Contemporary reflections on capitalism as a social-historical formation build on the legacy of cl... more Contemporary reflections on capitalism as a social-historical formation build on the legacy of classical theorists and comparative analysts. To clarify the main lines of this ongoing debate, it seems useful to distinguish three dichotomies that have been central to interpretations of capitalist development. The question of unity and diversity has been most prominent in the controversies of the past few decades; its ramifications range from micro-economic research on ‘varieties of capitalism’ to less sustained discussions about the place and role of capitalism within the framework of multiple modernities. Another key distinction contrasts systemic perspectives on capitalism with historical ones. In this regard, Schumpeter’s work is particularly interesting, but as an illustration of the problematic rather than an answer to the basic questions. The notion of a spirit of capitalism is most frequently associated with Weber’s work, where the spirit appeared as the source of a dynamic to which it then fell victim. Reconsiderations of the issue have raised questions about more durable versions and more varied expressions of the spirit, less likely to be eliminated by a self-propelling dynamic. Finally, comments on the articles included in the special issue suggest that they all have something to say on all three aspects of the field, but that their most innovative content may consist in attempts to move beyond systemic models of unity.
The conversation begins with reflections on social imaginaries as a crossroads concept, capable o... more The conversation begins with reflections on social imaginaries as a crossroads concept, capable of integrating insights from multiple sources; this point is developed through references to the works of Marx, Durkheim and Weber, and followed by comments on Charles Taylor’s hermeneutical realism, as well as on the task of rethinking psychoanalysis. Marcel Gauchet’s approach is noted as the most promising perspective on the latter field. Further discussion deals with the concept of imaginary significations as a key to the theory of culture, and then moves on to two foreshadowed but notably underdeveloped themes in Castoriadis’s work: the symbolic and the problems of theorizing action. Both of them are linked to the phenomenological notion of the world. The final section raises the question of power and emphasizes the affinity of social imaginaries with a relational understanding of power.
This paper discusses the merits and problems of civilizational perspectives on Japanese history, ... more This paper discusses the merits and problems of civilizational perspectives on Japanese history, with particular reference to the task of combining a comparative approach with valid points made by those who see Japan as a highly self-contained cultural world. After a brief consideration of Claude Lévi-Strauss’s reflections on Japan, the central section of the paper deals with Shmuel Eisenstadt’s work. His conception of Japan as a distinctive civilization characterized by pre-axial patterns is rejected on the grounds that the native mode of thought which he proposes to describe is more plausibly interpreted as an offshoot of Chinese traditions, although a notably autonomous and historically changing one. The transmission of Daoism to Japan, although much less explicit than the reception of Confucianism and Buddhism, was of crucial importance. That said, Eisenstadt’s concrete analyses of Japanese ways to transform foreign inputs are often detailed and insightful, and his comments on t...
Der Beitrag zeichnet Verbindungen, Affinitäten und Gegensätze zwischen Max Webers Interpretation ... more Der Beitrag zeichnet Verbindungen, Affinitäten und Gegensätze zwischen Max Webers Interpretation der westlichen Moderne und Shmuel N. Eisenstadts Konzept der multiplen Modernen nach. Obwohl sich Weber der verschiedenen Komponenten bewusst war, die in das vorherrschende Muster der Moderne einflossen, entwickelte er keine systematische Argumentationslinie zu Varianten der Moderne. Eisenstadt ging mit seinem konzeptionellen Fokus auf zivilisatorische Dimensionen der Moderne über Webers Problemstellung hinaus. Der Artikel hebt drei Hauptimplikationen dieser Wende hervor: den zivilisatorischen Aspekt menschlicher Gesellschaften, der die Vielfalt der Wechselbeziehungen zwischen kulturellen Artikulationen der Welt und sozialen Institutionen betont, die Konzeption der Moderne als einer neuen Zivilisation, die um eine Vision von menschlicher Autonomie zentriert ist, welche Webers kulturelle