Global Societies Are Social Things: A Conceptual Reassessment

Abstract

This article reassesses the concept of a global society in light of recent historical analyses of the concepts of the social and society in the literature of International Relations. It is argued that the distinction between the social and society makes many theories of a global society indistinguishable from a global social system. However, it is also argued that those conceptions of a global society that emphasise its societal qualities are vulnerable to charges of Eurocentricity and methodological nationalism. To point the way forward, this article argues that, analytically, the features of the concept of a global society need to be conceived more diversely and the feature of a meaningful collective-self-narrative, or weness feeling, needs to be reconceived as relationally contested, rather than consistently consensual. With this conceptual revision, it is suggested that, empirically, the contents of a relationally contested collective-self-narrative at the transnational “level” are still elusive, and a topic for further research, but would likely attain a “post-Western” and ecological character if they were to emerge in practice.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

About the Author

Aaron C. McKeil is a PhD candidate in International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. His research focuses on world polity formation, cosmopolitan world orders, and constructivist and post-English School theory. His publications include the article, “A Silhouette of Utopia: English School and Constructivist Conceptions of a World Society”. He served as editor for Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 44.

Notes

1. Patricia Owens, “Introduction: Historicising the Social in International Thought”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4 (2015), pp. 651–653; Patricia Owens, “Method or Madness? Sociolatry in International Thought”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4 (2015), pp. 655–674.

2. Barry Buzan, From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Structure of Globalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Michael N. Barnett and Kathryn Sikkink, “From International Relations to Global Society”, in Christian Rues-Smit and Duncan Snidal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 63; Mathias Albert, “Complex Governance and Morality in World Society”, Global Society, Vol. 13, No. 1 (1999), pp. 77–93.

3. Charles Tilly, “Ties That Bind … and Bound”, in Tilly (ed.), Identities, Boundaries, and Social Ties (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2005), pp. 3–12; Margaret R. Somers, “The Narrative Constitution of Identity: A Relational and Network Approach”, Theory and Society, Vol. 23 (1994), pp. 605–649.

4. Jens Bartelson, “Towards a Genealogy of ‘Society’ in International Relations”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4 (2015), pp. 675–692; Julian Go, “W(h)ither the Social? On the Imperial Episteme and Economy of Force”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 47, No. 3 (2016), pp. 201–207; Justin Rosenberg, “Confessions of a Sociolator”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2016), pp. 292–299.

5. Ernest Barker, Social Contract: Locke, Hume, Rousseau (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960).

6. Emile Durkheim, Montesquieu and Rousseau: Forerunners of Sociology (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1960).

7. Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended (New York: Picador, 2003); John Searle, Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

8. Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004); Gurminder K. Bhambra, Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination (London: Palgrave, 2007).

9. David Lockwood, “Social Integration and System Integration”, in G.K. Zollschan and W. Hirsch (eds.), Explorations in Social Change (London: Routledge, 1964) pp. 244–256; David Lockwood, Solidarity and Schism: The Problem of Disorder in Durkheimian and Marxist Sociology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); David Lockwood, “Some Remarks on ‘The Social System’”, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 7, No. 2 (1956), pp. 134–146; Jurgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. 2 (Cambridge: Polity, 1981); Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society (Cambridge: Polity, 1984); M.S. Archer, “Social Integration and System Integration: Developing the Distinction”, Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 4 (1996), pp. 679–699; Nicos Mouzelis, “Social and System Integration: Lockwood, Habermas, Giddens”, Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 1 (1997), pp. 111–119.

10. Markus Perkmann, “Social Integration and System Integration: Reconsidering the Classical Distinction”, Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 3 (1998), pp. 491–507.

11. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 3rd ed. (London: Palgrave, 2002 [1977]), pp. 10, 13.

12. Patricia Owens, The Economy of Force: Counterinsurgency and the Historical Rise of the Social (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 53.

