Thinking About the World: Philosophy and Sociology · Thinking About the World: Philosophy and...

transcript

Thinking About the World: Philosophy and Sociology Mathias Risse John W. Meyer

CARRCENTERFORHUMANRIGHTSPOLICY

CarrCenterforHumanRightsPolicyHarvardKennedySchool79JFKStreetCambridge,MA02138

www.carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu

StatementsandviewsexpressedinthisreportaresolelythoseoftheauthorsanddonotimplyendorsementbyHarvardUniversity,theHarvardKennedySchool,ortheCarrCenterforHumanRightsPolicy.

Thinking About the World: Philosophy and Sociology Mathias Risse isaProfessorofPhilosophyandPublicPolicyattheHarvardKennedySchool.Hisworkprimarilyaddressesquestionsofglobaljusticerangingfromhumanrights,inequality,taxation,tradeandimmigrationtoclimatechange,obligationstofuturegenerationsandthefutureoftechnology.Hehasalsoworkedonquestionsinethics,decisiontheoryand19thcenturyGermanphilosophy,especiallyNietzsche(onwhoseworkheregularlyteachesafreshmanseminaratHarvard).InadditiontoHKS,heteachesatHarvardCollegeandtheHarvardExtensionSchool,andheisaffiliatedwiththeHarvardphilosophydepartment.HehasalsobeeninvolvedwithexecutiveeducationbothatHarvardandinotherplacesintheworld.RisseistheauthorofOnGlobalJusticeandGlobalPoliticalPhilosophy,bothpublishedin2012.

John W. Meyer isaProfessorofSociology(and,bycourtesy,Education),emeritus,atStanford.Hehascontributedtoorganizationaltheory,comparativeeducation,andthesociologyofeducation,developingsociologicalinstitutionaltheory.Sincethe1970s,hehasstudiedtheimpactofglobalsocietyonnationalstatesandsocieties(somepapersarecollectedinWeltkultur:WiediewestlichenPrinzipiendieWeltdurchdringen,Suhrkamp,2005;amoreextensivesetisinG.KrueckenandG.Drori,eds.:WorldSociety:TheWritingsofJohnW.Meyer,Oxford2009).In2003hecompletedacollaborativestudyofworldwidescienceanditsnationaleffects(Drori,etal.,ScienceintheModernWorldPolity,Stanford).

CARRCENTERFORHUMANRIGHTSPOLICY

PAPERJUNE2018

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Abstract.............................................................................................................................................................................................5

Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................................5

ThinkingAbouttheWorld:Philosophy(MathiasRisse)....................................................................................................................6

1.Introduction:PoliticalPhilosophyandtheWorld....................................................................................................................6

2.FromPolistoKosmos...............................................................................................................................................................7

3.AllUnderHeaven.....................................................................................................................................................................9

4.TheChristianMiddleAges.....................................................................................................................................................10

5.EuropeanExpansionism.........................................................................................................................................................10

6.EnlightenmentandIndividualism..........................................................................................................................................13

7.Intothe20thCentury..............................................................................................................................................................14

8.RecentThought......................................................................................................................................................................14

9.WhereThingsStand...............................................................................................................................................................16

ThinkingAbouttheWorld:Sociology(JohnW.Meyer)..................................................................................................................18

1.Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................18

2.SocialScientificModelsofGlobalInterdependenceBeforeWorldWarII.............................................................................20

3.SocialScientificConceptionsofWorldSocietyAfterWorldWarII........................................................................................22

4.ResearchFocionaWorldSocietySincethe1970s................................................................................................................24

WorldSocietyandPluralistInternationalism:MathiasRisseCommentsonJohnW.Meyer.........................................................27

1.Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................27

2.MatchingOntologies,andWhyItMatters.............................................................................................................................28

3.BasicLegitimacyofaWorldofStates....................................................................................................................................30

4.WorldPolity,HumanRights,andRawls’PoliticalLiberalism.................................................................................................31

5.ThinkingAboutPoliticalChange............................................................................................................................................34

6.OnthePhilosophicalRichnessof“De-Coupling”...................................................................................................................35

ReflectionsonGlobalizationinPhilosophy:JohnW.MeyerCommentsonMathiasRisse............................................................37

1.Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................37

2.Globalized“Man”–TheUniversalizedandExpandedPublicIndividual................................................................................38

2.GlobalizingthePolitywithinWhichJusticeIsDefined..........................................................................................................40

3.TheWeakenedOntologicalPrimacyofNationalStateandSociety.......................................................................................43

4.Conclusion:ChangesinthePluralJusticeFrames..................................................................................................................44

Conclusion(JohnW.MeyerandMathiasRisse).............................................................................................................................45

Literature.........................................................................................................................................................................................47

ABSTRACT

Inrecentdecadestheworldhasgrowntogetherinwaysinwhichithadneverbefore.Thisintegrationislinkedtoagreatlyexpandedpublicandcollectiveawarenessofglobalintegrationandinterdependence.Academicsacrossthesocialsciencesandhumanitieshavereactedtotheexpandedrealitiesandperceptions,tryingtomakesenseoftheworldwithintheconfinesoftheirdisciplines.Insociology,sincethe1970s,notionsoftheworldasasocietyhavebecomemoreandmoreprominent.JohnMeyer,amongothers,hasputforward,theoreticallyandempirically,ageneralworld-societyapproach.Inphilosophy,muchmorerecently,MathiasRissehasproposedthegrounds-of-justiceapproach.Althoughoneissocial-scientificandtheotherphilosophical,Meyer’sworldsocietyapproachandRisse’sgrounds-of-justiceapproachhavemuchincommon.Thisessaybringsthesetwoapproachesintooneconversation.

INTRODUCTION

Inrecentdecadestheworldhasgrowntogetherinwaysinwhichithadneverbefore.Thisintegrationislinkedtoagreatlyexpandedpublicandcollectiveawarenessofglobalintegrationandinterdependence.Academicsacrossthesocialsciencesandhumanitieshavereactedtotheexpandedrealitiesandperceptions,tryingtomakesenseoftheworldwithintheconfinesoftheirdisciplines.1

Insociology,sincethe1970s,notionsoftheworldasasocietyhavebecomemoreandmoreprominent.JohnMeyer,amongothers,hasputforward,theoreticallyandempirically,ageneralworld-societyapproach.Onedefiningfeatureofworldsocietyistheriseofageneralworldculturalframethatprovidesmodels,norms,androlesona

1Amuch-shortenedversionofthispiecewillappearinSubramanianRangan(ed.),CapitalismBeyondMutuality?EssaysIntegratingSocialScienceandPhilosophy,OxfordUniversityPress.ThecollaborationbetweentheauthorswasenabledthroughtheSocietyforProgress,agroupofdistinguishedacademicsandbusinessleadersdevotedtoreflectiononthefutureofcapitalism;seehttp://www.societyforprogress.org/index.html.WearegratefultoSubiRanganforbringingthatgrouptogetheratvariousconferencesinLondon,FontainebleauandPrincetonandtherebyalsomakingourjointworkpossible.

globalscale.People,organizationsandnation-statesareseentoactonnormativeandcognitivemodelsthatareglobalincharacterandaspiration.Itislessandlessplausibletoseeworldsocietyintermsofexplanationsfocusingonlyonpower,interestsoreconomicstructures.Worldsocietytheoryisconcernedwith(oftencompeting)scriptswhoseinstitutionalizationcreatesaworldculturewheregeneralcognitiveprinciples,norms,values,androlesarebroadlysharedacrosscountriesandorganizationalcontexts.

Inphilosophy,muchmorerecently,MathiasRissehasproposedthegrounds-of-justiceapproach.Groundsarepropertiesofindividualsthatmakeitthecasethatcertaindemandsofjusticeapplyamongagroupofpeople.Thegroundshedistinguishesaresharedmembershipinstates,commonhumanity,sharedsubjectiontothetradingsystem,membershipintheglobalorderandhumanity’scollectiveownershipoftheearth.Atheoryofglobaljusticeemergesfromreflectiononthevariousgrounds.

Theoriginsofthiscollaborationlieinourrealizationthat,eventhoughoneisasocial-scientificapproachandtheotheraphilosophicalone,Meyer’sworldsocietyapproachandRisse’sgrounds-of-justiceapproachhavemuchincommon.Thisessaybringsthesetwoapproachesintooneconversation.PartI,writtenbyMathiasRisse,tracesphilosophicalreflectionontheworldacrosshistory.PartII,writtenbyJohnW.Meyer,doesthesameforsocial-scientificreflectionontheworld.PartIIIcontainsMathiasRisse’scommentsonJohnWMeyer,andPartIVcontainsJohnW.Meyer’scommentsonMathiasRisse.PartVconcludes.

THINKINGABOUTTHEWORLD:PHILOSOPHY(MATHIASRISSE)

1.INTRODUCTION:POLITICALPHILOSOPHYANDTHEWORLD

Politicalphilosophypondershowbesttoarrangepoliticalandeconomicinstitutionsandsocialpractices.Philosophersaccountforideassuchasjustice,democracy,andrights,bringingtheiranalysestobearonexistinginstitutionsandpractices.Inevitably,mostquestionsaboutlivingarrangementsariseamongpeoplewhointeractregularly.Accordingly,mostpoliticalphilosophyhasaddressedlocalorregionalmatters.Butphilosophershavealsolongthoughtabouttheworld,abouthowhumansoughttolivetogetheronthisplanet.

Thiswasbecausereflectingonthescourgesofwarrevealedthatlastingpeacerequiredsuitablearrangementswithone’sneighbors,thenalsowiththeirneighbors,andsoon.Occasionally,itwasbecausesomestoryoranotherwasdesirabletolegitimizeintrusioninfarawaylands.Often,however,itwasbecausereflectionshowedthat,asmuchastheysoundedlike“bar,bar,”peopleacrosstheriverortheimaginarylinesharedmuchwithone’skin.Theybelongedtothesameorder,insomesense.OritwasbecausereligiousorphilosophicalviewsrendereditincrediblethatthebenignityorrationalitybehindtheCreationcouldaccordwithhumandivisiveness.Therehavealwaysbeenuniversalisticideas,emergingfromwithinlocalworldsofpractice.Universalisticideasandworldsofpracticechange,andoftencollide.

Rarelyhavehumanssimplystayedput.Thustheyneededwaysofthinkingabouthowtotreatthosewhomtheyencountered.Sometimesthoughnotalwaysanextstepwastakentothinkabouttheworld.Thegoalhereistolookatafewwaysinwhichphilosophershavethoughtabouttheworld,roughlyinchronologicalorder.Thereareothersmore,andoutsidetheWesterncanon,coverageisspotty.

2.FROMPOLISTOKOSMOS

TheAncientGreekslivedinpoleis,city-stateswithhinterlands,averagingaboutthesizeofLiechtenstein.2InthefourthcenturyBC,IsocratesfamouslyarguedforGreekunity,insistingonlyanumbrellagovernmentcapableofkeepingallcitiesinlinewouldcureincessantwarfare.Thisthoughtofcreatingoverarchingstructuresforpeace-keepinghasechoedthroughtheages.

SoonPhilipofMacedonoverranthepoleis.Hissonvanquishedmuchoftheknownworld.Alexanderhassometimesbeenhailedasanobledreamerseekingtounifyhumanity.3Eitherway,itwasAlexander’sempirethatrenderedworldunityaphantasyonecouldentertain.LatertheRomansfoundedanempirethatlastedformuchlonger,andwhosememorylongafteritsdemisefedthedreamofunity.

2ForagoodoverviewofGreekpoliticalthought,seeRyan(2012),chapter1-5.3OnAlexanderasadreamerofworldunity,seeBadian(1958).SeealsoBaldry(1965),chapter4.

BeforeallthatcametopassGreekpoliticalphilosophyfocusedonthepolis,andlittleelse.InworkssuchastheRepublic(Politeia),Plato’sSocratestheorizedcity-states.Hethoughtthattoliveagoodlifemeanttoflourishinacity.ParallelsbetweenpersonandcitymatteredforPlato;parallelsbetweencityandworlddidnot.Aristotle’spoliticalphilosophytoohadlittletosayonwhatlaybeyondthecity-state.IntheNicomacheanEthics,hereportedthat“somesaythereisonejustice,asfireburnshereandinPersia”(BookV,7),andconcurred(withqualifications).ButnothingwassaidabouthowsuchjusticemightjointlyapplytoGreeceandPersia.

ThefirstEuropeanphilosophertoarticulateacosmopolitanviewwastheCynicDiogenes.4Hecalledhimself“acitizenoftheworld[KOSMOPOLITÊS]”(DiogenesLaertiusVI63)ApparentlyDiogenesmerelymeanttoconveyanegativemessage:itdidnotmatterforhowhesawhimselfthathehailedfromSinope.Unsurprisinglypoliticalthoughtthatbeganwiththepoliswouldtalkabouttheworldbyfirstascertainingwaysinwhichtheworld(kosmos)wasacity(polis).

TheStoicsprovidedapositivedoctrine.5Muchaspoleisaregovernedbylaw,soisthekosmos.Platodrewparallelsbetweensoulandcity.TheStoicsdrewthembetweencityandworld.However,thelawgoverningcitiesisconventional,whereaslawgoverningtheworldisnatural:rightreason(logos)byitselfcandiscoverit.Accesstorightreasonsetshumansapartfromtherestofnature.Eventually,eachpersoncapableofpartakinginrightreasonwouldcometobeappreciatedinhis(lateralsoher)ownright.Thehumanrightsmovementstilldrawsontheseideas.

TheStoicshadavisionoflogosrulingtheworldbutlittleinterestingeography,theplaceswherepeoplelived,andinunderstandinghumandiversity.Forsuchwork,wemustlooktothefollowersofAristotle,thePeripatetics,particularlyEratosthenes.“WhileChrysippus,”anearlyStoic,“elaboratedtheStoicdoctrineofmanintheuniverse,Eratostheneswasmappingandmeasuringtheearth”(Baldry(1965),p168).Itisherethatwereceivedadistinctivesenseofacivilizedworldthatwasnonethelessmulti-linguisticandmulti-racial.

InthefirstcenturyBC,Cicerotookforgrantedthattheworldwas(andis)acity.SomeearlierStoicshadbeenunderstoodasrestrictingmembershipinthekosmostothewise.However,Cicerocountedeverybodyamember.ButcosmopolitanismbecamethinatCicero’shands.

4OntheCynics,seeMoles(2000)andrelevantsectionsinParry(2014)andKleingeldandBrown(2013).

5OntheStoics,seeBaltzly(2003),Brown(2009),andSchofield(1991).SeealsoKonstan(2009).

WhileOnDuties(DeOfficiis)hasstrongwordsfortheimportanceofhumanity,thisrecognitionsoundshollowinlightofthelonglistofspecialrelationswhosemoralsignificanceCicerostressesinhistheoryofjustice.6

3.ALLUNDERHEAVEN

InChinesepoliticalthought,thesubjectallalongwastheempire,indeedthewholeknownworld.Wheninthe11thcenturyBCtheZhoureplacedtheZhang,thejustificationfortheoverthrowspelledoutthe“mandatefromheaven”thatspecifiedwhogottorule.Theimpliedcontrastbetween“heaven”and“earth”madeitnaturaltoregardthoseoverwhomrulewasexercisedas“allunderheaven”(tianxia).Confucius(around500BC),andlaterMencius,advocatedunitybeforethebackgroundofcenturiesofwarfare.Buttheyappealedtoaunitythathadexistedprior.Confucius’scontemporary,SunTzu,admonishedinhisclassicArtofWarSunthat“youraimmustbetotakeall-under-heavenintact.”(3:11).AllpeoplesshouldandcouldjointheunifiedrealmSunTzuhopedwouldemerge,evendistantbarbarians.7

ButwhileChinesethoughtfocusedonsomethingmuchbiggerthanthecity,italsochampionedsomethingmuchsmaller:family.Allunderheavenfallintoconcentriccircleswiththeextendedfamilyatitscore.ConfuciusandMenciusdidnotthinkoftheworldasgovernedbylogos.Theircorenotionwas“ren,”“meetingofpeople,”whichcapturesappropriatebenevolence,humaneness.

