Towards a cosmopolitan social theory: An epistemological inquiry

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The increasing significance of transnational and global phenomena determines the need in a new social theory that, while considering the particularity and unique characteristics of social phenomena, makes them scientifically meaningful on a transnational and global scale and in relation to each other. The fluid, indeterminate and multi-dimensional nature of global phenomena, which has become the basis for deep uncertainty and insecurity throughout the world, has increased the need to understand transnational and global phenomena. This made social and global studies revisit and reformulate social theory in relation to globalization and ever-increasing global interconnectedness [1; 33]. In general, there are two approaches: the revisionist approach seeks to reformulate and modify social sciences based on the new ontology of the contemporary world and referring to the roots and foundations of social sciences, especially sociology, to be reconstructed and restored [2; 17; 30; 34]; radical approaches argue that, given the historical-social background of social sciences and their epistemological-theoretical characteristics, it is impossible to modify and adapt them to the contemporary world; thereby, they strive to substitute these sciences [1; 4; 18; 23; 35-37]. The paper presents an attempt to find a balance between these two extremes, criticizing the epistemological foundations of social sciences and retrieving them from post-foundationalist philosophy, in order to develop a cosmopolitan social theory. Global cosmopolitanization and the increasing role of indeterminacy, mutual communication and interdependence of social phenomena, determine the need in a social theory that takes into account singularity and conceptualizes it in relation to transnational and global trends through concepts of fluidity and indeterminacy. The author argues that social sciences and theories are based on three epistemes - modern, national, and imperial - as the epistemological-historical foundations. Any cosmopolitan social theory needs primarily to criticize and go beyond these epistemes, which the author shows by interrogating two epistemological antinomies - universalism/singularism and essentialism/relativism. Postfoundationalism and the idea of social configurations are presented as the cores of cosmopolitan social theory, which can overcome the predicaments imposed by three epistemes and provide a solution for the above-mentioned antinomies. .

About the authors

A. Jong

RUDN University

Author for correspondence.
Email: dzhong-a@rudn.ru
кандидат социологических наук, научный сотрудник кафедры истории философии Miklukho-Maklaya St., 6, Moscow, 117198, Russia