Schwerpunktsetzung auf Rationalität mit einschließt, und die Idee, dass die Hinterlassenschaften älterer Zivilisationen die Ausprägungen der Moderne in verschiedenen Regionen der Welt beeinflussen. Eisenstadt befasst sich mit einem Spektrum moderner soziokultureller Welten sowie mit einer Gruppe großer zivilisatorischer Traditionen, die beide ein breiteres Feld für vergleichende Untersuchungen darstellen. Das heißt nicht, dass Eisenstadt Webers Ansätze immer verbessert. Der interessante Fall Japan, über den Eisenstadt ausführlicher geschrieben hat als Weber, zeigt, dass die historischere Perspektive des Letzteren immer noch ihre Vorzüge hat. This paper traces connections, affinities, and contrasts between Max Weber’s interpretation of Western modernity and Shmuel N. Eisenstadt’s notion of multiple modernities. Although Weber was aware of diverse components entering into the dominant pattern of modernity, he did not develop any systematic line of argument on varieties of modernity. Eisenstadt went beyond Weber’s problematic with a conceptual focus on civilizational dimensions of modernity. The article emphasizes three main implications of this turn: the civilizational aspect of human societies that stresses the variety of interconnections between cultural articulations of the world and social institutions, the conception of modernity as a new civilization centered on a vision of human autonomy that includes Weber’s cultural emphasis on rationality, and the idea that legacies of older civilizations affect the formations of modernity in different regions of the world. Eisenstadt addresses a spectrum of modern sociocultural worlds as well as a group of major civilizational traditions, both of which constitute broader fields for comparative research. This does not mean that Eisenstadt invariably improves upon Weber’s approaches. The interesting case of Japan, about which Eisenstadt wrote more extensively than Weber, shows that the latter’s more historical perspective still has merit. Cet article retrace les liens, les affinités et les contrastes entre l’interprétation de la modernité occidentale par Max Weber et la notion de modernités multiples chez Shmuel N. Eisenstadt. Bien que Weber ait été conscient des divers éléments entrant dans la composition du modèle dominant de la modernité, il n’a élaboré aucun raisonnement systématique sur les variétés de la modernité. Eisenstadt est allé bien plus loin que la problématique wébérienne en focalisant son approche conceptuelle sur les dimensions civilisationnelles de la modernité. Cet article souligne trois implications principales de ce tournant : l’aspect civilisationnel des sociétés humaines qui met l’accent sur la variété des interconnexions entre articulations culturelles du monde et institutions sociales, la conception de la modernité comme une nouvelle civilisation centrée sur une vision de l’autonomie humaine incluant l’importance culturelle prêtée par Weber à la rationalité et enfin l’idée que l’héritage de civilisations plus anciennes affecte les formations de la modernité dans différentes régions du monde. Eisenstadt se penche sur un éventail de mondes socioculturels modernes ainsi qu’un groupe de grandes traditions civilisationnelles formant tous deux des champs plus larges pour la recherche comparative. Cela ne signifie pas qu’Eisenstadt perfectionne systématiquement les approches de Weber. Le cas intéressant du Japon, sur lequel Eisenstadt s’est plus étendu que Weber, montre que la perspective plus historique de ce dernier a toujours des mérites.
Problems of social transformations and revolutions belong to the classical agenda of social inqui... more Problems of social transformations and revolutions belong to the classical agenda of social inquiry, as well as to the most prominent challenges encountered by contemporary societies. The twenty-fifth anniversary of the Soviet collapse of socialism prompts a timely reflection on the significant transformations and revolutions which took place since then. The book analyses the transformation of Europe and the United States, and the extent to which their military actions in the wake of 9/11 have had a major transformative global impact. It also examines how the economic crisis that began in 2007/8 caused a series of breakdowns and provoked demands for democratic and social transformations, so far unfulfilled. The volume also surveys major transformations linked to the rise of China, India and Brazil, and the framework of global capitalism, including multiple economic, political, ecological and civilizational transformations. It contains reflections on the theoretical debates on revolu...
