15,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
Social life is in a constant process of change, and sociology can never stand still. As a result, contemporary sociology is a theoretically diverse enterprise, covering a huge range of subjects and drawing on a broad array of research methods. Central to this endeavour is the use of core concepts and ideas which allow sociologists to make sense of societies, though our understanding of these concepts necessarily evolves and changes.
This clear and jargon-free book introduces a careful selection of essential concepts that have helped to shape sociology and continue to do so. Going beyond brief, dictionary-style definitions, Anthony Giddens and Philip W. Sutton provide an extended discussion of each concept which sets it in historical and theoretical context, explores its main meanings in use, introduces relevant criticisms, and points readers to its ongoing development in contemporary research and theorizing.
Organized in ten thematic sections, the book offers a portrait of sociology through its essential concepts, ranging from capitalism, identity and deviance to the digital revolution, environment, postcolonialism and intersectionality. It will be essential reading for all those new to sociology as well as anyone seeking a reliable route map for a rapidly changing world.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 542
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
Ähnliche
CONTENTS
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Introduction
Concept Development in Sociology
The Essential Concepts
Using this Book
Theme 1 Thinking Sociologically
Digital Revolution
Globalization
Modernity
Postcolonialism
Postmodernity
Rationalization
Society
Theme 2 Doing Sociology
Ideal Type
Qualitative/Quantitative Methods
Realism
Reflexivity
Science
Social Constructionism
Structure/Agency
Theme 3 Environment and Urbanism
Alienation
Environment
Industrialization
Migration
Risk
Sustainable Development
Urbanism
Theme 4 Structures of Society
Bureaucracy
Capitalism
Consumerism
Division of Labour
Education
Organization
Religion
Theme 5 Unequal Life Chances
Class
Gender
Intersectionality
Patriarchy
Poverty
Race and Ethnicity
Social Mobility
Status
Theme 6 Relationships and the Life Course
Community
Family
Life Course
Network
Sexuality
Socialization
Theme 7 Interaction and Communication
Culture
Discourse
Identity
Ideology
Interaction
Media
Public Sphere
Theme 8 Health, Illness and the Body
Biomedicine
Medicalization
Sick Role
Social Model of Disability
Social Self
Theme 9 Crime and Social Control
Anomie
Deviance
Labelling
Moral Panic
Social Control
Stigma
Theme 10 Political Sociology
Authority
Citizenship
Civil Society
Conflict
Democracy
Nation State
Power
Social Movement
Index
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Introduction
Begin Reading
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
iii
iv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
Essential Concepts in Sociology
Third Edition
ANTHONY GIDDENS & PHILIP W. SUTTON
polity
Copyright © Anthony Giddens & Philip W. Sutton 2021
The right of Anthony Giddens & Philip W. Sutton to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First edition published in 2014 by Polity PressThis third edition first published in 2021 by Polity Press
Polity Press65 Bridge StreetCambridge CB2 1UR, UK
Polity Press101 Station LandingSuite 300Medford, MA 02155, USA
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN-13: 13: 978-1-5095-4809-5
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataNames: Giddens, Anthony, author. | Sutton, Philip W., author.Title: Essential concepts in sociology / Anthony Giddens & Philip W. Sutton.Description: Third Edition. | Medford : Polity Press, 2021. | Revised edition of the author’s Essential concepts in sociology, 2017. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Succinct guide to the core ideas that shape our understanding of the social world”-- Provided by publisher.Identifiers: LCCN 2021000856 (print) | LCCN 2021000857 (ebook) | ISBN 9781509548088 (hardback) | ISBN 9781509548095 (paperback) | ISBN 9781509548101 (epub)Subjects: LCSH: Sociology.Classification: LCC HM585 .G51973 2021(print) | LCC HM585(ebook) | DDC 301--dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021000856LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021000857
The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.
For further information on Polity, visit our website:politybooks.com
Introduction
Sociology has its origin in the nineteenth century, but it is a discipline that must move and change with the times or risk becoming irrelevant. This is because our object of study, the social life we all live and make together, is itself in a continuous process of change. Conflicts and wars, new patterns of migration, multiculturalism, increasingly fluid gender relations, a digital revolution in communications, financial crises, global health pandemics and terrorism are just some of the phenomena that sociologists investigate and seek to understand. Given this diverse range of subjects, it is not surprising that sociology is theoretically diverse and uses a broad array of research methods to help us make sense of the human world. This is the inevitable outcome of attempts to understand and explain our globalizing world, but it also follows that our familiar and comfortable concepts always need to be reassessed and new ones created where necessary. This book includes what we think is a productive mixture of both long-established and more recent concepts.
Concept Development in Sociology
Some sociological concepts are part of the very tissue of the discipline, having weathered the shifting terrain of society pretty well. Social class, status, capitalism, gender, poverty, family and power remain fundamental to anyone interested in ‘doing’ sociology. Yet others are more recently developed and are still debated and argued over. Globalization, postmodernity, reflexivity, postcolonialism, environment, and the social model of disability are part of the conceptual lexicon, representing some of the major social changes of recent decades. The book provides a map of sociology’s conceptual development and current condition by introducing the essential concepts, many of which are effective signposts for particular theoretical developments since the late nineteenth century. Familiarizing themselves with these concepts, their origins and contemporary usage will help readers to see how the subject matter of sociology has developed over time.
Concept development in sociology is usually linked to theories and empirical studies, both of which often demand new concepts to make sense of their findings. Some concepts, such as status, class and risk, are already in circulation in society, but when lifted out of that context into sociology they are debated and refined, becoming more precise and useful in the process. Others, including alienation, moral panic and globalization, have been created by sociologists to orientate and help them to study social phenomena, after which they can ‘slip’ into everyday life, where they may influence or change people’s perceptions of the world in which they live. This is quite unlike the situation in the natural sciences. Regardless of how many concepts from the natural sciences are created, those concepts do not have the potential to change the behaviour of animals and plants. As Giddens has argued, this is an example of a ‘one-way’ process. In sociology, concepts, research findings and theories do make their way back into society and people may alter their ideas and behaviour as a result. This means that sociological research is part of a continuous ‘two-way’ process between sociologists and the subjects they study.
