There is a clearly discernible thread running through Johann P. Arnason's whole work. Starting with a highly sophisticated discussion of the Marxian term `praxis' in the 1970s he was increasingly able to link his insights to macro-sociological questions. In the 1980s, focusing particularly on the notions of `power' and `culture', he formulated a theory of modernity which challenges the diagnoses of other major contemporary social theorists such as Habermas, Giddens, Castoriadis and others.

Probably the most influential critique of social theorizing about the non-West in recent years has been one emanating from a `subalternist' perspective, by which I mean a critique mounted if not by, then in the name of, peoples/cultures/modes of thought that have been dominated culturally by `the West'. The rapid rise to prominence - economic, political, strategic and cultural - of an increasingly large number of nation states in the Asia-Pacific region poses a rather different kind of challenge to western (...) perspectives on the project of modernity, a challenge to which social theory has yet to formulate an adequate response. Focusing on Malaysia, this paper examines the claims advanced by certain members of the new Asian political elite and intellectuals that Asian countries have discovered divergent trajectories of modernization, and argues that attempts on the part of contemporary western observers to dismiss these claims have so far been unconvincing. This suggests that social theorists need in future to give more serious consideration to the possibility that the `rise of Asia' represents a new kind of modernization. (shrink)

In the context of nationalizing, secularizing or Kemalist states, analyses of Islamist movements are often thrown back on notions of traditionalism or atavism. In a related vein, for certain social theorists writing on modernity, the uniqueness of the West is clarified through an imaginative [mis]interpretation of other cultures or civilizations. Too often, however, the apparent gains in Western self-insight reflect an ‘inability to constitute oneself without excluding the other’ (Cornelius Castoriadis). Ironically Castoriadis himself, in a project we might term an (...) ethnography of the West (see his writings on ecology, capitalism, rationality, contemporary culture, racism, Greek philosophy/history, and the environment) is prone to the same vice, especially in his identification of the West as the sole autonomous society. This article argues that in the shariainstitution of a legal autonomy, Islam and Islamism alike demonstrate an affinity with modernity as defined by Castoriadis. In the light of this Islamist autonomy, it concludes that Castoriadis’ vision of modernity as a struggle between opposed imaginaries of autonomy and rational mastery needs reformulating. (shrink)