social transformation, development and globalization

HAL Id: hal-01834448https://hal.univ-rennes2.fr/hal-01834448

Submitted on 10 Jul 2018

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.

Social transformation, development and globalizationHabibul Khondker, Ulrike Schuerkens

To cite this version:Habibul Khondker, Ulrike Schuerkens. Social transformation, development and globalization. 2014,pp.1-14. �10.1177/205684601423�. �hal-01834448�

https://hal.univ-rennes2.fr/hal-01834448

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr

Sociopedia.isa© 2014 The Author(s)

© 2014 ISA (Editorial Arrangement of Sociopedia.isa)Habibul H Khondker and Ulrike Schuerkens, 2014, ‘Social transformation, development and

globalization’, Sociopedia.isa, DOI: 10.1177/205684601423

1

Introduction

Social transformation implies a fundamental changein society, which can be contrasted with social changeviewed as gradual or incremental changes over a peri-od of time. Social change has been the subject of agood part of sociology from Ibn Khaldun of the four-teenth century to Immanuel Wallerstein in the twen-ty-first century. Sociology of development is a field ofstudy in sociology that primarily deals with issues ofdevelopment and change in what is euphemisticallycalled the global South, or in the past as developingcountries. Studies of social transformation encompassa wide range of institutional and cultural changes insociety throughout history. The modalities, causes andconsequences of social change have been contemplat-ed by philosophers and sages from time immemorial.The observation of Heraclitus (c. 535 BC – 475 BC)that ‘you cannot step twice into the same river’ cap-tures the essence of the constancy of change. Changeis eternal. Although the idea of social change is moreor less universal, sometimes there are disagreementson the directionality of change as with the mecha-nisms of change.

In the Judeo-Christian-Islamic (sometimes,referred to as the ‘western’) discourse emanating fromthe ancient Egyptian and Greek civilizations, time wasperceived as an arrow, moving forward in a linear tra-jectory. In the Hindu (Indian) concept, time wascyclical. The epochs, in the Hindu tradition, regressfrom the age of truth (satya yuga) to one of material-ism, sin and corruption (kali yuga). The idea of mil-lenarianism – an epochal change for the good afterimmersing in sin – is shared in a variety of religions.These cosmological differences account for the cultur-al variations in the perceptions of social transforma-tion. In both Confucian and Hindu traditions,change was viewed with trepidation. Vestiges of suchlong-standing traditions are gradually giving way tothe forces of modernization and global transforma-tion. Karl Marx in the nineteenth century was pre-scient in predicting that the forces of moderncapitalism would demolish the Chinese walls. Marxwas heir to the western Enlightenment thought thatmade progress a cornerstone.

abstract This article presents the various theoretical approaches to the study of social transformationand sociology of development since the emergence of this sub-field in sociology. In discussing various par-adigms of social change and social transformation, the article questions the Eurocentric assumptions of aseemingly linear trajectory. In summarizing the developments in the field of sociology of development,this article synthesizes various theoretical strands such as modernization theories, dependency and world-systems theories, and globalization and multiple modernity theories.

keywords globalization ◆ global South ◆ glocalization ◆ social change ◆ sociology of development

Social transformation,development and globalizationHabibul H Khondker Zayed University, UAE

Ulrike Schuerkens École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, France

2

Khondker and Schuerkens Social transformation

Progress and classical sociology

The notion of progress – the continuous unfoldingof improvement in society – was embedded in Greekphilosophy, which influenced the Enlightenmentphilosophy. An alternative enlightenment took placeearlier in the Islamic world between 800 and 1200(Starr, 2013) which did not endure. Sociology as adiscipline was born in the context of the discourseover social progress when European society wasexposed to changes induced by industrialization ofthe nineteenth century. In the writings of Saint-Simon (1760–1825), August Comte (1798–1857),Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), Alexis de Tocqueville(1805–1859) and Karl Marx (1818–1883), thefounding figures of sociology, social change or socialdynamics occupied a central place. Max Weber(1864–1920) and Émile Durkheim (1858–1917)focused a great deal of attention on social change andits consequences, albeit from different theoreticalemphases. The two dominant views on social changeare rooted in the difference between social evolutionand historical social change. For social evolutionists,social change follows a predictable and irreversiblepattern. Society evolves from a simple to a higher,complex stage. This simple-minded view of linearityhas now been replaced by non-linearity and contin-gency. Historians of social transformation, thoughnot always free from the influence of evolutionism,examined social change as a process fraught with ran-dom and unpredictable events. The urban revolutionof the Neolithic period (c. 1500 years BC) and theindustrial revolution of the late eighteenth centurywere transformative (Goody, 1998).

Social revolutions – though with hind-sight lookplausible – often come as surprises. The collapse ofthe ‘really existing’ Soviet socialism was but a recentcase in the closing years of the twentieth century.The end of the socialist system also damaged thecareer of the orthodox Marxist perspective of socialchange. Yet academic Marxist or politico-economicscholarship on macro-historical social change con-tinued to play an important role in the studies ofsocial change (Hobsbawm, 1975; Moore, 1966;Skocpol, 1979; Tilly, 1990; Wallerstein, 1974).Weber’s hermeneutical and comparative historicalinterpretations also introduced a rigorous study ofsocial transformations which emphasized the role ofculture. The works of David Landes (1983, 1998)and anthropological and ethnological research haveprovided considerable evidence and arguments infavour of taking culture seriously.

In developing the theories of social change andmodernization, sociologists (and social scientists ingeneral) draw upon the contributions of classicalsociologists such as the works of those who were

grappling with the rise of the capitalist industrialsociety in the nineteenth century. Their focus was ondifferent aspects of this social transformation. WhileMarx was preoccupied with the new social relationsof exploitation, and predicting a path towards an endof exploitation, Weber was concerned with the para-doxical consequences of modernization and culturaltransformations, and de Tocqueville was examiningthe social circumstances that gave rise to the demo-cratic social order. Durkheim, the first systematicsociologist, examined the social and cultural conse-quences of the growing division of labour and spe-cialization in society brought in by industrialization.The major intellectual figures of the mid-nineteenthand early twentieth centuries were engaged with keyaspects of modernity and the understanding of mod-ern society which became a main concern of sociol-ogy. The master trends of modernization were: amove towards equality (equalization), administrativecentralization (the emergence of state or state-likeorganizations), industrialization, urbanization andthe rise of ‘rationalized bureaucracy’ (Weber). Forthe purpose of contemporary discussions on devel-opment (and modernization), one can see in thisoutlines of notions such as democratization, genderempowerment and issues of governance that rely onstate capacity as well as rationalization and that haveboth a cultural dimension as well as an individualone.

Rise of modernization theories

In the post-Second World War period, sociologiststurned their focus away from the ‘really existing’social transformations and indulged in abstract theo-ry building (Parsons, 1959). In the sociological for-mulations of Talcott Parsons who developed thetheory of structural-functionalism, modernizationwas viewed as adaptation of the social system alongthe western model of social institutions. As a num-ber of social scientists examined the social conse-quences of economic development (Moore, 1965;Smelser, 1959), others sought to explore the culturaland social institutional forces that thwarted develop-ment (Hoselitz, 1952). By then sociology embracedempiricism as a dominant methodological approachbased on a positivistic epistemology.