This two-way process means that our concepts are inherently unstable and open to modification and change, not just within professional sociological discourse but in the social world itself. It also means that some concepts – perhaps even a majority – are ‘essentially contested’. That is, they are used in a variety of theories in different ways. This perhaps overstates the level of variation and disagreement, though because, in practice, competing theories in sociology are relatively few and there is more consistency and integration between them than might first appear.
Concepts developed within one theoretical perspective are very often used in others. The concept of alienation, for instance, was devised by Karl Marx, enabling him to understand better the nature of work in capitalist societies. Yet it was revived more than a century later, lifted out of its original Marxist theoretical frame and given a new lease of life by industrial sociologists trying to understand how employees in different sectors felt about work and their working environment. In the process, the concept was modified and, though some Marxists may object, the revised version gave us some worthwhile insights into how different workplaces and management systems impact on the lives of workers.
The Essential Concepts
For this new edition we have updated all of the entries and added two more: postcolonialism and the digital revolution. These latter two have become very widely used across numerous fields of study and look set to become firmly established in sociology, hence they deserve a place in the book. A reminder at the outset that this is not, and is not intended to be, a comprehensive compendium of all sociological concepts. We have selected concepts that have helped to shape, or are currently shaping, the varied fields that make up sociology. The concepts can be roughly divided into three types. First, those very longstanding concepts – power, ideology, society, culture – that have been in use for most or much of the history of sociology, but that still stimulate debate and guide research projects. Second are those – gender, consumerism, identity – that do not have such a long history but have made a significant impact on the discipline, stimulating large bodies of research and reframing older debates, forcing sociologists to reassess their earlier ideas. Third, we have included some more recent concepts – intersectionality, globalization, digital revolution – as these have already generated many innovative and important research studies which have led sociologists in new directions.
The entries are more substantial than usual for a typical ‘key concepts’ book, most of which aim to be comprehensive in coverage, but with brief entries. Our aim instead is to provide an extended discussion of each concept, setting each one into its historical and theoretical context, exploring its main meanings in use and introducing relevant criticisms, before pointing readers to contemporary pieces of research and theorizing which they can follow up themselves. This structure enables readers to link the history of sociology with its contemporary form through the development of its key concepts. Readers are advised to use the Index as a guide for locating the many other concepts embedded within the text that do not appear in the Contents list.
As with all scientific disciplines, disagreement is both inevitable and necessary, so some of the concepts we have selected will, no doubt, be queried. Some will consider that we have missed a crucial concept or included others that have, in fact, become quite irrelevant. This is normal, even though it might strike some readers as odd that we quibble about such fundamental things as ‘essential’ concepts. However, sociology’s theoretical diversity means that there are varied theoretical commitments and perspectives which prioritize some concepts over others. Remember though, that, even if we do disagree, we still actually speak to and understand each other. And one reason why we are able to do that is because of our shared conceptual heritage, derived from the many theories and explanatory frameworks that have waxed and waned over the years.
Using this Book
The book’s entries are in ten major themes, internally listed alphabetically. As a quick reference guide, this helps readers to find what they are looking for. The book is also a stand-alone text that can be used by anyone looking to understand sociology’s essential concepts. Readers who also use our Sociology: Introductory Readings (2010) will appreciate that there is a matching structure across both books, facilitating cross-referencing of concepts with the associated readings by theme. Concepts are cross-referenced within the present text by highlighting in bold the first use of other concepts within the individual entries. We have also taken a few liberties. For instance, race and ethnicity are covered in one rather than two entries because the two are generally discussed together, though their key differences are made clear in the discussion. We decided to do something similar with structure/agency and qualitative/quantitative methods. Some entries may also be thought of as really theories or general perspectives rather than concepts. Globalization, for example, is both a concept and a theory of social change, while the social model of disability is a particular approach to studying disability in society. These are included so that the book will fulfil its purpose, namely, to provide an accurate and up-to-date conceptual map of contemporary sociology.
THEME 1Thinking Sociologically
Digital Revolution
Working Definition
From the mid-twentieth century, the shift away from analogue and mechanical technologies to digital electronics and computerized systems. In sociology, the concept covers all of the social, economic and cultural consequences of this expansive process of socio-technological change.
Origins of the Concept
Theories of a digital revolution are still contested, but the origins of digitization are well established. A crucial turning point was the creation of ARPANET, forerunner to the internet. ARPANET was an experimental computer network, a product of the US Pentagon’s Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, which enabled scientists across the USA to communicate directly. From here the network was expanded for use in universities, research centres and business (Athique 2013: 13). By 1987, 28,000 computers in universities and research facilities were linked, but by 1994 businesses had become the main users. As the internet became available in private homes, a global multimedia library, the worldwide web (WWW) became its central feature. The advent of fast broadband at the turn of the century then made available many more opportunities for development.
Significant technological advances in the digitization of data over this period transformed telecommunications. The processing power of computers continuously increased, as did internet speeds, making possible video streaming, faster downloads and interactive media such as blogs, vlogs and globally accessible social media (Negroponte 1995). Online sites, such as Wikipedia, are typical of the interactive second generation of internet usage, known as Web 2.0. Four major technological trends underpin ongoing digitization: the continuous improvement of computer capabilities, the digitization of data, satellite communications infrastructure, and fibre optics allowing multiple messages along a single cable. The digital revolution also includes a myriad of digital devices that are now part of everyday life, including computers, tablets, smartphones, internet-enabled TV and the expanding Internet of Things, all made possible by wireless technology (Wi-Fi). Today, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and ‘big data’ mark out the next phase of development, as we move a step closer to a world of automated factories, driverless cars, drone delivery systems, domestic robots and AI-generated journalism and teaching.
Meaning and Interpretation
As the examples above show, digitization facilitates a growing global connectivity that has transformed almost every aspect of life in most countries, raising serious questions as workplaces are transformed and workers see their jobs and roles digitally reshaped. Internet access has already become a necessity if people are to take advantage of the new opportunities it opens up. By 2019, some five and a half billion people had internet access, with the fastest growth rates since 2000 in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia. As digitization has become embedded in social life, younger generations are the ‘digital natives’ socialized and comfortable in the era of the internet, robotics and AI.
