TG02 2007 NEWSLETTER (VOL. 1/2007) Newsletter of the International Sociological Association’s Thematic Group # 02 on Historical and Comparative Sociology
An Open Call
To Thematic Group Members, Colleagues, Friends, and interested parties:
This is the first annual newsletter of the Thematic Group # 02 on Historical and Comparative Sociology. This newsletter will promote our activities & will also provide a forum to publicize our field. Standard features might include:
1. Short articles, comments or reflections on historical sociology 2. Your news regarding article and/or book publications, awards, or other professional accomplishments. Post-doctoral appointees, doctoral candidates and graduate students are encouraged to join our section & submit samples of their work. Brief descriptions of dissertation topics will also be included. 3. Opportunities and initiatives, including calls for papers, funding opportunities and calls, conference news, etc. 4. TG02 business information and related items from our Board and officers.
Please send all submissions to Victor Roudometof at [email protected]. Current plans are to publish this newsletter annually. But if the volume of material submitted increases, it is possible to publish this newsletter bi-annually. The deadline for submissions for the 2008 issue of the Newsletter is May 30 2008. The 2008 Newsletter will be circulated prior to the ISA 1st interim conference.
I am looking forward to receiving your contributions.
Victor Roudometof University of Cyprus Newsletter Editor
In this issue:
TG02 President Willfried Spohn offers a programmatic statement of his understanding of the necessity to move the field of historical and comparative sociology toward the direction of a global, transnational and international sociology. In a research note, Paul Blokker is discussing the application of the multiple modernities perspective to the topic of Eastern European democratization. You will also find the panel themes of TG02 for the 2008 ISA interim conference in Barcelona & the first installment of our “Members´ New Publications.”
From the TG02 President working group and eventually research committee on historical and Globalization, Multiple Modernities comparative sociology within the ISA. and Comparative-Historical In the following, I will first comment Sociology: A Programmatic on three recent attempts to take stock of Statement the development and current research situation of historical and comparative Willfried Spohn sociology and then, on this background, Free University of Berlin specify some research orientations in an international, transnational and global As stated in its foundational direction in comparative-historical declaration, the aim of ISA’s Thematic sociology. Group “Historical and Comparative The most comprehensive recent Sociology” is to further develop the overview on the American development approaches, investigations and in comparative-historical sociology is methodologies in historical and Remaking Modernity. Politics, History, comparative sociology in the direction and Sociology (2005) edited by J. of an international, transnational and Adams, E. Clemens and A. Orloff. The global sociology. These objectives are editors (in a parallel to others, e.g. based on the research traditions of Smith 1991, Spohn 2000) categorize the comparative-historical sociology as rise and development of historical and established in the course of the last fifty comparative sociology in three distinct years. These research traditions were waves. originally developed within the In their view, the first wave American Sociological Association and refers to the renewed historical and recently replicated within the European comparative sociology in 1960s and Sociological Association. 1970s, building on the classical The American and European foundations of historical sociology, varieties of historical and comparative criticizing structural-functional sociology have developed primarily as a modernization sociology and critique of structural-functionalist developing a variety of path-breaking modernization theory and research and historical macro-sociological studies. thus have been also strongly influenced The second wave in the 1980s by the related methodological established a primarily social-scientific nationalism inherent in most classical program of historical sociology, modernization approaches. Therefore, directing research to systematic simultaneously, the institutionalization comparative-historical analysis and of comparative-historical sociology in explanation of varying (national) an international, transnational and modernization paths in a combination global direction also implies crucial with meso- and micro- sociological theoretical, methodological and social history. The third wave since the analytical challenges. It is the purpose 1990s has been strongly influenced by of this research note to address some of the cultural turn in the social sciences, these challenges and to invite a critically reflecting the modernist discussion of the strategic research premises of the second wave, but agendas of this thematic group, future continuing the micro- sociological trends in combination with cultural The second major attempt to history, historical institutionalism, define the current state of historical rational choice, feminist orientations sociology is Comparative Historical and postcolonial studies and thus Analysis in the Social Sciences (2003), pluralizing the approaches, edited by J. Mahoney and D. methodologies and topics in historical Rueschemeyer. Building particularly on sociology. the second wave of a systematic social- With the aim to criticize, scientific version of historical sociology reconstruct and overcome the modernist (as represented by Skocpol 1984/1996 premises of the second wave, the and Tilly 1984; see also Spohn 2006), editors clearly define themselves as the editors are less interested in giving trendsetters of the third wave and an encompassing overview on the accordingly arrange the discussion of multiple strands in historical sociology, the current state of the art in five but rather in defining the accumulative thematic sections of historical- progress made by the application of sociological analysis: (i) the comparative historical analysis in the epistemological foundations regarding social sciences. Both editors pursue a agency, globality and postmodernism; vision of comparative historical (ii) state formation in relation to analysis that is oriented to the religion, social policy and bureaucracy; explanation of substantively important (iii) political contention in the forms of outcomes of socio-political change in ordinary peoples’ political participation, the modern world and defined by a collective action and revolution; (iv) the concern with causal analysis, an economic realm regarding actors and emphasis on processes over time, and networks, the transition to capitalism the use of systematic and historical- and the development of modern contextual comparison. In the context professions; as well as (v) collective of the broader trends in the third wave, identities with reference to nation- the editors are clearly critical of overly building, the genealogy of citizenship, postmodernist, constructivist and and the formation of ethnicity. From an historicist orientations (and are international, transnational and global inversely characterized by Adams, perspective, these sections demonstrate Clemens, and Orloff as friendly that the third-wave core of comparative- amendments of the modernist second historical sociology has considerably wave). They extend the second-wave extended the predominantly Western- orientation to macro-historical centered scope of international processes particularly with historical- comparisons and has taken up with institutionalist approaches toward the respect to postcolonialism