© F. Enke Verlag Stuttgart Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197 165

Modem, Anti, Post, and Neo: How Social Theories Have Tried to Understand the “New World“ of “Our Time“ 1

Jeffrey C. Alexander Department of Sociology, U.C.L.A., 405 Hilgart Avenue, Los Angeles, California, 90024, USA

A bstract: This article links the cognitive contents of the different theoretical perspectives that have emerged since World War II to their meaning-making functions, and links both to their social origins broadly understood. It views social theorists as intellectuals who try to understand the crisis of their times. In doing so, they draw not only upon the cognitive resources of earlier social theories but upon the structured traditions of cultural codes and narratives. In order to explain the new and often unnerving experiences of their changing societies, intellectuals develop binary oppositions whose constructions of sacrality and profanity allow them to place the present in relation to a simplified past and future, thus creating “history.“ Social theory is also built upon changing narrative forms, genres of collec­ tive heroism, romantic individualism, tragedy, comedy, realism, and irony. The author suggests that in recent years the comic and ironic perspectives of postmodern theory have been challenged by a neo-modern perspective that is more heroic and romantic and more confident about solving the “problems of our time.“

History is not a text, not a narrative, master or other­ revolved most centrally around the industrializa­ wise. [Yet] as an absent cause, it is inaccessible to us ex­ tion of society. The response to Inkeles was appre­ cept in textual form, [and] our approach to it and to the ciative from many of the senior members of the au­ Real itself necessarily passes through its prior textuali- dience, skeptical from the younger. Wallerstein re­ zation. Fredric Jameson sponded to Inkeles in a manner that pleased the younger generation more. “We do not live in a Sometime during the mid-1970s, at the annual modernizing world but in a capitalist world,“ he meeting of the American Sociological Association, proclaimed (1979: 133), asserting that “what ma­ a major debate erupted around modernization the­ kes this world tick is not the need for achievement ory that crystallized a decade of social and intellec­ but the need for profit.“ When Wallerstein went on tual change. l\vo speakers were featured, Alex In- to lay out “an agenda of intellectual work for those keles and Immanuel Wallerstein. Inkeles reported who are seeking to understand the world systemic that his studies of “modern man“ (Inkeles/Smith transition from capitalism to socialism in which we 1974) had demonstrated that personality shifts to­ are living“ (1979: 135, original italics), he literally ward autonomy and achievement were crucial and brought the younger members of the audience to predictable results of social modernization, which their feet.2

1 Drafts of this essay were delivered at colloquia orga­ nized by the UCLA Center for Comparative Social 2 As I remember the event, and it was certainly an ev­ Analysis; the Research Committee on Theory of the ent, the entire audience became rather heated up. International Sociological Association and the Swed­ One leading leftist sociologist of development of­ ish Collegium for Advanced Study in the Social Sci­ fered the sarcastic intervention that modernization ences; the UCLA Center for Social Theory and His­ theory had actually produced world-wide poverty, tory; and the Sociology Departments of the Univer­ and made the pointed suggestion that Inkeles try sities of Montreal and McGill. Colleagues on each of selling his tired modernization line somewhere else. these occasions offered helpful criticisms. Among At this point, shouts arose from various quarters of them, the comments of Piotr Sztompka and Bjorn the audience and this distinguished social scientist Wittrock were particularly helpful. Critical readings had to be physically restrained from underscoring his were also supplied by Donald N. Levine, Robin theoretical point in a decidedly nonintellectual man­ Wagner-Pacifici, Hans Joas, Bernard Barber, and ner. The article from which I am quoting, written by Franco Crespi. I acknowledge with particular grati­ Wallerstein and published in a collection published tude Ron Eyerman, whose ideas about intellectuals by him in 1979, clearly was drawn from the A.S.A. stimulated the present work, and John Lim, whose talk referred to above, although my references to the work on the New York intellectuals proved particu­ talk are drawn from memory. Tlryakian (1991) places larly helpful. This essay is dedicated to Ivan Szelenyi. WaUerstein’s article in a similar historical perspective 166 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197

Fifteen years later, the lead article in the Ameri­ contradictory system that produced its antithesis, can Sociological Review was entitled “A Theory of socialism and equality. For liberals, the transition Market Transition: From Redistribution to Mar­ represented an equally momentous transformation kets in State Socialism.“ The transition referred to of traditional society but created a set of historical in this article was rather different from the one alternatives - democracy, capitalism, contracts and Wallerstein had in mind. Written by Victor Nee, civil society - that did not have a moral or social once inclined to Maoism and now a rational choice counterfactual like socialism ready to hand. theorist specializing in China’s burgeoning market In the last five years, for the first time in the histo­ economy, the article suggested that the only hope ry of social science, “the transition“ has come to for organized socialism was capitalism. In fact, mean something that neither of these earlier treat­ Nee portrayed socialism exactly as Marx had de­ ments could have foreseen. It is the transition from picted capitalism, and provoked remarkably simi­ communism to capitalism, a phrase that seems ox- lar expectations. State socialism, he wrote, was an ymoronic even to our chastened ears. The sense of archaic, out-dated mode of production, one whose world-historical transformation remains, but the internal contradictions were leading to capitalism. straight line of history seems to be running in re­ Employing the class conflict analytic of Marx to verse. the productive system that Marx believed would In this recent period we have witnessed perhaps end such conflict for all time, Nee argued that it is the most dramatic set of spatially and temporally state socialism, not capitalism, that “appropriates contiguous social transformations in the history of surplus directly from the immediate producers and world. The more contemporary meaning of transi­ creates and structures social inequality through the tion may not entirely eclipse the earlier one, yet processes of its reallocation“ (1989: 665). Such ex­ there is no doubt that it has already diminished its propriation of surplus - exploitation - can be over­ significance and will arouse significantly more in­ come only if workers are given the opportunity to tellectual interest for a long time to come. own and sell their own labour power. Only with markets, Nee insisted, could workers develop the This second great transformation, to redirect Pola- power to “withhold their product“ and protect nyi’s (1944) famous phrase, has produced an unex­ their “labor power“ (p. 666). This movement from pected, and for many an unwelcome, convergence one mode of production to another would shift in both history and social thought. It is impossible power to the formerly oppressed class. “The tran­ even for already committed intellectuals to ignore sition from redistribution to markets,“ he conclud­ the fact that we are witnessing the death of a major ed, “involves a transfer of power favoring direct alternative not only in social thought but in society producers“ (ibid.). itself.3 In the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that either citizens or elites will try to structure their primary allocative systems in non-market ways.4 1. A New “Transition“

In the juxtaposition between these formulations of modernity, socialism, and capitalism there lies a 3 This impossibility is strikingly expressed in the cri de story. They describe not only competing theoreti­ coeur issued by Shoji Ishitsuka, one of Japan’s lead­ cal positions but deep shifts in historical sensibility. ing Lukacs scholars and “critical theorists“: “The whole history of Social Enlightenment, which We must understand both together, I believe, if ei­ was so great for its realization of the idea of equality, ther contemporary history or contemporary theory has well as so tragic for its enforcemnt of dictator­ is to be understood at all. ship, has ended ... The crisis of the human sciences Social scientists and historians have long talked [which as resulted] can be described as a crisis of re- about “the transition.“ An historical phrase, a so­ cogniton. The progress-oriented historical viewpoint has totally disappeared because the historical move­ cial struggle, a moral transformation for better or ment is now toward capitalism from socialism. The for worse, the term referred, of course, to the crisis also finds its expression in the whole decline of movement from feudalism to capitalism. For stage-oriented historical theory in general.“ (Ishit­ Marxists, the transition initiated the unequal and suka 1994) 4 “We should henceforth conclude that the future of socialism, if it has one, can only lie within capital­ and provides an analysis of the fate of modernization ism,“ writes Steven Lukes (1990: 574) in an effort to theory that bears a marked similarity to the one I un­ come to grips with the new transitions. For an intelli­ dertake here. gent, often anguished, and revealing intra-left de- Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 167

For their part, social scientists will be far less likely don’t believe it is prose, and I will address the chal­ to think of antimarket “socialist societies“ as coun- lenging question, recently raised so trenchantly by terfactual alternatives with which to explain their Muller (1992), of whether this emerging conversa­ own. They will be less likely to explain economic tion can avoid the relatively simplistic and totaliz­ stratification by implicitly comparing it with an ing form that obliterated the complexities of earli­ egalitarian distribution produced by publicly rather er societies and the particularisms of our own. than privately held property, a “plausible world“ Despite this new and more sophisticated form, (Hawthorn 1991) that inevitably seems to suggest however, what I will later call neo-modern theory that economic inequality is produced by the exis­ will remain as much myth as science (Barbour tence of private property itself. Social scientists 1974), as much narrative as explanation (Entrikin will, perhaps, also be less likely to explain status 1991). Even if one believes, as I do, that such a stratification by postulating the counterfactual ten­ broader and more sophisticated theory of social dency to communal esteem in a world that is uncor­ development is now historically compelling, it re­ rupted by individualism of a bourgeois rather than mains the case that every general theory of social socialist kind. Similarly, it will become much more change is rooted not only in cognition but in exis­ difficult to speak about the emptiness of formal de­ tence, that it possesses a surplus of meaning in Ri- mocracy, or to explain its limitations by pointing coeur’s (1977) deeply suggestive phrase. Moderni­ merely to the existence of a dominant economic ty, after all, has always been a highly relativist term class, for these explanations, too, require counter- (Pocock 1987, Habermas 1981, Bourricaud 1987). factuals of a traditionally “socialist“ kind. In brief, It emerged in the fifth century when newly Chris­ it will be much less easy to explain contemporary tianized Romans wished to distinguish their religi­ social problems by pointing to the capitalist nature osity from two forms of barbarians, the heathens of the societies of which they are a part. of antiquity and the unregenerate Jews. In medi­ In this essay, I do not propose a return to “conver­ eval times, modernity was reinvented as a term im­ gence“ or modernization theories of society as plying cultivation and learning, which allowed such, as some reinvirgorated propnents of the ear­ contemporary intellectuals to identify backward, ly tradition (Inkeles 1991, Lipset 1990) apparently with the classical learning of the Greek and Ro­ do.5 * I will propose, however, that contemporary man heathens themselves. With the Enlighten­ social theory must be much more sensitive to the ment, modernity became identified with rationali­ apparent reconvergence of the world’s regimes and ty, science, and forward progress, a semantically that, as a result, we must try to incorporate some arbitrary relationship that seems to have held broad sense of the universal and shared elements steady to this day. Who can doubt that, sooner or of development into a critical, undogmatic, and re­ later, a new historical period will displace this sec­ flective theory of social change. Indeed, in the ond “age of equipoise“ (Burn 1974) into which we conclusion of this essay I will demonstrate that a have so inadvertently but fortuitously slipped. growing range of widely diverse contemporary so­ New contradictions will emerge and competing cial theorists, from literary radicals and rational sets of world-historical possibilities will arise, and choice theorists to postcommunists, are speaking it is unlikely that they will be viewed in terms of convergence even if (apologies to Moliere) they the emerging neo-modernization frame. It is precisely this sense of the instability, of the im­ bate on the ideological and empirical implications of minent transitoriness of the world, that introduces these events, see the debate to which Lukes’ essay myth into social theory. Despite the fact that we forms a part: Goldfarb (1990), Katznelson (1990), have no idea what our historical possibilities will Heilbroner (1990) and Campeanu (1990). 5 For some contentious and revealing formulations of be, every theory of social change must theorize not these issues, see the debate between Nikolai Genov, only the past but the present and future as well. We Piotr Sztompka, Franco Crespi, Hans Joas, myself, can do so only in a nonrational way, in relation not and other theorists in the 1991 and 1992 issues of only to what we know but to what we believe, Theory, the Newsletter of the Research Committee hope, and fear. Every historical period needs a on Sociological Theory of the International Sociolog­ narrative that defines its past in terms of the pre­ ical Association. Those exchanges, which reproduced sent, and suggests a future that is fundamentally many of the old lines of modernization versus anti- different, and typically “even better,“ than con­ modernization debate, demonstrated how difficult it is to step outside of binary thinking on the conver­ temporary time. For this reason, there is always an gence issue, for reasons that the following analysis of eschatology, not merely an epistemology, in theo­ codes will make clear. rizing about social change. 168 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197

I proceed now to examine early modernization cial change, “modernization“ theory as such was theory, its contemporary reconstruction, and the born with the publication of Marian Levy’s book vigorous intellectual alternatives that arose in the on Chinese family structure (1949) and died some­ period between.61 will insist throughout on the re­ time in the mid-60s, during one of those extraordi­ lation of these theoretical developments to social narily heated rites of spring that marked student and cultural history, for only in this way can we un­ uprisings, antiwar movements, and newly human­ derstand social theory not only as science but also ist socialist regimes, and which preceded the long as an ideology in the sense made famous by Geertz hot summers of the race riots and Black Con­ (1973). For unless we recognize the interpenetra­ sciousness movement in the U.S. tion of science and ideology in social theory, nei­ Modernization theory can and certainly should be ther element can be evaluated or clarified in a ra­ evaluated as a scientific theory, in the postpositiv­ tional way. With this stricture in mind, I delineate ist, wissenschaftliche sense.7 As an explanatory ef­ four distinctive theoretical-cum-ideological peri­ fort, the modernization model was characterized ods in postwar social thought: modernization theo­ by the following ideal-typical traits.8 * ry and romantic liberalism; antimodernization the­ 1. Societies were conceived as coherently orga­ ory and heroic radicalism; postmodern theory and nized systems whose subsystems were closely inter­ comic detachment; and the emerging phase of dependent. neo-modernization or reconvergence theory, which seems to combine the narrative forms of 2. Historical development was parsed into two ty­ each of its predecessors on the post-war scene. pes of social systems, the traditional and the mod­ ern, statuses which were held to determine the While I will be engaging in genealogy, locating the character of their societal subsystems in determi­ historical origins of each phase of post-war theory nate ways. in an archaeology way, it is vital to keep in mind that each one of the theoretical residues of the 3. The modern was defined with reference to the phases which I examine remains vitally alive today. social organization and culture of specifically West­ My archeology, on other words, is not only an in­ ern societies, which were typified as individualis­ vestigation of the past but of the present. Because tic, democratic, capitalist, scientific, secular, and the present is history, this genealogy will help us to stable, and as dividing work from home in gender- understand the theoretical sedimentation within specifc ways. which we live intellectually today. 4. As an historical process, modernization was held to involve nonrevolutionary, incremental change. 2. Modernization: Code, Narrative, and Explanation

Drawing from a centuries-long tradition of evolu­ 7 By scientific, I do not evoke the principles of empiri­ tionary and Enlightenment inspired theories of so- cism. I do mean to refer, however, to the explanatory ambition and propositions of a theory, which must be evaluated in their own terms. These can be interpre­ 6 Paul Colomy and I (1992) have introduced the term tive and cultural, eschew narrative or statistical cau­ “reconstruction“ to indicate a path of scientific cu­ sality and, indeed, the natural scientific form. By mulation that is more radical vis-a-vis the originating extra-scientific, I mean to refer to a theory’s mythical tradition than the kinds of efforts at specification, or ideological function. elaboration, or revision that more typically mark the 8 I draw here from a broad range of writings that ap­ efforts of social scientists who wish to keep their the­ peared in the 1950s and early 1960s by such figures as oretical tradition alive in response to intellectual Daniel Lemer, Marion Levy, Alex Inkeles, Talcott challenge and the loss of scientific prestige. Recon­ Parsons, David Apter, Robert Bellah, S. N. Eisens- struction suggests that fundamental elements of the tadt, Walt Rostow, and Clark Kerr. None of these au­ founder’s “classical“ work are changed, often by in­ thors accepted each of these propositions as such, corporating elements from its challengers, even and some of them, as we will see, “sophisticated“ while the tradition as such is defended, e.g., Haber­ them in significant ways. Nonetheless, these proposi­ mas’s effort to “reconstruct historical materialism“ in tions can be accepted as forming the common de­ the mid-1970s. Reconstruction should also be distin­ nominator upon which the great part of the tradi­ guished from “theory creation,“ in which a funda­ tion’s explanatory structure was based. For an excel­ mentally different theoretical tradition is created, lent overview of this traditon that, while more de­ e.g., Habermas’ later effort to create the theory of tailed, agrees in fundamental respects with the ap­ communicative action. proach taken here, see Sztompka 1993: 129-136. Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 169