Castells (2006, 2015) argues that we have created a networked, globalizing world which generates new forms of expression, sociability, cybercrimes, work, social movements and much more. Protests in Hong Kong in 2019 against legislative change and Extinction Rebellion’s 2019–20 direct actions on global warming made extensive use of social media, and reports of the protests were often live-streamed by activists themselves, illustrating Castells’s idea of ‘networked social movements’. Formerly discrete media forms have also become intertwined, in a merger process known as media convergence, with the internet at its centre. For instance, newspaper sales have declined, but news has moved online, while global video providers, such as Netflix, have transformed television watching with live-streaming and catch-up via smartphones and other devices.
For some, digitization also changes the character of capitalism and, with it, the world of work. A ‘gig economy’ has developed in which workers are treated as self-employed contractors, and firms operate as online platforms supplying ‘gigs’, absolving them of conventional employer responsibilities. Srnicek (2016) theorizes that we may be entering a period of ‘platform capitalism’ where data is the key resource for capitalist expansion – harvested, collated and used to improve services and products and to sell on at a profit. The danger is that this results in the erosion of privacy and confidentiality as the public–private boundary is further eroded. Zuboff (2019) theorizes the situation as one of ‘surveillance capitalism’, in which the enormous promise of the digital revolution is being lost to corporate interests. Surveillance capitalists exploit devices such as the Amazon Alexa, smart thermostats, speakers, routers and even home security devices, collecting data for analysis, predictions of consumer behaviour and, thus, increased sales. Indeed, intensified surveillance is a key theme in many studies of the digital age.
Critical Points
The digital transformation in communications is clear, but whether this constitutes a genuine ‘revolution’ can be queried. As Zuboff points out, for all the novel applications we have seen so far, capitalist profit-seeking continues to be the main driver of socio-economic change and the industrialized societies remain recognizable as such. After all, industrial production is still required to manufacture microchips, tablets, smartphones, robots and computers, and it may be more realistic to see the current phase as a continuation of industrialization, with its characteristic replacement of human and animal labour by machines.
Inequalities of internet access and ownership of digital devices are described today as digital divides, but these are still marked by existing inequalities of disability, class, gender, race and ethnicity (Andreasson 2015). Early adoption of digital technology was largely across the Global North, which reinforced existing global inequality, though the gap between North and South is gradually closing. Digitization may be ‘revolutionary’ in some respects, but it does not seem to be changing long-established patterns of social inequality. Others accept that digitization may have revolutionary consequences but see these as, on balance, negative, leading to social isolation and a denuded human experience. The idea of online experience as somehow ‘not real’ is a common refrain among digital critics.
Continuing Relevance
The continuing relevance of the concept of a digital revolution should already be clear. However, it is worth noting that contemporary debates have moved beyond simple positive / negative evaluations of digitization. More recent studies reject the idea that cyberspace is essentially different or divergent from the material social world. Empirical studies show that online life is not a denuded form of the material world, but more likely an extension of it. This is clear in research into social media, where it has been found that most people’s interactions are generally with existing friends, relations and people they already know from face-to-face contact, not with strangers and anonymous, ethereal ‘profiles’. Similarly, Baym (2015) argues that a more realistic account shows that relationships today flow from online to offline and vice versa, and, as digital technologies become increasingly embedded within our everyday routines, this is exactly what we might expect.
For sociologists, the digital revolution raises the question of whether existing ways of carrying out research are appropriate for the study of interactions in online environments. Do we now need novel research methods and tools? Selwyn (2019: 2) addresses this issue directly, arguing that, in fact, what we need is a ‘proactive “digital” approach toward all aspects of sociological work’. This is because all social settings have become ‘profoundly digital and digitized’. For example, communications routinely involve texting, email and social media, while many leisure pursuits and entertainment forms, such as gaming, watching films or TV and listening to music, take place online. Scholars working on social and government policy cannot now ignore the vast digital bureaucracies through which education, health and welfare are delivered and accessed. In the future, analysis of the enormous amount of data collected via the Internet of Things may tell us much more about how social life is actually lived than conventional methods such as interviews, focus groups and surveys. In sum, Selwyn’s overall argument is that developing a digital sociology is not an esoteric project pursued by a small number of technology geeks, but is absolutely essential if sociology is to be relevant in the digital age.
References and Further Reading
Andreasson, K. (ed.) (2015) Digital Divides: The New Challenges and Opportunities of e-Inclusion (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press).
Athique, A. (2013) Digital Media and Society: An Introduction (Cambridge: Polity).
Baym, N. K. (2015) Personal Connections in the Digital Age (2nd edn, Cambridge: Polity).
Castells, M. (2006) The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).
— (2015) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age (2nd edn, Cambridge: Polity).
Negroponte, N. (1995) Being Digital (London: Hodder & Stoughton).
Selwyn, N. (2019) What is Digital Sociology? (Cambridge: Polity).
Srnicek, N. (2016) Platform Capitalism (Cambridge: Polity).
Zuboff, S. (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (London: Profile Books).
Globalization
Working Definition
The various processes through which geographically dispersed human populations are brought into closer and more immediate contact with one another, creating a single community of fate or global society.
Origins of the Concept
The idea of a worldwide human society can be traced back to discussions of the prospects for ‘humanity’ as a whole during the eighteenth-century Enlightenment period. Globalization can also be distilled from the nineteenth-century ideas of Marx on the expansive tendencies of capitalism and Durkheim on the geographical spread of the division of labour. However, the first dictionary entry for ‘globalization’ in the modern sense was in 1961, and only in the early 1980s was the term in regular use in economics (Kilminster 1998: 93).
A significant forerunner of the globalization thesis in sociology is Immanuel Wallerstein’s ‘World Systems Theory’ (1974, 1980, 1989). Wallerstein argued that the capitalist economic system operates at the transnational level, constituting a world system with a core of relatively rich countries, a periphery of the poorest societies, and a semi-periphery squeezed in between. However, contemporary debates stem from a perceived acceleration of globalization from the 1970s caused by the growth and power of multinational corporations, concerns about the decline of the nation state, the rise of supranational trading blocs and regional economic and political entities (such as the European Union), cheaper travel leading to more widespread foreign tourism and migration, and the advent of the internet enabling rapid global communication. By the 1990s, the concept of globalization had entered the sociological mainstream, impacting on all of the discipline’s specialist fields.
