The main purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive introduction to the concept of civil society.To this end, it offers (1) some preliminary reflections on the concept; (2) provides an overview of influential accounts of civil society; (3) sheds light on the recent revival of the idea; and (4) provides an outline of a critical theory of civil society.In the final section, it explores the limitations of civil society, drawing attention to issues arising from its referential centrality in contemporary social theory.

Civil society, critical theory, economy, social capital, social theory, state (the state)

Simon Susen is Professor of Sociology at City University of London.He is an Associate Member of the Bauman Institute, and, together with Bryan S. Turner, is editor of the Journal of Classical Sociology.

The main purpose of this chapter is to provide a summary of the main intellectual contributions that the German sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas has made to contemporary social theory. To this end, the chapter provides an overview of his life and career; principal areas of research; conception of critical theory; interpretation of relevant intellectual traditions; and his plea for a paradigm shift, commonly known as the “linguistic turn.” The final section grapples with the main limitations and shortcomings of Habermas’s oeuvre, notably with regard to his theory of communicative action.

Simon Susen is Professor of Sociology at City, University of London. He is an Associate Member of the Bauman Institute and, together with Bryan S. Turner, editor of the Journal of Classical Sociology.

Introduction

The main purpose of this chapter is to examine the concept of Brexit. To this end, the analysis is structured as follows. The first part provides a shorthand definition of the concept of Brexit. The second part reflects on the historical context in which, on 23 June 2016, the UK referendum on European Union (EU) membership took place and which, arguably, had a profound impact on its outcome. The third part sheds light on the various sociological implications of the result of this referendum, paying specific attention to the principal reasons that led to the triumph of the Leave campaign over the Remain campaign. The fourth part offers some critical reflections on the legitimacy – or, as some may argue, illegitimacy – of the referendum's outcome. The fifth part makes some tentative remarks on the prospects of different Brexit scenarios – not only in relation to the UK, but also in relation to the EU in particular and the wider international community in general. Based on the preceding considerations, the chapter concludes by making a case for a ‘critical sociology of Brexit’.

I. What Is Brexit?

In the most general sense, the term ‘Brexit’ refers to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. It remains to be seen whether Brexit constitutes a potential or an actual, an abrupt or a gradual, a reversible or an irreversible process. Irrespective of the question of what the exact nature of Brexit turns out to be, however, there is a wide- reaching consensus – among both its advocates and its opponents – that its consequences are of major historical significance. Of course, one may scrutinize the numerous implications of Brexit on different levels, particularly the following: social, political, economic, cultural, institutional, ideological, scientific, demographic, military, geostrategic and environmental – to mention only the most obvious ones. Notwithstanding the question of what specific role these levels may, or may not, play in the unfolding of a Brexit scenario, it is the confluence of multiple factors that will determine what life in the UK outside the EU, as well as life in the EU without the UK as a member state, will look like.

Introduction

The main purpose of this chapter is to examine Pierre Bourdieu's conception of Reflexivity. The concept of Reflexivity plays a pivotal role in Bourdieu's attempt to develop a ‘critical sociology’ (sociologie critique), often referred to as ‘refl exive sociology’ in the Anglophone literature. Based on a thorough textual analysis of his key works, the chapter aims to demonstrate that the following twelve elements are particularly important to Bourdieu's conception of Reflexivity: (1) ‘science’, (2) ‘vigilance’, (3) ‘consciousness’, (4) ‘self- awareness’, (5) ‘critique’, (6) ‘self- objectification’, (7) ‘distance- taking’ (8) ‘rupture’, (9) ‘epistemology’, (10) ‘historicization’, (11) ‘understanding’ and (12) ‘emancipation’. Although the concept of Reflexivity constitutes a useful methodological tool for the construction of critical epistemologies and for the pursuit of social research, it raises a number of significant questions. It is the task of the final section of this chapter to address several controversial issues that arise when one is faced with the challenge of evaluating the merits of Bourdieu's account of Reflexivity. In accordance with the structure of the foregoing inquiry, these issues will be synthesized on the basis of ‘twelve theses on Bourdieu's conception of Reflexivity’.