Sincethe1990s,thedoctrineoftianxiahasseenarevival.Inhis2005bookTheTianxiaSystem:APhilosophyfortheWorld,thephilosopherZhaoTingyangaimstomergetheideaofall-under-heavenwiththeGreekrationaldialogueontheagora.WhatunderliestheUN,hesays,areidealsoftransnationaldemocracyandrationalcommunication,incontinuationoftheagora.However,theUNisanagorawithoutapolis,whichwouldhavetobeaglobalpolis.ZhaobelievestheChineseideaofall-under-heavenprovideswhatismissing,harmonizingGreekandChinesethought.

6OntheconnectionbetweentheStoicsandCicero,seeBaldry(1965),chapter6.7Forthethemesinthissection,seeAngle(2012)andBai(2012).

4.THECHRISTIANMIDDLEAGES

KosmopolisandnaturallawmorphedintoChristianthought.TheworldbecameakosmoscreatedbythemaximalGod.WhatespeciallyfellonfertilesoilwastheStoictaleoftwocities.Bothpolisandkosmopolismadedemands.Christiansrecastthistale:“RenderthereforeuntoCaesarthethingswhichareCaesar's;anduntoGodthethingsthatareGod's”(Matthew22:21).

InAugustine’sappropriation,thepolisbecametheworldlypoliticaldomain.Worldlypowerwasaplayingfieldfordeluded,violentcharacters.Eveniftheytried,theycouldnotdetermineiftheyhadachievedjustice.Justicemeanstogiveeachhisdue.ButifonlytheChristianmaximalGodknowswhatthatis,thejustworldasahumancreationiscategoricallyoutofreach.ThekosmopolisAugustinetransformsintoaspiritualspherewherepeopleofalloriginsareeligibletobecome“fellow-citizenswiththesaints”(EPHESIANS2:20).ButthiscityofGodisopentobelieversonly.ForChristianity,thinkingabouttheworldmeanstothinkaboutthiswholeworld,butalsoalwaysaboutthetranscendentworldthatreallymatters.

ChristianitykeptaliveaspiritualizedvisionofRomanruleasadrivingidealofempire.CentraltothecosmopolitanthoughtofAntiquitywasworldcitizenshipratherthanagovernment.ButitwasthethoughtoftheworldruledbyonegovernmentthatbecamecentralinDante’sDeMonarchiaaround1300.Toachievethekindofperfectionhumanityiscapableof,thewholespeciesmustpursuethistask.Thediversityofstrivingmustbeprotectedbyauniversalstructure.Puttingamonarchinchargebestsuitedtheendeavor.

Dante’shumanacivilitaswasnotthoughttoinhabitalloftheearth.SincethearchaicGreeks,Westernthoughtmarkedoffafinitestretchofearthfromtheformlessexpansesurroundingit.Theorbisterrarium(therealmwherepeoplelived)includedEurope,Africa,andAsia,withtheimpassableoceanallaround.“Theworld”,understoodasthespacefilledbythehumanacivilitas,wasnotthewholeplanet.8

5.EUROPEANEXPANSIONISM

Forthefirsttime,Europeanseafaringexplorationsraisedquestionsaboutthedivisionoftheglobeassuch.Thereweresophisticatedtradeeconomiesthatincludedlargepartsofthe

8OnDanteandtheChristianMiddleAges,seeHeater(1996),chapter2.OnDanteandmedievalcosmology,seeBartelson(2009),chapter3.Ontheboundariesoftheworld,seeRomm(1992).

knownworldbeforethisperiod.Buttheworldonlynowbecametheplanet.Forbetterorworse,“Columbusbroughtthetwohalvesoftheplanettogether.”9Globalizationhasalwaysbeenaboutexportingmodelsoforder.Intheearlystages,itwasheavilydrivenbyapapaldirectivetoproselytize.

Questionsaroseabouthowtheconqueringnationsshoulddividetheirspoils.Manyancientideasabouttheworldnowresurfaced.SomearguedthatNativeAmericanswerenaturalslaves(revitalizinganAristoteleandoctrine)andcouldnotownproperty.Muchlater,withtheadvancementofscience,thisapproachhardenedinto“scientific”racism.Others,notablyVitoria,insistedthatnativeshadtoberespectedashumanswhoownedterritory.Buthetoojustifiedconquest.10

Considerationsaboutproperlandusebecameincreasinglyimportant.OneguidingideawastheStoiclaw-of-naturedoctrinetoletstrangersusethingsonedoesnotneed.Acasecouldbemadethatif“savages”resistedtheoccupationofland,intheeyesofthesebeholderstheycouldnotmeaningfullyuse,violencewasappropriate.Thentherewastheviewthathumanitycollectivelyownedtheearth.ThisthoughttoogoesbacktotheStoa.Moreimportantly,itisintheOldTestament.

God’sgiftoftheearthtohumanitybecamethepivotalthoughtof17thcenturypoliticalphilosophy.11Allmajorfigures,fromGrotiusatthebeginningviaHobbes,Selden,Pufendorf,andFilmertoLockeattheendofthecentury,hadviewsonwhatsuchownershipamountedto.Thedisagreementswereaboutwhopreciselywastherecipient(onlyAdam,orhumanitycollectively),howitcouldbebequeathed,andwhatnaturalrightstostuffcollectiveownershipimplied(asopposedtoentitlementsfromtransactions).

Thegreatpoliticaldevelopmentofthe17thcenturywasthecementationofanorderconsistingofsovereignstates,statesthatarepeersandfreetoconductdomesticandforeignpolicyastheyseefit.Warsmadestates,statesmadewars,butstatesalsomadenationsandnation-

9Crosby(2003),p31.10OnVitoria,seePagden(2015),chapter1;seealsoNussbaum(1954),pp79-84.“

11SeeTuck(2001).

states.12The1648TreatyofWestphaliacametosymbolizetheinitialstagesofthisprocess,13butthesloganofthe1555AugsburgReligiousPeacecapturestheerabest:cuiusregioeiusreligio,hewhocontrolsaregiongetstochooseitsreligion(andmuchmore).Tothisday,andintotheforeseeablefuture,oursisaworldofstates.Itwasthroughcenturies-longdecolonizationthattheEuropeansystemoforderultimatelytriumphed.

Severalofthenaturallawyersofthe17thcenturyweresocial-contracttheorists.Grotius,Pufendorf,andothersappliedthatmodelgloballyandlaidthefoundationforinternationallaw.14However,whatnowadayswerecognizeasinternationallawlargelyemergedonlyinthe19thcentury.Initially,internationallawwasdesignedtoregulateinteractionamongcolonialpowers.Graduallymoreandmorecountrieswerecreated.Theresultwasaworldofartificiallyequalstatesoperatinginwhatincreasinglybecameaglobalsystem.Later,the20thcenturywascharacterizedbytheestablishmentoforganizationsdevotedtointernationalproblem-solving,foremosttheUN.

Inaworldthatincreasinglylimitsthepolicyspaceofnation-states,questionsariseaboutwhethertheglobalorderisstillbestdescribedasastatesystem,andwhatfeasiblealternativescouldbe.Letmejustmentiontwoapproaches.Inthemiddleofthelastcentury,CarlSchmittarguedthattheworldofstateshadexpiredinthe19thcenturywhencolonialismreacheditslimits.Hesawthefutureinaworldofgreatspaces,Grossräume,butrejectedglobaloversightinsistingthatwhoeversaidhumanitysoughttodeceive.Arguably,thecurrentposturingofChinaexpressesagreementwiththiskindofapproach.15AverydifferentapproachwasrecentlyadoptedbyDavidHeld,whoseworkexplorestheshiftfromnation-statestoaworldof“overlappingcommunitiesoffate”,andhowdemocraticstandardsandcosmopolitanvaluescanbeentrenchedglobally.Heldsupportsthesubordinationofregionalandnationalsovereigntiestoanoverarchinglegalframework.16

12TheformulationthatstatesmadewarsandwarsmadestatesgoesbacktoTilly(1975).

13SeeBeaulac(2004)fortheextenttowhichtheimportanceofWestphaliahasbeenoverstated.

14Forthehistoryofinternationallaw,seeNussbaum(1954)andKoskeniemmi(2002).

15Schmittdevelopshisthoughtsoninternationalordermostextensivelyinhis1950NomosoftheEarth.ThequoteabouthumanitySchmittattributestoProudhon,butagreeswithit;see(1963),p55.

16SeeforinstanceHeld(2004).

6.ENLIGHTENMENTANDINDIVIDUALISM

DuringtheEnlightenmentinitialstepsweretakentoensurethepoliticalandlegalmapwouldalsoincludeindividuals.NaturallawsinceAntiquityhadtalkedaboutindividuals.Butformuchofhistoryrecognizingindividualsashavinganykindofstatusacrossborderscouldnothaveamountedtomuch.Inthe18thcentury,theAmericanDeclarationofIndependencespokeof“adecentrespecttotheopinionsofmankind.”Thiswordingwassymptomaticofanemergingtransnationalpublic.The1789FrenchDeclarationoftheRightsofManandtheCitizenwasintendedtomakesurepowerwasexercisedalsoonbehalfofindividualswhooftenneededprotectionfromstatesmorethanfromanythingelse.

Organizationsstartedtoemergetopursueconcernsofindividualsacrossstatelinesthatwouldoftennotalignwithinterestsofstates.Inthe19thcentury,theparadigmaticmovementwasthatoftheworkingclass.ButthemotheroftransnationalhumanitarianeffortswastheBritishanti-slaverymovement,datingfromthelate18thcentury.Throughoutthe19thcentury,transnationalsocialactivistsadoptedadditionalcauses.Eventually,thesewaysofprotectingindividualsfedintotheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,andmuchsubsequentinternationallaw.Individualsassuchcametomatterinthe20thcenturyastheyneverhadbefore.17

Onephilosophicalworkfromtheendofthe18thcenturyconceptualizedtheworldinanovel,multi-facetedway.Kant’sOnPerpetualPeacewasguidedbytheideathat“thepeoplesoftheearthhavethusenteredinvaryingdegreesintoauniversalcommunity,andithasdevelopedtoapointwhereaviolationofrightsinonepartoftheworldisfelteverywhere.”18Kant’swasaworldofstates--notjustanystates,accordingtohisprescriptions,butstatesthatwouldallowforsomedegreeofrepresentationofthepeople.Healsobelievedrightcannotprevailamongpersonsintheirownstateifotherstatesthreatentheirfreedom.Afederationtokeepthepeacewasneeded.Kant’sworldalsogavestatustoindividualsbyacknowledgingacosmopolitanrightofhospitalitytoprotectindividualsindealingswithforeigngovernments.Thathumanityjointlyinhabitsaplanetalsoentered:itisbecauseweshareasphereratherthan

17Onthehistoryofthehumanrightsmovement,especiallythepredecessors,seeLauren(2003).

18SeeKant(1991),pp107-8.

aninfiniteplanethatwehaveinevitablyencounteredeachotherandmustregulateouraffairsinwaysrespectfulofallmembersofthemoralcommunity.

7.INTOTHE20THCENTURY

Thedesiretobuildtraderoutesinstigatedexplorationthroughouthistory.Tradeallowedforexchangesofproducts,technology,bestpractices,andideas.Artisanswouldcopyforeignmerchandise,ship’sdoctorsstudiedlocalherbs,andvesselsaddedusefulfeaturesspottedinforeignharbors.Animalsandcropswouldbetransplantedandtriedelsewhere.19Butlong-distancetradewouldnormallybetradeinluxurygoodsaffordableonlytoafew.OnlytheIndustrialRevolutionallowedformass-productionofgoods,aswellasforfasttransportation.

Inthe19thcentury,globalizationincitedfiercereactions.MarxandEngelsregardedcapitalismasinherentlyexpansive,breakingtheboundsofthestatesystem.Bourgeoisideologylegitimatized“free”tradewhileimpoverishingmillions.Theyalsoheldthatacrosscountriestheproletariathadcommoninterests.TheCommunistManifestoendswiththerallyingcry“Workingmenofallcountries,unite!”Communistsjuxtaposedthethoughtthattrademakestheworldwiththethoughtthattradeworsensoppression,buttherebyalsohastenstherevolution.

Politicsbecameglobalinthefirsthalfofthe20thcenturylikeneverbefore.Communism,liberalismandfascismwerevyingforsupremacy.Fascismemphasizesauthoritarianruleandsubjectionofindividualsundercollectivecontrol.Hitler’sMeinKampftalksabouthumanrightsonlytomocktheideabyemphasizingthatpersonshaveonesuchright:tobelongtoaraciallypuregroup.Butbothliberalismandcommunismoffermoralvisionsthatmaketheindividualcentral.Bothalsohavefoundwaysoflosingsightofthatcommitment.Fortheremainderofthe20thcentury,muchoftheworldwasdividedbetweenliberal-capitalistandcommunistcountries.

8.RECENTTHOUGHT

Astage-settingworkinAnglo-Americanphilosophyduringthelastthirdofthe20thcenturywasRawls’TheoryofJustice.Rawlssubmittedthatthewaytothinkaboutjusticewasbycreatinga

19 Forhowtradehasshapedtheworld,seeBernstein(2008),PomeranzandTopik(2006),andFindleyandO’Rourke(2007).

“reflectiveequilibrium”betweenintuitionsregardingjusticeandtheprinciplesthatsystematizethem.Intheprocess,intuitionsandprincipleswouldhavetobeadjustedtofiteachother.Centraltothiseffortwasan“originalposition”,modelingindividualsasengagedinachoiceaboutprinciplesofjusticeunderconstraints(especiallya“veilofignorance”shieldingthemfrominformationabouttheirstationinlife).TheresultofthisprocesswasRawls’stwoprinciplesofjustice,whichgiveprimacytoeverybodyequallyenjoyingcivilandpoliticalliberties,providefairequalityofopportunityinaccessinggoodsandstatus,andarrangeremainingsocio-economicinequalitiestoeverybody’sadvantage.

TheintensityandbreadthoftheworkanimatedbyRawlsmarktheselastdecadesasoneofthemostintenseperiodsinthehistoryofpoliticalphilosophy.Thisshouldbelittlesurprise:betterunderstandingofthefunctioning’sofsocietyandoftechnologyprovidesmorepolicytoolsthaneverbefore;populationshavegrownenormouslyinthelast200years,andmanyarewell-educatedandwishtoparticipateactivelyinsociety;andbothdomesticsocietiesandtheworldassuchhavebecomeintenselyintertwined,politicallyandeconomically.

Rawls’searlyworkmostlyconcernedonestateatatime.Bythetimehedevelopedhisthoughtsoninternationalaffairs,inLawofPeoplesinthelate1990s,thefieldhadchanged.“Globaljustice”,thustheworld,hadbecomeincreasinglycentral.EveninLawofPeoples,however,Rawlssawtheworldthroughthelensesoftheforeignpolicyofthekindofstatehefavored.Bythenothershadappliedhisapproachglobally.Rawlsarguedthatitistheexistenceofabasicstructureofpoliticalandeconomicinstitutions–thosedeterminingthefundamentalparametersofinteraction–thatrenderspenetratingprinciplesofjusticeapplicableamongthosewhosharethem.Butasinthefirstinstance,BeitzandPoggeinsisted,suchabasicstructureexistsglobally.Rawlshimself,andothers,deniedthis,assertingthemoralsignificanceofwhatpeoplehaveincommonwhoshareastate.20

Poggelaterarguedthatthebasicglobalstructureisarrangedenduringlytoinflictgrievousinjusticesonthemostvulnerable.21Thedependencytheorymadeasimilarcase,maintainingthe“periphery”oftheglobaleconomywouldcontinuetodeclinegiventhatitsmajorcontribution(resources)wouldincreasinglyloseinrelativevalue.Suspicioneasilyfallsonaworldthatworksoutmuchbetterforsomethanforsomanyothers.Nowadaysmost(notall)philosopherstakeakindofmoralcosmopolitanismforgranted,recognizingsomesortof

20SeeBeitz(1979)andPogge(1989).21SeePogge(2006).

humanequality.Disagreementloomsinassessingwhatsuchequalityentailsgiventhattheworldisacomplexwebofrelationships(asCiceroknew).TheviewsontherelationshipbetweenpolisandkosmopolisthatwereopentoStoicsarenowopentous.

