**4. Global Shift in Sociology**

the discipline than by the social problems that surround us [43]. One result of this is certainly that there has been an increase in heterogeneous and strongly divergent orientations in the formation of sociological theory, as well as a lack of intellectual and institutional coherence within sociology itself. On the other hand, a homogenizing effect of globalization can also be observed in the formation of sociological theory. These internal turbulences and the products of intellectual processes are the essential motor for present day sociological self-reflection

The development of sociological knowledge must face global challenges in the third millennium. Genuine innovation and the discussion of continuity and discontinuity in sociological theory and concept formation, as well as the development of methods for detecting global social change, are contemporary requirements of sociology in the face of global reality. Schisms, variations and repetitions are characteristic of the history of sociological ideas. In this respect, sociology can not only be described as a scientific discipline characterized by many paradigms, but there are also often dominating styles in contrast to constructive innovations. What is interesting at this point is the question of whether there has actually been progress in the development of sociological knowledge in the last half-century, or whether it is just a change in certain ways of thinking which is characteristic for the very heterogeneous

When discussing the future of sociology, the year 1989 is often cited as a major turning point in the history of humankind over the last century. Dirk Kaesler [45] states that sociology as *the western science* can not ignore the crucial breakthroughs since that year. The year 1989, with its profound political, social, economic and cultural changes, has relativized many of the discipline's theoretical considerations and practical. In that respect, Nikolai Genov [46] argues that it is now clear that there is a main path of social development and this is called globalization. This process has become the most important reference point and was a homogenizing factor

From this perspective a consolidation effect is attributed to globalization, and the anthology 'Globalization. Knowledge and Society' by Martin Albrow and Elizabeth King [47]—distributed to the participants as part of the XII. *World Congress of Sociology* in Madrid—is designated as a prelude to a new stage in the development of world sociology. In this anthology, globalization is understood as all those processes by which the people of the world are incorporated

Globalization is considered here to be a new and far-reaching thematic orientation of the sociological discipline. While the decades before the two world wars were not able to provide *a compelling vision of a world society*, as these were conducted under the banner of national interest and—in the following decades—sociology had been deadlocked despite increasing internationalization processes in political and ideological dividing lines, so is the era after 1989 characterized by diverse networking and a mutual dependence of the entire globe on structures and processes. These processes are the main cause of substantial changes in world sociology, including the emerging mutual reconciliation and amalgamation of sociological approaches and the results of sociological studies into a strong complex that makes the issue of globalization a unified point of reference. During the 1990s, sociologists blessed this rather

within the discipline [44].

10 Social Responsibility

knowledge landscape of sociology.

in the development of ideas in the 1990s.

into a single world society; global society [48].

The term *society* is still the 'grand idea' [52] of the sociological discipline. Martin Albrow [53] assumes that *the global* as an idea is currently not only a strategic locus in public opinion, but has also led sociologists to return to the basic theories of their discipline. The global shift includes actual progress in the thinking about society. In the entire period of the last halfcentury, the global has fundamentally renewed the discipline of sociology, especially in the 1990s. But if we anchor the global in the foundations of sociology, we will find a strong theoretical renewal. This has already happened, but it has yet to be recognized in its entirety [54].

The global, like society, is referred to by Martin Albrow [55] as a 'grand idea'. In a historical retrospective, the global represented a field of comprehensive communication between people in the period from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, thereby this was more related to territorial expansion; that is, more the conquest of space and the means of communication than the relationships of people. During this time the idea of the global was still separate from ideas of peace and international law. There is no reason why scientists should not be able to note the places and occasions on which there was a focus on the global, by analogy, as one might do for a nation-state [56].

exists in the form of a world society: A world society is neither the society of the nation-state nor the sum of international relations. We can now ask whether a global society exists in the

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

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

13

For example, global civil society, visible due to the formation of transnational non-governmental organizations, is dependent on the contribution of world citizens committed to global issues. The identification takes place here with the whole of humankind and not with any nationality. It is the globality that intensifies this new identity policy [65]. Society beyond borders, networking and identity politics draw our attention to social relationships more than

Holistic natures are seen as conditioned by their relationship to other entities in a global environment, which in turn raises a number of questions about the dissolution and transformation. Exceeding the boundaries of society, we are forced to rethink social relations in general. For Asian and African traditions of social thinking, it will be possible to have a much more effective impact on global society than was possible in the Western thinking framework, which is focused on the relationship between the individual and society [66]. From this perspective, relevant contributions are expected from those regions of the world in which social relations have always been regarded as a medium in which collectivities connect. The construction of these collectivities in a global arena will be a setting of trends for the sociological discipline.

