printCivilizational Turn in the Contemporary Sociology:
the Contribution of S.N. Eisenstadt
Braslavskiy R.G.
Cand. Sci. (Sociol.), Deputy Director for Science, Sociological Institute of FCTAS RAS, St. Petersburg, Russia (r.braslavsky@socinst.ru); Vladimir V. KOZLOVSKIY, r.braslavsky@socinst.ru
Кozlovskiy V.V.
Dr. Sci. (Philos.), director, Sociological Institute of FCTAS RAS; Prof., St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia v.kozlovskiy@socinst.ru
The research was funded by the Russian Science Foundation grant No. 23-18-01067.
Braslavskiy R.G., Кozlovskiy V.V. Civilizational Turn in the Contemporary Sociology: the Contribution of S.N. Eisenstadt. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2023. No 10. P. 116-125
The article highlights the contribution of Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt (1923–2010) to the elaboration of key sociological ideas in civilizational analysis. The appeal to the civilizational approach in contemporary sociology is caused by theoretical and methodological deficit in understanding multiple national, regional, local and global sociocultural configurations of dynamic modernity. The sociological tradition of civilizational analysis is represented by M. Weber, E. Durkheim, M. Mauss, P.A. Sorokin, N. Elias, B. Nelson, E. Tiryakian, S. Arjomand, J. Arnason and other scholars. Among them, a most significant figure who played key role in turning contemporary sociology towards civilizational analysis is S.N. Eisenstadt. His concepts of “civilizational dimension of societies”, “axial civilizations”, “multiple modernities”, “civilization of modernity” set the agenda of contemporary civilizational analysis.
Арнасон Й. Понимание цивилизационной динамики: вводные замечания // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологи. 2012. № 6. С. 18–29. [Arnason J.P. (2012) Making sense of civilizational dynamics: introductory remarks. Zhurnal sociologii i social’noi antropologii [The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology]. Vol. 15. No. 6: 18–29. (In Russ.)]
Арнасон Й. Революции, трансформации, цивилизации: пролегомены к переориентации парадигмы // Неприкосновенный запас. Дебаты о политике и культуре. 2017. № 5. С. 37–69. [Arnason J.P. (2017) Revolutions, Transformations, Civilizations: Prolegomena to a Paradigm Reorientation. Neprikosnovenniy zapas. Debaty o politike i kulture [Emergency ration. Debate about politics and culture]. No. 5: 37–69. (In Russ.)]
Виттрок Б. Современность: одна, ни одной или множество? Европейские истоки и современность как всеобщее состояние // Полис. Политические исследования. 2002. № 1. С. 141–159. [Wittrock B. (2002) Modernity: One, None, or Many? European Origins and Modernity as a Global Condition. POLIS. Politicheskie issledovaniya [POLIS. Political Studies]. No. 1: 141–159. (In Russ.)]
Йоас Х., Кнёбль В. Социальная теория. Двадцать вводных лекций. СПб.: Алетейя, 2011. [Joas H., Knöbl W. (2011) Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures. St. Petersburg: Aleteyia. (In Russ.)]
Шпон В. Историческая и сравнительная социология в глобальном мире // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. 2014. № 2. С. 55–69. [Spohn W. (2014) Historical and Comparative Sociology in a Globalizing World. Zhurnal sociologii i social’noi antropologii [The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology]. Vol. 17. No. 2: 55–69. (In Russ.)]
Эйзенштадт Ш. Новые религиозные констелляции в структурах современной глобализации и цивилизационная трансформация // Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом. 2012. № 1(30). С. 33–56. [Eisenstadt S.N. (2012) The New Religious Constellations in the Frameworks of Contemporary Globalization and Civilizational Transformation. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov’ v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide]. No. 1(30): 33–56. (In Russ.)]
Эйзенштадт Ш. Революция и преобразование обществ. Сравнительное изучение цивилизаций. М.: Аспект Пресс, 1999. [Eisenstadt S.N. (1999) Revolution and the Transformation of Societies. A Comparative Study of Civilizations. Moscow: Aspekt Press. (In Russ.)]
AlexanderJ.C. (1992) The Fragility of Progress: An Interpretation of the Turn toward Meaning in Eisenstadt’s Later Work. Acta Sociologica. Vol. 35. No. 2: 85–94.
