Society on the Edge of a Precipice: Editorial

Introduction

SARS (53)3 comes at the back of worrying and unsettling developments in our society. In some parts of the globe, the magnitude and catastrophic consequences of some of these developments have the potential to completely change not only the face of humanity, but also the physical social world. To see this, one need not look beyond the conflict in Gaza and the devastation, destruction and destitution that continue to occur unabated. Surely, there is a political and moral breakdown in our society. Gaza is just one among the many evidence of failing politics in modern society, from either side of the global North and South. Without doubt, we have entered into an era of precarious modernity where to be human ceases to be a priority for some. Perhaps, Ulrich Beck’s (1992) “risk society” captures all that this precarious modernity has to offer to humanity.¹

Not so distant from Gaza, we witnessed the deadly Marrakesh-Safi earthquake in Morocco. From Gaza to Morocco, we see how a complex web of human and environmental processes is increasingly worsening the human condition, and as a consequence, deepening precarity. The earthquakes in Morocco were preceded by those in Turkey, deadly wildfires in Greece and severe thunderstorms in the Western Cape regions in South Africa. The environmental crises have been escalating and hitting the majority of the world population the hardest.

Alongside the environmental crisis, we have seen the current cost of living crisis deepening, compounding the challenges for the most deprived and vulnerable populations. Inflation and the decline in living standards for many are immediate signs of the severity of the crisis. With neoliberal austerity and (ir)rationality already in place for most societies, there is very little to suggest that existing regimes of welfare and social policy will rescue those affected by the crisis, especially the poor. For those whose livelihoods are tied to the land and/or agro-based systems of production, climate change continues to erode their gains and impact on their ability to produce, make a living and possibly break even. Relatedly, rising production costs due to inflation and irregular market fluctuations continue to be a major challenge.

Conflicts, pandemics, climate change, and political and economic decline are just a few among the many reasons to be despondent and worry about a threatening precipice. On the another hand, Artificial Intelligence (AI) arguably offers some hope and promise, and yet it is leaving us on the edge. Despite all its promises, we are still not sure what the future looks like. How does sociological scholarship and imagination contend with these challenges and new forms of rationalities, such as AI? At this stage, we are yet to fully comprehend the immediate and long-term impacts of AI. Will AI result in the improvement of the human condition? Or we are likely to see a reproduction of old systems of exclusion along race, class, gender and geography. Certainly, a new kind of Sociology is urgently required to understand the precipice we face and recover from its trappings. First, we need a Sociology that embraces change but also engages, critiques, and disrupts patterns of social change. A changing society calls for new methods and theories of understanding social change. It calls for new ways of thinking, writing, and re-imagining society. Second, we need a Sociology that inspires hope and offers solutions to complex societal challenges. When everything else in society seems to be collapsing or failing, the power of rigorous social enquiry is the only promise and last hope.

Since its inception, our journal (SARS) has been central in promoting and showcasing pioneering research and scholarship based on the rigorous application of reflexive theories and methods. This issue (Volume 53, Issue 3) follows the same tradition and offers a blend of theoretically rich discussions and empirically grounded analyses on a range of areas relevant not only to a Sociology-reading public, but to an interdisciplinary intellectual community. With this issue, we have also managed to include research drawn from both seasoned and upcoming scholars. This mix offers a refreshing perspective to sociological scholarship and demonstrates SARS’s commitment to good scholarship, diverse viewpoints, and inclusivity. We recognise that SARS, being the only platform for disseminating critical and rigorous sociological research and/or developments in the southern part of the continent, ought to bring South Africa in dialogue with other parts of the subcontinent. For this reason, like in most of our previous volumes and issues, we feature interesting case studies from within and outside of South Africa in this issue. Although local in orientation, the journal continues to have a global resonance and we hope it remains a useful conveyor of the unique African experience to others from different parts of the global world. Available data show that SARS is on a growth trajectory and remains a preferred avenue for sharing and disseminating local and global research knowledge and scholarship.

Looking into the future: sociology, hope and recovery

To recover from the precipice we face, it is quite clear that sociological theory and methodology have to take centre stage. This entails developing new tools for deepened theoretical and methodological reflection and analysis. Undoubtedly, this is a huge responsibility, but not insurmountable, as evidenced by the different articles forming part of this current issue. This collection shows that when everything else fails in society, imaginative thinking and methodological pragmatism can be the last hope. Sociology as a discipline needs to fully embrace these ideals (tools) if it is to command its place in a rapidly changing global social order. Jacklyn Cock’s article, which is a sequel to a 1994 paper published by SARS, offers a refreshing perspective on the pitfalls, perils, and promise of the sociological canon. Central to Cock's argument is how South African Sociology in its theories and methodologies has failed to adequately attend to the intricate relationship between humans and nature. Cock’s article calls for “a deeper sociological engagement with environmental issues”. Such an engagement is necessary for two reasons. First, environment issues are threatening human survival. Second, environmental issues are increasingly deepening “social relations of inequality and injustice”. Broadly, the idea of “engagement” that is central to Cock’s argument is mainly about the theoretical and methodological reorientation of the discipline of Sociology. In this context, methodological reorientation suggests the need to shift from “extractive” to empowering research approaches. To justify the need for theoretical orientation, Cock laments the simplistic reading of Marxist theory and reliance on “class-blind” analysis, as evident in some existing works on nature and the environment. For Cock, this reorientation, especially in South Africa, is also about the involvement of Sociologists in the broader struggle for environmental justice and a just transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