some of the notion of path-dependent development. transnational and global challenges. At Furthermore, they are particularly the same time, with their predominantly interested in combining quantitative and postmodern, reconstructivist and qualitative research; while they view cultural & micro- sociological sympathetically the inclusion of orientations, the editors only marginally contextualized rational-choice consider the macro-analytical: approaches and other causally oriented comparative-civilizational, perspectives in the cultural-scientific transnational and global strands in the strands of historical sociology (e.g. three waves of historical sociology (so those perspectives that aim at the criticism of Koenig 2006). systematically explaining socio- with a social-scientific methodology of historical processes). explaining and interpreting socio- Within such a social-scientific historical processes (as in the second framework of historical sociology, the wave), but rather on a more general editors assemble contributions that (i) plane (in a certain parallel with the third summarize the accumulation of wave) with the interpretation and research in the three substantive areas deconstruction of the formation and of revolutions, social policy, and transformation of modernity. The authoritarian versus democratic paths of postmodern perspective thereby relates political modernization; (ii) reconsider to a historically reflexive approach to analytical tools such as the modernity and its transcendence by conceptualization of macro-social transnational and global forces; the processes, institutions, networks and post-disciplinary perspective attempts purposive action; and (iii) discuss to overcome the divide between social- methodological issues regarding the scientific and cultural-scientific causal relevance of case studies, the approaches; whereas the post- strategies of causal explanation and the Orientalist orientation tries to transcend ontological adequacy of methodological the still predominant Euro-centrism as devices. Again seen from an well as its vague Orientalist critique. international, transnational and global In such a three-tiered vision of perspective, the contributions document re-orienting historical sociology, the the considerable methodological and handbook assembles in three sections analytical progress in this social- discussions on (i) the theoretical scientific version of historical and foundations of historical sociology in comparative sociology since its Marx and Weber, the evolutionary and foundation in the second wave as well functionalist approaches to social as the development of a more global change, the Annales school, namely scope of international comparisons. But Braudel as well as the civilizational they also reveal its limitations in perspectives by Elias, Nelson and marginalizing the postmodernist, Eisenstadt; (ii) different historical- constructivist and global issues of the sociological approaches such as third wave by reducing the historical materialism, modernization transnational, civilizational and global theory, historical geography, dimensions to external factors of path- institutional history, cultural history, dependent trajectories. intellectual history and genealogical The third major endeavor of approaches; and (iii) various themes summarizing the current research and problems of historical-sociological situation represents The Handbook of analysis as regards the cultural logics Historical Sociology, edited by G. of periodization, the comparative- Delanty and E. Isin (2003). In contrast civilizational deconstruction of East and to the two American syntheses, this West, the interaction of classes and handbook assembles, in a more nations, the formation of the modern European reflective style, articles with state, the role of parliaments and social the aim to rethink and re-orient the movements as key actors of undertaking of historical sociology democratization, the persistence of from a postmodern, post-disciplinary nationalism; as well as various topics and post-Orientalist perspective. such as architecture, city, collective Historical sociology is identified less memory, gender, patriarchy, religion and moral regulation. Taken together, modernity and globality. Here, the this postmodern, post-disciplinary and question has to be framed as follows: post-Orientalist re-orientation of To what degree should we develop a historical sociology as a part of a globally encompassing form of a broader conceived third (or potentially historical-comparative civilizational fourth) wave attempts to transcend the analysis? The third sense of opposition between the second-wave transnationalism and globalization social-scientific and the third-wave refers to the scope of transnational and cultural-scientific varieties of historical tentatively global sociohistorical sociology and introduces, though in a processes. The related question to be rather reflective than analytical- raised is: How should historical and methodological direction, a variety of comparative sociology focus on these transnational, civilizational and global transnational spaces? Finally, in a orientations that complement the third- fourth meaning, the “transnational and wave analytical topics, methodological global” refers to the global system as a orientations and theoretical approaches whole, to the world system, world in more macro-sociological and social- society or globality. Accordingly the theoretical directions in historical question is: in which ways historical sociology. and comparative sociology has From an international, contributed and should further transnational and global perspective, contribute to the analysis of the global this overview of three recent syntheses system? of the field allows for giving some Firstly, in considering the global answers to the core question of this scope of international comparisons in research note: in which ways does the the context of the three waves of established research field of historical historical sociology, it is clear that the and comparative sociology transcend first wave concentrated primarily on the the predominant domain of Euro- and international comparison of the main Western-centric analysis and in which Western cases of Great Britain, France, ways should it further develop in a Germany and the USA. It also included more focused international, some geo-politically relevant cases such transnational and global perspective? as Russia, China and Japan, but only Related to the major meanings of very seldom did it take notice of other transnationalism and globalization, I see non-European cases. The second wave four ways of transcending the Western- in its predominant social-scientific centric core of historical and orientation has seen extensions comparative sociology. particularly to Southern Europe and The first meaning of Latin America and, with the collapse of transnationalism and globalization the Soviet Union, in the context of refers to the scope or degree of the transformation research to post- universalization of modernity over the communist Eastern Europe. The third globe. Accordingly, the question is: to wave has analyzed and re-analyzed in a what extent should historical and primarily cultural-scientific and micro- comparative sociology extend the scope sociological orientation the of international comparison in a global predominant social-scientific cases of direction? The second meaning of the first and second world, but included transnationalism and globalization increasingly also postcolonial societies relates to the civilizational dimension of in the non-European world of Asia and world religions and civilizations, it is Africa. assumed that there also develop varying At the same time, with this cultural and political programs of globalizing move in the scope of modernity impacting on the variations