**2. World society: elementary breaks with traditional thinking styles in sociology**

The formative idea of social science production in the nineteenth century was the discovery of 'society'. The twenty-first century is faced with the task of saying *farewell* to traditional ways of thinking, to all 'homeland theories of society' [10] and instead to reconsider the 'world reference' of the social [11] against the fixed idea of 'self-containedness', 'territorial enclosure' and 'boundedness' (of societies, states, cultures, and identities). This farewell to traditional thinking styles of sociology and reconsidering of the 'world reference' of the social, establishes an ad hoc connection to the concept of globality. This plays a role in many theoretical conceptualizations of world society.

The term of globality implicated three elementary fractions with the thinking styles of classical sociology as a new—and for all social relations relevant—*sense and operational framework*: firstly it caused the separation of class-structural systems and its classification systems through identity-political aspirations; secondly it caused — the globe and the global —an identification pattern that is contrary to national symbolism and rhetoric and is focussed on transnational structure formation taking the place of territorially defined value orientations and related ideas of enclosed spaces, historical resistance and social cohesion; and thirdly, it meant the rejection of *deterministic globalization narratives by profound sociological analysis*, which may reveal the specific embedding of culture and economy as well as technology in structures of social relations. World society as the sum of social relations is the result of historical development [12].

The scientific issue of whether and on which structural formations a world or global society is recognizable, is one that has to be answered by sociologists in the twenty-first century. While it is for Martin Albrow [13] a 'society beyond boundaries', other approaches in their theoretical programme, for example, aim for the concept of movement and state a 'sociology beyond societies' Urry [14]. John Urry dares to suggest the most demanding attempt to design a new agenda for sociology, whose main concept — that of human society — has been lost. He inserts in that empty space, which the concept of sotciety leaves behind, conceptual terms such as *networking, mobility* or *horizontal fluids*. The concept of society as a region is here substituted by *networks* and *fluids* [15].

as citizenship can be organized. The distinction of knowledge areas resulting from the power of functional differentiation creates global expert systems that in turn affirm global isomorphies [26]. The *fourth* theoretical approach, developed in the 1970s, is that of the world-system by Immanuel Wallerstein. This is one of the most outspoken critiques of the categorical state-

World Society: An Ice-Breaker for a Global Shift in Sociology?

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75048

7

Immanuel Wallerstein [29] rejects the concept of society and opposes equating the concept with that of the state by arguing that if we also alter the limits of society by changing state borders, how can we justify that the legitimacy of a government determined by a society is different from the rule of legitimacy as provided by a state? In his view the concept of society should give us something solid on which we can build. He then subsequently equates the singular concept of society with that of the capitalist world economy by stating that only our society, the capitalist world economy (and even that is only a partial contract-defined entity),

The focus of the world-system approach is the perception of capitalism as a geographically extensive and historically distinctive system. In this sense, the global space is not conceptualized through a state-centrist list of words such as society or culture, but is seen as a *modern world system*. The emphasis here is not states but empires. Modern states are not the original framework in which historical development took place. It would make more sense if we imagine them as a particular set of social institutions within the world capitalist economy. Furthermore, the latter is the context in which and from which we can analyse structures, conjunctures and events [31]. The specific logic of the capitalist world system is firstly the result of a spatial mismatch of economic structures and secondly due to political and cultural arrangements. The modern world-system is divided in terms of supranational zones of centre, semi-periphery and periphery; on the other hand, states are those geographic base units from which these zones are constructed. There are territorial states which undergo positional battles for their locus in the centre-periphery structure [32]. A major criticism of the world-system approach is that of economic reductionism; the approach stands for the carelessness towards other sub- or

This analysis of the world-system was intended to be a critique of nineteenth century social science; it remained, however, according to Immanuel Wallerstein [34] an *incomplete, unfinished critique*. In this sense, he argues in his book 'Unthinking Social Science: The Limits of Nineteenth Century Paradigms' [35] for a reorganization of the social sciences by demonstrating the limitations of nineteenth century paradigms. He considers the overcoming of the misleading but lasting legacy of social science—the division of social analysis into three levels: the economic, the political and socio-cultural—as a key challenge of the present: This trinity obstructs the way like a granite block that impedes our intellectual development [36]. Immanuel Wallerstein considers the global structure and the processes of its development to

