Search

Craig Calhoun is University Professor of Social Sciences at Arizona State University and previously has been President and Director of the London School of Economics, President of the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), and a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, NYU, Oslo, Columbia and Princeton. Calhoun's newest books are Degenerations of Democracy (Harvard 2022, co-authored with Dilip Gaonkar and Charles Taylor) and The Green New Deal and the Future of Work (Columbia 2022, edited with Benjamin Fong). More information may be found at https://calhoun.faculty.asu.edu. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Secularism is often treated as a sort of absence. It's what is left if religion fades. It's the exclusion of religion from the public sphere but somehow in itself neutral. [...]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01328.x Byline: Craig Calhoun (a) Keywords: Beck; cosmopolitanism; nationalism; reflexive modernization; globalization Abstract: Abstract The work of Ulrich Beck has been important in bringing sociological attention to the ways issues of risk are embedded in contemporary globalization, in developing a theory of 'reflexive modernization', and in calling for social science to transcend 'methodological nationalism'. In recent studies, he and his colleagues help to correct for the Western bias of many accounts of cosmopolitanism and reflexive modernization, and seek to distinguish normative goals from empirical analysis. In this paper I argue that further clarification of this latter distinction is needed but hard to reach within a framework that still embeds the normative account in the idea that empirical change has a clear direction. Similar issues beset the presentation of diverse patterns in recent history as all variants of 'second modernity'. Lastly, I note that ironically, given the declared 'methodological cosmopolitanism' of the authors, the empirical studies here all focus on national cases. Author Affiliation: (a)Department of Sociology, New York University Article History: (Date accepted: June 2010) Article note: email: craig.calhoun@nyu.edu

The tacit understanding of citizenship in the modern West has been secular. This is so despite the existence of state churches, presidents who pray, and a profound role for religious [...]

The issues concerning the universities are discussed that the universities have become very large, the less full-time scientific and engineering research units have become larger, the education sector has become very large and as a result the association with higher education has transformed to a privileged structures. It is suggested that the field of science needs to be reorganized so that by following the roads to good knowledge, the participants can prosper and gain the resources and reward the values and not the question of transition from a selfless interest to a mean to gain financial resources.

Neither nationalism nor ethnicity is vanishing as part of an obsolete traditional order. Both are part of a modern set of categorical identities invoked by elites and other participants in political and social struggles. These categorical identities also shape everyday life, offering both tools for grasping pre-existing homogeneity and difference and for constructing specific versions of such identities. While it is impossible to dissociate nationalism entirely from ethnicity, it is equally impossible to explain it simply as a continuation of ethnicity or a simple reflection of common history or language. Numerous dimensions of modern social and cultural change, notably state building (along with war and colonialism), individualism, and the integration of large-scale webs of indirect relationships also serve to make both nationalism and ethnicity salient. Nationalism, in particular, remains the pre-eminent rhetoric for attempts to demarcate political communities, claim rights of self-determination and legitimate rule by reference to 'the people' of a country. Ethnic solidarities and identities are claimed most often where groups do not seek 'national' autonomy but rather a recognition internal to or cross-cutting national or state boundaries. The possibility of a closer link to nationalism is seldom altogether absent from such ethnic claims, however, and the two sorts of categorical identities are often invoked in similar ways., Introduction One of the uglier ways in which nationalism gained popular and academic attention in the early 1990s was the Serbian program of 'ethnic cleansing.' When promulgated by a psychiatrist, [...]

The article focuses on communication research as a field and social science. It states that communication is a discipline which distinguishes between words and not-words and produces publications. It mentions that research on political communication has increased due to cultural studies and mass media. It highlights that communication doesn't exists as an independent branch among social sciences.

This article comments on Michael Burawoy's article "For Public Sociology," in volume 56, issue number 2, of the "British Journal of Sociology." The author has some criticism with Burawoy's call for public sociology but only over conceptual categories and matters of tactics. He is in accord with the broad purposes. Burawoy's call for more public sociology is important and timely. Some differences in approach are urged but like all sociologists seeking at once the ever-greater intellectual vitality for the field and a richer public life informed by sociology, the author is in his debt.

The article presents information on sociology. The sociology of knowledge has been surprisingly underrepresented in the recent boom of studies in the sociology of culture. Even when attention has turned to science, it has seldom drawn much on the classical tradition in the sociology of knowledge. This is a pity, partly because better use of the sociology of knowledge might have furthered the integration of sociology of culture with general sociological theory. The article will draw students into thinking about knowledge as culture and into asking some of the hard but important questions this entails. One set of such questions is today commonly discussed under the heading "reflexivity." To what extent and in what ways is knowledge dependent on or improved by knowers' understanding of the conditions of the production and dissemination of that knowledge? What obligations do theories and researchers have to turn their analytic lends back on themselves? What difference does it make that the social life we study is one already interpreted by its protagonists, and that what we say and write becomes part of that process of interpretation-potentially for everyone, not just for sociologists? The article seeks not only to show that knowledge is culture, but that because knowledge is culture the sociology of knowledge is not well practiced or understood as a demarcated sub-field of sociology. It is necessarily an interrogation of all the knowledge produced by sociologists and has developed in close relationship to the core traditions of classical sociological theory.

The article focuses on sociology as a subject and its understanding. Among reasonably competent papers submitted to the journal of "Sociological Theory" perhaps the single most important and frequent critical question the author finds himself posing is "How does this paper help to understand social life better? The journal deserves sponsorship by the American Sociologists Association because it can and should speak to a broad constituency within sociology, because theory is important for all good sociological work. Potential contributors seem to think, however, that "general theory" in sociology consists mainly of commentaries on what other people have said. This is not to say that historical studies are not useful or that commentaries and reanalyzes cannot advance theory in important ways. Accepting sufferance on the basis of staying out of other sociologists' affairs is only one strategy for survival. And it is likely to secure no more than mere survival.

The article focuses on the review of the book "From Modernization to Modes of Production: A Critique of the Sociologies of Development and Underdevelopment," by John G. Taylor. Impenetrable prose is sometimes taken as a sign of great mental depth. Attacks on the ideas of others frequently give the erroneous impression that an author has ideas of his own. An excellent title will often attract attention to an insignificant work. The first section of the book belies the author's contempt for data, though, actually introducing several tables. These are designed to show-surprise that there is unequal and restricted development in the Third World. The latter sections do contain a number of vague allusions to empirical examples, mostly designed to show that countries are different from each other-surprise again. There is no sustained empirical analysis, though, and not even much of a proposal for what one should look like. Taylor turns to rejecting underdevelopment and dependency theories.