In an earlier period, sociology was preceded by social equality and the purpose of the nationstate. Today, it is the complexity of global interdependencies. In that regard Martin Albrow [67] argues that the sociology of the twenty-first century must make a vital contribution to our species and the planet we inhabit. Accordingly, we expect no less than a synoptic vision and productive theoretical work at a level as was achieved by Georg Simmel, Max Weber and Émile Durkheim in their days, but aligned with our present challenges. The task is extremely difficult, but it can be accomplished. Sociologists have the skills and technical capabilities beyond their visions to work together. There is no choice but to honour the achievements of

At this point the reformulation and reorientation of the sociological discipline due to the demands of global reality is clearly addressed. It will be indispensable for the future to consider *classics of sociology* in their contemporary historical context, and at the same time not to be afraid to analyse to what extent they could provide relevant contributions for current challenges. If this does not happen, they must remain in the context of history and be mentioned in this setting; they would have, however, little to contribute to contemporary sociological thinking, which must be oriented towards a worldwide reference framework of the social with a simultaneously new conceptualization of society, and also at the opening up of discipline—especially beyond the familiar paths of Western Europe and North America—to other world regions. A first step towards this would be the perception of what exists in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Arab world region etc. with regard to sociological knowledge and a com-

There are new realities that require a modified approach. The world, and therefore also the social role of knowledge in general, as well as the related scientific discourse in sociology in particular,

the old masters, even if current scientists strive to make them obsolete.

form of a world society.

to autonomous social units.

mon discourse of scientists globally.

The global serves as a *symbol of collective identity* in the concrete case of all humanity, and it is regarded as the central subject of history. In this sense, the current era is also referred to as the 'Global Age' [57–59]. The term global has gradually replaced the term international when referring to the structures and processes that affect people as a whole. The concept 'global' always applies to the planet or the earth and therefore also to the interests of all humanity. The term global/globe has two main meanings: the earth and the sphere: and it also implies that human actors live in world society, which encompasses the whole of humankind.

The various social science disciplines adopted this new terminology at a different pace. The disciplines of political science, business administration and cultural studies were the first; sociology came quite late. It is the plurality and the *well-being of a world society* which go far beyond the characteristic dispositions of globalization [60].

Sociological research can, when it develops parallel to theoretical renovation, lead to the introduction of innovations and can therefore provide groundbreaking impulses. New trends can emerge through the acquisition of imported ideas from other scientific disciplines. The reorientation of the thinking on the global and its impact on public affairs and thus on political strategy in recent years has penetrated all disciplines and is the main driving force behind the global paradigm shift. An endogenous source of modification in science is the technology of electronic data processing, which accomplishes progressions in knowledge that w*ere a subject for science fiction stories one generation ago* [61].

In the last five decades, it has been modernization as rationalization, and not the global, which has dominated the public agenda. In general, this has also had an impact on social sciences. This process was accompanied by the dominance of a paradigm in which the nation-state was equated with society. The reorientation to the global changed all this and much of today's theoretical renewal of sociology flows from the challenges globality poses to modernity [62].

Due to the extent of the challenge, society is now again in the new focus of theoretical renovation. The global has pushed society as a central and controversial concept back into the contemporary debate. In Western European countries, the discussion was limited to the fact that society was interpreted as an organized citizenship. Society in political, economic and cultural terms served the *welfare or warfare state* [63].

Due to globalization processes, areas such as culture, politics and economics were considered relatively separate from the state and ultimately detached from society. This deconstruction of the nation-state recognizes the ever-present potential to reform social relationships and to transgress boundaries addressed to the future and also in a comparative perspective. Subsequently, it was the change of orientation to the global which gave reason to look at the large number of transnational relations and to imagine what form of social order would be appropriate for a world in which national demarcations cannot provide answers to global problems. In this context, Martin Albrow [64] poses the question of whether a global society exists in the form of a world society: A world society is neither the society of the nation-state nor the sum of international relations. We can now ask whether a global society exists in the form of a world society.

than the relationships of people. During this time the idea of the global was still separate from ideas of peace and international law. There is no reason why scientists should not be able to note the places and occasions on which there was a focus on the global, by analogy, as one

The global serves as a *symbol of collective identity* in the concrete case of all humanity, and it is regarded as the central subject of history. In this sense, the current era is also referred to as the 'Global Age' [57–59]. The term global has gradually replaced the term international when referring to the structures and processes that affect people as a whole. The concept 'global' always applies to the planet or the earth and therefore also to the interests of all humanity. The term global/globe has two main meanings: the earth and the sphere: and it also implies

that human actors live in world society, which encompasses the whole of humankind.

beyond the characteristic dispositions of globalization [60].

