Search results

Robert J Antonio's ‘Climate Change, the Resource Crunch, and the Global Growth Imperative’ is an excellent starting point for examining the dominance of the ideology of ‘economic growth’ within contemporary societies and social thinking against the background of the growing and profound socio-ecological crises such as climate change, resource scarcity and rampant consumerism. His article integrates contemporary scientific evidence about climate change and the ecological devastation being wrought by contemporary patterns of globalised carbon-fuelled and climate changing capitalism with classical and contemporary sociological theorising and calls for a greater engagement of social theorising with these defining challenges of the 21st century. In particular, Antonio's article begins the process of sociological theory re-engaging and re-interpreting classical sociology (Weber, Durkheim, Mead and Dewey) to develop forms of social theorising, which overcome a simplistic nature–cultural dualism and can equip critical social theory as fit for purpose for analysing the ecological, climate and resource ‘crunches’ facing all societies in the 21st century.

Antonio cites J. K. Galbraith (among others) as having criticized a view central to mainstream economics, namely, that “human nature dictates an unlimited ‘urgency of wants,’ naturalizing ever increasing production and consumption and precluding the distinction of goods required to meet basic needs from those that stoke wasteful, destructive appetites.” In citing Galbraith, Antonio evidently has some sympathy for the former's viewpoint, which I now examine.

Nietzsche’s texts contain diverse and sometimes contradictory themes that defy singular summations and are open to divergent interpretations. He also often deployed puzzling and contradictory statements to provoke readers’ thoughts. Although not claiming to illuminate the one true Nietzsche, I contend that his sociocultural and social psychological arguments about German antisemitism and nationalism not only contradict alt right views but also theorize conditions that give rise to this distinctive type of demagoguery. Conflictive appropriations of Nietzsche have been part of the battle over capitalist crises and reactionary populist revivals for over a century, and unregulated growth and massive expansion of the global economy relative to the biosphere greatly increased material throughput and production of waste and generated a host of severe global environmental problems, including especially climate change. In this situation, the alt right contends that cosmopolitan people are deracinated, emptied of their cultural particularity, and spiritually lost. Progressives contend that cosmopolitans potentially benefit from more diverse people and perspectives, enhanced ability to empathetically play the role of the other, and consequent wider communicative capacities and refined powers of cooperation. Nietzsche too exhorted humans to “remain true to the earth” and its “garden joy,” and implied a naturalist esthetics and pacification of nature, and he should be rescued from alt right by reaching beyond his legacy to envision and forge new political-economic alternatives and collective actions capable of sustaining life on the planet and creating and perpetuating a more just democracy that favors cosmopolitan human flourishing.

This paper analyzes the impact of economic downturns on the revenue and expense sides of city financing for the period 2003 to 2009 using a convenience sample of the audited end of year financial reports for thirty midsized US cities. The analysis focuses on whether and how quickly and how extensively revenue and spending directions from past years are altered by recessions. A seven year series of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) data serves to explore whether citiesʼ revenues and spending, especially the traditional property tax and core functions such as public safety and infrastructure withstood the brief 2001 and the persistent 2007 recessions? The findings point to consumption (spending) over stability (revenue minus expense) for the recession of 2007, particularly in 2008 and 2009.

Robert J. Antonio is Professor of Sociology at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. His e-mail address is anto@falcon.cc.ukans.eduArmando Bartra is a Sociologist, Historian, and President of the Instituto Maya, in Mexico City, Mexico. The Instituto Maya has worked for the past 30 years with peasant and indigenous groups on leadership, capacity building, micro-credit, and related rural development projects. His e-mail address is circo@laneta.apc.orgMichael Mayerfeld Bell is Associate Professor of Rural Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, and Collaborating Associate Professor of Sociology at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA. His e-mail address is michaelbell@wisc.eduGisela Landázuri Benı́tez teaches Rural Development at the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Xochimilco, Mexico City, Mexico. Her e-mail address is giselalb@prodigy.net.mxAlessandro Bonanno is Professor of Sociology and Chair of Sociology at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, USA. His e-mail address is soc_aab@shsu.eduLawrence Busch is University Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. He is also Director of the Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards, and a Past President of the Rural Sociological Society. His e-mail address is Lawrence.Busch@ssc.msu.eduJorge Calbucura is a Senior Researcher at the Department of Sociology at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. His e-mail address is Jorge.Calbucura@soc.uu.seMaria del Mar Delgado is Assistant Professor of Rural Development at the Department of Economics, Sociology, and Agriculture Policy, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain. She is a member of the Rural Development Team at the University of Cordoba. Her e-mail address is mmdelgado@uco.esCornelia Butler Flora is Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor of Agriculture and Professor of Sociology at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA. She is also Director of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development and a Past President of the Rural Sociological Society. Her e-mail address is cflora@iastate.eduRosemary Elizabeth Gali is the coordinator of the Sociology Module of the Master’s Program in Development Management sponsored by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the University of Torino, Italy. She has worked as a consultant for most of the major development agencies and was an adviser to the government of Mozambique during the 1990s. Her e-mail address is gallirose@hotmail.comFred T. Hendricks is Professor and Head of Department at the Department of Sociology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa. He is also Managing Editor of the African Sociological Review. His e-mail address is f.hendricks@ru.ac.zaSusie Jacobs is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Sociology of Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom. She is co-director of the Institute of Global Studies there. Her e-mail address is s.jacobs@mmu.ac.ukThomas A. Lyson is Professor in the Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. He is also Director of Cornell’s Community, Food, and Agriculture Program, and a past editor of the journal Development Sociology. His e-mail address is tal2@cornell.eduLois Wright Morton is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA. Her e-mail address is lwmorton@iastate.eduEduardo Ramos is Associate Professor at the Department of Economics, Sociology, and Agriculture Policy, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain. He is also Head of the Co-operation for Development Chair. He is a member of the Rural Development Team at the University of Cordoba. His e-mail address is eduardo.ramos@uco.es