Meaning and Interpretation
Although most sociologists could accept our working definition, there are many disagreements on the underlying causes of globalization and whether it is a positive or negative development. Globalization alerts us to a process of change or perhaps a social trend towards worldwide interdependence. But this does not mean it will inevitably lead to a single, global society. Globalization has economic, political and cultural dimensions (Waters 2001).
For some, globalization is primarily economic, involving financial exchange, trade, global production and consumption, a global division of labour and a global financial system (Martell 2017). Economic globalization fosters increased migration, altering patterns of movement and settlement, creating a more fluid form of human existence. For others, cultural globalization is more significant. For instance, Robertson (1995) devised the concept of glocalization – the mixing of global and local elements – to capture the way that local communities actively modify global processes to fit into indigenous cultures. This leads to multidirectional flows of cultural products across the world’s societies. Those more impressed with political globalization focus on increasing regional and international governance mechanisms, such as the United Nations and the European Union. These institutions gather nation states and international non-governmental organizations into common decision-making forums to regulate the emerging global social system.
Globalization has been theorized as involving several linked processes. Trade and market exchanges routinely take place on a worldwide scale. Growing international political cooperation, as in the notion of an active ‘international community’ or the use of multinational peacekeeping forces, demonstrates political and military coordination beyond national boundaries. Recent developments in information technology and more systematic (and cheaper) transportation also mean that social and cultural activity operates at a global level. In addition, the globalizing of human activity is becoming intensified. That is, there is more global trade, more international politics, more frequent global transport and more routine cultural interchange. The sheer volume of activity at the global level is increasing. And many sociologists perceive a speeding up of globalization since the 1970s with the advent of digitization, information technology and improvements in the transportation of goods, services and people. This rapid globalization has far-reaching consequences, dramatically illustrated by the rapid global spread of the Covid-19 virus in 2020. Economic and political decisions taken in one location can have an enormous impact on other, distant societies, and the nation state, so long the central actor, appears to have lost some of its power and control.
Critical Points
Globalization theorists see the process as fundamentally changing the way people live, but others argue that such claims are exaggerated. Critics (also called ‘sceptics’) argue that, despite increasing contacts and more trade between nation states today than in the past, these have not created a unified global economic system (Hirst et al. 2009). Instead, there has been a trend towards intensified regional trading within the European Union, the Asia-Pacific region and North America. Given that these three regional economies operate relatively independently from each other, the sceptical argument is that any notion of a worldwide, global economic system remains fanciful.
The idea that globalization has undermined the role of the nation state can also be challenged. National governments continue to be key players because they regulate and coordinate economic activity in trade agreements and policies of economic liberalization. Pooling of national sovereignty does not mean its inevitable loss. National governments have retained a good deal of power even though global interdependencies are stronger, but states adopt a more active, outwardlooking stance under the conditions of rapid globalization. Globalization is not a one-way process of ever closer integration but a two-way flow of images, information and influence with diverse outcomes.
Continuing Relevance
Because globalization forms the essential conceptual backdrop to sociology, it is present in an enormous range of recent research studies on diverse subjects, including transnational terrorism, social movement activity, conflict and war, migration studies, environmental sociology, multiculturalism and many more. As research has progressed, some of the unintended consequences of large-scale globalization have also been discovered. For instance, Renard’s (1999) study of the emergence and growth of ‘fair trade’ products found that, although globalization processes are dominated by large transnational companies, economic globalization also creates smaller gaps, or niches, which small producers can move into and develop based on shared values of fairness and solidarity.
Today the concept of globalization is widely accepted as part of the sociological mainstream and forms the backdrop to research in almost every specialist field of study. Roudometof (2020) argues that the concept is a key element within the contemporary vocabulary of the social sciences and public discourse more generally, which includes cosmopolitanism, hybridity, glocalization, transnationalism and interculturalism. Taken together, this complex of concepts enables sociologists to gain a firmer grasp of the major social and economic changes taking place beyond the level of single nation states. Roudometof sees this as the most important function of the concept of globalization, rather than the various attempts to arrive at an agreed theory of globalization and its positive or negative consequences.
Assessments of globalization differ markedly, but Martell’s (2017) evaluation returns to the familiar theme of inequality. He argues that, although many sociologists see globalization as partly or mainly a cultural phenomenon, we must acknowledge the key role played by capitalist economics and material interests. Martell takes issue with cosmopolitan theories of an emerging transnational political sphere, which he sees as overly optimistic. To the extent that it is real, globalization is uneven, reproducing existing inequalities and unequal power chances. Global free movement, for instance, means ‘those least in need – rich elites – being the most free, while those most in need of mobility – the poor and those beyond the rich core – are most restricted’ (Martell 2017: 251). Although cultural change is important, for Martell, capitalist economics remains the crucial driving force that is shaping the modern world.
References and Further Reading
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations: Politics,Economics and Culture (Cambridge: Polity).
Hirst, P., Thompson, G., and Bromley, S. (2009) Globalization in Question (3rd edn, Cambridge: Polity).
Kilminster, R. (1998) The Sociological Revolution: From the Enlightenment to the Global Age (London: Routledge).
Martell, L. (2017) The Sociology of Globalization (2nd edn, Cambridge: Polity).
Renard, M.-C. (1999) ‘The Interstices of Globalization: The Example of Fair Coffee’, SociologiaRuralis, 39(4): 484–500.
Robertson, R. (1995) ‘Glocalization: Time–Space and Homogeneity–Heterogeneity’, in M. Featherstone, S. Lash and R. Robertson (eds), Global Modernities (London: Sage), pp. 25–44.
Roudometof, V. (2020) ‘The New Conceptual Vocabulary of the Social Sciences: The “Globalization Debates” in Context’, Globalizations, DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2020.1842107.
Wallerstein, I. (1974, 1980, 1989) The Modern World-System, 3 vols (New York: Academic Press).
Waters, M. (2001) Globalization (2nd edn, London: Routledge).
Modernity
Working Definition
The period from the mid-eighteenth-century European Enlightenment to at least the mid-1980s, characterized by secularization, rationalization, democratization, individualization and the rise of science.
