The New Sociological Imagination: Facing the Challenges of a New MillenniumAuthor(s): Hector Raul Solis-GadeaSource: International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 18, No. 3/4, The NewSociological Imagination (Spring - Summer, 2005), pp. 113-122Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20059678Accessed: 27/08/2010 07:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal ofPolitics, Culture, and Society.

http://www.jstor.org

Int J Polit Cult Soc (2005) 18:113 122

DOI 10.1007/s 10767-006-9008-7

The New Sociological Imagination: Facing the Challenges of a New Millennium

Hector Raul Solis-Gadea

Published online: 30 November 2006

(?) Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Abstract This article introduces the reader to the problems and the topics treated by the

contributors to this special issue of the International Journal of Politics, Culture and

Society. It offers a reflection on the concept of sociological imagination conceived as a key

element for the task of facing the intellectual challenges of the present times. What is

sociological imagination? How has it been used by the main cultivators of sociology throughout history? And particularly, how is sociological imagination being renewed

nowadays by some of the most successful exponents of sociological research? These are

some questions considered in this introduction. The new sociological imagination uses

theory, history, empirical facts, logical formalization, systematic analysis, creativity, local

knowledge, moral judgment and inspiration. What distinctively constitutes its elements is not just the search for correlations between abstract variables, but the search for pertinent

relationships among facts, moral problems, structural conditions, historical concerns,

personal worries and ethical values of contemporary societies. The new sociological

imagination is a search for satisfactory ways of understanding the contemporary world in a

rational, communicable, telling and coherent way, while also contributing to the

development of the public sphere and a collective understanding of social issues.

Key words new sociological imagination epochal problems sociological imagination new ways of inquiry

This special issue of the International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society was

conceived under the premise that the intellectual spirit embedded in the concept of the

sociological imagination is a point of reference for the practice of social science in the new

millennium. Today more than ever?and particularly in our volcanic post September 11th

period?sociology and the social scientific disciplines in general are being called upon to

play a crucial role in making sense of the present and establishing norms for the future. The

scope, speed and depth of the current transformations in modern institutions and practices

H. R. Solis-Gadea (ISI) Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, M?xico

e-mail: raulso@gmail.com

? Springer

114 Int J Polit Cult Soc (2005) 18:113-122

make this necessary, because many consider these changes to be eroding basic certainties

and prior ways of understanding the world. The threats of terrorism and nuclear conflicts of

unpredictable consequence are just the extreme expression of a growing deterioration in the

social mechanisms or practices that in prior decades insured a minimal sense of coherence,

moral connection, and solidarity. In short, the present time has not just brought new

tensions and contradictions; it also has raised questions about the social resources available

for dealing with the world in which we now live.

Sociological imagination is an analytical tool used to lay bare the intricacies of complex societies, while also offering a heuristic and normative infrastructure to the practitioners of

social science. As conceived by C. Wright Mills, sociological imagination is the mental

ability to establish intelligible relations among history, social structure and personal

biography, helping its bearer to take responsible positions vis-?-vis the problems of the

time:

The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of

individuals. It enables him to take into account how individuals, in the welter of their

daily experience, often become falsely conscious of their social positions. Within that

welter, the framework of modern society is sought, and within that framework the

psychologies of a variety of men and women are formulated. By such means the

personal uneasiness of individuals is focused upon explicit troubles and the indifference of publics is transformed into involvement with public issues.

The first fruit of this imagination?and the first lesson of the social science that

embodies it?is the idea that the individual can understand his own experience and

gauge his own fate only by locating himself within his period, that he can know his own chances in life only by becoming aware of those of all individuals in his

circumstances1

The assumption that any attempt to make sense of society should be based upon the

analytical and moral capacity to link one's own fate to that of others is one of the most

important accomplishments and aspirations of the sociological enterprise. Sociological

imagination, then, is a self-reflexive tool. That is why, by its very nature, the discipline of

sociology looks to explain itself in relation to history and the structural conditionings and

opportunities of a given period of time. Therefore, it also is able to illuminate ways in

which concrete human actors can participate in history and produce a better outcome.