5. The historical evolution to modernity - mod­ complex we often refer to as “modernization“ ... Clear­ ernization - was viewed as likely to succeed, thus ly, definite victory for either side is not the only possible assuring that traditional societies would be provid­ choice. We have another alternative, namely, the even­ ed with the resources for what Parsons (1966) cal­ tual integration of both sides - and of uncommitted led a general process of adaptive “upgrading,“ in­ units as well - in a wider system of order.10 11* cluding economic take-off to industrialization, de­ Despite these important insights, however, the his­ mocratization via law, and secularization and sci­ torical judgment of subsequent social thought has ence via education. not erred in its evaluation of modernization theory There were important aspects of truth in these as a failed explanatory scheme. Neither nonwes­ models, which were articulated by thinkers of con­ tern nor precontemporary societies can be concep­ siderable historical and sociological insight. One tualized as internally homogeneous (cf., Mann truth, for example, lay in the insight that there are 1986). Their subsystems are more loosely coupled (e.g., Meyers/Rowan 1977, Alexander/Colomy functional not merely idealistic exigencies that 1990) and their cultural codes more independent push social systems toward democracy, markets, and the universalization of culture, and that shifts (e.g., Hall 1985). Nor is there the kind of dicho­ tomized historical development that can justify a toward “modernity“ in any subsystem create con­ single conception of traditional or modern, as Ei- siderable pressures on the others to respond in a senstadt’s (e.g., 1964; cf., Alexander 1992) exten­ complementary way.9 This understanding made it sive investigations of “Axial Age“ civilizations ma­ possible for the more sophisticated among them to kes clear. Even the concept, “western society,“ make prescient predictions about the eventual in­ built upon spatial and historical contiguity, fails stability of state socialist societies, thus avoiding sufficiently to recognize historical specificity and the rational-is-the-real embarrassments encoun­ national variation. Social systems, moreover, are tered by theorists of a more leftist kind. Thus, Par­ not as internally homogeneous as were supposed, sons (1971: 127) insisted long before Perestroika nor are there necessarily grounds for optimism “that the processes of democratic revolution have that modernization will succeed. In the first place, not reached an equilibrium in the Soviet Union universalizing change is neither imminent nor de­ and that further developments may well run velopmental in an idealist sense; it is often abrupt, broadly in the direction of Western types of demo­ involving contingent positions of power, and can cratic government, with responsibility to an elec­ have murderous results.11 In the second place, torate rather than to a self-appointed party.“ It even if one were to accept a linear conceptual should perhaps also be emphasized that, whatever scheme, one would have to acknowledge Nietzs­ their faults, modernization theorists were not pro­ che’s observation that historical regression is just as vincials. Despite their ideological intent, the most possible as progress, indeed, perhaps even more important of them rarely confused functional inter­ likely. Finally, modernization, even if it does tri­ dependence with historical inevitability. Parsons’ umph, does not necessarily increase social con­ theorizing, for example (1962: 466, 474), stressed tentment. It may be that the more highly devel­ that systemic exigencies actually opened up the oped a society, the more it produces, encourages, possibility of historical choice. Underneath the ideological conflicts [between capital­ ism and communism] that have been so prominent, 10 I am grateful to Muller (1992: 118) for recalling this there has been emerging an important element of very passage. Muller notes the “acute sense of reality“ broad consensus at the level of values, centering in the (ibid., I ll) displayed in modernization theory’s “amazing hypotheses“ (ibid., p. 112) about the even­ tual demise of state socialism. He insists, quite cor­ 9 Probably the most sophisticated formulation of this rectly in my view, that “it was not the [neo-Marxist] truth is Smelser’s elaboration (e.g., 1968), during the critique of capitalism in the 1970s which correctly final days of modernization theory, of how modern­ read the secular trends of the late twentieth century ization produced leads and lags between subsystems, - it was Parsons’ theory“ (ibid.). a process which, borrowing from Trotsky, he called 11 “Seen historically, ‘modernization’ has always been a uneven and combined development. Like virtually process propelled by inter-cultural exchange, mili­ every other important younger theorist of the peri­ tary conflicts and economic competition among od, Smelser eventually gave up on the modernization states and power blocks - as, likewise, Western post­ model, in his case for a “process“ model (Smelser war modernization took place within a newly created 1991) that delineated no particular epochal charac­ world order“ (Muller 1992: 138). See also the cri­ teristics and which allowed subsystems to interact in tiques of classical differentiation theory in Alexander a highly open-ended way. (1988) and Alexander/Colomy (1990). 170 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197

and relies upon strident and often utopian expres­ “time“, they must identify a time that preceded the sions of alienation and criticism (Dürkheim 1937). present, offer a morally compelling account of why When we look back on a “scientifically invalidat­ it was superseded, and tell their audiences whether ed“ theory that dominated the thinking of an en­ or not such a transformation will be repeated vis-a- tire intellectual stratum for two decades, those of vis the world they live in. This is, of course, merely us who are still committed to the project of a ratio­ to say that intellectuals produce historical narra­ nal and generalizing social science will be inclined tives about their own time.13 * to ask ourselves, why was it believed? While we The ideological dimension of modernization theo­ would ignore at our peril the partial truths of mod­ ry is further illuminated by thinking of this narra­ ernization theory, we would not be wrong to con­ tive function in a structuralist, or semiotic way clude that there were extra-scientific reasons in­ (Barthes 1977). Because the existential unit of ref­ volved. Social theory (Alexander/Colomy 1992) erence is one’s own time, the empirical unit of ref­ must be considered not only as a research program erence must be totalized as one’s own society. It but as a generalized discourse, one very important must, in other words, be characterized as a whole part of which is ideology. It is as a meaning struc­ regardless of the actual nature of its divisions and ture, as a form of existential truth, that social sci­ inconsistencies. Not only one’s own time, then, but entific theory functions effectively in an extras- one’s own society must be characterized by a single cientific way.12 linguistic term, and the world that preceded the To understand modernization theory and its fate, present must be characterized by another single then, we must examine it not only as a scientific broad term as well. In light of these consider­ theory but as an ideology - not in the mechanistic ations, the important ideological, or meaning­ Marxist or more broadly Enlightenment sense making function that modernization theory served (e.g., Boudon 1986) of “false consciousness“ but seems fairly clear. For Western but especially in the Geertzian (1973) one. Modernization theory American and American-educated intellectuals, was a symbolic system that functioned not only to modernization theory provided a telos for postwar explain the world in a rational way, but to interpret society by making it “historical.“ It did so by pro­ the world in a manner that provided “meaning and viding postwar society with a temporal and spatial motivation“ (Bellah 1970b). It functioned as a identity, an identity that could be formed only in a metalanguage that instructed people how to live. relation of difference with another, immediately preceding time and place. As Pocock has recently Intellectuals must interpret the world, not simply emphasized, “modernity“ must be understood as change or even explain it. To do so in a meaning­ the “consciousness rather than the condition of be­ ful, reassuring, or inspiring manner fashion means ing ‘modern’.“ Taking a linguistic model of con­ that intellectuals must make distinctions. They sciousness, he suggests that such consciousness must do so especially in regard to phases of history. must be defined as much by difference as identifi­ If intellectuals are to define the “meaning“ of their cation. The modern is a “signifier“ that functions as an “excluder“ at the same time. 12 This existential or mythical dimension of social scien­ tific theory is generally ignored in interpretations of 13 “We can comprehend the appeal of historical dis­ social scientific thought, except for those occasions course by recognizing the extent to which it makes when it is glossed as political ideology (e.g., Gould- the real desirable, makes the real into an object of ner 1970). Simmel acknowledged a genre of specula­ desire, and does so by its imposition, upon events tive work in social science, which he called “philo­ that are represented as real, of the formal coherency sophical sociology,“ but he carefully differentiated it that stories possess ... The reality that is represented from the empirical disciplines or parts thereof. For in the historical narrative, in ‘speaking itself,’ speaks example, he wrote in his Philosophy of Money that a to us .. and displays to us a formal coherency that we philosophical sociology was necessary because there ourselves lack. The historical narrative, as against exist questions “that we have so far been unable ei­ the chronicle, reveals to us a world that is putatively ther to answer or to discuss“ (quoted in Levine 1991: ‘finished,’ done with, over, and yet not dissolved, not 99, italics added). As I see it, however, questions that falling apart. In this world, reality wears the mask of are essentially unanswerable lie at the heart of all so­ a meaning, the completeness and fullness of which cial scientific theories of change. This means that one we can only imagine, never experience. Insofar as cannot neatly separate the empirical from the non- historical stories can be completed, can be given nar­ empirical. In terms I employ below, even theorists in rative closure, can be shown to have had a plot all the social sciences are intellectuals, even if most in­ along, they give to reality the odor of the ideal.“ tellectuals are not social scientific theorists. (White 1980: 20, original italics) Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 171

We call something (perhaps ourselves) modern in order theory, despite the importance of a small number to distance that of which we speak from some anteced­ of influential Europeans like Raymond Aron (e.g. ent state of affairs. The antecedent is most unlikely to be Aron 1962), we are speaking primarily about of neutral effect in defining either what is to be called American and American-educated intellectuals.15 “modern“ or the “modernity“ attributed to it (Pocock Following some recent work by Eyerman (1992; 1987: 48). cf., Jamison/Eyerman 1994) on the formation of If I may give to this approach a late-Durkheimian American intellectuals in the 1950s, I would begin turn (Alexander 1989), I would like to suggest that by emphasizing the distinctive social characteris­ we think of modernity as constructed upon a bina­ tics of the postwar period in the United States, par­ ry code. This code serves the mythological func­ ticularly the sharpness of the transition to the post­ tion of dividing the known world into the sacred war world. This transition was marked by massive and profane, thereby providing a clear and com­ suburbanization and the decline of culturally- pelling picture of how contemporaries must act to bounded urban communities, a dramatic reduction manoeuvre the space in between.14 In this sense, in the ethnicity of American life, an extraordinary the discourse of modernity bears a striking resem­ lessening of labor-capital conflict, and by unprece­ blance to metaphysical and religious salvation dis­ dented long term prosperity. course of diverse kinds (Weber 1964, Walzer 1965). These new social circumstances, coming as they It also resembles the more secular dichotomizing did at the end of two decades of massive national discourses that citizens employ to identify them­ and international upheaval, induced in postwar selves with, and to distance themselves from, the American intellectuals a sense of a fundamental diverse individuals, styles, groups, and structures historical “break.“16 On the left, intellectuals in contemporary societies (Wagner-Pacifici 1986, Bourdieu 1984). It has been argued, in fact (Alexander 1992, Alex- 15 The retrospective account by Lerner, one of the ar­ ander/Smith 1993), that a “discourse of civil soci­ chitects of modernization theory, indicates the pivot­ ety“ provides a structured semiotic field for the al nature of the American reference: conflicts of contemporary societies, positing ideal­ “[After] World War II, which witnessed the constric­ ized qualities like rationality, individuality, trust, tion of European empires and the diffusion of Amer­ and truth as essential qualities for inclusion in the ican presence ... one spoke, often resentfully, of the Americanization of Europe. But when one spoke of modern, civil sphere, while identifying qualities the rest of the world, the term was “Westernization“. such as irrationality, conformity, suspicion, and de­ The postwar years soon made clear, however, that ceit as traditional traits that demand exclusion and even this larger term was too parochial... A global punishment. There is a striking overlap between referent [was needed.] In response to this need, the these ideological constructions and the explanato­ new term ‘modernization’ evolved.“ (Lerner 1968: ry categories of modernization theory, for example 386) Parsons’ pattern variables. In this sense, modern­ An interesting topic of investigation would be the ization theory may be seen as a generalizing and contrast between European theorists of moderniza­ abstracting effort to transform an historically spe­ tion and Americans ones. The most distinguished European and the most original, Raymond Aron, cific categorical scheme into a scientific theory of had a decidedly less optimistic view of convergence development applicable to any culture around the than his American counterparts, as he demonstrated, entire world. e.g., in his Progress and Disillusion (1968), which Because every ideology is carried by an intellectual forms an extremely interesting counterpart to his cadre (Konrad/Szelenyi 1974, Eisenstadt 1986), it convergence argument in Eighteen Lectures on In­ dustrial Society. While there seems little doubt that is important to ask why the intellectual cadre in a Aron’s version of convergence theory also represent­ particular time and place articulated and promot­ ed a response to the cataclysm of World War II, it was ed a particular theory. In regard to modernization a more fatalistic and resolute reaction than an opti­ mistic and pragmatic one. See the account in his Memoires (Aron 1990). 14 Of course, as Caillois (1959) pointed out, and as 16 “The Forties was a decade when the speed with Durkheim’s original work obscured, there are actual­ which one’s own events occurred seemed as rapid as ly three terms that so classifiy the world, for there is the history of the battlefields, and for the mass of also the “mundane.“ Myth disdains the very exis­ people in America a forced march into a new jungle tence of the nundane, moving between the highly of emotion was the result. The surprises, the failures, charged poles of negative repulsion and positive at­ and the dangers of that life must have terrified some traction. nerve Qf awareness in the power and the mass, for, as 172 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197 like C. Wright Mills and David Riesman issued In such dramaturgical terms we can characterize jeremiads against what they feared was the massi- the historical period that preceded the era of mod­ fication of society. In the liberal center, theorists ernization theory as one in which intellectuals “in­ like Parsons suggested how the same transition had flated“ the importance of actors and events by em- created a more egalitarian, more inclusive, and plotting them in a heroic narrative. The 1930’s and significantly more differentiated society.17 On the the war years that followed defined a period of in­ right, there were cries of alarm about the disap­ tense social conflict that generated millennial - pearance of the individual in an authoritarian and world-historical - hopes for utopian social trans­ bureaucratic welfare state (Buckley 1951, Ayn formation, either through communist and fascist Rand 1957). On every side of the political spec­ revolutions or the construction of an unprecedent­ trum, in other words, American intellectuals were ed kind of “welfare state.“ Post-war American in­ motivated by a sense of dramatic and bifurcating tellectuals, by contrast, experienced the social social change. This was the social basis for con­ world in more “deflationary“ terms. With the fail­ structing the traditional/modern binary code, an ure of revolutionary proletarian movements in Eu­ experience of bifurcation that demanded an inter­ rope and the head-long rush to normalization and pretation of present anxieties, and future possibili­ ties, in relation to the imagined past. which purports to refute its bourgeois form yet ma­ To fully understand the interrelation between his­ kes heavy use of its substantive content. Jameson tory and theory that produced the new intellectu­ (1980: 130) calls Frye’s method a “positive herme­ als, however, we must think about narrativity in neutic“ because “his identification of mythic patterns addition to symbolic structure. In order to do so, in modern texts aims at reinforcing our sense of the we will draw upon the dramaturgical terms of affinity between the cultural present of capitalism genre theory, which stretches from Aristotle’s poet­ and the distant mythical past of tribal societies, and at awakening a sense of the continuity between our ics to the path-setting literary criticism of Northrop psychic life and that of primitive peoples.“ He offers Frye (1957), which inspired the more recent “nega­ his “negative hermeneutic“ as an alternative, assert­ tive hermeneutics“ of historically-oriented literary ing that it uses “the narrative raw material shared by critics like White (1987), Jameson (1980), Brooke myth and ‘historical’ literatures to sharpen our sense (1984), and Fussell (1975).18 * of historical difference, and to stimulate an increas­ ingly vivid apprehension of what happens when plot falls into history ... and enters the force fields of the modern societies“ (ibid.) if stricken ... the retreat to a more conservative exis­ Despite the fact that Jameson is wedded to a reflec­ tence was disorderly, the fear of communism spread tion theory of ideology, he produces, in fact, an ex­ like an irrational hail of boils. To anyone who could cellent rationale for the use of genre analysis in un­ see, the excessive hysteria of the Red wave was no derstanding historical conflicts. He argues that an in­ preparation to face an enemy, but rather a terror of fluential social “text“ must be understood as “a so­ the national self.“ (Mailer 1987 [I960]: 14). cially symbolic act, as the ideological - but formal 17 It terms of the break induced in American intellectu­ and immanent - response to a historical dilemma“ als by the postwar period, it is revealing to compare (ibid., p. 139). Because of the strains in the social en­ this later change theory of Parsons with his earlier vironment that call texts forth, “it would seem to fol­ one. In the essays on social change he composed in low that, properly used, genre theory must always in the decade after 1937, Parsons consistently took Ger­ one way or another project a model of the coexis­ many as his model, emphasizing the destablilizing, tence or tension between several generic modes or polarizing, and antidemocratic implications of social strands.“ With this “methodological axiom,“ Jame­ differentiation and rationalization. When he referred son suggests, “the typologizing abuses of traditional to modernization in this period, and he rarely did, he genre theory criticism are definitely laid to rest“ employed the term to refer to a pathological, over­ (ibid., p. 141). rationalizing process, one that produced the symp­ For the relevance of generic theory to the analysis of tomatic reaction of “traditionalism.“ After 1947, Par­ social rather literary texts, see the historical writings sons took the United States as the type case for*his of Slotkin (1973), the sociological studies of Wagner- studies of social change, relegating Nazi Germany to Pacifici (1986) and Gibson (1991), and more recently the status of deviant case. Modernization and tradi­ the work of Margaret R. Somers (e.g., 1992). tionalism were now viewed as structural processes For the particularities of my own approach to social rather than as ideologies, symptoms, or social ac­ genre and its relation to cultural codes, I am indebt­ tions. ed to conversations with Philip Smith (1991, 1993) 18 It is ironic that one of the best recent explications of, and Steven Sherwood (1994), whose own writings and justifications for, Frye’s version of generic history are important theoretical statements in their own can be found in the Marxist criticism of Jameson, right. Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 173

