P1: FJS/FPO
P2: FDM
June 8, 2000
17:16
AR105
Chap-29
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000. 26:693–95
c 2000 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
Copyright A SOCIOLOGY FOR THE SECOND
GREAT TRANSFORMATION?
?
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000.26:693-695. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Berkeley on 02/12/08. For personal use only.
Michael Burawoy
Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720;
e-mail: [email protected]
At the turn of the millennium, sociology faces theoretical disorientation. The issue
is not what we don’t know, but how to interpret what we do know. Nowhere is
this more true than in the transformations that have overtaken the former Soviet
Union and its satellites during the last decade of the century. The salient realities
with which we have to grapple are twofold: first, the general failure to realize
utopian hopes for rebuilding postsocialist societies, and second, the diversity between and within postsocialisms. The disintegration of the Soviet order has taken
many routes, from reprimitivization in Russia to the firm embrace of modern capitalism in Central Europe. What has the sociological canon to say about these
epochal changes? And how might the canon be reconstituted to accommodate
them?
One hundred years ago Marxism enjoyed its Golden Age, flourishing alongside
a socialism it inspired, a socialism that had expanded from its German epicenter to
embrace most of Europe. Socialism was fast becoming the international movement
Marx and Engels had hoped and anticipated—a hope dashed by World War I and
its aftermath. The writings of Weber and Durkheim were born on this political
terrain. Durkheim claimed that socialism, although he did not call it that, understood as equality of opportunity and social justice, was an immanent tendency of
industrialism that would appear as we patiently built up civic associations, while
Weber argued that socialism would only bring more bureaucracy. Taking stock
of the century—the rise and fall of the Soviet Union, fascism and even social
democracy—the anticipations of Durkheim and Weber have endured remarkably
well. Marxism, on the other hand, which inspired so many of these changes both
by emulation and by reaction, has had to continually reconstruct itself to keep up
with the twentieth century.
If the classic sociology of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber was invented to interpret
the first “great transformation” to the market economy, how should we reinvent
sociology to take up the challenge of the second “great transformation”? Let us
deal with each in turn. The transition from socialism to capitalism was not something either Marx and Engels or their successors ever seriously contemplated. But
their historical analyses do offer clues and guidelines. Working with the model of
0360-0572/00/0815-0693$14.00
693
P1: FJS/FPO
June 8, 2000
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000.26:693-695. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Berkeley on 02/12/08. For personal use only.
694
P2: FDM
17:16
AR105
Chap-29
BURAWOY
the transition from feudalism to capitalism, one might expect a struggle between
a new bourgeoisie and an old nomenclatura class but, from what we know, it is
hard to place that at the center of the transition, although the diversity of postsocialist formations might be interpreted as different accommodations of old and
new classes. It is even harder to work with the model of the transition from capitalism to socialism, that is, to center the struggle between the working class and
the nomenclatura, although this most definitely did play a role leading up to the
Polish denouement (Solidarity) and the Russian exit (miners’ strikes).
The alternative Marxist interpretation would be to consider the way state socialism fettered its forces of production, creating irresolvable contradictions. In this
regard we could explain the divergence of state socialisms by the degree to which
capitalism had already begun to incubate within state socialism. In this respect
we might say Hungary was most advanced and Russia the most backward, leading to their radically different postsocialist trajectories. The molecular changes in
Hungary’s political and economic order during the last two decades of communism
ensured that it was better prepared to enter the new era than Russia’s more brittle
communism. When the Soviet Union collapsed, there were none of the embryonic
forms of capitalism around which a new order could crystallize. But even Hungary
has belied the great expectations for the second great transformation.
A Durkheimian perspective might look upon the transformation as a “transition”
from mechanical to organic solidarity, from a totalitarian order in which individuality was lost, in which, to use Hannah Arendt’s phrase, individuals were bound
together by the iron band of terror, to a civic order in which the division of labor
becomes the basis of a new solidarity. Durkheimians might concern themselves
with the development of those noncontractual elements of contract, that underlying
consensus without which instability reigns. The collapse of Soviet institutions left
little to replace them, creating institutional vacuum and anomie, whereas Hungary
and Poland were better equipped for succession. Durkheimians might attend to the
ways a new collective consciousness is being forged through the reinvention of tradition or through the enactment of national rituals. Equally, they could focus on the
continuity of old values that might promote stability but at the cost of transformation. They might play up, for example, a Soviet-induced habitus of state dependence
or hostility toward inequality as an impediment to entrepreneurialism. If the transition doesn’t go as well as might be hoped, legacies of the old order can be blamed.
A Weberian approach to the second great transformation might conceptualize
the past as a patrimonial order, in which the party state operated not so much as a
modern bureaucracy but through particularistic and family-like ties. The collapse
of the party state would be a condition for the rise of a modern rational legal
capitalism but not its guarantee. Building capitalism on the ruins of state socialism
is very different from building it from feudalism. The absence of an emergent
bourgeoisie means, as Eyal, Szelényi, and Townsley argue, making capitalism
without capitalists.1 They ask whether other actors—a cultural bourgeoisie in
1 Gil
?
Eyal, Iván Szelényi, Eleanor Townsley, Making Capitalism Without Capitalists
(London: Verso, 1998).
P1: FJS/FPO
June 8, 2000
P2: FDM
17:16
AR105
Chap-29
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000.26:693-695. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Berkeley on 02/12/08. For personal use only.
SECOND GREAT TRANSFORMATION
695
alliance with technocrats—can substitute for a class of independent entrepreneurs.
Glancing over their shoulders to Russia, there they see capitalists but without the
framework of capitalism. A Weberian sociology abandons the notion of socialism
and focuses on the plurality of capitalisms.