historical and comparative sociology, a of modernization trajectories. While central methodological issue concerns conventionally interpreted as part of the the ways in which the received first wave, S. Eisenstadt’s early historical-sociological models and historical-institutionalist comparative accumulated knowledge about the analysis of pre-modern empires can be Western cases can be transferred to viewed as a precursor of this non-Western cases or have thereby to comparative-civilizational approach. It be modified or revised in the context of was followed by a systematic Weberian non-Western trajectories in the turn to Axial Age civilizations and formation of modernity. An excellent world religions and their impacts on example of this theoretical re- multiple modernities in the second orientation is the edited volume by M. wave. After the fall of communism and Centeno and J. Lopez-Alves, The Other the disappointment of renewed Mirror. Grand Theory in the Lens of modernization approaches in the forms Latin America (2001). However, there of transition and transformation should be many more such mirrors from research on the development of post- other world regions, scrutinizing the communist societies, it has gained a general applicability of Western- growing influence as a systematic inter- centered social theories; developing civilizational and international time/space-specific forms of historical- comparative approach to Western and sociological analysis of non-Western non-Western societies. and particularly post-colonial patterns From a historical-comparative of modernity; and comparing them to sociological perspective with a global the European/Western experiences as scope, however, there are several issues well as to each other. to be further clarified: First, the inter- Secondly, the comparative- civilizational comparisons focus civilizational multiple modernities primarily on the centers of civilizational perspective as developed by Shmuel complexes and instead, they should Eisenstadt and his world-wide concentrate more on civilizational collaborators (Eisenstadt 2002, 2003; peripheries. Second, the historical Arnason 2003; Arnason, Eisenstadt & comparisons of different civilizational Wittrock 2004; Arjomand & Tiryakian time periods analyze the crystallization 2004) represents an important critique of civilizations and their structural of the “Westernization of the world” transformations in a long-term thesis through globalizing historical perspective. Instead, they modernization processes. This should focus more concretely on time- perspective transcends the nation-state specific socio-historical processes. modernization paradigm in so far as it Third, while the civilizational- presupposes civilizational complexes as comparative analyses concentrate a social reality beyond the nation-state. primarily on culture and religion, they It also conceives of culture and religion should also consider their interrelations as central dimensions of social change with institutions as well as the political and the formation of modernity. and socio-economic dimensions. Accordingly, related to the multiple Finally, like the much criticized international-comparative transnationalism and globalization, it modernization research, the multiple rather historicizes and contextualizes modernities perspective primarily looks the transnational and global processes at the infrastructure of civilizational in the present (Osterhammel & units instead of concentrating also on Petersson 2003). At the same time, the entanglements of civilizations as there is particularly in sociology but transnational and trans-civilizational also in history the danger of globalism, bases of globalization and globality. In i.e. to abstract from the local, national other words, there should develop a or civilizational bases of transnational closer interconnection between the or global spaces. Accordingly, it would historical-comparative civilizational be important to investigate and compare analysis, on the one hand, and the main systematically different configurations topics of historical-comparative of local, national, civilizational and sociology, on the other (see also Knoebl global levels in time and space. In a 2006). global orientation, this research Thirdly, another way of direction could be called a historical- transcending methodological comparative study of glocalizations. nationalism is the historical- Some interesting examples of such comparative sociological study of the studies have been done with regard to development of transnational spaces globalization and national forms of that range from bi-national and bi- capitalism, globalization and welfare civilizational to multi-national, multi- state, globalization and religion as well civilizational and potentially global as globalization and nationalism (Held exchanges, networks, institutions, and et al. 1999, Martinelli 2005, Scholte power relations. These transnational 2005). But these studies should also and tangentially global spaces are combine more systematically with multi-dimensional: socio-economic, historical-comparative investigations of political-military as well as cultural and shared histories and entangled cognitive, carrying different weight in modernities. relation to national spaces and Fourthly, a final way to trajectories (Mann 2006). In between transcend methodological nationalism is the growing field of global history to analyze the global system, world exploring and investigating the history society or world system as an of trans-regional interconnections and overarching structure of globality. encounters, on the one hand, and the Immanuel Wallerstein's historical exploding sociological research on sociology of the capitalist world system globalization concentrating on the has been one of the important current forms of transnationalism and contributions in the first wave globalization, on the other, a historical- (Wallerstein 2000). Certainly, through comparative sociological study should its separate institutionalization as systematically compare the different political economy of the world system, forms, dimensions, waves and it has largely lost its impact on processes of transnationalism and comparative historical sociology. globalization. In relation to While, due to its economism, it has transnational and global history, such a become contested by political and historical sociological orientation is cultural world society approaches; and, more systematic-comparative and in due to its Euro-centrism, it has been relation to the sociology of recently also criticized as a re- Orientalization of global history trajectories, (iii) the varying (Hobson 2004). However, Wallerstein’s configurations of transnational/trans- analysis of the modern world system civilizational spaces and national remains one of the corner stones for a trajectories; and (iv) the varying historical sociology of the global constellations among the global system, system. Taking up these criticisms, it global forces, civilizational/national should be completed by a more multi- frameworks and local life-worlds. dimensional historical sociology of Historical-comparative sociological world society, including the political research lies between and connects and military dimensions (Hall 1996, general sociological theories of Mann 2006), the cultural and cognitive national, civilizational, transnational components (Lechner & Boli 2005, and global change, on the one hand, and Robertson 1992) as well as the transnational, trans-civilizational and civilizational dimension (Roudometof global approaches to history, on the & Robertson, 1995, also Arnason, other. It should historicize the multiple Eisenstadt & Wittrock 2004). In connections between the various levels comparison to global history, the of social reality from the global to the historical-comparative sociology