The four approaches of sociology that have developed since 1970 which turned their thematic focus on world society have, in spite of their different theoretical conceptualizations, one common denominator: they establish elementary breaks with traditional thinking styles in sociology.

centrism, for which reason the concept of society no longer has any function [27, 28].

created our diverse meaningful communities [30].

transnational phenomena [33].

be *the* central agenda of social science research in the future.

At this point it is worth noting that the world had already been selected by some sociologists as the primary frame of reference for analysis decades earlier, that what now due to global processes is formulated as a contemporary requirement for the sociological discipline is, strictly speaking, a reformulation of approaches that already exist. In fact, 50 years ago a few sociologists chose the world as a benchmark for their analyses. Decades before 1989, explicitly in the 1970s, four theoretical approaches were already relatively independently formulated in sociology, which focused on the topic of world society. Among these approaches are the stratificatory approach to world society by Peter Heintz, the sociological systems theory by Niklas Luhmann, the worldpolity approach by John Meyer, and the world system analyses by Immanuel Wallerstein.

In the *first* approach of Peter Heintz [16], world society is designed as a global field of interaction. At the centre of his conceptualization is the issue of the internationalization of inequality. The formation of a global stratification system after the end of World War II is here the central assumption. This is systematized in accordance with the concept of development, so that all people and countries worldwide are included in this field of activity.

The *second* theoretical approach that of sociological systems theory by Niklas Luhmann, comes to the adoption of the *old European* related concept of society on statehood, territoriality and normative integration. At this point, modern society is understood as an effect of an evolutionary new formation of systems, which have functional differentiation as a basis.

Society forms here as a comprehensive and inclusive communication connection in the context of all parts and functional systems—which indeed fulfil social functions, but have no place in the conceptual framework of the term of society. Neither is there a functional primacy of a subsystem, nor do spatial boundaries exist. The limits of communication are also the limits of society, and world society is to be understood in terms of the functions, requirements and results of functional differentiation [17–21].

The *third* approach to world society in this period was developed by John Meyer and his research group at Stanford University in California. The intended research target can be described in this context as exploring in the axiomatic horizon of world society the geographical diffusion of institutional patterns and structural similarities which are realized over compulsion, imitation and normative pressure [22–25].

The main focus at this point is the concept of world polity that is to be understood as a broad cultural regulatory framework of occidental origin which caused processes of global homogenization.

The world-polity approach boils down to conceptualizing the world as a unified system that provides the context for the description of *globally circulating knowledge and standard stocks that equip the elites of the world with recipes and blueprints* on the basis of which the state and society as well as citizenship can be organized. The distinction of knowledge areas resulting from the power of functional differentiation creates global expert systems that in turn affirm global isomorphies [26].

beyond societies' Urry [14]. John Urry dares to suggest the most demanding attempt to design a new agenda for sociology, whose main concept — that of human society — has been lost. He inserts in that empty space, which the concept of sotciety leaves behind, conceptual terms such as *networking, mobility* or *horizontal fluids*. The concept of society as a region is here sub-

At this point it is worth noting that the world had already been selected by some sociologists as the primary frame of reference for analysis decades earlier, that what now due to global processes is formulated as a contemporary requirement for the sociological discipline is, strictly speaking, a reformulation of approaches that already exist. In fact, 50 years ago a few sociologists chose the world as a benchmark for their analyses. Decades before 1989, explicitly in the 1970s, four theoretical approaches were already relatively independently formulated in sociology, which focused on the topic of world society. Among these approaches are the stratificatory approach to world society by Peter Heintz, the sociological systems theory by Niklas Luhmann, the worldpolity approach by John Meyer, and the world system analyses by Immanuel Wallerstein.