The Sociological Imagination in History

The genealogy of the sociological imagination goes back to the advent and tortuous

evolution of modernity. Its theoretical changes and methodological refinements have been

responses to the continuous emergence of new epochal problems. Again and again, after

each critical historical juncture faced by societies going through accelerated trans

formations and crises, there have been voices claiming the need to use and renew our

sociological imagination. All of the founding fathers of sociology, for example,

Tocqueville, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and Simmel, to the extent that were committed

1 C. Wright Mills, The sociological imagination. London: Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press,

1959, p. 5.

? Springer

Int J Polit Cult Soc (2005) 18:113-122 115

to a deep understanding of the troubles of their times, can be considered brilliant

cultivators of the sociological imagination. It is for this reason that the period from 1830

to 1920 has been considered the classic formative time of sociology. During this period we saw many dramatic transformations in the forms of social organization and purpose:

democratization as the equalization of social conditions of men; the erosion of traditional

bonds and development of capitalist relationships; the growth of a functional division of labor within the structure of societies; continuous expansion of a formal-instrumental

rationality which supported the development of the modern states and bureaucracies;

fragmentation of the experience of the individual, and sense of disconnection between the

person and the social milieu.

Classic ideas in sociology were developed to make sense of these dramatic changes, and

to gain clarity and understanding. Implicitly if not explicitly, the founding fathers were aware that the old categories and concepts inherited by our intellectual tradition were in

need of revision. Paraphrasing Tocqueville, it could be said that a new social science was

required in order to understand the new world. That is why the founding fathers of

sociology developed a new language, and a new conceptual corpus, to refer, describe and

explain the emerging complex realities brought about by modernity.

But at what point do the concepts and categories produced to study the past lose their

power to explain the present, or even to account for a reality that is in a permanent

transformation? In many ways, this is the overarching question that concerns us here. To

pose this query is not to suggest that old concepts and categories cannot be useful as

heuristic tools. But it is to face the possibility that concepts or categories may need

renovation. There is a serious risk in treating conceptual paradigms as indestructible

edifices; they can be interpreted as the correct representation of reality instead of as mere

tools for enhancing our capacity for the understanding of it. Thus it happens that social

theory, instead of serving as a language to speak about reality and to intervene on it, turns

out to be an obstacle between the common sense of the ordinary people and their immediate

contexts. In this way, social theory not only loses its ability to reflect and explain the lives

and worries of the individuals, but it also contributes to their alienation and feeling of being

trapped in an unexplainable social world. This paradox is what happens with social theory when it acquires "scientific prestige" or when it is considered as an infallible instrument of

knowledge.

The Sociological Imagination from the Early to the Late Twentieth Century

Real history, or the continual emergence of new realities and surprising phenomena, will

repeatedly drive the need to re-examine, and perhaps even revise, long standing theoretical

paradigms. The first decades of the twentieth century brought about the end of a (more or

less) peaceful 100 years, and hosted the crisis of the old liberal imaginary. The founding fathers, in fact, examined some critical aspects of the old liberal order that produced these crises and social turmoil. That accomplishment notwithstanding, even these analytical

strategies were in need of revision several decades after they were initially proposed, as the

twentieth century unfolded with different challenges than the nineteenth. This task was taken up by Talcott Parsons in his seminal treatise, The Structure of Social Action. Because

of its expansive focus, Parsonian sociology was a very successful one until new historical

events of the 1960s began to test its limits and expose its shortcomings. Yet Parsons was not the only scholar attempting to revise the classical sociological foundations in the mid

twentieth century.