9.WHERETHINGSSTAND

Themultifariouswaysinwhichpeoplehavethoughtabouttheworldarestillwithus.Ourcommonhumanitymatters.Nothingservesbettertoillustratethisthanthehumanrightsmovement,withitsfocusontheideathatsomethingaboutusbeinghumangeneratesentitlementsandcorrespondingobligationsheldbydistantpeople.Wenolongerconsidertheearthadivinegift.Butintellectuals,enlightenedpoliticians,andforesightedcitizensunderstandthat(inageologicalerasometimescalledtheAnthropocene)wemustseeourselvesashavingarelationshipwithourplanetacrossgenerations.“Nature”isnolongerindependentlygiven,butsomethingweourselvescanshape,thoughnotinallways,andnotalwaysthewaywewant.

Politicalandeconomicinterconnectednessismirroredinorganizationsandintergovernmentalarrangementsandtheelaboratebodyofinternationallawthatregulatetransnationalinteractions.Thediversityofethnicities,towhichEratosthenesalertedreaders,hastoooftenfallenpreytorank-ordering,withcalamitousandevencataclysmicconsequences.“Racialequality”becameabuzz-wordonlyatthebeginningofthe20thcentury,tonoavailthenforatleastseveralmoredecades.Formanyreligiouspeople,thepoweroftheologythatcompelsthemtothinkabouttheworldassuchratherthanpartsofitalsoforcesthemtoseethisworldasmerelyanephemeraloneinamuchlargerschemeofthings.Thispreventsthemfromseekingreasonabletermswithothersonanincreasinglycrowdedplanet.

Stateshavewitheredbuttheyhavenotwitheredaway,asEngelspredicted.Still,muchthatmattersisnolongerdecidedwithinstates.Internationaloftentrumpsdomesticrule-setting.Internationalculturefuelsdomesticculture.Therisingworshipoftheindividualreflectsthedeclineinworshipofstates,aswellastherisingworshipofthe“world.”However,theperiodduringwhichindividualityandequalityhavebeenpraisedhasalsobeenoneofmassiveeconomicinequality.Wearecurrentlyonthebrinkofatechnologicalrevolution.Oneresultcouldbethatweincreasinglymodifyourselves,perhapscreatinguntoldnumbersofblond,super-intelligentchildrenwhoexcelatsports.Anotherresultcouldbeanexacerbationofinequality.Thosewhoknowhowtomakeorusetechnologywillprosper.Othersmaybecomeincreasinglyeconomicallyuseless.

Thethoughtthathumansmatterassuchhasalsoledtothethoughtthatwhatevermakesusmattermightalsoapplytoothercreatures.Sometalkabout“expandingcircles”ofmoral

concern,insistingourtreatmentofanimalsisabysmal.22Soon,ourworldmayincludemachinesequippedwithartificialintelligence,whichmightposeagravethreattohumanity.Perhapseventuallywemustseetheearthaspartofalivingspaceconsistingofalargechunkofgalacticspace,andconfrontaliensthatmaymakedemandsontheresourcesofourplanet.

Environmentalethicshasbecomeprominent,remindingusthatthereareplants,ecosystemsandothercomponentsofnaturedeservingofmoralconcern.Whilewecanattachvaluestonatureonlyonahumanscale,wecanvaluenatureotherthaninstrumentally.Wemustrecallthelong-termconsequencesoftheStoicideaofnaturallaw:byempoweringindividuals,italsohasawayofsettingusapart.Theinsistenceontheimportanceofhumanrightsisnotincompatiblewithaconcernfortheplanet.Butnoraretheseviewpointsautomaticallylinked.

Thesocialworldhasbecomealmostincomprehensiblycomplex.Itispopulatedbystatesandindividuals,andofcoursecompanies,manytransnational,andsomeofthosehugeconglomerations.Thelastcenturyhaswitnessedanextraordinarygrowthofcivilsociety.Therelativeimportanceofalltheseentitiesforbringingaboutchangeisdebated,asistheirimportanceforthekindofquestionthatexercisesphilosophers,suchashowtothinkaboutjusticeatthegloballevel.

Thesemattersareurgentsincetheymighthelpusnavigateunchartedterraintomeetthechallengeofourtime:howtokeepourflourishingspeciesfromruiningtheveryworldofwhichwearepart.Ifwefail,theplanetwillstillbethere.Buttheothersensesinwhichwehavecometothinkabouttheworldmayenduplackingareference.Perhapsonlyafewhumanswilleventuallyremaintorememberthattherewasoncemoreto“theworld.”

22SeeSinger(2011).

THINKINGABOUTTHEWORLD:SOCIOLOGY(JOHNW.MEYER)

1.INTRODUCTION

ThesocialsciencesasdistinctdisciplinesgenerallyaroseaftertheEnlightenment,evolvingoutofthebroaderarenaofphilosophy.Theydevelopedoverthe19thcentury,expandedinthefirsthalfofthe20thcentury,andthengrewexplosivelyintheperiodsinceWorldWarII.Theirgrowthparallelsratherpreciselythenotoriousdeclineinthehumanities(FrankandGabler2006;DroriandMoon2006).Beforethe19thcentury,topicsnowconsideredsocialscientificwerediscussedbyphilosophersandtheologians,notbyspecializedsociologistsoreconomists(thoughthereissometendencytoanachronisticallydiscoversociologyoreconomicsinAristotleorIbnKhaldun).Thesocialscienceshavetendedtofocuson,andtakeforgrantedascentral,thecoreontologicalelementsofthepost-Enlightenmentsocialworld:thenation-stateandtheindividual.Evennow,thesocialsciencesarerelativelystrongerintheWest–especiallytheProtestantWestwithitsindividualism(Frank,MeyerandMiyahara1995).Butthenation-statesystemhasspreadtothewholeworld,andthesocialscienceshavespreadalongwithit.Forexample,theendoftheColdWarcreatedanexplosionofsocialscienceintheformerCommunistcountries.

Thetieofthesocialsciencestothenation-statesystemhasmeantthattheircomprehensionofasupra-nationalorglobalsocietyhasbeendelayed,oftenfallingbehindmorepopularawareness.Thecriticsof“methodologicalnationalism”haveastrongcase(e.g.,Beck2000).Eveninobvioussituations,suchastheriseofEuropeaninstitutions,socialscientificdiscussionsarehalting:richliteratureonsociallifeandwelfareinSwedenorSpainarenotparalleledbyasimilarliteratureon“Europeansociety.”Overall,thesocialsciencesarelate-comerstouniversalisticnotionsofasupra-nationalsociety:theirorientationsaretoaworldofnationalsocietiesbuiltonoriginally-Westernmodels.

TheEnlightenment,ithasbeensaid,“discoveredsociety.”Beforethen,universalisticthoughtinChristendomtendedtolocateanidealsocialorderinsomethingaboveamundanephysicalandsocialrealityseenaschaoticorcorrupted.Variousmixturesoffaith,reason,andnaturallawcouldmakesenseasgeneralprinciples.Similarmixturescanbefoundinearlierandothercivilizations,butthesocialsciencesasweseethemaroseprincipallyfromWesternChristendom.

AftertheEnlightenment,conceptionsofsocietyasacoherentsystemofinterdependentpartsandlocusofpurposiveactionarose.Societywasseenintheplural,andtheworldwasunderstoodtobefilledwiththem.Increasingly,withSocialDarwinism(asinSpencer1896)theywereseentolieonanevolutionaryordevelopmentalscale.Bythelate19thcenturyallthemajorsociologistshadatypologyofsocietiesalongtheselines(e.g.,Durkheim[mechanical-organic],Toennies[gemeinschaft-gesellschaft],Marx[feudal-capitalist],Weber,orComte).Primitiveorpre-modernsocietieswereseenasnaturalsystems,embeddedinnatureandculture.Developedoneswererationalizedanddifferentiated,andtheconsequenceofpurposiveaction:variouslybyindividualsinliberalversions,andbythestateinilliberalones(Toulmin1990).

Societywasdepictedasanautonomousfunctionalsystem,disembeddedfromhistoryandculture:this,itwasunderstood,wasthesourceofthegreatsuccessoftheWest.Societyisthusseenasanorganization,producedandmaintainedbytheinteractionamongitspurposivedifferentiatedparts(oftenindividuals,ororganizationsculminatinginthestate):“Manmakeshimself”istheidea.Historymayenterinthroughthepurposesbuiltintothevariouspartsmakingupthesocialsystem,butnotasacollectiveproperty.Cultureseenasacollectivemeaningfabric,characteristicofpre-modernandprimitivesocieties,wasmainlylefttotheanthropologists.Religionwasclearlythoughtonitswayout,andcertainly,anyChurchwitharealcosmologywas.Ifreligionsurvived,itwasaspartofabeliefsystemofindividualsandgroupswithinsociety,notofsocietyitself.Alltheseunderlyingimagesremainaliveinsocialscientificunderstanding:theyalsomakeuparelativelydominantworldideology(Thornton,DoriusandSwindle2015providemanyexamplesfromresearcharoundtheworld).

Increasingly,notionsofsocietybecamelinkedtothenation-state(thoughsometimesa“civilization,”whenimperialorreligiousambitionswerestrong,aswiththeEuropeancolonialpowers).Theoldertranscendentalideasofacommonuniversalmoralorder,secularized,developedintosocialscientificlawsapplicableeverywhere–butfoundintheirhighestformindominantcountries.Sobythe20thcentury,thespecialWesternreligiousstatusofthehumanpersonwasinpartreformulatedascarriedbynationalcitizenshipandthoughttobenecessaryandfunctionalforcomplexsocieties.Rationalizationanddifferentiationcreatedistinctiverolesandcombinationsofrolesforindividualpersons,producingtheadvancedmodernconsciousindividuatedperson–andtheneedforsuchwell-schooledpersonsinthecomplexsociety(Simmel1976[1903]isthelocusclassicusofthislineofthought).Thus,religioussalvationwasincreasinglytranslatedintocompulsoryeducation,andthoughttobefunctionalforeconomic,political,andsocialinstitutions(e.g.,ParsonsandPlatt1973;theparallelwithearliernotionsofsalvationismadebyShils(1971).

2.SOCIALSCIENTIFICMODELSOFGLOBALINTERDEPENDENCEBEFOREWORLDWARII

Thelinesofthoughtnotedabovedepictedsinglesocieties.Inpractice,however,alltheseseparatesocietiesjostledupagainsteachotherinvariousformsofinterdependence–exchangesofpeople,goods,andideas;conflicts;occasionallyperceivedcollectiveproblems.Thisproducedspecializeddiscussionsofstructuresandrulesystemsinparticularareas:inter-staterelations,trade,scientificmatters,andsuchproblemsaspiracy.Theseissueswereaddressedasmattersfortheinter-statesystemtoresolve.Thenation-statehadsovereignty,howeverfictitious(Krasner1999)–definedinandcertifiedbyawiderpolitical-religioussystem(attributedtoWestphalia).Soweaknotionsofasupra-nationalorderaroseratherfrequently,butnothinglikeacompleteworldsociety.ThiswasthemainsocialsciencesituationuntiltheendoftheSecondWorldWar(thoughideasofawiderkindarosebothbeforeandafterWorldWarI).WecanreviewsomeofthedimensionsoftheimaginedpartialworldordersofthesocialsciencesbeforeWorldWarII:

Politicalinterdependencieswithinthesystem:Nation-statesneededtodealwitheachother,andaspecialfieldofinternationalanddiplomaticrelationsdefinedgoverningnormsandtheirrationales:thisworldwasaninter-statesystem,oftenthoughttodevolvefromWestphalia.Linesofanalysisaroseintheemergentpoliticalsciencesubfieldofinternationalrelations,especiallyinthefirsthalfofthe20thcentury.Thissocietyofstateshadrules,sometimesseen(inrealistinternationalrelationstheoryderivingfromHobbesandMachiavelli)ascreatedbyrationalstateactorsactinginaglobalanarchy(e.g.,Waltz1979,Gilpin2001).Butsometimesthisinter-statesystemwasseenmorebroadlyasaninter-statesociety(followingGrotius),reflectingolderuniversalisticreligiouscultures.LinesofthoughtemphasizingthisbroadernotionweredevelopedbyHedleyBull(1977)andtheEnglishSchool(Buzan2014).

Imperiallinkagesbeyondthesystem:Westernexpansioncreatedpoliticalrelationshipswiththewiderworld.Asymmetriesofpowerturnedmostoftheserelations,inseveralwavesofexpansion,intoimperialones,culminatinginthefamous“ScrambleforAfrica”inthelater19thcentury.Justificationsandanalysescenteredonevolutionaryideas:metropoleswereextendingcivilizationtotheircolonies,speedingtheirdevelopment:religiousthemeswereprominent,withProtestantmissionariescarryingnation-statemodelsofmoralandsocialdevelopment,andCatholics(especiallyJesuits)carryingsomewhatdistinctones(Casanova2016,Woodberry2012).Often,notionsofracialinequalitysupportedclaimstofairlypermanentimperialdomination,butincreasinglyideasthatallsocietiescouldeventuallydevelopintoautonomousnationalstatestookhold.Inpractice,overthewholepost-Enlightenmentperiod,coloniesdidshiftintothecanonicalnation-statestatusatincreasingrates(Strang1991):afterWorldWarII,therateincreasedevenmore,andthenation-statebecamecompletelydominantasaform.

Theimportantpointhereisthatconceptionsofanintegratedglobalsocietywerenotcentraltothedevelopment:ourworldisoneinwhichsomethingover200entitiesclaimsovereignstatus,thegreatmajoritywithextendedinternationalrecognition,aswiththe193UnitedNationsmembers.Thesocialscienceshavetendedtotakethisself-descriptionoftheinter-statesystemforgranted,ratherthanseeingitasaculture.

Worldeconomicregulation:Beyondpoliticalandmilitaryrelations,newinternationalrulesarose(andoldonesexpanded)throughthenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies,attemptingtomanageeconomictransactions.IntellectualdevelopmentswereintensifiedbytheGreatDepression,clearlyseenasacreatureofaworldeconomy.Thenewrulesandregulations,importantly,tendedtodefineeconomicinteractionmainlyasanetworkofrelations,notmuchofasociety,andcertainlynotofacorporatebodyanalogoustoanation-state:thecontrastwiththehighlyorganizedsystem(e.g.,theWTOandtheWorldBank)thataroseafterWorldWarIIisstriking.Ofcourse,thewholestructurecouldbeseenandanalyzed(e.g.,byMarxorLenin)asrootedineconomicimperialism.

Individualsandcivilorhumanrights:Similarpatternsaroseindomainswenowcallhumanrights:theWesternsystemearlyoncamedownonthetheoreticalpointthatsavageshadsoulsandthuspolities(i.e.,societies),andmustbetreatedwiththeformsofrespect.Suchformsweremaintainedevenundertheugliestconditionsofactualexploitation,aswiththemanyAmericantreatieswiththeNativeAmericans,andthemanyreligiouseffortstorecognizeindigenoussocietiesinLatinAmerica(Casanova2016).Themainvisionwasofrelationshipsamongdifferentsocieties,notthecreationofanintegratedsociety.Butingoodpartderivingfromthereligiousandculturalconstitutionofthenation-statesystem,notionsoftherightsofindividualhumansexpandedthroughthewholeperiod(Lauren2011,Stacy2009).Assuchnotionsofthestandingofhumanpersonscametothefore,suppressingorevenexterminatingmassesofthesepersonsalsodeveloped:citizen-personsaremorethreateningthanpeasantsandtribesmen.

Theknowledgesystem:Alsoonasupra-societallevel,asharedinternationalknowledgesystemcontinuedfromthepatternoftheoldmedievaluniversities,whichrecognizedeachother’sdegreesandsciences.Theemergingnation-statescreatedmoreandmoresuchuniversities.Notionswereoftenarticulatedthattheknowledgesystemwasglobal,andlayabovetheauthorityofparticularnation-states.Indeed,theculturalframeofthewholenation-statesystemlayinamedievalmodelofatranscendentalauthoritybehindbothindividualandsovereign.Theambiguityofnation-statelegitimacyisforcefullyillustratedbythedependenceoftheseentitiesonamoreuniversalknowledgesystem:asnation-statesarosetheycreateduniversitieslinkingthemselvestothisculture(Riddle1990).

