Abstract
As Douglas Kellner put it in his 1993 article, ‘The critical theorists have deeply influenced contemporary social theory, philosophy, communications theory and research, cultural theory, and other disciplines for six decades. The dream of a interdisciplinary social theory continues to animate the sociological imagination. In recent decades there have been many different attempts to articulate the connections between the economic, political, social, and cultural dimensions of contemporary society in the spirit of critical theory’ (Kellner 1993, p. 43).
Keeping up with the same spirit, this book by sociologist Jose Mauricio Domingues presents a critical theory of contemporary society that addresses the issue of global modernity. It defines modernity as a global civilization and provides a sociological explanation for civilizational differences in contemporary societies in which the development of modernity, has entered into a third phase. Though maintaining a dialogue with multiple modernities and post-colonial approaches, this book nonetheless takes an alternative approach to the critique of modernity. In doing so the author takes on the global social formations of modernity from the vantage points of semi-periphery and periphery, particularly in the empirical contexts of China, Latin America (Brazil) and South Asia (India).
As the author opines, global modernity has entered the third phase and in this phase values that are not originally connected to modernity have reaffirmed themselves as a result of entanglement of heterogeneous civilizational elements in the expansion of modernity. Rather than treating these values as external to modernity, he describes them as civilizational differences into modernity. This whole new orientation towards modernity is rendered possible by the ‘South’ based approach adopted by the book that attempts to dissociate social theory from its unilateral Western, particularly Eurocentric and US-centric preoccupation. The choice of empirical case studies thus, not only provides a empirical basis to the understanding of global modernity but also opens critical social theory to a more inclusive and historical understanding of the processes and development of modernity as a whole. While re-orientating critical theory towards a more ecumenical and empirical understanding of contemporary global modernity, the book draws on many conceptual clusters. In the author’s own words:
First I tackle the discussion about patterns of capitalist accumulation, development and underdevelopment, dependency and autonomy, centre, periphery and semiperiphery, stemming mostly from a Latin American variant of critique. Then I turn to the relation between pluralism and difference, on the one hand, and ‘real abstractions’ and universalism, on the other, a Marxist heritage to be fully explored against the backdrop of increased social complexity. Finally, I confront a recent addition to this row, democratic theory, which was basically absent from Marxist debates…and appeared often in a fuzzy way in other sorts of critical perspectives. (p. 4)
Another important concept that runs throughout the book is the notion of ‘modernizing moves’. As an expanding social formation modernity entails an element of intentionality driven by collective subjectivities. Depending on the level of intentionality and the nature of reflexivity, Domingues labels them as ‘modernizing offensives’ and ‘episodic’ or ‘modernizing moves’. The former manifests as concrete projects of modernity characterized by higher levels of intentionality and rationalized reflexivity whereas the latter points towards more of dispersed elements of modernity based on lower levels of intentionality and practical reflexivity. These ‘modernizing moves’ depends on desires, social memories and creativity of collective subjectivities. The notion of ‘modernizing moves’ is crucial in understanding the actual development of modernity in all the phases as it presents a contingent and multidimensional view of the process embodied in the ability of different and sometimes contradictory civilizational elements to intermingle and hybridize thus creating seemingly different trajectories of the modernization process.
The first empirical section of the book deals with issues of economic life and military power albeit from a non-state centric viewpoint. It grapples with these issues within the wider framework involving the ideas of centre, periphery and semiperiphery that views the problems of development and underdevelopment in relation to a global capitalist system. Invoking established concepts such as development, modernization, global inequalities, accumulation and regulation, this section analyzes the three different empirical contexts of China, India and Brazil to demonstrate how a global system which he terms as ‘polarized regime of flexible accumulation’ has taken shape, riding on cross-national ‘modes of regulation’ and defined by uneven productive systems and uneven patterns of consumption.
The second section takes on the complexity of the social fabric resulting from different ‘modernizing moves’ in three different empirical contexts. As the focus is more on actual and concrete processes, social complexity is understood against the conceptual framework of differentiation, dis-embedding and re-embedding processes leading to issues of pluralism, differences and solidarity amidst increasing complexification in the third phase of modernity. The other dimension of this ‘modernizing moves’ is reflected in the idea of citizenship that underlies the process of ‘real abstraction’ and universalism representing a more homogenizing project of modernity albeit with marked difference attributing to different political and cultural contexts of the empirical cases. Different kinds of reconfiguration of citizenship and their resultant implications for the notion itself across the three case studies presented here provide interesting insights not only into the development of citizenship as a force of ‘modern’ universalism but also into its ambivalent as well as often paradoxical relationship with modernity.