4y Springer

116 Int J Polit Cult Soc (2005) 18:113-122

At the same time, but in an entirely different continent, The Frankfurt School of also social theory tried to account for the crisis of the liberal order and the serious consequences

brought about by socialism and fascism. Undoubtedly, the scope of the works of such authors like Horkheimer, Adorno, Fromm, Marcuse and others was a respectable response

to the challenges posed by the core decades of the early and mid-twentieth century. The New School's own Hannah Arendt, with her emphasis on the need for understanding, the

exercise of thinking, and the importance of moral judgment, can also be considered as an

exponent of a "new" sociological imagination for the mid-twentieth century, in this case

informed by social philosophical assumptions and mainly devoted to make sense of the

novelty represented by totalitarianism.

Following both these schools of thought in chronological time, but not necessarily in

theoretical content, C. Wright Mills picked up the mantle in the late 1950s and early 1960s. He too sought to refurbish the sociological imagination, but through a critical analysis of

the changes in post-war America, while also making a strong critique of prestigious

American schools of social thought and methodology, including the work of Talcott

Parsons. Mills sought to rescue social science from the negative consequences of extreme

scientism, and of the fetishism of method and theory as well. He wanted to cope with the

problems of a world in which new social movements were emerging everywhere,

authoritarianism and tradition were being irreversibly challenged, and political instability and conflict were becoming a generalized trend. According to Mills, if these problems were

left unaddressed, the existence of a social science capable of giving society a public

orientation and a sense of orderly change or social progress would have been at risk.

For all these reasons, Mills argued for the importance of putting sociological imagination at the center of the social scientific enterprise. He conceived of this as a transformative task

that would sustain both intellectual creativity and moral criticism, giving both a prominent

role in a society that was passing through a period of critical activism.

The Sociological Challenges of the New Millenium

The present time, undoubtedly, is also a critical juncture. On the one hand, unfettered

globalization and growing complexities generated by the emergence of new social practices

have produced social fragmentation and all sorts of institutional disorder, as well as the

feeling among many that society's most genuine values are in danger. On the other hand,

with the arrival of the new millennium the social scientific establishment and many

longstanding premises of contemporary societies also have faced new and severe

challenges. The threefold understanding of modernity as a universalizing and enlightening

project, as a clearly demarcated historical phase of development, and as a coherent structure

of human experience,2 has been under direct attack from several perspectives and politico

cultural movements. This is well expressed through the proliferation of a plurality of

theoretical and epistemological approaches that define themselves as efforts to supersede one or several aspects of the mainstream discourses of modernity or modem reason:

postmodernism, postmarxism, poststructuralism, postpositivism, postcolonial studies,

feminism, neo-funetionalism, and so on.

2 A very similar distinction was made by Peter Osborne in "Modernity is a qualitative, not a chronological

category," New Left Review, no. 192. 1992. Quoted by Alan O'Shea in "English subjets of modernity," in

Modern times, reflections on a century of English modernity. London and New York: Routledge, 1996, p. 8.

fi Springer

Int J Polit Cult Soc (2005) 18:113-122

These new approaches build on the assumption that many of the inherited

presuppositions, concepts, and methodological instruments of modern theory and

consciousness are sterile or misleading. Our aim here is to consider whether a collective

presentation of these critiques and new ideas can give life to a new sociological imagination

for the twenty-first century?one that is capable of making sense of current history and, at

the same time, compelling enough to construct a shared normative understanding of

contemporary social life.

The fact that during the last decades of the twentieth century, new social scientific, cultural and expressive efforts aimed at dealing with the contemporary problems of the

epoch have emerged suggests that we, indeed, may be posed on the precipice of a new

sociological era, for which a new sociological imagination is required. But the chorus of

new voices have not been articulated systematically within a particular program of research,

or in the form of a single school of thought. Its elements are dispersed in the work of

several contemporary practitioners of social science and public reflection. Few of these

scholars are trying to correct or justify any of the currently competing paradigms in toto.