Allofthesearrangements–political,economic,social,andscientificoreducational--expandedaroundtheworld,farbeyondanyrootsinChristendom.Theywereanalyzedandvalidatedbytheemergingsocialsciences,whichfacilitatedandlegitimizedtheexpansionasrational.Theexpansionwasinpartthroughaglobalprocessofcolonization.Buttheimpulsetocopystandardinstitutionscontinuedatveryhighratesuptothepresent.Universities,forinstance,arenowfoundeverywhere.Soaretheformalinstitutionsofcitizenship,witheducation,welfare,andhumanrightspolicies(andsometimespractices).Throughmostofthepost-Enlightenmentperiod,theymakeupaninternationalsystem,notaworldsociety–acollectiveconceivedtohavelifeandspiritofitsown.Ideasofthatsort,throughmostpost-Enlightenmenthistory,retaintheirstatusasdreamsmorethanrealities.Butonecanfindmanyexamples.Forinstance,aroundtheturnofthe20thcentury,therewerenotionsthatthehumanraceshouldcollectivelymanageitsreproduction:populationcontrolideaschangedintoeugenicsonesbytheinter-warperiod(andthenintoaglobalpopulationcontrolmovementafterthesecondWar)(BarrettandFrank1999).Similarly,therewereglobalmovementsinoppositiontowar,topromotethehealthofchildren,createcommonweightsandmeasures,ortoimproveeducation.Andthereweremovementsforsomethinglikeglobalconservation,initiallyrootedinsentimentalvisions,andonlygraduallydevelopingintomoreecosystemicconceptionsoftheenvironment(Frank1999).

Mainlythough,thesocialsciencesintenselyfocusedontheseparatesocietiesandtheirfunctioning,nottheworldasawhole.Theycouldbecompared,asdistinctentities,butdidnotmakeupasingleentity.Theirrelationswitheachotherwereanalyzedastiesbetweenindependententities–diffusionofparticulartraits,influenceanddomination,exchange,orconflict.Someoftheserelationsmightproduceintegrationandincorporationintoasinglelargerentity,evenanempire,butnotaworldsociety.Sometimestherelationswereseenasproducingeconomicorethnicorideologicaldifferentiations–divisionsoflabor,asitwere–butthesewereonlyrarelyseenasmakingupasortofsupra-societalsocialsystem.Ideasalongthislinearoseinanthropology(Heath1954,Barth1969),buthadlittleinfluenceontheothersocialsciences.Thusthestrongpictureofsocietyconstructedintherisingsocialsciencesmadeitdifficulttoseesystemicsocialstructuresatasupra-societallevel.

3.SOCIALSCIENTIFICCONCEPTIONSOFWORLDSOCIETYAFTERWORLDWARII

Thefirsthalfofthe20thcenturysawformsofsupra-nationalinterdependencethatbegantoundercutthepictureofthesocialworldasmadeupofindependent“societies.”Political,military,economic,moralandsocialcrisesanddisastersfollowedoneachotherforafullhalf-century.Allofthemwereunderstoodtofollowfromthesystemofunregulatednationaliststates,andallofthemclearlycalledforthecreationofaglobalsocietythatwasmorethanthe

sumofnationalpoliticalandeconomicinterests.TheGreatDepressionwasunderstoodasaninternationalfailure.TheLeagueofNationshadfailed,andadisastrousfirstwarwasfollowedbyanevenmoredisastroussecondone.Genocidalforces,builtonnationalistandracistclaims,hadbeenunleashed.Wavesofsocialmovements,clearlysupranational,carriedFascistorCommunistideasandmodelsaroundtheworld.Anuclearagemadeglobalinterdependenceobvious.

Butsocialscientificconceptionsintheearlypost-Warperiodstillsawtheworldasmadeupofindependentnationalsocieties,withlimitedrelationstoeachother:thenewideawasthatsomeoftheserelationscouldbringwidespreadprogress.Soeducation,ornationalplanning,oreconomicinvestments,orfreed-uptradeopportunities,orefficientstatesmightbekeystonationaldevelopmenteverywhere.Strategiesforimprovementthroughreligiouschange–thestockintradeofanolderregime–weresharplyde-emphasizedinpreferenceformorescientificmethods(butseeHagen1963,orMcClelland1961).Theoverallpictureoftheworldwasoneofaclassicbarchart:eachnationhaditsownbar,andsomeweremuchtallerthanothers.Withtherightsocialscientificstrategies,allthebarscouldgetbigger.Asoneindicator,nationalplanswereinvogue,andagreatmanycountriesformulatedthem(Hwang2006).

Withincreasinginterdependence,andwiththemanyfailuresofthepost-Warfaithin“development,”expandedconceptionsoftheworldasamoreglobalorderarose.Itbecamepainfullyclearthattherecipesofsocialscientificdevelopmenttheoriesdidnotproducemuchcountry-by-countryprogressintheThirdWorld.Expandededucation,rationalizedstatestructures,andheavyeconomicinvestmentdidnotadduptothepromisedrapidgrowth.Internationaleconomicequalityshowedlittleifanyincrease.Thereseemedtobenomagicbulletsforeconomicgrowth,andbysomemeasures,theCommunistworldwasdoingbetter.

Further,afterWorldWarIIawholesetofexplicitlysupra-national,andoftenglobal,conceptionsdeveloped,witha“worldeconomy”oreconomic“worldsystem,”an“internationalpoliticalsystem,”arecognitionofinternational“humanrights,”anddramaticallyaworld“ecosystem.”Insimilarways,aself-consciousglobalartisticandliterarysystemarose,withitscelebrationsofacommonworldculturalheritage.Ineverycase,leadingintellectualmovements–usuallywithstrongscientificandsocialscientificsupport–playedcentralroles.Theresultingstructurestookorganizationalforms,oftenlinkedtotheemergentUnitedNationssystem,reflectingthedominanceoftheliberalsocietiesleftstandingafterthewar.Butquitebeyondthese,allsortsofsupra-nationalorganizationswereformed,ofteninandaroundEurope(BoliandThomas1999).

Allthesearrangementsexploded,intensifiedbytheColdWarcompetition.And,moreslowlythanonemightexpect,explicitsocialscientificattentionfollowed,intensifiedinthelaterneo-

liberalperiod.Soinrecentdecades,ineverysocialsciencefieldorsub-field,onecannowfindspecialistsonsupra-nationaldimensions:suchpeoplewouldhavebeenscarcebeforethewar.Insociology,anumberofleadingfiguresbegantousetermssuchas“worldsociety,”“worldpolity,”“worldsystem,”or“globalculture.”

Heintz(1982),observingmulti-dimensionalsupra-nationalinterdependence,calleditworldsociety(seeB.HeintzandGreve[2005]forareview).Luhmann(1982,andelsewhere)usedthesameterm,locatingthecoreofthephenomenoninaglobalcommunicationsystem.Tilly(1975,1993)sawthecoreprocessaslocatedinwar,andconflictmoregenerally.Robertson(1992)sawitasaculturalmatter,aviewalsoemphasizedinMeyer(1980).

Theselinesofthought,thoughgivenrespectfulattention,weregivenmoredeferencethaninfluence.Influencetendedtoliewiththerealistsandfunctionalistsininternationalrelations,andtheircontinuedconceptionsoftheworldasaninter-statesystem(seetheattempttoescapethisinKatzenstein(1996).Often,sincesocialsciencehasitsownspecialconservatism,eventhenewandmoreglobalscholarscontinuedtoseethebiggerworldsimplyasanetworkofdistinctnationalsocieties.Sotherewasagreatexpansionofresearchcomparingcountriesaroundtheworld(Marsh1967).Mostofthecomparativeresearchsimplygaveincreasedattentiontotheinternationalrelationsandinterdependenciesofsocietiesstillseenasdistinct.Buttherehasbeenaslowseachange,andassumptionsaboutthedirectlyglobalcharacterofsocialchangethatwouldhavebeenexoticafewdecadesagonowcreepintothestaidestresearchventures.

4.RESEARCHFOCIONAWORLDSOCIETYSINCETHE1970S

Sincethe1970s,therehavebeenincreasingtendenciestoseethesocialworldasmorethananetworkofautonomousactorsandtoimagineworldsocietyassomethingofanewreality.Socialscientistsareheavilyinvolved,bothincreatingandinstudyingthesetendencies.Coregroundingstructuresofthisnewrealitylieinseveralareas:

---Humanrights:Muchresearchfocusesontheriseofempoweredconceptionsofindividualpersonsashavingcommonhumanrights(andcapacities)aroundtheworld,tobesupportedbysupra-nationalforces(Elliott2007).Anoldersysteminwhichrightswerelinkedtonationalcitizenshipandtheputativeobligationsofthenation-stateisnormativelysupersededbyaglobalsystem.Moreandmorekindsofpeoplearedefinedashavingrights(women,children,thehandicapped,theelderly,indigenouspeople,variousminorities),andsociologistsstudyallofthem.Moreandmorerightsaredefinedbeyondtheclassicalcivil,political,andsocialrights:cultureandreligionaretobedefinedbytheindividual,notthestate.Further,thereisanexpansionoftheoreticalempowerment:peopleandorganizationsarethoughtableand

responsibletofurthertheirownrightsandthoseofotherpeopleelsewhereintheworld.Overall,inimportantways,thesovereigntyoftheindividualhastendedtoreplacethatofthenationalstate,whosecharisma(thoughnotorganizationalpower)declines.

---Natureandtheecosystem:Theextraordinaryexpansionofscience(andsocialscience)meansthatscientizedconceptionsofnaturetakeonmuchmoreauthorityintheworld(Drorietal.2003).Thesearelinkedtovisionsofacommonglobalecosystem,withcommonobligationsaroundtheworld(Frank1999).Theworld,formerlyseenasoneplacemainlyinanabstractsense,comestobeseeninthiswayinveryconcreteways:airandwaterandeartharenowseenaslimitedonaglobalscale,creatingamassofactualandperceivedinterdependencies.

---Socialorganization:Fillinginavoidcreatedbyincreasinginterdependenceinaworldwithoutitsownregulatorystate,therehasbeenanenormousexpansioninrulesofreasonandrationality.Conceptionshaveexpandedofproperlytransparentandfairtransactionsandrelationsamongthecommonly-entitledhumanindividualsinanimaginedorderlynature.Mattersformerlyconsideredculturalcouldincreasinglybeanalyzedonaunidimensionalscaleofcorruptionorirrationality,andmanysuchscaleshavebeencreated.Socialscientistsareheavilyinvolved.Muchoftheworkgoesoninarapidlyexpandingglobalnetworkofbusinessschoolsprescribingstandardizedsocialstructureseverywhereintheworld(MoonandWotipka2006).Inthesameway,standardizedprescriptionsfornation-statesandstateagenciesarecopiedeverywhere(Simmonsetal.,2008,Meyeretal.1997).

Theseunderlyingtransformationsinthebasicontologicalcartographyofhumansinnatureandsocietyproducedmoreglobalizedmodelsonmanydifferentdimensionsofsociallife.Forexample,globalintegrationbroughttotheforemanyearlierideasthateconomiclifewasglobalratherthannational:developmentsinonecountryaffectedprogresselsewhere–perhapsnegatively.Manydiscussions,thus,focusedonideasofaworldeconomy:statisticalmeasuresofthestateofthiseconomybecamemorecommon.Radicalconceptions–dependencytheories,and“worldsystems”theories,oftenemployingMarxianreasoning–sawthiseconomyasaveryunequalandunequalizingone(Wallerstein1974wasthekeysociologicalproponent,linkedtotheLatinAmericandependencytheorists).Capitalistsystemsofproductionandexchangeproducedandmaintainedtheinequalitiesthataresostrikingintheworld,suppressingthepoweroflaborbyshiftingittoweakglobalperipheries.Anotherargumentgavemoreattentiontothedramaticallyunequalexchangescharacterizingtheworldeconomy:corecountriesmonopolizedtheproductionofhigh-valuegoods,exchangingthemforover-producedgoodsoftheperipheries.Allthenewideasstressthatthereisonebigeconomy–apie–andthewinners,nolongerautonomousandsuccessfulbarsonabarchart,areexcessivewedgesinthepie.Ratherthanbeingsuccessful,theyarepigs.Lessradicalvisionsstressedtheneedforprotectiveandredistributivemechanismstoproducemoreequalityaroundtheworld:

ideasofthissortarecentraltopoliciesofinstitutionsliketheWorldBank.Inotherwords,eventraditionallyliberalforces,institutionalizedincorepowersanddominantglobalorganizations,cametoseetheworldasmorethanaliberaleconomy.Itwasasociety,andaveryunequalone,soconceptionsofglobalinjusticehaveintensifiedoverthecurrentperiod.Oneillustrativesymbolhasbeenthehighpricesofmedicaldrugs—availableatthecore,butoutofreachformostpeopleintheperipheries:givenaworldinwhichhealthisincreasinglyseenasoneofthebasichumanrights,theperceptionofinjusticehasbeentangible(InoueandDrori2006).

Beyondeconomicfoci,sociologistscametoseemoreandmoredimensionsofsociallifearoundtheworldasinterdependent.Researchersincreasinglyfocusedonglobaldiffusion,sometimesseeingitasexploitive,butinanycasegivingadistinctandglobalaccountofwhatwasformerlyseenaslocalandnationalinstitutionslikethestate(Simmonsetal.2008).Socontemporarysociologistsattendtoeducationalexpansionaroundtheworld–therapidgrowthofbothmassandtertiaryschooling–asaglobalprocess(RamirezandBoli1987).Further,itbecameclearthatdespitealltheinequalitiesandculturaldifferencesaroundtheworld,conceptionsandinstitutionsofschoolingshowremarkableglobalhomogeneity(Meyeretal.1992,FrankandGabler2006):Schoolingsystems(anduniversities)cannow,forbetterorworse,berankedonunidimensionalscales.

Othersociologistsseeglobalinfluencesbehindtherapidworldwidechangesinthenormsoffamilylife:thespreadofformerly-Westernlawsandpracticesinsuchareasasgenderrelationsiscommonlyanalyzedasaglobalratherthanlocalprocess(BongaartsandWatkins1996,Franketal.2010,Thorntonetal.2015).Evenanalysesofreligiousandculturaldevelopmentsaroundtheworldnowtendtostressglobalprocessesproducingcommonforms(Beyer1994,Robertson1992andelsewhere).

Similarly,sociologicalanalysesoforganizationalformsaroundtheworldtendtostressthediffusionofcommonelements.Thesefollowtheprescriptionsofthesocialsciencestaughtintheexpandingbusinessandprofessionalschools(BromleyandMeyer2015).Recognizablysimilarformalorganizationsappearineverycountry,andineverysocialsector:privatefirmsbecomeformalizedorganizations;as(underthedoctrinesoftheNewPublicManagement)dogovernmentagencies.Andahostofformsformerlydistinct–churches,schools,universities,hospitals,charities,andrecreationalassociations–become“non-profit”formalorganizations.Religiouscongregationshavestrategicplans,CEOs,informationsystems,andformalizedstructurestodealwithevery“stakeholder.”

Ofcourse,alltheseprocessesareanalyzedasgeneratingglobalintegration,butthisinnowayindicatestheriseofamorepeacefulworld.Associetiescoalesceonmanydimensionsintomoreglobalforms,manyconflictsareintensified.Simpledifferencescometobeseenas

conflictualorinconsistent.Genderandage-grouprelationsprovideexamples:ifmenandwomenandchildrenhavecommonrightsandpowers,thenvariationsamongformerly-distinctsocietiescometobegroundsforconflict:customsoffemalecircumcisionbecomeviolationsofwomen’srights,disciplinaryarrangementsbecomechildabuse,genderchoicebecomesimmorality…Globalmovementsforwomen’sandchildren’srightsbecomeveryaggressive,supportedbysocialscientificthoughtandanalysis:theygeneratemuchresistancetoo(Boyle2002).Religiousissuescometothefore:conflictsariseoverheadscarves,theconsumptionoftabooedfoods,theprotectionofanimals,andsoon:religiousarchitectureoffendszoningrules,aswithminarets.