Contemporary reflections on capitalism as a social-historical formation build on the legacy of cl... more Contemporary reflections on capitalism as a social-historical formation build on the legacy of classical theorists and comparative analysts. To clarify the main lines of this ongoing debate, it seems useful to distinguish three dichotomies that have been central to interpretations of capitalist development. The question of unity and diversity has been most prominent in the controversies of the past few decades; its ramifications range from micro-economic research on ‘varieties of capitalism’ to less sustained discussions about the place and role of capitalism within the framework of multiple modernities. Another key distinction contrasts systemic perspectives on capitalism with historical ones. In this regard, Schumpeter’s work is particularly interesting, but as an illustration of the problematic rather than an answer to the basic questions. The notion of a spirit of capitalism is most frequently associated with Weber’s work, where the spirit appeared as the source of a dynamic to which it then fell victim. Reconsiderations of the issue have raised questions about more durable versions and more varied expressions of the spirit, less likely to be eliminated by a self-propelling dynamic. Finally, comments on the articles included in the special issue suggest that they all have something to say on all three aspects of the field, but that their most innovative content may consist in attempts to move beyond systemic models of unity.
The conversation begins with reflections on social imaginaries as a crossroads concept, capable o... more The conversation begins with reflections on social imaginaries as a crossroads concept, capable of integrating insights from multiple sources; this point is developed through references to the works of Marx, Durkheim and Weber, and followed by comments on Charles Taylor’s hermeneutical realism, as well as on the task of rethinking psychoanalysis. Marcel Gauchet’s approach is noted as the most promising perspective on the latter field. Further discussion deals with the concept of imaginary significations as a key to the theory of culture, and then moves on to two foreshadowed but notably underdeveloped themes in Castoriadis’s work: the symbolic and the problems of theorizing action. Both of them are linked to the phenomenological notion of the world. The final section raises the question of power and emphasizes the affinity of social imaginaries with a relational understanding of power.
This paper discusses the merits and problems of civilizational perspectives on Japanese history, ... more This paper discusses the merits and problems of civilizational perspectives on Japanese history, with particular reference to the task of combining a comparative approach with valid points made by those who see Japan as a highly self-contained cultural world. After a brief consideration of Claude Lévi-Strauss’s reflections on Japan, the central section of the paper deals with Shmuel Eisenstadt’s work. His conception of Japan as a distinctive civilization characterized by pre-axial patterns is rejected on the grounds that the native mode of thought which he proposes to describe is more plausibly interpreted as an offshoot of Chinese traditions, although a notably autonomous and historically changing one. The transmission of Daoism to Japan, although much less explicit than the reception of Confucianism and Buddhism, was of crucial importance. That said, Eisenstadt’s concrete analyses of Japanese ways to transform foreign inputs are often detailed and insightful, and his comments on t...
Der Beitrag zeichnet Verbindungen, Affinitäten und Gegensätze zwischen Max Webers Interpretation ... more Der Beitrag zeichnet Verbindungen, Affinitäten und Gegensätze zwischen Max Webers Interpretation der westlichen Moderne und Shmuel N. Eisenstadts Konzept der multiplen Modernen nach. Obwohl sich Weber der verschiedenen Komponenten bewusst war, die in das vorherrschende Muster der Moderne einflossen, entwickelte er keine systematische Argumentationslinie zu Varianten der Moderne. Eisenstadt ging mit seinem konzeptionellen Fokus auf zivilisatorische Dimensionen der Moderne über Webers Problemstellung hinaus. Der Artikel hebt drei Hauptimplikationen dieser Wende hervor: den zivilisatorischen Aspekt menschlicher Gesellschaften, der die Vielfalt der Wechselbeziehungen zwischen kulturellen Artikulationen der Welt und sozialen Institutionen betont, die Konzeption der Moderne als einer neuen Zivilisation, die um eine Vision von menschlicher Autonomie zentriert ist, welche Webers kulturelle Schwerpunktsetzung auf Rationalität mit einschließt, und die Idee, dass die Hinterlassenschaften älterer Zivilisationen die Ausprägungen der Moderne in verschiedenen Regionen der Welt beeinflussen. Eisenstadt befasst sich mit einem Spektrum moderner soziokultureller Welten sowie mit einer Gruppe großer zivilisatorischer Traditionen, die beide ein breiteres Feld für vergleichende Untersuchungen darstellen. Das heißt nicht, dass Eisenstadt Webers Ansätze immer verbessert. Der interessante Fall Japan, über den Eisenstadt ausführlicher geschrieben hat