Since the 1960s, the phenomenon of socialchange in the countries of the South has been a par-ticular discussion topic of social scientists. A greatvariety of approaches can be found. These approach-es began in the 1960s with the theories of modern-ization of Anglo-Saxon origin. During the sameperiod, theories of structural change and a structur-al-functionalist approach were developed.

3


Studies of social change in the twentieth centuryaddressed such issues as social revolutions, the twoWorld Wars, decline of imperialism, rise of the newnation-states, socialism, the Cold War and the col-lapse of the ‘really existing’ socialism. The post-Second World War period has been particularlyfertile for the research and reflections on socialchange in the so-called Third World or what is nowknown as the global South.

Modernization of the global South

Both the temporal and structural aspects of develop-ment in the Southern countries were studied bymodernization theorists. Colonization had animportant influence on the structural changes of thelocal social systems, which had contacts with differ-ent colonial powers since the end of the nineteenthcentury in Asia and Africa and two centuries earlierin Latin America. Change induced by various colo-nial politics consisted of introducing a formal educa-tional system, paid labour and a bureaucratic system(Schuerkens, 2001a). Despite great differencesbetween local autochthonous groups, we can todayfind elites who support a rather identical develop-ment in their respective countries. Although colonialinterventions came from outside the differentregions, changes of the local autochthonous societies– that could have been separated by artificial colonialfrontiers that were maintained after independence –had to be adapted to this model originating fromanother social system that had had an increasinginfluence since the beginning of the twentieth centu-ry (regarding Africa south of the Sahara, seeSchuerkens, 2001b).

The integration of different elements from thissystem with those of local societies happened slowlyand gradually. Today, no groups remain worldwidewhich are not influenced by structures of global, andoften western models thanks to internationalmigrants, the Internet and mass media. The sort ofchange that occurred was dependent on the differentlocal systems and their particular social structures.These societies resisted in different ways and/orchanged important aspects of their social systemsnecessary for their survival because of the growinginfluence of the predominant model of develop-ment. At the same time, these local societies let verydifferent cultural models coexist inside their particu-lar societies (i.e. the important cultural differencesbetween Africa and Asia); models that maintainedand maintain ambivalent links with social structuresimposed from outside their societies that later on sci-entists analyzed as situations characterized by glocalelements (Schuerkens, 2004).

At this point, the element time becomes aninstrument for the analysis of changes that tookplace in these societies (Scott, 2011). The transfor-mation of a social system never concerns all elementsat the same time: several elements change in the ini-tial phase, and force other elements to change untilthe emergence of another structural model can beobserved (Schuerkens, 2001a, 2001b). Often, wecan find a social structure that seems to be character-istic of the development of the societies of the South.Since the 1940s, in particular Africa south of theSahara has been living this structural change withmore or less intensity according to social systems orgroups. Thus, the problem of social change is linkedto an analysis that concerns the interaction of tworather different cultural, political and economic sys-tems since the beginning of the twentieth century inAsia and Africa or even two centuries earlier in LatinAmerica with colonial powers such as France,Britain, Spain and Portugal; and, at the same time,the factor time allows the explanation of numerousphenomena resulting from this interaction (Scott,2011).

Such an approach requires the utilization of otherresearch methods. In order to illustrate the dishar-monies and frictions within Southern societies, itseems important to consider elements that resultfrom the interaction of these societies with societiesbelonging to the global North. If we maintain thatthe interaction of Southern societies with societies ofglobal, and often western culture led to the emer-gence of a new type of social system, despite thestrong influences of former colonial powers, we areconstrained to analyse this development by observ-ing relevant development policies and the change oflocal autochthonous societies.

The colonial modernization

It makes sense to examine the sort of interaction thattook place between individuals, groups and societalstructures in a process of structural change. In thiscase, individual life stories can be considered to bethe expression of a conflict between two structures(Schuerkens, 2001b). During the interaction thattook place for instance in the colonial period, twodifferent social systems confronted one another, butnot on equal terms. The forces of coercion subduedand colonized the ‘natives’. Parts of the social systemsof the dominant power became universal values (for-mal education, bureaucracy, a paid salary, etc.) thatlarge parts of the colonized had to accept and didaccept.

During the analysis of transformation processesof societies and, in particular, processes linked to

4


colonization, this phenomenon can be observed inan astonishing way. Colonization – considered as agradual process of change, and as the developmentproject of a powerful group (e.g. for France andGreat Britain in the former German Togo:Schuerkens, 2001a) – brought about, in a rathershort period of time, a fundamental restructurationof the social systems of African, Asian and LatinAmerican societies. In particular, French coloniza-tion can be considered as an example of suchprocesses of transformation, whereas Great Britaintried to respect parts of local social cultures in itscolonies. The systematic introduction of an econom-ic, political, social and cultural system different fromthose of the African societies implied that the colo-nial powers succeeded in introducing parts of theirstructures and in reaching their objectives.

An analysis of social change that took place insidethe Southern groups has to consider the influence ofthe global western culture in a broad sense on thesesocial systems, and the phenomenon of social changeresulting from the interaction between them. Thisanalysis is rather complex and surpasses theories ofmodernization, which privileged a development inthe direction of the western model without consider-ing particular elements of a given society.Furthermore, it surpasses dependency theories,which tried to explain this change by the externalinfluence of an uneven economic world system.Only an analysis that takes into account these threedimensions will show the social relations and theparticular character of change during the colonialperiod and its effects on actual processes of change(Balandier, 1988).

In general, social scientists using this approachconsider reasons, forms and possible directions ofsocial change. They reflect on the interest of society’smembers to assemble knowledge about past, presentand future by taking into consideration the fact thatit is nearly impossible to explain history completelyor to make more than general predictions of futureevents (Scott, 2011).

Transformation of social structure

Change can be found and analysed in rather limitedgroups, in processes of transformation, which are ofvarying lengths and of varying character, and, if thefactor time is considered, as short- or long-termchange or as continuous or non-continuous change.The sociological explanation of change is related tothe structure that changes and to elements that causethis change. The analysis of social change tries toshow conditions and factors that cause the move-ment of a society from one particular situation to

another (see Schuerkens, 2001b).Two problems can be found here. On the one

hand, elements must be established which are at theorigins of change, and, on the other, original andfinal situations of transformation processes must becharacterized. To tackle transformations means thatthe sociologist or the social anthropologist has toconsider all aspects of a social system that form agiven structure, the mechanisms of selection for dif-ferent actions and the possibility of resulting actions.

Processes may be represented by unique structur-al characteristics that structure a sequence of events.A social process can only be explained and character-ized by the isolation of significant elements thatform a given structure, and by an analysis of theirrelations. A particular moment of a transformationprocess can be demonstrated by linking several ele-ments and their mutual relations. The change of agiven structure or the appearance of two differentstructures represents various periods of social history.Without the concept of structure, social processesand history in its particular aspect of developmentcannot be understood.

