The social, cosmopolitanism and beyond.
First, this article will outline the metaphysics of "the social" that implicitly and explicitly connects the work of classical and contemporary cosmopolitan sociologists as different as Durkheim, Weber, Beck and Luhmann. In a second step, I will show that the cosmopolitan outlook of classical sociology is driven by exclusive differences. In understanding human affairs, both classical sociology and contemporary cosmopolitan sociology reflect a very modernist outlook of epistemological, conceptual, methodological and disciplinary rigour that separates the cultural sphere from the natural objects of concern. I will suggest that classical sociology -- in order to be cosmopolitan -- is forced (1) to exclude "non-social and non-human objects" as part of its conceptual and methodological rigour, and (2) consequently and methodologically to rule out the non-social and the non-human. Cosmopolitan sociology imagines "the social" as a global, universal "explanatory device" to conceive and describe the non-social and non-human. In a third and final step the article draws upon the work of the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde and offers a possible alternative to the modernist social and cultural other-logics of social sciences. It argues for a inclusive conception of "the social" that gives the non-social and non-human a cosmopolitan voice as well.
Schillmeier
Michael
M
Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Germany
D000884:Anthropology, Cultural / Q000193:education / Q000266:history; D018864:Cultural Diversity; D003469:Culture; D049672:History, 19th Century; D049673:History, 20th Century; D019359:Knowledge; D019021:Natural History / Q000193:education / Q000266:history; D012919:Social Behavior; D012923:Social Class / Q000266:history; D012924:Social Conditions / Q000266:history; D012942:Social Sciences / Q000193:education / Q000266:history; D012945:Social Values / Q000208:ethnology; D012961:Sociology / Q000193:education / Q000266:history