Download Pluralization of Meaning-construction in the Global Age

Pluralization of Meaning-Construction in
the Global Age
Akira TOKUYASU
Abstract
I try to formulate pluralization of meaning-construction in the
process of globalization in terms of social systems theory. With
several paired concepts, such as national society/world society,
stratified differentiation/functional differentiation,
diffuse/specific, universalistic/particularistic,
inclusion/exclusion, I illustrate the transformation of social
structure and its effects on the principle of meaning-construction
and the definition of individual identity. The capacity of the
national society for vertical integration has been diminished in
the process of globalization and functional differentiation. Every
functional subsystem has become more autonomous and
globally spread in its own dynamics. The socio-cultural sources
of individual identity has become more diversified and globally
accessible across the national border: particular ascriptive traits
such as ethnicity or religious tradition on the one hand, temporal
combinations of universal but specific memberships in various
groups and networks on the other hand. These situations seem to
make the whole world more and more risky, uncertain and
intransparent. It does not follow, however, that we should
establish the global integrating mechanism in one way or
another, or that we should protect our local life worlds against
the colonizing pressure of global functional systems. On the
contrary only pluralism, or even anarchism, of various
intermediary units seems to produce more capacity to cope with
future risks.
From national societies to the world society
In the sociological tradition it was functionalists such as T.
Parsons and M. Levy who first introduced the distinction
between a society and a social system. According to this
distinction, a society is defined as a self-sufficient and
comprehensive unit, and a social system as a partial unit which
fulfills only a special function in a society (Parsons 1951, p.19;
1971, P.8). Parsons took a national society, which is politically
organized and segmented by the border of a nation state, as the
concrete reference of a modern society(1).
After that the sociological theory has fundamentally identified a
society with a national society. I. Wallerstein, for example,
speaks of the world system or the world capitalist economy, but
he regards the world as a system consisting of national societies,
not as one global society (Wallerstein 1974). N. Smelser speaks
of global sociology which treats the world or some subsystem of
it as its unit of analysis, but he still uses the concept of
internationalization which presupposes the existence of national
societies (Smelser 1997, P.73). Thus internationalization or
globalization is mostly seen as the process in which national
societies build close relationships to one another (whether it is
an equal complementary interdependence or an unequal
domination/subordination), maintaining their unity as a society.
Contrary to this, W. Moore proposed the conception of global
sociology as early as in 60's, arguing that any national society is
no more self-sufficient and that we should take the world as a
singular system (Moore 1966). N. Luhmann, following Moore,
asserts that there is only one society, namely the world society,
to which we can apply the definition as a comprehensive unit
involving all social systems coupled with one another (Luhmann
1975; 1982a).He defines social system as an autopoietic system
which produces and reproduces communication as its
elementary unit. Then he argues that the development of traffic
and communication networks and the standardization and
abstraction of world space and world time has in fact made it
possible to connect communications globally (Luhmann 1997,
p.145).
Functional differentiation and the problem of integration
It may seem to be merely a matter of definition whether national
societies or the world society. But it relates to the problem of
societal integration(2). Against the thesis of shift from territorial
national societies to the global world society, it is often said that
such an integrated system as we can call the world society both
in name and in reality has not yet come into being, although no
national society can any longer maintain itself as a selfsufficient closed system without close relations to other national
societies today. But what is the integration of society?
Parsons postulated the cybernetic hierarchy of control
downward from the cultural system to the social system: that is,
there should be some generalized ultimate values in the cultural
system which can be institutionalized into the social system and
provide the foundation of hierarchical or vertical integration. In
other words he assumed one dimensional integration, or at least
one primary type of integration. But we can list, according to
Smelser, not only one primary type but several types of
integration in modern complex societies: economic integration,
political-legal integration, cultural integration, Integration
through stratification-domination, Kinship integration, territorial
integration, and so on. We have been led to expect that most of
these aspects are fused together in the nation state. But this
fusion is by no means natural, and we witness a growing
disjunction of these bases of integration. The nation state is
weakening as an integrative instrument (Smelser 1997, P.68f.).