Adopting what he calls “a Southern perspective”, Derik Gelderblom’s article revisits Weber’s theory of rational capitalism. For Gelderblom, the intention is to show how the theory has “held up in light of” the changes that have occurred in societies of the global South. To advance his argument, Gelderblom offers a succinct but detailed understanding of his own reading of Weber’s (1958) Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Crucial in this reading and analysis of Weber is the way Gelderblom outlines the limits of Weberian theory of rational capitalism. As Gelderblom shows, one of the limitations of Weber’s theory of rational capitalism is its neglect of the interdependence between European modernity and what happened elsewhere outside Europe. This is the same argument that most decolonial scholars continue to make (see Escobar 2001). Secondly and key to Gelderblom’s analysis is the way Weber’s theory is silent on the violence (of imperial domination and conquest) that facilitated the rise of capitalism. Demonstrating a solid and convincing reading of Weber, Gelderblom’s article offers a balanced analysis of Weberian theory. He defends Weber from what he sees as “unjustified criticisms” that, according to Gelderblom, stem from a superficial reading of Weber’s oeuvre. Convincingly, Gelderblom shows that all criticisms levelled against Weber are not entirely valid even when judged from the prism of “the South”. Gelderblom’s sober and balanced analysis shows that it is still possible to refine and decolonise sociological theory.

Edward Cottle’s article discusses the predictive power of economic theory. The article examines the applicability of the long-wave theory to explain long-term patterns of strikes in South Africa between 1886 and 2022. Adopting a new and innovative quantitative approach to study the patterning of strike action (“long waves of strikes”), Cottle shows that in South Africa there appears to be “a predicable patterning to significant periods of labour mobilisation”. This patterning is “countercyclical”. Cottle’s analysis is crucial not only because it presents new evidence on the patterning of strike action, but it dialogues and refutes dominant theories on the subject.

Josphine Hapazari’s article on African masculinities discusses the “construction of regional masculinities” in Lesotho. Central to Hapazari’s analysis are the “diverse regional masculinities” responsible for inciting sexual violence against women. Hapazari’s analysis is based on data collected through a qualitative interpretative and phenomenological approach. Hapazari reveals how sexual violence against women in Lesotho is not just a “traditional” and rural problem but also an “urban” phenomenon. This is despite culture and tradition being key drivers of the violence against women. Of importance is the way Hapazari shows how the “urban–rural divide” in Lesotho is central in the construction and shaping of violent hegemonic masculinities. It is in this divide that the notion of “regional masculinities” becomes relevant and alive.

Divane Nzima and Pranitha Maharaj’s article explores the challenges faced by young mothers in South Africa in finding paid work. The article is based on research conducted with young mothers in KwaZulu-Natal and highlights several strictures preventing women from taking up paid employment. Of these, childcare remains a major impediment for young mothers. Apart from available support in form of social grants, Nzima and Maharaj’s article makes a call for policy interventions that offer other forms of support—especially to poor mothers—struggling with the high cost of childcare and the burden of unemployment.

The last research article for this issue is by Mthobeli Ngcongo. In this piece, Ngcongo discusses the role played by families in initiating or securing romantic relationships for their loved ones Also adopting an innovative research approach that takes a popular South African reality television show as its unit of analysis, Ngcongo highlights the importance of impression management in securing a relationship and getting approval from the immediate family. As Ngcongo’s evidence suggests, the role played by the family is indispensable in the process of impression management. Taken as a whole, Ngcongo’s article shows the continued relevance of symbolic interactionist thinking in Sociology and its applicability in studying social processes, systems, and human behaviour.

Angelique Wildshut’s review of “FeesMustFall and its aftermath. Violence, wellbeing and the student movement in South Africa” concludes this issue. The review challenges us to reflect on “the nature of violence and ways to restore well-being collectively”. This is precisely what we currently need if we are to recover from the edge of the cliff highlighted earlier. This recovery entails asking deeper questions about our current society and taking a collective resolution to defend humanity, protect our natural environment, fight for the poor and vulnerable, and deploy our imaginative sociological thinking. All these are central themes addressed by all articles forming part of this current issue. More importantly, these articles have shown that the current crises gripping society could turn out to be our only chance to rethink Sociology, and imagine a more humane society.

Notes

1 Antony Giddden’s work presents an interesting trope on the same subject (see, for example, Giddens 1991, 1999).