Planetarity and cosmopolitics

This comment responds to the articles assembled by Beck and Grande (BJS 2010). It argues that their important approach has been extended in novel directions by these contributions and that the goal represented by a cosmopolitan sociology is pending in the expansion of the dialogue these pieces initiate

Beck, Asia and second modernity

The work of Ulrich Beck has been important in bringing sociological attention to the ways issues of risk are embedded in contemporary globalization, in developing a theory of ‘reflexive modernization’, and in calling for social science to transcend ‘methodological nationalism’. In recent studies, he and his colleagues help to correct for the Western bias of many accounts of cosmopolitanism and reflexive modernization, and seek to distinguish normative goals from empirical analysis. In this paper I argue that further clarification of this latter distinction is needed but hard to reach within a framework that still embeds the normative account in the idea that empirical change has a clear direction. Similar issues beset the presentation of diverse patterns in recent history as all variants of ‘second modernity’. Lastly, I note that ironically, given the declared ‘methodological cosmopolitanism’ of the authors, the empirical studies here all focus on national cases

Public intellectuals, globalization and the sociological calling: A reply to critics

10.1111/j.1468-4446.2006.00114.xBritish Journal of Sociology573345-35