Planetary Sociology: Volume 40

Planetary sociology starts out from the supposition that sociology as a discipline emerged in the context and out of an interest in the fate of modern “national” societies. Yet, as a discipline, it emerged with tools designed to identify, track, and analyze processes and forms of organization which today are playing out and observable at the planetary level. For sociology to be in the position to make important contributions to the challenges modern societies are facing in the twenty-first century, it must apply the tools it developed over the course of more than a century, to processes and phenomena that are transforming and applying to planetary civilization and Earth's ecosystem. The necessary starting point is the critical investigation of the interconnected structuring principles that have been shaping both societies and individual identities, and how they reinforce patterns which thwart both sociology's ability to make increasingly necessary contributions, and modern societies' ability to embrace qualitative rather than quantitative forms of progress. A reinvigorated enlightenment will be necessary to increase the probability that sociology will be well-positioned to provide decision-makers and actors with the insights, tools, and knowledge needed to confront impending challenges and crises constructively.

This essay is not a typical essay that follows the norms of academic discourse which have become standardized by the bureaucratization of the academy and academic publishers in the name of neoliberal economic policies. The abstract is a function of that bureaucratization. It provides a summary taste of what follows so that the reader can make a quick judgment as to whether the words contained therein are worthy of their time. The typical scholarly article gets few readers beyond the author, editor, and reviewers. If and when the abstract succeeds in making a reader turn to the pages, all too often today, this means only reading the introduction and conclusion, with a cursory scanning of the intermediate pages for “data.” Theory resists this informationalization. Rather, theory must reside within the realm of knowledge; and knowledge takes time and effort. It forces the reader to make a choice, to use their agency to decide to spend their time on this mental task and to decide what to do with the knowledge they gain. Planetary sociology contends that working toward knowing our self and society, their interconnections and coconstructions, is a necessary precondition for confronting the global endgame on our horizon. Critical socioanalysis provides a model for how to engage in this practice. In the following pages I offer my own life as a brief example of the process while demonstrating the role that theory must play. It cannot be summarized in an abstract. It must be read and digested. It must be the subject of thought, the cause of our engaging in thinking. Theory makes demands of its readers, and it forces us to choose. You cannot be a passive reader of theory. This abstract provides the first chance for the reader to act as an agent, to reject theory's demands or to keep seeking and discover for one's self if it is worth the effort.

This chapter explores how identity formation in Appalachia is impacted by globalized processes. Residents of the region are often understood as inhabiting space belated which ignores the ways that global processes of extraction, exploitation, colonialism, and national politics come to impact the region and its inhabitants. Rooted in narratives of time, death, and belonging, personal identity formation in Appalachia is as rich and complex, while often unseen, as the region is itself. By understanding the way selective hegemonies and colonial narratives have impacted the region, we can begin to explore how these same concepts have begun to impact personal development.

At a time when the gradual collapse of democratic norms and processes is obvious to anyone who cares to read the headlines, the tension between self and society is fertile soil for understanding democratic decay. While we may wish to see democracy refortified, the fact remains that citizens equipped to handle democratic practices are a necessary precondition for democratic revitalization. Yet, the deterioration of democracy suggests breakdown in the gears of democratic production of the democratic citizen. The following chapter examines a particular cancer that is antithetical to democracy and has afflicted your author – the authoritarian personality. Critical theorists and social scientists in the mid-twentieth century identified this personality disposition as one that cultivates receptivity to fascism and is today the beating heart of right-wing extremism in its particular incarnation as Trumpism. I develop the theory of the authoritarian personality as it shaped and inflamed at the familial, societal, and global levels. Contributing to the project of planetary sociology, I demonstrate how the changes occurring on the world stage incite the most pernicious and antidemocratic features of the authoritarian personality. All the while, I subject myself to critical scrutiny in order to illustrate the inner-workings of this personality disposition. Your author stands before you as a recovering authoritarian and hopes that by reading this chapter, you will begin to see authoritarianism all around you, perhaps even within yourself.

