This book offers a solution for the problem of structure and agency in sociological theory by developing a new pair of fundamental concepts: metric and nonmetric. Nonmetric forms, arising in a crowd made out of innumerable individuals, correspond to social groups that divide the many individuals in the crowd into insiders and outsiders. Metric forms correspond to congested zones like traffic jams on a highway: individuals are constantly entering and leaving these zones so that they continue to exist, even though (...) the individuals passing through them change. Building from these concepts, we can understand “agency” as a requirement for group identity and group membership, thus associating it with nonmetric forms, and “structure” as a building-up effect following the accumulation of metric forms. This reveals the contradiction between structure and agency to be a case of forced perspective, leaving us victim to an optical illusion. (shrink)

The article combines the research strategies developed by Bruno Latour and Niklas Luhmann to problematize how we interpret the world when discussing globalization. Two previous approaches – global modernity and global consciousness – interpret the world as completely objective (nature transcends culture). Another approach – global governmentality – interprets the world as completely subjective (culture transcends nature). Against these approaches, this article proposes a new one: the symmetrical anthropology (or sociology) of globalization. Inspired by Latour’s variable ontologies, it considers multiple (...) descriptions of the world and multiple descriptions of society simultaneously. It considers globalization as one description of society and searches for the description of the world corresponding to it. It distinguishes three descriptions of the world: (1) the world as natural order; (2) the world as external object; and (3) the world as levels of organization. It is argued that the description of the world that is the most closely connected with globalization is the third one. (shrink)

This article discusses symmetry as an analytical tool for sociological analysis. Symmetry is presented as a property of social formations and a way to generate information about them through their mutual comparisons. The concept thus displaces the old dichotomy between individual and society. The latter forces to think in terms of wholes and parts, unduly limiting the possibilities at hand by keeping individuals as prisoners of societies, as it were. Symmetry opens the door for more alternatives by making room for (...) more social formations at the same time. To develop this concept, the article turns to both Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory and Harrison White’s network theory which are presented as enacting an “order from noise” approach (as opposed to an “order from order” approach). The article then reconstructs a whole spectrum going from social formations at a high level of symmetry to social formations at a low level of symmetry. At the first end, we have social formations like groups that define the identities of persons (or even define persons as identities). At the other end, we have entire functional sectors (like politics, science, law, economy, etc.) whose chief characteristic is to be asymmetric to each other (so that doing politics, for instance, is unlike doing science and vice-versa). (shrink)