This article identifies civilizational analysis as one response to a recent crisis in the sociology of large-scale social configurations and explores how far the concept of civilization can go in analyzing the contemporary global social constellation. The reasoning proceeds in four steps. First, a brief review of the recent conceptual debate in social theory and historical sociology leads to the conclusion that concepts such as ‘civilization’ and ‘modernity’ still work with too strong presuppositions about continuity and commonality of patterns of (...) world interpretation. Second, a proposal is made to distinguish several basic problématiques that all human collectivities need to address and to suggest that such a distinction lends itself to research-oriented disentangling of various aspects of social phenomena. In an explorative manner, third, this approach will be applied to South Africa and Brazil, two social configurations that can fruitfully be studied as collectivities but lend themselves much less to civilizational analysis. By way of conclusion, finally, the trajectories of these non-European modernities will briefly be compared to the European one to illustrate the potential of this approach for a global sociology of plural trajectories of modernity. (shrink)

Civilizational analysis has not concerned itself too greatly with the historical experiences of the American New World. There are good reasons to correct this position and Shmuel Eisenstadt’s principal work on America’s distinct modernities goes some way to establishing the colonization of the Atlantic world as an opening phase of modernity. Nonetheless, a more far-reaching analysis of the distinctiveness of diverse American societies can be developed that goes beyond the image of a Protestant North America contrasted with southern Latin cultures. (...) This article outlines the basis for a more nuanced approach in three steps: a focus on intercivilizational engagement, examination of civilizational factors neglected by Eisenstadt and reconsideration of the conceptual range of the notion of ‘civilization’ itself. The archetype of two Americas is replaced by a model of four with some consideration given to indigenous civilizations as a fifth America. (shrink)

Culture has been at the core of many recent developments in the social sciences, particularly after the so-called ‘linguistic turn’. This has also been seeping into discussions about the relation between culture and politics. The present paper proposes a specific theoretical approach in this respect. It mobilizes Castoriadis’s concept of the ‘imaginary’, as well as those of ‘collective subjectivity’ and ‘social creativity’. It also makes use of the rich case of ‘populism’, more generally, and Peronism, more specifically, so as to (...) make clear its workings in a sociological strategy that unfolds in both the theoretical and the empirically-oriented domains. The paper offers an alternative to Alexander’s and Laclau’s approaches to culture and politics. (shrink)

Universalism and particularism have become poles of modern social thought and lead to distinct definitions of democracy, citizenship, and social policy. Challenging Habermas and the Habermasians, this article argues that democracy can never be identified with domination. Meanwhile, contesting Chatterjee and Foucault, the author reaffirms citizenship and law in their various forms in relation to both bounded and unbounded serialities as the basis for democracy, beyond and despite governmentality. Latin America, and especially Brazil, with processes that check state domination and (...) have implied democratizing changes, provide the empirical focus for the discussion, albeit mediated by other countries, particularly India. (shrink)

This article develops an argument about what it defines as the ‘third phase of modernity’ and tackles, in a comparative manner, the cases of Latin America (especially Brazil), South Asia (especially India) and China. It tries to identify specific modernizing moves which imply individualizing comparisons as well as encompassing comparisons in relation to these areas and countries. It builds its argument from a few theoretical assumptions and moves in an inductive manner in order to dislocate the discussion of modernity from (...) its strong referents in the West and the conceptual definitions that stem from this. The article tries also to connect the discussion of modernity to debates about development. It proposes a multidimensional approach and analyzes the main dimensions of contemporary modernity and modernizing moves in those regions and countries. (shrink)