of local in their multiple socio-economic, globality should not aspire to an legal-institutional, political-military and encompassing multi-dimensional cultural-cognitive dimensions; and history of world society, but rather should systematically interpret, concentrate on systematic comparisons compare and explain the varying multi- of different phases, dynamics, crises level and multi-dimensional socio- and turning points in the history of historical processes and constellations. world society; different kinds of Lastly, the development of these constellations between the multiple research strategies would also include dimensions (socio-economic, political- more systematic comparison, military, cultural-civilizational) of combination and integration of the world society; the varying influence of different social- and cultural-scientific, the global system on different kinds of macro- and micro-analytical as well as society (core, semi-peripheral, disciplinary, inter-disciplinary and post- peripheral); and thus contribute to the disciplinary approaches. historicization and contextualization of the contemporary globalization and References: world-system phase which in sociological, structuralist as well as Adams, Julie, E. Clemens, and A. constructivist, approaches are often Orloff (eds.) (2005) Remaking analyzed in a-historical, time/space-less Modernity. Politics, History, and terms. Sociology. Durham, NC: Duke In sum, then, from an University Press. international, transnational and global Arjomand, Said and E. Tiryakian (eds.) perspective, historical and comparative (2004) Rethinking Civilizational sociology should concentrate Analysis. London: Sage. strategically on (i) the global scope of Arnason, Johann (2003) Civilizations in international comparisons, including Dispute: Historical Questions and centers and particularly peripheries; (ii) Theoretical Traditions. Leiden: the multiple connections between Brill. civilizational complexes and national Arnason, Johann, S. Eisenstadt and B. Mann, Michael (2006) “A Response,” Wittrock (eds.) (2004) Axial-Age in J.A. Hall and R. W. Schroeder Civilizations and World History. (eds.), The Anatomy of Power. Leiden: Brill. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Centeno, Miguel and J. Lopez-Alves University Press. (eds.) (2002) The Other Mirror: Martinelli, Alberto (2005) Global Grand Theory in the Lens of Latin Modernization. Rethinking the America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Project of Modernity. Leiden: Brill. University Press. Osterhammel, Jürgen and N. Petersson Delanty, Gerard, and E. Isin (eds.) (2003) Globalization: A Short (2003) Handbook for Historical History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Sociology. London: Sage. University Press. Eisenstadt, Shmuel (ed.) (2002) Robertson, Roland (1992) Multiple Modernities. New Globalization. Social Theory and Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Global Culture. London: Sage. Eisenstadt, Shmuel (2003) Multiple Roudometof, Victor Roland Robertson Modernities and Comparative (1995) “Globalization, World- Civilizations. Leiden: Brill. system Theory and the Comparative Hall, John A. (1996) International Study of Civilizations,” in: S. Orders. Cambridge, UK: Polity Sanderson (ed.), Civilizations and Press. World-systems: Studying World- Held, David et al. (1999), Global historical Change, Walnut Creek, Transformations: Politics, CA: Alta Mira Press, 273-300. Economics and Culture. Scholte, Jan A. (2005) Globalization. A Cambridge, UK: Polity. Critical Introduction. New York: Hobson, John (2004) The Eastern Palgrave. Origins of the West. Cambridge, Skocpol, Theca (ed.)(1984/1996) Vision MA: Cambridge University Press. and Method in Historical Sociology. Knoebl, Wolfgang (2006) Multiple Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Modernities and Political University Press. Sociology, in: S. Costa, J. Smith, Dennis (1991) The Rise of Domingues and J. Silva (eds.), Historical Sociology. Philadelphia, From the Global Modernity to PA: Temple University Press. Multiple Modernities. München: Spohn, Willfried (2000) “Historische Hampp Verlag. Soziologie, ” Soziologische Revue Koenig, Matthias (2006) “Historical 2000 Sociology – Limitations and Spohn, Willfried (2005) “Neue Perspectives. Review Essay,” Historische Soziologie – Charles Archives Européennes de Tilly, Theda Skocpol and Sociologie XLVII, No. 3 : 397-406 Michael Mann, ” in D. Kaesler (ed.), Lechner, Frank and J. Boli (2004) Aktuelle Theorien der Soziologie. World Culture. Oxford: Blackwell. München: Beck. Mahoney, James and D. Rueschemeyer Spohn, Willfried (2006) “Globale, (eds.) (2003) Comparative multiple und verwobene Moderne, ” Historical Analysis in the Social in. Th. Schwinn (ed.), Die Vielfalt Sciences. Cambridge, MA: und Einheit der Moderne. Kultur- Cambridge University Press. und strukturvergleichende Analysen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Comparison. Cambridge, MA: Sozialwissenschaften, 101-128. Cambridge University Press. Tilly, Charles (1984) Big Structures, Wallerstein, Immanuel (2000) The Large Processes, Huge Essential Wallerstein. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press Research Note 2002). A simple ‘transfer of institutions’ to Central and Eastern Political Cultures and a Multiple Europe is thus not deemed sufficient for Democracies Approach 1 the construction of functioning and viable democracies, and democratic Paul Blokker systems are seen as in need of wider University of Liverpool societal legitimation as well as habituation to democratic practice. In Now that the fifth wave of short, such necessary soft institutions enlargement of the European Union to have to do with the relation between the include 10 (mostly former communist) political system and the public, in countries has come to an end, the particular in terms of the public widely held assumption is that the new legitimation of the political system and member states have more or less the participation of citizens in converged to a shared European model democracy. of democracy, defined by the rule of However, in the debate on law, respect for human and minority democratization in the former rights, and constitutional states. In the communist societies, there seems so far last decade and a half of ‘transition’, the to be a rather astonishing absence of empirical, comparative study of the attention regarding how such soft emerging democratic systems has institutions or cultural underpinnings of indeed been predominantly concerned democracy might develop differently with the identification of stable and between (and within) societies in the liberal regimes in Central and Eastern region, the extent to which political Europe. In other words, comparative cultures are entangled with the specific politics has mostly engaged in the historical-cultural contexts in which the assessment of the rapprochement of the new democratic regimes emerge, and formerly communist countries to a how contextual differences might relate specific - but minimally defined - to normative models of democracy. In institutional model of democracy, comparative political research, the largely derived from liberalism and focus is predominantly on a minimalist Western experiences. account of democracy, in which the In this, it is widely functional necessity of a supportive acknowledged that democratic political democratic political culture is regimes cannot be merely identified by presupposed, in particular regarding the reference to a set of ‘hard’ institutions consolidation of democratic systems, (a constitution, the separation of and whose nature is widely understood powers, and the rule of law), but also in an aprioristic sense. Hardly any need to take into account ‘soft’ systematic attention is paid to existing institutions in the form of what is and potential substantive