Sociology in a Cosmopolitan Era - Essay Example

? Sociology in a Cosmopolitan Era Outline Introduction Background of the Study Objectives of the Study Significance of the Study Review of Related Literatures Understanding to Concept of Society within the Sociological Field and its Regulative Model The Notion of Nation State of the Classics of Sociology Criticisms on Sociology as a Science of Nation State The Decline of the Nation State and the Rise of Cosmopolitan Sociology Conclusion Introduction Background of the Study The ‘science of the nation state’ is what the sociological field had initially owned when it first materialised. During this era, the sociology as a field has only perceived the power relations within the society as limited only among the various state actors. Nonetheless, throughout the years, societies have constantly undergone several changes which then lead to considering sociology as the science of nation state a subject of a number of criticisms. Looking at society only centred to the nation state is something not fit with today’s situation. At present, there are some sociological thinkers who continually argue that the equation between society and the nation state in the sociological field is no longer fit with the given changes of modernity, globalisation as well as cosmopolitanisation in the society. During this period of cosmopolitanisation, the nation state perceives the global capital as its possible threat because the players are not restricted alone to the state actors but to the state, civil society as well as the global capital. In addition to that, in this cosmopolitan era, the ‘state – centric’ approach to look at society does disregard the global economy or that this nation state approach may possibly conquers this global economy. Given such inconsistencies within the science of sociology, there is a need to critically analyse if the field of sociology which emerged as a science of a nation state is still suitable with the existing changes in this cosmopolitan period. Hence, there is a real need to question what kind of sociology is required and indispensable for today’s cosmopolitan era. Objectives of the Study The focus of this study mainly delves on having a critical analysis on what type of sociology is suitable with today’s society in a cosmopolitan period. In order to fully satisfy this central aim, this paper intends to specifically answer the following points. First, it aims to review the concept of society within the sociological field. Second, it intends to examine the notion of nation state. Third, it seeks to review the criticisms around sociology as a science of nation state. Last, it points toward discussing the notion of cosmopolitan sociology. Significance of the Study The necessity to conduct this research can be backed up by the existing changes that the society has experienced as well as the growing number of criticisms on sociology as a science of nation state. In addition to that, the conceptual inconsistencies of sociology needs to be critically reviewed and analysed in order to reflect the definite ambivalences of the concept of sociology as well as the heritage of what nation states are in the period of modernity. The conceptual ambivalences of sociology must be understood especially that it is the case that the society is observed and understood through sociological approach. With the conduct of this research, supplementary knowledge of what type of sociology is needed for a cosmopolitan era will be contributed in the field of sociology. Review of Related Literatures This selection will first offer a general idea of the available literatures concerning the different perspectives in sociology. The aim of this review is to provide a brief outlook at how the range of information presented is sought to resolve the problem of this research. The reviewed books and articles in this portion is not a representative of the entire collection of the information concerning the field of sociology. Meanwhile, it is important to note that the choice to include the literatures is centred only on the ease of access of the following materials. This part of the paper is divided and categorised into the following portions which are: a) Understanding to Concept of Society within the Sociological Field and its Regulative Model; b) The Notion of Nation State of the Classics of Sociology; c) Criticisms on Sociology as a Science of Nation State; and d) The Decline of the Nation State and the Rise of Cosmopolitan Sociology. In order to understand what kind of sociology is needed for a cosmopolitan era, sociology is contextualised and. Again, this literature review may not be a representation of the complete array of the particular information but is scrutinised and presented to aid in grasping a sociological outlook on how to understand the topic being analysed. Understanding to Concept of Society within the Sociological Field and its Regulative Model Given the aims of this research, it is deemed important to specifically look at the different uses of the society in the field of sociology. Likewise, it is indeed necessary to connect this particular concept of society to what a nation state is. Moreover, there exist a lot of assertions of how problematic the relationship between society and sociology is. During the 17th and 18th centuries in France marked the beginning of historical account of the concept of society. These periods of times suggested that the concept of society had all started prior to the development of sociological field (Baker, 1994). Indeed, it is the case that within the sociological