In the *first* approach of Peter Heintz [16], world society is designed as a global field of interaction. At the centre of his conceptualization is the issue of the internationalization of inequality. The formation of a global stratification system after the end of World War II is here the central assumption. This is systematized in accordance with the concept of development, so that all

The *second* theoretical approach that of sociological systems theory by Niklas Luhmann, comes to the adoption of the *old European* related concept of society on statehood, territoriality and normative integration. At this point, modern society is understood as an effect of an evolutionary new formation of systems, which have functional differentiation as a basis.

Society forms here as a comprehensive and inclusive communication connection in the context of all parts and functional systems—which indeed fulfil social functions, but have no place in the conceptual framework of the term of society. Neither is there a functional primacy of a subsystem, nor do spatial boundaries exist. The limits of communication are also the limits of society, and world society is to be understood in terms of the functions, requirements

The *third* approach to world society in this period was developed by John Meyer and his research group at Stanford University in California. The intended research target can be described in this context as exploring in the axiomatic horizon of world society the geographical diffusion of institutional patterns and structural similarities which are realized over com-

The main focus at this point is the concept of world polity that is to be understood as a broad cultural regulatory framework of occidental origin which caused processes of global

The world-polity approach boils down to conceptualizing the world as a unified system that provides the context for the description of *globally circulating knowledge and standard stocks that equip the elites of the world with recipes and blueprints* on the basis of which the state and society as well

people and countries worldwide are included in this field of activity.

and results of functional differentiation [17–21].

pulsion, imitation and normative pressure [22–25].

homogenization.

stituted by *networks* and *fluids* [15].

6 Social Responsibility

The *fourth* theoretical approach, developed in the 1970s, is that of the world-system by Immanuel Wallerstein. This is one of the most outspoken critiques of the categorical statecentrism, for which reason the concept of society no longer has any function [27, 28].

Immanuel Wallerstein [29] rejects the concept of society and opposes equating the concept with that of the state by arguing that if we also alter the limits of society by changing state borders, how can we justify that the legitimacy of a government determined by a society is different from the rule of legitimacy as provided by a state? In his view the concept of society should give us something solid on which we can build. He then subsequently equates the singular concept of society with that of the capitalist world economy by stating that only our society, the capitalist world economy (and even that is only a partial contract-defined entity), created our diverse meaningful communities [30].

The focus of the world-system approach is the perception of capitalism as a geographically extensive and historically distinctive system. In this sense, the global space is not conceptualized through a state-centrist list of words such as society or culture, but is seen as a *modern world system*. The emphasis here is not states but empires. Modern states are not the original framework in which historical development took place. It would make more sense if we imagine them as a particular set of social institutions within the world capitalist economy. Furthermore, the latter is the context in which and from which we can analyse structures, conjunctures and events [31].

The specific logic of the capitalist world system is firstly the result of a spatial mismatch of economic structures and secondly due to political and cultural arrangements. The modern world-system is divided in terms of supranational zones of centre, semi-periphery and periphery; on the other hand, states are those geographic base units from which these zones are constructed. There are territorial states which undergo positional battles for their locus in the centre-periphery structure [32]. A major criticism of the world-system approach is that of economic reductionism; the approach stands for the carelessness towards other sub- or transnational phenomena [33].

This analysis of the world-system was intended to be a critique of nineteenth century social science; it remained, however, according to Immanuel Wallerstein [34] an *incomplete, unfinished critique*. In this sense, he argues in his book 'Unthinking Social Science: The Limits of Nineteenth Century Paradigms' [35] for a reorganization of the social sciences by demonstrating the limitations of nineteenth century paradigms. He considers the overcoming of the misleading but lasting legacy of social science—the division of social analysis into three levels: the economic, the political and socio-cultural—as a key challenge of the present: This trinity obstructs the way like a granite block that impedes our intellectual development [36]. Immanuel Wallerstein considers the global structure and the processes of its development to be *the* central agenda of social science research in the future.

The four approaches of sociology that have developed since 1970 which turned their thematic focus on world society have, in spite of their different theoretical conceptualizations, one common denominator: they establish elementary breaks with traditional thinking styles in sociology.