demobilization in the United States, the heroic lectuals charted their times. Romanticism was.20 * “grand narratives“ of collective emancipation Relatively deflated in comparison with heroism, seemed less compelling.19 No longer was the pre­ romanticism tells a story that is more positive in its sent perceived primarily as a way station to an al­ evaluation of the world as it exists today. In the ternative social order, but, rather, as more or less postwar period it allowed intellectuals and their the only possible system there ever could be. audiences to believe that progress would be more Such a deflationary acceptance of “this world“ was or less continuously achieved, that improvement not necessarily distopian, fatalistic, or conserva­ was likely. This state of grace referred, however, tive. In Europe and America, for example, there more to individuals than to groups, and to incre­ emerged a principled anticommunism that wove mental rather than revolutionary change. In the together the bare threads of a collective narrative new world that emerged from the ashes of war, it and committed their societies to social democracy. had finally become possible to cultivate one’s own Yet, even for these reformist groups, the deflation garden. This cultivation would be an enlightened, of prewar social narratives had strong effects, ef­ modernist work, regulated by the cultural patterns fects that were very widely shared. Intellectuals as of achievement and neutrality (Parsons and Shils a group became more “hard-headed“ and “realis­ 1951), culminating in the “active“ (Etzioni 1968) tic.“ Realism diverges radically from the heroic and “achieving“ (McClelland 1953) society. narrative, inspiring a sense of limitation and re­ Romanticism, in other words, allowed America’s straint rather than idealism and sacrifice. Black postwar social science intellectuals, even in a peri­ and white thinking, so important for social mobili­ od of relative narrative deflation, to continue to zation, is replaced by “ambiguity“ and “complexi­ speak the language of progress and universaliza­ ty,“ terms favored by New Critics like Empson tion. In the United States, what differentiates ro­ (1927) and particularly Trilling (1950), and by mantic from heroic narratives is the emphasis on “skepticism,“ a position exemplified in Niebuhr’s the self and private life. In America’s social narra­ writings (e.g., Niebuhr 1952). The conviction that tives, heroes are epochal; they lead entire peoples one has been “born again“ - this time to the social to salvation, as collective representations like the sacred - which inspires utopian enthusiasm, is suc­ American revolution and the civil rights movement ceeded by the “thrice born“ chastened soul de­ indicate. Romantic evolution, by contrast, is not scribed by Bell (1962c) and by an acute sense that collective; it is about Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn the social God has failed (Crossman 1950). In­ (Fiedler 1955), about the yeoman farmer (Smith deed, this new realism convinced many that narra­ 1950), and Horatio Alger. American intellectuals, tive itself - history - had been eclipsed, which pro­ then, articulated modernization as a process that duced the representations of this newly “modern“ freed the self and made society’s subsystems re­ society as the “end of ideology“ (Bell 1962a) and sponsive to its needs. In this sense modernization the portrayal of the postwar world as “industrial“ theory was behavioral and pragmatic; it focussed (Aron 1962, Lipset/Bendix 1960) rather than as on real individuals rather than on a collective his­ capitalistic. torical subject like nation, ethnic group, or class. Yet, while realism was a significant mood in the Existentialism was basic to the romantic American postwar period, it was not the dominant narrative ideology of “modernism.“ American intellectuals, frame through which postwar social science intel- indeed, developed an idiosyncratic, optimistic reading of Sartre. In the milieu saturated with exis­ tentialism, “authenticity“ became a central crite­ 19 By using the postmodern term “grand narrative“ rion for evaluating individual behavior, an empha­ (Lyotard 1985), I am committing anachronism, but I am doing so in order to demonstrate the lack of his­ sis that was central to Lionell Trilling’s (1955) mod­ torical perspective implied by the postmodernist slo­ ernist literary criticism but also permeated social gan, “the end of the grand narrative.“ Grand narra­ theory that ostensibly did not advocate moderniza­ tives, in fact, are subjected to periodic historical de­ tion, for example, Erving Goffman’s (1956) micro­ flation and inflation, and there are always other, less inflated generic constructions “waiting“ to take their place. I will point out below, indeed, that there are 20 Romanticism is used here in the technical, genre important similarities between the postwar period of sense suggested by Frye (1957), rather than in the narrative deflation and the 1980s, which produced a broad historical sense that would refer to post- broadly similar intuming that postmodernism char­ classical music, art, and literature, which in the terms acterized to such great effect as an historically un­ employed here was more “heroic“ in its narrative im­ precedented social fact. plications. 174 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197 sociology, with its equation of freedom with role than it does about modernism itself. In culture, in distance and its conception of back-versus-front theory, and in art, modernism represented a spare­ stage,21 and David Reisman’s (1950) eulogy for the ness that devalued artifice not only as decoration inner-directed man. but as pretension, and undercut utopianism as a These individualistic romantic narratives stressed collective delusion that was homologous with neu­ the challenge of being modern, and they were rosis of an individual kind (Fromm 1955, 1956). It complemented by an emphasis on irony, the narra­ was precisely such admirable qualities that Bell tive Frye defines as deflationary vis-a-vis romance (1976) designated as early or “classical modernity“ but not downright negative in its effects. In the in his attack on the sixties in The Cultural Con­ 1950s and early 1960s, the modernist aesthetic in tradictions of Capitalism. England and America stressed irony, introspec­ This picture was not, of course, an entirely homo­ tion, ambiguity. The dominant literary theory, so- geneous one. On the right, engagement in the called New Criticism, while tracing its origins back Cold War provided for some intellectuals a new to Empson’s The Seven Types of Ambiguity (1927), field for collective heroism, despite the fact that came into its own only after the heroic and much America’s most influential modernist thinkers were more historicist criticism of the 1930s. The key not as a rule Cold Warriors of the most righteous contemporary figure in American letters was Lio­ kind. On the Left, both within and outside the nel Tilling, who defined the psychological and aes­ U.S., there were important islands of social criti­ thetic goal of modernity as the expansion of com­ cism that made self-conscious departures from Ro­ plexity and tolerance for ambiguity. Psychoanaly­ manticism of both a Social Democratic and indi­ sis was a major critical approach, interpreted as an vidualist ironic sort.22 * Intellectuals influenced by exercise in introspection and moral control (Rieff the Frankfurt school, like Mills and Riesman, and 1959). In graphic art, “modern“ was equated with other critics, like Arendt, refused to legitimate the abstraction, the revolt against decoration, and humanism of this individualist turn, criticizing with minimalism, all of which were interpreted as what they called the new mass society as forcing in­ drawing attention away from the surface and pro­ dividuals into an amoral, egotistical mode. They viding pathways into the inner self. inverted modernization theory’s binary code, It is evidently difficult, at this remove, for contem­ viewing American rationality as instrumental rath­ porary postmodern and post-postmodern intellec­ er than moral and expressive, big science as tech­ tuals to recapture the rich and, indeed, often enno­ nocratic rather than inventive. They saw conformi­ bling aspects of this intellectual and aesthetic mod­ ty rather than independence; power elites rather ernism, almost as difficult as it is for contemporar­ than democracy; and deception and disappoint­ ies to see the beauty and passion of modernist ar­ ment rather than authenticity, responsibility, and chitecture that Pevsner (1949) so effectively cap­ romance. tured in his epoch-defining Pioneers of Modern In the 50s and early 60s, these social critics did not Design. The accounts of intellectual-cum-aesthetic become highly influential. To do so they would modernism proffered by contemporary postmo­ have had to pose a compelling alternative, a new dernists - from Baumann (1989), Seidman (1991, 1992, and Lasch (1985) to Harvey (1989) and Ja­ meson (1988) - is a fundamental misreading. Their 22 The present account does not, in other words, as­ construction of it as dehumanizing abstraction, sume complete intellectual consensus during the mechanism, fragmentation, linearity, and domina­ phases described. Counter trends existed, and they should be noted. There is also the very real possibili­ tion, I will suggest below, says much more about ty (see n. 28, below) that intellectuals and their audi­ the ideological exigencies that they and other con­ ences had access to more than one code/narrative at temporary intellectuals are experiencing today any given point in historical time, an access that Wagner-Padfici (personal communication) calls dis­ 21 When I arrived at the University of California, cursive hybridity. My account does suggest, however, Berkeley, for graduate school in Sociology in 1969, that each of these phases was marked, indeed was in some of the Department’s Chicago school sociolo­ part constructed by, the hegemony of one intellectual gists, influenced by Goffman and Sartre, announced framework over others. Narratives are constructed an informal faculty-student seminar on “authentici­ upon binary codes, and it is the polarity of binary op­ ty.“ This represented an existentialism-inspired re­ positions that allows historicizing intellectuals to sponse to the alienation emphasis of the sixties. As make sense of their time. “Binarism“ is less an eso­ such, it was historically out of phase. Nobody attend­ teric theoretical construct than an existential fact of ed the seminar. life. Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 175 heroic narrative to describe how the sick society important to recognize that during this second could be transformed and a healthy one put in its postwar period serious “reality problems“ began place.23 This was impossible to do in the deflation­ to intrude on modernization theory in a serious ary times. Fromm’s Art of Loving (1956) followed way. Despite the existence of capitalist markets, his denunciation of The Sane Society (1956); in the poverty persisted at home (Harrington 1962) and fifties, social solutions often were contained in in­ perhaps was even increasing in the third world. dividual acts of private love. No social program is­ Revolutions and wars continually erupted outside sued from Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality of Europe and North America (Johnson 1983), and (1950). Not only did C. Wright Mills fail to identify sometimes even seemed to be produced by mod­ any viable social alternatives in his stream of criti­ ernization itself. Dictatorship, not democracy was cal studies, but he went out of his way to denounce spreading throughout the rest of the world (Moore the leaders.of the social movements of the thirties 1966); postcolonial nations seem to require an au­ and forties as “the new men of power“ (Mills thoritarian state (Huntington 1968) and a com­ 1948). After nearly twenty years of violence- mand economy to be modern, not only in the producing utopian hopes, collective heroics had economy and state but in other spheres as well. lost their sheen. The right-wing populism of Mc­ New religious movements (Bellah/Glock 1976) Carthy reinforced the withdrawal from public life. emerged in Western countries and in the develop­ Eventually, however, Americans and Western Eu­ ing world, with sacralization and ideology gaining ropeans did catch their breath, with results that ground over secularization, science, and technoc­ must be related, once again, to history and social racy. These developments strained the central as­ theory alike. sumptions of modernization theory, although they did not necessarily refute it.24 3. Antimodernization Theory: 24 A publication that in retrospect takes on the appear­ The Heroic Revival ance of a representative, and representational, turn­ ing point between these historical phases, and be­ Sometime in the later 1960s, between the assassi­ tween modernization theory and what succeeded it, nation of President Kennedy and the San Francis­ is David Apter’s edited book, Ideology and Discon­ co “love“ summer of 1967, modernization theory tent (1964). Among the contributors were leading died. It died because the emerging younger gener­ modernization social scientists, who grappled with ation of intellectuals could not believe it was true. the increasingly visible anomalies of this theory, par­ ticularly the continuing role of utopian and revolu­ Even if we regard social theory as semiotic system tionary ideology in the third world, which inspired rather than pragmatically inducted generalization, revolutions, and, more generally, with the failure of it is a sign system whose signifieds are empirical re­ “progressive“ modernizing development. Geertz’s ality in a rather strictly disciplined sense. So it is “Ideology as a Cultural System,“ so central to devel­ opments in post-modernization theories, appeared first in this volume. Apter himself, incidentally, dem­ 23 This points to one quibble I have with Jameson and onstrated a personal theoretical evolution paralleling Eyerman’s Seeds of the Sixties (1994), their brilliant the broader shifts documented here, moving from an account of these critical intellectuals in the 1950’s. enthusiastic embrace, and explication, of Third Jameson and Eyerman argue that they failed to exert World modernization, which concentrated on univer­ influence, not primarely because of the conservatism sal categories of culture and social structure (see, of the dominant society. It seems important to add, e.g., Apter 1963), to a post-modern skepticism about however, that their own ideology was partly responsi­ “liberating“ change and an emphasis on cultural par­ ble, for it was insufficiently historical in the future- ticularity. This latter position is indicated by the self­ oriented, narrative sense. A more important dis­ consciously antimodernist and antirevolutionary agreement would be that Jameson and Eyerman themes in the striking deconstruction of Maoism that seem to accept “mass society“ as an actual empirical Apter (1987) published in the late 1980s. The intel­ description of both social structural and cultural lectual careers of Robert Bellah and Michael Walzer modernization in the fifties. In so doing, they may be (cf., my discussion of Smelser’s shifting concerns in mistaking an intellectual account for a social reality. n. 9, above) reveal similar though not identical con­ These vestiges of a realist epistemology - in what is tours. otherwise an acutely cultural and constructivist ap­ These examples and others (see n. 21, above) raise proach - makes impossible to appreciate the compel­ the intriguing question that Mills described as the re­ ling humanism that informed so much of the work of lationship between history and biography. How did the very fifties intellectuals whom these critics often individual intellectuals deal with the historical suc­ attacked. cession of code/narrative frames, which pushed them 176 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197

Factual problems, however, are not enough to cre­ placed, discussions of stratification and mobility. ate scientific revolutions. Broad theories can de­ Conflict theories (Coser 1956, Dahrendorf 1959, fend themselves by defining and protecting a set of Rex 1961) replaced functional ones; state centered core propositions, jettisoning entire segments of political theories (Bendix et al. 1968, Collins 1976, their perspective as only peripherally important. Skocpol 1979, Evans et al., 1985) replaced value Indeed, if one looks closely at modernization theo­ centered and multidimensional approaches; and ry during the middle and late 1960s, and even dur­ conceptions of binding social structures were chal­ ing the early 1970’s, one can see an increasing so­ lenged by microsociologies that emphasized the phistication as it geared up to meet its critics and to liquid, unformed, and negotiated character of ev­ address the reality problems of the day. Dualistic eryday life. simplifications about tradition and modernity were What pushed modernization theory over the edge, elaborated - not replaced by - notions that por­ however, were not these scientific alternatives in trayed a continuum of development, as in the later and of themselves. Indeed, as I have indicated, the neo-evolutionary theories of Parsons (1964, 1966, revisors of the earlier theory had themselves begun 1971), Bellah (1964), and Eisenstadt (1964). Con­ to offer coherent, equally explanatory theories for vergence was reconceptualized to allow parallel many of the same phenomena. The decisive fact in but independent pathways to the modern (e.g., modernization theory’s defeat, rather, was the de­ Shils [1972] on India, Eisenstadt [1963] on em­ struction of its ideological, discursive, and mytho­ pires, Bendix [1965] on citizenship). Notions like logical core. The challenge that finally could not be diffusion and functional substitutes were proposed met was existential. It emerged from new social to deal with the modernization of non Western civi­ movements that were increasingly viewed in terms lizations in a less ethnocentric manner (Bellah of collective emancipation - peasant revolutions 1957; Cole 1979). The postulate of tight subsystem on a world-wide scale, black and Chicano national links was replaced by the notion of leads and lags movements, indigenous people’s rebellions, youth (Smelser 1968), the insistance on interchange be­ culture, hippies, rock music, and women’s libera­ came modified by notions of paradoxes (Schluch- tion. Because these movements (e.g., Weiner ter 1979), contradictions (Eisenstadt 1963), and 1984), profoundly altered the Zeitgeist - the expe­ strains (Smelser 1963). Against the metalanguage rienced tempo of the times - they captured the of evolution, notions about developmentalism ideological imaginations of the rising cadre of in­ (Schluchter/Roth 1979) and globalism (Nettle and tellectuals. Robertson 1968) were suggested. Secularly gave way to ideas about civil religion (Bellah 1970b) and In order to represent this shifting empirical and ex­ by references to “the tradition of the modern“ istential environment, intellectuals developed a (Gusfield 1976). new explanatory theory. Equally significant, they Against these internal revisions, antagonistic theo­ inverted the binary code of modernization and ries of antimodernization were proposed on the “narrated the social“ (Sherwood 1994) in a new grounds that they were more valid explanations of way. In terms of code, “modernity“ and “modern­ the reality problems that emerged. Moore (1966) ization“ moved from the sacred to the profane side replaced modernization and evolution with revolu­ of historical time, with modernity assuming many tion and counterrevolution. Thompson (1963) re­ of the crucial characteristics that had earlier been placed abstractions about evolving patterns of in­ associated with traditionalism and backwardness. dustrial relations with class history and conscious­ Rather than democracy and individualization, the ness from the bottom up. Discourse about exploi­ contemporary modern period was represented as tation and inequality (e.g., Goldthlprpe 1969, bureaucratic and repressive. Rather than a free Mann 1973) contended with, and eventually dis­ market or contractual society, modern America be­ came “capitalist,“ no longer rational, interdepen­ dent, modern, and liberating but backward, into interstitial positions vis-a-vis the “new world of our time“? Some remained committed to their earli­ greedy, anarchic, and impoverishing. er frameworks and became, as a result, either perma­ This inversion of the sign and symbols associated nently or temporarily “obsolete.“ Others changed with modernity polluted the movements associat­ their frameworks and became contemporary, not necessarily for opportunistic reasons but because of ed with its name. The death of liberalism (Lowi personal encounters with profoundly jarring histori­ 1969) was announced, and its reformist origins in cal experiences, which sometimes gave them a keen the early twentieth century dismissed as a camou­ appreciation for “the new.“ flage for extending corporate control (Weinstein Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 177