field, the position played by society has been presented in countless instances. For Mayhew (1968), Parsons (1956) and Luhmann (1998), the concept of society has existed even before the field of sociology materialises. In this case, there are meanings which are not really particular to sociology. According Adorno (2000), society is conceptualised as not a question of sociology but as something of an empirical science in a self – understanding of sociology in a positivistic approach. On the other hand, Urry (2000; chapter 1) stated that society is now basically a persistently doubtful conceptual tool for the reason that there exist so many meanings of the concept within this field that happen to be not the same with the other meanings. Also, it is the case that the concept of society has been overpowered by the other substitute concepts (Freitag, 2002). As an example is the concept of ‘the social’ has progressively turned out to be the fundamental sociological category (Wagner, 2001). In addition to that, the concept of society is so much persistent in everyday language in which according to Nisbet (1967 3 – 7) makes it difficult to be the key concept within the field. Nonetheless, within the field of sociology, what really is the function played by society? Through taking a special look on how the notion of society is used in reality by the sociologists, it points to society serving a role of its regulative ideal. This assertion of being a regulative ideal of society can be observed from the ways of how this particular term is used by sociologists like Parsons (Munch, 1981) and Simmel (Frisby, 2002: 50) in their efforts. The Notion of Nation State of the Classics of Sociology The title, classics of sociology, is owned by three individuals namely Karl Max, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. On the one hand, sociology has emerged to be the science of the nation state. Given this, the concept of nation state within sociology is reviewed rooting from the points of view of the classics of sociology on the concept of nation state. Karl Marx’s work is argued by Giddens (1985: 23 – 31) to be not specifically beneficial and valuable to grasp an understanding of the notion of the nation state. This is because of the fact that Marx did not directly tackle nation states. As a point of fact, he did not remark any expectation regarding the nation state’s universal process. True enough, he neither pointed to the nation states as the fundamental and ultimate socio – political organisation’s structure. In this regard, it only points to a clear contradiction and denial of the centrality to use nation states in the evaluation of the capitalist development’s ‘political’ systems. Hence, it only serves as a good starting point of how Marx, one of the classics of sociology, considered nation states. On the one hand, Max Weber’s conceptualisation of nation states is another story since for him, there is something predominantly vague and doubtful in nation states. This is for the reason that he considered nation states as something rationally opaque as politically influential. There are many existing literatures on how Weber founded nationalism in politics (Aron, 1971; Bendix, 1966; Collins, 1986; Giddens, 1872; Parsons, 1965, Roth, 1965). It is the case that he strongly demonstrated his future for his nation. Weber perceived that every individual has a part to contribute in serving the nation through whatever manner. Nonetheless, in Weber’s conceptualisation of nation as well as nation states, he had a rather a political than a sociological account on those particular notions. Beetham (1974: 121) suggested that for Weber, nation state is not anything short of the state’s modern structure and system. That is to say, the nation state is basically the interaction of both the nation as well as the state (Beetham, 1974: 121). Nation, for Weber, is an objective element that separates a particular group from that of the other (Beetham, 1974: 122). It is likewise the case that such element functions a sort of inner solidarity in which such solidarity is articulated in the political institutions (Beetham, 1974; 122). Meanwhile, state is something that is typified within his knowledge on the processes of bureaucratisation of social life (Weber, 1994: 310 – 311). In the period of modernity, nation state was not used by Emile Durkheim on his representation of society. Nonetheless, it is the case that for Durkheim, his notion of nation state is something grounded on the normative value that is independent from the national context. Given this, it can be said that his notion on nation state is centred on the normative values that are in need to be actualised via specific forms of socio – political institutions (Chernilo, 2004: 109 – 110). Criticisms on Sociology as a Science of Nation State The field of sociology became known as the science of the nation state. That is to say, sociology is a field that is viewed through power relations of the various state actors which exist within a particular society. Over the years, however, societies have constantly undergone different changes which result to sociology being a subject of a number of criticisms. Most of the arguments reflect to a point that having a ‘state – centric’ approach to society is no longer fit with the current social situations. On the one hand, equating society with the nation state is something that adds up to the criticisms to such particular type of sociology. Beyond this equation between society and the nation state is the case that the role of society is not much paid attention which leads to