We can explain these circumstances well with the concept of
functional differentiation. The most outstanding structural
feature of modern society is the dominance of functional
differentiation. In the premodern society, the primary form of
differentiation was stratification; the social structure was
hierarchical; schemes such as center/periphery or
summit/bottom had validity; and one could presume the vertical
integration of meaning and value. In the modern society,
however, the social structure is heterarchical; differentiated
functional systems coexist without the center or summit of
integration; and one can no longer presume the vertically
integrated system of meaning and value valid in all functional
spheres.
More concretely, functional subsystems such as economy,
polity, law, science, religion education etc. have been
differentiated and acquired high autonomy. No partial system or
agent can any more control the whole society. Each subsystem
is equal as an autopoietic system operating self-referentially, so
that any particular subsystem can stand on the top of hierarchy
in order to control the whole society (Luhmann 1997, p.743ff.).
As long as we admit the dominance of functional differentiation,
we can not assume the vertical integration of meaning and value
even at the national level.
Moreover, this functional differentiation goes on together with
globalization. The nation state has certainly functioned as a very
powerful instrument of integration and led us to expect that the
national society is a self-sufficient and comprehensive unit. But
the vertical and hierarchical control mechanism which the nation
state has once gained are being eroded by inherent dynamics of
other functional subsystems (economics, science, religion, art
etc.) expanding globally. The territorial border of the nation
state is merely the boundary of segmented unit in the global
political system (Luhmann 1982b).
The concept of world society allows this pluralistic situation and
does not necessarily imply convergence and homogenization of
regional differences and vertical integration all over the world.
Rather, the advance of functional differentiation on a global
scale often expands regional differences (Luhmann 1997,
p.806ff.). The convergence/divergence debate on modernization
and industrialization in 60's and 70's presupposed the national
society as a relative independent unit. The dependence/
interdependence debate was also concerned with the relationship
of national societies. In this sense most sociologists expected
that national societies would maintain themselves whether they
would converge or diverge in the process of modernization and
industrialization. But now we should rather ask how and in
which direction those regional differences will change under the
condition of global functional differentiation.
Inclusion and exclusion
Now let us turn to somewhat different subjects such as
relationships between individual and society, individual
identities, and their transformations.
In the primarily stratified society partial systems correspond to
hierarchical social strata (rank, caste). These partial systems are
characterized as diffuse and particularistic with respect to the
theme of communication and the social function. Everyone
belongs to one and only one stratum, namely only one partial
system. In this sense everyone is included in one partial system,
and consequently in the whole society. Individuality and identity
of each person are basically determined by the stratum to which
he or she belongs, that is, by ascription.
In the primarily functionally differentiated society, on the
contrary, partial systems correspond to heterarchical functional
systems (economy, polity, science, religion etc.). These partial
systems are characterized as specific and universalistic with
respect to the theme of communication and the social function.
Everyone participates in plural functional systems, but he or she
can not belong to only one functional system. Functional
differentiation has made it impossible for any partial system to
include a person totally. In this sense everyone is excluded and
alienated from all partial systems, and consequently from the
whole society. Individuality and identity can be no more
determined by ascription in some particular partial system, but
is self-referentially determined by his or her own performance.
Here the idea of modern individual is established (Luhmann
1989; 1995).
The modern individual is, on the one hand, different from any
other individuals as long as he or she claims his or her own
uniqueness as a perfect individual, and, on the other hand, equal
to any other as long as he or she does not belong to any concrete
collectivity. Both aspects are, at least logically, detached from
every cultural tradition which provides the sources of collective
identity different from other collectivities. But one does not ,
and perhaps can not, establish his or her identity in the culturally
vacuum space. It has been the national society that operates as
the including mechanism providing the source of collective
identity (take note to the notion of national culture, or national
character).
Parsons postulated the mechanism of value-generalization
precisely at this national level. He conceived the nation as the
societal community of modern era and determined its
membership as citizenship (Parsons 1971, p.21). It has
associational criteria and has moved far away from a purely
ascriptive basis and become more and more voluntary (Parsons
1967, p.424ff.).The foundation of solidarity has been shift from
the coincidence of religion, ethnicity, and territoriality with
nationality to the common status of citizenship. Thus the
modern individual is expected to be included in the nation with
the universalistic status of citizenship. B. Anderson refers
exactly to this national society with the idea of imagined
community (Anderson 1983). Nationalism is, from the
viewpoint of the functional differentiation thesis, an illusionary
ideology which brings forth logically impossible inclusion,
namely the national identity of modern individual.
