Revolution: Structure and Meaning in World History
Luyang Zhou
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306120915912c
2020-01-01
Contemporary Sociology
Abstract:ing that ideas of universalism, civility, and participation located beyond the state have significantly informed their understandings of the concept. With parallels to Habermas’s concept of public sphere, and reminiscent of Hegel’s theory of history, Alexander’s CST provides a framework to investigate the meanings of belonging and civility as they materialize in society. As pointed out by Isabel Jijón, ‘‘The civil sphere is an incomplete project that can never be fully achieved or, for that matter, suppressed’’ (p. 232), which touches upon the normative component of his theory. As sociologists, we live in times in which moral ideals of justice or goodness have been removed from our theoretical frameworks in the name of objectivity. For the positive social sciences, the lack of normativity has become a benchmark secured by methods that have become ever more sophisticated. Alexander’s CST departs from this empiricist aspiration by claiming an unequivocal moral stance, by taking sides in favor of universalism, solidarity, and cooperation. This unequivocal stance should be welcomed. In the book’s conclusion, Peter Kivisto and Giuseppe Sciortino note that the dualities of the CST (pure/impure; civil/uncivil) are not new in social theory and can be identified in other influential theoretical corpuses such as modernization and democratization theories. But they believe that CST goes beyond their limitations and does not adopt western liberalism as a benchmark (p. 243). However, several contributors to this book tend to align the civil sphere with something very akin to liberal, centrist political ideas. Thus, populism is equated with demagogy, polarization is bad, and liberal institutions represent desirable standards. In the Latin American context, and starting from the independence wars, revolutions and populist leaders have often conveyed meanings of civil repair and belonging. And while these might have failed to deliver on their promises, whether such events and leaders are to be put on the side of the anticivil remains as a debatable issue. The extent to which CST distances itself from western-centered approaches, in my view, requires further development, perhaps bringing CST closer to the debates on multiple (or varieties of) modernities, or postcolonialism.