some sub – standard and unsatisfactory uses of the term society within the field. For Beck (2002a: 51), the notion of society does not express any strong and solid meaning in terms of its theoretical aspect as well as in terms of its sociological aspect. This is due to the nature of equating both society and nation state. Moreover, it is argued that the sociological meaning of society has become unclear, vague and indistinguishable from the settings that supposedly typified the nation states (Beck, 2000: 20 – 21). Meanwhile, given the various transformations that have taken its place, society is not the same as how it used to be before. Globalisation has brought a number of changes in this day and age, consequently, is the information age. Manuel Castells (1996-1998), for instance, discussed about how the nation state has declined through the advent of network society during the last three decades of 20th century. With such rise of information age, the outcome is the intense transformation of the social life. Likewise, with the rapid revolution of technology, the world is also changing so much quickly resulting to the Network Society or what he referred to as different sorts of social structures as well as social relations. For Castells (1996: 340), this Network Society is a new society that results to a new cultural development as well as a significant change in the social forms. Beck (1997), however, proposed his theory on the rise of second modernity. For him, there is another type of modernity that has started to emerge in which its core trends are globalisation, individualisation, predicaments of ecological aspect, subsiding employment as well as the revolutionary transformations of gender (Beck, 1997: 12). With the new epochal time, it is deemed necessary to have a new theory in order to understand such. In addition to that, Beck (2002b: 23 – 54) argued the need to re – establish social science. In this re – establishment, it must be changed into a transnational science that highly regards the reality of the global age. True enough, it is argued that there is also a need to re – evaluate the basic concepts that make up a modern society. These basic concepts should be conceptualised again within the cosmopolitan era. The Decline of the Nation State and the Rise of Cosmopolitan Sociology Whilst the sociology as a science of nation state has been now a subject of several criticisms and that the nation states have become to decline due to a number of transformations in the society in this day and age, the cosmopolitanism or cosmopolitanisation has progressed. While it is the case that the nation state has perceived the global capital as something that would be a probable threat, cosmopolitanism situates the states, civil society as well as the global capital as its players in a field of meta – power game. According to cosmopolitanism, in this day and age, nation state has weakened for the reason that people now highly recognise and accept otherness in terms of culturally different, future, nature, object, rationalities, and a lot more other aspects (Beck, 2000; Beck 2002a). Cosmopolitanisation is referred to as by Beck (2000; 2002a) as a globalisation that has taken its place from inside the nation state societies. Given such, interconnectedness throughout the boundaries similarly changes the social and political qualities within the nation state societies. In this regard, the everyday consciousness as well as everyday identities changes drastically simply because the everyday local experiences now take in the problems of global issues. Hence, in order to understand the new yet profound transformations, there is a need to evaluate it in such a way it sets up a change in the social sciences as well (Cheah & Robbins, 1998). According to Beck (2002c), in order to conquer methodological nationalism, cosmopolinisation is needed. In addition to that, the cosmopolinisation thesis assists in creating a new model of reference to help in analysing the characteristics of Second Modernity (Beck, 2002c; Latour, 2002). Such features of Second Modernity include the new social structures, dynamics as well as conflicts. Nonetheless, the ‘dialogic imagination’ serves as the most fundamental determining feature of a cosmopolitan point of view. That is to say, the most defining characteristic is the conflict of rationalities as well as culture within one’s very own particular existence. Given the contradictory ambivalences in the daily individual experience, it is very deemed important to put into comparison such rival ways of life and analyse them. Beck (2002a: 19) suggested that a new sociology is really needed to serve a function of making an important difference in involving nature, other modernities, civilisations, objecs into subjectivity and intersubjectivity, and others in this era of cosmopolitanism. Hence, a cosmopolitan sociology is proposed. According to Beck (2002a) and Beck - Gernsheim (2002), because of the impacts of the two important processes of individualisation as well as globalisation, cosmopolitan social sciences or cosmopolitan sociology insists the central problems of re - definition, re - invention as well as re – organisation. It is the case that the efficiency and usefulness of the contributed works of the classics of sociology have somewhat reduced given the conceptual problems. Likewise, it is stated by Latour (2001) that there exist in social sciences such methodological problems because of the reason that the otherness of the subject and same with the otherness of the nature is rejected. In addition to that, there are organisational