Programme full

Theory
W323, HAMISH WOOD BUILDING
Thursday 16 April 2015 11:00 - 12:30
PAPER SESSION 4
Modernity and the Idea of Progress
Mouzakitis, A.
(University of Crete)
This paper aims to show the centrality the concept of progress occupies (explicitly and/or implicitly) in social theory, in
relation to the theorization and understanding of modernity; it also raises the question whether in times where
Eurocentrism, logocentrism and indeed almost every claim of supremacy are rightly viewed with suspicion, it is
possible to think of modernity without relying on some interpretation of the notion of progress . Arguably, the theme of
progress, together with the complementary notion of decline, can be considered a key-component of discourses
concerning modernity and has played a major role in the shaping of discourses about modernity and in the emergence
of sociology. Comte and Durkheim relied in different ways in the idea of progress and the same holds for Marxist
accounts of social change. Even later sociological theories address modernity from the perspective of progress, Elias'
theory of the civilizing process and Parsons' structural functionalism (and his theory concerning system-differentiation)
being exemplary in this respect. Moreover, theoretical discourses adopting a critical or even hostile attitude against
the modern project often question the idea of progress and are woven around the representation of modernity in terms
of decline and regression into unreason (e.g. the Dialectic of Enightment). Finally, the question regarding the
possibility of disentangling the theorization of modernity from the idea of progress, is pursued via a critical assessment
of Eisenstadt's multiple modernities and Wagner's recent theorization of modernity in terms of responses given to
basic problematiques.
Modernity/Modernities and Personal Life: Reflections on East Asian Interventions
Jackson, S.
(University of York)
This paper addresses some issues raised by thinking about social change, personal life and gender relations in both
European and East Asian contexts. Much of the agenda of western research and theory on modernity and intimacy
has been shaped by critical engagement with the work of Beck and Beck Gernsheim and Giddens (e.g. Smart 2007;
Heaphy 2007) Productive as these critiques have been, they have, with some exceptions, remained Eurocentric.
There are, however, other bodies of work on modernity tackling Eurocentrism, including that of East Asian scholars.
Not all such work attends to gender relations or personal life, but some does (e.g. Chang 2010; Chang and Song
2010; Tanabe and Tokita Tanabe 2004). In this paper I will consider how such East Asian scholars have engaged
with, challenged and reshaped Eurocentric theorizations of modernity and the place of gender and familial/intimate
relations in these interventions. In the process I will suggest that we should not only challenge the Eurocentrism of
western scholarship but to think critically about the way that western theory travels: what travels and what does not,
how it is engaged with and modified and whether it is possible to do theory differently. If we take seriously calls to
provincialize not only 'the West' but the European tradition of social theory and work towards the kind of 'connected
sociologies' called for by Bhambra (2010) how would this impact on the ways in which we think about the gendered
consequences of social change?
The Nature of Structure: Towards a Neurostructural Model of Well Being?
Bone, J.
(University of Aberdeen)
This paper builds upon previous work exploring fundamental social processes from a neurosociological perspective. In
this instance an evolving theoretical model, the Social Map, is presented in revised and updated form (taking account
of advances in understanding the 'social brain') and applied to offer an alternative understanding of the processes
underlying some of the observable regularities of social life. While conceding that, for numerous reasons, this is a
controversial endeavour, it is approached from a standpoint that recognises the indeterminate and diverse nature of
social contents, but nonetheless proposes that there exists a degree of consistency with respect to wider social forms
and organisation within and across a variety of social settings both geographically and historically. Overall, it is
argued here that social life can be understood as a dynamic interactive process, somewhat in the Simmelian or
Eliasian sense, but one that operates as a structured homeostatic system, where its regularities can be regarded as
emergent phenomena but whose form is mediated by the constraints imposed by key elements of our neurological
architecture and its functioning. Further, it is argued that the model can be applied to offer deeper understanding of
167 BSA Annual Conference 2015
Glasgow Caledonian University