Search

The concept of “grobalization” is proposed to complement the popular idea of “glocalization.” In addition, a sociologically relevant concept of “nothing” is defined and juxtaposed with “something.” Two continua are created—grobalization-glocalization and nothing-something—and their intersection creates four quadrants: the grobalization of nothing, glocalization of nothing, grobalization of something, and glocalization of something. Of greatest importance are the grobalization of nothing and the glocalization of something, as well as the conflict between them. The grobalization of nothing threatens to overwhelm the latter and everything else. Other issues discussed include the loss of something in a world increasingly dominated by nothing, the disappearance of the local, and the relationship of the triumph of nothing to political economy, especially social class. I conclude that no social class is immune to this process and that the poor and lower classess may be “doomed” to something. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's comments on the literary work of sociologist Norbert Wiley, regarding "levels" problem and its relation to the current boom in interest in the issue of the micro-macro relationship. The author believes that there is much of merit in Wiley's approach, the sense that the levels issue is more inclusive than the micro-macro problem, the idea that levels represent "paradigm spaces," the four specific levels identified in his essay, the concern for connections among levels through the processes of emergence and feedback, etc. The author also believes that many of the ideas developed by Wiley bear a striking resemblance to earlier work on levels especially to his own. What surprises the author is that rather than taking this body of work as his starting point, Wiley has roamed far afield including linguistics, philosophy, anthropology for intellectual roots. While the author thinks that such a wide intellectual net is laudable, it should be cast only after the most proximate sources of an idea are examined.

This article reports that even though metatheory and more generally metasociology, already encompasses a considerable and burgeoning body of work, it remains an ill-defined area within sociology. In spite of, or perhaps because of, its inchoate state, metatheory has recently come under substantial attack. The recent spate of assaults on metatheory by a number of important sociological theorists can be seen as evidence of the coming of age of metatheory as an area of thought and research. Were it not of increasing significance, metatheory would not have been singled out for attack by such thinkers. These critiques will be used in this article as a springboard to begin to define and clarify sociological metatheory. It is also the aim of this article to position metatheory in the context of meta-analyses in fields outside of sociology, metasociology in general and other specific types of meta-analysis within sociology. Still another goal is to lay out some of the issues that metatheory needs to confront in the near future.

The general domain of this paper is politics, the struggles for power, within sociology. Within this general context, a more specific arena of interest is the rise of micro-sociological theory, especially exchange theory, phenomenological sociology, and ethnomethodology. The excessive reach and intellectual problems of radical microsociology aside, the fact remains that micro-theories and the micro-oriented paradigms with which they are associated are on the ascendancy in contemporary sociology. The critical review of radical microsociology is useful in this context, not only in itself, but also because it points up several lessons that should be of utility to the supporters of all micro-theories. While radical microsociology focuses, for scientific reasons, on interaction, other micro-sociologies could well push for a focus on other aspects of the micro-domain, especially cognitive processes. Beyond the specific lessons of the critical analysis of radical micro-sociology, there is the more general issue of the implications of the rise in micro-theories and micro-paradigms.