The approach of Teune and Mlinar (1978) triedto include these aspects in a theory of social change.This conceptual model can be considered as a heuris-tic framework. Both scholars underline that theypresent a theory that takes into consideration soci-eties of the South and the North, their past, theirpresent and their future. According to them, devel-opment is a characteristic element of all social sys-tems. It is defined by a growing diversity of systemiccomponents, and a further integration of these orother components. Social development takes placebetween the poles of diversity and integration: theextreme point of integration means that the stabilityof different components of a system is so high that acontinuous development, because of the rigidity ofthe structure, is no longer possible. The developmentof a system depends on the interaction betweendiversity and integration, which indicates the particu-lar situation of the social system.

According to the authors, integration is the degreeof probability of a change of characteristics of a spe-cific system, which is caused by the change of its ele-ments (Teune and Mlinar, 1978: 43). Diversity as astructural particularity of a system can be deducedfrom the distribution of the characteristics of a sys-tem’s elements (Teune and Mlinar, 1978: 35). Thus,social development is a process that links the levels ofintegration and diversity (Teune and Mlinar, 1978:44). The growth of these levels means the directionof social development. However, possibilities of dis-integration or stagnancy are not excluded.

According to the authors, the transformation of asystem happens at the moment when the system has

5


attained its limits of diversity and integration. Then,a new principle of integration of a society appears,which, at the same time, represents a transformationof the system and its characteristic structures.Furthermore, the degree of development depends onthe quantity of system elements, which means that ahigher variability of system elements permits a largersystemic change. This process can be imagined in thefollowing way: at a particular instant, a new elementis introduced; this element raises the diversity of thesystem, but reduces its level of integration; differentcomponents of the system accept the new element.

The probability that a new element is producedaccrues. The process that we describe here begins anew cycle with the creation of another element(Teune and Mlinar, 1978: 72). Therefore, each newelement reduces the degree of system integration andraises, at the same time, the total number of its ele-ments (diversity). The new element has to be inte-grated in the system. During this movement, itchanges the links between the different elements.The degree of integration rises according to thedegree of development of the system (Teune andMlinar, 1978: 74ff.). When we return to the concep-tual scheme of transformations, we find that thedevelopment that took place during the colonialperiod in Asia, Africa and Latin America was oftenconceived by making use of evolutionary ideas. Theapproach of France is interesting insofar as this coun-try pursued a development according to a particularmodel, the French one. It is evident that this sort ofdevelopment led in the decades of French coloniza-tion to frictions, breakups and anomic situations.Fifty years after the rapid decolonization of most ofthe countries of Africa south of the Sahara, it isagreed that this development followed a global andeven western pattern (Godelier, 1995: 169, 175),without the disappearance of certain cultural ele-ments of African groups. The problem which hasnow to be tackled is the urgent duty to describe thissort of development, which was conceived and prac-tised by countries such as France, Great Britain,Portugal and Spain, and its unforeseeable effects,which were caused by elements of the cultures of thelocal groups interacting with western models. Today,the question is no longer to find possible ways ofdevelopment, but actual tendencies must be empha-sized, and secondary effects must be analysed.

Critique of modernization theories

Some of the main problems of the post-SecondWorld War sociological studies of modernizationwere – as critics pointed out later – that they were onthe one hand abstract and ahistorical and on the

other hand ethnocentric and used the West as thereferent against which they measured the non-west-ern societies. No theory has come under heavierattack than the Eurocentric modernization theory,which was steeped in the ideology of progress.Modernization was seen as replacement of so-calledtraditional institutions and practices by those of themodern West. The rest of the world, considered‘underdeveloped’ would develop – it was thought –if it followed the western model. Writers such asAndré Gunder Frank (1966), Samir Amin (1974),Fernando Cardoso (1977), Fernando Cardoso andEnzo Faletto (1979) and J Samuel Valenzuela andArturo Valenzuela (1978) strongly criticized suchunilinear and ethnocentric modernization theories.

In the 1970s, as a result of such critiques, mod-ernization theories as such fell into disrepute.Sociologists moved to analyse new problems, formu-lating dependency theory and the world-systems the-ory of Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) and providingdetailed historical accounts of development andunderdevelopment. The main contribution of thisstrand of studies was to bring historical studies ondevelopment back to centre stage. Drawing upon theMarxist-inspired historical debates over the transi-tion from feudalism to capitalism, studies on colo-nial endeavours and empirical studies on thedeveloping world produced a rich literature.Important historical works on development such asKarl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation (1944) orPaul Bairoch’s The Economic Development of theThird World since 1900 (1975) provided a compre-hensive view of social change. AlexanderGerschenkron’s classic study Economic Backwardnessin Historical Perspective: A Book of Essays (1962)focused on late-starters of industrializing Europe.Using industrialization as the hallmark of economicprogress, Gerschenkron examined the role of statesin creating institutions (such as banks) and ideolo-gies (i.e. ideas, dispositions, cultural values) asmotors of economic growth. Socio-economist writ-ing such as Gunnar Myrdal’s Asian Drama (1968) inthree volumes opened up new horizons in compara-tive development studies which placed a good deal ofattention on culture and social values as impedi-ments to economic growth.

As some historically minded sociologists of mod-ernization turned their attention to various socialtrends at a macro level, there were others who soughtto examine changes at the micro, individual level.The work of Alex Inkeles is representative of thisnew development. Inkeles and his associatesembarked on a cross-national study of individualmodernity in the mid-1960s for which they collect-ed data from six countries. With the help of socialpsychologists, Inkeles developed an individual

6


modernity scale, known as the overall modernityindex (OMI), which later attracted a fair amount ofcriticism.

Neo- and multiple modernities

In the closing years of the twentieth century and thefirst decade of the present century, while some soci-ologists were lured by theories such as post-moderni-ty in the wake of the collapse of socialist systems,theories such as neo-modernization and multiplemodernities (Eisenstadt, 2006) or alternative moder-nities emerged. Eisenstadt’s approach of multiplemodernities obtained some influence among sociol-ogists. According to this paradigm, developmentoptions are understood not as a failure or a lack of ageneral model, but as a singular manifestation ofmodernity. The observed variations are consideredby this approach as typical of an overarching frame-work of modernity. The research of these theoristsassumes that one can determine a common core ofsocieties that can characterize a modern, singularsociety and different historical heritages in differentregions, mainly related to major religions(Christianity, Hinduism, etc.). Eisenstadt (2006)claimed that there was more than one modern vari-ety, because the core of modernism was not contentfixed, but reacted dynamically.

This cultural-historical approach is not, however,considered by its critics as sufficient for diverse rea-sons (e.g. Schmidt, 2006), and though the newervariant of research on capitalisms, democracies, orcultural systems goes in the right direction, an over-all, synthesizing macro-sociological perspective isstill lacking, as had been submitted by research onmodernization. It is now assumed that there will beno convergence of countries and regions towards asingle modern pattern or that this has ever been thecase, since not the same institutional solutions are orwere found.

