Modernity and Globalization

1. Modernity and Globalization Gurminder K. Bhambra

2. Cosmopolitanism Week 12

3. Ulrich Beck • 2000. ‘The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity’, British Journal of Sociology 51 (1): 79-105 • 2006. Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press

4. Beck’s Cosmopolitan World • Economic globalization • Indifference to national boundaries • Space-time compression • Increasing network connections • People shop internationally, work internationally, love internationally, marry internationally, research internationally, grow up and are educated internationally • Increasing individualization accompanies globalization; world society of individuals • Human rights law (based on the individual) comes to precede international law (based on nations)

5. Beck’s Critique of Sociology • Sociology observes, measures and comments on social phenomena in national terms • Postmodernism simply emphasizes the de-structuring and end of modernity • A second age of modernity suggests that there is a structural and epochal break, a paradigm shift, from the first age of modernity • Globalization alters the interconnectedness of nation-states and the internal quality of the social • Economic and social ways of acting, working, living no longer take place within the confines of the nation-state

6. Beck’s Second Age of Modernity • Non-Western societies share the same time-space horizon with the West • Ideas of ‘traditional’, ‘pre-modern’, ‘Other’ were defining characteristics of the First Age • In the Second Age, everyone has to locate themselves in the same global space, confronted with similar challenges • Similarities are more predominant than differences • The West has something to learn from the Non-West (on particular issues)

7. New forms of solidarity? • In the First Age, solidarity was limited to the nation-state • In the Second Age, it is a solidarity among individuals, raising the question of how solidarity among strangers is to be made possible • What does cosmopolitanization or cosmopolitan society mean?

8. Critiques of Beck I • First modernity was itself characterized by empires as much as by nation-states • The concepts of the ‘first age’ were as inadequate in their own time as they are claimed to be today • Sociological concepts are inappropriately bounded – i.e. they are ‘methodologically Eurocentric’ – but this is not something that is only now becoming problematic • Beck continues to take Western perspectives as the focus of global processes, and Europe as the origin of a modernity which is subsequently globalized

9. Critiques of Beck II • Beck suggests that the West listen to non-Western countries when they have something to say about the following: • the possibilities for coexistence in multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multicultural societies; • the question of tolerance in a confined space where cultural differences are prone to lead to violence; • ‘highly developed’ legal and judicial pluralism in non-Western countries • experience of dealing with multiple sovereignties • The implication is that when non-Western countries are not speaking about these issues it is not necessary to listen

10. Critiques of Beck III • This is less a form of cosmopolitan engagement, distinct from the past, and more like ‘business as usual’ • The West and non-West are presented as two homogenous blocs confronting each other as equals in a world that is not recognized to have been structured by hierarchical relations • Beck then presents a list of areas in which the West is ‘beginning to adopt non-Western standards of reality and normality which do not bode well’ (2000: 89). • The point is that they do not bode well for the West since they are the everyday conditions of existence for the non-West on which he has nothing to say

11. Cosmopolitan Cosmopolitanism? • ‘Being cosmopolitan’ (as a practice) is associated with being in the West and cosmopolitanism (as an idea) is seen as being of the West • This is a parochial reading of cosmopolitanism which betrays the very ideals that the concept expresses • The failure to acknowledge that there have been cosmopolitan practices, and the development of cosmopolitan ideas, in other parts of the world • Also, there is no engagement with the problematic tension between contemporaneous European domination over much of the world as the very real negation of the idea and ideals of cosmopolitanism

12. Cosmopolitan Cosmopolitanism • If we were to take cosmopolitanism as a way of looking at the world, this would require us to take the perspective of the world • That is, to be cosmopolitan in our very practices in understanding what it was and is to be cosmopolitan • We would need to be archivally cosmopolitan – look across time and across cultures to examine the ways in which people have thought and acted beyond the local (Pollock et al 2000) • Cosmopolitanism itself is threatened by the work of purification that insists on regarding it as the product of one culture, emerging from a centre and diffusing outwards

13. Essay Marking • Your work will be marked using the University’s newly introduced 17 point marking scale. • Each mark falls into one of the five classes of performance which correspond to the overall degree classification.

14. First Class Excellent 1st: 96 • Exceptional command of the subject, including material which ranges well beyond that covered in lectures/classes. Work of exceptional insight, bringing new perspectives to bear on the materials, or developing new knowledge or techniques. Achieves or is close to publishable standard. High 1st: 89; Mid 1st: 81; Low 1st: 74 • Very high quality work, with full understanding of the subject matter. Work that demonstrates intellectual maturity, and is perceptive with highly developed organisation. An ambitious project carried out successfully, with sophisticated handling of primary and secondary material, reasoned, analytical argument. Some degree of originality, independent research and thought.

15. Second Class Upper Division High 2.1: 68; Mid 2.1: 65; Low 2.1: 62 • Highly competent in organisation and presentation, evidence of individual research; appropriate and intelligent use of primary and secondary material, good understanding of subject matter allied with perceptive analysis Lower Division High 2.2: 58; Mid 2.2: 55; Low 2.2: 52 • Conscientious work, attentive to subject matter and title/task set; a focused response to the task demonstrating good knowledge, balanced more towards the descriptive than the analytical. Good knowledge, reasonable understanding of material and task. Descriptive rather than analytical.

16. Third Class, Fail High 3rd: 48; Mid 3rd: 45; Low 3rd: 42 • Some relevant knowledge, some accurate repetition of lecture/ class notes/ work. Partial or pedestrian description. High Fail (near miss): 38 • Work does not meet standards required for the appropriate stage of an Honours degree, albeit with some basic understanding of relevant concepts and techniques. Fail: 25; Low Fail: 12 • Ineptitude in knowledge, structure, academic/ professional practice. Failure or inability to answer the question/ respond to the task. No evidence of basic understanding of relevant concepts/ techniques. Zero: 0 • Work of no merit OR absent work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct cases.

17. Further Info • University of Warwick Teaching Quality webpage • http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/quality/categories/examinations/markscalesconventions/forstudents/