Arguably democracy and globalization are among the most debated topics in contemporary scientific, political and cultural circles. Indeed, for some optimistic observers, these two phenomena are end points. Globalization is a process that generates economic prosperity and provides fresh opportunities for the emancipation of selves. Democracy is a product of previous phases of the evolution of society, but it has reached its most advanced form in this post-Fordist, post-cold war, global society (e.g. Friedman, 2000; Fukuyama, 1992). For critical thinkers, however, the growth of globalization problematizes the existence and practice of democracy. In an interesting convergence of opinions, this latter group includes radical conservative and progressive theorists alike. Radical Conservatives have argued that globalization engenders a crisis of democracy and that this situation is to be addressed through a retreat to the local and the ethnic. This new tribalism (Antonio, 2000; de Benoist, 1995) features attacks against the “move to the center” (the Clinton-Blair centralism) of many historically leftist and progressive liberal groups. The critics contend that the mainstream parties have converged and that neither the conventional left or right offer alternatives to the dominant neo-liberal approach, crisis-ridden post World War II idea of socio-economic development, or the erosion of sovereignty entailed by globalization. In this regard, the radical right proposes the replacement of “demos” with “ethnos” as the key organizational concept for contemporary society.

We address here how the U.S. neoliberal policy regime developed and how its reconstructed vision of modernization, which culminated, under the rubric of globalization, was neutralized by 9/11 and neoconservative geopolitics. We analyze the phases in the rise of neoliberalism, and provide a detailed map of its vision of global modernization at its high tide under Clinton. We also address how the Bush Doctrine's unilateral, preemptive polices and the consequent War on Terror and Iraq War eroded U.S. legitimacy as the globalization system's hegmon and shifted the discourse from globalization to empire. Cold War modernization theorists, neoliberal globalization advocates, and Bush doctrine neoconservatives all drew on an American exceptionalist tradition that portrays the U.S. as modernity's “lead society,” attaches universal significance to its values, policies, and institutions, and urges their worldwide diffusion. All three traditions ignore or diminish the importance of substantive equality and social justice. We suggest that consequent U.S. policy problems might be averted by recovery of a suppressed side of the American tradition that stresses social justice and holds that democracy must start at home and be spread by example rather than by exhortation or force. Overall, we explore the contradictory U.S. role in an emergent post-Cold War world.

Theorists often point to social theory's normativity, but Gouldner's later works provide the most explicit, comprehensive treatment of it as post-traditional normative discourse – a practice distinct from sociology and sociological theory, yet linked historically and analytically to them. His argument about the need for a discourse space to debate social science's normative directions and to strengthen its connections to civil society is relevant today. Because Gouldner's approach has gaps and is somewhat fragmented I will reconstruct his argument about social theory per se. Although I point to problems that derive from his incomplete pragmatic turn, his approach offers an excellent departure point for discussing the meaning of social theory.

“The earthquake reveals new springs.”– Nietzsche

During the great post–World War II economic expansion, modernization theorists held that the new American capitalism balanced mass production and mass consumption, meshed profitability with labor's interests, and ended class conflict. They thought that Keynesian policies insured a near full-employment, low-inflation, continuous growth economy. They viewed the United States as the “new lead society,” eliminating industrial capitalism's backward features and progressing toward modernity's penultimate “postindustrial” stage.⁷ Many Americans believed that the ideal of “consumer freedom,” forged early in the century, had been widely realized and epitomized American democracy's superiority to communism.⁸ However, critics held that the new capitalism did not solve all of classical capitalism's problems (e.g., poverty) and that much increased consumption generated new types of cultural and political problems. John Kenneth Galbraith argued that mainstream economists assumed that human nature dictates an unlimited “urgency of wants,” naturalizing ever increasing production and consumption and precluding the distinction of goods required to meet basic needs from those that stoke wasteful, destructive appetites. In his view, mainstream economists’ individualistic, acquisitive presuppositions crown consumers sovereign and obscure cultural forces, especially advertising, that generate and channel desire and elevate possessions and consumption into the prime measures of self-worth. Galbraith held that production's “paramount position” and related “imperatives of consumer demand” create dependence on economic growth and generate new imbalances and insecurities.⁹ Harsher critics held that the consumer culture blinded middle-class Americans to injustice, despotic bureaucracy, and drudge work (e.g., Mills, 1961; Marcuse, 1964). But even these radical critics implied that postwar capitalism unlocked the secret of sustained economic growth.