These developments in sociological theoriesanswered some of the charges of ethnocentrism ofthe earlier modernization theories as the new frame-works allowed for examining societies that pursuedmodernity on their own terms, in view of their cul-tural and social specificities. Inglehart and Baker(2000) provided a re-evaluation of modernizationtheories and defended a return of this framework ina modified form. The earlier model of moderniza-tion was one of a singular model that fits all. Thenew approaches motivated by the rise of Japan andother modern societies that followed a different tra-jectory, gave impetus to sociological theorizations.The emergence of Japan as well as other East Asiansocieties and their successful economic systems not

only provided impetus to the rise of the idea of alter-native modernity, it also brought to the fore the issueof culture and social values in explaining economicdevelopment. These developments also created pos-sibilities to empirically examine the propositions ofalternative modernities. It is worthwhile to look atthe propositions of multiple modernities as well as anumber of empirical surveys such as PEW surveysand international Gallup surveys where varioussocial trends are monitored. Here the World ValuesSurvey of Ronald Inglehart of the University ofMichigan is worth mentioning (World Values Surveyof 2005). Such cross-cultural surveys shed valuablelight but they are no substitutes for more in-depthlocalized studies that combine both survey methodsas well as qualitative studies.

The concept of path dependence, which has beenemphasized in recent years by various scientists andresearchers (Beyer, 2005; Goldstone, 1998;Mahoney, 2000) directed attention to contingenthistories and questions of development. This argu-ment is based primarily on the unilinear evolution-ism of Parsons. Shalini Randeria (1999, 2000) hasfurther developed Eisenstadt’s model and speaks of‘entangled modernities’ or woven forms. She propos-es to abandon the idea of parallel evolving manifes-tations of modernity and instead speaks of a modelof interwoven forms that has arisen in the course ofworld history. Today, institutional similarities can befound in various countries which are the results ofimitation, mutual learning and acquisitions.

One can assume that forms of institutions andorganizations can be transferred more easily thanindividual cultural or philosophical aspects.Modernity is thus, according to Shalini Randeria, aglobal arena that constantly looks for exchange, butthis should not necessarily lead to convergent devel-opments. Meanwhile, a variety of studies shows thatthe forms of western modernity cannot be copied orhave ever been copied, but they have been connect-ed with local forms to produce new glocal units, andoften have a specific character, whose structure andfunction may be similar across regions and countries.For example, Hall and Soskice (2001: 60) havedemonstrated that the variants of capitalist develop-ment do not claim against world economic develop-ment, but develop in and with it. However, it shouldbe noted that these global processes remain in theirvarious social dimensions still under-analysed.

Globalization and glocalization

Broadening the scope of modernization and develop-ment studies, theories of globalization emerged inthe last two decades of the twentieth century

7


(Nederveen Pieterse, 2006, 2012; Robertson, 1992;Robertson and Khondker, 1998; Therborn, 2000;Turner and Khondker, 2010). Globalization meantan intensification of global processes and structures.Themes of connectivity, diversity and unevennessaddressed in the multiple modernization and theworld-systems theories were incorporated into theglobalization theories (Lechner and Boli, 2000,2004). At least four strands of globalization theoriesshape the discussion of social transformation in thefirst decade of the twenty-first century: globalizationas a transhistorical process (Robertson, 1992;Therborn, 2000), as global modernization (Giddens,1994), as critical discourse of neoliberal globalization(Appelbaum and Robinson, 2005; Stiglitz, 2002)and as glocalization (Robertson, 1995). According tothe dictionary meaning, the term ‘glocal’ and theprocess noun ‘glocalization’ are ‘formed by telescop-ing global and local to make a blend’ (The OxfordDictionary of New Words, 1991: 134 quoted inRobertson, 1995: 28). The term was modelled onthe Japanese word dochakuka, which originallymeant adapting farming techniques to one’s ownlocal condition. In the business world, the idea wasadopted to refer to global localization. The word aswell as the idea came from Japan (Robertson, 1995:28). According to Wordspy, glocalization means ‘thecreation of products or services intended for theglobal market, but customized to suit the local cul-tures’ (www.wordspy.com/words/). Although theterm glocalization has come into frequent use sincethe late 1980s, there were several cognate terms thatsocial scientists used and continue to use. One suchrelated word, which has been in use in the social sci-ences and related fields for quite some time, is indi-genization.

Some social scientists claimed that social sciencessuch as sociology and political science, even psychol-ogy, were products of western social experiences,therefore when these fields of enquiry were trans-ported and transplanted to non-European or non-western contexts such as Latin America, Asia, orAfrica there was a need for indigenization of thesesubjects. The idea of indigenization has created quitea bit of controversy among social scientists because itraises fundamental questions about the generalizabil-ity of social scientific ideas and concepts. However,we suggest that indigenization can be seen as similarto localization. In both concepts, there is an assump-tion of an original or authentic ‘locality’, or ‘indige-nous system’ – an assumption that may notwithstand critical scrutiny.

One of the consequences of globalization is thatit opens up doubts about the originality and authen-ticity of cultures. If one takes a long-term view ofglobalization, ‘locality’ or ‘local’ itself is a conse-

quence of globalization. Today, there are hardly anylonger sites or cultures in the sense of societies thatcan be seen as isolated or unconnected from global,transnational processes.

Robertson, one of the pioneers in the study ofglobalization, did not view globalization as a recentphenomenon nor did he see it as a consequence ofmodernization. The theories of modernization cameunder serious attack in sociology because of suchassumptions as unilinearity and convergence. As ourknowledge of the world increased, many writerspointed out that those cultural differences are not allthat superficial, and non-linearity and multi-lineari-ty are better descriptions of global modernity. Socialsciences in order to claim scientific status cannotafford to forfeit their claim to universality and uni-versal knowledge. However, social sciences must becontext sensitive but not context dependent. It is inthis sense that Robertson conceptualized globaliza-tion in the twentieth century as ‘the interpenetrationof the universalization of particularization and the par-ticularization of universalism’ (Robertson, 1992: 100,emphasis in the original). Building on Robertson’sframework, Khondker (2004) argued that globaliza-tion or/and glocalization should be seen as an inter-dependent process. The problem of simultaneousglobalization of the local and the localization ofglobality can be expressed as the twin processes ofmacro-localization and micro-globalization.

Macro-localization involves expanding theboundaries of locality as well as making some localideas, practices and institutions global. The rise ofworldwide religious or ethnic revivalist movementscan be seen as examples of macro-localization.Micro-globalization involves incorporating certainglobal processes into the local setting. Considersocial movements such as the feminist movements orecological movements or consider new productiontechniques or marketing strategies, which emerge incertain local contexts. Over a period, these practicesspread far beyond that locality into a larger spatialand historical arena. Or, consider the print industryor computer industry: a specific location of its emer-gence has now become a global phenomenon.Overcoming space is thus globalization in a certainsense. In this view of globalization, globalization is atthe same time glocalization. This view is somewhatdifferent from the way Giddens conceptualizes therelationship between the global and the local.Globalization, for Giddens, ‘is the reason for therevival of local cultural identities in different parts ofthe world’ (Giddens, 2000: 31). While in this viewthe local is the provider of the response to the forcesthat are global, we argue that the local itself is con-stituted globally.