Neither are they attempting to establish a new model of reality or an entirely self-sufficient

conceptual system. And this, as well, says something about the new sociological

imagination embodied in these multiple voices: it is a disposition of the intellectual spirit in a permanent process of construction, one that tries to assimilate the lessons taught by the

decline of enlightenment-based modern reason, but without fully renouncing rational

aspiration. It assumes itself as a creative form of inquiry more than as a secure source of

definite answers.

This new sociological imagination recognizes that there are several ways in which a case

or a problem can be analyzed.3 It situates itself beyond the current dilemmas and

dichotomies dividing the social sciences and their methods. It is not empiricist or

theoretically informed, it is not historical or formal, structure or actor centered. It is not just a deductive or an inductive intellectual enterprise; it does not necessarily depend on abstract

generalization or isolated description of particular findings about social things. And,

perhaps, more importantly, it is not value free or morally sensitive.4 In short, the new

sociological imagination does not aspire to be a corpus of knowledge but, rather, grounded

thinking in the service of questioning reality. It creates conjectures that are always

provisional but consistently scrutinized. It would be against the very nature of the new

sociological imagination to try to create a system of thought with a perfect cluster of closed

3 Louis Menand has written this idea while exposing William James's thinking in his The metaphysical club,

a story of ideas in America, New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2001. p. 143. It is not casual to mention

this here because one of the sources of our contemporary sociological imagination is the growing interest in

pragmatism. 4

Regarding the sterility of the polemic about universal, abstract reasoning versus particular, historicist

conceptualization, Randall Collins has written: "Polemic turns a question of all-or-nothing. Either the world

is completely subsumable into universal principles, or else everything is radically particular and unique. This

could become a kind of epistemological nuclear war, in which the goal of one side is to blow the other off the

face of the earth. If we can deescalate the argument, it should be apparent that the question is not a stark

either/or. We cannot analyze particular without abstract categories, and even what we think of as a particular name (e.g., "Canada in the nineteenth century") already contains a considerable amount of generalizing.

Conversely, we never enter into a chain of argument about bare abstractions without indicating repeatedly, in

the series of semiotic moves, examples on a lower level of abstraction of what we are talking about. There is a continuum of abstraction and particularity, and it is difficult to formulate pure endpoints in either

direction." Randal Collins "The European Sociological Tradition and twenty-first century World Sociology," in Sociology for the twenty-first century, continuities and cutting edges. Edited by Janet L. Abu-Lughod,

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1999, p.27.

4? Springer

118 Int J Polit Cult Soc (2005) 18:113-122

concepts. When that is done, thought is locked in a rigid iron cage where there is not space

for the deploying of imagination. If anything, the new sociological imagination uses theory, history, empirical facts,

logical formalization, systematic analysis, creativity, local knowledge, moral judgment and inspiration. Any element that can be useful to explain and make sense of a historical

situation is part of its tools kit. What distinctively constitutes its elements is not just the search for correlations between abstract variables, but the search for pertinent relation

ships among facts, moral problems, structural conditions, historical concerns, personal

worries and ethical values of contemporary societies. The new sociological imagination is

a search for satisfactory ways of understanding the contemporary world in a rational,

communicable, telling and coherent way, while also contributing to the development of

the public sphere and a collective understanding of social issues. It is not just a

theoretical exercise but a work in which both our moral and analytical capabilities must be combined in a creative way.

To be sure, the very act of defining the problems of the epoch is in itself an exercise of

sociological imagination, as is the a priori identification of ways that concrete human beings

might establish agency or participation in the treatment of social problems or their solutions.

Even so, contemporary social scientists must be prepared to face the challenge of

constructing the basic elements of a new sociological imagination; and to begin, they must

be prepared to ponder the following: What are the new problems and challenges brought about by the end of the twentieth century, and the arrival of the new millennium? What are

the relevant traits of the new social world and the new practices and/or institutional

processes in need of new explanations? In order to cope with our contemporary tensions,

how much of the classic sociological imagination should still be utilized? On what intellectual sources and approaches should we feed the new sociological imagination?