In the third and final section Domingues surveys the three different political regimes—two (Brazil and India) falling within the broader liberal frame albeit with much difference and the other falling under authoritarianism with mass participation (China)—to account for what he labels as the ‘blind spot’ of critical theory, that is, democracy. Moving from a strictly theoretical approach to democracy he keeps his focus on the actual processes of democracy in these regions in the third phase of modernity characterized by increased complexity of social life and a parallel process of increasing polarization of contemporary societies. Drawing on previously discussed concept of citizenship and also the idea of ‘governmentality’, in this section he argues that, ‘state-related democracy has “authoritarian” aspects that place it in a continuum with other regimes, while most so-called authoritarian regimes…usually leave some room for societal autonomy’ (p. 214). This section also connects the experiences of de-democratization in the West in current times with that of the rest to exhibit the hybridization of democracy not just in the periphery but also at the centre. Such a critical and dialectical understanding of democracy brings the notion of democratization and de-democratization to the forefront of analyzing contemporary global modernity which in turn explicates its entangled nature in the third phase.
Drawing heavily on his previous works on sociological theory and modernity, in this book Domingues brings on three very important yet value-loaded concepts such as modernity, development and civilization under a single analytical framework of critical theory. The strength of the book lies in its ability to traverse these highly contested ideas with an effortless ease without either reifying them or underplaying their complexities. The uniqueness of the book lies in its approach to renewal of critical theory from the unconventional (if not rare) position of the periphery and semi-periphery which includes the West not merely as a reference point but as part of shared history and developments of modernity being an unified yet not a unilateral social phenomenon. While underlining the hegemonic as well as emancipatory tendencies of modernity, the author treats it as a rather entangled series of contingencies characterized by domination as well as hybridization in which social imageries, creativity and room for autonomy at the individual as well collective level renders it on the one hand adept to sustainability and expansion on a planetary scale, and on the other hand opens it to myriad possibilities that such expansion could result in both temporally and spatially. This calls for, as the author argues, establishing an ecumenical critical theory that focuses on the actual development of global modernity rather than trying to either fragment it or overturning it.
In theorizing modernity as entangled contingencies of different civilizational elements, this work bears a close resemblance to contemporary approaches of transculturality (Welsch 1999, 2002) which brings forth a new lens to look at social and cultural phenomena as products of a global process rather than as a single project of domination and adaptation. In defying conventional concepts such as homogenization, acculturation and syncretism, transculturality emphasizes the role of different modes of appropriation more than a narrow focus on a single dominant group 1 . Although the book by no means claims any association with transcultural perspectives, nonetheless their similarities only point towards emerging theoretical as well as epistemological paradigms to think about global phenomena in general and modernity in particular in current academic discourses.
Another noteworthy contribution of the book is bringing about a critical yet balanced approach towards the understanding of democracy in the non-Western societies, particularly in the context of China in this case. Focusing more on the actual processes of democracy over institutions, Domingues establishes an excellent illustration (Figure IV.1, p. 215) relating the liberal democracies to authoritarian regimes which he prefers to call dictatorships. He not only explains the thin line between the two by underlining the notion of ‘governmentality’ but also points the vulnerabilities of the Western democracies by invoking the idea of de-democratization. His critique of Amatrya Sen’s approach to poverty and development as ‘neoliberalism with a human face’ is particularly interesting in this context in which he expresses his reservation against Sen’s approach as he believes it to downplay the international and internal polarization in the current global system and also to accentuate the authoritarian spirit of liberal democratic states by adding to its instruments of ‘governmentality’.
The only limiting factor (if at all) of the book could be its strong reference to different streams of critical theory along with author’s own work on modernity. This might pose some challenges for readers who are not very familiar either with all the possible schools of thought referred here under the rubric of critical theory or with the author’s previous works which are steadily drawn upon throughout the book. Hence, it will be ideal to take up this book with some preliminary orientation to critical theory. However, the way this book has touched upon every critical perspective from Marxism to Postmodernism, from Weber to Habermas, from Satre to Giddens with such careful consideration that it could easily be placed as a general guide to critical theory. An effort to orient oneself with Domingues’ previous work particularly in reference to this book could start with the article ‘Beyond the Centre: The Third Phase of Modernity in a Globally Compared Perspective’ (Domingues 2011) which takes up the same case studies to establish a comparative analysis of global modernity in its third phase.
Notwithstanding its contribution in re-establishing a critical theory of global modernity from a non-Western vantage point, this book demands further accolades for advancing a social theory of modernity from periphery with an universal claim that has been for centuries a sanctuary for a select few from the West.