“Globalization Theory”: Feeble... and Hijacked

Abstract

Mathias Albert argued in a recent article of IPS (2007) that if systems theory could only work its magic on “globalization theory” it would no longer be “yesterday's fad” but prove “more lively than ever.” Very recently I formulated my thoughts on “globalization” (Leander 2008). The arguments were diametrically opposed to those of Albert and they also speak directly to questions raised in this forum, namely if Luhmann can provide a route away from conceptualizing the question of globalization as one of homogeneity and whether or not we can avoid being pulled back into the question of society. Globalization theory, I argued, was interesting in its undisciplined beginnings but was now by and large defunct. This, I suggested, was to be welcomed as much as the temptation to resurrect it with the help of Grand Theory was to be resisted. In the spirit of the dialogue encouraged in this forum, and by IPS generally, I will present this rather different take on globalization theory and the utility of a grand sociological theory (such as the one proposed by Albert) for making sense of it. “Globalization,” as I conceive of it, emerged as a radical, decentralized, and multidisciplinary challenge to conventional thinking. It had framed a questioning of key distinctions including the “great divides” between inside/outside, local/global, public/private, and market/state on which most social sciences rest (for example, Clark 1999; Appadurai 2001; Scholte 2000 …