Elliot_Theoretically, We’re All Social
The idea of society is contested ground. There is a multiplicity of competing definitions vying for preeminence as to how society ought to be construed and enacted. This multiplicity is what Anthony Elliot proceeds to engage throughout Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction as he reviews concepts and people propagating such ideas and theories.
Elliot notes that some view society as primarily good while others view it less positively. Some view the idea of society itself as largely an outmoded abstraction that bears little relevance to today. Society as it has been understood is too bounded and has essentially ceased to exist in such rigidified form according to some. Others suggest that the proposed demise of more structured forms of social connectivity is primarily to be understood as the phantasmical rantings of a select minority of continental European theorists. Again, the idea of society is contested ground.
What is perhaps the most vital throughout all of the varied topics and people that Elliot explores in his text is the concept that how we are able to conceptualize the world affects our ability to engage in/with it. The more limited our understanding the more limited the choice of action we have to pursue. The more expansive our comprehension the more options we have at any given moment. Elliot suggests that everyone has some level of sociological understanding and it is from such understanding that people act. As Elliot is correct, it stands to reason then that the more well-educated people are on possibilities of social interconnectivity the more likely well-reasoned, helpful behaviors will transpire.
However, there are really no easy answers when it comes to us and our interactions with each other and with the world writ large. Everything is fluctuating and ideas and decisions must constantly be reevaluated with less than perfect information available at any given moment. This is where all of the different ideas and people propagating them come-in vying for our attention and allegiance. The best answers tend to lie somewhere in the miasma of learning about as many concepts as possible and creating a personal quilt of ideas stitched together with the best ongoing attempt at reason available at any given time.
To greater and lesser extents, Elliott looks at well-known theorists such as Giddens, Derrida, Foucalt, Zizek, Lyotard, Bauman, Habermas, Adorno, Marcuse, Barthes, Bordieu, Kristeva, Irigary, Baudrillard, Butler, Levi-Strauss, and others. We are led on a grand journey through nouveaux social thought and all of the newly created terminology that accompanies such endeavors.
In the midst of all the discussion are the ideas of how we are and are not connected and disconnected. Does someone only possess one way of being in the world or does someone simultaneously embody and enact multiple allegiances – all both integrated with and exclusive from each other to varying extents? Of these discussions, the idea of globalization has been and continues to be one of the key social theory touchstones of recent eras. How can one be connected to the globe? On the other hand, how can it be understood that anyone can be anything but so connected other than through placing artificial boundaries/blinders around them? In order to attempt to move away from the dichotomy of the local and the global – seeking to give more room for nuance – terms like “glocalization” (a combination of local and global) have come to be conceptualized and used.
Elliott ends his text considering specifically how the idea of social theory will move forward toward 2025. In this final section, Elliott showcases how many (perhaps even, most) of the social theorists written about have moved beyond conceptualization toward substantive socio-political engagement in society. For those who tend to be critical of “high-minded” thinking that gets trapped in the “ivory-tower” of academia, Elliott’s review should offer a pause for reconsideration. Developing meaningful theories does take time (often lots of it). However, once such theories are available for consultation, evaluation and reevaluation they often provide previously unimagined ways forward. Therefore, let us remember that theory and practice are not two polar opposites, but two sides of the same coin. Let us give time for each to do the work that is necessary under each concept and theoretically we will find ourselves overall socially better off.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.