Origins of the Concept
The word ‘modern’ can be used to refer to anything that is contemporary, though the contrast between the ancient and the modern had become more commonplace in Europe by the late sixteenth century (Williams 1987). The idea of modernization – making something more contemporary – was seen as a retrograde step until the nineteenth century, when modernization took on a more positive hue. Over the first three-quarters of the twentieth century, the modernization of transport, houses, social attitudes, fashions and much more was widely seen as necessary and progressive. However, in social theory, ‘modernity’ has a much broader meaning, referring to an entire historical period from the mid-eighteenth century to the 1980s. Enlightenment philosophers attacked tradition, religious authority and received beliefs, proposing instead that human progress could come only through the application of rational thinking, scientific methods and the pursuit of freedom and equality. Sociology itself is a product of modernity which aims to gather reliable knowledge of the social world through scientific methods in order to intervene and improve society for the betterment of all.
Meaning and Interpretation
The period of modernity is said to follow from European feudalism and is an umbrella for all of the distinctive aspects of post-feudal societies. These include industrialization, capitalism, urbanization and urbanism as a way of life, secularization, the establishment and extension of democracy, the application of science to production methods, and a broad movement towards equality in all spheres of life. Modernity also instituted an increase in rational thinking and action characterized by an unemotional ‘matter of fact’ attitude, which contrasted sharply with the previous emotional and religious orientations to the world. Max Weber described this process as the gradual ‘disenchantment of the world’, spreading across the globe by an expanding, legal-rational form of capitalism.
As a social formation, modernity has been spectacularly successful in exploding the limits to the production of material goods, generating vast wealth for the relatively rich countries and bringing about more equality in many areas of life. During the twentieth century, many sociologists theorized that modernity represented a societal model that all nations would aspire to or be forced into eventually. This generic thesis came to be known as modernization theory, popularized by Walt Rostow (1961). Rostow argued that modernization was a process moving through several stages as societies ‘caught up’ with the early modernizers and their economies began to grow. From a traditional, agrarian or agricultural base, societies could modernize by shedding their longstanding traditional values and institutions and investing for future prosperity in infrastructural projects and new industries. From here, a continuous investment in advancing technology leads to higher levels of production and a drive towards mass consumption, which in turn creates a sustainable pattern of economic growth. Although countries such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore have followed a pattern somewhat akin to this, Rostow’s model is seen today as too optimistic, as many countries, particularly in Africa, have not modernized in this way.
For some theorists, notably Zygmunt Bauman (1987), the key to understanding modernity lies in grasping its distinctive culture and mentality, which can be compared to gardening. The modern mentality is one that privileges order over randomness. Hence, if society is likened to a wild garden, then wilderness and wild nature had to be tamed and domesticated, and the growing power of nation states to do the gardening provided the means to achieve this. The gardening metaphor is not restricted to nation states, though, as the desire for order and orderliness became a normal aspect of people’s everyday modern lives.
Critical Points
Some sociologists argue that modernization theory fails to account for the persistence of gross inequalities in the global system and the apparent ‘failure’ of many developing economies to take off as predicted. In particular, recent postcolonial scholarship has argued forcefully that theories of modernity have failed to acknowledge the significance of colonialism (Bhambra 2007). Colonial expansion promoted economic development in the West but had severe consequences for the colonized countries, effectively stunting their development. Hence, the idea of endogenous economic development may be seen as, in essence, ideological rather than explanatory.
A second criticism of the concept of modernity is that it is overgeneralized. Critics see it as really just a post hoc description of some modern societies – but by no means all – which fails to offer any explanation of the causes of modernization. Because the concept incorporates several key social processes, it is too vague and is largely descriptive rather than analytical. It is not clear which of the constituent elements is the main driving force in the modernization process. Is capitalist economics the main causal factor or is it industrialization? What role is played by democratization? Where does urbanization fit in – is it a cause or a consequence?
Neo-Marxist critics also take issue with the idea that there is an inexorable logic to modernization that will propel the less developed societies into a period of strong economic growth and prosperity. Rather, at the global level, the relatively poor countries are kept in a permanent state of dependency by the relatively rich world; their resources are plundered by powerful transnational corporations that use their populations as a cheap source of labour. Hence, not only is the concept too vague, the modernization thesis as such is deeply flawed.
Continuing Relevance
Following the emergence of postmodern theorizing of an end to modernity, there have been reassessments of the concept. Some sociologists argue that we are entering a period not of postmodernity but of ‘late’ or ‘reflexive’ modernity (Giddens 1990). Rather than this sounding the death knell for modernity, it means revealing and facing up to its negative aspects, such as environmental damage, which make social life much less certain as both the previous faith in science as the way to truth and deference to authorities start to wane (Beck 2009). Jürgen Habermas (1983) argued that postmodern theorists gave up too early on what he saw as the ambitious project of modernity. Many of its essential features are only partially complete and need to be deepened rather than abandoned. There is much still to do in relation to ensuring meaningful democratic participation, equalizing life chances across the social classes, creating genuine gender equality, and so on. In sum, modernity is an unfinished project that deserves to be pursued, not allowed to wither away.
A more recent body of developing work is based on the notion of ‘multiple modernities’ – a critique of the illegitimate conflation of modernization with Westernization (Eisenstadt 2002). This idea counters the earlier assumption of a single, linear route to modernity and a standardized, uniform version based on Western societies. Empirical studies of modernity around the world suggest that this is wrong. In fact, there have been numerous diverse routes to modernity (Wagner 2012). Japanese modernity is markedly different from the American version, and it seems likely that the developing Chinese model will be different again. Some modernities, even that in the USA, have not become as secular as forecast but remain staunchly religious in character, while at the same time embracing industrialism and continuous technological development. Others, such as the Saudi Arabian version, are not only explicitly religious but also selective in relation to what they take from Western forms before adding their own unique aspects. The multiple modernities agenda seems likely to produce more realistic evaluations that may reinvigorate the concept into the future.
References and Further Reading
Bauman, Z. (1987) Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Postmodernity and Intellectuals (Cambridge: Polity).
Beck, U. (2009) World at Risk (Cambridge: Polity).