1968, Kolko 1967). Tolerance was associated with The historical vignette with which I opened this es­ fuzzy-mindedness, immorality, and repression say provides an illustration of this shift in sensibili­ (Wolfe et al. 1965). The asceticism of Western reli­ ty. In his confrontation with Inkeies, Wallerstein gion was criticized for its repressive modernity and portentously announced, “the time has come to Eastern and mystical religious were sacralized in­ put away childish things, and look reality in the stead (Brown 1966, cf., Brown 1959). Modernity face“ (1979:133). He was not adopting here a real­ was equated with the mechanism of the machine ist frame but rather donning a heroic guise. For it (Roszak 1969). For the third world, democracy was emancipation and revolution that marked the was defined as a luxury, strong states a necessity. narrative rhetoric of the day, not, as Weber might Markets were not luxuries but enemies, for capi­ have said, the hard dreary task of facing up to talism came to be represented as guaranteeing workaday demands. To be realistic, Wallerstein underdevelopment and backwardness. This inver­ suggested, was to realize that “we are living in the sion of economic ideals carried into the first world transition“ to a “socialist mode of production, our as well. Humanistic socialism replaced welfare future world government“ (1979: 136). The exis­ state capitalism as the ultimate symbol of the tential question he put to his listeners was, “How good. Capitalist economies were held to produce are we relating to it?“ He suggested that there only great poverty and great wealth (Kolko 1962), were only two alternatives. They could relate to and capitalist societies were viewed as sources of the imminent revolution “as rational militants con­ ethnic conflict (Bonacich 1972), fragmentation, tributing to it or as clever obstructors of it (wheth­ and alienation (Oilman 1971). Not market society er of the malicious or cynical variety).“ The rhetor­ but socialism would provide wealth, equality, and ical construction of these alternatives demon­ a restored community. strates how the inversion of binary coding (the These recodings were accompanied by fundamen­ clear line between good and bad, with modernity tal shifts in social narratives. Intellectual myths being polluted) and the creation of a newly heroic were inflated upwards, becoming stories of collec­ narrative (the militantly millennial orientation to tive triumph and heroic transformation. The pre­ future salvation) were combined.27 * Wallerstein sent was reconceived, not as the denouement of a made these remarks, it will be recalled, in a scien­ long struggle but as a pathway to a different, much tific presentation, later published as “Moderniza­ better world.25 In this heroic myth, actors and tion: requiescat in pace.“ He was one of the most groups in the present society were conceived as be­ influential and original social scientific theorists of ing “in struggle“ to build the future. The individu­ the anti-modernization theory phase. alized, introspective narrative of romantic mod­ The social theories that this new generation of rad­ ernism disappeared, along with ambiguity and iro­ ical intellectuals produced can and must be consid­ ny as preferred social values (Gitlin 1987: 377- ered in scientific terms (see, e.g., van den Berg 406). Instead, ethical lines were sharply drawn and 1980 and Alexander 1987). Their cognitive political imperatives etched in black and white. In achievements, indeed, became dominant in the literary theory, the new criticism gave way to the 1970s and have remained hegemonic in contem- new historicism (e.g., Veeser 1989). In psychology, the moralist Freud was now seen as anti- Gorz, and the early Lukacs. By 1970, it had turned repressive, erotic, and even polymorphously per­ into a forum for Leninism and Althusserianism. The verse (Brown 1966). The new Marx was sometimes cover of its Fall, 1969, issue was emblazoned with the a Leninist and other times a radical communitar­ solgan, “Militancy.“ ian; he was only rarely portrayed as a social demo­ 27 In order to forestall misunderstanding in regard to crat or humanist in the earlier, modernist sense.26 the kind of argument I am making here, I should em­ phasize that this and other correlations I am positing between code, narrative, and theory constitute what 25 See, for example, the millennial tone of the contem­ Weber, drawing on Goethe, called “elective affini­ porary articles collected in Smiling through the Apoc­ ties“ rather than historically, sociologically, or semi- alypse: Esquire's History of the Sixties (1987). otically causal relations. Commitment to these theo­ 26 An illustrative case study of one dimension of this ries could, in principle, be induced by other kinds of evolution would be the British New Left Review. Cre­ ideological formulations, and have been, in earlier ated initially as a forum for disseminating humanistic times and other national milieux. Nor need these Marxism - oriented towards existentialism and con­ particular versions of code and narrative always be sciousness - vis-a-vis the mechanistic perspective of combined. Nonetheless, in the historical periods I the Old Left, in the late 1960s it was an important fo­ consider here, the positions did mesh in complemen­ rum for publishing Sartre, Gramsci, Lefebvre, tary ways. 178 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197 porary social science long after the ideological to­ lash movements that generated conservative pub­ talities in which they were initially imbedded have lics and brought right-wing governments to power. since disappeared.28 Yet to study the decline of a The cultural-cum-political shift was so rapid as to mode of knowledge, I would insist once again, de­ seem, once again, to represent some kind of mands broader, extra-scientific considerations as historical-cum-epistemological break.29 Material­ well. Theories are created by intellectuals in their ism replaced idealism among political influentials, search for meaning. In response to continuing so­ and surveys reported increasingly conservative cial change, generational shifts occur that can views among young people and university stu­ make the scientific and ideological efforts of earli­ dents. Maoist ideologues - one thinks of Bernard- er intellectual generations seem not only empiri­ Henri Levy (1977) in Paris and David Horowitz cally implausible but psychologically shallow, po­ (1989) in the U.S. - became anticommunist nou- litically irrelevant, and morally obsolete. velle philosophes and, some of them, neoconserv­ By the end of the 1970s, the energy of the radical atives. Yippies became yuppies. For many intellec­ social movements of the preceding period had dis­ tuals who had matured during the radicalism of the sipated. Some of their demands become institu­ 1960s and 1970s, these new developments brought tionalized; others were blocked by massive back- unbearable disappointment. Parallels with the 1950s were evident. The collective and heroic nar­ 28 This brief aside about the “lag“ in generational pro­ rative of socialism once again had died, and the duction is important to emphasize. It is primarily end of ideology seemed once again to be at hand. new generations coming to political and cultural self- consciousness that produces new intellectual ideolo­ gies and theories, and, as Mannheim first empha­ 4. Postmodemization Theory: sized, generational identities tend to remain constant Defeat, Resignation, and despite shifts in historical time. The result is that, at Comic Detachment any given point, the “intellectual milieu“ considered as a totality will contain a number of competing ideo­ logical formulations produced by historically- “Postmodernism“ can be seen as an explanatory generated archaeological formations. Insofar as social theory that has produced new middle range there remain authoritative intellectual figures within models of culture (Lyotard 1984, Foucault 1976, each generation, furthermore, earlier intellectual Huyssen 1984), science and epistemology (Rorty ideologies will continue to socialize some members 1979), class (Bourdieu 1984), social action (Crespi of succeeding generations. Authoritative socializa­ 1992), gender and family relations (Halpern 1990, tion, in other words, exacerbates the lag effect, Seidman 1991), and economic life (Harvey 1989, which is further increased by the fact that access to Lasch 1985). In each of these areas, and others, the organizational infrastructures of socialization - e.g., control of graduate training programs in major postmodern theories have made original contribu­ universities, editorships of leading journals - may be tions to the understanding of reality.30 It is not as a attained by the authoritative members of generations whose ideology/theory may already be “refuted“ by developments that are occurring among younger 29 This sense of imminent, apocalyptic transformation generations. These considerations produce layering was exemplified in the 1980s by the post-Marxist and effects that make it difficult to recognize intellectual postmodern British magazine, Marxism Today\ successions until long after they are crystallized. which hailed, in millennial language, the arrival of These inertial effects of generational formations sug­ “New Times.“ gest that new ideologies/theories may have to re­ Unless the Left can come to terms with those New spond not only to the immediately preceding forma­ Times, it must live on the sidelines [...] Our world is tion - which is their primary reference point - but in being remade [...] In the process our own identities, a secondary way to all the formations that remain in our sense of self, our own subjectivities are being the social milieu at the time of their formation. For transformed. We are in transition to a new era. example, while postmodernism will be portrayed (Marxism Today; October 1988; quoted in Thompson here as a response primarily to antimodemization 1992: 238) theories of revolutionary intent, it is also marked by 30 A compendium of postmodernism’s middle level in­ the need to posit the inadequacy of postwar modern­ novations in social scientific knowledge has been ism and, indeed, of prewar Marxism. As I indicate compiled by Crook, Pakulski, and Waters 1992. For a below, however, postmodernism’s responses to the cogent critique of the socio-economic propositions latter movements are mediated by their primary re­ such middle-range theories of the postmodern age ei­ sponse to the ideology/theory immediately preceding ther advance or assume, see Herpin 1993. For other it. Indeed, it only understands the earlier movements critiques, Archer 1987, Giddens 1991, and Alexander as they have been screened by the sixties generation. 1991,1992. Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 179 theory of the middle range, however, that postmo­ this exalted collective present, which had been dernism has made its mark. These discussions have held to presage an even more heroic imminent fu­ become significant only because they are taken to ture, as a period that was now passed. They de­ exemplify broad new trends of history, social struc­ clared that it had been superseded not for reasons ture, and moral life. Indeed, it is by intertwining of political defeat but because of the structure of the levels of structure and process, micro and mac­ history itself.32 The defeat of utopia had threat­ ro, with strong assertions about the past, present, ened a mythically incoherent possibility, namely and future of contemporary life that postmodern­ that of historical retrogression. It threatened to un­ ism has formed a broad and inclusive general theo­ dermine the meaning structures of intellectual life. ry of society, one which, like the others we have With postmodern theory, this imminent defeat considered here, must be considered in extra- could be transformed into an immanent one, a ne­ scientific terms, not only as an explanatory source. cessity of historical development itself. The heroic If we consider postmodernism as myth - not mere­ “grand narratives“ of the Left had merely been ly as cognitive descriptions but as their coding and made irrelevant by history; they were not actually narration into a “meaningful“ frame - we must defeated. Myth could still function. Meaning was deal with it as the successor ideology to radical so­ preserved. cial theory, animated by the failure of reality to un­ The most influential early attributions of postmo­ fold in a manner that was consistent with the ex­ dernism were filled with frank revelations of theo­ pectations generated by that antimodernization retical perplexity, testimonies to dramatic shifts in creed. From this perspective, we can see that while reality, and expressions of existential despair. postmodernism seems to be coming to grips with Frederick Jameson (1988: 25), for example, identi­ the present and future, its horizon is fixed by the fied a “new and virtually unimaginable quantum past. Initially (at least) an ideology of intellectual leap in technological alienation.“ Despite his disappointment, Marxist and postMarxist intellec­ methodological commitments, Jameson resists the tuals articulated postmodernism in reaction to the impulse to fall back on the neo-Marxism certain­ fact that the period of heroic and collective radical­ ties of the earlier age. Asserting that shifts in the ism seemed to be slipping away.31 They redefined productive base of society had created the super- structural confusions of a transitional time, he be­ 31 In December, 1986, The Guardian, a leading inde­ moaned (ibid., 15) “the incapacity of our minds, at pendent British newspaper broadly on the Left, ran a least at present, to map the great global multina­ three-day long major series, “Modernism and Post- tional and decentered communication network in Modernism.“ In his introductory article, Richard which we find ourselves caught as individual sub­ Gott announced, by way of explanation, that “the jects.“ Referring to the traditional role of art as a revolutionary impulses that had once galvanized pol­ vehicle for gaining cultural clarity, Jameson com­ itics and culture had clearly become sclerotic“ (quot­ plained that this meaning-making reflex had been ed in Thompson 1992: 222 ). Thompson’s own analy­ sis of this event is particularly sensitive to the central blocked: we are “unable to focus our own present, role played in it by the historical deflation of the he­ as though we have become incapable of achieving roic revolutionary myth. aesthetic representations of our own current expe­ “Clearly this newspaper thought the subject of an al­ rience“ (ibid., 20).33 leged cultural shift from modernism to post­ modernism sufficiently important for it to devote ral reflection of its binary and narrative functions, many pages and several issues to the subject. The such broad claims play a vital role in situating the reason it was considered important is indicated by “postmodern“ age vis-a-vis the future and the past. the sub-heading: “Why did the revolutionary move­ 32 “La revolution qu’anticipaient les avant-gardes et les ment that lit up the early decades of the century fiz­ partis d’extr&me gauche and que ddnouncaient les zle out. In a major series, Guardian critics analyze penseurs et les organisations de droit ne s’est pas late twentieth century malaise“ ... “The subsequent produite. Mais les soci6t6s avanc£s n’en ont pas articles made it even clearer that the cultural “mal­ moins subi£s une transformation radicale. Tel est le aise“ represented by the shift from modernism was constat commun que font les sociologues ... qui ont regarded as symptomatic of a deeper social and polit­ fait de la postmodernitie le th£me de leurs analyses.“ ical malaise.“ (ibid.). (Herpin 1993: 295) The stretching of revolutionary fervor, and the very 33 This mood of pessimism should be compared to the term “modernism,“ to virtually the entirety of the distinctly more optimistic tone of Jameson’s “Pref­ pre-postmodernism twentieth century - sometimes, ace“ to The Political Unconscious, his collection of indeed, to the entire post-Enlightenment era - is a essays written during the 1970s, in which he seeks to tendency common to postmodernist theory. A natu- “anticipate ... those new forms of collective thinking 180 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197

Yet, the intellectual meaning-making triumph of particularity, and localism as the embodiments of mature postmodernism is already visible in Jame­ the good. As for narrative, the major historical son’s depiction of this new order as privatized, propositions of postmodernism - the decline of the fragmented, and commercial. With these terms, grand narrative and the return to the local (Lyo­ the perplexities and blockages of rationality which tard 1984), the rise of the empty symbol, or simu­ Jameson succeeded in articulating can be ex­ lacrum (Baudrillard 1983), the end of socialism plained not as personal failure but as historical ne­ (Gorz 1982), the emphasis on plurality and differ­ cessities based on reason itself. What threatened ence (Seidman 1991,1992) - are transparent repre­ meaninglessness now becomes the very basis for sentations of a deflationary narrative frame. They meaning; what has been constructed is a new pre­ are responses to the decline of “progressive“ ideol­ sent and a new past. No wonder that Jameson de­ ogies and their utopian beliefs. scribed (ibid., p. 15) postmodernism as first and The resemblances to radical antimodernism, then, foremost a “periodizing concept,“ suggesting that are superficial and misleading. In fact, there is a the term was created so that intellectuals and their much more significant connection between post­ audiences could make sense of these new times: modernism and the period that preceded radical­ “The new postmodernism expresses the inner truth ism, that is, modernization theory itself. Modern­ of that newly emergent social order of late capital­ ization theory, we recall, was itself a deflationary ism“ (ibid.). ideology following an earlier heroic period of radi­ Postmodern theory, then, may be seen, in rather cal quest. It, too, contained emphases on the pri­ precise terms, as an attempt to redress the problem vate, the personal, and the local. of meaning created by the experienced failure of “the sixties.“ Only in this way can we understand While these similarities reveal how misleading the why the very dichotomy between modern and intellectual self-representations of intellectual ide­ postmodern was announced, and why the contents ologies can be, it is obviously true that the two ap­ of these new historical categories are described in proaches differ in fundamental ways. These differ­ the ways they are. From the perspective developed ences emerge from their positions in concrete his­ here, the answers seem clear enough. Continuity torical time. The postwar liberalism that inspired with the earlier period of antimodern radicalism is modernization theory followed upon a radical maintained by the fact that postmodernism, too, movement that understood transcendence within a takes “the modem“ as its explicit foe. In the binary progressivist frame, one which, while aiming to coding of this intellectual ideology, modernity re­ radicalize modernism, hardly rejected it. Thus, mains on the polluted side, representing “the oth­ while the romantic and ironic dimensions of post­ er“ in postmodernism’s narrative tales. war liberalism deflated heroic modernism, its movement away from radicalism made central as­ Yet, in this third phase of postwar social theory, the pects of modernism even more accessible. contents of the modem are completely changed. Radical intellectuals had emphasized the privacy Postmodernism, by contrast, followed upon a radi­ and particularism of modem capitalism, its provin­ cal intellectual generation which had condemned ciality, and the fatalism and resignation it pro­ not only liberal modernism but key tenets of the duced. The post-modernization alternative they very notion of modernization as such. The New posited was, not postmodern, but public, heroic, Left rejected the Old Left in part because it was collective, and universal. It is precisely these latter wedded to the modernization project; they pre­ qualities, of course, that postmodernization theory ferred the Frankfurt School (e.g., Jay 1970), has condemned as the very embodiment of moder­ whose roots in German romanticism coincided nity itself. In contrast, they have coded privacy, di­ more neatly with its own, antimodernist tone. minished expectations, subjectivism, individuality, While postmodernism, then, is indeed a deflation­ ary narrative vis-a-vis heroic radicalism, the speci­ ficity of its historical position means that it must and collective culture which lie beyond the bound­ place both heroic (radical) and romantic (liberal) aries of our own world,“ describing them as the “yet versions of the modem onto the same negative unrealized, collective, and decentered cultural pro­ side. Successor intellectuals tend to invert the bi­ duction of the future, beyond realism and modern­ ism alike“ (1980: 11). Scarcely a decade later, what nary code of the previously hegemonic theory. For Jameson found to beyond modernism turned out to postmodernism, the new code, modernism: post­ be quite different from the collective and liberating modernism, implied a larger break with “univer­ cultural he had sought. salist“ Western values than did the traditionalism: Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modem, Anti, Post, and Neo 181 modernism of the immediate postwar period or the ively or emotionally involved, can sit back and be capitalist modernism: socialist anti-modernization amused. Baudrillard (1983) is the master of satire dichotomy that succeeded it.34 and ridicule, as the entire Western world becomes In narrative terms as well there are much greater Disneyland at large. In the postmodern comedy, deflationary shifts. Although there remains, to be indeed, the very notion of actors is eschewed. With sure, a romantic tenor in some strands of postmo­ tongue in cheek but a new theoretical system in his dernist thought, and even collectivist arguments mind, Foucault announced the death of the sub­ for heroic liberation, these “constructive“ versions ject, a theme that Jameson canonized with his an­ (Thompson 1992; Rosenau 1992) focus on the per­ nouncement that “the conception of a unique self sonal and the intimate and tend to be offshoots of and private identity [are] thing[s] of the past.“ social movements of the 1960s, e.g., gay and lesbi­ Postmodernism is the play within the play, an his­ an “struggles,“ the women’s “movement,“ and the torical drama designed to convince its audiences ecology activists like Greens. Insofar as they do that drama is dead and that history no longer ex­ engage public policy, such movements articulate ists. What remains is nostalgia for a symbolized their demands much more in the language of dif­ past. ference and particularism (e.g., Seidman 1991 and Perhaps we may end this discussion with a snap­ 1992) than in the universalistic terms of the collec­ shot of Daniel Bell, the intellectual whose career tive good. The principal, and certainly the most neatly embodies each of the scientific-cum- distinctive thrust of the postmodern narrative, mythical phases of history I have thus far de­ moreover, is strikingly different. Rejecting not on­ scribed. Bell came to intellectual self- ly heroism but romanticism as well, it tends to be consciousness as a Trotskyist in the 1930s. For a more fatalistic, critical, and resigned, in short time after World War II he remained in the heroic more comically agnostic, than these more political anticapitalist mode of figures like C. Wright Mills, movements of uplift and reform suggest. Rather whom he welcomed as a colleague at Columbia than upholding the authenticity of the individual, University. His famous essay on the assembly line postmodernism announced, via Foucault and Der­ and deskilled labor (1962b [1956, 1947]) demon­ rida, the death of the subject. In Jameson’s (1988: strated continuity with prewar leftist work. By in­ 15) words, “the conception of a unique self and sisting on the concept of alienation, Bell commit­ private identity [are] thing[s] of the past.“ Another ted himself to “capitalism“ rather than “industrial­ departure from the earlier, more romantic version ism,“ thus championing epochal transformation of modernism is the singular absence of irony. Ror- and resisting the postwar modernization line. ty’s political philosophy is a case in point. Because Soon, however, Bell made the transition to real­ he espouses irony and complexity (e.g., Rorty ism, advocating modernism in a more romantically 1985,1989), he maintains a political if not an epis­ individualist than radical socialist way. Although temological liberalism, and because of these com­ The Coming of Post-Industrial Society appeared mitments he must distance himself from the post­ only in 1973, Bell had introduced the concept as an modernist frame. extension of Aron’s industrialization thesis nearly Instead of romance and irony, what has emerged two decades before. Postindustrial was a period­ full blown in postmodernism is the comic frame. ization that supported progress, modernization, Frye calls comedy the ultimate equalizer. Because and reason while undermining the possibilities for good and evil cannot be parsed, the actors - pro­ heroic transcendence and class conflict. Appearing tagonists and antagonists - are on the same moral in the midst of antimodernist rebellion, The Com­ level, and the audience, rather than being normat­ ing of Post-Industrial Society was reviewed with perplexity and disdain by many intellectuals on the antimodernist left, although its oblique relation­ 34 Postmodern theorists are fond of tracing their anti­ ship with theories of postscarcity society were modern roots to Romanticism, to anti-Enlight- enment figures like Nietzsche, to Simmel, and to sometimes noted as well. themes articulated by the early Frankfurt school. Yet What is so striking about this phase of Bell’s career, the earlier, more traditionally Marxist rebellion however, is how rapidly the modernist notion of against modernization theory often traced its lineage post-industrial society gave way to postmodern­ in similar ways. As Seidman (1983) demonstrated be­ ism, in content if not explicit form. For Bell, of fore his postmodern turn, Romanticism itself had significant universalizing strains, and between course, it was not disappointed radicalism that Nietzsche and Simmel there exists a fundamental dis­ produced this shift but his disappointments with agreement over the evaluation of modernity itself. what he came to call late modernism. When Bell 182 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197 turned away from this degenerate modernism in lists of the strong linguistic turn - thinkers like The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, his sto­ Foucault, Bourdieu, Geertz, and Rorty - began to ry had changed. Post-industrial society, once the outline their understandings long before postmo­ epitome of modernism, now produced, not reason dernism appeared on the scene. Nevertheless, and progress, but emotionalism and irrationalism, their emphasis on relativism and constructivism, categories alarmingly embodied in sixties youth their principled antagonism to an identification culture. Bell’s solution to this imminent self- with the subject, and their skepticism regarding destruction of Western society was to advocate the the possibility of totalizing change make their con­ return of the sacred (1977), a solution that exhibit­ tributions more compatible with postmodernism ed the nostalgia for the past that Jameson would than either modernism or radical antimoderniza­ later diagnose as a certain sign of the coming of the tion. Indeed, these theorists wrote in response to postmodern age. their disappointment with modernism (Geertz and The comparison of Bell’s postindustrial argument Rorty vis-a-vis Parsons and Quine), on the one with Harvey’s post-Fordism (1989) is revealing in hand, and heroic antimodernism (Foucault and this regard. Harvey takes similar developments in Bourdieu vis-a-vis Althusser and Sartre), on the the productive arrangements of high-information other. Nonetheless, Geertz and Bourdieu can capitalism but draws a far different conclusion scarcely be called postmodern theorists, and about their effects on the consciousness of the age. strong culturalist theories cannot be identified with Bell’s anti-Marxism - his (1978) emphasis on the the broad ideological sentiments that term post­ asynchronicity of systems - allows him to posit re­ modernism implies. bellion in the form of youth culture and to posit I would maintain here, as I have earlier in this pa­ cultural salvation in the ideal of “the sacred re­ per, that scientific considerations are insufficient to turn“ (cf., Eliade 1954). Harvey’s continued com­ account for shifts either towards or away from an mitment to orthodox base-superstructure reason­ intellectual position. If, as I believe to be the case, ing, by contrast, leads him to postulate fragmenta­ the departure from postmodernism has already be­ tion and privatization as inevitable, and unstoppa­ gun, we must look closely, once again, at extra- ble, results of the post-Fordist productive mode. scientific considerations, at recent events and so­ Bell’s conservative attack on modernism embraces cial changes that seem to demand yet another new nostalgia; Harvey’s radical attack on postmodern­ “world-historical frame.“ ism posits defeat. Postmodern theory is still, of course, very much in the making. As I have already mentioned, its mid­ 5. Neo-Modernism: dle range formulations contain significant truths. Dramatic Inflation and Universal Evaluating the importance of its general theoriz­ Categories ing, by contrast, depends upon whether one places poststructuralism under its wing.35 *Certainly theo- In postmodern theory intellectuals have represent­ ed to themselves and to society at large their re­ sponse to the defeat of the heroic utopias of radical 35 It depends upon a number of other contingent deci­ social movements, a response that, while recogniz­ sions as well, for example upon ignoring postmoder­ ing defeat, did not give up the cognitive reference nism’s own claim that it does not have or advocate a to that utopic world. Every idea in postmodern general theory. (See, e.g., my exchange with Seid- thought is a reflection upon the categories and man [Alexander 1991 and Seidman 1991].) There is, false aspirations of the traditional collectivist nar­ in addition, the much more general problem of rative, and for most postmodernists the distopia of whether postmodernism can even be spoken of as a the contemporary world is the semantic result. Yet, single point of view. I have taken the position here that it can be so discussed, even while I have ac­ while the hopes of Left intellectuals were dashed knowledged the diversity of points of view within jt. by the late 1970s, the intellectual imagination of There is no doubt, indeed, that each of the four theo­ others was rekindled. For when the Left lost, the ries I examine here only exists, as such, via an act of hermeneutical reconstruction. Such an ideal-type methodology is, I would argue, not only philosophi­ should not obscure the fact that a typification and cally justifiable (e.g., Gadamer 1975) but intellectu­ idealization is being made. In more empirical and ally unavoidable, in the sense that the hermeneutics concrete terms, each historical period and each so­ of common sense continually refers to “postmodern­ cial theory under review contained diverse patterns ism“ as such. Nonetheless, these considerations and parts. Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 183