References

  1. Connell R. Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. London; 2007.
  2. Go J. Postcolonial Thought and Social Theory. Oxford; 2016.
  3. Beck U. The Metamorphosis of the World: How Climate Change is Transforming Our Concept of the World. Cambridge; 2016.
  4. Beck U. Cosmopolitan sociology: Outline of a paradigm shift. Rovisco M., Nowicka M. (Eds.). The Ashgate Research Companion to Cosmopolitanism. London-New York; 2016.
  5. Gutierrez Rodriguez E., Boatcă M., Costa S. (Eds.). Decolonizing European Sociology: Transdisciplinary Approaches. London-New York; 2016.
  6. Alatas S.F. Eurocentrism. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Oxford; 2016.
  7. McLennan G. Sociology, eurocentrism and postcolonial theory. European Journal of Social Theory. 2003; 6 (1).
  8. Chakrabarty D. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton; 2000.
  9. Jong A. Social configurations in the moment of post-foundationalism. Frontiers in Sociology. 2023; 7.
  10. Jong A. Modern episteme, methodological nationalism and the politics of transnationalism. Frontiers in Political Science. 2023; 5.
  11. Nederveen Pieterse J. Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. Washington; 2019.
  12. Nederveen Pieterse J. What is global studies? Globalizations. 2013; 10 (4).
  13. Juergensmeyer M. What is global studies? Globalizations. 2013; 10 (6).
  14. Dicken P. Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy. London; 2007.
  15. Darian-Smith E., McCarty P.C. The Global Turn. Berkeley; 2019.
  16. Shaw M. Theory of the Global State. Cambridge University Press; 2000.
  17. Albrow M. The global shift and its consequences for sociology. Advances in Sociological Knowledge. Wiesbaden; 2004.
  18. Bauman Z. Society under Siege. Cambridge; 2002.
  19. Bauman Z. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge; 2000.
  20. Bauman Z. Globalization: The Human Consequences. New York; 2000.
  21. Arjomand S.A. Social Theory and Regional Studies in the Global Age. Albany; 2014.
  22. Amelina A.D., Nergiz D., Faist T., Glick Schiller N. (Eds.). Beyond Methodological Nationalism: Research Methodologies for Cross-Border Studies. Routledge; 2012.
  23. Beck U., Sznaider N. Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda. British Journal of Sociology. 2006; 57 (1).
  24. Featherstone M. Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity. Sage; 1990.
  25. Giddens A. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives. London; 1999.
  26. Held D. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford; 1999.
  27. Held D. Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and Realities. Cambridge; 2010.
  28. Held D., McGrew A. Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the Great Divide. Cambridge; 2007.
  29. Lyotard J.-F. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester; 1986.
  30. Seidman S. The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory. Cambridge; 1994.
  31. Wallerstein I. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham; 2004.
  32. Robinson W.I. Social theory and globalization: The rise of a transnational state. Theory and Society. 2001; 30 (2).
  33. Robinson W.I. Beyond nation-state paradigms: Globalization, sociology, and the challenge of transnational studies. Sociological Forum. 1998; 13 (4).
  34. Giddens A. New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. London; 1976.
  35. Latour B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford; 2005.
  36. Beck U. Zombie categories: Interview with Ulrich Beck. Beck U., Beck-Gernsheim E. (Eds.). Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences. Lanham; 2002.
  37. Beck U. Methodological cosmopolitanism. Blaug R., Schwarzmantel J. (Eds.). Democracy: A Reader. New York; 2016.
  38. Wallerstein I. Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Stanford; 1996.
  39. Wittrock B. History, sociology, and the reconfiguration of civilizations. Arjomand S.A. (Ed.). Social Theory and Regional Studies in the Global Age. Albany; 2014.
  40. Chernilo D. Social theory’s methodological nationalism: Myth and reality. European Journal of Social Theory. 2006; 9 (1).
  41. Mahoney J. The Logic of Social Science. Princeton; 2021.
  42. Foucault M. Society Must Be Defended. London; 2003.
  43. Beck U. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London; 1992.
  44. Beck U. Varieties of second modernity and the cosmopolitan vision. Theory, Culture & Society. 2016; 33.
  45. Meyer J.W., Boli J., Thomas G.M., Ramirez F.O. World society and the nation-state. Americal Journal of Sociology. 1997; 103 (1).
  46. Meyer J.W. The changing cultural content of the nation-state: A world society perspective. Steinmetz G. (Ed.). State/Culture. Ithaca; 2018.
  47. Arjomand S., Tiryakian E. (Eds.). Rethinking Civilizational Analysis. London; 2004.
  48. Smith L.T. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London; 2012.
  49. Mauro F., Hardison P.D. Traditional knowledge of indigenous and local communities: International debate and policy initiatives. Ecological Applications. 2000; 10 (5).
  50. Beck U. World Risk Society. Cambridge; 1999.
  51. Jameson F. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham; 2020.
  52. Habermas J. The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays. Cambridge; 2001.
  53. Foucault M. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London-New York; 1966.
  54. Foucault M. Archaeology of Knowledge. London-New York: 2002.
  55. Beck U. The cosmopolitan condition. Theory, Culture & Society. 2007; 24 (7-8)
  56. Beck U. The Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge; 2006.
  57. Beck U., Blok A., Tyfield D., Zhang J.Y. Cosmopolitan communities of climate risk: Conceptual and empirical suggestions for a new research agenda. Global Networks. 2013; 13 (1).