The main propositions of glocalization are not

8


too different from the main arguments of a nuancedversion of globalization. (1) Diversity is the essenceof social life; (2) globalization does not erase all localdifferences even in the long run; (3) autonomy ofhistory and culture gives a sense of uniqueness to theexperiences of groups of people whether we definethem as cultures, societies, or nations; (4) glocaliza-tion and the research results linked to this strandremove the fear from many that globalization is likea tidal wave erasing all differences and flattening theworld. Nevertheless, there are still a number of pop-ular books (Friedman, 2005) and articles on the sub-ject of globalization that give the impression that it isa force that creates a uniform world, a world wherebarriers disappear and cultures become amalgamatedinto a global whole.

As we have entered the third millennium, manyof the age-old problems of differences of cultures andreligion remain. Glocalization promises a more his-torically grounded understanding of the complex,interconnected, uneven world.

Globalization is not westernization

Some writers view globalization as the worldwidespread of ‘westernization’. This view is either erro-neous or contains only partial truth. From a superfi-cial point of view, various processes outwardly seemthat the world is, indeed, becoming westernized.One can look to the popularity of western music,movies and ‘McDonald’s’ as examples of westerniza-tion. More and more countries play the top hits ofthe US pop chart, and Hollywood movies and US-made television serials became ubiquitous to theextent that some writers use the term‘Americanization’ to describe these processes of cul-tural transmission. This notion originally reflectedcontinental European reactions to American-stylemass consumption.

However, a closer look will reveal that these cul-tural goods have different meanings in different soci-etal and cultural contexts with uneven impact onclasses and age groups. Some rare products are con-sumed without any modification, most are modifiedand indigenized to suit the local contexts of under-standing, and there are exceptional situations wherethe intentions are completely inverted. For example,McDonald’s adapts its food to local eating habitssuch as in India or China; popular cultural productshave been deterritorialized and gain meanings in thelocal contexts that are varied.

In the past, many writers found it necessary todistinguish modernization from westernization.Modernization was believed to be a set of culturalpractices and social institutional features that histor-

ically evolved in Europe and North America, com-monly referred to as the West. The need to separatewesternization from modernization was motivatedmore by nationalism than pure intellectual reasons,because historically speaking, most of the moderncultural traits began in the West, a historical fact thatwas difficult to accommodate in a nationalistic polit-ical culture. The western scholars in the nineteenthcentury were also guilty of making exaggeratedclaims of western superiority. Max Weber, a Germansociologist, was correct to claim that western ration-ality and science had become a universal characteris-tic element of modernity. Many Indian sociologiststook pains to delineate the differences between mod-ernization and westernization. Similar discussionsexist with regard to so-called westernization of theOttoman Empire, the modernization of Japan sincethe Meiji restoration of 1868, or the modernizationof China in the early part of the twentieth centurysuch as the May 4th Movement of 1919. In theselate modernization processes, many societies wereborrowing ideas, knowledge and technology, most ofwhich were generated in the early modernized soci-eties in Western Europe. However, the geography ofthe West kept shifting. In the nineteenth century,when Germany was modernizing, the idea of theWest was limited to Western Europe (mainly Britainand France). In some post-colonial situations, thedemarcation was based more on political expedience(former colonies in Asia and Africa) than logical orintellectual merit. The distancing from westerniza-tion can also be understood as a reaction to centuriesof domination and exploitation of the formercolonies by the western (mainly European) powers.However, over time a more objective considerationof history indicates that many of the traits thatspread worldwide originated in certain geographicalregions. Yet as these traits were transplanted else-where, they became mutated and assumed differentforms in various contexts. For example, the roots ofrepresentative democracy in England go back to theMagna Carta of 1215. However, as Westminster-style parliamentary democracy was institutionalizedin India, Malaysia and other former British colonies,it mutated in light of the local social and culturalmilieu.

Westernization as a term is not equivalent toglobalization. Nevertheless, westernization can beseen as an aspect of globalization. Certain institu-tional features and cultural traits that originated inthe West were put in place in many other geograph-ical regions, lock, stock and barrel, under the frame-work of global interconnections and diffusion orforced implantation under colonialism. Yet overtime, these institutions and practices mutated andassumed new meanings. Therefore, westernization

9


can be seen as the beginning of the process. The cul-tural features, borrowed or imitated themselves,mutated in the source countries as well. Thus, west-ernization as a category has limited conceptual value.One can associate certain literary forms, genres andtraits as part of the cultural zone we vaguely call ‘theWest’, yet these are mere influences as one can see inartistic, literary and architectural styles.

Convergence or divergence?

Writers such as John Meyer have used the idea of iso-morphism (a term borrowed from botany), whichmeans replication of the same form yet separatedfrom the main source. His research has shown thatmodern education – not western education, thoughit was perhaps modified and institutionalized in theWest – has spread worldwide and a similar set of val-ues and practices have emerged in diverse settings inglobalized universities unified by a common focuson rationality and empirical studies. Some institu-tions are increasingly becoming glocalized aroundthe world, as people try to cope with problems andchallenges from financial to ecological crises.

We have shown here that one can no longer speakof a change of institutions in the direction of a glob-al pattern. Instead, one can find transnationalprocesses that should be examined more closely inglobalization studies in order to demonstratetransnational connections of individuals, organiza-tions, companies, or countries that have increased inthe last decades. States have, for example, expandedtheir ability to control people through transnationalspaces (Interpol). They have supported interactions,ideologies and institutions; the hierarchies of gender,ethnicity and class within nations have expandedacross states. Transnational spaces, which are com-posed of real and virtual social spaces, exist acrossnation-states. Individuals, groups and organizationsalso expand beyond these areas (Boccagni, 2012).

Today, one cannot deny that empirical findingson individual measurable indicators such as GDP,life expectancy and literacy rate suggest convergence,as Schmidt (2007) has emphasized. Yet, these figureshide similar but different institutions and systems,and show qualitative differences that cannot be over-looked. One can for example point to the variousforms of capitalism in Western Europe, Japan andChina, which indicate that cultural factors receivetheir own specific expression (e.g. in the dimensionof individualism/collectivism or under ethical con-cepts). One may also refer to social globalization,measurable through personal contacts (tourism, tele-phone traffic, residing abroad) and informationflows (Internet users, the number of television

stations, the number of newspapers); cultural simi-larities, such as the number of McDonald’s restau-rants, Ikea shops and the book trade (Dreher, 2006;Dreher et al., 2008), can be found. One might thinkthat these measurements are threatening the culturesof the South. But are we measuring social aspects ofglobalization? It seems instead as if transnational net-works of people living as migrants in other regionsare being described here.

