Advertisement

Morality, Modernity, and World Society

  • Sabine Frerichs
  • Richard Münch
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

The sociology of morality spans a wide range of approaches that either focus on collective entities (macro level), individual actors (micro level), or even brain activity (neuro level). In this chapter, we argue for a multi-level approach that encompasses moral collectives, individuals, and brains but also goes beyond: Notably, we suggest to add a meta-analytical level that explicitly deals with moral discourses – including the present one. Scientific discourses about morality are a meaningful form of self-reflection in modern society. Under the conditions of globalization, scientific rationalities seem to gain importance whereas national collectivities apparently lose moral relevance. Our main argument goes as follows: In a functionally differentiated and highly rationalized world society, morality is constructed differently in the various social spheres and their respective theories of reflection. For example, law, economy, and science rely on different moral values, visions and views of man. However, all three spheres contribute to the “global cult of the individual”: an emphasis on individual rights and interests, brains and bodies. Hence, whereas the different moral discourses are, by no means, congruent with each other, they still converge in their presumptions and prescriptions of “rational actorhood” which seems to define the human condition in the global age.

Keywords

Modern Society Moral Authority Moral Discourse Social Sphere Global Integration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Albrow. M. 1996. The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U. 1997. Was ist Globalisierung? Irrtümer des Globalismus, Antworten auf Globalisierung. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  4. Benz, A., ed. 2004. Governance – Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen: Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. 1996. “Warnung vor dem Modell Tietmeyer: Europa darf sich den neoliberalen Theorien des Bundesbankpräsidenten nicht unterwerfen.” DIE ZEIT, November 1. Retrieved 15 January, 2010 (http://pdf.zeit.de/1996/45/Warnung_vor_dem_Modell_Tietmeyer.pdf).
  6. Bröckling, U. 2007. Das unternehmerische Selbst: Soziologie einer Subjektivierungsform. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  7. Bröckling, U., S. Krasmann, and T. Lemke, eds. 2000. Gouvernementalität der Gegenwart: Studien zur Ökonomisierung des Sozialen. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  8. Callon, M. 1998. “Introduction: The Embeddedness of Economic Markets in Economics.” PP. 1–57 in The Laws of the Markets, edited by M. Callon. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Camerer, C. F., G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec. 2005. “Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 43(1): 9–64.Google Scholar
  10. Deutschbein, O., S. Frerichs, 2010. “Homo neurooeconomicus und homo neurosociologicus. Das Ich zwischen Natur und Kultur.” PP. 186–201 in Gefährliche Menschenbilder: Biowissenschaften, Gesellschaft und Kriminalität, edited by L. Böllinger, M. Jasch, S. Krasmann, A. Pilgram, C. Prittwitz, H. Reinke, and D. Rzepka. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  11. Drori, G. S., J. W. Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, and E. Schofer. 2003. Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Durkheim, É. 1952. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. London: Routledge and Kegan.Google Scholar
  13. Durkheim, É. 1961. Moral Education: A Study in the Theory and Application of the Sociology of Education. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  14. Durkheim, É. 1973. “Individualism and the Intellectuals.” PP. 43–57 in On Morality and Society, edited by R. N. Bellah. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Durkheim, É. 1984. The Division of Labour in Society. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Durkheim É. 1986. “The Positive Science of Morality in Germany.” Economy and Society 15(3):346–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. 2002. The Order Of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. 2007. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foucault, M. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fourcade, M., and K. Healy. 2007. “Moral Views of Market Society.” Annual Review of Sociology 33(1): 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Franks, D. D., and T. S. Smith, eds. 1999. Mind, Brain, and Society: Toward a Neurosociology. Stamford, CT: Jai Press.Google Scholar
  22. Frerichs, S. 2008. Judicial Governance in der europäischen Rechtsgemeinschaft: Integration durch Recht jenseits des Staates. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frerichs, S. 2009. “The Legal Constitution of Market Society: Probing the Economic Sociology of Law.” Economic Sociology – European Electronic Newsletter 10(3):20–25.Google Scholar