Should the new sociological imagination work have a common core of concepts and

presuppositions depicting a unique image of society and its basic processes? Or, to the

contrary, the new sociological imagination should be conceived more as a field constructed

by several ways of inquiry?

Meeting the Challenge

This issue of the International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society takes up these

questions. It does so through the writings of distinguished social scientists, drawn from a

variety of sub-disciplinary specializations, whose are now confronting the heuristic and

normative challenges brought about by the new millennium. In spite of the fact that the

authors in this volume use different starting points and provide alternative ways of

examining or interpreting the world, all share the need to make a diagnosis of the present

time and the idea that we are experiencing an epochal change of enormous consequences

that should be accounted for through new ways of inquiry. Moreover, these diagnoses are

all related to the basic fact of globalization and the changes brought about by this

phenomenon. Indeed, all the authors showcased here identify trends or changes

consistent with what Manuel Castells calls the emergence of the network society.

Likewise, though their entry or ending points may differ, they all try to understand the

global logic of the current social world and its destiny. Particularly, they try to offer a

way not only to understand it but also to give it shape. Finally, all share the idea that

social science needs a shift in approach. Explicitly or implicitly, these authors suggest

4y Springer

Int J Polit Cult Soc (2005) 18:113-122 119

the need to rethink most of the concepts of modern sociology, starting from the very

concept of society. As Bauman puts it, society is an elusive concept, an elusive reality,

and ever more so in the "liquid" world of the present.

There also are differences, to be sure. Different authors take different units of analysis

as points of entry, and their subject matters include political power and transnational

politics, information and the new economy, the new and more flexible work processes,

the subject, the self, religion, culture, knowledge, Internet and technology, ethnicity, etc.

Still, the collective aim of these authors is to help us to understand changes in the

contemporary world as seen in the context of their significance for classic sociological

questions about how to live together. For example, how to create a sense of inclusion and

integration while also respecting difference and diversity? How to balance interests,

solidarity and the common good? How to give the self a sense of vital meaning while

living in a society that continuously erases order and stability? How to create a sense of

civic engagement in a deterritorialized and despatialisated society? How to make social

science relevant in the public sphere? How to intervene efficaciously in the public

agenda?

Zygmunt Bauman explains the main changes taking place in our everyday social

experience as producing a society which is fragile and volatile. From his perspective it

follows that we are going to a complete new societal epoch. He uses his well-known

distinction between solid and liquid modernity to explain this transformation. In liquid

modernity virtually all aspects of human social experience have changed. All limits and

stable traits of the world are being subverted. The idea of a society as an organic reality

no longer can be supported. There are, however, new possibilities for the human

experience generated by a world constituted by networks, circuits of knowledge and

information. However, irrespective of the opportunities offered by the contemporary world

to the self, sociology has still the burden to reconnect itself and to contribute to the public

sphere.

Ulrich Beck's essay addresses the need to develop a methodological change in sociology that helps it to deal with the emerging contemporary globalized world. Interestingly, he

considers that traditional sociology uses as its main analytical strategy what he calls

methodological nationalism. This is a way of inquiry centered upon the nation state and the

image of society as being part of the former. Globalization has modified this now old

reality. The pluralization of borders and de-territorialization of power, among other

phenomena, are creating a situation in which the local cannot be understood just by

focusing on what happens within the national borders. That is why a methodological

cosmopolitanism is needed. This means a way of analyzing social practices and institutions

in their global connections and mutual influence, a way of identifying the presence of the

transnational in the national. Vehemently, Beck argues for the possibility of creating a

cosmopolitan state capable of enabling the conditions for better coexistence of diversity that

globalization has made possible.

Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello have written an analysis of the recent transformations

in the ways that capitalism is normatively justified and legitimized. Drawing inspiration from Max Weber, they use the concept of spirit of capitalism to understand the ethos and

moral justification of the late capitalism that has enabled it to overcome some years of

protests and conflict stemming from the working class and the left. They interpret the texts and discourses created by contemporary intellectual agents of capitalists and entrepreneurial

sectors as way to grasp the symbolic aspect of the capitalistic mentality. Their diagnosis of

the times very much resembles Bauman's study of contemporary modernity. In a way, the

new spirit of capitalism is a social bond connecting aspects of economic structure and

4y Springer

120 Int J Polit Cult Soc (2005) 18:113-122

personal and moral dispositions on the part of the actors; a sort of application of the

sociological imagination understood as a kind of cement of the social order or as an

ontological condition for the existence of it.

Levy's concept of collective intelligence is also related to the concept of sociological imagination in the above mentioned sense. Moreover, for Levy, imagination is not basically

a point of entry to the world but a way to constitute it. The Internet, cyberspace, and the

new economy are creating the possibilities for a new collective more creative, and even

poetic, imagination and intelligence. Clearly, Levy is offering a diagnosis of the times but with strong moral implications that for a moment fall into a very optimistic view of the

possibilities opened up by globalization and the impact of the Internet. Alain Touraine reflects upon the revival on the subject within contemporary social

practices. He argues that the subject was neglected by most classic and modern social

theory and imagination. Now, however, he suggests it is returning because of its potential to

serve as vehicle for the superseding of situations of alienation and the recovering of the

particularities and liberating potentialities of the person. This theme falls very much within in the line of thought of C. Wright Mills: the interconnection between the subject and the economic and the cultural worlds. Beyond Mills, however, Touraine points out a way in

which contemporary men and women are trying to recover a more rich and plural

understanding of the self or the person: as subject and not as a member of a social or

economic class, or even political category. In order to do this there must be a social order

that recognizes the subjects as different and equal at the same time.

David Harvey's essay is in many ways a manifesto highlighting the need to bring geography and territoriality into the sociological imagination. Harvey calls for building

bridges between the disciplines of sociology and geography, and argues that through this synthesis one can revise the history, the concepts, the categories, the problems,

and the issues at stake in the contemporary epoch. His main proposition is that space

is an inextricable element of the social experience. What is striking about this piece is

the way in which Harvey considers geographical concerns to deal with a wide range

of the most pressing problems of our time, including global governance, cosmopol

itanism, geographical knowledges, and the fate of critical theory and critical

geography.

Jos? Casanova's essay explains a frequently neglected aspect of modernity and

globalization: religion and the ways in which it is being affected by these processes. He suggests that prevailing views of globalization fail to deal with religion in a

successful way. His claim is that contemporary religious revival is not a defensive and

anti-modern strategy against the forces of globalization but a very complex cultural

phenomenon pretty much compatible with the trans-nationalization of contemporary

social life. In making these claims, Casanova studies two religions that have been

particularly well suited to be global and transnational: Catholicism and Pentecostalism.

His principal argument is that by de-territorializing social practices and institutions,

globalization has contributed to recent transformations of and new trends within both

these religions.

Craig Calhoun's contribution echoes some of the themes offered in the Beck article, by virtue of its focus on cosmopolitanism, but his main concern is the idea of an integrated

political community, and the need for social solidarity as a precondition for achieving this.

Several of the main contributions of the essay are premised on the conceptual importance of

a democratic public sphere. But he also ties the notion of the public sphere to a variety of

normative concerns about democracy, highlighting the roles of political liberty and civic

virtue in creating a truly democratic public sphere. Although globalization is less of concern

? Springer

Int J Polit Cult Soc (2005) 18:113-122 121

in this essay than many of the others, Calhoun is equally concerned with the age-old

question of how to insure solidarity and social integration in a world when old forms of

identity and prior networks of connection are broken or being called into question. For this

reason, he argues that we must be able to envision a polity that is not based upon traditional

sources of social cohesion, like ethnicity-centered nationalism for example, but that at the

same time enables societies to overcome their political differences. In search of this goal, he

suggests that constitutional patriotism accompanied by a vigorous integrated transnational

public sphere can create solidarity and enhance democracy.