Development trends in the twenty-firstcentury

Since the collapse of the socialist system, the opti-mism of capitalist consolidation and a neoliberalconsensus has come under serious doubt. The finan-cial crises of 1997–8, known as Asian crisis, and2008–9, which has been labelled as the worst globalfinancial crisis since the 1930s, have had significantconsequences on global development and on socioe-conomic transformations in numerous societies ofthe South and the North. The crises were thereminder of the financial interdependencies of thecountries in the world. In 2011–12, the emergentcountries had to cope with feeble demand in thehighly developed countries and the volatile characterof international finances. Global economic weaknessand defiant attitudes of international investors letemerge structural constraints in development ten-dencies in India and China with decreasing econom-ic growth and increasing middle classes. Countriesstrongly linked to the euro region have been veryconcerned with the financial crisis and high unem-ployment. Central and Eastern Europe have benefit-ted from the strong economic situation in Germany.The countries of North Africa have been influencedby the Arab Spring, which meant political turnoversbut difficult economic situations for a region thathas been closely linked to the euro zone in crisis.Africa south of the Sahara has seen high growth rates(4.9% in 2011 including South Africa). Increasingcommercial flows with China have given this regionaccess to dynamic countries in the East, and lessexposure to the situation in European countries. InChina, exports reduced in 2012 compared to 2011(from 24% to 7.6%) (CEPII, 2012: 19), and eco-nomic growth decreased from 9.2 % in 2011 to 8.1% in the first three months of 2012 (CEPII, 2012:19). Yet China has decided to focus on the develop-ment of its interior market where large middle class-es aspire to consume more than in the past.

China’s economic influence in Africa and LatinAmerica is still growing and very important for theindustry in these regions. Cheap industrial productsfrom China are introduced in Southern countries

10


and menace African and Latin American local prod-ucts. As wages are higher in Latin America and partsof Africa south of the Sahara, manufactured productsfrom these regions cannot compete with Chineseproducts on global markets. Local products fromthese regions are rarely sent to China but most oftento other regions in the rest of the world. From 2000to 2010, one can find these changes in exports affect-ing Turkey, Brazil, India and South Africa. The com-petitive character of Chinese industry is animportant challenge for the industrialization ofcountries in the South. Some economists have evensuggested protecting the economies of African coun-tries, for example, against Chinese products (Collier,2008: 169).

At the beginning of 2000, scholars thought thatregions would try to build regional economicunions, such as the USA with Latin America, Europewith Africa, and Japan with some Asian countries.This development was not realized. Today, Africa ishighly linked to China and other Asian countries. Inthe Maghreb region, China has become the principalsupplier of Algeria, replacing France. Regional eco-nomic treaties have been developed in the last decadeand contribute to economic positions in the globaleconomy. In Asia and Africa, commerce is realizedamong South–South partners; in Latin America,commerce is often limited to the sub-region.

South–South exchanges may thus represent hugeparts of the world economy in the coming years sothat North–South links are affected and maydecrease in relation to South–South links. So far, itseems there will be no separation from the South ofthe North due to the interdependencies of all globalregions, but the sense of the North–South relationwill change. The fact that the global economy islinked has meant that the global financial crises hadvarious influences all over the world (see Schuerkens,2012). The rise of China as an important globalplayer has meant that there has been a change in theglobal world caused by a population that representsone-fifth of the world population – a far cry from the3.5% which was the case for the USA compared toGreat Britain at the end of the nineteenth century.

However, one also has to take into account thefact that in today’s world when we look at the high-income countries and/or countries with a high HDI(Human Development Index), it is obvious thatsome of them are the countries where early modern-ization sprang up, or are regions where people fromearly modernizing nations of Europe resettled. Japanremains an historical exception that mobilized itsstate capacity to launch its own development andmodernization in the late nineteenth century follow-ing the Meiji restoration. Other Asian countries thatmade it to the high-income and high HDI group

were following the Japanese model to varying degrees(e.g. Singapore and South Korea). The other high-income economies in the Gulf States used theirhydrocarbon resources (petroleum and gas) and gen-erated wealth to transform their societies and tocatch up with the modern world. In the openingdecade of the twenty-first century, the rise of Brazil,Russia, China, India and South Africa (BRICS) pres-ents another chapter in the history of modernizationwhere highly populated countries have been able toattain economic growth and social developmentrivalling developed countries of the North.

In the closing years of the twentieth century,there has also been a shift of focus from growth ori-ented to well-being oriented approaches to develop-ment. Amartya Sen’s influence cannot be denied inthis realm. The capability approach advanced byAmartya Sen (1999) and Martha Nussbaum (2001)is human centred. Following a shift from compara-tive mega-projects to individual-focused studies,within the segmented and individual-focused capa-bility approach, it is now widely accepted thatenhancing women’s capabilities – what is oftenviewed as gender empowerment – yields many bene-fits to societies. Women as a group have been identi-fied as an important constituency in the discussionof social and cultural development spawning a sub-field of study within development studies, titled‘Women in development’ and ‘Women for develop-ment’ (McMichael, 2007). Thus, the well-being ofwomen has been identified as a goal of developmentwith multiplier beneficial effects for the individualhousehold and society. The idea of microfinance hasevolved through ground-level experiences inBangladesh and elsewhere and is now recognized as auseful tool for uplifting poor women’s socioeconom-ic situation.

Conclusions

The considerations above lead us to present a theoryof connected yet differentiated modernization thatcan be further developed by cultural and structuralcomparisons to identify different constellations ofinstitutions and their relationships. The importanceof culture is weighted differently during the changeof structures. So in today’s global society, cultureplays an important role that is responsible for differ-ent dynamics. Each of these can be characterized bycertain types of societies of the North and the South,or within a society of various cultural milieus. In thissense, we think the multiple modernity approach tocivilizations is too large, but some aspects of the glo-calization debate with its different levels (countries,regions and local contexts) should be underlined in

11


the debate on change and transformation. Thiswould then lead to research that examines institu-tional complexes where culture plays a significantrole.

Eisenstadt’s approach is interesting in terms ofcollective identities of geographic regions, such asLatin America or sub-Saharan Africa, where differentnational societies have distinct identities character-ized by common colonial political influences. Thesesocieties can hardly resist transnational forces thatbring them together again, and the examples of eco-nomic unions such as Mercosur (Mercado Común delSur) or CEDAO (Communauté économique des Étatsde l’Afrique de l’Ouest) show this tendency. Therecent cycles of globalization can thus only be under-stood as transnational flows, such as the AndeanCommunity or ASEAN. These regions that combinevarious states in a group are characterized by transna-tional flows and a partly shared history.

Sanjay Subrahmanyam (1997, 2005) spoke inthis regard of ‘connected histories’, while MichaelWerner and Bénédicte Zimmermann (2002, 2006)coined the term ‘histoire croisée’. This perspectivemakes it possible to take into account mutual influ-ences and resistances, new combinations and trans-formations. These mutual interactions show anetwork of dynamic relationships, defined by certainconnections from one to the other. A transnationalperspective that exceeds migration processes is there-fore to be welcomed in the study of transformationsand development(s). Today, we realize more andmore that international groupings and agreementscome up like mushrooms out of the ground. Theconcepts of globalization and transnationalismdefine lines of research that exist in parallel. Theyintroduce practices across borders, social networksthat exist or have existed prior to the globalization ofthe last 30 years and that made possible a movementof ideas and people which can be analysed. Such aperspective allows us now to understand how thecultural history of macro-regions is connected, howit might affect collective identities, and characterizethe social, political and cultural forces of a society.