Bhambra, G. (2007) Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Eisenstadt, S. N. (2002) ‘Multiple Modernities’, in S. N. Eisenstadt (ed.), Multiple Modernities (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction), pp. 1–30.
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity).
Habermas, J. (1983) ‘Modernity – an Incomplete Project’, in H. Foster (ed.), The Anti-Aesthetic (Port Townsend, WA: Bay Press), pp. 3–15.
Rostow, W. W. (1961) The Stages of Economic Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Wagner, P. (2012) Modernity: Understanding the Present (Cambridge: Polity).
Williams, R. (1987) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (London: Fontana).
Postcolonialism
Working Definition
A political and intellectual movement seeking to better understand the historical and continuing impact of colonial regimes on the world’s societies and the global production of knowledge. In sociology, postcolonial theorists seek to ‘decolonize’ the discipline, which remains dominated by Western scholars and institutions.
Origins of the Concept
The development of sociology from its inception has been largely focused on the period of modernity as this emerged and developed in Western Europe and North America, later impacting on the rest of the world. Western modernization theory argued that all countries would develop economically, though at different rates and times. Marxist critics argued that ‘underdevelopment’ was a policy pursued by colonial regimes which systematically plundered resources and actively ‘underdeveloped’ the colonized regions and countries.
Since the 1980s, debates around the colonial period and its legacy have shifted from theories of economic underdevelopment to the broader concerns of postcolonialism. This is a growing intellectual movement that is highly critical of sociology’s Eurocentrism, theoretical sidelining of the significance of colonialism and a lack of scholarly voices from the Global South (Bhambra 2014a). Postcolonial ideas can be traced back to the early twentieth century, but the origins of the emerging postcolonial intellectual movement lie in the 1980s and 1990s.
Bhambra (2014b) argues that contemporary postcolonialism owes much to debates around the work of Homi Bhabha (1994) on alternative cultural traditions disrupting the Western narrative of modernity, Gayatri Spivak (1988) on the historical development of dominant discourses and Edward Said (1978) on power relations and knowledge production. Said’s (1978) work on the discourse of ‘orientalism’ is often cited as a foundational work of postcolonial theory.
Many Western academics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries discussed ‘the Orient’ or ‘the East’ in their studies of the Middle East, Africa and Asia, contrasting this with the Western Occident. Said argues that this contrast was hardly ever drawn in a neutral way. Instead, the Orient was exoticized and presented as the ‘other’ set against the normal and superior (Western) Occident. The persistence of this discourse was facilitated by the exclusion of scholarly accounts from academics based outside the West. Hence, the apparent cultural differences between East and West came to be seen as a key part of the explanation for Western global economic, industrial and military dominance. In sum, orientalism played a crucial ideological role in legitimizing many brutal colonial regimes.
Meaning and Interpretation
The state policy of colonialism, adopted by Western states between the seventeenth and mid-twentieth century, had profound consequences for global development that continued long after colonies regained their independence. Some, such as Haiti and former Spanish colonies in South America, became independent countries in the early nineteenth century. Others, including India, Malaysia, Singapore, Kenya, Nigeria and Algeria, achieved independence much later, some well into the second half of the twentieth century. But the impact of colonialism left newly independent countries with severe economic disadvantage and political problems.
Postcolonial theorists argue that the damaging, wide-ranging and long-lasting impacts of colonialism are not routinely embedded within or even acknowledged by conventional sociological theories. Colonialism was not a time-limited episode that sociological theories of contemporary life can ignore, but was a crucial factor in shaping the world’s power relations and continues to blight former colonies today. Unless sociologists acknowledge this, then their accounts of global inequality and globalization processes, for example, will not be valid.
Connell (2018) argues that European sociology developed with very little, if any, input from Global South scholars, which generated a Eurocentric and partial standpoint rooted in the experience of the Global North. This is one reason why the discipline’s founders, its main theoretical perspectives and empirical research base have long reflected the situation in the more powerful nation states. Postcolonial scholars argue that we need a thoroughgoing ‘decolonization’, not just of sociology but of all academic disciplines.
Postcolonial theorists also seek to introduce the past and present work of scholars based in the Global South into sociology to broaden its worldview. For example, Go (2016) argues for a ‘Southern standpoint’ strategy for sociology, which means doing ‘social science from below’, focusing on the experiences, concerns and categories of those at the bottom of the global hierarchy. In the process, existing Eurocentric theories and concepts will be tested and assessed. Eurocentric sociology tells us a lot about life in the privileged, relatively wealthy countries of the world but arguably fails to relate this in a systematic way to the active underdevelopment of former colonies and their post-independence experiences. Postcolonial scholars try to find ways of addressing such issues.
Critical Points
The charge that sociology has generally and quite routinely downplayed, ignored or just not fully understood the devastating consequences of colonialism is persuasive and seems to be accepted by a growing number of the younger generation of sociologists. Yet there is less agreement on what should and could be done to rectify this. Some argue for a rethinking of sociology from the ground up, as it were, while others argue for a genuinely global sociology that would maintain existing perspectives and theories, while also engaging more systematically with scholars based in the Global South.
In sociology’s defence, it can be noted that sociologists have always been interested in global inequalities, comparative development, nationalism, global politics and international conflict, which demonstrates that the discipline is perhaps not as insular as it is sometimes portrayed. Similarly, sociology is often seen as a discipline that is so open to ideas and theories from outside its existing disciplinary boundaries as to hinder its acceptance as a ‘scientific’ subject. Finally, McLennan has argued that it is unrealistic to imagine that any academic enterprise could escape its material and institutional location, and sociology is no different. He argues that ‘all thought systems are inevitably ethnocentric in focus, style and available expertise. Moreover, what it even means to “decolonize” or to “postcolonialize” sociology is far from crystal clear’ (McLennan 2010: 119).
Continuing Relevance
Unlike many other concepts in this book, the ‘postcolonial turn’ (Olukoshi and Nyamnjoh 2011) is relatively recent and is still developing in sociology. As a result, it is too early to say with any certainty exactly how the engagement between sociology and postcolonialism will develop. What is clear is that the postcolonial intervention has disrupted ‘business as usual’ and that there are many insightful studies emerging from within this perspective, particularly on what ‘decolonizing sociology’ might actually require.