  24. Frerichs, S. 2010a (forthcoming). “Re-embedding Neo-liberal Constitutionalism: A Polanyian Case for the Economic Sociology of Law.” In Karl Polanyi, Globalisation and the Potential of Law in Transnational Markets, edited by C. Joerges, and J. Falke. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Frerichs, S. 2010b (forthcoming). “Zur transnationalen Verfassung der Marktgesellschaft: Perspektiven einer Wirtschaftssoziologie des Rechts.” In Unsichere Zeiten: Herausforderungen gesellschaftlicher Transformationen. Verhandlungen des 34. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Jena 2008, edited by H.-G. Soeffner. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  26. Frerichs, S., and O. Deutschbein. 2009. “Law Goes Neuro: Wie kommt das Recht ins Hirn?” PP. 69–84 in Citizen by proxy und Individualrechte: Über das Rechtssubjekt und seine Stellvertreter, edited by R. Kreissl. Münster: LIT-Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Frerichs, S., and R. Münch. 2009. “Was die Weltgesellschaft im Innersten zusammenhält: Kult des Individuums und Moralisierung des Marktes.” PP. 37–62 in Was hält die Gesellschaft zusammen? Jahrbuch für Christliche Sozialwissenschaften 50, edited by Karl Gabriel. Münster: Aschendorff.Google Scholar
  28. Frerichs, S., R. Münch, and M. Sander. 2008. “Anomic Crime in Post-Welfarist Societies: Cult of the Individual, Integration Patterns, and Delinquency.” International Journal of Conflict and Violence 2(2):194–214.Google Scholar
  29. Gephart, W. 1993. Gesellschaftstheorie und Recht: Das Recht im soziologischen Diskurs der Moderne. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  30. Gertenbach, L. 2007. Die Kultivierung des Marktes: Foucault und die Gouvernementalität des Neoliberalismus. Berlin: Parodos.Google Scholar
  31. Habermas, J. 2001. The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hagner, M. 1997. Homo cerebralis: Der Wandel vom Seelenorgan zum Gehirn. Berlin: Berlin Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Hari, R., and M. V. Kujala. 2009. “Brain Basis of Human Social Interaction: From Concepts to Brain Imaging.” Physiological Reviews 89(2):453–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hartfiel, G. 1968. Wirtschaftliche und soziale Rationalität: Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild in Ökonomie und Soziologie. Stuttgart: Enke.Google Scholar
  35. Heintz, B., R. Münch, and H. Tyrell, eds. 2005. Weltgesellschaft: Theoretische Zugänge und empirische Problemlagen. Sonderheft der Zeitschrift für Soziologie. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.Google Scholar
  36. Held, D., A. McGrew, D. Goldblatt, and J. Perraton. 1999. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  37. Jessop, B., and N.-L. Sum. 2006. Beyond the Regulation Approach: Putting Capitalist Economies in their Place. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  38. Joyce, R. 2006. The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kirchgässner, G. 1991. Homo Oeconomicus: Das ökonomische Modell individuellen Verhaltens und seine Anwendungen in den Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  40. Krebs, D. L. 2008. “Morality: An Evolutionary Account.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 3(3):149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krücken, G., and G. S. Drori, eds. 2009. World Society: The Writings of John W. Meyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lee Mudge, S. 2008. “What is Neo-liberalism?” Socio-Economic Review 6(4):703–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leibfried, S., and M. Zürn, eds. 2005. Transformations of the State? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lockwood, D. 1964. “Social Integration and Systems Integration.” PP. 244–257 in Explorations in Social Change, edited by G. K. Zollschan, and W. Hirsch. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  46. Loye, D. 2002. “The Moral Brain.” Brain and Mind 3(1) 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Luhmann, N. 1975. “Die Weltgesellschaft.” PP. 51–71 in Soziologische Aufklärung 2, by Niklas Luhmann. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  48. Luhmann, N. 1997. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  49. Merton, R. K. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3(5):672–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Merton, R. K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Meyer, J. W., and R. L. Jepperson. 2000. “The ‘Actors’ of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency.” Sociological Theory 18(1):100–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moll, J., R. Zahn, R. de Oliveira-Souza, F. Krueger, and J. Grafman. 2005. The Neural Basis of Human Moral Cognition. Nature Reviews/Neuroscience 6(10): 799–809.Google Scholar