13. Alan James, “System or Society?”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 19 (1993), pp. 269–288.

14. Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, op. cit., p. 3.

15. Craig Calhoun, Nationalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).

16. Yale Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, A World of Polities: Essays in Global Politics (London: Routledge, 2008), pp. 60–61.

17. Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, op. cit., pp. 5–8.

18. Bartelson, “Towards a Genealogy of ‘Society’”, op. cit., p. 677.

19. Olaf Corry, Constructing a Global Polity: Theory, Discourse and Governance (London: Palgrave, 2013).

20. Oliver Kessler has also suggested the need for an “imaginary”, with reference to the preconditions of the practices and order of a world society. See Kessler, “Practices and the Problem of World Society”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2016), p. 276.

21. The question can be raised, from this point, of whether it is coherent to discuss the collective lives of bees and ants as societal, for instance, but this is a category mistake, a metaphorical heuristic usage at best, not attaining the coherence and clarity of theoretical usage.

22. John Burton, World Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 32.

23. Michael Banks (ed.), World Society in Conflict: A New Perspective on International Relations (Sussex: Harvester Press, 1984).

24. Michael Banks, “Charles Manning, the Concept of ‘Order’ and Contemporary International Theory”, in Alan James (ed.), The Bases of International Order: Essays in Honour of C.A.W. Manning (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 188–209.

25. Niklas Luhmann, “Globalization or World Society? How to Conceive Modern Society”, International Review of Sociology, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1997), pp. 67–79.

26. Following Talcott Parsons’ systemic conception of society, Luhmann’s higher level of systemic abstraction pushed the concept of society too far beyond its modern sense and conflated it too strongly with the concept of the social to maintain its conceptual coherence. It is interesting, however, that Parsons at least maintained the conception of society as a kind of social system. See Talcott Parsons, “An Outline of the Social System”, in C. Calhoun et al. (eds.), Classical Sociological Theory, 2nd ed. (Malden: Blackwell, 2009), pp. 421–440.

27. Luhmann, op. cit.

28. Harro Muller and Powell Larson, “Luhmann’s Systems Theory as a Theory of Modernity”, New German Critique, Vol. 61 (1994), pp. 39–54; Mathias Albert, A Theory of World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 19–45.

29. George M. Thomas, “World Polity, World Culture, World Society”, International Political Sociology, Vol. 3 (2009), pp. 115–119; Oliver Kessler, “Towards a Sociology of the International? International Relations between Anarchy and World Society”, International Political Sociology, Vol. 3 (2009), pp. 87–108; Chris Brown, “World Society and the English School: An ‘International Society’ Perspective on World Society”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 7, No. 4 (2001), pp. 423–441.

30. Wade M. Cole, “World Polity or World Society? Delineating the Statist and Societal Dimensions of the Global Institutional System”, International Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2017), p. 91.

31. Georg Krucken and Gili S. Drori (eds.), World Society: The Writings of John W. Meyer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

32. John W. Meyer, John Boli, George M. Thomas and Francisco O. Ramirez, “World Society and the Nation-State”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 103, No. 1 (1997), pp. 144–181.

33. Immanuel Wallerstein, The Essential Wallerstein (New York: New Press, 2000), p. 139.

34. Michael W. Doyle, Empires (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986); Daniel H. Nexon and Thomas Wright, “What’s at Stake in the American Empire Debate”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 101, No. 2 (2007), pp. 253–271.

35. Martin Wight, Systems of States (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1977).

36. Janice Bialley Mattern and Ayse Zarakol, “Hierarchies in World Politics”, International Organization (2016), Vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 623–654.

37. Doyle, op. cit.

38. Leslie Sklair, Sociology of the Global System (London: Harvester, 1991).

39. Martin Shaw, “Global Society and Global Responsibility: The Theoretical, Historical and Political Limits of ‘International Society’”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3 (1992), pp. 421–434.