Thewholedevelopmentwediscusshere–theriseofconceptionsofaglobalsociety–isverymuchinthemaking.Mostsociologists,andothersocialscientists,prefermoreconservativevisions.Theyemphasizedistinctivelocalpatternsineconomic,political,social,andculturallife,andprefertode-emphasizethediffusiveandglobalprocessesthatbecomeincreasinglyapparent.Forinstance,evenwithrathertamechanges,suchastheriseoftheEuropeanUnion,ittooksocialscientistsalongtimetocometotermsandfocustheirresearchonthenewreality.Globalizationfacesthesamesocialscientificconservatism,andscholarshavestrongvestedinterestsinemphasizingthedistinctivenessoftheir(oftennational)cases.Changeisslow,butoverthedecadesquitedramatic.

WORLDSOCIETYANDPLURALISTINTERNATIONALISM:MATHIASRISSECOMMENTSONJOHNW.MEYER

1.INTRODUCTION

Myworkhasaimedtomaketheglobalcentral.Centraltomytheoryisanaccountofdifferentgroundsofjustice.Groundsarethepropertiesofindividualsthatmakeitthecasethatcertaindemandsofjusticeapplyamongagroupofpeople.ThegroundsIdistinguisharesharedmembershipinstates,commonhumanity,sharedsubjectiontothetradingsystem,membershipintheglobalorderandhumanity’scollectiveownershipoftheearth.Eachisassociatedwithprinciplesofjustice.Atheoryofglobaljusticeemergesfromreflectiononthevariousgrounds.Icallmytheory,“pluralistinternationalism,”tocapturetheenduringimportanceofstatesfromastandpointofjusticewhilerecognizingvariousothergrounds.The

grounds-of-justiceapproachincorporatesseveralwaysofthinkingabouttheworldweencounteredintheoverview.

Whathasstrucksomeasmisguidedisthatmytheorycombinesmanyissuesunder“distributivejustice.”Butanexpansivedeploymentofconsiderationsofdistributivejusticefollowsfrommakingtheglobalcentral.Justicecapturesthemoststringentmoraldemands.Suchdemandsariseinmultifariousways,includingseveralthatareglobalinnature.Inallsuchcases,thereisadistributivedimensionofsorts.Iseeindividualsasmembersofstates,membersoftheglobalorder,co-ownersoftheearth,participantsintradeandhumanbeings.Inallroles,theyaresubjecttodemandsofdistributivejustice.Wenolongerhavetheluxurytothinkaboutjusticeintermsofcity-states,statesorempires,withoutmakingexplicitthemanifoldwaysinwhich“wearetheworld.”

2.MATCHINGONTOLOGIES,ANDWHYITMATTERS

OnethingthatisstrikingfromJohnMeyer’saccountishowtheoriginsofthesocialscienceshelpexplainhostilityoraloofnessinsomecirclestowardreflectiononglobaljustice.State-centeredviewsnaturallydisplaythatattitude.Theexplanationsinternationalrelationsrealiststendtofieldturnonthekindofpowerstatesmustertopursueinterests.Interstateconflictisessential.Statesarelargelytakenasgiven.IRliberalsmakemoreroomforvaluesandfocusoninterstatecooperation.Buttheyseecooperationasdrivenbyvaluesstatesprojectupontheworld.Theglobalmostlyentersbywayofinterstateaffairs.

Theseapproacheslookaskanceatglobaljusticeinquirybecauseofontologicaldifferences.Theirexplanationsfailtomakenotionsoftheglobalcentral.Butifnormativeanddescriptivetheorydivergesintermsofhowtheyseetheworld(intermsofontology),theidealtheorydoesnotmatchwithwhatisdrivingthings.Suchamismatchnourishesthesuspicionthateithertheempiricalorthenormativesidegotthingswrong(asuspicionthatwouldbethelargertheharderonethinksthedescriptivetheorymakesitseehowthenormativeidealcouldevercomeabout).

Incontradistinctiontostate-focusedapproaches,Wallerstein’sworld-systemstheoryandlike-mindedviewsstressthehistoricalsignificanceofeconomicinterconnectedness,thatis,ofthetransnationaldivisionoflaborthatdividesregionsintocore,semi-periphery,andperiphery,dependingontheircontributiontothesystem.Cultureregistersonlyasanideologyofdominantconstituents.Thisapproachconcurswithinquiriesintoglobaljusticebywayofseeingtheworldasaninterconnectedsystem,whereexplanationscannotbelargelyreducedto

activitiesofstates.Butittoomatchesuneasilywithaccountsofglobaljusticetotheextentthatthosetheorizeanythingotherthaneconomicstructures.

Socialsciencematchesuneasilywithphilosophicalglobaljusticeinquiryifcategoriesoftheglobalornormativeideas(orboth)arenotgrantedexplanatorypower.Asopposedtoalltheseapproaches,worldpolity(orsociety)analysis,developedbyJohnMeyerandothers,doesmatchwellwithglobaljusticeinquiriesbecauseitgrantsexplanatorypowertoboth.Thisapproachviewstheworldasonesocialsystemwithaunifiedculturalframework(worldpolity/society),thatnonethelessisimplementedinamyriadofconflictingvariations.Apolityorsocietyisasystemwithinwhichvaluesandnormsaredefinedandimplementedthroughcollectivemechanismsthatconferauthority.Aworldpolityissuchasystemwithglobaldimensions.Inapluralistspirit,thisapproachtheorizesvariouskindsofactors(whoseinterplayconfersauthority),includingstates,companies,intergovernmentalorganizations,non-governmentalorganizations,andindividuals.Allplaycausalrolesinexplanationsandinfluenceeachother.

Thedefiningfeatureofworldpolity–anditisinthisfashionthatworldpolityanalysisoffersaunifyingapproachtoglobalaffairs--isthatitprovidesnormsandrolesthatjostleupagainsteachother.Worldpolitytheoryhelpsitselftonormativeideasbecauseitfindsthatpeopleactonthem,insteadofproposingexplanationsexclusivelyintermsofpower,interestsoreconomicstructures.Thetheoryisconcernedwithscriptswhoseacceptance,andthecompetitionamongwhich,createaworldculturewherecertainnorms,values,androlesarebroadlysharedacrosscountriesandorganizationalcontexts.Praiseworthinessinnorms,values,androleshelpsexplainwhysome,butnotothers,getaccepted.Ideasaboutlegitimacy,justice,andrightsenterprominently.

Worldpolityanalysisadoptsarichontology.Theconnectiontopluralistinternationalism’ssimilarlyencompassingontologyisobvious.Ifboththeoriescanbesupportedontheirownterms,theywouldnotstandawkwardlynexttoeachother,aswouldrealismandpluralistinternationalism.Myworktalksaboutaglobalorder,thesystemofstatesandthenetworkofinternationalorganizationsthataspiresatinternationalandevenglobalproblemsolving.Giventheexistenceofthatorder,itsimportanceforhumanflourishingandforconceptualizingglobalresponsibilitiesIhaveproposedaconceptionofhumanrightsasmembershiprightsintheglobalorder.Meyertalksaboutworldsociety.Formypurposes,Inowthinkthisisthebetterterm.Theglobalorderisembeddedintoworldsociety.Buttalkaboutaglobalorderunder-describestheextenttowhichoursisalso,forinstance,aworldofhumanpersons.Insteadofmembershiprightsintheglobalorder,humanrightsarebetterdescribedasmembershiprightsinworldsociety.Itistheworldsocietythatphilosophersneedtocometotermswith.

3.BASICLEGITIMACYOFAWORLDOFSTATES

InowidentifythreeareaswhereIthinkworldpolityanalysissupportsviewsIhavesubmitted.Imeantoillustratehowworldsocietyanalysismatcheswellwithglobaljusticeinquiry,butwouldalsoliketoemphasizehowitlendssupportspecificallytoviewsIhavearguedfor.Tobeginwith,theexplanatorycentralityoftheadoptionofsuccessfulscriptsinworldpolityanalysisindirectlysupportsmymoderatejustificationofstates.Secondly,worldpolityanalysisallowsfortheextensiontotheglobalstageofajustificatorystrategyinRawls’PoliticalLiberalismthatIhaveadaptedtothatstageinanotherway.Thirdly,worldpolityanalysisoffersanaccountofchangethatsitswellwithmyapproach.InconcludingIdrawattentiontoanotheraspectofworldpolicyanalysisthatisgenerallyusefultophilosophicalanalysis.

Notefirstthattheexplanationofchangethroughtheadoptionofsuccessfulscriptsconnectstosomeofthethemesinthephilosophicalsurvey.WorldpolityanalysisseesthatpolitylargelyasaproductofWesternintellectualtendencies,especiallyChristiannotionsofpersonhoodandlegitimacy.ItwasthroughtheChurchthatRomannotionsoflaw-governedcommunitytranspiredtomedievalEurope.ChristianitycherishedaspiritualizedunderstandingofEmpirethatChristianrulersappropriated.ConnectingtoStoicideasofkosmosandequality,ChristianitysaweachhumanascreatedintheimageofGod.Thismodeloforderthatprovidedbothforacertainkindofruleandanidealofpersonhoodwithinagovernedspace(citizenship)thenspreadaroundtheworld.Aworldculturehasemergedthattriggerstheformationofen-actableculturesandorganizationsthatinturnelaborateworldsocietyfurther.

Whiletheviolencethatcolonialismprojectedplaysaroleintheemergenceofthisculture,worldpolityanalysisalsoseesotherfactorsatworkinthespreadofdominantscripts.Toalargeextent,thatspreadcanbeexplainedthroughvoluntaryadoptionofsuccessfulmodels(e.g.,statesandcitizenship).Asanillustration,considerMichelangelo’s“CreationofAdam”intheSistineChapel.Itdisplaysthemomentwhenthesparkoflifeistransmittedfromadignified,white,beardedmaleGodtoayoung,naked,whiteAdam.Adamis(almost)literallycreatedinthedivineimage.Thatdepictionofcreationmustoffendmanyvisitors,fromwomentonon-Europeans.Butallofthemhaveadoptedawayofthinkingaboutthemselvesasindividualstheysawassuccessfulinwhitemen.Thesacrednessof“man”generatesboundaries(religious,gendered,racial,class,etc.),imposedbythefactthatsomehumanswereseenassacredandothersnot,orinwaysotherswerenot.Thatgeneratedeffortsonthesideofthedisadvantagedtobeseeninthesamewaysastheadvantaged.Whatoncewasalienbecamegenuinelyappropriated.

Oneimplicationisthattheglobalsystemdoesnotloseoveralllegitimacybecauseitsoriginsaretarnishedbeyondrepair.Part4ofOnGlobalJusticeoffersamoderatejustificationofstates,pointingouttheirmoralandprudentialadvantagesandthatwecannottheorizecompetingmodelsofordersufficientlywellforthemtobeaction-guiding.Butthisviewgainsinplausibilityifwedonothaveindependentreasontothinkofworldsocietyasinherentlyunjustorotherwisemorallydeeplyflawed.Irebutvariouswaysinwhichonemightthinkeitheristhecase.Roomneedstobemadeforpotentiallyextensivereparationsforpastinjustice.Butitisreassuringthatwecanexplaintheemergenceofworldsocietyinwaysthatemphasizeprocessesofenactingsuccessfulscripts.

Thismightseemlikeanodd,evenoffensivepoint.ReadersmayhavewonderedallalongwhythesurveyofwaysofconceptualizingtheglobalfailedtomentionGilgamesh,theBhagavadGita,PopolVuh,anyBuddhistapproach,theDaooranythingfromAfrica.TheansweristhatweliveinanintellectualuniversewhereideasofEuropeanoriginplayanoutsizedrole.Doesitaddinsulttoinjurytosaythattheseideashavespreadbybecomingacceptedamongthosewhowereconquered?No.Ifthatiswhathappened,itwouldbeapeculiarformoforientalismtocharacterizetheoutcomeintermsofinsultaddedtoinjury.Ithasbeendifficulttoformcounter-westernapproachesthatprovideanaccountofglobalorder.

Europeanconquerorsthemselvestookscriptsfromearlieractors.ModelsofempireandcitizenshipwerealientoGermanicinvadersofRome.Butthealiencanindeedbecomeappropriated.DanishwriterscanlayclaimtoCicero’slegacyasmuchasItalianintellectualscan.ButthenGreekintellectualshavenomoreclaimstocountingAristotleamongtheirpredecessorsthanprofessorsatauniversityinDelhiorNigerianacademics.AllofthemarewhatHusserlcalled“FunktionärederMenschheit,”civilservantsofhumanity,wherehowwethinkabouthumanityandotheraspectsoftheglobalaretheresultofacenturies-longprocessthatcreatedaworldculture,tothedetrimentofcompetingscriptsthatexpiredorgotrelegated.

4.WORLDPOLITY,HUMANRIGHTS,ANDRAWLS’POLITICALLIBERALISM

WorldpolityanalysisalsoconnectstoajustificatorystrategyinRawls’PoliticalLiberalismIhavealreadydevelopedforanothercontext.PoliticalLiberalismoffersanaccountofjusticedesignedtobeapplicableonlyinconstitutionaldemocracies.Rawlsjustifieshisviewbyreferencingideasimplicitinthecultureofconstitutionaldemocracy.Thisincludesconceptualizinghumansasfreeandequalcitizens.

Moraltheories,wecansaydrawingonBernardWilliams,mustadoptaviewofpersonsthatiseitherfactualornormative.Aliberaltheorymayempiricallyseepersonsasautonomouschoosers.Butreligiousfundamentalistsseethemdifferently,say,ascreaturesofdivinegracewhosefatesareill-understoodasresultingfromautonomouschoice.Itseemspracticallyimpossibletosettlethisdispute.Atheorymayalsotreatindividualsaspersonswithcertaincapacitiesforpurposesofthetheory,butdefendthatviewwithoutappealtofacts.Thenwe

NEEDTOIDENTIFYAPLACEINTHEWORLD,APRACTICE,WHICHWILLGIVETHESETOFCONCEPTSAGROUNDINGINREALITY.THISISWHATRAWLSDOESWHENHEIDENTIFIESSOMETHINGLIKETHIS[ALIBERALCONCEPTIONOFPERSONHOOD]ASTHEDISCOURSEOFMODERNDEMOCRATICSTATES((2005),P21).