The age of pluralism
The institutions of citizenship and nationality can render the
societal community vulnerable if the bases of pluralism are
exacerbated into sharply structured cleavages (Parsons 1971,
p.22). As the border of the nation state become relative and the
national society loses its self-sufficiency and integration, the
cultural boundary of collective identity also becomes
ambiguous.
On the one hand, these movements have emerged in which
especially ethnic or religious minorities claim the diversity and
uniqueness of cultures within the nation state or across the
border. They are discriminated and forced into unequal
circumstances precisely because of their ascriptive features in
the society where everyone must be able to access equally (that
is, specifically and universalistically) to all functional systems
regardless of his or her ethnicity or religion. They expose the
deceptiveness of the ideology of universalistic inclusion into the
national society ,and criticize and struggle against the
particularistic exclusion. They pursue not radicalization of
universalism but appreciation of their own collective identity
based on their particular cultural tradition.
This is the situation which R. Robertson calls interpenetration of
particularization of universalism and universalization of
particularism (Robertson 1992, p.100). The notion of national
culture or national character is losing its significance faced to
the rise of multi-culturalism. Fundamentalism is the most radical
form of these movements.
On the other hand, there are different movements. Somewhat
classic notion of world citizen or cosmopolitan still survives,
although it is criticized to have particularistic orientation of
Western universalism. But there are new movements in which
people participate in plural collectivities in more specific way
and search for their own identity as an individual. They may
participate in several movement organizations pursuing specific
goals in the "actual" social space, or in various cybercommunity in the "virtual" social space of the internet. In this
case participations are temporary in general and each individual
is free to enter and withdraw.
Conversely, the individual participates in any collectivity only
temporarily like a nomad insofar as it is engaged in the problem
in which he or she is interested at present (Melucci 1989). This
type of collectivity can be easily established across or beyond
the border both logically and technically. Here we can find no
orientation toward collective identity based on inclusion in some
particular collectivity or some particularistic cultural tradition.
Nor can we find any orientation toward integrative identity as an
individual. Rather people seem to prefer to "postmodern"
mosaic identity and its continuous recombination.
Thus the function of vertical integration of the nation state has
been diminished in the process of globalization, and various
intermediary units have emerged instead of such an integrative
mechanism. Spaces of meaning-construction have become more
and more pluralistic with regard to social communication as
well as to individual identity.
Toward the pluralism of intermediary units
These circumstances we have discussed above seem to make the
whole world more and more risky, uncertain and intransparent.
It does not follow, however, that we should establish the global
integrating mechanism in one way or another. It is impossible
both in principle and in practice. Nor does it follow that we
should protect our local life world against the colonizing
pressure of global functional systems (Habermas 1981; M殤ch
1998).
On the contrary only pluralism, or even anarchism, of various
intermediary units seems to produce more capacity to cope with
future risks. Berger and Luckmann use the analogy of immune
system to describe the features of intermediary units (they call
"intermediary institutions"): as long as this system remains
effective, normal modern societies will not suffer the pandemic
spread of crisis of meaning (Berger/Luckmann 1995, p.56).
They evaluate this program as modest but realistic. But we
rather prefer to the evolutionary framework and evaluate this
program more positively. Only pluralism of various
intermediary units can produce immense variety of meaningconstruction, and only this variety can provide great capacity to
cope with vast intransparent risks.
Notes
(1) Of course, Parsons did not consider a national society as an
isolated system with the completely closed boundary. He
pointed out on the one hand that there exist plural national
societies involved in international relations of various types, and
on the other hand that there exist immigrant families, business
firms, professional associations and religious collectivities
involved in two or more national societies. "Thus we must take
account of both social systems which are "supersocietal" in
being comprised of a plurality of societies and social systems
that are "cross-societal" in that their members belong to a
plurality of different societies (Parsons 1971, p.10)." In spite of
this he claimed that the unit of society is the national society and
that the nation has emerged as the societal community which
fulfills the integrative function in a modern society (Parsons
1967, P.424).