This chapter argues that modern societies are changing in ways that disrupt the complementarity between social structure and character structure. One source of this divergence occurs because, on the one hand, there exists a “neoliberal” character structure that is oriented toward the accumulation of human capital and holds that such accumulation and hard work will allow one to achieve the “American Dream.” On the other hand, the deep embeddedness of this character structure may in fact deepen the possibility of structural crisis, as developments in automation and ongoing transformations of labor continuously shift the economic structure and many feel they are employed in meaningless “soul crushing” jobs. This diagnosis prompts the question: is the accumulation of human capital futile? In other words, can there exist an abundance of jobs that simultaneously pay enough to provide a middle-class lifestyle and be both socially respected by most members of society while also providing subjective meaning for the individual – without accruing high social costs? Through reflections upon my own biography growing up in East Tennessee, this chapter utilizes the framework of Planetary Sociology to encourage sociologists to rethink the category of “human capital” and recognize the divergence of social structure and character structure to be a serious problem with planetary implications. Only by critical examination of the sociohistoric context from a planetary perspective can these challenges be constructively evaluated and reckoned with.

This essay explores Planetary Sociology through an individual account of social construction of the self as it unfolded under the influences of a military ethic of service, sociological training, and academic studies of entrepreneurship. A three-part process is identified that includes unlearning, reorienting, and assuming new roles. New theoretical combinations are integral to this process and are expanded upon in this essay, suggesting a role for planetary sociology in providing a framework for better understanding tensions and connection points between habit and innovation as it pertains not only to entrepreneurship but also to the social construction of the self and social systems.

This chapter is situated as a study of rural central New York, among a post-Vietnam generation, and under the force of land grabs following the United States farm crisis of the 1970s–1980s “consolidation” of farmlands into Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). This study unfolds these surroundings of this particular rural society and environment through critical theory and socioanalysis focused on a mute narrative of reified (thingified) species and beings. From a student of sociology this chapter is a response to the conditions of academic character formation and how a particular local milieu constituted the affinities for investigating society with the environment of nonhumans as political.

Born to a family of ultratraditional values constructed by the Baptist church and the United States military, I was introduced to a world of strict binary roles which defined the way one must present through thoughts and behavior. Such roles emerge from and bolster claims to membership in specific sex and gender categories. My gender was a socially scripted dramatization of the culture's idealization of feminine nature in which I was casted into a role that I must play to successfully navigate through life. This essay follows the course of my life in which I, as a young child, began to notice the drastic characteristics that differentiated the lives of males and females and the struggle of realization that one could deviate from this binary. The recognition that I was gender nonconforming, and a lesbian led to feelings of isolation and fear. With the support of social theory, I illustrate how the experience of social othering and social oppression aids in providing a unique lens that drives my research interests and academic career. Through my own individual identity structurization, the process of pulling off only a minuscule amount of the multifaceted layers of society was difficult and time consuming. However, it was through this necessary process that led me to the capability of thinking in terms of planetary sociology. As a criminologist, I study how people are categorized into specific social groups and deemed vulnerable to violence or harm. The paradox in studies of oppression is that social scientists do not blame the individual, but the institutions that prey on people's self-description. It is within this paradox that I study institutional and structural harm and strive to promote a more just, humane worldview for my students both in and out of the classroom.

Individual, interpersonal, and societal transformation will require continually working through the past. In this chapter, I process how inequalities contextualized my identity formation in the Southeastern United States. Racism, colonization, environmental degradation, misogyny, and homophobia shaped the institutions central to my Appalachian socialization – namely family, education, and law. Then, when the criminal punishment system interfered with one of my earliest intimate relationships, it sparked my interest and commitment to prison abolition. Ultimately, I find creativity and accountability, both personally and structurally, essential for potential transformation.

An understanding of the deep, intertwined roots of faith, family, nationalism, and capitalism within the United States is essential as we stand at the precipice of unprecedented global crises – climate change, economic inequality, and violence. Being raised in a devout, Evangelical Christian household provided unique insight into the political and cultural landscape of the Appalachian coal fields, where my extended family – who face persistent poverty, environmental pollution, and nonexistent support services – only expect relief from the crucible of life through death. Reflecting on the longstanding influence of the Protestant ethic (Weber, 2001/1930) and the consequences of widespread austerity-based policies (Piketty, 2014), I trace my experiences as being an insider/outsider within rural Appalachia and academia as a microcosm of the world that lies ahead, where global crises come home and local crises become planetary. Strategies to address impending global challenges demand analysis and action which extends beyond nations and national interests toward a planetary-level analysis. Specifically, planetary sociology brings a sociological analysis of the nuance and complexity of the “political, economic, organizational, and social” worlds into analysis with the, often ignored, natural worlds (Dahms, 2017). Thus, reflecting on the interconnected and interdependent levels of analysis – personal, familial, communal, national, and global – through the power of personal narratives serve as a beginning of planetary solutions.

