Globalization Theory”

Feeble… and Hijacked

Datos Bibliográficos

ID12901784
AutoresA Leander (0000-0002-0237-9507, Copenhagen Business School, autor de correspondencia)
Año2009
Volumen3
Número1
Páginas109-112
Fecha de publicación2009-03-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaInternational Political Sociology (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1749-5679 • E-ISSN: 1749-5687
EditorialOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1111/j.1749-5687.2008.00066_2.x
OpenAlexW2048370096
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas5
Referencias citadas12

Mathias Albert argued in a recent article of IPS (2007) that if systems theory could only work its magic on “globalization theory” it would no longer be “yesterday's fad” but prove “more lively than ever.” Very recently I formulated my thoughts on “globalization” (Leander 2008). The arguments were diametrically opposed to those of Albert and they also speak directly to questions raised in this forum, namely if Luhmann can provide a route away from conceptualizing the question of globalization as one of homogeneity and whether or not we can avoid being pulled back into the question of society. Globalization theory, I argued, was interesting in its undisciplined beginnings but was now by and large defunct. This, I suggested, was to be welcomed as much as the temptation to resurrect it with the help of Grand Theory was to be resisted. In the spirit of the dialogue encouraged in this forum, and by IPS generally, I will present this rather different take on globalization theory and the utility of a grand sociological theory (such as the one proposed by Albert) for making sense of it

Epistemology · Globalization · Political science · Social science · Sociology · Temptation · Theology · Yesterday · Critical Theory and Philosophy · International Development and Aid · Law · Philosophy · Political and Social Issues