Right won and won big. In the 1960s and 1970s, world (see pp. 166 f, above) has had the same kind the right was a backlash, reactive movement. By of destabilizing, de-ontologizing effects on many 1980 it had become triumphant and began to initi­ intellectuals as the other massive historical ate far-reaching changes in Western societies. A “breaks“ I have discussed above. It has created, as fact that has been conveniently overlooked by well, the same sense of imminence and the convic­ each of the three intellectual generations we have tion that the “new world“ in the making demands considered thus far - and most grievously by the a new and very different kind of social theory.37 * postmodernist movement that was historically co­ This negative triumph over state socialism has terminous with it - is that the victory of the neo­ been reinforeced, morever, by the dramatic series liberal Right had, and continues to have, massive of “positive successes“ during the 1980s for aggres­ political, economic, and ideological repercussions sively capitalist market economies. This has been around the globe. most often remarked upon (most recently by Ken­ The most striking “success“ for the Right was, in­ nedy 1993) in connection with the NIC’s, the newly deed, the defeat of Communism, which was not industrialized, extraordinarily dynamic Asian only a political, military, and economic victory but, economies which have arisen in what was once cal­ as I suggested in the introduction to this essay, a led the Third World. It is important not to underes­ triumph on the level of the historical imagination timate the ideological effects of this world- itself. Certainly there were objective economic ele­ historical fact: high level, sustainable transforma­ ments in the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union, in­ tions of backward economies were achieved not by cluding growing technological deficiencies, sinking socialist command economies but by zealously export proceeds, and the impossibility of finding capitalist states. desperately needed capital funds by switching to a What has often been overlooked, however, is that strategy of internal growth (Muller 1992: 139). Yet during this same time frame the capitalist market the final economic breakdown had a political was also reinvigorated, both symbolically and ob- cause, for it was the computer-based military ex­ pansion of America and its NATO allies, when combined with the right-wing inspired technology 37 This sense of fundamental, boundary-destroying break is clearly exhibited in the recent work of Ken­ boycott, that brought the Soviet party dictatorship neth Jowitt, which searches for biblical imagery to to its economic and political knees. While the lack communicate a sense of how widespread and threat­ of access to documents makes any definitive judg­ ening is the contemporary genuine intellectual dis­ ment decidedly premature, there seems no doubt orientation: that these policies were, in fact, among the princi­ “For nearly half a century, the boundaries of interna­ pal strategic goals of the Reagan and Thatcher gov­ tional politics and the identities of its national partic­ ernments, and that they were achieved with signal ipants have been directly shaped by the presence of a effect.36 Leninist regime world centered in the Soviet Union. The Leninist extinction of 1989 poses a fundamental This extraordinary, and almost completely unex­ challenge to these boundaries and identities... pected triumph over what once seemed not only a Boundaries are an essential component of a recog­ socially but an intellectually plausible alternative nizable and coherent identity ... The attenuation of or dissolution of boundaries is more often than not a traumatic event - all the more so when boundaries 36 The link between Glasnost and Perestroika and Pres­ have been organized and understood in highly cate­ ident Ronald Reagan’s military build-up - particular­ gorical terms ... The Cold war was a “Joshua“ peri­ ly his Star Wars project - has been frequently stressed od, one of dogmatically centralized boundaries and by former Soviet officials who participated in the identities. In contrast to the biblical sequence, the transition that began in 1985. For example: Leninist extinction of 1989 has moved the world from “Former top soviet officials said Friday that the im­ a Joshua to a Genesis environment: from one cen­ plications of then-President Reagan’s “Star Wars“ trally organized, rigidly bounded, and hysterically proposal and the Chernobyl accident combined to concerned with impenetrable boundaries to one in change Soviet arms policy and help end the Cold which territorial, ideological, and issue boundaries War. Speaking at Princeton university during a con­ are attenuated, unclear, and confusing. We now in­ ference on the end of the Cold War, the officials said habit a world that, while not “without form and •.. Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev was con­ void,“ is one in which the major imperatives are the vinced that any attempt to match Reagan’s Strategic same as in Genesis, “naming and bounding.““ Defense Initiative of 1983 ... could do irreparable Jowitt comparies the world-reshaping impact of the harm to the Soviet economy.“ (Reuters News Ser­ vents of 1989 with those of the Battle of Hastings in vice. February, 27, 1993) 1066. 184 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197 jectively, in the capitalist West. This transpired not view, and a radical reversal of conventional wis­ only in Thatcherite England and Reaganite Ameri­ dom is now underway. It is not only Communist ca, but perhaps even more dramatically in the tyrannies that have opened up since the mid-1980s, more “progressive“ and interventionist regimes but the very Latin American dictatorships that like France and, subsequently, in countries like Ita­ seemed so “objectively necessary“ only an intellec­ ly, Spain, and even more recently, in Scandinavia tual generation before. Even African dictatorships itself. Not only was there, in other words, the obvi­ have recently begun to show signs of vulnerability ous and ideologically portentous bankruptcy of to this shift in political discourse from authoritari­ most of the world’s Communist economies, but anism to democracy. there was the marked privatization of nationalized These developments have created social conditions capitalist economies in both authoritarian- - and mass public sentiment - that would seem to corporatist and socialist-democratic states. The belie the postmodern intellectuals’ coding of con­ world-wide recession that followed the longest pe­ temporary (and future) society as fatalistic, pri­ riod of sustained growth in capitalist history does vate, particularistic, fragmented, and local. They not seem to have dampened the revival of market also would appear to undermine the deflated nar­ commitments, as the recent triumph of Clinton’s rative frame of postmodernism, which has insisted neoliberalism in the United States demonstrates either on the romance of difference or, more fun­ very well. In the late 1960s and 1970s, the intellec­ damentally, on the idea that contemporary life can tual successors to modernization theory, neo- only be interpreted in a comic way. And, indeed, if Marxists like Baran and Sweezy (1964) and Man- we look closely at recent intellectual discourse, we del (1968), announced the imminent stagnation of can observe, in fact, a return to many earlier, mod­ capitalist economies and an inevitably declining ernist themes. rate of profit.38 History has proved them wrong, Because the recent revivals of market and democ­ with far-reaching ideological results (Chirot 1992). racy have occurred on a world-wide scale, and be­ “Rightward“ developments on the more specifical­ cause they are categorically abstract and generaliz­ ly political plane have been as far-reaching as those ing ideas, universalism has once again become a vi­ on the economic. As I mentioned earlier, during able source for social theory. Notions of common­ the late 1960s and 1970s it had become ideological­ ality and institutional convergence have re- ly fashionable, and empirically justifiable, to ac­ emerged, and with them the possibilities for intel­ cept political authoritarianism as the price of eco­ lectuals to provide meaning in an utopian way.39 It nomic development. In the last decade, however, seems, in fact, that we are witnessing the birth of a events on the ground seem to have challenged this

