Suchergebnisse

The civilizational turn in sociological theory is best understood as an attempt to do full justice to the autonomy of culture (against all versions of structural-functional theory) without conceding the issue to cultural determinism. Civilizational formations are based on combinations of cultural visions of the world with regulative frameworks of social life, but the relationship between the two levels is open to conflicting interpretations & strategic uses of them. Axial age civilizations open up new structural & historical dimensions of interaction between cultural & social patterns, & are therefore central to the agenda of civilizational analysis. Among the later breakthroughs that draw on Axial sources, the emergence of modernity stands out as particularly important; the cultural & political program of modernity may be seen as a new & distinctive civilization, but it remains open to more or less formative influences from older civilizational legacies. 14 References. Adapted from the source document.

In most of the vast scholarly literature on constitutional-democratic regimes, the major emphasis has been on the broader social, economic, or cultural conditions conducive to their development, breakdown, or consolidation and continuity (Diamond 1993b; Diamond, Linz, and Lipset 1989, 1990). The major thesis of this essay is that fragility and instability are inherent in the very constitution of modern constitutional-democratic regimes, and are rooted in (1) the tensions between the different conceptions of democracy (especially between constitutional and participatory democracy) and (2) the central aspects of the political and cultural program of modernity. The common core of these premises is the openness of the political process (particularly with regard to protest) and the concomitant tendency toward continual redefinition of the political realm. Openness is an important contributor to the fragility of modern democratic regimes; paradoxically, it also allows for their continuity. The key question, then, is how and under what conditions non-zero-sum conceptions of the "game" of politics develop. The second part of this essay takes up this question, with special emphasis on the development and reproduction of trust among different sectors of society, the relationships between such sectors and the centers of society, and the construction of different types of collective identity.

This paper is based on four assumptions concerning the analysis of the construction of collective identities. First, such construction, like power and economic relations, is an analytically autonomous basic component of the construction of social life. Second, such constructions have been going on in all human societies throughout history. Third, all such patterns of collective identity have been continually constructed from some basic yet continually changing building blocks, codes or themes - especially those of primordiality, civility and `sacredness'. The paper focuses on the different patterns of modern nation states in the framework of the more general approach to the construction of collective identities. This analysis of different modern nation states indicates that despite common characteristics, there developed great differences in their construction; in the analysis of such differences it is very important to take into account the historical and civilizational backgrounds of the respective societies.

The difficulties of comparative historical analysis of Japan are discussed in reference to the Western modernization model that produced Japan's distinct form of capitalism & modernity. From the Western perspective, Japan deviates from the traditional model in that it is a nonaxial civilization; sociopolitical & economic progress is not linked to religious morals & goals. Further, it is argued that Japan represents the crucial illustration of the development of multiple cultural programs & institutional formations of modernity. Following a review of the various similarities between Japan & the West, it is argued that Japan's distinct form of modernization can be attributed to a variety of structural factors, which contributed to social interaction based on the extension of trust in flexible, generalized settings. The close connection of this trust to achievement & solidarity constructed a system grounded in self-referential reflexivity, thereby promoting the openness & predisposition to change that facilitated modernization. 2 Photographs. Adapted from the source document.

Discusses the nature, foundations, & implications of the contradictions inherent in the political & cultural program of modernity. It is argued that modern constitutional-democratic regimes have been most significantly influenced by political upheaval (the American & French Revolutions, the English great rebellion, etc) & philosophical movements such as the Enlightenment. Under these conditions, modern democratic regimes have been forced to negotiate the delicate boundaries between politics, culture, religion, & philosophy, & it is argued that these competing concepts of morality & institutionalization have contributed to the formation of structural pluralism in the West, characterized by a multiplicity of overlapping political & social structures. Recent developments, eg, the collapse of communism in Europe & the globalization of industry, have placed additional burdens on the concept & institutions of modernity. The modern era of transition demands increasingly fluid political & social institutions, & it is concluded that the greatest challenge facing modern constitutional-democratic regimes is the development of a common cultural framework in which competing views of the common good can be expressed & negotiated without destroying the structures & alliances necessary for democracy & order. T. Sevier

Abstract It has long been recognized that Japanese modern society, policy and economy exhibit some very distinct characteristics, a distinct mode of structuration of modern institutions and organizations which are structured in ways radically different from those which have developed in other —especially Western— societies. Such differences are not just local variations. They pertain to the very basic ways in which the various modern institutional arenas are regulated, defined, and the broader social and cultural contexts in which they operate.The common denominator of these characteristics is a very high level of structural differentiation. mobility, openness and dynamics grounded in conceptions of service to social contexts, ideally (as promulgated in the Meiji ideology) to the national community. Neither the emphasis on equality nor the strong emphasis on achievement were grounded in any conception of principled transcendentally oriented individuality or of transcendental legitimation of different functional (e.g. political or economic) activities.Such a rather strong structural similarity, together with a distinct institutional dynamics. can be identified in comparing Japan and Western Europe already in the premodern period, when there were only but minimal contacts between them.The analysis in a comparative framework of this unusual combination is of central importance for the understanding of Japanese modernity and in the following pages I would like to present some preliminary steps for such analysis.

A search for an explanation for the divergence in economic development of the US/Canada vs Latin American countries, focusing on a reexamination of religious explanations. While the religious dimension was indeed crucial in the crystallization of these civilizations, its importance lies in its influence on new civilizational premises & institutional formations. American civilizations emerged through the radical transformation of civilizational premises & institutional patterns of European origins, as these crystallized with the emergence of modern societies & polities after the Reformation, the absolutist pattern of counter-Reformation Spain & Portugal, & the more constitutional patterns of England & the Netherlands, both built on prior historical bases. The primary differences between the two Americas lay in the ways in which the symbolic & institutional tensions between equality & hierarchy, between autonomy & control, were worked out. The collective identity that crystallized in the US was defined in inclusive ideological, universalistic nonhistorical terms. In Latin America, however, there were multiple components of collective consciousness & identity -- Spanish, Catholic, & local Creole & native. Modifed AA

Examined are comparative historical sociological frameworks for the study of the great revolutions. These frameworks have raised essential questions about macrosociological analysis, & about the relation between structure, history, & human agency, & have challenged evolutionary perspectives on the development of societies. The frameworks tend to reject evolutionist approaches & the "closed systemic" view of societies stressed in structural functionalism, while emphasizing whole civilizations as important objects of macrosociological analysis. These issues & tendencies are explored via a reexamination of the characteristics & conditions of the English civil war & the American, French, Chinese, Russian, Turkish, & Vietnamese revolutions. 2 Photographs. W. Howard