  58. Beck U., Levy D. Cosmopolitanized nations: Re-imagining collectivity in world risk society. Theory, Culture & Society. 2013; 30 (2).
  59. Marchart O. Post-Foundational Political Thought: Political Difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau. Edinburgh; 2007.
  60. Frisby D., Sayer D. Society. Chichester; 1986.
  61. Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge; 1984.
  62. Sayer A. Method in Social Science. London; 2010.
  63. Reckwitz A. The Society of Singularities. Cambridge; 2020.
  64. Ghamari-Tabrizi B. Can Burawoy make everybody happy? Comments on public sociology. Critical Sociology. 2005; 31 (3).
  65. Jong A., Ali R. Political Islam as an incomplete and contested category: A post-foundationalist revision. Religions. 2023; 14 (8).
  66. Oksala J. Foucault on Freedom. Cambridge; 2005.
  67. Peters R. The episteme and the historical a priori: On Foucault’s archaeological method. Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy. 2021; 29 (1-2).
  68. Foucault M. Orders of discourse. Social Science Information. 1971; 10 (2).
  69. Herzog D. Without Foundations. Ithaca-London; 1985.
  70. Burawoy M. Public Sociologies in Global Context. Ithaca; 2003.
  71. Wimmer A., Glick Schiller N. Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks. 2002; 2 (4).
  72. Wimmer A., Glick Schiller N. Methodological nationalism, the social sciences, and the study of migration: An essay in historical epistemology. International Migration Review. 2003; 37 (3).
  73. Chernilo D. A Social Theory of the Nation-State. London-New York; 2008.
  74. Giddens A. The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. London; 1973.
  75. Calhoun C. Nationalism, political community and the representation of society. European Journal of Social Theory. 1999; 2 (2).
  76. Toulmin S. Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. Chicago; 1990.
  77. Mandelbaum M.M. The Nation/State Fantasy: A Psychoanalytical Genealogy of Nationalism. Cham; 2020.
  78. Jong A., Entezari A. World risk society, reconfiguration of religion, and transnational religious organizations. Journal of Strategic Management Studies. 2023; 14 (54).
  79. Jong A. Explaining the patterns of globalization, consumption and everyday-life. Journal of Business Administration Research. 2016; 8 (15).
  80. Jong A. World risk society and constructing cosmopolitan realities: A Bourdieusian critique of risk society. Frontiers of Sociology. 2022; 7.
  81. Jong A. Construction of identity patterns in the process of globalization. Journal of Strategic Management Studies. 2016; 7 (26).
  82. Jong A. Transnational configurations and cosmopolitanization. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social and Community Studies. 2022; 17 (2).
  83. Go J. Global fields and imperial forms: Field theory and the British and American Empires. Sociological Theory. 2008; 26 (3).
  84. Blok A., Selchow S. Special theme introduction: Methodological cosmopolitanism across the socio-cultural sciences. Global Networks. 2020; 20 (3).
  85. Blok A. Towards cosmopolitan middle-range theorizing: A metamorphosis in the practice of social theory? Current Sociology. 2015; 63 (1).
  86. Beck U. Interview with Ulrich Beck. Journal of Consumer Culture. 2001; 1 (2).
  87. Beck U. World at Risk. Cambridge; 2007.
  88. Rehbein B. Critical Theory After the Rise of the Global South Kaleidoscopic Dialectic. New York; 2015.
  89. Burr V. Social Constructionism. London-New York; 2015.
  90. Laclau E. The impossibility of society. Ideology and Power in the Age of Lenin in Ruins. London; 1991.
  91. Rehbein B. Critical theory after the rise of the Global South. Social Theory and Asian Dialogues. Singapore; 2018.
  92. Akiwowo A. Universalism and indigenisation in sociological theory: Introduction. International Sociology. 1988; 3 (2).
  93. Mahmood S. Secularism, hermeneutics, and empire: The politics of Islamic reformation. Public Culture. 2006; 18 (2).
  94. Bevir M. Anti-foundationalism. Bevir M. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Political Theory. Thousand Oaks; 2010.
  95. Butler J. Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of postmodernism. Butler J., Scott J.W. (Eds.). Feminists Theorize the Political. London-New York; 1992.
  96. Spivak G. Foundations and cultural studies. Silverman H.J. (Ed.). Questioning Foundations Truth/Subjectivity/Culture. New York-London; 1993.
  97. Trogdon K. Grounding: necessary or contingent? Pacific Philosophical Quaterly. 2013; 94 (4).
  98. Butler J., Laclau E., Zizek S. Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left. London; 2000.
  99. Conrad S. What is Global History? Princeton; 2016.
  100. Adorno T. Positivist Dispute in German Sociology. Portsmouth; 1981.
  101. Wimmer A. Nationalist Exclusion and Ethnic Conflict: Shadows of Modernity. Cambridge; 2002.
  102. Mosleh A.A., Jong A. Iran and covid-19: Institutional configurations. Pieterse J.N., Lim H., Khondker H. (Eds.). Covid-19 and Governance. London-New York; 2021.
  103. Faist T. The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford; 2000.
  104. Hagen-Zanker J. Why do people migrate? A review of the theoretical literature. 2008. URL: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1105657.
  105. Hammar T., Brochmann G., Tamas K., Faist T. (Eds.). International Migration, Immobility and Development. London; 1997.
  106. Bijak J. Forecasting International Migration: Selected Theories, Models, and Methods. Warsaw; 2006.
  107. Massey D.S,, Arango J., Hugo G., Kouaouci A., Pellegrino A., Taylor J.E. Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Population and Development Review. 1993; 19 (3).
  108. Nair P. Postcolonial theories of migration. Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration. New Jersey; 2013.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».