Weberian sociology has always been ambivalent about the idea and inevitability
of progress. The second great transformation confirms the skepticism. Some, such
as Zygmunt Bauman, propose that the collapse of the Soviet Union signals the
collapse of the enlightenment project, of the possibility of a rationally planned
society. Others have argued that the second great transformation is a regression to
previous orders, whether to merchant capitalism or even feudalism. In any event
these perspectives refuse the celebratory visions that were packaged with the end
of communism.
Consonant with this postmodern pessimism, one might think of postsocialist
theory as analogous to postcolonial theory that attempts to grapple with the continued subordination of colonized people even after they have been blessed with
nationalism, democracy, market, and all the other gifts of modernity. Struggles
against colonialism at one level embrace the very premises of Western thought at
another level—premises that founded their previous imprisonment. Postsocialist
thinking could arrive at a similar conclusion—free markets, liberal democracies,
and national independence are all chimera that bind new nations under Western
hegemony.
Such postsocialist thought is even more pessimistic than postcolonial thought
since it spells the demise not only of an old form of domination but also of the emancipatory visions that accompanied it. Postsocialist thought would be quintessentially postmodern, spelling the end of utopian visions as infeasible, unviable, and
dangerous. Against this messianic pessimism we need not accumulate more facts
that root us in an eternal present, but rather we need cultivate a critical imagination
for feasible alternatives. Instead of empiricism we need new cognitive maps to help
us see possibilities beyond the horizon. This is a time not for normal sociology,
collecting more data, but for revolutionary sociology that reconfigures what we
already know.
?
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org
Annual Review of Sociology
Volume 26, 2000
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000.26:693-695. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Berkeley on 02/12/08. For personal use only.
CONTENTS
COHABITATION IN THE UNITED STATES: An Appraisal of
Research Themes, Findings, and Implications, Pamela J. Smock
DOUBLE STANDARDS FOR COMPETENCE: Theory and Research,
Martha Foschi
THE CHANGING NATURE OF DEATH PENALTY DEBATES,
Michael L. Radelet, Marian J. Borg
WEALTH INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES, Lisa A. Keister,
Stephanie Moller
CRIME AND DEMOGRAPHY: Multiple Linkages, Reciprocal Relations,
Scott J. South, Steven F. Messner
ETHNICITY AND SEXUALITY, Joane Nagel
PREJUDICE, POLITICS, AND PUBLIC OPINION: Understanding the
Sources of Racial Policy Attitudes, Maria Krysan
RACE AND RACE THEORY, Howard Winant
STATES AND MARKETS IN AN ERA OF GLOBALIZATION, Seán
Ó Riain
VOLUNTEERING, John Wilson
HOW WELFARE REFORM IS AFFECTING WOMEN''S WORK, Mary
Corcoran, Sandra K. Danziger, Ariel Kalil, Kristin S. Seefeldt
FERTILITY AND WOMEN''S EMPLOYMENT IN INDUSTRIALIZED
NATIONS, Karin L. Brewster, Ronald R. Rindfuss
POLITICAL SOCIOLOGICAL MODELS OF THE U.S. NEW DEAL,
Jeff Manza
THE TREND IN BETWEEN-NATION INCOME INEQUALITY, Glenn
Firebaugh
NONSTANDARD EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS: Part-time, Temporary
and Contract Work, Arne L. Kalleberg
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF IDENTITIES, Judith A. Howard
SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES: Ecological and Institutional
Dimensions, Richard Arum
RACIAL AND ETHNIC VARIATIONS IN GENDER-RELATED
ATTITUDES, Emily W. Kane
MULTILEVEL MODELING FOR BINARY DATA, Guang Guo,
Hongxin Zhao
A SPACE FOR PLACE IN SOCIOLOGY, Thomas F. Gieryn
WEALTH AND STRATIFICATION PROCESSES, Seymour Spilerman
THE CHOICE-WITHIN-CONSTRAINTS NEW INSTITUTIONALISM
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIOLOGY, Paul Ingram, Karen Clay
POVERTY RESEARCH AND POLICY FOR THE POST-WELFARE
ERA, Alice O'Connor
CLOSING THE ""GREAT DIVIDE"": New Social Theory on Society
and Nature, Michael Goldman, Rachel A. Schurman
SOCIALISM AND THE TRANSITION IN EAST AND CENTRAL
EUROPE: The Homogeneity Paradigm, Class, and Economic , Linda
Fuller
1
21
43
63
83
107
135
169
187
215
241
271
297
323
341
367
395
419
441
463
497
525
547
563
585
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000.26:693-695. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of California - Berkeley on 02/12/08. For personal use only.
FRAMING PROCESSES AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: An Overview
and Assessment, Robert D. Benford, David A. Snow
FEMINIST STATE THEORY: Applications to Jurisprudence,
Criminology, and the Welfare State, Lynne A. Haney
PATHWAYS TO ADULTHOOD IN CHANGING SOCIETIES:
Variability and Mechanisms in Life Course Perspective, Michael J.
Shanahan
A SOCIOLOGY FOR THE SECOND GREAT TRANSFORMATION,
Michael Burawoy
AGENDA FOR SOCIOLOGY AT THE START OF THE TWENTYFIRST CENTURY, Michael Hechter
WHAT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT MY FIELD BUT WISH I DID,
Douglas S. Massey
FAMILY, STATE, AND CHILD WELL-BEING, Sara McLanahan
GETTING IT RIGHT: SEX AND RACE INEQUALITY IN WORK
ORGANIZATIONS, Barbara F. Reskin
WHITHER THE SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF CRIME, Robert J.
Sampson
ON GRANULARITY, Emanuel Schegloff
HOW DO RELATIONS STORE HISTORIES?, Charles Tilly
611
641
667
693
697
699
703
707
711
715
721