Thisgroundingisthestartingpointfromwhichtoargueforthetheoryathand.Rawls’viewofpersonhoodissupposedtobeplausibleonlytothoseaccustomedtodemocraticpractices,citizenswhoseeeachotherasfreeandequal((1993),p19f).Proceedingthiswayhastheadvantageofformulatingprinciplesthatdospeaktopersonsinvolvedinrelevantpractices.Asheexplains,

THECONCEPTIONOFTHEPERSONISWORKEDUPFROMTHEWAYCITIZENSAREREGARDEDINTHEPUBLICPOLITICALCULTUREOFADEMOCRATICSOCIETY,INITSBASICPOLITICALTEXTS(CONSTITUTIONSANDDECLARATIONSOFHUMANRIGHTS),ANDINTHEHISTORICALTRADITIONOFTHEINTERPRETATIONOFTHOSETEXTS.FORTHESEINTERPRETATIONSWELOOKNOTONLYTOCOURTS,POLITICALPARTIES,ANDSTATESMEN,BUTALSOTOWRITERSONCONSTITUTIONALLAWANDJURISPRUDENCE,ANDTOTHEMOREENDURINGWRITINGSOFALLKINDSTHATBEARONASOCIETY’SPOLITICALPHILOSOPHY.((1993),P19F)

Individualsarenotempiricallyfreeandequal.Instead,therearepracticesaccompaniedbymoralideasaboutcitizenship.Itiswithinthoseideas–whichrefertopersonsinidealizingways–whichindividualsareseenaspersonswithcertainpowers.Butthereisalsoaconnectionbetweentheseideasandthepracticesindividualsengageinsothat,again,itmakessensetosaythatbeingpersonswithsuchpowersidealizerolesindividualsactuallyoccupyindemocracies.Fromthereone,canassessRawls’argumentsforwhyrelationsamongfreeandequalcitizensshouldberegulatedbyhistwoprinciples. OnGlobalJusticeappliesthisapproachtohumanity’scollectiveownershipoftheearth.Justasitisimplicitinconstitutionaldemocraciesthatindividualsareconsideredfreeandequalcitizens,itisimplicitintheglobalorderthattheyareseenasco-owners.Theideathatindividualsareco-ownersisanidealization:empiricallyitmightbefalsethattheyarerespectedasco-ownersinanyplausibleway.Butitisanidealizationthatnotonlyemergesfromourpracticesbutthatweoughttocareaboutbyvirtueoftheconsiderationssupportingcollectiveownershipoftheearth.Justasprinciplesofdomesticjusticemakestatesacceptabletocitizens,sohumanrightsmaketheglobalorderacceptabletoco-owners.Nowthattheontologicalconnectionsbetweenworldsocietyanalysisandgrounds-of-justiceapproacharevisibleanotherparallelisavailableforworldsocietyasawhole.Thepointistoidentifyidealizationsofpersonhoodimplicitthepracticesofworldsociety.Theresearchdonewithinworldsocietyanalysisoffersampleevidence(drawingalsoonideasofreligiousoriginandideasabouttheimportanceofscienceinworldculturethatiscuriouslymissingintheRawlsstatementaboveaboutidealizationindomesticsociety).Fromthereonecouldarguethatmembershiprightsinworldsocietyshouldbeacceptabletopersonsparalleltohowprinciplesofdomesticjusticeshouldbeacceptabletocitizensandprinciplesregulatingresourcesandspacesoftheearthtoco-ownersoftheearth.Rawls’useofhisjustificatoryapproachneglectstheglobalcharacterofhisidealizations.Onemayonlybethecitizenofoneorperhapsseveralcountries.Butcitizenshipisaglobalidea.WorldsocietyanalysishelpsusseethatwecannotonlydevelopajustificatorystrategyatthegloballevelparalleltowhatRawlsdoesdomesticallybutthathisownstrategycallsforsuchadevelopment.

5.THINKINGABOUTPOLITICALCHANGE

OnGlobalJusticesayslittleaboutchange.Itaketheglobalorderasgiventoexplorewhatprincipleofjusticehold.Possiblyothergroundsbecomeactualinthefuture,muchlikemembershipinworldsocietyhasinthelast200yearsorso.Atthisstage,wecannottheorizeaboutaglobalorderthatwouldnotessentiallyincludethekindofpowercentersconstitutiveofstates.So,forthetimebeing,weshouldmakeworldsocietyasjustaspossible--thekindofchangemytheoryproposes--ratherthanaimtocreateadifferentorder.InGlobalJusticeandAvant-GardePoliticalAgency,LeaYpiproposesamoreambitiousunderstandingofchange.Ypiisinterestedinactivistpoliticaltheory,atheorythatseekstochangetheworld.Activisttheorygraduallyshiftsthepublicculturetoadvanceprogressiveprojects.Itsmainaudienceisthepoliticalavant-garde,politicallyconsciousandengagedpeoplewhosufferfromtheinjusticesofaneraandhavetakenituponthemselvestobringaboutchange.Withoutthespearheadsofpoliticalchange,therewouldbenoactivisttheorytoaffectreality.Withoutactivisttheory,wecouldnotidentifytheavant-garde.Ypiproposesageneraltheoryabouttheexchangebetweenpoliticaltheoryandpracticeinhistory,thusalsoatheoryoftheroleofintellectualsinpoliticalchange.Currently,shesubmits,avant-gardeactivismseekstocreateacosmopolitanworldwithappropriateinstitutions.Ypi’stheoryisadmirablyambitious,butmuchmoreevidencemustbeprocuredforthistobeaconvincingaccountofchange.IRconstructivists(suchasKathrynSikkink,ThomasRisse,andMargaretKeck)withwhoseworkshemakescontactpursuemuchlessambitiousprojects.Afterall,theirsistheburdenofsubstantiatingempiricaltheorieswithevidenceevenrealistsandliberalscouldaccept.Whatismore,IdoubtageneraltheoryofchangeofthesortYpihasinmindcanbedeveloped.

Worldpolityanalysisconceptualizeschangeasamessymultifacetedprocess:differentscriptsareincirculationandoneortheotherwilleventuallygetadoptedatalargerscalebeforethereisrenewedcontestation.Differentscriptsmightprevailindifferentregions,orbepresentinthesamesocietyandgenerateconflict.Worldcultureinadiverse,decentralizedandconflict-riddenworldbringschallengestotheforethemoreintenselythevariousactorsrubupagainsteachother.Ourworldisfilledwithactivism,rule-setting,”othering,”andsoon.Beforethisbackground,thewayYpiseestheavant-gardeisreminiscentofhowMarxistshaveseentheparty.AdiffuseunderstandingofchangestrikesmeasmoreplausiblethanYpi’smodel,whichoveremphasizesinteractionbetweentwokindsofactorswithoutexploringhowtheseactorsblendintoabackgroundculture.

6.ONTHEPHILOSOPHICALRICHNESSOF“DE-COUPLING”

Anotionthatbecomescentralinworldsocietyanalysisis“de-coupling.”Thisnotionisusefulforphilosophicalanalysisgenerally.De-couplingoccursifpracticesdeviatefromavowedlyadoptedscripts.Giventhepressuretowardsisomorphism,de-couplingiscommon,especiallywherescriptswereadoptedrecentlyorconflictedwithotherscripts.Forinstance,de-colonizationgeneratedanabundanceofde-couplingsincenewstateswerestructuredinwaysunrelatedtoneedsandconditions.

“De-coupling”isavaluablenotionforreflectingonhowpoliticalphilosophybearsonreality.Realistsdismissphilosophicalideasaspipedreams(unlessbackedbycanonandfactories).MarxistsseethemaspartoftheÜberbauthatmerelyrevealspredilectionsofrulingcircles.Worldpolityanalysismakesroomforideasevenwheretheyarenot,ornotyet,uniformlyimplemented.Agentsmightstruggletoadjusttorolesbutfail.Theymightnotbesupportedbytheirenvironment,notknowhowtoproceed,orlackmeanstodoso.Butnoneofthisshowsthatideascannotdrivechange.De-couplinganaturalaspectofchangedrivenbyideas.WedonotgenerallybelieveweliveinanAugustinianworldwhereonlyGodknowswhatjusticeisandhumancapacitiesforrealizingidealsareseverelycurtainedbyoriginalsin.Wecommonlybelieveidealscanberealized.Weliveinaworldwhereplentyofidealsjostleupagainsteachotherandcompeteforenactment.

Philosophicalreflectionontheglobalisareservoirofexamplesofde-coupling.Cicero’sinsistenceonmoralequalitystoodinstarkcontrasttotheslave-holdingandbelligerentpracticesofRomeCicerosupportedasanofficial.Colonizationinthenameofnaturallawharborsenormouspotentialforde-coupling.Vattelpointedoutthatnatural-lawjustificationofconquestwasagametoomanycanplay.Thesameistrueforimperialistattitudescharacterizedbytheformulation,“thewhiteman’sburden.”Liberalismandcommunismarepoliticalidealsdrivenbyindividualisticmoralvisions.Butonceinstitutionalized,bothwereinterpretedinwaysthathavelittlerelevancetothosewhodidpoorlyinthesystem.

InNomosoftheEarth,CarlSchmittexplorestheideaofhumanity((1950),pp71ff).ConquestintheAmericasledtothequestionofhowtotreatindigenouspeople.OnestancewastheAristoteleanviewthat“Barbaricpeople”werenaturalslaves,invokedbySepúlveda.StressingthatSepúlvedawasahumanist,Schmittthinkstheideaofhumanitygeneratesadialecticheseekstocaptureintermsofhismasternotionofthepoliticalasdrivenbyfriend/enemydistinctions.Thathumanitymattersleadstotheideathatitcomesindegrees.Onegroupcandepictthemselvesashighertypes.Christianityposeslimitstosuchathought(eachpersoncreatedinGod’simage).Butwithinamovementthatmakeshumanitycentralreflectionon

typesofhumanityinduecoursedeliverstheideaofthelowesttype,Unmensch(inhuman).OncetheUnmenschisseenasnon-human,thedialecticdeliversthedistinctionbetweenÜbermenschandUntermensch(super-,sub-human).

ForSchmitt,thishighlightsthenormativeuselessnessofthenotionofhumanity.Butthisistoolimitedananalysis.Ontheonehand,thedifferentiationamongtypesofhumanityshowsthattheideaofhumanityspreadandtriggeredresponsesfromthosewhosepracticalandtheoreticalinterestswereatstake.Ontheotherhand,suchaspreadofideaswillgeneratemuchde-couplingbecausenotallrelevantactorswillbeabletofitthenewideassmoothlyintotheirmotivationalframework.SowhatSchmittdrawsourattentiontomaynotbepracticalfailures,butsymptomsofsuccessfuladoptionofascript,andthusofexpansionsandglobalizationofideas.ThephenomenaSchmittobservesalsogeneratedmuchcorrectivemobilization(e.g.,thepredecessorstothehumanrightsmovement).

Tomentionarecentdiscussion,RaymondGeuss(2005)accusesRawlsiansofproposingprinciplesofjusticethatinpracticesupportenormousinequalities.Rawlsallowsforsocio-economicinequalitytotheextentneededtoaidtheworst-off.Butwhethertheydoisamatterofcounter-factualspeculation:inasocietywithlessinequality,wouldtheworst-offreallybeworseoffthanthecurrentlyworst-off?Thedifficultiesinansweringthisquestion,Geusssubmits,helpgenerateapolicylandscapethatgreatlyadvancesinequality.Sincepolicy-makerscanarguethatsuchmeasures,totheirknowledge,worktoeverybody’sadvantage,wecanexpecttofindmuchdecoupling.Asubstantialshareofeconomicimprovementinthelastdecadeshasaccruedtothewealthiest.WhetherthisisattributabletoRawlsianphilosophyis,ofcourse,adifferentmatter.

Agreatdangerthatcanbecapturedintermsofde-couplingisthefollowing.Twothingshappencurrentlythatmakeforanalarmingcombination.Thefirstisthatclimatechangerequiresurgentaction,butvestedeliteshavelittleinterestinengaging.ThesituationismuchlikeinthemanyepisodesofcollapseDiamond(2005)recounts.Atthesametime,joiningtheeliteisincreasinglyamatterofaccomplishment.Wage-incomematters,comingfromtheabilitytomaketechnologicalchangeworkforoneself.Talentedpeopleincreasinglymarryeachother,foundstablefamiliesandprovideaninordinateamountofhigh-qualityparenting.Muchresearchshowsthatschooledprofessionalsnormallysupportchange.Butthegreatdangeristhatsuchpeople,byjoiningtheelite,adoptenlightenedviewsde-coupledfromtheirmembershipintheelitethatrefusestotakeourmainchallengeseriously.

De-couplingcansometimesalsoconveysomeoptimism(andthusdoesnothavetobeanoverallbadthing).Therehasbeendebateabouthowtothinkaboutthesuccessofthehuman

rightsmovement70yearsaftertheUDHR.Somearguethatnotenoughchangeoccurs,thathumanrightstalkiswindow-dressing.Butonemayalsosaythereisalotofde-couplinggoingonaspartofalong-windedprocessofmakingnormsstick.Argumentativeself-entrapmentmightoccurgradually.Buthumanrightsarepartofaworldculturethatworshipsindividuality.Sothereisareasontobeoptimisticthathumanrightswillcatchonmore.Butthenagain,alsorecallthepointmadeintheprecedingparagraph.

REFLECTIONSONGLOBALIZATIONINPHILOSOPHY:JOHNW.MEYERCOMMENTSONMATHIASRISSE

1.INTRODUCTION

Ideasaboutjusticeandrelatedsocialrightsandobligationsdependheavilyonconceptionsofthefundamentalentitiesinwhichtherightsinhere.Theyalsodependonconceptionsoftheframewithinwhichtheyareseen,whichmaybeasocialworldoranaturalone.Itisclearthatglobalization,insocialperceptionsandinactualities,isradicallychangingbothconceptionsofthehumanentitiesseenasbasictosocietyandtheframesdefiningtheirrelationstoeachother.MathiasRisseconsidersthemeaningofjusticeineconomic,political,andculturalframesthatarenowglobalized,inlightofcorrespondinglyglobalizedunderstandingsofthenatureandpropertiesofthehumansinvolved.Ofcourse,universalizedtheoreticalideasaboutthestandingofhumanindividuals,andthusaboutjusticeintheirrelationswitheachother,havelonghistoriesinphilosophicalandreligiousthought.Buttheyhavefunctionedalongwithmuchpracticalexperienceininequalityanddifferentiation,andinsocietalframesthatareintenselylocalincharacter.Withglobalization,thereismuchexpansion,butalsoanexpandedawarenessofinconsistenciesbetweenthepracticesofinequalityandthetheoriesofequality.

Impliedinthisaccount,andcentralinmyinterpretationisthatitisobviousthatthemixoffundamentalentitiesinthesocialworldhaschangedverydramaticallywithglobalizedframesinrecentdecades:anditfollowsthatgroundsofjusticechangetoo.Itwasonethingwhenonegroup’sshavingcustomsdifferedfromthoseofunrelatedpeopleontheothersideoftheearth:itisanotherwhentheshavingcustomsareknowntogivethosepeopleskincancer.Itwasonethingwhensocietieswereunderstoodtodifferintheir(autonomous)development:itis

anotherwhenglobalizedunderstandingsseeonesociety’sdevelopmentasundercuttinganother’s(Chase-Dunn1989).

Ireflecthereontheontologiesunderlyingthepluralstructuresofthecontemporarysocialworld,andhowthesehaverapidlychangedinrecentdecades.Iamconcernedwiththreebasicchanges:

---First,thereistheenlargedandglobalizedpictureofthehumanindividual,andtheexpansionofthepropertiesofthisindividualrelevanttoconsiderationsofjustice(FrankandMeyer2002,MeyerandJepperson2000).Withindividualsentitledandempoweredonmoredimensionsandseenasequalonaglobalbasis,manymoredifferencesandinequalitiescanbeseenandorganizedasinjustices.

---Second,thereistheriseofconceptionsofaglobalsociety,withcorrespondingeconomic,political,andculturalmodelsofinterdependence–andespeciallyecosystemicmodelssharplydefiningtightinterdependence(Frank,etal.2000).AninequalitybetweenAandBbecomesmoreofaperceivedinjusticeifAisseenashelpingcauseB’spoverty.Further,theemergingglobalsocietylacksastrongintegratingpoliticalorganization.ThusthepluraliststructuresMathiasRisseanalysesarenotintegratedorbalancedbyanyauthoritativestructure.Thismakespossiblemoreinjusticeclaimsandweakensanyclearresolution.

---Third,thereistherelativeweakeningofthefundamentalontologicalstatusofthenation-stateanditsassociatedlocalinstitutions,withinwhichjusticeclaimswereformerlyorganized,structured,andtamed:andtheriseofontologicalclaimsabouttheworldtranscendinganystabilizingstate-likepolity(Meyeretal.1997).Unjustinequalitiesamongpersonshavelongbeenseenwithinnationalstates.Itiseasier,now,tomakeinjusticeclaimsonaglobalscale.

Ibrieflyreflectontheconsequencesofthesechangesforthesocialconstructionofjusticeandinjustice.Ithinktheresultshaveinvolvedanenormousexpansionandglobalizationofplausibleinjusticeclaimsandaconsequentworldwideincreaseinsocialmobilizationsaroundsuchclaims.