Connell (2018) outlines some key issues and possible solutions. She points out that sociologists working in the Global North tend to read and cite only other Northern scholars and theorists. The discipline is also institutionally based in elite European and North American universities, where high-ranking journals and research funding agencies are focused. Social theory is similarly placed, and many of these theories speak in terms of their application to humanity as such, demonstrating the powerful position of Western sociologists to shape the discipline. A rational choice, then, is for Global South scholars simply to adopt the methods and theories of the more powerful groups and to aim their work at mainstream journals, a strategy Connell calls ‘extraversion’. Yet this extraverted sociology may simply reproduce, not challenge, the existing global division of academic labour.
Addressing McLennan’s criticism above, Connell suggests that, in practice, decolonizing sociology would involve ‘correcting the distortions and exclusions produced by empire and global inequality and reshaping the discipline in a democratic direction on a world scale’ (Connell 2018: 402). A decolonizing project would entail reshaping the curriculum and rewriting textbooks and courses in a more balanced way to include the experience of postcolonial countries. It also demands challenging the established institutional power base, changing the composition of the global sociology workforce and redistributing research funding in more equal ways.
References and Further Reading
Bhabha, H. K. (1994) The Location of Culture (London: Routledge).
Bhambra, G. K. (2014a) Connected Sociologies (London: Bloomsbury).
— (2014b) ‘Postcolonial and Decolonial Dialogues’, Postcolonial Studies, 17(2): 115–21.
Connell, R. (2018) ‘Decolonizing Sociology’, Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 47(4): 399–407.
Go, J. (2016) ‘Globalizing Sociology, Turning South: Perspectival Realism and the Southern Standpoint’, Sociologica, 2: 1–42.
McLennan, G. (2010) ‘Eurocentrism, Sociology, Secularity’, in E. G. Rodríguez, M. Boatcă and S. Costa (eds), Decolonizing European Sociology: Transdisciplinary Approaches (Farnham: Ashgate): 119–34.
Olukoshi, A., and Nyamnjoh, F. (2011) ‘The Postcolonial Turn: An Introduction’, in R. Devisch and F. Nyamnjoh (eds) The Postcolonial Turn: Re-Imagining Anthropology and Africa (Bamenda, Cameroon: Langaa Research and Publishing Common Initiative Group): 1–28.
Said, E. (1978) Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Spivak, G. K. (1988) ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (Chicago: University of Illinois Press): 271–316.
Postmodernity
Working Definition
An historical period, following modernity, which is less clearly defined, pluralistic and socially diverse than the modernity that preceded it. Postmodernity is said to have developed from the early 1970s onwards.
Origins of the Concept
The ‘postmodern turn’ in social theory began in the mid-1980s, though the concept of the postmodern lies a decade earlier in culture and the arts. In architecture, for instance, a new style emerged that took elements from a range of existing genres to produce strange-looking buildings – such as the Lloyd’s building in London – that somehow ‘worked’. This method of playfully mixing and matching genres and styles was described as postmodern. In film, the strange worlds created by the director David Lynch (see, for instance, Blue Velvet, 1986) mixed historical periods, combining extreme violence and sexual ‘deviance’ with old-fashioned tales of romance and morality. In many other areas of artistic work and culture the postmodern trend continued, and in the late 1980s the social sciences finally caught up.
The single key work which launched postmodern ideas in sociology was Jean-François Lyotard’s (1984) The Postmodern Condition, in which the author outlined his thesis that some of the main planks of modern society were losing their central place. In particular, Lyotard saw science, which had been the dominant form of knowledge during the modern period, losing legitimacy as people began to seek out local forms of knowledge, such as older folk knowledge and religious and common-sense beliefs. The decentring of scientific thinking, argued Lyotard, was a symptom of the emerging postmodern society. Other theorists whose work has had a major impact on theories of postmodernity include Zygmunt Bauman (1992, 1997) and Jean Baudrillard (1983, 1995).
Meaning and Interpretation
Postmodern thinking is diverse, and theorists prioritize different elements associated with the suggested shift to a postmodern society. One target of most postmodernists is the attempt by social theorists, from Comte and Marx to Giddens, to discern the direction and shape of history. For these theorists, the process of historical change is structured and ‘goes somewhere’ – it makes progress. In Marxist theory, for example, this progressive movement is from capitalism to the more egalitarian societies of socialism and communism. However, postmodern thinkers reject such grand theorizing.
The trust people invested previously in science, politicians and human progress in history has been eroded as fears of nuclear war or environmental catastrophe, along with continuing conflicts and episodes of genocide, puncture the civilized veneer of modern societies. Lyotard described this process as the collapse of ‘metanarratives’, those big stories of continuous progress that justified deference towards scientists, experts and professionals. Instead, the character of postmodernity is irrevocably diverse and fragmented, exemplified by the worldwide web, which teems with images, videos and other material from almost every culture around the world. The experience of web surfing can be one of randomness as we encounter a wide range of values and ideas very different from our own. This potentially disorientating experience is typical of a postmodern culture that is saturated with mass-media content.
Jean Baudrillard argues that the electronic media have destroyed our relationship to the past, creating a chaotic, empty world in which society is influenced, above all, by signs and images. For Baudrillard, the rising prominence of the mass media erodes the border between reality and its representation, leaving just one ‘hyperreality’ within which we all live. In a hyperreal world, our perception of events and our understanding of the social world become highly dependent on their being viewed through mass media such as television. Baudrillard’s (1995) provocative newspaper articles ‘The Gulf War Will Not Take Place’, ‘The Gulf War is Not Really Taking Place’ and ‘The Gulf War Did Not Take Place’, published before, during and after the war in 1991, aimed to show how apparently primary ‘real-world’ events, such as armies fighting in Kuwait, and the apparently secondary media reports of them were actually part of the same hyperreality.
A good way of thinking about postmodern ideas as received in sociology is to distinguish between the main tenets of postmodern social change and sociological theory’s ability to account for and understand this. The rapid growth and spread of mass media, new information technologies, more fluid movements of people across national boundaries, the demise of social class identities, and the emergence of multicultural societies – all of these changes, say postmodernists, lead us to conclude that we no longer live in a modern world ordered by national states. Modernity is dead and we are entering a postmodern period. The question then arises as to whether ‘modern’ sociology can adequately analyse a ‘post-modern’ world: Is there a sociology of postmodernity? Or are the consequences of postmodern change so radical that they render modern theories and concepts redundant? Do we need a postmodern sociology for a postmodern world?