This chapter critically examines the dialectical relationship between colonial capitalism, racism, state terrorism, and racial/ethnonational domination from the sixteenth to the twenty-first century. It demonstrates the deficiencies of theories of global studies. In reformulating and improving critical international studies, this study advances the idea that excluding indigenous wisdom and knowledge from this area has allowed the hegemonic Euro-American-centric scholarship and ideology to limit our understanding of the racist sickness and its continuous evolution in the modern world system. Since this sickness has been hidden under the rhetoric of democracy, human rights, and social justice, even progressive intellectuals have failed to thoroughly comprehend the devastating consequences of racism and terrorism in global studies.

First, the chapter critically establishes the dialectical relationship between colonial capitalism, racial terrorism, and the continuous destruction of indigenous peoples in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Australia. It explains how the dominant racial/ethnonational groups have continued to maintain their privileges at the cost of marginalized societies. Second, using indigenous wisdom and knowledge, the piece exposes the intellectual deficiencies of Euro-American scholarship and ideology from the right and left in global studies. Third, the chapter demonstrates that the claims of democracy, human rights, and social justice do not adequately apply to the conditions of the indigenous peoples in the world. Fourth, it proposes ways of developing a comprehensive critical global studies by critically including the wisdom and knowledge of indigenous peoples.

This chapter offers a critique of the affirmative forms of thought that attempt to ground the ontology of social being through subjective-idealist terms. Some recent examples came in the form of notion of truth grounded in subjects' experience and in rationality of language and discourse. The first part of the chapter demonstrates the perilous implications of such an approach for social theory tasked with ontology and for the conception of truth necessary for its task. The second part scrutinizes the paradigm of society that stems from this subjective-idealist notion of truth and social ontology that adopts discourse, language, and literary metaphors to comprehend social being. As an alternative, the final part of the chapter offers a preliminary sketch of the relation of ontology, normativity, and mediation, as well as the notion of critique necessary for social theory tasked with ontology.

The author argues that contemporary college culture is predicated on hedonism indicated by a use of predominantly social time in which parties, alcohol, casual sex, and lax academics pervade students' experiences. Coincident with this culture, however, is a deleterious pattern among students that has developed dramatically: their compromised mental health. The situation presents an apparent paradox: why are many students suffering when enveloped by fun? This chapter draws a connection between fun and suffering by treating each as conditions that spring from the sociohistorical context that situates institutions of higher education. In so doing, a theory is set forth to explain why despair is rendered applicable and how it is institutionally installed in the minds of modern-day college students.

We argue that aspects of the Luhmannian strand of systems theory could be mobilized in a crypto-normative way for an immanent critique of certain trends in contemporary social development, especially the growing economic determination of different spheres of life and the formation of sectorial industries – such as healthcare, education, crime control, etc. – with the consequent erosion of the autonomy of these spheres and the progressive exhaustion of social conditions for the exercise of freedom and the experience of difference.

A decisive step in this approach to systems theory lies in the indication of certain “elective affinities” between Luhmann and Adorno, reinforcing the plausibility of an internal connection between these different theoretical conceptions – not their mere instrumental appropriation and external juxtaposition. From this point of view, we argue that aspects of Luhmann's conceptual construction – notably the way the system-environment relationship is thought – hold a strong family resemblance with the Adornian mode of conceiving the subject–object relationship in the speculative key of negative dialectics.

Conceived as a critical model that modulates society's real abstractions toward difference and systemic autonomy, and especially as a critical model that underlines possibilities of reciprocal mediation between system and environment, systems theory seems to emphatically put itself in tension with what, at least in part, could be seen as its other: neoliberal governmentality, the generalization of the commodity form and the instrumentalization of the individual by unilateral systemic imperatives in global capitalism.