  53. Münch, R. 1998. Globale Dynamik, lokale Lebenswelten: Der schwierige Weg in die Weltgesellschaft. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  54. Münch, R. 2001. Offene Räume: Soziale Integration diesseits und jenseits des Nationalstaats. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  55. Münch, R. 2007. Die akademische Elite: Zur sozialen Konstruktion wissenschaftlicher Exzellenz. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  56. Münch, R. 2008a. “Constructing a European Society by Jurisdiction.” European Law Journal 14(5) 519–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Münch, R. 2008b. Die Konstruktion der europäischen Gesellschaft: Zur Dialektik von transnationaler Integration und nationaler Desintegration. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  58. Münch, R. 2009. Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritäten: Bildung und Wissenschaft unter dem Regime von PISA, McKinsey & Co. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  59. Münch, R., and S. Büttner. 2006. “Die europäische Teilung der Arbeit: Was können wir von Emile Durkheim lernen?” PP. 65–107 in Die Europäisierung sozialer Ungleichheit: Zur transnationalen Klassen- und Sozialstrukturanalyse, edited by M. Heidenreich. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  60. Münch, R., and S. Frerichs. “Markt und Moral: Transnationale Arbeitsteilung und Netzwerksolidarität.” PP. 394–410 in Handbuch der Wirtschaftssoziologie, edited by A. Maurer. Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Opitz, S. 2004. Gouvernementalität im Postfordismus: Macht, Wissen und Techniken des Selbst im Feld unternehmerischer Rationalität. Hamburg: Argument.Google Scholar
  62. Parsons, T. 1967. The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  63. Pierre, J., ed. 2004. Debating Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Polanyi, K. 1957. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  65. Reichertz, J., and N. Zaboura, eds. 2006. Akteur Gehirn – Oder das vermeintliche Ende des handelnden Subjekts: Eine Kontroverse. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  66. Repplinger, R. 1999. Auguste Comte und die Entstehung der Soziologie aus dem Geist der Krise. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  67. Rosenfeld, R, ed. 2006. Crime and Social Institutions. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  68. Shweder, R. A., N. C. Much. 1997. Manamohan Mahapatra, and Lawrence Park. 1997. “The ‘Big Three’ of Morality (Autonomy, Community, Divinity) and the ‘Big Three’ Explanations of Suffering.” PP. 119–169 in Morality and Health, edited by A. Brandt, and P. Rozin. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Sinnott-Armstrong, W., ed. 2008a. Moral Psychology, Volume 1: The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  70. Sinnott-Armstrong, W., ed. 2008b. Moral Psychology, Volume 2: The Cognitive Science of Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. Sinnott-Armstrong, W., ed. 2008c. Moral Psychology, Volume 3: The Neuroscience of Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  72. Stivers, R. 1996. “Towards a Sociology of Morality.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy: 16(1/2): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Streeck, W. 2009. Re-Forming Capitalism: Institutional Change in the German Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Sum, N.-L., and B. Jessop. (forthcoming). Towards A Cultural Political Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  75. Supiot, A. 2007. Homo Juridicus: On the Anthropological Function of Law. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  76. Tancredi, L. R. 2005. Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals About Morality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tuori, K. 2007. Oikeuden ratio ja voluntas. Helsinki: WSOY [English version forthcoming].Google Scholar
  78. Turner, J. H., and A. Maryanski. 2008. “Explaining Socio-Cultural Evolution: The Limitations of Evolutionary Theory from Biology.” Sociologica – Italian Journal of Sociology on line 2(3):1–23.Google Scholar
  79. Verplaetse, J., J. de Schrijver, S. Vanneste, and J. Braeckman, eds. 2009. The Moral Brain: Essays on the Evolutionary and Neuroscientific Aspects of Morality. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  80. Weber, M. 2004. “The ‘Objectivity’ of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy.” PP. 359–404 in The Essential Weber: A Reader, edited by Sam Whimster. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Weber, R., and R. Dawes. 2005. “Behavioral Economics.” PP. 90–108 in The Handbook of Economic Sociology, edited by N. J. Smelser, and R. Swedberg. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabine Frerichs
    • 1
  • Richard Münch
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre of Excellence, Foundations of European Law and PolityUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.University of BambergBambergGermany

Personalised recommendations