2.GLOBALIZED“MAN”–THEUNIVERSALIZEDANDEXPANDEDPUBLICINDIVIDUAL

Itiscertainlyconvincingthatabstractanduniversalisticnotionsabouttheindividual–man–asageneralcategoryrunveryfarbackinhistory.PerhapstheyhavealwaysgottenmoreemphasisintheWestthaninothercivilizations.Theyareclearlyideasandideals,drawnfrommuchreflection,ratherthanmodelsdrawnfrompracticalexperiencesincetheyareputforwardby

peopleintenselyinvolvedinpracticewithallsortsofsocialstratification(e.g.,slavery)anddifferentiation(e.g.,fromonecity-statetothenext).InGreeceandRome,asinPaloAltonow,abstractideasaboutjusticeamongultimately-equalindividualsprosperalongwithmultidimensionalinequalityanddifferentiation.Thesociologicaltermforthissortofsituationis“de-coupling,”anditisveryfashionable(seethereviewbyBromleyandPowell2012)sincecontemporarysocietyisfilledwithgreatlyexpandednormativeandpolicyideasatgreatvariancewithrapidlyexpandinganddifferentiatingpractice.Relevanttotheimmediateissueshere,globallyexpandedideasaboutuniversalhumanrightscoexistwithaworldsocietywithreallyextraordinarylevelsofinequalityoneverydimension.Theinconsistenciesinvolvedfuelmuchsocialmobilization.

ReadingMathiasRisse’saccountmakesitclearthatthetensionbetweenuniversalisticidealsandpracticalrealitiesisofverylongstanding.Amongotherthings,itleadstoclassificatoryboundaries,distinguishingbetweenentitled“man”andothercategoriesofhumanexistence:barbariansandprimitives,foreigners,women,children,subordinatedsocialclasses,ethnicgroups,andraces;disabledpeople,andsoon.InWesternChristendom,entryintheworldofindividualjusticewassometimesrestrictedto“saved”Christianpeople.Incloseparallel,inthelastcenturyandmore,theentirenaturalhumanrace,asproducedbyfamiliesandcommunities,hasbeendeemedinadequatefortheelevatedcategory“man:”andalmostuniversalprogramsofcompulsoryeducationarisethatremovepeoplefromfamilyandcommunityandsocializetheminaninstitutionunderthecontrolofthenationalstate.WiththeEducationforAllmovement,thiscompulsionisnowdefinedasaglobalhumanright(Chabbott3003):universalizededucationisalsoadominantpractice.Soitbecomesmoredifficulttolegitimizeinequalitiesonsocial,racial,ethnic,religious,historicalorevennationalstatus.

Thesocialsciencesingeneral,andsociologyspecificallyareverymuchcreaturesofWesternChristendom,andinparticularofanEnlightenmentthatevolvedoutofandreactedtoanearlierreligiousformulation.Thesciencesareusuallyaboutindividualswithcitizenshipandpersonhoodfunctioninginsocialcommunitieswithnation-hoodandstates.Seenagainstthelongphilosophictraditions,thesocialscienceslookmodernandquitescientific,butalsosomewhatparochial,focusedonindividualsinmodernnation-statesocieties.Withthefocusonindividualcitizenshipasthemainidentity,manycommonformsoftraditionalsocialpracticesareruledoutormarginalized.Themaindimensionisascale:who“man”is.Ultimateunitsofsociallifeareoftenculturallydefinednotasindividuals,butasfamilies,communities,ethnicgroups,races,andsoon–supra-individualcorporatebodies.Modernthinkinginbothsocialscienceandphilosophytendstoeliminatethesestructuresasfundamental,reducingthemtotheirindividualcomponents.Soourrulesemphasizetheequalstandingofeachmanandwomen,notmenandwomenascorporategroups(thoughthereareexceptions,aswhen

certainproportionsofpositionsarereservedforwomen,orwhencertainrepresentativesarechosenonlybywomen).

Thus,thesocialsciencesandcontemporaryphilosopherstendtoconvergeontheindividualhumanpersonasafundamentalbottom-lineunitofsociety.Inthis,theyreflect(andhelpcreate)long-terminstitutionalchangesintheadvancedcountries.Sotheabstractideasofearlierphilosophersabout“man”cometobemoreandmoreconcretizedandemphasizedinsocieties.Inthis,thephilosophersjoinwithmanyforcesinthecontemporaryworldthatundercuttheultimateauthorityoffamilialandethnic(andnowevennational)communitiesinthenameofindividualrights.

Thefocusontheindividualasthebottom-lineprimordialunitofsocietyhasbeenpowerfullyenhanced,andgivenincreasedpracticalreality,byglobalizationinthewholeperiodsinceWorldWarII.Humanrightsideologiesandinstitutionshaveexplodedonaglobalscale(Elliott2007).Theydefinemoreandmoretypesofpeopleas“men.”Theydefinemoreandmorerightsasinheringin“men.”Theyextendthedefinitionof“man”asreachingentirelybeyondthepoliticalboundariesofnationalstatesandcitizenshipsothateventheterm“man”comestoseemnarrowandexclusionary.Andtheydirectlysupportjusticeclaimsbyexplicitlyempowering“men”ofallsortstotakepositiveactiononbehalfoftheirexpandedrights(Elliott2007).

Overall,thus,abstractconceptsof“man”becomeconcretizedaroundtheexpandedmodernconceptionoftheindividual.Intheprocess,theybecomeglobalized,sothatpolitical,social,economic,andculturalmattersareorganizedasindividualrightsinaglobalframe.

2.GLOBALIZINGTHEPOLITYWITHINWHICHJUSTICEISDEFINED

Socialscientificthinkingandapparentlyphilosophicalthinkingfocusonuniversalizednotionsofindividual“man”asaveryrealbottomlineunitbutarealsoordinarilyrootedinnotionsofapolityorstateasacorecollectivestructurewithasimilarlyprimordialstatus.(Theunderlyingpost-EnlightenmentstructurereflectstheearlierChristiansacralizationofboththeChurchastheBodyofChristandthesoulofthebeliever).Correspondingly,thereareambivalentnotionsofjustice:theprovisionofjusticebythestatecanbedifferentfromthejustentitlementsofthenominally-equal“men.”Liberalanddemocraticmodelselidethedistinction,imaginingmarketsandelectionsthatmergeindividualandcollectiveneedsbydefinition.Corporatistandstatistmodelsemphasizethedistinction,oftengivingpreferenceforcollectiveneedsanddistributionalprinciplesratherthanthedesiresoftheindividual(Jepperson2002hasamorecompletetypologyhere).

Inpractice,societiesembeddedinthenation-statesystemsincetheEnlightenmentcometotermswiththetensionbetweenthegroundingprincipleoftheindividual“man”asthebottom-lineunitandtheactualmodelsandrealitiesofgreatstratificationanddifferentiationinthenation-state.Theterm“structuration,”fromGiddens(1984),isoftenemployed,capturingtheideaofboundariesbetweeninstitutions,andthusbetweenrulesofjustice(Giddensemphasizesclassconflictsandboundaries,butthepointisreallymoregeneral).MathiasRisseusestheterm“pluralism,”toemphasizetheinstitutionaldifferentiationinvolvedatthegloballevel,inparallelwithcommonanalysesofthemodernnationalsociety.Thus,somerightsandobligationsinhereinfamilialrelationships,othersinbusinessorganization,andstillothersinnation-statepolities.Onemaybeobligedtosupportanotherpersonbecauseheisabrother,keephimatarm’slengthinanorganizationalsettingtoavoidcorruption,andkillhimifheisanagentofanotherstate.Differentiatedboundaryrulesarethendevelopedtomakeclearwhichinstitutionalstructureappliesinagiventime,place,andsocialsetting.

Liberalsocieties,withtheirspecialstressontherightsandpowersoftheindividual,tendtogeneratemoreinstitutionaldifferentiation(MathiasRisse’spluralism)thanotherssincetheyhavemoredistinctstructurestobound,andempowermoreindividualaction(e.g.,throughcourts).Corporatistorstatistsocieties,givingmoreontologicalstatustothecollective,mayhavestrongerandsimplersystemsofdifferentiationandstratification.Sometimes,thestatemaydefinejusticebyfiat.

Allofthesesystems,throughthemodernperiod,havetendedtofocusontherulesoforderandjusticewithinanimaginednationalsociety,andonewithastate(evenifaveryliberalone)settingtherulesandframe.Therulesforrelationshipscuttingacrossthenationalboundariesarelessstable.Sociologists,forinstance,havemuchresearchbearingontheinequalitiesobtainingbetweenMexican-AmericanchildreninElPasoandSwedish-AmericanchildreninMinnesota:thisresearchtakesitsinterestfromtheassumednormativebaselineofequality.ThereisverylittleresearchcomparingtheMexican-AmericanchildreninElPasowiththeircousinsamileortwoawayinCiudadJuarez:anditisunclearwhatstandardtheresearcherswouldtakeasthebaseline(thoughincreasinglydoctrinesofequalityareextendedbeyondnationalboundaries).

Allthischangesratherrapidlywithglobalization,whichshiftsattentiontoissuesofjusticeonasupra-nationalscale.

Thenaturalizedpluralismofpost-Enlightenmentmodernityevolvesovertime,andgoesglobal,withchangedpicturesoftherightsofindividualsandchangedinstitutionalframesdifferentiatingdifferentarenas.Educationbecomesanindividualrightonaglobalscale.Principlesdefiningunfairtreatmentintheworkplaceexpand:thesonofthebossshouldreally

getanMBAbeforeenteringthefirm.Therightsofwomeninthefamilyexpand:maritalrapeiscriminalizedasaglobalmatter(seealsoFranketal.2010).Fundamentally,thesechangesinvolveshiftsinwhichentitieshavewhatontologicalstatus.Therightsoftheindividualexpand:thepowersofthefamilydecline,andsoon.Andsomenewentitiescomeintoplace:rulesofincorporation,forexample,permitanexplosioninorganizationalstructureswiththeirinternalboundariesandprinciplesofjustice.Therulesdefininglegitimateentitiesevolveovertime,oftenwithsomeconflict,andenforcementbystates.Buttheyarenormalizedandtakenforgrantedinmuchsociallife.

Alloftheseexpansivechangesaregoingonatagloballevel,notsimplynationalones.Theorganizationalexpansion,educationalexpansion,orexpandedrightsofwomenandchildreninthefamily,occurinallsortsofcountriesaswellasintheexplicitrulesandideologiesofanexpandinginternationaldiscursiveandorganizationalsystem(Meyeretal.1997).

MathiasRisse’saccount,emphasizestheriseofmultipledimensionsofinterdependence,andhencemultipleformsofjustice,onaglobalscale.Whatmakesitespeciallyrelevantisthatitpermits(a)acleardiscussionofthedramaticandrapidchangesintherecognizedontologieswith(b)aninternationalizationthatcreatesrecognizedinterdependenciesfartranscendinganystate-likestructure.Thatis,theforceofMathiasRisseaccountisbothinitsstressonpluralismandalsoonaverydynamicpluralismthattranscendsthestate.

Icanheresimplysummarizesomedramaticchangesintheontologicalshapeofrecognizedsociallifeinrecentdecadesandcallattentiontoobviousconsequencesforformsofjusticeclaimsthatariseandsometimesdrifttowardinstitutionalization.Thechangesareclearlyhighlyinterdependent.

First,thereismultidimensionalinternationalizationofrecognizedsociallife:manymoreandstrongerinterdependencies–political,economic,military,social.Thesocialworldisamuchexpandedplace.Eachneworexpandedinterdependencycreatesgroundsforclaims.Themostdramaticinstancesofthisinvolvetheculturalconstructionandrecognitionofglobalecosystemicinterdependencies.Extinctionslimitbiodiversityforeveryone.Globalwarmingcreatesmassiveconsequences.Expandedglobalimaginationgeneratespotentialthreatsofattacksbyasteroids.

Second,asdiscussedabove,thestatusofthehumanindividualisgreatlyexpandedandglobalized.Peoplehavemorerecognizedrightsandpowers,andtheseareexplicitlyextendedtohumansofmoresorts(i.e.,old,young,gay,sick,poor,andsoon)andsupra-nationalsociallocations.Withamassivehumanrightsregime,allthisisdoneinthenameoftheontologicalprimacyoftheequalindividual.Thus,therearemanymoredimensionsonwhichinjustice

claimscanbedefined.MathiasRisse’spluralismbecomesmoreplural–acrosscategoriesofpeople,acrosssocialfunctions.

Allthisglobalizationorinternationalizationoccursinasystemwithweakregulatorypowers.Claimsexpand,butwithoutmuchofanarenafordecisionandadjudication.MathiasRisse’spluralismbecomesevermoreplural,expandedacrossnationalboundariesandallsortsofsocialfunctions,andacrosssocieties.Butintheabsenceofanythinglikeanintegratingstatestructure,balancingoradjudicatingtheclaimsarisingfromvariousformsofinterdependenceisnotfeasible.Undertheseconditions,MathiasRisse’spluralismcanbecomeinflationary.Itiseasytodefinenewareasofinterdependence,expandedhumanrights,andthusnewpossibleconceptionsofinjustice,withoutanorganizedstabilizingpolityinglobalsociety.

3.THEWEAKENEDONTOLOGICALPRIMACYOFNATIONALSTATEANDSOCIETY

Theriseofactualitiesandperceptionsofaglobalsocietyandthereorganizationofindividualsasdirectmembersofglobalsociety(withhumanratherthanjustcitizenrights)weakenstheprimordialstatusofthenation-state.MathiasRisseexplicitlydiscussestheloweredstatusinvolved.

Thismeansthatclaimsforjusticeandordercanmorereadilytranscendnationalboundaries,asdomesticrulesandpracticescanbeseenasviolationsofmoreuniversalrightsandresponsibilities.Butinthesameway,italsomeansthatmanyinternalstructuresofpluralistsociety–structuresthatcommonlydependonstate-basedlegalframes–areweakened.Theclaimsofthefamilyontheindividualweakenagainsthumanrightsrules.Similarlyweakenedarealltheinstitutionsofcommunalauthority–religious,ethnic,economic,anddiffusepoliticalcommunities.Theyareallsubjecttouniversalizedexternalassessment,andpenetratedfromwithinbythegreatlyexpandedrightsandpowersoftheindividual,and/orgloballydefinedenvironmentaloreconomicobligations,andthussqueezedbetweentheinternationalizedexternalauthoritiesandthelocalsclaimingtostandintermsoftherulesoftheexternalauthorities.Forinstance,formerlyquaintlocalcustomsoffemalecircumcisioncanbeattackedbothbylocals(inthenameofindividualrights)andbyworldfigures.Orlocaldestructionsofforestsmaybeattackedasviolationsofglobalneedsandrules.Orlocaleconomicpracticesmaybeseenasviolationsofglobalrulesabouttrade.Inallthesecases,globalconceptsofjusticecomeintoconflictwithlocalones.

4.CONCLUSION:CHANGESINTHEPLURALJUSTICEFRAMES

Ioutlinehereaveryfewconsequencesoftheexpandedandchangedontologydiscussedabove,andthechangesintheframeworksofthepluralismsthatareactivated.

First,theexpansionoflegitimatedindividualismcreatesmanypossibilitiesforanalyzedinjustice(andconsequentsocialmobilization).Morepeople,ofmoresorts,areincluded,nowcoveringthewholeworld.Morequalitiesofthesepeople(e.g.,educational,medical,orculturalproperties)areorganizedinexpandedanddifferentiatedpluralismandthusarecoveredbyexpandingrulesofjusticeorinjustice.Itispossible,forinstance,toseeessentiallyeverytransactioninthemodernglobaleconomyasriddledwithinjustice.

Second,theweakeningoftheboundariesaroundtheformerly-charismaticnationalstatesexpandscomparativeframes,andthecapacityofpeopletomobilizearoundthoseframes,toaglobalscale.Itiseasytocreateorganizationspursuingjusticeonaglobalscale,andthesestructuresgrowexponentially(BoliandThomas1999).Aspecializedactivityandindustryaroundfishing,forexample,comesunderthescrutinyofmanysupra-nationalorganizationsattemptingtomakeand/ortoregulateclaimsarisingfromtheinterdependenciesinvolved.