‘Reflexivity’

Bourdieu makes extensive use of the concept of Reflexivity throughout his writings. Indeed, the vital role that this concept plays in the development of his sociology is illustrated in the fact that it appears in the titles of several studies published by Bourdieu himself as well as in the titles of numerous commentaries concerned with central aspects of his oeuvre. It is worth taking note of the etymological observation that the term ‘Reflexivity’ is derived from the Latin word re- fl ectere, meaning ‘to bend back’, that is, to recline with the intention of considering or reconsidering something in a paused, contemplative and – if necessary – critical fashion.

This Introduction contains a brief summary of the key themes, issues, and controversies covered in each of the following chapters.

Luc Boltanski and (Post-) Classical Sociology

In Chapter 1, Bridget Fowler provides a comprehensive and critical introduction to Boltanski's work. Anyone who is not, or barely, familiar with Boltanski's key contributions to the contemporary social sciences will find this chapter useful. To start with, Fowler examines Boltanski's writings in relation to classical sociological thought. In so doing, she argues that his critical engagement with the concept of domination is firmly situated in the Marxist and Weberian traditions of social analysis, whilst his sustained interest in moral and symbolic representations is symptomatic of the considerable influence that Durkheimian thought has had on his development as a researcher. Attempting to make sense of the milestones of Boltanski's intellectual trajectory, Fowler proposes to distinguish three phases of the French scholar's impactful career: the initial period (1970s– 80s), shaped mainly by Bourdieu's ‘constructivist realism’ the middle period (1990s), motivated by a paradigmatic shift towards ‘relativist perspectivism’ and the most recent period (1999–present), marked by the ambitious effort to develop a pragmatist version of ‘critical theory’. According to Fowler, Boltanski has produced his most original – and, probably, most influential – works during this recent stage, permitting him to be widely regarded as one of the most prominent French sociologists of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

Luc Boltanski and Pragmatism

In Chapter 2, Louis Quéré and Cédric Terzi set out to take on the difficult – and, arguably, paradoxical – challenge of assessing the conceptual and methodological merits of Boltanski's ‘pragmatic’ sociology from a ‘pragmatist’ perspective. In essence, they affirm that it is misleading to characterize his approach as ‘pragmatic’, since – from their point of view – it remains trapped in the pitfalls of classical European thought, notably due to its incapacity to overcome the counterproductive conceptual dualisms of mainstream social-scientific analysis.

In the contemporary sociological literature, not only in the Francophone world but also in Germanophone and Anglophone contexts, the work of Luc Boltanski is widely recognized as a major contribution to the social sciences. The value and influence of Boltanski's writings manifest themselves in the emergence of a new paradigm: the sociology of critique or, as it has been recently characterized not only by sympathetic and unsympathetic critics alike but also by the author himself, the pragmatic sociology of critique. It is true that the concept of critique plays a pivotal role in most of Boltanski's writings. His recent book On Critique is particularly important in this regard, since it is symptomatic of the author's attempt to explain both the place and the function that discursive processes occupy within the sociological approach that he has developed over the past decades.

From a terminological point of view, the Boltanskian paradigm is based on three key concepts: ‘sociology’, ‘pragmatic’, and ‘critique’. Given their centrality, it makes sense to reflect on the meaning attached to them in Boltanski's work.

The first term – ‘sociology’ – reminds us of the fact that, whilst the intellectual currents that have influenced Boltanski's approach are diverse, and although the scope of his writings transcends disciplinary boundaries, his oeuvre is embedded mainly in one specific field of research: empirical sociology. Neighbouring disciplines – such as philosophy, anthropology, history, linguistics, economics, and political science – have certainly inspired the Boltanskian project for some time, just as these disciplines have begun to draw upon Boltanskian insights. To the extent that the epistemological underpinnings of his work are firmly situated in the field of sociological studies, Boltanski's writings express an unambiguous concern with ‘the nature of the social’ – that is, with the phenomena and forces that shape, or depend upon, both the constitution and the evolution of human relations.

Luc Boltanski is a sociologist and Directeur d'études at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. Born in 1940, he is the author of 15 books, which are based on various field studies and transcend disciplinary boundaries: nursing, reproduction, abortion, the professional world of cadres, humanitarian issues, and management – to mention only a few of the topics covered in his works. His sociology focuses on the analysis of normative orders and resources mobilized by human actors in order to preserve, or challenge, particular sets of social arrangements. As reflected in the debates sparked by his ‘pragmatic turn’, the conceptual tools that Boltanski has developed in his numerous studies have had a profound impact upon contemporary sociology – both in France and beyond. His intellectual trajectory is shaped by doubts, methodological revisions, and theoretical shifts, illustrating that Luc Boltanski is a sociologist who is attentive to the construction processes and uncertainties of social life.