*for science fiction stories one generation ago* [61].

terms served the *welfare or warfare state* [63].

The various social science disciplines adopted this new terminology at a different pace. The disciplines of political science, business administration and cultural studies were the first; sociology came quite late. It is the plurality and the *well-being of a world society* which go far

Sociological research can, when it develops parallel to theoretical renovation, lead to the introduction of innovations and can therefore provide groundbreaking impulses. New trends can emerge through the acquisition of imported ideas from other scientific disciplines. The reorientation of the thinking on the global and its impact on public affairs and thus on political strategy in recent years has penetrated all disciplines and is the main driving force behind the global paradigm shift. An endogenous source of modification in science is the technology of electronic data processing, which accomplishes progressions in knowledge that w*ere a subject* 

In the last five decades, it has been modernization as rationalization, and not the global, which has dominated the public agenda. In general, this has also had an impact on social sciences. This process was accompanied by the dominance of a paradigm in which the nation-state was equated with society. The reorientation to the global changed all this and much of today's theoretical renewal of sociology flows from the challenges globality poses to modernity [62]. Due to the extent of the challenge, society is now again in the new focus of theoretical renovation. The global has pushed society as a central and controversial concept back into the contemporary debate. In Western European countries, the discussion was limited to the fact that society was interpreted as an organized citizenship. Society in political, economic and cultural

Due to globalization processes, areas such as culture, politics and economics were considered relatively separate from the state and ultimately detached from society. This deconstruction of the nation-state recognizes the ever-present potential to reform social relationships and to transgress boundaries addressed to the future and also in a comparative perspective. Subsequently, it was the change of orientation to the global which gave reason to look at the large number of transnational relations and to imagine what form of social order would be appropriate for a world in which national demarcations cannot provide answers to global problems. In this context, Martin Albrow [64] poses the question of whether a global society

might do for a nation-state [56].

12 Social Responsibility

For example, global civil society, visible due to the formation of transnational non-governmental organizations, is dependent on the contribution of world citizens committed to global issues. The identification takes place here with the whole of humankind and not with any nationality. It is the globality that intensifies this new identity policy [65]. Society beyond borders, networking and identity politics draw our attention to social relationships more than to autonomous social units.

Holistic natures are seen as conditioned by their relationship to other entities in a global environment, which in turn raises a number of questions about the dissolution and transformation. Exceeding the boundaries of society, we are forced to rethink social relations in general. For Asian and African traditions of social thinking, it will be possible to have a much more effective impact on global society than was possible in the Western thinking framework, which is focused on the relationship between the individual and society [66]. From this perspective, relevant contributions are expected from those regions of the world in which social relations have always been regarded as a medium in which collectivities connect. The construction of these collectivities in a global arena will be a setting of trends for the sociological discipline.

In an earlier period, sociology was preceded by social equality and the purpose of the nationstate. Today, it is the complexity of global interdependencies. In that regard Martin Albrow [67] argues that the sociology of the twenty-first century must make a vital contribution to our species and the planet we inhabit. Accordingly, we expect no less than a synoptic vision and productive theoretical work at a level as was achieved by Georg Simmel, Max Weber and Émile Durkheim in their days, but aligned with our present challenges. The task is extremely difficult, but it can be accomplished. Sociologists have the skills and technical capabilities beyond their visions to work together. There is no choice but to honour the achievements of the old masters, even if current scientists strive to make them obsolete.

At this point the reformulation and reorientation of the sociological discipline due to the demands of global reality is clearly addressed. It will be indispensable for the future to consider *classics of sociology* in their contemporary historical context, and at the same time not to be afraid to analyse to what extent they could provide relevant contributions for current challenges. If this does not happen, they must remain in the context of history and be mentioned in this setting; they would have, however, little to contribute to contemporary sociological thinking, which must be oriented towards a worldwide reference framework of the social with a simultaneously new conceptualization of society, and also at the opening up of discipline—especially beyond the familiar paths of Western Europe and North America—to other world regions. A first step towards this would be the perception of what exists in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Arab world region etc. with regard to sociological knowledge and a common discourse of scientists globally.