problems that exist given the emergence of transnational structures and systems. Conclusion Sociology materialised to be the science of the nation state. However, there are many criticisms surrounding such position of sociology given that such intention of being the science of the nation state does not fit with the current situation of the society today. Given the various changes that have taken its place on society, it is believed that looking at society through having a ‘state – centric’ approach is no longer an effective method. In this review, it is the case that the questionable equation between the society and the nation state has been established. This questionable linkage is further intensified with the changes of modernity, globalisation as well as cosmopolitanisation in the society. The social changes in society as well as the existing criticisms in the field of sociology have triggered a question of what sort of sociology is deemed necessary and appropriate for today’s society in a cosmopolitan era. In this critical analysis, first it can be suggested that the conceptualisation of society within the field of sociology have so many meanings and uses that make this notion a sub – standard doubtful type of conceptual tool. Second, in the examination of the idea of nation state through assessing the conceptualisations of the sociological classics, it can be said that nation state is not really established and given attention, hence, Marx for example. The classics did not really have their very own solid meaning of the term which makes it central to the field of sociology. Third, given the changes of individualisation and globalisation, the society of today has drastically transformed as compared to that of yesterday. Together with such transformations, the entire social structure and systems have changed. In this day and age of cosmopolitan era, Beck is right that there is a need to redefine, reinvent and reorganise due to the problems that are very much unique with the cosmopolitan era. With cosmopolitan sociology, people now highly recognise and accept otherness in terms of culturally different, future, nature, object, rationalities, and a lot more other aspects. This is the kind of sociology required and indispensable for today’s cosmopolitan era. References: Adorno, T. 2000 Introduction to sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Aron, R. 1971 ‘Max Weber and Power-politics’ in Stammer, O. Max Weber and Sociology Today Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Baker, K. M. 1994 ‘Enlightenment and the institution of society: Notes for a conceptual history’ in Melching, W. & Velema, W. (eds) Main trends in cultural history, Rodopi: Amsterdam. Beck, U. 1997 The reinvention of politics. Rethinking modernity in the global social order, Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. 2002a ‘The cosmopolitan society and its enemies’, Theory, Culture & Society 19 (1-2): 17-44. Beck, U. 2000b The brave new world of work, Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. 2002c ‘World Risk Society Revisited: The Terrorist Threat’, Theory, Culture & Society Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim. 2002 Individualization. London: Sage. Beetham, D. 1974 Max Weber and the theory of Modern Politics, London: George Allen & Unwin. Bendix, R. 1966 Max Weber: An intellectual portrait, London: Methuen. Castells, M. 1996-1998 The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, 3 Vols, Oxford: Blackwell Cheah, P. & Robbins, B. 1998. Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Collins, R. 1986 Weberian sociological theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freitag, M. 2002 ‘The dissolution of society within the “Social”’, European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2): 175-98. Frisby, D. 2002 [1984] Georg Simmel, London and New York: Routledge. Giddens, A. 1972 Politics and sociology in the thought of Max Weber, London: Macmillan. Giddens, A. 1984 The constitution of society, Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. 1985 The Nation-State and Violence. Volume two of a contemporary critique of historical materialism, Cambridge: Polity Press. Latour, B. 2001 Das Parlament der Dinge: Naturpolitik. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp Latour, B. 2002 ‘Is Remodernization Occurring – and, if so, How to Prove It?’, Theory, Culture & Society Luhmann, N. 1977 ‘Generalized media and the problem of contingency’ in Loubser, J. Baum, R. Effrat A. and Lidz, V. (eds) Explorations in the general theory In social science. Essays in honor of Talcott Parsons, NY: The Free Press. Nisbet, R. 1967. The sociological tradition, London: Heinemann. Mayhew, L. 1968 ‘Society’ in David Sills (ed.) International Enciclopedia of the Social Sciences. London: Macmillan. Munch, R. 1981 ‘Talcott Parsons and the theory of action. I. The structure of the Kantian Core’, American Journal of Sociology 86 (4): 709-39. Parsons, T. 1956 [1934] ‘Society’ in Selligman, E. (ed) Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, NY: The Macmillan Company. Parsons, T. 1965 ‘Max Weber 1864-1964’, American Sociological Review 30 (2): 171-175. Roth, G. 1965 ‘Political critiques of Max Weber: Some implications for Political Sociology’ American Sociological Review 30 (2): 213-23. Wagner, P. 1994 A sociology of modernity. Liberty and discipline. London & NY: Routledge. Weber, M. 1994d [1919] ‘The profession and vocation of politics’ in Weber, M. Political Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Urry, J. 2000 Sociology beyond societies, London & NY: Routledge. Read More