Third,weakeningnation-stateboundaries,andexpandingglobalinstitutions,subjectthestatesthemselves--formerlytheadjudicatorsofjustice–tothewiderclaimsofthesupra-statesystem.Localpeoplecantakeissuewithinconsistenciesbetweentheirstandinginthenation-stateandtheirhumanrightsinglobalsociety.Increasingly,statesmustdefendthemselvesinawiderarena.Buttheyalsocananddomakemoreandmoreclaimsinthisarena.Inbothrespects,thestatesincreasinglytendtodepictthemselvesasassembliesofindividuals–therealprimordialentityoftheglobalizedorder.Theyclaimlegitimacyderivedfromthe“people”(whoarenowgloballydefinedinhumanrightsterms).Andtheyclaimtoservethese“people.”Onlyafewtrytoconstitutionallylegitimatethemselvesintermsofotherconstructions(e.g.,religious,historical,ethnic,racial,etc.).

Fourth,theabsenceofalegitimatelycontrollingcenteroftheglobalsystemcreatesopportunitiesandincentivessupportingtheexpansionsoforganizationandmobilizationnotedabove.Thatis,thenormativesysteminvolvedhasinflationaryqualities,withmanyopportunitiesforexpansionandfewforrestrictivecontrol.Anygoodsocialscientistnowhaschancesto“discover”andconstructanewinjustice.MathiasRisse’spluralismisclearlyexpandable--andexpandingaswewrite.Thusmanyofthefactorsnotedabovecreateopportunitiesforexpandedexpertise,professionalization,andscientization.Thecapacitytoarticulateandanalyzeandconstructtheexpandingarenasofapluralistsystemisaverygreat

resource.Forexample,theeducatorsandpsychologistswhoaddressasasocialinjusticethefailuresofyoungwomentobecomeelectricalengineersgaincredibilityandauthorityonaworldwidescale.

Fifth,thephysicalandsocialglobalworld,inreality,andinperception,becomesadominantframewithinwhichdistinctiveclaimscanbemade.Manyotherissuesgetorganizedaroundthisstructureinapluralistsystem.Ittendstobedepictedasaclosedsystem,withmanyzero-sumproperties:andcanbeusedasarhetoricalsubstituteforanorganizedworldpolity.Thistendencyisintensifiedbyanalysesofaglobalecosystem:somethinganalogoustoa“polity,”seenascreatedbyNature.Theimageryofclimatechange,speciesdestruction,resourcelimitations,ordiseasedevelopmentsandflowsonaworldscale,playaroleinconstructingamorereifiedconceptionoftheworld–oftenthenaturalworld,nowgivensometimes-sacredstanding.

CONCLUSION(JOHNW.MEYERANDMATHIASRISSE)

Asasocialscientist,Meyeroffersdescriptionsof,andexplanationsfor,phenomenaintheworld.Asaphilosopher,Rissemakesnormativeproposalsforwhattheworldshouldbelike.Sointhatsense,theyareengagedinverydifferentactivities.Butthereisalsomuchconvergencebetweenthem.Someofthatisalongdimensionsthatsetsthemapartfromotherapproachesintheirrespectivedisciplines.

OnedimensionofconvergenceisthatbothMeyerandRissegiveacentralroletoculturalphenomena–norms,values,andcognitivemodels--intheirapproaches.Tobesure,thisisunsurprisingasfarasRisseisconcernedsincenormsandvaluesarethebreadandbutterofmoralandpoliticalphilosophers.Nonetheless,thisisremarkablebecauseitmeansMeyerascribesacausalefficacytothesortofculturalforms–nowoftenstructuredatagloballevel--thatphilosophersexploreintheirnormativeapproachesandwhoseefficacyisoftende-emphasizedbyothersocialscientists.Ifontologiesindifferentfieldsofinquiryfallapart,oneisleftwiththesuspicionthatatleastoneofthemgetsitsapproachtotheworldwrong.Ontheotherhand,afieldofacademicinquirygetssomereassurancefromthefactthatanotherfieldofinquiryusesasimilarontology.

Whatismore,bothMeyerandRissemakeworldsocietycentraltotheirinquiriesanddosoinwaysthatpaycloseattentiontothepluralityofdifferentkindofentitiesthatpopulatetheworldasconceivedbytheirrespectivelinesofinquiry.Meyeremphasizedtheterm“worldsociety”(or“worldpolity”),andmuchofthisworkinrecentdecadeshassoughttodrawattentiontothefactthatphenomenaweobserveacrosscountriesareinterconnectedandaremostplausiblyexplainedasgenuinelyglobalphenomena.“Worldsociety”and“worldpolity”thenbecomeapttermstodescribehumaninteractionatthemacroscale.Individuals,states,companies,intergovernmentalorganizations,organizationsofvarioussortsinglobalcivilsocietyallpopulatetheworldsociety,generating,propagatingandacceptingideasandscriptsaddressingtheworldasawhole.

Risseoffersatheoryofdifferentgroundsofjusticeofwhichseveralareglobalbynature.Inparticular,heconceivesofhumanrightsasmembershiprightsintheworldsociety(originallyasmembershiprightsintheglobalorder).Healsogivesprideofplacetohumanity’srelationshipwiththeplanet,aswellastocommonhumanity.StatescontinuetomatterinRisse’sapproachbecausehealsothinksthatmembershipinstatesisagroundofjusticeinitsownright.Sounlikestate-focusedphilosophers,Rissedoesindeedmaketheworldcentral;butunlikeotherphilosopherswhodosoaswell,hethinksthatstructuresthatdonotincludethewholeworldmatterfromastandpointofjustice.(Inadditiontostatesthereisalsotheinternationaltradingregime,whichisnotaptlydescribedasaunitaryglobalsystem).

BothRisseandMeyer,inotherwords,attendtotherapidglobalizationofrecentdecades,andtothenewculturalmodelsandnewontologiesthiscreates.Andbothcallattentiontothepluralisticcharacteroftheexpansion.InRisse’scase,thefocusisonthenew,expanded,andmultiplegroundsofjusticecreated.InMeyer’scase,thefocusisonstatelessnessandlackofintegratingstructureforthemultipledimensionsofglobalization,andthustheexpandingandmultiplekindsofinjusticethatcanbedefinedandthatprovidegroundsforsocialmobilization.

Bothanalysesleadtotheconclusionthatglobalization,integration,andconsciousnessleadtorapidincreasesinthekindsofinjusticesthatareperceivedandthatcanbebasesofconflictualclaims–inaworldsocietywithoutstrongmechanismsforstabilizinglegitimizingsocialandideologicalcontrols.Theworldisaverydiverseandveryunequalplace:rapidintegrationturnsthediversityandinequalitiesintoactualandpotentialinjusticeclaims–whichcanreadilybedefendedphilosophically--anddoessoonanexpandingsetofpluralisticdimensions.Aswithmanyintegratingbutstatelesssituations,thepresentworldprovidesmanyopportunitiesforcontendinglawyersandclerics–andfrequentlyalsoforintra-nationalandinter-nationalepisodesofviolence.

LITERATUREAngle, Stephen. 2012. Contemporary Confucian Political Philosophy. Malden: Polity.

Badian, E. 1958. “Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 7, 425-444.

Bai, Tongdong. 2012. China: The Political Philosophy of the Middle Kingdom. London: Zed Books.

Baldry, H. C. 1965. The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

Baltzly, Dirk. 2013. “Stoicism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Barrett, D., and Frank, D. 1999. Population Control for National Development. In J. Boli & G. Thomas, eds. Constructing World Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press: 198-221.

Bartelson, Jens. 2009. Visions of World Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barth, Frederik (ed.) 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown.

Beaulac, Stephane. 2004. The Power of Language in the Making of International Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Beck, U. 2000. The Cosmopolitan Perspective. British Journal of Sociology 51, 1: 79-105.

Beitz, Charles. 1979. Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bernstein, William. 2008. A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World. New York: Atlantic Monthly.

Beyer. P. 1994. Religion and Globalization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. 1999. Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bongaarts, J., and Watkins, S. C. 1996. Social Interations and Contemporary Fertility Transitions. Population and Development Review 22, 4: 639-682.

Boyle E. H. 2002. Female Genital Cutting: Cultural Conflict in the Global Community. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bromley, P., and Meyer, J. 2015. Hyper-Organization: The Global Expansion of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bromley, Patricia, and Walter Powell. 2012. “From Smoke and Mirrors to Walking the Talk: Decoupling in the Contemporary World.” Academy of Management Annals 6, 1: 483-530.

Brown, Eric. 2009. "The Emergence of Natural Law and the Cosmopolis." In Stephen Salkever (ed.), THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO GREEK POLITICAL THOUGHT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 331-363.

Bull, H. 1977. The Anarchical Society. New York: Columbia University Press.

Buzan, B. 2014. An Introduction to the English School of International Relations. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Casanova, J. 2016. Jesuits, Connectivity, and the Uneven Development of Global Consciousness since the Sixteenth Century. Chapter 9 in R. Robertson and D. Buhari, eds., Global Culture. Forthcoming.

Chabbott, Collette. 2003. Constructing Education for Development: International Organizations and Education for All. New York: Routledge.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 1989. Global Formation: Structures of the World-Economy. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Crosby, Alfred. 2003. The Columbian Exchange. Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. 30th Anniversary Edition. Westport: Praeger.

Diamond, Jared. 2005. Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin.

Drori, G. S., Meyer, J.W., Ramirez, F.O., & Schofer, E. 2003. Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Drori, G. S., & Moon, H. 2006. The Changing Nature of Tertiary Education. Pp. 157-185 in D. Baker, & A. Wiseman (eds.), The Impact of Comparative Education Research on Institutional Theory. Emerald Group Publishing.

Elliott, Michael. 2007. “Human Rights and the Triumph of the Individual in World Culture.” Cultural Sociology 1, 3:353-63.

Findley, Ronald, and O’Rourke, Kevin. 2007. Power and Plenty. Trade, War, and the World Economy in the Second Millennium. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Frank, D. J. 1999. The Social Bases of Environmental Treaty Ratification, 1900–1990. Sociological Inquiry 69(4), 523-550.

Frank, D. J, Meyer, J. W., and Miyahara, D. 1995. The Individualist Polity and the Centrality of Professionalized Psychology. American Sociological Review 60, 3: 360-377.

Frank, D. J., and Gabler, J. 2006. Reconstructing the University: Worldwide Shifts in Academia in the 20th Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Frank, David, and John W. Meyer. 2002. "The Profusion of Individual Roles and Identities in the Postwar Period." Sociological Theory 20, 1: 86-105.

Frank, David John, Ann Hironaka, and Evan Schofer. 2000. “The Nation-State and the Natural Environment over the Twentieth Century.” American Sociological Review 65, 1: 96-116.

Frank, David John, B. J. Camp, and S. A. Boutcher. 2010. “Worldwide Trends in the Criminal Regulation of Sex.” American Sociological Review 75, 6: 867-93.

Geuss, Raymond. 2005. Outside Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press

Gilpin, R. 2001. Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hagen, E. E. 1963 On the Theory of Social Change. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.

Heater, Derek. 1996. World Citizenship and Government. Cosmopolitan Ideas in the History of Western Political Thought. Houndmills: Macmillan.

Heintz, P. 1982. A Sociological Code for the Description of World Society and Its Change. International Social Science Journal 34: 1: 11-21.

Heintz, B., and Greve, J. Die “Entdeckung” der Weltgesellschaft. Entstehung und Grenzen der Weltgesellschaftstheorie, in: B. Heintz,et al. (eds.), Weltgesellschaft. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius 2005: 89-119.

Held, David. 2004. Global Covenant: the Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington consensus. Malden: Polity Press.

Hwang H.. 2006. Planning development: globalization and the shifting locus of planning. In G. Drori , et al., eds. Globalization and Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006: 69-90.

Inoue, K. and Drori, G. 2006. “The Global Institutionalization of Health As a Social Concern: Organizational and Discursive Trends.” International Sociology 21(2): 199-219.

Jepperson, Ronald. 2002. “Political Modernities: Disentangling Two Underlying Dimensions of International Differentiation. Sociological Theory 20: 61-85.

Kant, Immanuel. 1991. “On Perpetual Peace.” In Hans Reiss (ed.), Kant: Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Katzenstein, P. J., ed. 1996. The Culture of National Security. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kleingeld, Pauline, and Eric Brown. 2013. “Cosmopolitanism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Konstan, David. 2009. “Cosmopolitan Traditions.” In Ryan Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought. Oxford: Blackwell, 473-484.

Koskenniemi, Martti. 2002. The Gentle Civilizer of Nations. The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870-1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krasner, S. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lauren, Paul Gordon. 2003. The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Leach, Edmund. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Luhmann, N. 1982. The World Society as a Social System. International Journal of General Systems 8, 3: 131-138.

Marsh, R. 1967. Comparative Sociology. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

McClelland, D. 1961. The Achieving Society. Princeton: Van Nostrand.

Meyer, J. 1980. The World Polity and the Authority of the Nation-State. In A. Bergesen (ed.), Studies of the Modern World-System. New York: Academic Press: 109-37.

Meyer, John W., and Ronald Jepperson. 2000. "The 'Actors' of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency." Sociological Theory 18, 1: 100-120.

Meyer, J., Kamens, D, and Benavot,A. 1992. School Knowledge for the Masses: World Models and National Curricula in the Twentieth Century. London: Falmer.

Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., and Ramirez, F. O. 1997. World Society and the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology 103(1), 144-181.

Moles, John. 2000. “The Cynics.” In Christopher Rowe and Malcolm Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 415-434).

Moon, H., and Wotipka, C. M. 2006. The Worldwide Diffusion of Business Education, 1881–1999. Pp. 121-136 in G. Drori, J., Meyer, & H. Hwang, eds., Globalization and Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Nussbaum, Arthur. 1954. A Concise History of the Law of Nations. New York: Macmillan.

Pagden, Anthony. 2015. The Burdens of Empire: 1539 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parry, Richard. 2014. “Ancient Ethical Theory.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Parsons, T., and Platt, G. 1973. The American University. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Pogge, Thomas. 2006. World Poverty and Human Rights. Malden: Polity.

Pogge, Thomas. 1989. Realizing Rawls. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Pomeranz, Kenneth, and Steven Topik. 2006. The World that Trade Created. Society, Culture, and the World Economy, 1400 to the Present. London: Sharpe.

Ramirez, F., and Boli, J. 1987. The Political Construction of Mass Education: European Origins and Worldwide Institutionalization. Sociology of Education 60: 2-17.

Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York City: Columbia University Press.

Riddle, Phyllis. 1990. “University and State: Political Competition and the Rise of Universities, 1200-1985.” Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Robertson R. 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage

Romm, James. 1992. The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration and Fiction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ryan, Alan. 2012. On Politics. New York: Norton.

Schmitt, Carl. 1963. Der Begriff des Politischen. Text von 1932 mit einem Vorwort und drei Corollarien. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Schmitt, Carl. 1950. Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Schofield, Malcolm. 1991. The Stoic Idea of the City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shils, E. 1971. No Salvation Outside Higher Education. Minerva 6: 313-321.

Simmel. G. 1976 (1903). The Metropolis and Mental Life. New York: Free Press.

Simmons, B., Dobbin, F., and Garrett, G., eds. 2008. The Global Diffusion of Markets and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Singer, Peter. 2011. The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Spencer, H. 1896. The Study of Sociology. New York: D. Appleton.

Strang, D. 1991. Global Patterns of Decolonization: 1500-1987. International Studies Quarterly 35: 429-54.

Thornton, A., Dorius, S, and Swindle, J. 2015. Developmental Idealism. Sociology of Development 1, 2: 277-320.

Tilly, C. (1993). Coercion, Capital and European States, A.D. 990-1990. New York: Wiley/ Blackwell.

Tilly, C., ed. (1975). The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Toulmin, S. 1990. Cosmopolis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tuck, Richard. 2001. The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wallerstein, I. M. 1974. The Modern World-System. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Waltz, K. 1979. Theory of International Politics. McGraw Hill. New York.

Williams, Bernard. 2005. “In the Beginning was the Deed.” In Williams In the Beginning was the Deed. Realism and Moralism in Political Argument. Ed. by Geoffrey Hawthorn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Woodberry, R. 2012. The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy. American Political Science Review 106: 2: 244-274.

Ypi, Lea. 2012. Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Harvard Kennedy School 79 John F. Kennedy Street Cambridge, MA 02138 www.carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu

Thinking About the World: Philosophy and Sociology · Thinking About the World: Philosophy and...

Documents