Page 33 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Changing Definitions of Politics and Power 19

Alexander ’ s theorization of The Civil Sphere does not neglect political
agents. There is nothing necessary or functional about the expansion of
the cultural codes of the civil sphere to include those persons and situa-
tions previously excluded. Successful use of democratic symbols is con-
tingent; it depends on the mobilization of social movements to “ repair ”
solidarity. Nevertheless, there is a sense in Alexander ’ s work that American
society (the concrete example he analyses) is inherently just; some groups
have found themselves excluded from the civil sphere, but this is the result
of a mistaken attribution on the part of historically located political actors
who, with the benefit of hindsight, the sociologist identifi es as themselves

profane, counter - democratic. Alexander presents his account as sociologi-
cally neutral, but, actually, it favors egalitarian social reform rather than
authoritarian interpretations of characteristics of belonging and social
organization. Like Durkheim ’ s own theory of social reform, however, it
is an account which does not acknowledge its own political position.

What justifies treating the historical examples from which Alexander
extrapolates the deep structure of society as more than just that – singular,
successful, examples of how the use of progressive terms have been
deployed on a number of separate occasions? In fact, Alexander ’ s under-
standing of the way in which the deep cultural structure of society tends
towards justice for all in the civil sphere makes politics oddly peripheral
to his sociology. Although conflicts over interpretations of democratic

codes are intrinsic to Alexander ’ s view of society in a way that they are
not part of Durkheim ’ s, because respect for individual rights is “ hard -
wired ” into the sacred democratic codes, in a very fundamental sense no
human being is ever completely excluded from the civil sphere. While a
particular group may be historically and contingently excluded as “ pol-
luting, ” the universalizing codes of the civil sphere themselves promote a
logic that inherently resists the interpretation of any individual as “ outside ”
democratic society. In enabling, even requiring, the “ outsider ” position
to be challenged, the cultural codes themselves therefore work against the
“ absolute ” binary opposition between sacred and profane: the “ polluted ”
outsider is in some way always already sacred. It is important to note
that, for Alexander, definitions of counter - democratic “ evil ” are theoreti-

cally as fundamental to that binary structure as definitions of the sacred,

but it is surely not by chance that his analyses of concrete events and
social movements are invariably progressive. The problem here is remi-
niscent of the problem with Durkheim ’ s functionalism: what is functional
must in some way be normal and ideal. Similarly, the civil sphere is
already really, deeply just, and therefore any contingent historical injus-
tices not only do not alter that but will be, must be, eradicated. Though