Search

The emergence of 'radical' social and political actors, ideologies and identities seems to be a hallmark of the crisis of liberal democracy that is spreading throughout global society. Despite its growing uneasiness about these facts, social science has not produced much theoretical innovation about them. This article aims to contribute to this task, by bringing to bear a conceptual framework elaborated by Shmuel N. Eisenstadt through his reflections on modern barbarism. I argue that the author's understanding of barbarism has a significant interpretive potential for the sociological analysis of contemporary radical identities, and suggest some ways to reconsider 'populism', thereby redefining the very concept of radicalism. The article starts by introducing the pivotal notions which constitute the conceptual framework of our author. The following section outlines the main argument of Eisenstadt's theory of barbarism, unpacking the way in which those concepts interweave to conjure a cultural theory of exclusionary, violent identities and institutional regimes. The final section highlights the significance of such approach for a cultural sociology of radicalism, by exploring the relations between the author's views and some selected trends in contemporary social theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article contrasts three broad traditions that organize competing patterns of authority, community, and cooperation in contemporary Africa: the Axial religions (Christianity and Islam); indigenous chieftaincy systems based around chief, lineage, and clan; and globalized modernity, represented primarily by NGOs and the global human rights agenda. The article argues that in many respects it is the Axial religions that are the most modernizing, as they directly counter the power of traditional kin obligations (and the overwhelming dangers of witchcraft), while the purportedly modern and secular NGOs practice a ritualized version of modernity, even as they are penetrated by the norms and practices of the kin-based chieftaincy system and its related system of patron–client ties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]