(2) It has been one of the dominant theses in the sociological
tradition that there should be some integrating system
(institution, mechanism etc.) in any society and we can find the
source of its integrating power in cultural components,
especially in shared ultimate values grounded on religion. The
societal influence of individual churches and sects might have
been diminished in the process of secularization. But there
should be, or actually are, some religious elements in ultimate
values even in modern societies: the sacred canopy (Berger
1967), the invisible religion (Luchmann 1967), the return of the
sacred (Bell 1975; 1977), or the civil religion (Bellah 1970).
Parsons assumed that these ultimate values have been detached
from concrete religious doctrines and more and more
generalized with the emergence of denominational pluralism in
Western history (Parsons 1978, P.245).
References
Anderson, Benedict, 1983(revised edition 1991), Imagined
Communities: Reflection on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism, Verso.
Bell, Daniel, 1975, "Toward a great instauration: reflections on
culture and religion in a postindustrial age", Social Research,
Vol.42, No.3: 381-413.
Bell, Daniel, 1977, "The return of the sacred? the argument on
the future of religion", British Journal of Sociology, Vol.28,
No.4: 419-449.
Berger, Peter L., 1967, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a
Sociological Theory of Religion, Doubleday & Company.
Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann, 1995, Modernity,
Pluralism and the Crisis of Meaning, Bertelsmann Foundation
Publishers.
Habermas, Juergen, 1981, Theorie des kommunikativen
Handelns: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, 2 Bde.,
Suhrkamp.
Luckmann, Thomas, 1967, The Invisible Religion: the Problem
of Religion in Modern Society, The Macmillan Company.
Luhmann, Niklas, 1975, "Die Weltgesellschaft", in: N.
Luhmann, Soziologische Aufklaerung 2, Westdeutscher Verlag:
51-71.
Luhmann, Niklas, 1982a, "The world society as a social
system", International Journal of General Systems, Vol.8: 131138.
Luhmann, Niklas, 1982b, "Territorial borders as system
boundaries", in: R. Strassoldo/G. Delli Zotti (eds.), Cooperation
and Conflict in Border Areas, Franco Angeli Editore: 235-244.
Luhmann, Niklas, 1989, "Individuum, Individualittaet,
Individualismus", in: N. Luhmann, Gesellschaftsstruktur und
Semantik: Studien zur Wissenssoziologie der modernen
Gesellschaft 3, Suhrkamp Verlag: 149-258.
Luhmann, Niklas, 1995, "Inklusion und Exklusion", in: N.
Luhmann, Soziologische Aufklaerung 6, Westdeutscher Verlag:
237-264.
Luhmann, Niklas, 1997, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft,
Suhrkamp Verlag.
Melucci, Alberto, 1989, Nomads of the Present, Hutchinson
Radius.
Moore, Wilbert, 1966, "Global sociology: the world as a
singular system", American Journal of Sociology, Vol.71, No.5:
475-482.
Muench, Richard, 1998, Globale Dynamik, lokale
Lebenswelten: der schwierige Weg in die Weltgesellschaft,
Suhrkamp Verlag.
Parsons, Talcott, 1951, The Social System, The Free Press.
Parsons, Talcott, 1967, "Full citizenship for the Negro
American?", in: T. Parsons, Sociological Theory and Modern
Society, The Free Press: 422-465.
Parsons, Talcott, 1971, The System of Modern Societies,
Prentice-Hall.
Parsons, Talcott, 1978, "Belief, unbelief, and disbelief", in: T.
Parsons, Action Theory and the Human Condition, The Free
Press: 233-263.
Robertson, Roland, 1992, Globalization: Social Theory and
Global Culture, Sage Publications.
Smelser, Neil J., 1997, Problematics of Sociology: The Georg
Simmel Lectures 1995, University of California Press.
Wallerstein, Immanuel, 1974, The Modern World-System,
Academic Press.