Annotated further reading

McMichael P (2012) Development and Social Change: AGlobal Perspective. Pine Forge, CA: Sage.A good overview of social change from an economicperspective of long-term historical change fromdevelopment to globalization.

Schuerkens U (ed.) (2003) Global Forces and Local Life-Worlds: Social Transformations. London, Delhi andThousand Oaks, CA: Sage.The first chapter is an excellent introduction intoresearch on globalization and localization in

sociology and anthropology. How are global forcesimpacting on local lifestyles? Where does thepersonal stand in relation to globalization? GlobalForces and Local Life-Worlds explores these questionsusing a mixture of sociological and anthropologicalanalysis and case study methods. Demonstrating thetensions of retaining cultural integrity in the face ofthe levelling processes associated with modernity, thisbook locates the problems of globalization andlocalization in the appropriate anthropological andsociological dimensions; examines the relationshipbetween culture and identity; and explores thevarieties of modernity.

Turner B and Khondker HH (2010) Globalization Eastand West. London: Sage. Do we confuse globalization for Americanization?What are the distinctive elements in the interplay ofthe local and the global? This much-needed book isthe first full-length text to examine globalizationfrom the perspective of both the West and the East.It considers globalization as a general social andeconomic process, and the challenges it presents forwestern social science. The meaning of a globalperspective is explored through various concreteexamples: religion, migration, medicine, terrorism,global disasters, citizenship, multiculturalism, mediaand popular culture. Introduced with a forewordfrom Roland Robertson, the book is brimming withnovel interpretations and fresh insights that willcontribute to illuminating the practical realities ofglobalization.

References

Alexander JC and Sztompka P (eds) (1990) RethinkingProgress, Movements, Forces, and Ideas at the End of the20th Century. London and Boston, MA: UnwinHyman.

Amin S (1974) Accumulation on a World Scale: ACritique of the Theories of Underdevelopment. NewYork: Monthly Review Press.

Appadurai A (1996) Modernity at Large: CulturalDimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press.

Appelbaum R and Robinson WI (2005) CriticalGlobalization Studies. New York: Routledge.

Bairoch P (1975) The Economic Development of the ThirdWorld since 1900. London: Methuen.

Balandier G (1988) Le Désordre, éloge du mouvement.Paris: Fayard.

Berger PL and Huntington SP (eds) (2002) ManyGlobalizations: Cultural Diversity in the ContemporaryWorld. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beyer J (2005) Pfadabhängigkeit ist nicht gleichPfadabhängigkeit Wider den implizitenKonservatismus eines gängigen Konzepts. Zeitschriftfür Soziologie 34(1): 5–21.

Boccagni P (2012) rethinking transnational studies:Transnational ties and the transnationalism of

12


everyday life. Social Theory 15(1): 117–32.Cardoso FH (1977) The Originality of the Copy: ECLA

and the Idea of Development. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, Centre for Latin American Studies.

Cardoso FH and Faletto E (1979) Dependency andDevelopment in Latin America. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

CEPII (2012) L’Économie mondiale 2013. Paris: LaDécouverte.

Collier P (2008) The Bottom Billion. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Dreher A (2006) Does globalization affect growth?Evidence from a new index of globalization. AppliedEconomics 38(10): 1091–110.

Dreher A, Gaston N and Martens P (2008) MeasuringGlobalization: Gauging its Consequences. New York:Springer.

Eisenstadt SN (2006) Multiple Moderne im Zeitalter derGlobalisierung. In: Schwinn T (ed.) Die Vielfalt undEinheit der Moderne. Kultur- undstrukturvergleichende Analysen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlagfür Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 37–62.

Frank AG (1966) Development of underdevelopment.Monthly Review 18: 17–30.

Friedman T (2005) The World is Flat. New York: Farrar,Strauss, and Giroux.

Gerschenkron A (1962) Economic Backwardness inHistorical Perspective: A Book of Essays. Cambridge,MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Giddens A (1994) Beyond Right and Left. Cambridge:Polity.

Giddens A (2000) Runaway World. New York:Routledge.

Godelier M (1995) L’anthropologie sociale est-elleindissolublement liée à l’Occident, sa terre natale?Revue Internationale des Sciences Sociales 47, 143(1):165–83.

Goldstone JA (1998) Initial conditions, general laws,path dependence, and explanation in historicalsociology. American Journal of Sociology 104(3):829–45.

Goody J (1998) Food and Love: A Cultural History of Eastand West. London: Verso.

Hall PA and Soskice D (eds) (2001) Varieties ofCapitalism: The Institutional Foundations ofComparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Hannerz U (1989) Culture between center andperiphery: Towards a macroanthropology. Ethnos54(3–4): 200–16.

Hobsbawm E (1975) The Age of Capital. London:Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Hoselitz BF (1952) Non-economic barriers to economicdevelopment. Economic Development and CulturalChange 1(1): 8–21.

Inglehart R (2005) World Values Survey of 2005. AnnArbor: Center for Social Research: University ofMichigan.

Inglehart R and Baker WE (2000) Modernization,cultural change and the persistence of traditionalvalues. American Sociological Review 65(1): 19–51.

Inkeles A and Smith DH (1966) Becoming Modern.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Khondker HH (2004) Glocalization as globalization:Evolution of a sociological concept. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology 1(2).

Landes D (1983) Revolution in Time: Clocks and theMaking of the Modern World. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Landes D (1998) The Wealth and Poverty of the Nations.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lechner F and Boli J (2000, 2004) The GlobalizationReader, 1st and 2nd edns. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

McMichael P (2007) Development and Social Change: AGlobal Perspective, 4th edn. Los Angeles, London,New Delhi and Singapore: Pine Forge Press.

Mahoney J (2000) Path dependence in historicalsociology. Theory and Society 29(4): 507–48.

Meyer JW (2005) Weltkultur. Wie die westlichenPrinzipien die Welt durchdringen. Frankfurt a.M.:Suhrkamp.

Moore WE (1965) The Impact of Industry. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Moore B (1966) The Social Origins of Dictatorship andDemocracy. Boston: Beacon Press.

Myrdal G (1968) Asian Drama: An Inquiry into thePoverty of Nations, 3 vols. New York: HarperBrothers.

Nederveen Pieterse J (2006) Oriental globalization: Pastand present. In: Delanty G (ed.) Europe and AsiaBeyond East and West. London: Routledge, pp.15–37.

Nederveen Pieterse J (2012) Periodizing globalization:Histories of globalization. New Global Studies 6(2)Article 1.

Nussbaum M (2001) Women and Human Development:The Capabilities Approach. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Parsons T (1959) Structure and Process in Modern Society.New York: Free Press.

Polanyi K (1944) The Great Transformation. New York:Rinehart.

Randeria S (1999) Geteilte Geschichte und verwobeneModerne. In: Rüsen J, Leitgeb H and Jegelka N (eds)Zukunftsentwürfe. Ideen für eine Kultur derVeränderung. Frankfurt a.M. and New York:Campus, pp. 87–96.

