NATIONAL AND COSMOPOLITAN SOCIOLOGIES: THE PROBLEMS OF FUTURE Pal TAMAS

COMPARATION as BERUF [vocation/profession] in social research The comparative research in modern social science in normally institutionalized forms as a mass profession emerged only in60ies-early 70ies. Its major characteristics are the small N in empirics and non-interestedness in statistics. Then the comparative approach was generally used for understanding of development and based mostly on historical analysis and case studies. What did happen after years with this polarized view of isolated statistics and comparation in different cultural and historical models? After a generation of emerging comparative data collections of Ingelhardt, ESS, etc. this controversy is naturally undefendable.

Changing accents I A. First comparative studies of the post- communist transit from the 1990ies were occupied with technical issues of those years: [a] with differences between gradualism and shock- therapies, [b] utilization of local historical patterns and/ or imported local models, [c] how to copy the cultic international success stories and myths? [d] the impact of foreign patrons in the local environments, etc.

Changing accents II In those years it was a central consensus: the liberal democracy and a simplified market model are the only acceptable version of future. Therefore we compared trajectories [historical, actual, virtual] taking us to this finalities. But now a majority of analysts question this final goals, and the paths guiding us to it. What do then comparative philosophies means? Only a renewal of path dependencies, or more? Instead of goal of development, now the actual and already stable hybrid models are compared.

EPISTEMIC DEPENDENCE [pseudo]: Ulrich Beck PROBLEMS OF NATIONAL/COSMOPOLITAN WORK In sociologies of classical 19.c nations definitions of borders of the “society” emerged by the political nation of that time, therefore international, or cosmopolitan society concepts were generated later by the globalization.

OUR CENTRAL QUESTION [a1] Do sociologies in newly established nation states follow [ maybe with acceleration, or higher speed] the century trajectories of sociologies of the center with their internal changes from national to international convectional frames? [a2] Or they accept synchronic the stylistic manner of sociologies of contemporary centers and practically they emerge as cosmopolitan disciplines almost from the beginning?

FORCED NATIONALISATION, OR COSMOPOLITIZATION? the political class of the new nations is interested in knowledge serving the nation building But international funding, international trends, topics and project proposals react ONLY to understandable “cosmopolitan results” of the peripheral research communities.

“Colonial anthropology” How can we study societies “between” two colonial systems? What are the differences between ‘sovietisms” in the Ukraine, Estonia and Kirgizistan? [UKR- the afrikaans, Estonia- Northern Ireland, Kirgist-ethic engineering] And new colonialisms in the same countries and Hong-Kong, Sri lanka [civil war, tamils- singalezs] and Ruanda?

Forms of domination and taxonomies Study of the Other, being a form of domination is is non-legitimized at this point De-cosmopolitization of anthropology Opposite directions of sociology and anthropology ; the second recognized that studies of part societies must take cognizance of the impact of colonial-postcolonial regimes on local relations. Cultural boundaries against cultural boundaries

RESEARCH MARKETS: national, and/or international for the same product? Before the first wave of the institutionalization researchers could perform for both markets at the same time. Then the dominant “philatelist” approach of centre in the subordinated peripheries formes the export strategies after it national and cosmopolitan research carriers, products and cognitive strategies became separated and very different. LOCAL WARS, REVOLUTIONS AS EXTRA CASE -TEMPORALITIES

fragile nation-state needs national sociologies would be step-by-step transformed in different forms of instruments for identity building [serving both external and internal audiences and markets]. Divisions of the research community; The larger parts of academic community are doing, producing it, but “without heart”, with bad consciousness. The smaller part is national activist, or even radical, thinking that new national programs are more importer, deeper, then academic values. Alternatives: new science policy building for the Academia [is that the democratic strategy of the moment?]

Conceptual hierarchies Sartori’s classic work reshaped thinking about comparison by formulating the idea of a ladder of abstraction. This ladder of hierarchy- which posits a vertical array of concepts –has been crucial. The present analysis in this paper focuses on kind hierarchies and part-whole hierarchies.

Types of hierarchies A kind hierarchy is a nested set of concepts in which the subordinate concepts or subtypes are a kind of relation to the superordinate concepts.in discussing a kind hierarchy, it is helpful to distinguish the root concept, the overarching concept, and subtypes. Part-whole hierarchies build on the idea that we can meaningfully identify parts of many phenomena and entities. Here the focus in not on the specific parts of a given phenomenon taken separately, but rather on instances in which a few of those parts is missing or only partially present.

Conclusions and new problems Holisms- naïve and transnational [f.e.rap] Organically hybridised communities [Bhabha] The limits of cosmopolitanism; [soviet] Urbanites, Migrants What is so specific about new peripheries [active/passive peripheries] The new cosmopolitanism in the sociology [impact of human rights and world citizenship [Pnina Werbner]