Critical Points
There are many critics of postmodern theory. Some sociologists argue that post-modern theorists are essentially pessimists and defeatists who are so appalled by the dark side of modernity they would jettison its positive aspects as well. Yet there are clear benefits to modernity, such as the valuing of equality, individual freedom and rational approaches to social problems. Some of the social changes described in postmodern theory are also poorly supported by empirical studies. For example, the idea that social class and other collective forms no longer structure social life, leaving individuals at the mercy of media imagery, is an exaggeration. Though there are now more sources of identity, social class remains a key determinant of people’s social position and life chances (Callinicos 1990).
Similarly, there is much evidence that the media do play a more important role than in previous periods, but it does not follow that people simply soak up media content. There is a large body of audience research which shows that TV viewers, for instance, actively read and interpret media content, making sense of it from their own situation. With the advent of the worldwide web there are also many alternative information and entertainment sources, many of which are based on interactions between providers and consumers, generating more rather than less critical comment and evaluation of mainstream media output. Finally, even if some of the changes proposed by postmodernists are genuine and influential, the evidence that they add up to a radical shift beyond modernity remains a matter of theoretical debate.
Continuing Relevance
The concept of postmodernity was bound to be controversial given that sociology itself is rooted in a modernist approach. What would be the point of sociology if we gave up on trying to understand and explain social reality and to apply that knowledge in order to improve it? Nonetheless, postmodernity has had a longerlasting impact on the discipline. The opening up of plural viewpoints and diverse interpretations of the same social reality means that sociologists can no longer assume an unproblematic common culture or shared values within society but have to be sensitive to cultural diversity.
The 1980s and 1990s saw a proliferation of books and articles on postmodernity and postmodern culture, but by the turn of the century the ‘postmodern turn’ appeared to be over as the concept of globalization rose to prominence across the social sciences. Some have argued that postmodern ideas were essentially an academic fashion that has now passed (McGuigan 2006; Nealon 2012). But is this correct?
Garnar (2020) argues that the concept of postmodernity is still relevant. Differentiating between postmodernism as a series of cultural phenomena and postmodernity as an epoch that moves beyond that of modernity, he argues that the former has seen significant shifts, while the latter continues to characterize our global age. In particular, Garnar (2020: 5–6) focuses on the role of digital technologies, arguing that ‘the postmodern condition is shot through with technology’ and that these are one element of the postmodern condition, alongside changes in production and consumption, global relations and structures of power. The internet, mass computing, tablets, smartphones, satellite and cable TV are all forms of ‘postmodern technology’ which encourage and facilitate the playfulness, heterogeneity and anti-hierarchical practices associated with the postmodern. And, to the extent that digital technology has become embedded in everyday life, then this can, arguably, be discussed as a postmodern age.
References and Further Reading
Baudrillard, J. (1983) Simulations (New York: Semiotext(e)).
__ (1995) The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
Bauman, Z. (1992) Intimations of Postmodernity (London: Routledge).
__ (1997) Postmodernity and its Discontents (Cambridge: Polity).
Callinicos, A. (1990) Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique (Cambridge: Polity).
Garnar, A. W. (2020) Pragmatism, Technology and the Persistence of the Postmodern (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
Kumar, K. (2005) From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society (2nd edn, Oxford: Blackwell).
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
McGuigan, J. (2006) Modernity and Postmodern Culture (2nd edn, Buckingham: Open University Press).
Nealon, J. T. (2012) Post-Postmodernism: Or, the Cultural Logic of Just-in-Time Capitalism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).
Rationalization
Working Definition
A long-term social process in which traditional ideas and beliefs are replaced by methodical rules and procedures and formal, means-to-ends thinking.
Origins of the Concept
To act in a rational way means to act reasonably and to think through the action and its consequences before performing it. The philosophical doctrine known as rationalism, which originated in the seventeenth century, contrasted knowledge based on reason and reasoning with that rooted in religious sources and received wisdom. Clearly, rationality has its origins in the connection between thinking and doing and the production of knowledge. In sociology, the theory of rationalization in society at large refers to a process rather than a fixed state of things and is central to the work of Max Weber. For Weber, rationalization and the elimination of magic was a long-term, world-historical social process that underpins any realistic understanding of the distinctiveness of the period of modernity. In more recent studies, debates have focused on whether the rationalization process has stalled as religious and spiritual beliefs appear to have risen to prominence again, or whether the process continues, albeit in new forms.
Meaning and Interpretation
Because Weber’s rationalization thesis has been so influential in sociology, we will concentrate on this rather than on philosophical arguments around reason and rationalism. Rationalization is a process of change, beginning in the West, during which more and more aspects of social life come to be shaped by means-to-ends calculations and matters of efficiency. This is in stark contrast to earlier periods, in which traditional practices, customary actions and emotional commitments dominated people’s thoughts and actions. Weber saw rationalization becoming cemented by the development of capitalist economics and its need for rational accounting and measurement, but also by the growth of scientific institutions promoting a rational outlook and by bureaucracy, which became the dominant, most efficient form of organization.
Weber discussed rationality in terms of four basic types: practical, theoretical, substantive and formal (Kalberg 1985). Practical rationality is in evidence where people generally accept the situation and their actions are guided by essentially pragmatic considerations of how they can make the most of it. Theoretical rationality exists where people try to ‘master reality’ by thinking through their experience and finding a meaning in life. Philosophers, religious leaders, political theorists and legal thinkers may be seen as adopting forms of theoretical rationality. Substantive rationality directs actions according to a cluster of values in a particular sphere of social life. For instance, friendship relations tend to involve the values of mutual respect, loyalty and assistance, and this value cluster directly frames people’s actions in this area of life.
Weber’s fourth type, formal rationality, is based on the calculation of the most effective means to achieve a specific goal in the context of a set of general or universal laws or rules. The rationalization of Western societies involves the growth and spread of formal rationality and calculation into more and more spheres