Randeria S (2000) Jenseits von Soziologie undsoziokultureller Anthropologie. Zur Ortsbestimmungder nicht-westlichen Welt in einer zukünftigenSozialtheorie. In: Beck U and Kieserling A (eds)Ortsbestimmungen der Soziologie. Wie die kommendeGeneration Gesellschaftswissenschaften betreiben wird.Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 41–50.

Ringmar E (2009 [2005]) The Mechanics of Modernity inEurope and East Asia: Institutional Origins of SocialChange and Stagnation. London: Routledge.

Robertson R (1987) Globalization theory andcivilizational analysis. Comparative CivilizationsReview 17(1): 20–30.

Robertson R (1992) Globalization: Social Theory andGlobal Culture. London: Sage.

13


Robertson R (1995) Glocalization: Time-space andhomogeneity-heterogeneity. In: Featherstone M, LashS and Robertson R (eds) Global Modernities.London: Sage, pp. 25–44.

Robertson R and Khondker HH (1998) Discourses ofglobalization. International Sociology 13(1): 25–40.

Roniger L (2011) Connected histories, power andmeaning: Transnational forces in the construction ofcollective identities. Journal of Classical Sociology11(3): 251–68.

Schmidt VH (2006) Multiple modernities or varieties ofmodernity? Current Sociology 54(1): 77–97.

Schmidt VH (2007) One world, one modernity. In:Schmidt VH (ed.) Modernity at the Beginning of the21st Century. Newcastle: Cambridge ScholarsPublishing, pp. 205–28.

Schuerkens U (2001a) Du Togo allemand aux Togo etGhana indépendants: Changement social sous régimecolonial. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Schuerkens U (2001b) Transformationsprozesse in derElfenbeinküste und in Ghana: Eine historisch-vergleichende Analyse des Verhältnisses vonLebensgeschichten und strukturellenWandlungsprozessen. Münster: Lit.

Schuerkens U (ed.) (2003) Social transformations betweenglobal forces and local life-worlds. Special issue ofCurrent Sociology 51(3/4).

Schuerkens U (ed.) (2004) Global Forces and Local Life-worlds: Social Transformations. Monograph bookseries: Sage Studies in International Sociology.London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage.

Schuerkens U (ed.) (2005) Social transformations andtransnational migrations. Special issue of CurrentSociology 53(2/4).

Schuerkens U (ed.) (2007) Globalization andTransformations of Local Socio-economic Practices.London and New York: Routledge.

Schuerkens U (ed.) (2010) Globalization andTransformations of Social Inequality. London and NewYork: Routledge.

Schuerkens U (ed.) (2012) Socioeconomic Outcomes of theGlobal Financial Crisis: Theoretical Discussion andEmpirical Case Studies. London and New York:Routledge.

Schulz M (ed.) (1997) Entwicklung: Theorie – Empirie –Strategie. Festschrift für Volker Lühr. Münster: Lit.

Schwinn T (2005) Weltgesellschaft, multiple Moderneund die Herausforderungen für die soziologische

Theorie. Plädoyer für eine mittlere Abstraktionshöhe.In: Heintz B, Münch R and Tyrell H (eds)Weltgesellschaft. Theoretische Zugänge und empirischeProblemlagen. Stuttgart: Lucius, pp. 205–22.

Schwinn T (ed.) (2006) Die Vielfalt und Einheit derModerne. Kultur- und strukturvergleichende Analysen.Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwisenschaften.

Scott J (2011) Conceptualizing the Social World: Principlesof Social Analysis. Cambridge and New York:Cambridge University Press.

Sen A (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Skocpol T (1979) States and Social Revolutions. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Smelser N (1959) Social Change in the IndustrialRevolution. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Starr F (2013) Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s GoldenAge From the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Stiglitz J (2002) Globalization and its Discontents. NewYork: W.W. Norton.

Subrahmanyam S (1997) Connected histories: Notestowards a reconfiguration of early modern Eurasia.Modern Asian Studies 31(3): 735–62.

Subrahmanyam S (2005) Explorations in ConnectedHistory: From the Tagus to the Ganges. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Teune H and Mlinar Z (1978) The Development Logic ofSocial Systems. Beverly Hills, CA and London: Sage.

Therborn G (2000) Globalization. International Sociology15(2): 151–79.

Tilly C (1990) Coercion, Capital and European States, AD900–1990. Oxford: Blackwell.

Turner B and Khondker HH (2010) Globalization Eastand West. London: Sage.

Valenzuela JS and Valenzuela A (1978) Modernizationand dependency: Alternative perspectives in the studyof Latin American underdevelopment. ComparativePolitics 10(4): 535–57.

Wallerstein I (1974) The Modern World-Systems. NewYork: Academic Press.

Werner M and Zimmermann B (2002) Vergleich,Transfer, Verflechtung: Der Ansatz der Histoire croiséeund die Herausforderung des Transnationalen.Geschichte und Gesellschaft 28: 607–36.

Werner M and Zimmermann B (2006) Beyondcomparison: Histoire croisée and the challenge ofreflexivity. History and Theory 45(1): 30–50.

Habibul Haque Khondker is professor at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciencesat Zayed University, Abu Dhabi, UAE. He was educated at the University of Dhaka, CarletonUniversity, Ottawa and the University of Pittsburgh and has taught at the National Universityof Singapore. [email: [email protected]]

Ulrike Schuerkens is senior lecturer at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris,France. She holds PhDs in sociology, and social anthropology and ethnology. She received herHabilitation from the University Paris 5. Ulrike is the current president of ISA-RC 09 SocialTransformations and Sociology of Development. [email: [email protected]]

14


résumé Cet article présente les multiples approches théoriques des études sur les transformationssociales et la sociologie du développement depuis la création de cette subdiscipline de la sociologie. Endiscutant des paradigmes variés du changement social et des transformations sociales, l’article met enquestion les idées d’une trajectoire apparemment linéaire. En résumant les approches dans le domaine dela sociologie du développement, l’article synthétise plusieurs approches théoriques comme celles desthéories de la modernisation, de la dépendance, du système-monde, de la mondialisation et desmodernités multiples.

mots-clés changement social ◆ glocalisation ◆ mondialisation ◆ sociologie du développement ◆ sudmondial

resumen Este articulo presenta diferentes enfoques teóricos sobre el estudio de la transformación socialy la sociología del desarrollo desde los inicios de esta área de la sociología. Abordando diversos paradigmasde cambio social y transformación social, el artículo se pregunta sobre las hipótesis Eurocéntricas de unatrayectoria aparentemente lineal. Resumiendo los desarrollos en el campo de la sociología del desarrollo,este artículo sintetiza diversas corrientes teóricas como, teorías de la modernización, teorías de ladependencia y del sistema-mundo, y teorías de la globalización y de las modernidades múltiples.

palabras claves cambio social ◆ globalización ◆ glocalización ◆ sociología del desarrollo ◆ sur global

social transformation, development and globalization

Documents