Mouvement: Since the 1980s, the kind of sociology that you have endorsed has been characterized as ‘pragmatic’. In On Critique you use this term to refer to the orientation of the individual and collective works that have been produced by members of the Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale (GSPM), of which you are the founder. Has linguistic pragmatism been an important source of inspiration in your work?

Luc Boltanski: To begin with, I would like to stress that the notion that our project can be characterized as ‘pragmatic sociology’ is a view that, initially, has been expressed not by members of the GSPM – and, above all, not by me – but by people outside our research group. Personally, I have never sought to identify my empirical studies with a particular – clearly defined – theoretical approach. Rather, I conceive of theoretical work as a never-ending endeavour, whose flaws should by no means be concealed.

The ‘sociology of critique’ and ‘critical theory’ offer different perspectives on the phenomenon of critique. The former approach has been developed by Luc Boltanski, as well as by other members of the Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale (GSPM), with the aim of providing an alternative to Pierre Bourdieu's ‘critical sociology’. The latter approach has been developed further by Axel Honneth, who proposes a ‘theory of recognition’, and whose work descends from the tradition of the Frankfurt School. Is critique, first and foremost, an achievement of ‘ordinary’ actors or a task of theory? What is the relationship between theory and practice? How can theory be critical and, at the same time, draw upon actors’ experiences and interpretations? These questions, as well as the – partly complementary and partly conflicting – answers given by the aforementioned approaches, both of which are crucial to contemporary debates in social philosophy, play a pivotal role in the following conversation.

I

Robin Celikates: Let us begin by reflecting upon the genesis of the two approaches. How have the sociology of critique and the theory of recognition developed as distinct paradigms? What role have diverging currents of thought, empirical issues, and specific intellectual constellations played in this respect? On the one hand, we have the tradition of critical theory and particularly its recent reorientation, proposed by Jürgen Habermas, as well as a certain dissatisfaction with the formal-pragmatic strategy, which suffers from a significant degree of ‘de-substantialization’ and ‘de-sociologization’. On the other hand, we find Pierre Bourdieu's critical sociology and the confrontation with empirical problems, which have led to the development of a new theoretical vocabulary aimed at making the description of certain social phenomena possible in the first place.

Luc Boltanski: I struggle with grand theoretical lines of development, especially at the moment, because – to borrow an expression used by Albert Hirschman – I am immersed in a phase characterized by a ‘propensity to self-subversion’.

Biographical Facts

Luc Boltanski is widely regarded as one of the most influential French sociologists of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. He is one of the leading figures of the ‘pragmatic’ tradition within contemporary social and political thought. More specifically, he is – along with Laurent Thévenot – one of the founding figures of an approach that he himself characterizes as the ‘pragmatic sociology of critique’.

Boltanski was born in 1940. He is the brother of the artist Christian Boltanski and of the linguist Jean-Élie Boltanski. He studied social sciences at the University of Paris, La Sorbonne, and completed his Thèse de troisième cycle in 1968. This dissertation – entitled Prime éducation et morale de classe – was supervised by Raymond Aron; it was published by Mouton Publishing Company (152 pp.) in 1969 and subsequently translated into Italian (Guaraldi) and Spanish (Laia). Boltanski was awarded his Doctorat d'État in 1981 for his thesis entitled Les cadres : La formation d'un groupe social; this study, completed under the supervision of Pierre Ansart, was published by Éditions de Minuit (523 pp.) in 1982.

Throughout his career as a professional academic, Boltanski has been based at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), Paris, France. At the EHESS, he has held three major academic positions: Chef de travaux (1965–69), Maître de conférences (1970–81), and Directeur d'études (since 1982).

Between 1965 and 1984, he was a member of the Centre de Sociologie Européenne (EHESS/CNRS), directed by Pierre Bourdieu. In 1985, he co-founded – together with Laurent Thévenot – the Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale (GSPM, EHESS/CNRS), of which he was the Director between 1985 and 1992. At the GSPM, he carried out several research projects and led numerous research programmes until its closure in 2013. He has been a Visiting Professor at various universities, both in Europe and in the United States, and he was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University during the academic year 1991–92. Currently, he is a member of the Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur les Enjeux Sociaux (Sciences Sociales, Politique, Santé) (IRIS, EHESS).