David Owen, ‘Self-Government and “Democracy as Reflexive Co-operation”: Reflections on Honneth's Social and Political Ideal’, in van den Brink and Owen, Recognition and Power , p. 294.
John S. Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 113
modernities –which pointed to the complexity and depth of connectivity in the
modern global order –by asserting that a map of inter-civilisational encounters
can help differentiate specific scenarios in the global age. That this is a helpful
step is not in doubt, but it does not give recognition to the depths of connections. For the present author, it suggests that connectivities are obligatory subject
matter for civilisational analysis.
Arnason’s account of the West’s prominence in modernity can serve to illustrate my point.To begin with, credit is given
do not receive the recognition in the field that they should, with a few
exceptions. Subrahmanyam is suspicious of the proposition that civilisations are
long-term formations, and he responds with emphasis on connected regions
and regional contexts. When it comes to comparative sociology’s neo-Weberian
theoretical framework, Subrahmanyam is clearly distant. He spurns
Weber’s ‘cultural explanation’ because of its Eurocentrism and it finds no favour
with him due to the privilege it accords to Western Europe (1997: 760). This
may be the reason for the limited