The Cognitive and Metacognitive Dimensions of Social and Political Theory

The Sociological Review

2012

In recent years social science has been characterized by a cosmopolitan turn. Of the many questions that arise from this the most important are those that concern the implications for explaining social change. While cosmopolitanism is centrally about social change, much cosmopolitan theory due to its normative orientation lacks a capacity for explanation. The problem of explanation is also a problem that besets all ‘big question’ approaches in social science. In this paper a broad definition of cosmopolitanism is given and elucidated by an outline of its epistemological, ontological and methodological frameworks. Emphasizing the latter two, a relational conception of cosmopolitanism is developed as an alternative to dispositional/agency based and systemic accounts. First I argue that there are four main kinds of cosmopolitan relationships, which together constitute the social ontology of cosmopolitanism. These are the relativization of identity, the positive recognition of the other, the mutual evaluation of cultures, and the creation of a normative world culture. A methodological framework is advanced that distinguishes between the preconditions of cosmopolitanism, its social mechanisms and processes (of which three are specified: generative, transformational and institutionalizing) and trajectories of historical change. The argument is made that cosmopolitan phenomena can be accounted for in terms of this ontological and methodological framework. The advantage of this approach is that it offers cosmopolitan analysis a macro level account of social change that is broadly explanatory and which can also account for both the diachronic and synchronic levels of the emergence of cosmopolitanism as both a counter‐factual normative cultural model and as a part of social and political practices and institutional arrangements.

Section: The Epistemological Framework Of Cosmopolitanismmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Cosmopolitan Approach to the Explanation of Social Change: Social Mechanisms, Processes, Modernity

The Sociological Review

2012

“…The proposal made here in this paper is to define modernity, firstly, as a condition that is constituted by certain ideas or principles that form the basis of, what I term following Strydom (), its cognitive model, which influences the shape of the cultural models and societal forms of modernity. These ideas, or ideas of reason, can be variously described as freedom, liberty, autonomy, collective and individual self‐determination, equality.…”

Section: Modernity As a Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Europe in world regional perspective: formations of modernity and major historical transformations

British Journal of Sociology

2015

The paper seeks to present a world regional approach to the analysis of modernity and in doing so it also aims to make a contribution to comparative sociology and social theory. It is argued that world regions are the most suitable entry-point for comparing different sociopolitical constellations of our time, preferable to continents, civilizations and nation-states. However, a world regional foundation on its own is insufficient, due to the internal plurality and historically changing forms of world regions, and therefore needs to be accompanied by a concept that provides some degree of coherence within world regions and a tool for comparison with other world regions. The notion of modernity offers this level of generality while at the same time allowing for variety in its historical forms. Six main formations of modernity are identified, of which the European model was the first one and often a cultural reference for many other parts of the world. The thesis is that in the present day the most important developments are in the Asian and Latin American varieties, which unlike Europe are witnessing major historical transformation. Decisive in all of this is the question of democratization in the shaping of social imaginaries. Beginning with the problem of how to define the specificity of Europe, the paper provides an exploratory analysis of some of the salient considerations around a number of world regions, their formations of modernity, and the extent of major historical transformations in their present constitution.

“…Theoretical approaches in recent sociological and cultural theory present a number of ways to conceive of culture that go some way to offering a framework for the analysis of culture that captures the postmodern logic of pluralization, mobility and contestation, but also goes beyond this level of analysis 3 . The trend has been towards an emphasis on the cognitive dimensions of culture as opposed to the traditional emphasis on the symbolic and normative dimensions (Di Maggio 1997; Strydom 2011). A brief overview will offer a basis on which to develop a robust model of culture pertinent to current cosmopolitan currents and the rise of claim‐making that go beyond those that can be situated exclusively within national contexts or more generally to approaches that reduce culture to the symbolic.…”

Section: Culture and Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach stresses the cognitive dimension of culture, as opposed to its purely symbolic forms (Di Maggio 1997). Strydom (2011) has also drawn attention to the cognitive dimension of society which includes learning structures and schemata by which individual, social groups construct the social order. Such conceptions of culture have become increasingly influential in a range of areas.…”

Section: Culture and Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural diversity, democracy and the prospects of cosmopolitanism: a theory of cultural encounters

British Journal of Sociology

2011

The most appropriate way of theorizing cultural diversity is to situate it in the context of a broader relational theory of culture in which the key dynamic is cultural encounters. The relational conception of culture places the emphasis on the relations between social actors and the processes by which some of these relations generate enduring cultural regularities and forms. This has important implications for political community and in particular for cosmopolitanism. It is in relationships that cultural phenomena are generated and become the basis of different kinds of political community. The paper outlines a typology of six kinds of cultural encounters and discusses four major cultural trends that variously emerge from these encounters. This approach with its emphasis on cultural encounters is the broad sociological context in which questions about cultural change and the prospects of cosmopolitanism should be discussed.