als Weber, zeigt, dass die historischere Perspektive des Letzteren immer noch ihre Vorzüge hat. This paper traces connections, affinities, and contrasts between Max Weber’s interpretation of Western modernity and Shmuel N. Eisenstadt’s notion of multiple modernities. Although Weber was aware of diverse components entering into the dominant pattern of modernity, he did not develop any systematic line of argument on varieties of modernity. Eisenstadt went beyond Weber’s problematic with a conceptual focus on civilizational dimensions of modernity. The article emphasizes three main implications of this turn: the civilizational aspect of human societies that stresses the variety of interconnections between cultural articulations of the world and social institutions, the conception of modernity as a new civilization centered on a vision of human autonomy that includes Weber’s cultural emphasis on rationality, and the idea that legacies of older civilizations affect the formations of modernity in different regions of the world. Eisenstadt addresses a spectrum of modern sociocultural worlds as well as a group of major civilizational traditions, both of which constitute broader fields for comparative research. This does not mean that Eisenstadt invariably improves upon Weber’s approaches. The interesting case of Japan, about which Eisenstadt wrote more extensively than Weber, shows that the latter’s more historical perspective still has merit. Cet article retrace les liens, les affinités et les contrastes entre l’interprétation de la modernité occidentale par Max Weber et la notion de modernités multiples chez Shmuel N. Eisenstadt. Bien que Weber ait été conscient des divers éléments entrant dans la composition du modèle dominant de la modernité, il n’a élaboré aucun raisonnement systématique sur les variétés de la modernité. Eisenstadt est allé bien plus loin que la problématique wébérienne en focalisant son approche conceptuelle sur les dimensions civilisationnelles de la modernité. Cet article souligne trois implications principales de ce tournant : l’aspect civilisationnel des sociétés humaines qui met l’accent sur la variété des interconnexions entre articulations culturelles du monde et institutions sociales, la conception de la modernité comme une nouvelle civilisation centrée sur une vision de l’autonomie humaine incluant l’importance culturelle prêtée par Weber à la rationalité et enfin l’idée que l’héritage de civilisations plus anciennes affecte les formations de la modernité dans différentes régions du monde. Eisenstadt se penche sur un éventail de mondes socioculturels modernes ainsi qu’un groupe de grandes traditions civilisationnelles formant tous deux des champs plus larges pour la recherche comparative. Cela ne signifie pas qu’Eisenstadt perfectionne systématiquement les approches de Weber. Le cas intéressant du Japon, sur lequel Eisenstadt s’est plus étendu que Weber, montre que la perspective plus historique de ce dernier a toujours des mérites.
Problems of social transformations and revolutions belong to the classical agenda of social inqui... more Problems of social transformations and revolutions belong to the classical agenda of social inquiry, as well as to the most prominent challenges encountered by contemporary societies. The twenty-fifth anniversary of the Soviet collapse of socialism prompts a timely reflection on the significant transformations and revolutions which took place since then. The book analyses the transformation of Europe and the United States, and the extent to which their military actions in the wake of 9/11 have had a major transformative global impact. It also examines how the economic crisis that began in 2007/8 caused a series of breakdowns and provoked demands for democratic and social transformations, so far unfulfilled. The volume also surveys major transformations linked to the rise of China, India and Brazil, and the framework of global capitalism, including multiple economic, political, ecological and civilizational transformations. It contains reflections on the theoretical debates on revolu...
Civilization, Modernity, and Critique provides the first comprehensive, cutting-edge engagement w... more Civilization, Modernity, and Critique provides the first comprehensive, cutting-edge engagement with the work of one of the most foundational figures in civilizational analysis: Johann P. Árnason. In order to do justice to Árnason's seminal and wide-ranging contributions to sociology, social theory and history, it brings together distinguished scholars from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds and geographical contexts. Through a critical, interdisciplinary dialogue, it offers an enrichment and expansion of the methodological, theoretical, and applicative scope of civilizational analysis, by addressing some of the most complex and pressing problems of contemporary global society. A unique and timely contribution to the ongoing task of advancing the project of a critical theory of society, this volume will appeal to scholars of sociology and social theory with interests in historical sociology, critical theory and civilizational analysis.
Uploads
Papers by Johann Arnason