diversity in variably referred to as a ‘background perceptions, attitudes, and culture’, ‘political culture’, ‘civic’ or understandings of democracy held both ‘public culture’ (cf. Dryzek and Holmes by political elites and by citizens. In this, the possibility that differing privately enjoyed cultural life in liberal perceptions of democracy might theory and argued for an individual that underpin (varieties of democratic is entangled in a communal culture that regimes is not considered. provides him/her with meaning and Political culture re-emerged as a choice. At the same time, the re- normative concept already in the 1980s, appraisal of republicanism in the 1970s partially also to explain the drawbacks led to a renewed attention for and failures of democratization in post- participatory forms of democracy, in authoritarian societies, in particular as a which, in general, there is a much result of incompatible collective stronger link between civic virtues, identities (ethnic nationalism) and democracy, and a shared understanding cultural predispositions (paternalism, of the common good than in liberalism. clientelism). In this, the understanding This attention for civic participation and of political culture is predominantly popular self-rule was further enhanced affirmative of the classical liberal by the emergence of new social understanding as defined in Almond movements in the 1980s and strongly and Verba’s classical work on civic informed the emergence of the culture (Almond and Verba 1963), theorization of participatory and where a democratic political culture is deliberative perceptions of democracy. understood as a composite of subjective These latter understandings of attitudes with regard to an objective democracy point in general to the democratic state. In this, empirical crucial importance of civic participation studies of democracy have hardly taken for democracy and, therefore, to a notice of the widespread contestation of participatory democratic culture. In the liberal model of democracy in sum, political theory shows a variety of political theory regarding, for instance, competing understandings of its minimalist-proceduralist, democratic political culture that are individualist, and ‘conservative’ nature. mostly not reducible to the strong And in contrast to the consensus on the distinction between culture and politics ‘rule of law’-model in empirical in liberalism. studies, in political theory it can hardly The paradox that needs to be be said that there is a normative addressed in cross-national, consensus on the relation between comparative research is, in my view, culture and politics in modern that political culture and the cultural democracy. dimension to democracy are Instead, political theory shows a increasingly considered important in the variety of competing understandings of empirical analysis of democracy, while democratic political culture that are the actual meaning, substantive content, mostly not reducible to the strong and varieties of political cultures remain distinction between culture and politics insufficiently reflected upon. Political in liberalism, and a number of culture predominantly takes the form of competing approaches towards a ‘background consensus’, as a shared, democracy can be identified. For universal and liberal culture providing instance, in reaction to the strong social and political stability, derived restatement of liberalism in the 1970s, from interpretations of the ‘historical communitarian thinkers argued against democracies’, without being the impoverished individual or historicized and without the display of ‘unencumbered self’, and his/her any structural interest in how the cultural context of democracy shapes universal value of the rights-based, and defines democracy itself. The wide constitutionalist perception for variety of understandings of political democracy elsewhere is presupposed cultures that is displayed in political rather than evidenced or problematized. theory is hardly taken as a starting point The portrayal of liberal political culture for researching existing variety in as a universally valid underpinning of democratic political cultures. Rather, democracy avoids the question of the such variety is normally seen as self-constitution of democracy and the consisting of variation on a continuum related question of the democratic ranging from authoritarian to ‘hybrid’ subject. This might be formulated to democratic regimes, but not as differently in that it can be argued that substantive difference in democratic democratic political cultures always outlook (for two conspicuous emerge in, and constitute a reflection exceptions of the rule, see Dryzek and of, a specific historical context, are Holmes 2002 and Fuchs and endorsed within a historically formed Klingemann 2006). Such a re- cultural field, and need to relate to the consideration could importantly deepen distinct experiences of real people. our understanding of the variety of With regard to the second meaning underpinning emerging aspect, the assumption is that the democracies, including the post- liberal-constitutionalist perception communist societies. exhausts democracy and its supportive The conventional understanding political culture as such. But, in this, it of political culture is problematic in that reflects a one-dimensional vision of it favors a narrow rather than an open- democracy, while participatory or ended reading of democratic political emancipatory interpretations of cultures. Conventional analyses ignore democracy (grounded in republican at least three interrelated aspects that, if ideas) are mostly ignored. The minimal considered, would induce a much vision of democracy as constitutionally- stronger sensibility to multiple forms of based elite competition over political democratic political culture, i.e., the power needs, however, to be contrasted historical and contextual nature of to the aspirational or emancipatory ‘really existing’ political cultures; the dimension of the democratic imaginary dual rather than singular imaginary of that points to the gap between ‘what is’ democracy on which democratic and ‘what ought to be’. A one- political cultures are based (i.e., a dimensional, constitutionalist vision of rights-based, constitutional imaginary democracy is partly the result of a focus on the one hand, and a substantive, on politics as confined to the formal participatory, or emancipatory political system (as an autonomous imaginary on the other); and, the political sphere) rather than as including inherent indeterminacy and a wider understanding of the political contestability of modern democracy. framework of modern democracy and With regard to the first aspect, the problématique of its political the distinct historical, particularist constitution. The attention in premises of liberal political culture are democratization studies for the not reflected upon, even if the concept predefined preconditions of procedural is derived grosso modo from a distinct democracy and its consolidation is a reading that abstracts from the Western contemporary instance of this bias. modern experience. In this, the A third aspect follows directly from the observation that democracy is 1980: 61). In their quality as the grounded in a dual rather than a successors of classical studies on civic singular imaginary. The impossibility of culture, empirical democratic theory structurally reducing democracy to and democratization studies can be either one of the imaginaries and the criticized in similar terms. The continuous tension between its assumption in these approaches is that ‘pragmatic’ and ‘redemptive’ sides democracy can be in essence narrowed (Canovan 1999) means that modern down to a classical liberal theory of democracy is inherently indeterminate constitutional, representative and always open to new interpretations. democracy, on