39 For example in his recent plea to fellow members of 38 One of the little noticed battle grounds of intellectual the academic Left - many if not most of whom are ideology over the last 30 years has been the “shop­ now postmodern in their promotion of difference ping center,“ a.k.a. “the mall.“ Making its appear­ and particularism - Todd Gitlin argues not only that ance after World War II in the United States, it came a renewal of the project of universalism is necessary to represent for many conservative liberals the con­ to preserve a viable critical intellectual politics but tinuing vitality - contrary to the dire predictions of that such a movement has already begun: Marxist thought in the 1930s - of “small business“ “If there is to be a Left in more than a sentimental and the “petit bourgeoisie.“ Later, neo-Marxists like sense, its position ought to be: This desire for human Mandel devoted a great deal of space to the shopping unity is indispensable. The ways, means, basis, and centers, suggesting that this new form of organiza­ costs are a subject for disciplined conversation ... tion had staved off capitalism’s ultimate economic Now, alongside the indisputable premise that knowl­ stagnation, describing it as the organizational equiv­ edge of many kinds is specific to time, place, and in­ alent of advertising’s “artificial creation“ of “false terpretive community, thoughtful critics are placing needs.“ In the 1980s, these same sprawling congeries the equally important premise that there are unities of mass capitalism, now transformed into upscale but in the human condition and that, indeed, the exis­ equally plebeian malls, became the object of attack tence of common understandings is the basis of all from postmodernists, who saw them not as wily stop communication (= making common) across bound­ gaps to stagnation but as perfect representations of aries of language and history and experience. Today, the fragmentation, commercialism, privatism, and some of the most exciting scholarship entails efforts retreatism that marked the end of Utopian hope (and to incorporate new and old knowledge together in possibly of history itself). The most famous example unified narratives. Otherwise there is no escape from of the latter is Jameson (e.g., 1988) on the Los Ange­ solipsism, whose political expression cannot be the les Bonaventure Hotel. base of liberalism or radicalism.“ (Gitlin 1993:36-7). Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 185 fourth postwar version of myothopeic social market processes that is markedly different from thought. “Neo-modernism“ (cf. Tiryakian 1991) the left-leaning intellectuals of earlier times. will serve as a rough-and-ready characterization of Among the intellectual advocates of “market so­ this phase of postmodernization theory until a cialism,“ there has been a similar change. Kornai, term appears that represents the new spirit of the for example, has expressed distinctly fewer reser­ times in a more imaginative way. vations about free markets in his more recent writ­ In response to economic developments, different ings than in the path-breaking works of the 1970s groupings of contemporary intellectuals have re­ and 1980s that brought him to fame. inflated the emancipatory narrative of the market, This neo-modern revival of market theory is also in which they emplot a new past (antimarket soci­ manifest in the rebirth and redefinition of econom­ ety) and a new present/future (market transition, ic sociology. In terms of research program, Grano- full-blown capitalism) that makes liberation de­ vetter’s (1974) earlier celebration of the strengths pendent upon privatization, contracts, monetary of the market’s “weak ties“ has become a domi­ inequality, and competition. On one side, a much nant paradigm for studying economic networks enlarged and more activist breed of intellectual (e.g., Powell 1991), one that implicitly rejects conservatives has emerged. Although their policy postmodern and antimodern pleas for strong ties and political concerns have not, as yet, greatly af­ and local communities. His later argument for the fected the discourse of general social theory, there “imbeddedness“ (1985) of economic action has are exceptions that indicate the potential is there. transformed (e.g., Granovetter and Swedberg James Coleman’s massive Foundations of Social 1992) the image of the market into a social and in­ Theory (1989), for example, has a self-consciously teractional relationship that has little resemblance heroic cast; it aims to make neo-market, rational to the deracinated, capitalist exploitator of the choice the basis not only for future theoretical past. Similar transformations can be seen in more work but for the re-creation of a more responsive, generalized discourse. Adam Smith has been un­ law-abiding, and less degraded social life.40 dergoing an intellectual rehabilitation (Hall 1986; Much more significant is the fact that within liberal Heilbroner 1986; Boltanski/Thevenot 1991: 60-84; intellectual life, among the older generation of dis­ Boltanski 1993: 38-98). Shumpter’s “market real­ illusioned Utopians and the younger intellectual ism“ has been revived; the individaulism of We­ groups as well, a new and positive social theory of ber’s marginalist economics has been celebrated markets has reappeared. For many politically en­ (Holton/Turner 1989); so has the market- gaged intellectuals, too, this has taken the theoret­ acceptance that permeates Parsons’ theoretical ical form of the individualistic, quasi-romantic work (Turner/Holton 1986 and Holton 1992). frame of rational choice. Employed initially to In the political realm, neo-modernism has deal with the disappointing failures of working emerged in an even more powerful way, as a result, class consciousness (e.g., Wright 1985 and Pze- no doubt, of the fact that it has been the political worski 1985; cf. Elster 1989), it has increasingly revolutions of the last decade that have reintro­ served to explain how state communism, and capi­ duced narrative in a truly heroic form and chal­ talist corporatism, can be transformed into a lenged the postmodern deflation in the most direct market-oriented system that is liberating or, at way. The movements away from dictatorship, mo­ least, substantively rational (Pzeworski 1991, tivated in practice by the most variegated of con­ Moene/Wallerstein 1992, Nee 1989). While other cerns, have been articulated mythically as a vast, politically engaged intellectuals have appropriated unfolding “drama of democracy“ (Sherwood market ideas in less restrictive and more collectiv­ 1994), literally as an opening up of the spirit of hu­ ist ways (e.g., Szelenyi 1988, Friedland/Robertson manity. The melodrama of social good triumphing, 1990), their writings, too, betray an enthusiasm for or almost triumphing, over social evil - which Pe­ ter Brooke (1984) so brilliantly discovered to be the root of the nineteenth century narrative form - 40 The massive negative response among contemporary has populated the symbolic canvas of the late 20- social theorists to Coleman’s tome - the review sym­ century West with heroes and conquests of truly posium in Theory and Society (e.g., Alexander 1991) world-historical scope. This drama started with the is not an untyptical example - is less an indication epochal struggle of Lech Walesa, and what seemed that rational choice theory is being massively reject­ ed than an expression of the fact that neo-modernism to be virtually the entire Polish nation (Tiryakian is not, at this time, sympathetic to a conservative po­ 1988) against Poland’s coercive party-state. The litical tilt. This may not be true in the future. day-to-day dramaturgy that captured public imagi­ 186 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197 nation ended initially in Solidarity’s inexplicable connected with these movements, like Cohen and defeat. Eventually, however, good did triumph Arato and Keane (1989ab). Subsequently, they uti­ over evil, and the dramatic symmetry of the heroic lized the concept to begin theorizing in a manner narrative was complete. Mikhail Gorbachev began that sharply demarcated their own “left“ theoriz­ his long march through the Western dramatic imag­ ing from the anti-modernization, anti-formal de­ ination in 1984. His increasingly loyal world-wide mocracy writings of an earlier day. audience fiercely followed his epochal struggles in Stimulated by these writers and also by the English what eventually became the longest running public translation (1989) of Habermas’s early book on the drama in the postwar period. This grand narrative bourgeois public sphere, debates about pluralism, - which might be entitled “The Making, Unmak­ fragmentation, differentiation, and participation ing, and Resurrection of an American Hero: Gor­ have become the new order of the day. Frankfurt bachev and the Discourse of the Good“ (Alexan- theorists, Marxist social historians, and even some der/Sherwood, ms.) - produced cathartic reactions post-modernists have become democratic theorists in its audience, which the press called “Gorby- under the sign of the “public sphere“ (see, e.g., mania“ and Dürkheim would have labelled the the essays by Postpone, Ryan, and Eley in Cal­ collective effervescence that only symbols of the houn 1992 and the more recent writings of Held, sacred inspire. This drama was reprised in what the e.g., 1987).41 * Communitarian and internalist polit­ mass publics, media, and elites of Western coun­ ical philosophers, like Walzer (1991, 1992), have tries construed as the equally heroic achievements taken up the concept to clarify the universalist yet of Nelson Mandela and Vaclav Havel, and later of non-abstract dimensions in their theorizing about Boris Yeltsin, the tank-stopping hero who succeed­ the good. For conservative social theorists (e.g., ed Gorbachev in Russia’s post-Communist phase Banfield forthcoming, Wilson forthcoming, and (Alexander/Sherwood 1992). Similar experiences Shils 1991 and forthcoming), civil society is a con­ of exaltation and renewed faith in the moral effica­ cept that implies civility and harmony. For neo­ cy of democratic revolution were produced by the functionalists (e.g., Sciulli 1992, Mayhew 1992, social drama that took place in 1989 in Hanamen and Alexander 1992), it is an idea that denotes the Square, with its strong ritualistic overtones (Chan possibility of theorizing conflicts over equality and 1994) and its classically tragic denouement. inclusion in a less anticapitalist way. For old functi­ It would be astonishing if this reinflation of mass onalists (e.g., Inkeles 1991), it is an idea that sug­ political drama did not manifest itself in equally gests that formal democracy has been a requisite marked shifts in intellectual theorizing about poli­ for modernization all along. tics. In fact, in a manner that parallels the rise of But whatever the particular perspective that has the “market,“ there has been the powerful re- framed this new political idea, its neo-modern sta­ emergence of theorizing about democracy. Liberal tus is plain to see. Theorizing in this manner sug­ ideas about political life, which emerged in the gests that contemporary societies either possess, eighteen and nineteenth centuries and which were or must aspire to, not only an economic market but displaced by the “social question“ of the great in­ a distinctive political zone, an institutional field of dustrial transformation, seem like contemporary universal if contested domain (Touraine 1994). It ideas again. Dismissed as historically anachronistic provides a common empirical point of referent, in the anti- and post-modern decades, they have which implies a familiar coding of citizen and ene­ become quite suddenly ä la mode (cf., Alexander 1991). 41 There is clear evidence that this transformation is This re-emergence has taken the form of the reviv­ world-wide in scope. In Quebec, for example, Ar- al of the concept of “civil society,“ the informal, naud Sales, who worked earlier in a strongly Marxist non-state, and non-economic realm of public and tradition, now insists on a universal relatedness personal life that Tocqueville, for example, de­ among conflict groups and incorporates the language fined as vital to the maintenance of the democratic of “public“ and “civil society“: state. Rising initially from within the intellectual “If, in their multiplicity, associations, unions, cor­ debates that helped spark the social struggles porations, and movements have always defended against authoritarianism in Eastern Europe (cf., and represented very diversified opinions, it is prob­ able that, despite the power of economic and statist Arato and Cohen 1992) and Latin American (Ste­ systems, the proliferation of groups founded on a tra­ pan 1985), the term was “secularized“ and given dition, a way of life, an opinion or a protest has prob­ more abstract and more universal meaning by ably never been so broad and so divesified as it is at American and European intellectuals who were the end of the twentieth century.“ (Sales 1991: 308). Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 187 my, and allows history to be narrated, once again, differences in second order representations, the in a teleological manner that gives the drama of differences between present day society and the democracy full force. immediate postwar period are enormous. Faced with the rapid onrush of “markets“ and “democra­ cy,“ and the rapid collapse of their opposites, it has 6. Neo-Modernism and Social Evil: proven difficult to formulate equally universal and Nationalism as Polluted Representation far-reaching representations of the profane. The question is this: Is there an oppositional movement This problem of the demarcation of civil as op­ or geo-political force that is a convincingly and posed to uncivil society points to issues that go be­ fundamentally dangerous, that is a “world- yond the narrating and explanatory frameworks of historical“ threat to the “good“? The once power­ neo-modern theory that I have described thus far. ful enemies of universalism seemed to be historical Romantive and heroic narratives that describe the relics, out of sight and out of mind, laid low by an triumph, or possible triumph, of markets and de­ historical drama that seems unlikely soon to be re­ mocracies have a reassuringly familiar form. When versed. It was for this semantic reason that, in the we turn to the binary coding of this emerging his­ interim period after “1989“, many intellectuals, torical period, however, certain problems arise. and certainly broad sections of Western publics, Given the resurgence of universalism, of course, experienced a strange combination of optimism one can be confident that what is involved is a and self-satisfaction, energetic commitment and specification of the master code, described earlier moral disrepair. as the discourse of civil society. Yet, while this al­ In comparison with the modernization theory of most archetypical symbolization of the requisites the postwar years, neo-modern theory involves and antonyms of democracy establishes general fundamental shifts in both symbolic time and sym­ categories, historically specific “social representa­ bolic space. In neo-modern theory, the profane tions“ (Moscovici 1984) must also be developed to can neither be represented by an evolutionarily articulate the concrete categories of good and evil preceding period of traditionalism nor identified in a particular time and place. In regard to these with the world outside of North America and Eu­ secondary elaborations, what strikes one is how rope. In contrast with the postwar modernization difficult it has been to develop a set of binary cate­ wave, the current one is global and inter-national gories that is semantically and socially compelling, rather than regional and imperial, a difference ar­ a black-versus-white contrast that can function as a ticulated in social science by the contrast between successor code to postmodern: modern or, for that early theories of dependency (Frank 1966) and matter, to the socialist: capitalist and modern: tra­ more contemporary theories of globalization ditional symbolic sets that were established by ear­ (Robertson 1992). The social and economic rea­ lier intellectual generations, and which by no sons for this change center on the rise of Japan, means have entirely lost their efficacy today.42 which this time around has gained power, not as To be sure, the symbolization of the good does not one of Spencer’s military societies - a category that present a real problem. Democracy and universal­ could be labelled backward in an evolutionary ism are key terms, and their more substantive em­ sense - but as a civilized commercial society. bodiments are free market, individualism, and hu­ Thus, for the first time in 500 years (see Kennedy man rights. The problem comes in establishing the 1987), it has become impossible for the West to profane side. The abstract qualities that pollution dominate Asia, either economically or culturally. must embody are obvious enough. Because they When this objective factor is combined with the are produced by the principle of difference, they pervasive de-Christianization of Western intellec­ closely resemble the qualities that were opposed to tuals, we can understand the remarkable fact that modernization in the postwar period, qualities that “orientalism“ - the symbolic pollution of Eastern identified the pollution of “traditional“ life. But civilization that Said (1978) articulated so tellingly despite the logical similarities, earlier ideological scarcely more than a decade ago - seems no longer formulations cannot simply be taken up again. to be a forceful spatial or temporal representation Even if they effectuate themselves only through in Western ideology or social theory, although it has by no means entirely disappeared.43 A social 42 See my earlier remarks (n. 28, above) on the inertial effects of intellectual ideologies and on the social 43 This would seem, at first glance, to confirm Said’s conditions that exacerbate them. quasi-Märxist insistence that it was the rise of the 188 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197

scientific translation of this ideological fact, which justified his opposition not by pointing to the dis­ points the way to a post- postmodern, or neo­ tinctive worth of national or political ideology but modern code, is Eisenstadt’s (1987: vii) call for “a by upholding universality: “Anew world order has far-reaching reformulation of the vision of mod­ to be based on authentically general principles, not ernization, and of modem civilizations.“ While on the selectively applied might of one country“ continuing to code modern in a thoroughly posi­ (Said 1991). More significantly, Said denounced tive way, this conceptualization explains it, not as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the “Arab the end of an evolutionary sequence, but as a high­ world,“ representing them in particularizing cate­ ly successfully globalizing movement. gories that polluted them as the enemies of univer- Instead of perceiving modernization as the final stage in salism itself. the fulfillment of the evolutionary potential common to The traditional discourse of Arab nationalism, to say all societies - of which the European experience was the nothing of the quite decrepit state system, is inexact, un­ most important and succinct manifestation and para­ responsive, anomalous, even comic ... Today’s Arab digm - modernization (or modernity) should be viewed media are a disgrace. It is difficult to speak the plain as one specific civilization or phenomenon. Originating truth in the Arab world ... Rarely does one find rational in Europe, it has spread in its economic, political and analysis - reliable statistics, concrete and undoctored ideological aspects all over the world ... The crystalliza­ descriptions of the Arab world today with its ... crush­ tion of this new type of civilization was not unlike the ing mediocrity in science and many cultural fields. Alle­ spread of the great religions, or the great imperial ex­ gory, complicated symbolism and innuendo substitute pansions, but because modernization almost always for common sense, (ibid.) combined economic, political, and ideological aspects and forces, its impact was by far the greatest, (ibid.) Wlien Said concludes that there appears to be a Original modernization theory transformed We­ “remorseless Arab propensity to violence and ex­ ber’s overtly Western-centric theory of world reli­ tremism,“ the end of occidentalism seems com­ gions into a universal account of of global change plete. that still culminated in the social structure and cul­ Because the contemporary re-coding of the antith­ ture of the postwar Western world. Eisenstadt pro­ esis of universalism can be geographically repre­ poses to make modernization itself the historical sented neither as non Western nor temporally lo­ equivalent of a world religion, which relativizes it, cated in an earlier time, the social sacred of neo­ on the one hand, and suggests the possibility of se­ modernism cannot, paradoxically, be represented lective indigenous appropriation (Hannerz 1987), as “modernization.“ In the ideological discourse of on the other. contemporary intellectuals, it would seem almost The other side of this decline of orientalism among as difficult to employ this term as it is to identify Western theorists is what seems to be the virtual the good with “socialism.“ Not modernization but disappearance of “third world-ism“ - what might democratization, not the modern but the market - be called occidentalism - from the vocabulary of these are the terms that the new social movements intellectuals who speak from within, or on behalf of the neo-modern period employ. These difficul­ of, developing countries. A remarkable indication ties in representation help to explain the new sa- of this discursive shift can be found in an opinion liency of non-national, international organizations piece that Edward Said published in the New York (Thomas/Louderdale 1988), a salience that points, Times protesting the imminent Allied air war in turn, to elements of what the long-term repre­ against Iraq in early 1991. While reiterating the fa­ sentation of a viable ideological antinomy might miliar characterization of American policy toward be. For European and American intellectuals, and Iraq as the result of an “imperialist ideology,“ Said* for those from outside of the West as well, the United Nations and European Community have taken on new legitimacy and reference, providing West’s actual power in the world - imperialism - that institutional manifestations of the new universal­ allowed the ideology of orientalism to proceed. What Said does not recognize, however, is that there is a ism that transcend earlier great divides. more general code of sacred and profane categories The logic of these telling institutional and cultural of which the “social representations“ of orientalism shifts is that “nationalism“ - not traditionalism, is an historically specific subset. The discourse of civ­ communism, or the “East“ - is coming to repre­ il society is an ideological formation that proceeded imperialism and that informed the pollution of di­ sent the principal challenge to the newly universal­ verse categories of historically encountered others - ized discourse of the good. Nationalism is the Jews, woman, slaves, proletarians, homosexuals, name intellectuals and publics are now increasing­ and more generally enemies - in quite similar terms. ly giving to the negative antinomies of civil society. Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 189

The categories of the “irrational,“ “conspiratori­ It is the failure to confirm such a semantic and or­ al,“ and “repressive“ are taken to be synonymous ganizational analogy with communism that has with forceful expressions of nationality, and equat­ prevented religious fundamentalism from occupy­ ed with primordiality and uncivilized social forms. ing a similar categorically polluting role. It has That civil societies have always themselves taken a been unable to do so despite the currency of national form is being conveniently neglected, fundamentalism-versus-modernity in everyday along with the continuing nationalism of many speech (e.g., Barber 1992) and the myriad exam­ democratic movements themselves.44 It is true, of ples of its very real dangers to democracy, markets, course, that in the geo-political world that has so and social differentiation that are ready to hand.45 suddenly been re-formed, it is the social move­ On the one hand, because intellectuals in demo­ ments and armed rebellions for national self- cratic nations are continually criticising the renew­ determination that trigger military conflicts that al of fundamentalist forms of religiosity in their can engender large scale wars. democratic countries, it is difficult for them to Is it any wonder, then, that nationalism is now rou­ equate secular with democratic or to place funda­ tinely portrayed as the successor of communism, mentalist religiosity completely outside the pale of not only in the semantic but in the organizational democratic life. On the other hand, postcommun­ sense? This equation is made by high intellectuals, ist nations are not particularly fundamentalist; nor not only in the popular press. “Far from extin­ has fundamentalism posed the same kind of real guishing nationalism,“ Liah Greenfeld (1992) politik basis for the renewal of large scale conflict wrote recently in The New Republic, “communism as the militant assertion of national rights. perpetuated and reinforced the old nationalist val­ In Winter, 1994, Theory and Society, a bellweather ues. And the intelligentsia committed to these val­ of intellectual currents in Western social theory, ues is now turning on the democratic regime it in­ devoted a special issue to nationalism. In their in­ advertently helped to create.“ troduction to the symposium, John Comaroff and The democratic intelligentsia, which took shape in op­ Paul Stern make particularly vivid the link be­ position to the Communist state, is, in fact, much more tween nationalism-as-pollution and nationalism- motivated by nationalist than by democratic concerns as-object-of-social-science. ... To accomplish a transition from communism to de­ Nowhere have the signs of the quickening of contem­ mocracy, Russia needs to renounce the traditions that porary history, of our misunderstanding and mispredic­ made communism possible: the anti-democratic values tion of the present, been more clearly expressed than in of its nationalism, (ibid.) the ... assertive renaissance of nationalisms ... World It does not seem surprising that some of the most events over the past few years have thrown a particular­ promising younger generation of American social ly sharp light on the darker, more dangerous sides of na­ theorists have shifted from concerns with modern­ tionalism and claims to sovereign identity. And, in so do­ ization, critical theory, and citizenship to issues of ing, they have revealed how tenuous is our grasp of the phenomenon. Not only have these events confounded identity and nationalism. In addition to Greenfeld, the unsuspecting world of scholarship. They have also one might note the new work of Rogers Brubaker, shown a long heritage of social theory and prognostica­ whose studies of central European and Russian na­ tion to be flatly wrong. (Comaroff and Stern 1994: 35) tionalism (e.g., Brubaker 1994) make similar links While these theorists do not, of course, deconst­ between Soviet communism and contemporary na­ ruct their empirical argument by explicitly relating tionalism, although from a less culturalist, more it to the rise of a new phase of myth and science, it neo-institutional perspective. One might note also is noteworthy that they do insist on linking the new some of the recent writings of Craig Calhoun (e.g., understanding of nationalism to the rejection of 1992). Marxism, modernization theory, and postmodern thought (ibid., 35-37). In their own contribution 44 Exceptions to this amnesia can, however, be found in to this special revival issue, Greenfeld and Chirot the current debate, particularly among those French insist on the fundamental antithesis between de­ social theorists who remain strongly influenced by mocracy and nationalism in the strongest terms. the Republicain tradition. See, for example, Michel After discussing Russia, Germany, Roumania, Syr- Wieviorka’s (1993: 23-70) lucid argument for a con­ tested and double-sided understanding of national­ ism and Dominique Schnapper’s (1994) powerful de­ 45 Most recently, see Khosrokhavar’s (1993) illumating fense of the national character of the democratic discussion of how the negative utopia of shi’ite reli­ state. For another good recent statement of this gion undermine the more universalistic strains in the more balanced position, see Hall 1993. Iranian revolution. 190 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197

ia, Iraq, and the Cambodian Khmer Rouge, they states from discriminating against national minori­ write: ties. The symbolic crux of his argument is the anal­ The cases we discuss here show that the association be­ ogy between two categories of pollution. “Previ­ tween certain types of nationalism and aggressive, bru­ ously, victims of totalitarian regimes and ideolo­ tal behavior is neither coincidental nor inexplicable. Na­ gies needed protection,“ Kozyrev told the U.N. tionalism remains the world’s most powerful, general, General Assembly. “Today, ever more often one and primordial basis of cultural and political identity. Its needs to counter aggressive nationalism that range is still growing, not diminishing, throughout the world. And in most places, it does not take an individu­ emerges as a new global threat.“46 alistic or civic form. (Greenfeld/Chirot 1994: 123). The new social representation of nationalism and 7. Modernization Redux? pollution, based upon the symbolic analogy with The Hubris of Linearity and the Dangers Communism, also has permeated the popular of Theoretical Amnesia press. Serbia’s expansionist military adventures have provided a crucial field of collective represen­ In 1982 (p. 144), when Anthony Giddens confi­ tation. See, for example, the categorical relation­ dently asserted that “modernization theory is ships that are established in the following editorial based upon false premises,“ he was merely reiter­ from the New York Times. ating the common social scientific sense of the day, Communism can pass easily into nationalism. The two or at least his generation’s version of it. When he creeds have much in common. Each offers a simple key added that the theory had “served ... as an ideo­ to tangled problems. One exalts class, the other ethnic logical defence of the dominance of Western capi­ kinship. Each blames real grievances on imagined ene­ talism over the rest of the world,“ he reproduced mies. As a Russian informant shrewdly remarked to Da­ the common understanding of why this false theo­ vid Shipler in The New Yorker: “They are both ideolo­ gies that liberate people from personal responsibility. ry had once been believed. Today both these senti­ They are united around some sacred [read profane] ments seem anachronistic. Modernization theory goal.“ In varying degrees and with different results, old (e.g., Parsons 1963) stipulated that the great civili­ Bolsheviks have become new nationalists in Serbia and zations of the world would converge towards the many former Soviet republics. institutional and cultural configurations of Western The Times editorial writer further codes the histor­ society. Certainly we are witnessing something ical actors by analogizing the current break-up of very much like this process today, and the enthusi­ Czechoslovakia to the nationalism that preceded asm it has generated is hardly imposed by Western it, and which ultimately issued from World War I. domination. And now the same phenomenon has surfaced in Czecho­ The sweeping ideological and objective transfor­ slovakia ... There is a ... moral danger, described long mations described in the preceding section have ago by Thomas Masaryk, the founding president of begun to have their theoretical effect, and the the­ Czechoslovakia, whose own nationalism was joined in­ oretical gauntlet that the various strands of neo­ separably to belief in democracy. “Chauvinism is no­ modernism have thrown at the feet of postmodern where justified,“ he wrote in 1927, “least of all in our theory are plain to see. Shifting historical condi­ country ... To a positive nationalism, one that seeks to tions have created fertile ground for such post- raise a nation by intensive work, none can demur. Chau­ vinism, racial or national intolerance, not love of one’s postmodern theorizing, and intellectuals have re­ own people, is the foe of nations and of humanity.“ Ma- sponded to these conditions by revising their earli­ saryk’s words are a good standard for judging tolerance er theories in creative and often far-reaching ways. on both sides. (June 16, 1992; reprinted in the Interna­ Certainly, it would be premature to call neo­ tional Herald Tribune) modernism a “successor theory“ to postmodern­ The analogy between nationalism and commu­ ism. It has only recently become crystallized as an nism, and their pollution as threats to the new in­ intellectual alternative, much less emerged as the ternationalism, is even made by government offi­ cials of formerly Communist states. For example, 46 In a telling observation on the paradoxical relation­ in late September, 1992, Andrei Kozyrev, Russia’s ship of nationalism to recent events, Wittrock (1991) Foreign Minister, appealed to the United Nations notes that when West Germany pressed for re­ unification, it both affirmed the abstract universal- to consider setting up international trusteeships to ism of notions like freedom, law, and markets and, at oversee the move to independence by former Sovi­ the same time, the ideology of nationalism in its most et non-Slavic republics. Only a UN connection, he particularistic, ethnic and linguistic sense, the notion argued, could prevent the newly independent that the “German people“ could not be divided. Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 191

