Search

While money is centrally important to globalization, inequality, and social conflict, sociological globalization theories lack a macro theoretical framework for analysis of the international monetary system. Because studies of the US dollar by Hoogvelt (2010) and Vermeiren (2013) are directly relevant to the development of such a framework, in this paper I critically review their analyses in light of (A) post-Great Financial Crisis macroeconomic and sociopolitical trends, (B) recent theoretical studies of money, and (C) empirical studies of the international monetary system. My critique of Hoogvelt and Veirmeiren's analyses serves as a foundation for the development of a theoretical analysis of money that is both sociological and global in its orientation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rising influence of actors and worldviews from the Global South in contemporary movements calls for renewed approach, method and epistemology in social movement studies. It raises practical, theoretical, methodological and epistemological challenges. How to study global movements without ceding to the pitfalls of methodological globalism and epistemic extractivism? How to conciliate the diversity of struggles with the global dimensions of a movement? This reflexive paper draws on the author's previous research on global movements since 1999 to discuss these challenges and propose an approach built on four pillars: multi-site research, transnational analytical tools, dialogues with local actors and researchers, and an ethic oriented towards intercultural dialogues. Under these premises, global sociology becomes a collective project that combines researchers' and actors' reflexivities in a common quest for a better understanding of our world and the actors who seek to transform it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the theory of Nederveen Pieterse on his work regarding globalization studies. He mentions that Pieterse explores three significant factors on his work such as one on the use of global data, one concerning the flexibility of global studies, and one on the sociology of knowledge of global studies. Moreover, he says that Pieterse was correct on his argument that global studies is spreading, is making progress, and has the potential to be the leader in the field of study.

The article introduces various reports published within the issue including one by Paul James about the importance of examining the intersections and contradictions between various modes of integration and another one by Etienne Balibar on his observation on borders.

The Polanyian problematic presents us with a unified, complex, and dialectical means to interpret globalization and its social contestation by diverse social and political forces. For Karl Polanyi (1886–1964), globalization as we know it would probably be conceived of as an extension of the ‘one big self-regulating market’ he discerned in his day, while his belief that ‘simultaneously a counter-movement was afoot’ provides an interpretative lens to examine the various facets of the counter-globalization movement. The Polanyian problematic of modern history as a ‘double movement’, whereby market expansion and social protection respectively lead phases, provides a useful antidote to all forms of economic reductionism when dealing with globalization on the one hand and political voluntarism with regard to contestation on the other. Basically, globalization is a human construct, and it can thus be deconstructed by society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]