the one hand, and an The rather strong insistence in studies Anglo-Saxon empirical model of of political culture on the order-creating democracy, on the other. Such a one- nature of modern democracy disregards dimensional and minimal understanding the possibility of the emergence of of democracy is well-conveyed in the relatively unprecedented, potentially notion of ‘waves of democratization’ innovative, or even radically new forms introduced by Samuel Huntington, who of democratic political culture. indeed reads the history of ‘The The consequence of a non- Meaning of Democracy’ as the victory historicized, a-historical, and one- of the procedural, Schumpeterian model dimensional perception of democracy is (See the title of the section in chapter 1, the neglect of questions of significant Huntington 1991: 5-13). variety between democratic political Democratic political cultures, as cultures based on specific combinations becomes evident from even a cursory of the dual dimension. It also tends to review of the current debate on equate democratic political culture with democracy in political theory, can, a liberal, national culture and to however, be conceptualized in different disregard divergent perceptions of and sometimes mutually exclusive democracy within democracies, as these ways. In addition, on a normative point, might emanate in both the public sphere participatory and deliberative forms and political society. In contrast to the have critical potential, i.e., they can confinement of democracy to its correct the erosion of liberal democracy orderly, constitutional imaginary, I that results from civic passivity, the argue that democracy should be seen as fragmentation of modern society, and multi-interpretable and ‘essentially reduced state capacities. Regarding the contestable’. The suggestion is here that political reality of democratic societies, the analysis of democratic political not only can one find a range of culture needs to go beyond a perceptions of democracy and its conceptualization that understands primary justifications among both elites political culture as the (passive) and masses (cf. Dryzek and Holmes internalization of the political system in 2002), but institutionalized democracies individual attitudes, and should be are also continuously open to normative rather understood as involving the critique. An a priori confinement of continuous (active) construction of a democracy to the minimal, procedural variety of discourses of democracy. definition does not do justice to such Carole Pateman has stated with variety and risks mistaking alternative, regard to Almond and Verba’s Civic participatory understandings for non- Culture that ‘the meaning of democracy democratic discourses. itself is never discussed’ (Pateman In analogy to Shmuel Eisenstadt’s designation of modernity the contemporary European situation, a as consisting of ‘multiple modernities’, multiple democracies approach has it makes therefore sense – in the critical potential in that the possibility specific context of political modernity - for innovative perceptions of to speak of ‘multiple democracies’ or democracy to emerge is kept open. varieties of democracy, in that Innovative visions might involve the democratization is not only about the articulation of post-national and institutionalization of a procedural europeanized political cultures. A democracy, but involves and produces multiple democracies approach is various cultural, emancipatory sensitive to such developments in that it orientations that can be related to does not take the grounding of culture, specific civilizational-religious identity, and politics in the nation-state backgrounds and routes to modernity for granted. (Eisenstadt 1999). Democracy If we accept such a diversified perceived in this way implies that the and historicized view of democracy, the creation and institutionalization of delineation of a single, universally valid democracy is always bound to a democratic political culture becomes specific historical and societal context, indeed a chimera. Democratic political is the outcome of distinct local culture can be understood as ‘produced’ struggles, is always particularist in in particular political struggles in some sense, but at the same time distinct historical situations, based on informed by the major liberal and cultural orientations grounded in the republican traditions of democracy. dual imaginary dimension of A ‘multiple democracies’ democracy. The institutionalization of approach has then, next to its sensitivity political culture and its influence on regarding a variety of democratic institutional constellations will reflect perceptions, three main advantages over such historical groundings by being the conventional understanding of related to the values and meanings that democratic political culture. First of all, the relevant social agents invoke and a ‘multiple democracies’-approach reproduce as well as modify in the proposes to bring out the distinct process. This means that any historical and contextual nature of the democratic political culture includes perception (-s) of democracy in a traditional, religious, as well as particular society, by conceiving of the political-ideological elements, and universal norms of democracy as ultimately is not reducible to a ‘thin’, always embedded in a specific liberal political culture that is generally situation. Second, such an approach supportive of a liberal-constitutionalist suggests the ‘essentially contestable’ democracy. Instead of contributing to nature of democracy, which results the affirmation of the ‘ultimate’ form of from the tension between the two democracy, a multiple democracies imaginaries of democracy, and proposes approach proposes a critical theory of a to reconstruct the political struggle variety of democratic forms instead. between different perceptions of democracy within a society and the References institutionalization of a specific vision. In this, democracy is seen as always Almond, G. and S. Verba (1963), The open to contestation and, therefore, to civic culture: political attitudes and possible change. Third, in particular in democracy in five nations, Boston, Pateman, C. (1980), ‘The Civic Culture: Mass.: Little, Brown. A Philosophic Critique’, in: G. Canovan, M. (1999), ‘Trust the People! Almond and S. Verba (ed.), The Populism and the Two Faces of civic culture revisited, Boston: Democracy’, in: Political Studies, Little, Brown. XLVII, pp. 2-16. 1 Dryzek, J. and L. Holmes (2002), Post- This research note is a concise version of a paper presented at the Fourth Annual Session, communist democratization: Warsaw East European Conference, political discourses across thirteen “Democracy vs. Authoritarianism. Political and countries, Cambridge/New York: Historical Context”, Centre for East European Cambridge University Press. Studies - Warsaw University, 15-18 July, 2007, and forms part of a larger research project on Eisenstadt, S. (1999), Paradoxes of ‘Varieties of Democracy in Central and Eastern Democracy, Baltimore, The John Europe’, financed by a Marie Curie Post- Hopkins University Press. Doctoral research grant. Paul Blokker is postdoctoral fellow at the University of Huntington, S. (1991), The Third Wave. Liverpool. Democratization in the Late Email: [email protected]; Twentieth Century, Norman and [email protected]. London: University of Oklahoma Press.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Thematic Group TG02 on Historical and Comparative Sociology is organizing two sessions for the First ISA Forum of Sociology “Sociological Research and Public Debate”(Barcelona, Spain, September 5 - 8, 2008). Two additional sessions are also organized jointly with RC09. Below you will find the details for each session. The deadline for submitting the TG02 final roster of panels to the ISA is January 31 2008.