Arjomand S.A., Kalberg S. (eds) (2021) From World Religions to Axial Civilizations and Beyond. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Arnason J.P. (2000) Communism and Modernity. Daedalus. Vol. 129. No. 1: 61–90.
Arnason J.P. (2010) The Cultural Turn and the Civilizational Approach. European Journal of Social Theory. Vol. 13. No. 1: 67–82.
Arnason J.P. (2015) Elias and Eisenstadt: The Multiple Meanings of Civilisation. Social Imaginaries. Vol. 1. No. 2: 146–176.
ArnasonJ.P., Eisenstadt S.N., Wittrock B. (eds) (2005) Axial Civilizations and World History. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
Bellah R.N., Joas H. (eds) (2012) The Axial Age and Its Consequences. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: Harvard University Press.
Durkheim E., Mauss M. (1971) Note on the Notion of Civilization [1913]. Social Research. Vol. 38. No. 4: 808–813.
Eisenstadt S.N. (1963) The Political Systems of Empires. New York: The Free Press.
Eisenstadt S.N. (1982) The Axial Age: The Emergence of Transcendental Visions and the Rise of the Clerics. European Journal of Sociology. Vol. 23. No. 2: 294–314.
Eisenstadt S.N. (1987) Macrosociology and Sociological Theory: Some New Directions. Contemporary Sociology. Vol. 16. No. 5: 602–609.
Eisenstadt S.N. (1989) Structure and History: Introductory Observations. International Political Science Review. Vol. 10. No. 2: 99–110.
Eisenstadt S.N. (1998) Comparative Studies and Sociological Theory: Autobiographical Notes. The American Sociologist. Vol. 29. No. 1: 38–58.
Eisenstadt S.N. (2000a) Multiple Modernities. Daedalus. Vol. 129. No. 1: 1–29.
Eisenstadt S.N. (2000b) The Civilizational Dimension in Sociological Analysis. Thesis Eleven. Vol. 62. No. 1: 1–21.
Eisenstadt S.N. (2001) The Civilizational Dimension of Modernity: Modernity as a Distinct Civilization. International Sociology. Vol. 16. No. 3: 320–340.
Eisenstadt S.N. (ed.) (1986) The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilisations. New York: SUNY Press.
Eisenstadt S.N., Curelaru M. (1976) The Forms of Sociology: Paradigms and Crises. New York: Wiley.
Elias N. (1978) What is Sociology? New York: Columbia University Press.
Hall M., Jackson P.T. (2007) Introduction: Civilizations and International Relations Theory. In: Hall M.,
Jackson P.T. (eds) Civilizational Identity: The Production and Reproduction of “Civilizations” in International Relations. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan: 1–12.
Kavolis V. (1985) Civilization Analysis as a Sociology of Culture. Sociological Theory. Vol. 3. No. 1: 29–38.
Knöbl W. (2010) Path Dependency and Civilizational Analysis: Methodological Challenges and Theoretical Tasks. European Journal of Social Theory. Vol. 13. No. 1: 83–97Knöbl W. (2011) Contingency and Modernity in the Thought of J.P. Arnason. European Journal of Social Theory. Vol. 14. No. 1: 9–22.
Mauss M. (2006) Civilizations, Their Elements and Forms [1929/1930]. In: Mauss M. Techniques, Technology and Civilisation. N.Y.; Oxford: Durkheim Press: 54–78.
Nelson B. (1981) On the Roads to Modernity: Conscience, Science and Civilizations. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
Smith J. (2017) Debating Civilizations: Interrogating Civilizational Analysis in a Global Age. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Therborn G. (2003) Entangled Modernities. European Journal of Social Theory. Vol. 6. No. 3: 293–305.
Wagner P. (2008) Modernity as Experience and Interpretation. A New Sociology of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Wagner P. (2010) Multiple Trajectories of Modernity: Why Social Theory Needs Historical Sociology. Thesis Eleven. Vol. 100. No. 1: 53–60.
Wagner P. (2011) From Interpretation to Civilization – and Back: Analyzing the Trajectories of Non-European Modernities. European Journal of Social Theory. Vol. 14. No. 1: 89–106.
Wittrock B. (2000) Modernity: One, None, or Many? European Origins and Modernity as a Global Condition. Daedalus. Vol. 129. No. 1: 31–60.
Wittrock B. (2001) Social Theory and Global History: The Three Cultural Crystallizations. Thesis Eleven. Vol. 65. No. 1: 27–50.