Jeffrey Goldfarb, like Calhoun, brings us back to basics in his essay by focusing on

longstanding philosophical ideals that have withstood the test of time. But he also frames them in the context of contemporary challenges. In particular, Goldfarb offers a reflection

on the role of intellectuals and culture in enhancing democracy and mutual understanding.

He suggests that dialogue, critique, talk and conversation are crucial for attaining of shared

values and for sustaining important principles?such as mutual understanding and

recognition?that can lead the way in compensating against (if not overturning) the excesses of authoritarian societies. The existence of an open culture and a well developed

public sphere are pre-conditions for a shaping this type of social world, and both can be

achieved through the exercise of deliberation and dialogue. Interestingly, like Calhoun, Goldfarb also echoes themes in Beck's essay when he reminds us that "a critical sociology of culture, as the arts and sciences, broadly understood, points to the practical sphere of

creative activity where the much needed cosmopolitanism is grounded."

The Sociological Imagination: Old and New

We have organized the above-described texts according to their analytical affinities. In "The

Sociological Imagination in History," Bauman and Beck share an explicit recognition of the need to renew sociological imagination, and both successfully attempt to develop elements

of a possible new social theory. Looking at the contemporary world through their

perspective, the practitioner of sociology has the feeling that many of the old concepts inherited from the past are not entirely able to explain reality, but, at the same time, she is

inspired with the sense of intellectual freedom to start creating new analytical strategies and

categories. "The Sociological Imagination from the Early to the Late Twentieth Century" considers new social practices. Boltanski and Chiapello, and Levy all point out the

emergence of a whole new set of behaviors and modes for legitimizing capitalism

(Boltanski and Chiapello), as well as for expanding common forms of representations of the

contemporary world (Levy). Both sets of social practices would not exist if the current

transformation of capitalism and the internet economy had not taken place.

"The Sociological Challenges of the New Millenium" presents the texts of Touraine,

Harvey and Casanova. We have identified a common theme in these papers as "old social

practices meet new social theory" because all three authors cope with invariant aspects of

human social activity. From the struggle to give life and sense of coherence to the

experience of the subject (Touraine), to the continuity and surprising strength of religion (Casanova), through the effort to grasp the experience of the social within a situated

geography, or space (Harvey), these themes have been taken up by many others, but not

necessarily with the present transformations in mind.

"Meeting the Challenge" is devoted to showing how longstanding, or "old social

theories meet new social practices," and by so doing provide a theoretical synthesis of the

4? Springer

122 Int J Polit Cult Soc (2005) 18:113-122

old and the new. Stated slightly differently, the essays by Calhoun and Goldfarb both consider the importance of culture and the existence of a vigorous public sphere as

mechanisms for the creation of solidarity and democracy; and they both offer examples of how these practices can be used to make the contemporary world?with all its challenges? a better place. Certainly, cultural and intellectual practices are not new, but what is new is

the need to articulate them with a creative theory capable of giving culture a role to play in

the construction of free and open polities in an ever globalizing world.

Finally, in the conclusion, Davis?this volume's co-editor?attempts to make an

assessment of the texts from the perspective of contemporary tensions and conflicts and

with a view to the entire world, and not just the United States and Europe. Are the authors

gathered here optimistic or pessimistic about the future; why or why not? Are they offering us a sociological imagination that can address all parts of the globe, or are they neglecting some

geographical areas of the world? In short, Davis is interested in the silences of these texts, and

whether we might be able to correct them with a more expansive look at the global whole.

There is no way to know if, once more, sociology will be able to cope successfully with

the problems of the times and to keep alive its vocation. However one thing is clear: the

cultivation of a new sociological imagination, more creative, open, and accessible to the

public, is the only way to keep alive hope.

? Springer