Session 1: Multiple Modernities, Comparative Civilizations and Comparative-Historical Sociology
Session Organizers: Johann Arnason (LaTrobe University Melbourne, Australia) Willfried Spohn (Free University of Berlin)
On the background of the recent merger of RG02 “Historical and Comparative Sociology” and AH 1 “Civilizational Analysis”, this session invites to theoretical, methodological and analytical core issues of both approaches. To be sure, both approaches are essentially historical and comparative and have a common origin in criticizing and revising modernization theory and comparative modernization research in mainstream sociology. However, historical and comparative sociology in its major three waves (e.g. Adams, Clemens, Orloff eds., Remaking Modernity 2005; Mahoney, Rueschemeyer, eds., Historical Analyses in the Social Sciences 2003) has developed primarily in a meso- and microanalytical direction in combination with social and cultural history in order to explain historical processes of nation-state modernization; whereas the comparative-civilizational approach has moved rather towards a macro- sociological re-conceptualization of the formation of modernity in a long-term civilizational perspective in bringing back in particularly the cultural and religious dimensions in multiple modernities (e.g. Arnason, Eisenstadt, Wittrock, eds., Civilizations and World History 2004; Delanty, Isin, eds., Handbook for Historical Sociology 2003). As a consequence, both approaches are criticized by each other: historical and comparative sociology as missing the civilizational dimension, and comparative-civilizational analysis as lacking time/space specific orientations to historical-social processes. This session attempts to bring together both sides in order to map out and discuss theoretical, methodological and analytical core issues in combining both approaches.
Session 2: Globalization, Religion and Collective Identities: Theoretical, historical and comparative perspectives
Session Organizers: Victor Roudometof (University of Cyprus) Willfried Spohn (Free University of Berlin)
This session invites contributions that analyze the relationship among globalization, religion, and collective identities (national, transnational, ethnic, social, gender, metropolitan, colonial/postcolonial) in theoretical, historical and comparative perspective. Most current sociological research on globalization, religion and collective identities is oriented toward the contemporary global era, using contemporary experience to construct generalizations. This trend has contributed to the relative underdevelopment of a historical-comparative perspective toward different civilizations in different time-periods in world history. Particularly welcome are contributions that address theoretical and methodological problems in analyzing the relationships between globalization and/or transnational relations, on the one hand, and religion and collective identities, on the other hand in a comparative civilizational and historical perspective.
Joint Session TG 02 and RC09: Multiple Modernities, Sociology of Development and Postcolonial Studies
Organizers: Willfried Spohn (Free University of Berlin) Ulrike Schuerkens (École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris)
Sociological approaches to the non-Western world are still moving in separated traditions. The sociology of development is broadly speaking based on revised modernization and Marxist approaches, having moved from structural-functional and evolutionist to more agency-oriented forms of neo-modernization and neo-Marxist analysis. Post-colonial studies originating from a postmodernist critique of modernist and Marxist approaches toward colonial and post-colonial societies have their home more in the fields of literary criticism and anthropology than in the field of sociology. The multiple modernities perspective has developed as a neo-Weberian alternative to modernist approaches to non-Western societies, but more with regard to other world- civilization and world centers rather than peripheral or post-colonial societies. This session invites theoretical and comparative-historical contributions to discuss and bridge these divides in analyzing post-colonial and peripheral societies.
Joint Session TG 02 and RC09: Historical and Comparative Research: The Legacy of "Stable Cultural Realities", Colonialism, and Beyond
Organizers: Said A. Arjomand (SUNY-Stony Brook) Ulrike Schuerkens (École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris)
The empirical facts created in global world regions put in question the notions of "North-South", "centre-periphery", "First, Second, and Third World". Braudel (1994) underlined some decades ago that there were stable cultural realities, readapted to structural constraints according to wider civilizations. The development discourse of the last decades let us forget these findings, which were rather unpopular with elites who founded their political measures on an understanding of development as an improvement of socio-economic conditions in every country. J. Adda (2006) underlines in his recent book La mondialisation de l'économie that "the particular characteristics of these regional areas explain the manner of insertion in the global economy and their capacity to profit from the globalization process" (p. 164, my translation). This means that there are winners and losers, and even for those that are situated in-between, such as Eastern Europe that could base economic success on its industrial culture created under the communist regimes, the question continues to exist whether these societies are capable to assimilate to the western capitalist logic. The new periphery in the global world seems to be the Sub-Saharan Africa, the Arab World, and Central and South Asia. In these regions, we find prevalent poverty, structural unemployment, feeble salaries, and high fecundity rates. Moreover, political structures are weak, and ethnic and religious violence is widespread. In this session, we look for papers that study larger cultural entities and civilization zones on the basis of empirical findings and talk about the topic of development outlined above. Author should discuss their empirical findings by relating to the book of Fernand Braudel A history of civilizations, translated by Richard Mayne. London: A. Lane, The Penguin Press, 1994.
***********************
Call for Papers for the Session Process Generated Data at the Seventh International Conference on Social Science Methodology organized by ISA RC 33 (Research Committee on Logic and Methodology) September 1st – 5th, 2008, Naples
Process-generated data have several advantages in comparison to data “classically” used in social research, i. e. surveys, interviews and observation: Process-generated data are non-reactive. They can be used, if other means of data collection are not applicable, for example, if infrastructure for large-scale surveys does not exist (which is the case in many countries of transition), if response-rates in surveys are expected to be to low, if researchers might not get access to interview partners or if the social phenomenon of interest is not observable (e.g. when analyzing past events or hidden populations). At the same time, discussion on how to methodologically handle these process-generated data has been long neglected. The session aims at comparing a wide range of process- generated data and discussing how they can be used for social research. Examples for standardized data are customer data bases, web logs, and administrational forms and GIS data. Examples for less structured data are documents, novels, diaries, letters, websites, paintings, films, photos, maps, mechanical drawings, construction plans, landscapes, buildings, monuments and objects.
