MODERNITY AND GLOBALIZATIONGurminder K. Bhambra

COSMOPOLITANISMWeek 12

ULRICH BECK

2000. ‘The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity’, British Journal of Sociology 51 (1): 79-105

2006. Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press

BECK’S COSMOPOLITAN WORLD Economic globalization

Indifference to national boundaries Space-time compression Increasing network connections

People shop internationally, work internationally, love internationally, marry internationally, research internationally, grow up and are educated internationally

Increasing individualization accompanies globalization; world society of individuals

Human rights law (based on the individual) comes to precede international law (based on nations)

BECK’S CRITIQUE OF SOCIOLOGY

Sociology observes, measures and comments on social phenomena in national terms

Postmodernism simply emphasizes the de-structuring and end of modernity

A second age of modernity suggests that there is a structural and epochal break, a paradigm shift, from the first age of modernity

Globalization alters the interconnectedness of nation-states and the internal quality of the social Economic and social ways of acting, working, living no

longer take place within the confines of the nation-state

BECK’S SECOND AGE OF MODERNITY

Non-Western societies share the same time-space horizon with the West

Ideas of ‘traditional’, ‘pre-modern’, ‘Other’ were defining characteristics of the First Age

In the Second Age, everyone has to locate themselves in the same global space, confronted with similar challenges

Similarities are more predominant than differences

The West has something to learn from the Non-West (on particular issues)

NEW FORMS OF SOLIDARITY?

In the First Age, solidarity was limited to the nation-state

In the Second Age, it is a solidarity among individuals, raising the question of how solidarity among strangers is to be made possible

What does cosmopolitanization or cosmopolitan society mean?

CRITIQUES OF BECK I

First modernity was itself characterized by empires as much as by nation-states

The concepts of the ‘first age’ were as inadequate in their own time as they are claimed to be today

Sociological concepts are inappropriately bounded – i.e. they are ‘methodologically Eurocentric’ – but this is not something that is only now becoming problematic

Beck continues to take Western perspectives as the focus of global processes, and Europe as the origin of a modernity which is subsequently globalized

CRITIQUES OF BECK II

Beck suggests that the West listen to non-Western countries when they have something to say about the following: the possibilities for coexistence in multi-religious, multi-

ethnic and multicultural societies;

the question of tolerance in a confined space where cultural differences are prone to lead to violence;

‘highly developed’ legal and judicial pluralism in non-Western countries

experience of dealing with multiple sovereignties

The implication is that when non-Western countries are not speaking about these issues it is not necessary to listen

CRITIQUES OF BECK III

This is less a form of cosmopolitan engagement, distinct from the past, and more like ‘business as usual’

The West and non-West are presented as two homogenous blocs confronting each other as equals in a world that is not recognized to have been structured by hierarchical relations

Beck then presents a list of areas in which the West is ‘beginning to adopt non-Western standards of reality and normality which do not bode well’ (2000: 89).

The point is that they do not bode well for the West since they are the everyday conditions of existence for the non-West on which he has nothing to say

COSMOPOLITAN COSMOPOLITANISM?

‘Being cosmopolitan’ (as a practice) is associated with being in the West and cosmopolitanism (as an idea) is seen as being of the West

This is a parochial reading of cosmopolitanism which betrays the very ideals that the concept expresses

The failure to acknowledge that there have been cosmopolitan practices, and the development of cosmopolitan ideas, in other parts of the world

Also, there is no engagement with the problematic tension between contemporaneous European domination over much of the world as the very real negation of the idea and ideals of cosmopolitanism

COSMOPOLITAN COSMOPOLITANISM

If we were to take cosmopolitanism as a way of looking at the world, this would require us to take the perspective of the world

That is, to be cosmopolitan in our very practices in understanding what it was and is to be cosmopolitan

We would need to be archivally cosmopolitan – look across time and across cultures to examine the ways in which people have thought and acted beyond the local (Pollock et al 2000)

Cosmopolitanism itself is threatened by the work of purification that insists on regarding it as the product of one culture, emerging from a centre and diffusing outwards

ESSAY MARKING

Your work will be marked using the University’s newly introduced 17 point marking scale.

Each mark falls into one of the five classes of performance which correspond to the overall degree classification.

70-100 First Class

60-69 Second Class, Upper Division

50-59 Second Class, Lower Division

40-49 Third Class

0-39 Fail

FIRST CLASS

Excellent 1st: 96 Exceptional command of the subject, including

material which ranges well beyond that covered in lectures/classes. Work of exceptional insight, bringing new perspectives to bear on the materials, or developing new knowledge or techniques. Achieves or is close to publishable standard.

High 1st: 89; Mid 1st: 81; Low 1st: 74 Very high quality work, with full understanding of the

subject matter. Work that demonstrates intellectual maturity, and is perceptive with highly developed organisation. An ambitious project carried out successfully, with sophisticated handling of primary and secondary material, reasoned, analytical argument. Some degree of originality, independent research and thought.

SECOND CLASS

Upper Division High 2.1: 68; Mid 2.1: 65; Low 2.1: 62

Highly competent in organisation and presentation, evidence of individual research; appropriate and intelligent use of primary and secondary material, good understanding of subject matter allied with perceptive analysis

Lower Division High 2.2: 58; Mid 2.2: 55; Low 2.2: 52

Conscientious work, attentive to subject matter and title/task set; a focused response to the task demonstrating good knowledge, balanced more towards the descriptive than the analytical. Good knowledge, reasonable understanding of material and task. Descriptive rather than analytical.

THIRD CLASS, FAIL

High 3rd: 48; Mid 3rd: 45; Low 3rd: 42 Some relevant knowledge, some accurate repetition of

lecture/ class notes/ work. Partial or pedestrian description.

High Fail (near miss): 38 Work does not meet standards required for the

appropriate stage of an Honours degree, albeit with some basic understanding of relevant concepts and techniques.

Fail: 25; Low Fail: 12 Ineptitude in knowledge, structure, academic/

professional practice. Failure or inability to answer the question/ respond to the task. No evidence of basic understanding of relevant concepts/ techniques.

Zero: 0 Work of no merit OR absent work not submitted, penalty

in some misconduct cases.

FURTHER INFO

University of Warwick Teaching Quality webpage

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/quality/categories/examinations/markscalesconventions/forstudents/