* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Pluralization of Meaning-construction in the Global Age
Survey
Document related concepts
Intercultural competence wikipedia , lookup
Development theory wikipedia , lookup
Modernization theory wikipedia , lookup
Postdevelopment theory wikipedia , lookup
Social theory wikipedia , lookup
The Dispossessed wikipedia , lookup
Neohumanism wikipedia , lookup
Political economy in anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Sociological theory wikipedia , lookup
Sociocultural evolution wikipedia , lookup
Marx's theory of history wikipedia , lookup
Societal collapse wikipedia , lookup
Network society wikipedia , lookup
Social development theory wikipedia , lookup
Unilineal evolution wikipedia , lookup
State (polity) wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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; Mꮤch 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.