Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 8 of 8 items :

  • "World Society" x
  • Literary Studies x
Clear All

society, Weber’s sociological theory could not account for the different or alternative rationalizations that are increasingly coming to the fore in the history of so-called Third World societies as they evolve or construct their own moder- nities.” (ibid: 266-267, original emphasis) Garuba argues that animism can be understood as an alternative modernity which leads to “a continual re- enchantment of the world” (ibid: 265, original emphasis). He describes this re- enchantment as 3 Garuba does not

produced, legitimized and stabilized, these perspectives merely emphasize the actors involved (but see Ancelovici & Jenson, 2013). I on the other hand, firstly, draw on Science & Technology Studies (STS), including Actor-Network Theory (ANT), to gain an understanding of technologies involved in knowledge production which authorize and legitimate knowledge in policy. Secondly, I posit that STS and world society theory, including newer work that emphasizes the role of comparatively generated ‘horizons’ from theorized and quantified knowledge, explain how knowledge

sympathy (section 3). In the last section (section 4) we will discuss some implications stemming from the adaption of Scheler’s theory to the problem of communication within an interconnected but highly diverse world society. THE LIMITS OF REGULATIVE IDEAS DERIVED FROM NATURE AND REASON Can a specific set of regulative ideas with a particularistic history be generalized as a common, universalistic ground for global solidarity and mutual intersubjec- tive recognition? Or put in other words: do we correctly assume that ethics of common interests and human

narrow-minded anti-imperialist who thought that anything that came from abroad had to be rejected. In fact, one of his prime concerns was precisely the integration of Mexico into the broader world society. Paz was a cosmopolitan and his cosmopolitanism opposed any kind of shortsighted provincialism. But he was also keenly aware of the fact that integration could not and should not mean a blind assimilation of anything and everything that came from abroad. If one of the main ideas of the current postcolonial discourse is that, as Sergio Costa has put it, “every

complicated at the personal level, but even more so at the social and historical levels. It entails assuming, from its roots and with all its consequences, the need to relativize (historicize) our life, our convictions and our certainties, as a means of situating them in their just historical terms; and this is nothing short of opening ourselves to the existence of other forms of understanding and conceiving life, history, time, the world, society, etc. …, concepts that we would not only have to “respect” and “tolerate,” but also assimilate as enriching, valorizing

, diffused by international organizations2 with the power or influence necessary to press for a consequent localization of those norms. Global sociology is, thus, part of “the rise of institutional structure in world society [defined by] organizational and discursive rationalization” (Meyer, 2014, p. 417). This institu- tional structure takes a concrete local form through a process of localization. This localization has to be understood as “a dynamic congruence-building process” (Acharya, 2004, p. 240). Local norm-takers –that would be administrative staff at the

, instead, according to Nixon, we must realize that drawing on the advantage of his exilic condition, and with the rhetoric of displacement, Naipaul has successfully made himself a “buff on postcolonial politics” and is treated as “a mandarin possessing a penetrating, analytic understanding of Third World societies” (ibid: 4-16). Ostensibly, Said and Nixon’s criticism centers on the political dimension of Naipaul’s work. Other critics believe that Naipaul sacrifices the truth of postco- lonial reality to achieve an aesthetic impact, and that he writes from an

creation; and nothing was created in the West Indies” (MP 1985: 29). Lack of history, partial modernization, and habits of dependent idleness all lead to the fundamental insecurity of colonial societies. To achieve security, they mimic the metropoli- tan “material values, political languages, and social institutions, all of which are appropriated in incongruous, denatured, and therefore damaging forms” (Nixon 1992: 132). According to Nixon, Naipaul employs “mimicry” to characterize a condition of insecurity that he considers endemic to Third World societies (ibid