victor in this ideological-cum-theoretical fight. It is ditional resources can provide greatest leverage,“ unclear, further, whether the movement is nour­ the article displays the kind of over-confidence in ished by a new generation of intellectuals or by controlled social change that marked the hubris of fragments of currently competing generations who postwar modernization thought. When Lipset have found in neo-modernism a unifying vehicle to (1990) claims the lesson of the second great transi­ dispute the postmodern hegemony over the con­ tion as the failure of the “middle way“ between temporary field. Despite these qualifications, how­ capitalism and socialism, he is no doubt correct in ever, it must be acknowledged that a new and very an important sense, but the formulation runs the different current of social theorizing has emerged danger of reinforcing the tendentious, either/or di­ on the scene. chotomies of earlier thinking in a manner that With this success, however, there comes the grave could justify not only narrow self-congratulation danger of theoretical amnesia about the problems but unustified optimism about imminent social of the past. Retrospective verifications of modern­ change. Jeffrey Sachs and other simpliste exposi­ ization theory have begun in earnest. One of the tors of the “big bang“ approach to transition seem most fulsome and acute apologias appeared re­ to be advocating a rerun of Rostow’s earlier “take­ cently in the European Journal of Sociology. “With off“ theory. Like that earlier species of moderniza­ an apparently more acute sense of reality,“ Muller tion idea, this new monetarist modernism throws (1992: 111) writes, “the sociological theory of mo­ concerns of social solidarity and citizenship, let dernity had recorded the long-term developments alone any sense of historical specificity (Leijonhof- within the Eastern European area, currently tak­ vud 1993), utterly to the winds. ing place in a more condensed form, long before While the recent social scientific formulations of they were empirically verifiable.“ Muller adds, for market and democracy discussed above avoid the good measure, that “the grand theory constantly most egregious distortions of the kind I have just accused of lacking contact with reality seemingly described, the universalism of their categories, the proves to possess predictive capacity - the classical heroism of their Zeitgeist, and the dichotomous sociological modernization theory of Talcott Par­ strictures of their codes make the underlying prob­ sons“ (ibid., original italics). Distinguished theo­ lems difficult to avoid. Theories of market transi­ rists who were once neo-Marxist critics of capitalist tion, even in the careful hands of a scholar as con­ society, like Bryan Turner, have become believers, scientious as Victor Nee, sometimes suggests a lin­ defending Western citizenship (Turner 1986) earity and rationality that historical experience be­ against radical egalitarianism and lauding Parsons lies. Civil society theory, despite the extraordinary for his “anti-nostalgic“ endorsement (Holton/Tur- self-consciousness of philosophers like Cohen and ner 1986) of the basic structures of modern life. Walzer, seems unable to theorize empirically the Among former Communist apparatchiks them­ demonic, anti-civil forces of cultural life that it selves, there is growing evidence (i.e., Borko cited normatively proscribes (cf., Alexander 1994 and in Muller 1992: 112) that similar “retro-dictions“ Sztompka 1991). about the convergence of capitalist and communist If there is to be a new and more successful effort at societies are well underway, tendencies that have constructing a social theory about the fundamen­ caused a growing number of “revisits“ to Schum­ tally shared structures of contemporary societies peter as well. (cf., Sztompka 1993: 136-41), it will have to avoid The theoretical danger here is that this enthusiastic these regressive tendencies, which resurrect mod­ and long overdue re-appreciation of some of the ernization ideas in their most simplistic forms. In­ central thrusts of postwar social science might ac­ stitutional structures like democracy, law, and mar­ tually lead to the revival of convergence and mod­ ket are functional requisites if certain social com­ ernization theories in their earlier forms. In his re­ petencies are to be achieved and certain resources flections on the recent transitions in Eastern Eu­ to be acquired; they are not, however, either his­ rope, Habermas (1990: 4) employs such evolution­ torical inevitabilities or linear outcomes, nor are ary phrases as “rewinding the reel“ and “rectifying they social panaceas for the problems of non­ revolution.“ Inkeles’ (1991) recent tractatus to economic subsystems or groups (see, e.g., Rues- American policy agencies is replete with such con­ chemeyer 1992). Social and cultural differentiation vergence homilies as a political “party should not may be an ideal-typical pattern that can be analyti­ seek to advance its objectives by extra political cally reconstructed over time; however, whether or means.“ Sprinkled with advice about “the impor­ not any particular differentiation occurs - market, tance of locating ... the distinctive point where ad­ state, law, or science - depends on the normative 192 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197

aspirations (e.g., Sztompka 1991), strategic posi­ their structure with regard to well-defined univer­ tion, history and powers of particular social sal exigencies, than by the fact of their involve­ groups. No matter how socially progressive in it­ ment in the issue of universalization“ as such (ital­ self, morever, differentiation displaces as much as ics added). it resolves, and can create social upheaval on an Perhaps it is wise to acknowledge that it is a re­ enormous scale. Social systems may well be plural­ newed sense of involvement in the project of uni­ istic and the causes of change multidimensional; at versalism, rather than some lipid sense of its con­ any given time and in any given place, however, a crete forms, that marks the character of the new particular subsystem and the group that directs it - age in which we live. Beneath this new layer of the economic, political, scientific, or religious - may social top soil, moreover, there lies the tangled successfully dominate and submerge the others in roots and richly marbled subsoil of earlier intellec­ its name. Globalization is, indeed, a dialectic of in- tual generations, whose ideologies and theories digenization and cosmopolitanism, but cultural have not ceased to be alive. The struggles between and political asymmetries remain between more these interlocutors can be intimidating and confus­ and less developed regions, even if they are not in­ ing, not only because of the intrinsic difficulty of herent contradictions of some imperialistic fact. their message but because each presents itself not While the analytic concept of civil society must by as form but as essence, not as the only language in all means be recovered from the heroic age of dem­ which the world makes sense but as the only real ocratic revolutions, it should be de-idealized so sense of the world. Each of these worlds does that “anti-civil society“ - the countervailing pro­ make sense, but only in an historically bounded cesses of decivilization, polarization, and violence way. Recently, a new social world has come into - can be seen also as typically “modern“ results. being. We must try to make sense of it. For the task Finally, these new theories must be pushed to of intellectuals is not only to explain the world; maintain a decentered, self-conscious reflexivity they must interpret it as well. about their ideological dimensions even while they continue in their efforts to create a new explanato­ ry scientific theory. For only if they become aware of themselves as moral constructions - as codes References and as narratives - will they be able to avoid the to­ talizing conceit that gave early modernizing theory Adorno, T. et al., 1950: The Authoritarian Personality. such a bad name. In this sense, “neo-“ must incor­ New York: Harpers porate the linguistic turn associated with “post-“ Alexander, J.C., 1987: Twenty Lectures: Sociological Theory since World War II. New York: Columbia Uni­ modern theory, even while it challenges its ideo­ versity Press. logical and more broadly theoretical thrust. Alexander, J.C., 1988: Action and Its Environments. In one of his last and most profound theoretical New York: Columbia University Press. Alexander, J.C., 1989 (ed.): Durkheimian Sociology: meditations, Francois Bourricaud (1987: 19-21) Cultural Studies. New York: Cambridge University suggested that “one way of defining modernity is Press. the way in which we define solidarity.“ The notion Alexander, J.C., 1992: Geneory Theory in the Postposi­ of modernity can be defended, Bourricaud be­ tivist Mode: The ‘Epistemological Dilemma’ and the lieved, if, rather than “identify[ing] solidarity with Case for Present Reason, pp. 322-368 in S. Seidman/ equivalence,“ we understand that the “‘general D. Wagner, eds., Postmodernism and Social Theory. spirit’ is both universal and particular.“ Within a New York: Basil Blackwell. Alexander, J.C., 1991: Sociological Theory and the group, a generalizing spirit “is universal, since it Claim to Reason: Why the End is Not in Sight. Reply regulates the intercourse among members of the to Seidman. Sociological Theory 9 (2): 147-53 group.“ Yet, if one thinks of the relations between Alexander, J.C., 1992: The Fragility of Progress: An In­ nations, this spirit “is also particular, since it helps terpretation of the l\irn Toward Meaning in Eisen- distinguish one group from all others.“ In this way, stadt’s Later Work. Acta Sociologica 35: 85-94. it might be said that “the ‘general spirit of a nation’ Alexander, J.C., 1992: Citizen and Enemy as Symbolic assures the solidarity of individuals, without neces­ Classification: On the Polarizing Discourse of Civil sarily abolishing all their differences, and even es­ Society, pp. 289-308 in M. Fournier/M. Lamont, eds., Cultivating Differences. Chicago: University of tablishing the full legitimacy of some of them.“ Chicago Press. What of the concept of universalism? Perhaps, Alexander, J.C./P. Colomy, 1990 (eds.): Differentiation Bourricaud suggested, “modem societies are char­ Theory and Social Change. New York: Columbia acterized less by what they have in common or by University Press. Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 193

Alexander, J.C./P. Colomy, 1992: Traditions and Com­ Bellah, R., 1970b [1968]: The Sociology of Religion, pp. petition: Preface to a Postopositivist Approach to 3-19 in Bellah, Beyond Belief. New York: Harper Knowledge Cumulation, pp. 27-52 in G. Ritzer, ed., and Row. Metatheorizing. London: Sage. Bellah, R., 1970c [1967]: Civil Religion in America, pp. Alexander, J.C./P. Colomy, 1994: The Return of Civil 168-189 in Bellah, Beyond Belief. Society. Contemporary Sociology. Bellah, R./C. Glock, 1976 (eds). The New Religious Alexander, J.C./P. Smith, 1993: The Discourse of Amer­ Consciousness. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Universi­ ican Civil Society: A New Proposal for Cultural Stud­ ty of California Press. ies. Theory and Society 22: 151-207. Translation Bendix, R., 1964: Nation-Building and Citizenship. forthcoming in: Berliner Journal für Soziologie New York: Doubleday Alexander, J.C./S. Sherwood, 1992: Why Yeltsin Can’t Bendix, R. et al. 1968 (eds): State and Society. Berkeley Get No Respect in America. Los Angel es Times. Feb­ and Los Angeles: University of California Press. ruary 2. Section M, p. 2. Boltanski, L./L. Thevenot, 1991: De la Justification. Alexander, J.C./S. Sherwood, 1994: Gorbachev and the Paris: Galimard. Discourse of the Good: The Making, Unmaking, and Boltanski, L., 1993: La Souffrance ä distance. Paris: Resurrection of an American Hero. Unpublishied Editions Metailie ms. Bonacich, E., 1972: A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: Apter, D., 1963: Ghana in Transition. New York: Athe- The Split Labor Market. American Sociological Re­ neum view 37: 547-559. Apter, D., 1964 (ed.): Ideology and Discontent. Lon­ Boudon, R., 1986: LTdeologie. Paris: Fayard don: Free Press of Glencoe Bourdieu, P, 1984: Distinctions. Cambridge, MA. Har­ Apter, D., 1987: Mao’s Republic. Social Research 54 vard University Press. (4): 691-729 Bourricaud, F , 1987: ‘Universal Reference’ and the Archer, M., 1987: Revisiting the Revival of Relativism. Process of Modernization, pp. 12-21 in Eisenstadt, International Sociology 2 (3): 235-250. Patterns of Modernity, Vol. 1. London: Frances Pin­ Aron, R., 1962: Eighteen Lectures on Industrial Soci­ ter ety. New York: Free Press Brooks, P, 1984: The Melodramatic Imagination. New Aron, R., 1968: Progress and Disillusionment: The Dia­ York: Columbia lectics of Modern Society. New York: Praeger. Brown, N.O., 1959: Life Against Death. Middletown, Aron, R., 1990: Memoires: Fifty Years of Political Re­ Conn: Wesleyan University Press. flection. New York and London: Holmes and Meier Baran, P.A./M. Sweezy, 1966: Monopoly Capital. New Brown, N.O., 1966: Love’s Body. New York: Random York: Monthly Review Press. House. Barber, B., 1992: Jihad Vs. MeWorld. The Atlantic Brubaker, R., forthcoming: Theory and Society Monthly. March: 53-65. Buckley, W , 1951: God and Man at Yale. Chicago: Re- Barbour, L, 1974: Myths, Models, and Paradigms: The gnery. Nature of Scientific and Religious Language. Lon­ Burn, W.L., 1974: The Age of Equipoise. London: don: S.C.M. Press Caillois, R., 1959: Man and the Sacred. New York: Free Barthes, R., 1977: Introduction to The Structural Study Press. of Narratives, pp. 79-124 in Barthes, Image, Music, Calhoun, C., 1992: Nationalism, Civil Society, and Text. London: Fontana Identity. Perspectives Baudrillard, 1983: In the Shadow of the Silent Majority Camaroff, J.L./P.C. Stern, 1994: New Perspectives on - Or the End of the Social. New York: Semiotext(e). Nationalism and War. Theory and Society 23 (1): 35- Baumann, Z., 1989: Modernity and the Holocaust. Ith­ 46. aca: Cornell Campeanu, P, 1990: Transition in Europe. Social Re­ Bell, D., 1962a: The End of Ideology: On the Exhaus­ search 57 (3): 587-590. tion of Political Ideas in the Fifties. New York: Free Chan, E., 1974: Tian-Anmen and the Crisis of Chinese Press. Society: A Cultural Analysis of Ritual Process. Un­ Bell, D., 1962b [1956,1947]: Work and Its Discontents, published Ph.D. Thesis. UCLA. Los Angeles, Cali­ pp. 227-272 in Bell, The End of Ideology. fornia. 1962c [1955, 1957, 1959] The Mood of Three Genera­ Chirot, D., 1990: After Socialism, What? Ideological tions, pp. 299-314 in Bell, The End of Ideology. Implications of the 1989 in Eastern Europe for the Bell, D., 1976: The Cultural Contradictions of Capital­ Rest of the world. Manuscript. Contention. ism. New York: Basic Books. Cohen, J./A. Arato, 1992: Civil Society and Political Bell, D., 1977: The Return of the Sacred? British Jour­ Theory. Boston: MIT Press. nal of Sociology 27 (4): 419-449. Cole, R.E., 1979: Work, Mobility, and Participation: A Bell, D., 1978: The Disjuncture of Realms. Manuscript. Comparative Study of American and Japanese Auto­ Bellah, R., 1957: Tokugawa Religion. Boston: Beacon mobile Industry. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer­ Bellah, R., 1970a [1964]: Religious Evolution, pp. 22- sity of California Press. 50 in Bellah, Beyond Belief. New York: Random Coleman, J., 1990: Foundations of Social Theory. Cam- House. bridge, MA. Harvard University Press 194 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197

