Social+Theory,+Cultural+Relativity,+and+the+Problem+of+Globality


 * =Title= || Social Theory, Cultural Relativity, and the Problem of Globality ||
 * =Author= || Roland Robertson ||
 * =Date= ||  ||
 * =Summary By= || Ela Rossmiller ||
 * =Summary= || **Robertson, Roland. Social Theory, Cultural Relativity, and the Problem of Globality. In //Culture, Globalization, and the World System,// ed. Anthony King.**

1. “Identity and the Particular-Universal Relationship” (pp. 71-81) · In contrast to relativists (who emphasize cultural particularism) and worldists (who emphasize universalism), Robertson presents the thesis that “we are, in the late-twentieth century, witness to – and participants in – a massive, two-fold process involving //the interpenetration of the universalization of particularism and the particularization of universalism// [. . .]” (p. 73) · Examples: Nationalism (which positions itself against internationalism) and in the market (global and local markets are interconnected). · Point #1: The particularism-universalism theme is a constant feature of human nature. We see this in religions and cultures which create universalistic particularisms. (p. 76) · Point #2: This interpenetration is an axis of structuration, a cultural nexus. It is institutionalized. (p. 76-78) · Point #3: Globalization comprises not only societies, world systems of societies (international relations) and humankind, but also //individuals// (p. 79). We should examine the ways in which globalization constructs the individual. 2. “Social Theory and Global Culture” (pp. 82-90) · Early social theorists didn’t do a good job of considering Western sociology in the global context: Although Western social scientists compared and contrasted East and West as binary oppositions, countries in the East were appropriating Western social science for their own purposes. Also, despite the tendency of Western social scientists to consider nationalism in its particular forms, Eastern political elites were engaged in generalizing nationalism to consider how it could be applied elsewhere. (pp. 83-84) · Early social theorists assumed, erroneously, that societies had/have dominant cultures, artificially overlaying homogeneity and integration onto the societies they analyze. This is what Margaret Archer calls the “myth of cultural integration.” (pp. 85) The problem with this is that it precludes recognizing larger macro-cultures. For example, the very idea that nation-states are culturally homogenous is an aspect of global culture! (p. 87) · Another problem is that globalization is mostly viewed through the economic lens. This leads us to equate global culture with Western economic hegemony. In doing so, we are missing important parts of the picture. “My general argument has been that commitment to the idea of the culturally cohesive national society has blinded us to the various ways in which the world as a whole has been increasingly “organized” around sets of shifting definitions of the global circumstance. (p. 89) || · How might one use Robertson’s notion of the interpenetration of universalism and particularism? What does it give us? What does it take away? · Does it render the concepts of universalism and particularism useless? · Is there another term to use for the phenomena he’s describing? || = = = = = = = = = = = =
 * =Discussion points= || Discussion Questions:

= = = = = = = =

= =