40. Martin Shaw, Global Society and International Relations: Sociological Concepts and Political Perspectives (Cambridge: Polity, 1994), p. 10.

41. Ibid., p. 10.

42. Ibid., p. 7.

43. Mary Kaldor, Global Civil Society: An Answer to War (Cambridge: Polity, 2003); John Keane, Global Civil Society? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

44. Brett Bowden, “Civil Society, the State, and the Limits to Global Civil Society”, Global Society, Vol. 20, No. 2 (2006), pp. 155–178; Ulrich Beck, “The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity”, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 51, No. 1 (2000), pp. 79–105.

45. Craig Calhoun, “Belonging in the Cosmopolitan Imaginary”, Ethnicities, Vol. 3, No. 4 (2003), pp. 531–553; Chris Brown, “Cosmopolitanism, World Citizenship and Global Civil Society”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2000), pp. 7–26; Chris Brown, “International Political Theory and the Idea of World Community”, in Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), pp. 90–109; Jens Bartelson, “Making Sense of Global Civil Society”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 12, No. 3 (2006), pp. 371–395; Hans-Martin Jaeger, “Global Civil Society and the Political Depoliticization of Global Governance”, International Political Sociology, Vol. 1 (2007), pp. 257–277; Kenneth Anderson and David Rieff, “Global Civil Society: A Sceptical View”, in Mary Kaldor, Helmut Anheier and Marlies Glasius (eds.), Global Civil Society 2004–2005 (London: Sage, 2004), pp. 28–36; David Chandler, Constructing Global Civil Society: Morality and Power in International Relations (London: Palgrave, 2004).

46. Buzan, op. cit., p. 203.

47. Ibid., p. 110.

48. Ibid., p. 269.

49. Barnett and Sikkink, op. cit., p. 63.

50. Iver B. Neumann and Ole Jacob Sending, Governing the Global Polity: Practice, Mentality, and Rationality (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010).

51. Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (London: Sage, 1992); Bruno Latour, “Onus Orbis Terrarum: About a Possible Shift in the Definition of Sovereignty”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 44, No. 3 (2016), pp. 2–7.

52. Dipesh Chakrabarty, “Postcolonial Studies and the Challenge of Climate Change”, New Literary History, Vol. 43, No. 1 (2012), pp. 1–18; Bruno Latour, “Agency at the Time of the Anthropocene”, New Literary History, Vol. 45, No. 1 (2014), pp. 1–18; Anthony Burke et al., “Planet Politics: A Manifesto from the End of IR”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 44, No. 3 (2016), pp. 499–523; Paul Gilroy, “Planetarity and Cosmopolitics”, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 61, No. 3 (2010), pp. 620–626.

53. Jan Aart Scholte, “Defining Globalisation”, The World Economy, Vol. 31, No. 11 (2008), pp. 1471–1502; Albert, A Theory of World Politics, op. cit., pp. 19–45.

54. Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).

55. Tilly, op. cit.; Somers, op. cit.

56. Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).

57. Tilly, op. cit.; Somers, op. cit.

58. Kessler, “Towards a Sociology of the International?”, op. cit.

59. Tilly, op. cit.; Somers, op. cit.

60. Beck, op. cit.

61. Gerard Delantry, “Not All Is Lost in Translation: World Varieties of Cosmopolitanism”, Cultural Sociology, Vol. 8, No. 4 (2014), pp. 374–391.

62. Giorgio Shani, “Toward a Post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and Critical International Relations Theory”, International Studies Review, Vol. 10 (2008), p. 723.

63. Jens Bartelson, Visions of World Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 172–182.

64. Bartelson, “Towards a Genealogy of ‘Society’”, op. cit., p. 681.

65. Dipesh Chakrabarty, “The Climate of History: Four Theses”, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 35 (2009), p. 222.

66. Ernest Gellner, Words and Things: A Critical Account of Linguistic Philosophy and a Study in Ideology (Boston: Beacon Press, 1959).