There are new realities that require a modified approach. The world, and therefore also the social role of knowledge in general, as well as the related scientific discourse in sociology in particular, has as a field of the science of sociology undergone massive changes over the period of the last 100 years. It is only when a scientific work can change its appearance that it can be transformed; it grows a little further—especially when it breaks the boundaries of its immediate context, that is, its national and historical context—and becomes part of a global interpretation [68].

styles is the focus of the first conclusion. The second refers to development trends of sociology in the twenty-first century and the nation–state related paradigm of this scientific discipline. The conclusions close with the theming of the global shift of sociology and thereby

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

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

15

It can be stated as a *first* conclusion that it has been proved that world society approaches are a counter-project to the classics of sociology. As a conceptual term, *world (wide) society* directly points to the diminishing importance of spaces and addresses a conceptualization of *society* which is understood to be extra-territorialized. The increasing use of digital information and communication technologies for the empirical processing of sociological studies can here contribute significantly to the abolition of the spatial concept as a unit of

It is one of the greatest intellectual challenges of the present for all social science disciplines to deal with the world as a framework of culture, economics, law, politics and social reality and to use them constructively for scientific analysis. It certainly needs the courage to say what is not yet explorable since, for example, the empirical methods have not yet been developed; and that since one sits on a theory building in which the *'universal and global house of sociology'* is to a large extent revealed as a house of few countries of the world, there is still much to do in the field of sociological conceptions and theoretical approaches. At this point conceptualizations of world society can make an important contribution to the *global social responsibility*

In the sociological field of world society research, nation-state myths have been disenchanted, the local is identified as global and vice versa, and the central concept of sociology—that of society, which has always been manifold and controversial within the discipline—becomes

The *second* conclusion of the article refers to development trends of sociology, to the nationstate paradigm of sociology and the breaking thereof due to world society approaches. Here it was discussed how world society conceptualizations can make a constructive contribution

In the face of world society research, sociology is confronted with an often unreflected nationstate paradigm and a state-centric vocabulary, which opposes the perception of the global as a perspective. Sociological knowledge about transnational social spaces or post territorial communions or the perception of the *social world as a totality* in a normative sense, is yet to be

The rise of sociology began with the emergence of the nation-state and nationalism. Therefore, society as the central object of the investigation of sociology was equated with the nation. This form of sociology, which reached its peak in structural functionalism and modernization theory, is increasingly being critically viewed and questioned in the present due to globalization processes: A new, global sociology is taking shape which is no longer oriented towards 'society', but rather towards social networks, border areas, border crossings and world society. The sociology of a nationally restricted society deviates from a post/inter/national sociology

refer to the pioneering work of world society theorists.

analysis.

of science.

relevant again.

developed profoundly.

to the sociology of the twenty-first century.

of hybrid forms, times, and spaces [77].

In view of how the social refers to the world, sociology in its historical form cannot meet a perspective on the world as a whole. It is its basic conceptual inventory which is indiscernible to world-social developments and global processes, and for this reason must be fundamentally renewed and changed. An essential part of this basic conceptual inventory is the term *society*. Sociology has conceptualized the term *society* more or less exclusively as a *nationally organized and territorialized unit* [69]. Over decades of time the concept of society was in its prevalent use no more and no less than *bounded nation-state* conceptualized [70].

The classic, and still highly influential, sociological theory designs contributed to the generalization of a very specific concept, resting on the principle of territoriality and the nation-state form of space. The question of the spatial organization of social relations found as such a clear answer. A historical specific formation—the territorial nation-state—was dehistoricized and was, as it were, a natural container in which all life takes place, institutionalized as an organizing principle of the theory of social science, without, on the other hand, becoming the object of theoretical reflection [71]. In this regard, also Immanuel Wallerstein [72] summarizes on the social science paradigms of nineteenth and twentieth century that we could not even explain why we implicitly assumed that each state has a society and every society has a state. A branch of knowledge that cannot explain such a central phenomena will inevitably be in big trouble. It is the view of sociology as *'homeland theories of society'* [73] that leads to the assumption that sociological knowledge is, despite all universalistic validity claims, essentially a regionally specific knowledge.

Conceptualizations of world society stimulate a critique of such a territorializing thinking style. In contrast to *traditional sociology*, world society approaches are a theoretical programme which tries to implement the sociology of the global as a counter-project. This requires the overcoming of the *methodological nationalism* as criticized by Ulrich Beck [74], the *zombie categories of the national view* [75] and also the *container theory of state and society* [76] as well as the development of fundamentally new conceptual terms, which meet the world as the totality of social relations.

Present sociological diagnoses have to take global reality into account, and world society approaches provide a pioneering work in this direction. These conceptualizations break with the model of *methodological nationalism*—until now long uncritically used in the discipline—by postponing questions about the spatial organization of social relations at the global level; and they break even with basic terminologies of the discipline which no longer meet social reality in the third millennium.