Papers should discuss a specific type of process-generated data, addressing the following questions: What are the specific characteristics of this data type? How does this effects data analysis and interpretation? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this data type? How does this data type differ from other forms of process-generated data, and how does it differ from surveys, interviews and observation? For which kind of theoretical and thematical research question are these data suitable? Where and how can these data be sampled and collected? Are these data limited to a specific geographical area and historical period? Are data of the same data type collected in different periods or geographical areas comparable? How valid are results drawn from these data?
Papers debating general methodological questions in handling a specific data type and papers discussing specific methodological problems in a specific research project are both equally welcome. In order to gain a common ground of discussion, authors should also state their disciplinary and theoretical background and – in case of presenting a thematic case study – shortly present the thematic background of the study.
Please email an extended abstract (1-2 pages) to the session organizer: Nina Baur • Technical University Berlin • Germany • Email: [email protected]
Call for Papers for the Session Data for Historical Sociology and for Analyzing Long-Term Social Processes at the Seventh International Conference on Social Science Methodology organized by ISA RC 33 (Research Committee on Logic and Methodology) September 1st – 5th, 2008, Naples
History (as a science) and sociology have always been closely intertwined: Many of the classical social scientists were both sociologists and historians (e.g. Karl Marx, Max Weber, Norbert Elias), and although historical sociology has been long neglected, there have always been historically oriented social scientists such as Michael Mann, Charles Tilly, Randall Collins and Michael Foucault. Currently, historical sociology is re- organizing itself (as can be seen, for example from the ISA TG02). At the same time, many theoretical debates within sociology address long-term social processes. Examples are the debates on welfare regimes, on gender regimes, on varieties of capitalism, on institution building, on World Systems, on modernization, on democratization and on globalization. Questions might be both why certain phenomena are so stable over very long time periods and why and how they change (e. g. path- dependently). If these questions are to be addressed empirically, researchers need data covering time-spans of sometimes 50 years, 100 years or maybe even several centuries, or they need to go back in time as many years. Meanwhile, most empirical (especially quantitative) research covers only the most recent past (i. e. the last 5 to 20 years). Thus, if longitudinal research is to be taken seriously, methodological problems arising when studying the longue durée have to be addressed. One of the most urgent questions is: which kind of data can be used for historical sociology and/or for analyzing long- term social processes.
Papers for this session should address one ore more of the following questions: Is it possible to learn about the distant past from “classical” sociological data types (i. e. surveys, interviews or observation)? How can these data be used and where are their limits? What alternative data types do exist that can be used for analyzing long-term social processes (e. g. documents, literature, diaries, paintings, films, mechanical drawings, maps, landscapes, buildings, objects)? What are there similarities and differences, and how do they differ from surveys, interviews and observation? Do historians and social scientists differ in interpreting these data types, or do they just differ in experience with handling specific data types? How can validity of data be assessed? What specific data problems do arise, if researchers want to analyze social process of the longue durée? Which data are suitable for which kind of questions? For each specific data type, it is important to ask about their specific characteristics and how this effects interpretation. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this data type? For which kind of theoretical and thematical research question are these data suitable? Where and how can these data be sampled and collected? Are these data limited to a specific geographical area and historical period?
Papers debating general methodological questions and papers discussing specific problems using a concrete data type in a specific research project are both equally welcome.
Please email an extended abstract (1-2 pages) to the session organizer: Nina Baur • Technical University Berlin • Germany • Email: [email protected]
Deadlines for both sessions
Submission of extended abstracts (1-2 pages): January 31st, 2008 Notification of authors: February 15th, 2008.
Further Information on the conference: http://www.rc332008.unina.it & for RC 33 at http://www.isa-sociology.org/rc33.htm
______
Members´ New Publications
Kalberg, Stephen (ed.), Max Weber: Readings and Commentary on Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005 [came out in Jan. ' 06] Kalberg, Stephen (ed.), Max Weber Lesen. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag; 2006. Kalberg, Stephen "Ascetic Protestantism and American Uniqueness: The Political Cultures of Germany and the United States Compared." Pp. 231-48 in Hermann Kurthen, Antonio. V. Menendez-Alarcon and Stefan Immerfall (eds.), Safeguarding German-American Relations in the New Century. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006 Kalberg, Stephen "Der Einfluss der politischen Kultur auf Fehlwahrnehmungen von Verbuendeten und die Aussenpolitik. Die Vereinigten Staaten und Deutschland." In: Socologia Internationalis 44 (2006), 1: 85-122
Roudometof, Victor “Greek-Orthodoxy, Territoriality, and Globality: Religious Responses and Institutional Disputes,” Sociology of Religion (Forthcoming) Roudometof, Victor (ed.) “Collective Memory and Cultural Politics” Special Issue of the Journal of Political and Military Sociology 2007, Vol. 35 No1, Summer, pp. 1 – 159 Roudometof, Victor “Collective Memory and Cultural Politics: An Introduction” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 2007 Vol. 35 No1, Summer, pp. 1 – 16 Roudometof Victor and William Haller “Social Indicators of Cosmopolitanism & Localism in Eastern and Western Europe: An Exploratory Analysis”: In Chris Rumford (ed.), Cosmopolitanism and Europe. Liverpool, UK: University of Liverpool Press, 2007, pp. 181-201.
______
INTERNATIONAL SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION THEMATIC GROUP # 02
Historical and Comparative Sociology
Established in 2003
Board 2006-2010
President Willfried Spohn (Free University Berlin, Germany)
Vice-President Wolfgang Knoebl (Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany)
Secretary-Treasurer Manuela Boatca (Catholic University, Germany)
Board Members
Said Arjomand (SUNY-Stony Brook, USA) Johann P. Arnason (La Trobe University, Australia) José Mauricio Domingues (IUPERJ, Brazil) Ewa Morawska (University of Essex, UK) Elisa Reis (Brazil) Victor Roudometof (University of Cyprus, Cyprus) Ulrike Schuerkens (École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris France) Björn Wittrock (SCASS, Sweden)