Collins, R., 1976: Conflict Sociology. New York: Aca­ lan Wolfe, ed., America at Century’s End. Berkeley demic Press. and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Coser, L., 1956: The Functions of Social Conflict. New Giddens, A., 1982: Sociology: A Brief but Critical Intro­ York: Free Press. duction. London: MacMillan. Crespi, F , 1992: Power and Action. Oxford: Blackwell. Giddens, A., 1991: Modernity and Self-Identity: Self Crook, S./J. Pakulski/M. Waters, 1992: Postmoderniza- and Identity in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stan­ tion: Change in Advanced Society. London: Sage. ford University Press. Crossman, R., 1950: The God That Failed. New York: Gitlin, T , 1987: The Sixties. New York: Bantam Harper. Gitlin,T., 1993: From Universality to Difference: Notes Dahrendorf, R., 1959: Class and Class Conflict in In­ on the Fragmentation of the Idea of the Left. Con­ dustrial Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press. tention 2(2): 15-40. Dürkheim, E., 1937: Suicide. New York: Free Press Goffman, E., 1956: The Presentation of Self in Every­ Eisenstadt, S.N., 1963: The Political System of Em­ day Life. New York: Anchor Doubleday. pires. New York: Free Press. Goldfarb, J.C., 1990: Post-Totalitarian Politics: Ideolo­ Eisenstadt, S.N., 1964: Social Change, Differentiation, gy Ends Again. Social Research 57 (3): 533-556. and Evolution. American Sociological Review 29: Goldthorpe, J. et al., 1969: The Affluent Worker and the 235-47. Class Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Eisenstadt, S.N., 1986 (ed.): The Origins and Diversity Press. of Axial Age Civilizations. Albany: SUNY Press. Gorz, A., 1982: Farewell to the Wbrking Class. London: Eisenstadt, S.N., 1987: Preface, pp. vii-ix in Eisenstadt, Pluto ed., Patterns of Modernity, Vol. I: The West. London: Gouldner, A., 1970: The Coming Crisis of Western Soci­ Frances Pinter. ology. New York: Equinox. Eliade, M., 1954: The Myth of the Eternal Return. Granovetter, M., 1974: Getting a Job: A Study of Con­ Princeton: Princeton University Press. tracts and Careers. Cambridge: Harvard University Elster, J., 1989: The Cement of Society: A Study of So­ Press. cial Order. New York: Cambridge University Press. Granovetter, M., 1985: Economic Action and Social Empson, W , 1927: Seven Types of Ambiguity. Structure: A Theory of Embeddedness. American Entrikin, N., 1991: The Betweeness of Place. Balti­ Journal of Sociology 91 (3): 481-510. more: Johns Hopkins. Granovetter, M./R. Swedberg, 1992 (eds.): The Sociol­ Esquire editors, 1987: Smiling through the Apocalypse: ogy of Economic Life. Boulder, Col. Westview Press. Esquire’s History of the Sixties. New York: Greenfeld, L., 1992: Kitchen Debate: Russia’s Nation­ Etzioni, A., 1968: The Active Society. New York: Free alist Intelligentsia. The New Republic, September Press 21: 22-25. Evans, P. et al., 1986 (eds): Bringing the State Back In. Greenfeld, L./C. Chirot, 1994: Nationalism and Agres­ New York: Cambridge University Press. sion. Theory and Society 23 (1): 79-130. Eyerman, R., 1992: Intellectuals: A Framework for Gusfield, J., 1967: Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Analysis, with Special Reference to the United States Polarities in the Study of Social Change. American and Sweden. Acta Sociologica 35: 33-46. Journal of Sociology 72: 351-362 Fiedler, L., 1955: An End to Innocence. Boston: Bea­ Habermas, J., 1981: Modernity versus Postmodernity. con. New German Critique 22: 3-14. Foucault, M., 1976: To Discipline and Punish. New Habermas, J., 1989: The Structural Transformation of York: Pantheon the Public Sphere. Boston: Beacon. Frank, A.G., 1966: The Development of Underdevelop­ Habermas, J., 1990: What Does Socialism Mean Today? ment. Monthly Review 18 18 (4): 17-31. The Rectifying Revolution and the Need for new Friedland, R./A.F. Robertson, 1990 (eds): Beyond the Thinking on the Left. New Left Review 183: 3-21. Market Place: Rethinking Economy and Society. Hall, J., 1985: Powers and Liberties: Causes and Conse­ New York: Aldine de Gruyter quences of the Rise of the West. Oxford: Oxford Uni­ Fromm, E., 1955: The Sane Society. New York: Rein­ versity Press. hard Hall, J., 1993: Nationalisms: Classified and Explained. Fromm, E ., 1956: The Art of Loving. New York: Harper Daedalus 122 (3): 1-28. Frye, N., 1957: Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton: Halpern, D., 1990:100 Years of Homosexuality and oth­ Princeton University Press. er Essays on Greek Love. New York: Routledge and Fussell, R, 1975: The Great War and Modern Memory. Kegan Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hannerz, U., 1987: The World in Creolisation. Africa 57 Gadamer, G., 1975: Truth and Method. New York: (4): 546-59 Seabury. Hannerz, U., 1989: Notes on the Global Ecumene. Pub­ Geertz, C., 1973 [1964]: Ideology as a Cultural System, lic Culture 1 (2): 66-75. pp. 193-233 in Geertz, The Interpretation of Cul­ Harrington, M., 1962: The Other America. New York: tures. New York: Basic Books MacMillan Gibson, W.J., 1991: The Return of Rambo: War and Harvey, D., 1989: The Conditions of Post-Modernity. Culture in the Post-Vietnam Era, pp. 376-395 in Al­ London: Basil Blackwell. Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 195

Hawthorn, G., 1991: Plausible Worlds: Possibility and Kolko, G., 1967: Triumph of Conservativism: Reinter­ Understanding in History and the Social Sciences. preting American History 1900-1916. New York: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Free Press. Heilbroner, R., 1986 (ed.): The Essential Adam Smith. Konrad, G./I. Szelenyi, 1979: The Intellectuals on the New York: Norton. Road to Class Power. New York: Harcourt Brace. Heilbroner, R., 1990: Rethinking the Past, Rehoping Lasch, S., 1985: Postmodernity and Desire. Theory and [sic] the Future. Social Research 57 (3): 579-586. Society 14 (7) Held, D., 1987: Models of Democracy. Stanford: Stan­ Lasch, S., 1990: Sociology of Postmodernism. London: ford University Press. Routledge. Herpin, N., 1993: Au-Dela de la Consommation de Leijonhofvud, A., 1993: The Nature of the Depression Mass? Une Discussion Critique des Sociololgues de in the Former Soviet Union. Unpublished Ms. De­ la Post-Modernite. LAnnee Sociologique 43: 294- partment of Economics. UCLA. Los Angeles. 315. Lerner, D., 1968: Modernization. Social Aspects. Inter­ Holton, R., 1992: Economy and Society. London: Rout- national Encyclopedia of Social Science 10: 386-95. ledge Levine, D.N., 1991: Simmel as Educator: On Individu­ Holton, R./B. Turner, 1986: Talcott Parsons on Econo­ ality and Modern Culture. Theory, Culture, and Soci­ my and Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ety 8: 99-117. Horowitz, D./P. Collier, 1989: Destructive Generation: Levy, B.-H., 1977: Barbarism with a Human Face. New Second Thoughts about the 60s. New York: Summit York: Harper and Row. Huntington, S.P., 1968: Political Order in Changing So­ Levy, M., 1949: The Family Revolution in Modern Chi­ cieties. New Haven: Yale University Press. na. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. Huyssen, A., 1984: Mapping the Postmodern. New Ger­ Lipset, S.M., 1990: The Death of the Third Way. The man Critique 33: National Interest (summer): 25-37. Inkeles, A., 1991: Transitions to Democracy. Society 28 Lipset, S.M./R. Bendix, 1960: Social Mobility in Indus­ (4): 67-72. trial Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Inkeles, A./D.H. Smith, 1974: Becoming Modern: In­ California Press. dustrial Change in Six Developing Countries. Cam­ Lowi, T , 1967: The End of Liberalism. New York: Nor­ bridge, MA.: Harvard ton Ishitsuka, S., 1994: The Fall of Real Socialism and the Lukes, S., 1990: Socialism and Capialism, Left and Crisis in Human Sciences. Unpublished ms. Depart­ Right. Social Research 57 (3): 571-278. ment of International Culture, Toyama University, Lyotard, J.-F, 1984: The Postmodern Condition. Min­ Toyama, Japan. neapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Jameson, F., 1980: The Political Unconscious: Narrative Mailer, N., 1987 [I960]: Superman Comes to the Super­ as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca: Cornell market: Jack Kennedy as a Presidential Candidate. Jameson, F., 1988: Postmodernism and Consumer Soci­ Pp. 3-30 in Esquire editors, Smiling Through the ety, pp. 13-29 in E. Ann Kaplan, ed., Postmodernism Apocalypse, loc. cit. and Its Discontents. London: Verso. Mandel, E., 1968: Marxist Economic Theory. 2 vol­ Jamison, A./R. Eyerman, 1994: Seeds of the Sixties. umes. New York: Monthly Review. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Mann, M., 1973: Workers on the Move. Cambridge: Press. Cambridge University Press. Jay, M., 1973: The Dialectical Imagination. Boston: Mann, M., 1986: The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1. Beacon. New York: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, P., 1983: Modern Times: The World from the Mayhew, L., 1990: The Differentiation of the Solidary Twenties to the Eighties. New York: Harper and Row. Public. Pp. 295-322 in Alexander/Colomy, op. cit. Katznelson, L, 1990: Does the End of Totalitarianism McClelland, D., 1953: The Achievement Motive. New Signify the End of Ideology?: Social Research 57 (3): York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 557-570. Meyer, J./B. Rowan, 1977: Institutionalized Organiza­ Keane, J., 1988a: Democracy and Civil Society. Lon­ tions: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. don: Verso American Journal of Sociology 83: 340-63. Keane, J., 1988b (ed.): Civil Society and the State. Lon­ Mills, C.W., 1948: The New Men of Power: America’s don: Verso Labor Leaders. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Kennedy, P., 1987: The Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Moene, K.O./M. Wallerstein, 1992: The Decline of So­ Economic Change and Military Conflict 1500-2000. cial Democracy. Working Paper Series: 225. Institute New York: Vintage of Industrial Relations. UCLA. Los Angeles, Cali­ Kennedy, R, 1993: Preparing for the Twenty-First Cen­ fornia. tury. New York: Random House. Moore, B., 1966: The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Khosrokhavar, E, 1993: L’Utopie Sacrifice: Sociologie Democracy. Boston: Beacon. de la Revolution Iranienne. Paris: Presses de la Moscovici, S., 1984: The Phenomenon of Social Repre­ Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques. sentations, pp. 3-70 in R.M. Farr/S. Moscovici, eds., Kolko, G., 1962: Wealth and Power in America. Lon­ Social Representations. London: Cambridge Univer­ don: Thames and Hudson. sity Press. 196 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 23, Heft 3, Juni 1994, S. 165-197

Muller, K., 1992: ‘Modernizing’ Eastern Europe: Theo­ partment of Sociology. Brown University. Provi­ retical Problems and Political Dilemmas. European dence, Rhode Island. Journal of Sociology 33: 109-150. Said, E., 1978: Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Nee, V., 1989: ATheory of Market Transition: From Re­ Said, E., 1991: ATragic Convergence. New York Times. distribution to Markets in State Socialism. American January 11. Section 1, p. 29. Sociological Review 54: 663-681. Sales, A., 1991: The Private, the Public, and Civil soci­ Nettl, J.P./R. Robertson, 1968: Interational Systems ety: Social Realms and Power Structures. Interna­ and the Modernization of Societies. New York: Basic tional Political Science Reivew 12 (4): 295-312. Niebuhr, R., 1952: The Irony of American History. New Schluchter, W , 1979: The Paradox of Rationalization, York: Scribners pp. 11-64 in Schluchter and G. Roth, Max Weber’s Oilman, B., 1971: Alienation: Marx’s Concept of Man Vision of History. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer­ in Modern Society. London: sity of California Press. Parsons, T., 1964: Evolutionary Universals in Society. Schluchter, W./G. Roth, 1979: Max Weber’s Vision of American Sociological Review History. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Parsons, T , 1966: The Evolution of Societies. Engle­ California Press. wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Schnapper, D., 1994: La Communaute des Citoyens: Parsons, T., 1971: The System of Modern Societies. En­ Sur l’Idee Moderne de Nation. Paris. glewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Sciulli, D., 1990: Diferentiation and Collegial Forma­ Parsons, T./E. Shils, 1951: Values, Motives, and Systems tions: Implications of Societal Constitutionalism. Pp. of Action, pp. in Parsons and Shils, eds., Towards a 367-405 in Alexander and Colomy, op. cit. General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA.: Har­ Seidman, S., 1983: Liberalism and the Origins of Euro­ vard University Press. . pean Social Theory. Bercelay and Los Angelese: Uni­ Pevsner, N ., 1949: Pioneers of Modern Design from Wil­ versity of California Press. liam Morris to Walter Gropius. New York: Museum Seidman, S., 1991: Romantic Longings: Love in Ameri­ of Modern Art. ca, 1830-1980. New York: Routledge and Kegan Pocock, J.G.A., 1987: Modernity and Anti-modernity Paul. in the Anglophone Political Traditions, pp. 44-59 in Seidman, S., 1991: The End of Sociological Theory: The Eisenstadt, Patterns of Modernity, op. cit. Postmodern Hope. Sociological Theory 8 (Fall): Polanyi, K., 1957 [1944]: The Great Transformation: Seidman, S., 1992: Postmodern Social Theory as Narra­ The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. tive with a Moral Intent, pp. 47-81 in S. Seidman/ Boston: Beacon. D.G. Wagner, eds., Postmodernism and Social Theo­ Przeworski, A., 1985: Capitalism and Social Democra­ ry. New York: Basil Blackwell. cy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sherwood, S.J., 1994: Narrating the Social. In T. Lie­ Przeworski, A., 1991: Democracy and the Market: bes, ed., Dramatizing Facts: The Narratives of Jour­ Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe nalism. Special Issue of Journal of Narratives and and Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Life Stories, vol. 4. Press. Rand, A., 1957: Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random Shils, E., 1972: Intellectuals and the Powers. Chicago: House. Chicago University Press. Reisman, D./N. Glazer/R. Denny, 1950: The Lonely Shils, E., 1991: The Virtue of Civil Society. Government Crowd. New Haven: Yale University Press. and Opposition 26: 3-20. Rex, J., 1961: Key Problems in Sociological Theory. Shils, E., forthcoming Civility and Civil Society, in E. London: RKP Banfield, op. cit. Rieff, P., 1959: Freud: Mind of the Moralist. Anchor: Skocpol, T , 1979: States and Social Revolutions. New Doubleday. York: Cambridge University Press. Ricoeur, R, 1977: The Rule of Metaphor. Toronto: To­ Slotkin, R., 1973: Regeneration through Violence: The ronto University Press. Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600-1860. Rorty, R., 1979: Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Smelser, N., 1963: Theory of Collective Behavior. New Rorty, R., 1985: Postmodern Bourgeois Liberalism, pp. York: Free Press 214-221 in R. Hollinger, ed., Hermeneutics and Smelser, N., 1968: Toward a Theory of Modernization, Praxis. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press. pp. 125-146 in Smelser, Essays in Sociological Expla­ Rorty, R., 1989: Contingency, Irony, Solidarity. New nation. Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. York: Cambridge University Press. Smelser, N., 1991: Social Paralysis and Social Change: Rosenau, P.M., 1992: Postmodernism and the Social British Working Class Education in the Nineteenth Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Roszak, T., 1969: The Making of a Counter-Culture: California Press. Reflections on the Technocratic Society and Its Smith, H.N., 1950: Virgin Land. Cambridge, MA.: Har­ Youthful Opposition. New York: Doubleday. vard University Press. Rueschemeyer, D., 1993: The Development of Civil So­ Smith, R, 1991: Codes and Conflict: Towards a Theory ciety after Authoritarian Rule. Unpublished Ms. De­ of War as Ritual. Theory and Society 20:103-138. Jeffrey C. Alexander: Modern, Anti, Post, and Neo 197

Smith, R, 1993 The Culture of War. Unpublished Ph.D. Wagner-Pacifici, R., 1986: The Moro Morality Play: Ter­ Dissertation, UCLA. Los Angeles, California. rorism as Social Drama. Chicago: University of Chi­ Somers, M.R., 1992: Narrativity, Narrative Identity, cago Press. and Social Action: Rethinking English Working-Class Wallerstein, E., 1979: Modernization: Requiescat in Formation. Social Science History 16 (4): 591-630. Pace, pp. 132-137 in Wallerstein, The Capitalist Stepan, A., 1985: State Power and the Strength of Civil World-Economy. New York: Cambridge University Society in the Southern Cone of Latin America, p. Press. 317-343 in P. Evans et al., eds., Bringing the State Walzer, M., 1965: Revolution of the Saints. Cambridge, Back In. New York: Cambridge. MA.: Harvard University Press. Szelenyi, L, 1988: Socialist Embourgeoisement in Rural Walzer, M., 1992: The Civil Society Argument, pp. 89- Hungary. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin 107 in C. Mouffe, ed., Dimensions of Radical De­ Press. mocracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community. Sztompka, R, 1991: The Intangibles and Imponderables Walzer, M., 1992: Constitutional Rights and the Shape of the Transition to Democracy. Studies in Compara­ of Civil Society, pp. 113-126 in R.E. Calvert, ed., tive Communism 34: 295-311. The Constitution of the People: Reflections on Citi­ Sztompka, R, 1993: The Sociology of Social Change. zens and Civil Society. London: Blackwell. Weiner, J., 1984: Come Together: John Lennon in His Thomas, G.M./P. Louderdale, 1988: State Authority Times. New York: Random House. and National Welfare Programms in World System Weinstein, J., 1968: Corporate Ideology in the Liberal Context. Sociological Forum 3 (3): 383-399. State, 1900-1918. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Thompson, E.P., 1963: The Making of the English Press. Working Class. New York: Pantheon White, H., 1980: The Value of Narrativity in the Repre­ Thompson, K., 1992: Social Pluralism and Post- sentation of Reality, p. 1-25 in W.J.T. Mitchell, ed., Modernity, pp. 222-271 in Thompson et al., eds., On Narrative. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Modernity and Its Futures. London: Blackwell’s. White, H., 1987: The Content of Form: Narrative Dis­ Tlryakian, E., 1988: From Dürkheim to Managua: Rev­ course and Historical Representation. Baltimore: olutions as Religious Revivals, pp. 44-65 in Alexan­ Johns Hopkins. der, ed., Durkheimian Sociology: Cultural Studies. Wieviorka, M., 1993: La Democratic a l’Epreuve: Na- New York: Cambridge University Press. tionalisme, Populism, Ethnicite. Paris: Editions La Tiryakian, E., 1991: Modernisation: Exhumetur in Decouverte. pace. International Sociology 6 (2): 165-180. Wilson, J.Q., forthcoming Incivility and Crime, in Ban- Touraine, A., 1994: Qu’est-ce que la Democratic? Paris: field, op. cit. Fayard Wittrock, B., 1991: Cultural Identity and Nationhood: Trilling, L., 1950: The Liberal Imagination. New York: The Reconstitution of Germany - Or the Open An­ Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich. swer to an Almost Closed Question, pp. 76-87 in M. Trilling, L., 1955: The Opposing Self: Nine Essays in Trow/T. Nybom, eds., University and Society: Essays Criticism. London: Seeker and Warburg. on the Social Roel of Resarch and Higher Education. Turner, B.S., 1986: Citizenship and Capitalism. Lon­ London: Jessica Kingsley don: Allen and Unwin Wolff, R.P. et al., 1965: A Critique of Pure Tolerance. Van den Berg, A., 1980: Critical Theory: Is There Still Boston: Beacon. Hope? American Journal of Sociology 86 (3): 449- Wright, E.O., 1985: Classes. London: Verso 479. Veeser, H. A., 1989: (ed.): The New Historicism. New York: Routledge