surfing, 156 Zeitreise, 248 Zone(s), 79, 228 comfort zone(s), 44, 207, 216, 222, 226, 228, 270, 323 Zweckrationalität, 38, 154, 173, 214, 215, 329, 341n193